FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202995. September 6, 2016.]
ERVIN Y. MATEO, accused-petitioner, vs. THE HON. CHAIRPERSON, JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR.; HON. RAMON M. BATO, JR.; AND HON. FLORITO S. MACALINO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SIXTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 6, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202995 — ERVIN Y. MATEO, Accused-Petitioner, v. THE HON. CHAIRPERSON, JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR.; HON. RAMON M. BATO, JR.; AND HON. FLORITO S. MACALINO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SIXTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, Respondents.
The accused-petitioner Ervin Y. Mateo was charged, along with Joselito J. Zapanta and ten (10) John Does, with violation of Section 8.1 in relation to Section 73 of the Securities Regulation Code (Republic Act No. 8799) 1 in an Information dated September 8, 2003. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 03-2467-CFM and heard by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 132.
After due proceedings, the RTC rendered Judgment2 on January 21, 2009 and found Mateo guilty of the crime charged. The trial court disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused, Ervin Y. Mateo and Joselito Zapanta, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 8.1 in relation to Section 73 of the Republic Act No. 8799 (Securities Regulation Code) and hereby sentences them to each suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of seven (7) years to 12 years and to pay a fine of one (1) million pesos.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the trial court in a Decision3 dated March 31, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 32646. The appellate court decreed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated January 21, 2009 rendered by the RTC, Branch 132, Makati City, in Crim. Case No. 03-2467[-]CFM is hereby AFFIRMED.
Mateo and Zapanta filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above ruling but the same was denied in the Court of Appeals Resolution4dated June 23, 2011.
Subsequently, in a Resolution dated November 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals directed the Division Clerk of Court to issue an entry of judgment, considering that no Supreme Court petition had been filed to assail the Decision dated March 31, 2011 as of September 7, 2011.
The corresponding Entry of Judgment was accordingly issued, stating that the Court of Appeals Decision dated March 31, 2011 became final and executory on July 16, 2011.
On August 30, 2012, Mateo filed the instant petition that assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated March 31, 2011.
Mateo claims, among others, that he was not finished a copy of the resolution that resolved his Motion for Reconsideration, which he himself allegedly filed on his own given that the public counsel assigned to him did not want to file the said motion.
The Court is not persuaded. CAacTH
Rule VII (Entry of Judgment and Remand of Cases), Section 1 of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals states that "unless a motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed or an appeal taken to the Supreme Court, judgments and final resolutions of the Court shall be entered upon expiration of fifteen (15) days from notice to the parties."
As correctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in its Comment, it is settled in Ram's Studio and Photographic Equipment, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 5 that:
Service of notice to the counsel of record is, for all intents and purposes, notice to the client. Judicial conduct is guided by what appears on the record. In the absence therefore of a notice of withdrawal or substitution of counsel, the court will rightly assume that the counsel of record continues to represent his client and receipt of notice by the former is the reckoning point of the reglementary period [for the filing of an appeal].
In the case at bar, a perusal of the Court of Appeals rollo in CA-G.R. CR. No. 32646 confirms that the Court of Appeals Resolution dated June 23, 2011 was indeed sent to and received by Mateo's then counsel of record, Atty. Eric A. Crisostomo of the Public Attorney's Office, on June 30, 2011. 6 Notably, the Court found no manifestation or any other indication that Atty. Crisostomo had since withdrawn from the case or had been substituted by another counsel for Mateo during the said period.
Thus, the Court finds no reversible error when the Court of Appeals reckoned the reglementary period for the filing of an appeal from June 30, 2011 and proceeded to issue an Entry of Judgment, stating that the assailed Decision dated March 31, 2011 already became final and executory on July 16, 2011.
Be that as it may, it appears that the Court of Appeals Resolution dated June 23, 2011 was likewise personally sent to Mateo and Zapanta, who were then incarcerated at the Makati City Jail, and the resolution was received by a certain Jail Officer 1 Ventura on July 4, 2011. 7 Thus, even if the 15-day reglementary period for the filing of an appeal to this Court were to be reckoned from this later date, the same is of no moment for, as the Court of Appeals found, no such appeal or petition had been filed as of September 7, 2011.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Decision dated March 31, 2011 of the Court of Appeals can no longer be reviewed by this Court for the same had since become final and immutable. Jurisprudence dictates that:
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. 8
Verily, the above rule admits of exceptions, namely: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. 9 None of these circumstances, however, obtains in this case.
Neither can Mateo successfully argue against the jurisdiction of the trial court over the case on the grounds that (a) the complaint was filed directly by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay without any prior investigation made by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) allegedly in contravention of Section 53.1 of the Securities Regulation Code 10 and (b) the case should have been purportedly tried by a special commercial court designated by the Supreme Court.
Anent the first ground, Mateo can no longer question the preliminary investigation conducted by the City Prosecutor. It is a long standing doctrine that an entry of a plea waives the right to preliminary investigation and any irregularity that surrounds it. 11 Mateo may not raise it for the first time on appeal.
As for the second ground, contrary to Mateo's actuations, there is nothing in Section 53.1 of the Securities Regulation Code which provides that a criminal complaint for violation of said statute must be filed with a special commercial court designated by this Court. The law merely states that such a complaint must be filed with the proper court. The OSG properly argues that, at the time of the filing of the information, the Court's various issuances had assigned only the following cases to the special commercial courts: (a) intra-corporate controversies previously cognizable by the SEC under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A (A.M. No. 00-11-03-SC); and (b) intellectual property cases (A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC). 12
Given the finality of the Decision dated March 31, 2011 of the Court of Appeals and the lack of merit in Mateo's jurisdictional objections, the Court finds no need to resolve the other issues raised in this petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. No costs.
The letter dated August 24, 2016 of Aurora A. Mua, Records Officer III, Officer-in-Charge, Archives Section, Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals, Manila, transmitting the Court of Appeals rollo of CA G.R. CR No. 32646 consisting of 335 pages is NOTED. CTIEac
SO ORDERED." BERSAMIN, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Sections 8.1 and 73 of the Securities Regulation Code (Republic Act No. 8799) state:
SECTION 8. Requirement of Registration of Securities. — 8.1. Securities shall not be sold or offered for sale or distribution within the Philippines, without a registration statement duly filed with and approved by the Commission. Prior to such sale, information on the securities, in such form and with such substance as the Commission may prescribe, shall be made available to each prospective purchaser.
SECTION 73. Penalties. — Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Code, or the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under authority thereof, or any person who, in a registration statement filed under this Code, makes any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, shall, upon conviction, suffer a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) nor more than Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) or imprisonment of not less than seven (7) years nor more than twenty-one (21) years, or both in the discretion of the court. If the offender is a corporation, partnership or association or other juridical entity, the penalty may in the discretion of the court be imposed upon such juridical entity and upon the officer or officers of the corporation, partnership, association or entity responsible for the violation, and if such officer is an alien, he shall in addition to the penalties prescribed, be deported without further proceedings after service of sentence.
2. CA rollo, pp. 21-29; penned by Judge Rommel O. Baybay.
3. Rollo, pp. 34-44; penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Florito S. Macalino concurring.
4. CA rollo, pp. 192-194.
5. 400 Phil. 542, 549 (2000).
6. CA rollo, p. 192, dorsal part.
7. Id. at 192, dorsal part.
8. FGU Insurance Corp. v. RTC of Makati City, Br. 66, 659 Phil. 117, 123 (2011).
9. Id.
10. Section 53.1 of the Securities Regulation Code states:
SECTION 53. Investigations, Injunctions and Prosecution of Offenses. — 53.1. The Commission may, in its discretion, make such investigations as it deems necessary to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate any provision of this Code, any rule, regulation or order thereunder, or any rule of an Exchange, registered securities association, clearing agency, other self-regulatory organization, and may require or permit any person to file with it a statement in writing, under oath or otherwise, as the Commission shall determine, as to all facts and circumstances concerning the matter to be investigated. The Commission may publish information concerning any such violations, and to investigate any fact, condition, practice or matter which it may deem necessary or proper to aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this Code, in the prescribing of rules and regulations thereunder, or in securing information to serve as a basis for recommending further legislation concerning the matters to which this Code relates: Provided, however, That any person requested or subpoenaed to produce documents or testify in any investigation shall simultaneously be notified in writing of the purpose of such investigation: Provided, further, That all criminal complaints for violations of this Code, and the implementing rules and regulations enforced or administered by the Commission shall be referred to the Department of Justice for preliminary investigation and prosecution before the proper court: Provided, furthermore, That in instances where the law allows independent civil or criminal proceedings of violations arising from the same act, the Commission shall take appropriate action to implement the same: Provided, finally, That the investigation, prosecution, and trial of such cases shall be given priority.
11. Palanca v. Querubin, 141 Phil. 432, 437 (1969).
12. A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC was subsequently amended several times to include cases under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of 2010, liquidation cases emanating from administrative proceedings, and dissolution and liquidation of partnerships under the Civil Code.