Manalang v. Balloguing

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 242768 & 242782-85. January 16, 2019.]

ROUMELLE ATO MANALANG, petitioner,vs. HON. MARITA BERNALES BALLOGUING, EXECUTIVE PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 16, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. Nos. 242768 & 242782-85 (Roumelle Ato Manalang v. Hon. Marita Bernales Balloguing, Executive Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur). — After review, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition outright for being the wrong remedy under the law and for violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. In filing a petition for certiorari, petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. Indeed, "an acquittal via a Petition for Certiorari is not allowed because the authority to review perceived errors of the trial court in the exercise of its judgment and discretion are correctible only by appeal by writ of error." 1 Further, petitioner had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, that is, an appeal in due course.

In such appeal, the petitioners could question the findings of facts of the trial court and its conclusions based on the said findings, as well as the penalty imposed by the court. 2 Petitioner, however, chose to file a direct petition for certiorari before this Court, assailing the trial court's alleged procedural lapses as well as the merits of the case.

Notably, an appeal or a petition for certiorari should be filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) in observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Although this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the CA in issuing the writ of certiorari, direct resort is allowed only when there are special, extraordinary, or compelling reasons that justify the same. This Court enforces the observance of the hierarchy of courts in order to free itself from unnecessary, frivolous, and impertinent cases, and thus afford time for it to deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution has assigned to it. There being no special, important, or compelling reason, petitioner thereby violated the observance of the hierarchy of courts, warranting the dismissal of the present petition. 3

With regard to the completion of petitioner's penalty in accordance with the implementation of Republic Act (RA) No. 10951, petitioner should follow the guidelines set in In Re: Correction/Adjustment of Penalty Pursuant to Republic Act No. 10951, In Relation to Hernan v. Sandiganbayan-Rolando Elbanbuena y Marfil, 4 instead of filing a direct petition before this Court. It must be pointed out, however, that petitioner is also serving life imprisonment for large scale illegal recruitment under RA No. 8042, otherwise known as "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995," which must be taken into consideration in determining whether petitioner has already served his sentence.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Consolidated Decision dated August 15, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, Branch 20 in Criminal Case No. 7536-V-2014 and Criminal Case Nos. 7537-V-2014 to 7540-V-2014 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Almuete v. People, G.R. No. 179611, March 12, 2013, 693 SCRA 167, 179-180 (citation omitted).

2.Id. at 180.

3.Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc. v. Hon. Riel, G.R. No. 176508, January 12, 2015, 745 SCRA 60, 70-71.

4. G.R. No. 237721, July 31, 2018.