FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 223303. January 11, 2018.]
ERLINDA R. NAVALLO AND REYNATO D. SARMIENTO, petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 11, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 223303 (Erlinda R. Navallo and Reynato D. Sarmiento v. People of the Philippines). — Before this Court is a Petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 1 and the Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 36723, affirming with modification the Decision 3 dated 29 May 2014 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 100.
Records, however, reveal that petitioners received the CA Decision dated 17 December 2015 on 29 December 2015. They had until 13 January 2016 to file their motion for reconsideration. Petitioners sent their motion through a private courier, a mode of filing not recognized by the Rules of Court. Hence, the motion was not considered received on the date of its release to the courier, but on the actual date of the appellate court's receipt thereof, which was only on 15 January 2016, outside the reglementary period. By then, the CA Decision dated 17 December 2015 had become final and executory. 4 HEITAD
It is established that a pleading filed by ordinary mail or by private messengerial service is deemed filed on the day it is actually received by the court, and not on the day it was mailed or delivered to the messengerial service. 5 When the actual date of receipt falls on a date beyond the reglementary period, it will be as if the party failed to question the adverse decision.
Verily, a party who fails to question an adverse decision by not filing the proper remedy — in this case a motion for reconsideration — within the period prescribed by law loses the right to do so as the decision, as to her, becomes final and binding. 6
The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but merely a statutory privilege. It may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. A party who seeks to avail of the right must, therefore, comply with the requirements of the rules, failing which the right to appeal is invariably lost. 7
Republic Act No. 10951, 8 however, amended the law on estafa with respect to the penalty imposable therefor. The same law prescribes a shorter prison term of prision mayor in its maximum period for estafa by postdating a check 9 involving the amounts ranging from P1,200,000 to P2,400,000. 10
Under the Revised Penal Code, 11 penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. 12 There being no showing that petitioners are habitual criminals, the penalty shall be modified in their favor. aDSIHc
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the CA is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATION that petitioners Erlinda R. Navallo and Reynato D. Sarmiento are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and are hereby ORDERED to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum to TEN (10) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as maximum; to solidarily INDEMNIFY private complainant Quintin P. San Diego the amount of One Million Four Hundred Ten Thousand Pesos (P1,410,000) with interest of six percent (6%) per annum until full payment is made; and to PAY private complainant Quentin P. San Diego Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000) as moral damages and Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000) as exemplary damages.
Petitioners are DIRECTED to submit within five (5) days from notice hereof a compact disc, a USB, or an e-mail containing the PDF file of the signed Petition for Review on Certiorari pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC.
The petitioner's manifestation, stating that they enclosed a compact disc containing the soft copy of the motion for extension when they filed the said pleading, and that they are resubmitting a compact disc containing the soft copy of the motion for extension, in compliance with the Resolution dated February 13, 2017 is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 97-109; dated 17 December 2015; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Renato C. Francisco concurring.
2.Id. at 131-132; 2 March 2016.
3.Id. at 168-174; penned by Judge Genie G. Gapas-Agbada.
4.Rollo, p. 132.
5.Philippine National Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 678 Phil. 660, 673 (2011). See also Heirs of Miranda, Sr. v. Miranda, 713 Phil. 541 (2013).
6.Rivelisa Realty, Inc. v. First Sta. Clara Builders Corp., 724 Phil. 508 (2014).
7.Manila Mining Corp. v. Amor, G.R. No. 182800, 20 April 2015.
8. An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Values of Property and Damage on which a Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, otherwise known as "The Revised Penal Code," as Amended, dated 29 August 2017.
9. THE REVISED PENAL CODE, Book II, Title Ten, Chapter 6, Art. 315, par. 2 (d).
10. See Republic Act No. 10951, sec. 85.
11. Republic Act No. 3815, dated 8 December 1930.
12. THE REVISED PENAL CODE, Book I, Title Three, Chapter 1, Art. 22.