Malaga v. People
This is a criminal case before the Third Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, involving private complainant Mark Serra's motion for re-opening of the case against accused Robinito Malaga and Jesus Espinosa, Jr. The Court denied Serra's motion on the ground of the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, which provides that a decision that has become final can no longer be modified, even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. The Court found no exceptions to this rule in the present case. The case had already been certified as final and executory, and any alleged false testimony by the private complainant cannot be rectified at this stage.
ADVERTISEMENT
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 196109. March 7, 2016.]
ROBINITO MALAGA AND JESUS ESPINOSA, JR., petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 7, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 196109 (Robinito Malaga and Jesus Espinosa, Jr. v. People of the Philippines). — For resolution of this Court is the Verified Manifestation with Urgent Motion for Re-Opening of Case dated March 15, 2012 of private complainant Mark Serra.
After a careful review of the reasons asseverated by the private complainant in order to merit the granting of his motion and eventually reopen the case, this Court finds no reason to do so.
Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck down. 1 The doctrine holds true even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. 2 The judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must, on some definite date fixed by law, become final even at the risk of occasional errors. 3 The only accepted exceptions to this general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render its execution unjust and inequitable. 4 In the present case, this Court finds no reason to disregard this well-settled doctrine as it does not fall under the exceptions. It must be emphasized that on October 24, 2011, this Court already certified that its Resolution dated May 30, 2011 has become final and executory, and has been recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments.
The private complainant, consumed by his guilt, albeit belatedly, in not telling the truth during his testimony, can no longer rectify his allegedly perjured testimony which caused the conviction of the accused as the case has already attained finality. Such claim of the private complainant is, therefore, rendered immaterial.
WHEREFORE, the Verified Manifestation with Urgent Motion for Re-Opening of Case dated March 15, 2012, of private complainant Mark Serra, is DENIED for lack of merit. (Jardeleza, J., no part; Leonen, J., Additional Member per Raffle dated September 29, 2014)
SO ORDERED." AaCTcI
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. FGU Insurance Corp. v. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66, et al., 659 Phil. 117, 125 (2011).
2. Heirs of Maura So v. Obliosca, et al., 566 Phil. 397, 407 (2008).
3. Id.; Sofio v. Valenzuela, et al., 682 Phil. 51, 60 (2012).
4. Mercado v. Mercado, 601 Phil. 9, 17 (2009).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU