SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241008. April 10, 2019.]
FEDERICO ONAHON, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241008 — Federico Onahon versus People of the Philippines
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution 1 dated July 19, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 01562-MIN, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and AFFIRM the Resolution of the CA since the petitioner failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the assailed Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
It must be emphasized that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. 2 It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. 3
In this case, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court clearly provides:
SEC. 2. Form and contents. — The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a certification under oath that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
SEC. 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It bears emphasis that failure to follow procedural rules merits the dismissal of the case, especially when the rules themselves expressly say so, as in the present case. 4
In any event, the lower courts did not err in convicting the petitioner for Direct Assault. The elements of Direct Assault charged against the accused-appellant are: (a) that an offender makes an attack, employs force, makes a serious intimidation, or makes a serious resistance; (b) that the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent; (c) that at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent is engaged in the actual performance of official duties or that he is assaulted by reason of the past performance of official duties; (d) that the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties; and (e) that there is no public uprising. 5
In this case, the petitioner undoubtedly employed force upon the victim, as proved by the medical certificate issued by Dr. Charlotte V. Perez. The victim was likewise correctly considered as an agent of a person in authority, as Section 388 of the Local Government Code provides:
SEC. 388. Persons in Authority. — For purposes of the Revised Penal Code, the punong barangay, sangguniang barangay members, and members of the lupong tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdictions, while other barangay officials and members who may be designated by law or ordinance and charged with the maintenance of public order, protection and security of life and property, or the maintenance of a desirable and balanced environment, and any barangay member who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed agents of persons in authority. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The victim was likewise attacked in the performance of her duties, as she was leading a bayanihan activity in the barangay during the attack. The petitioner also knew that she was an agent of a person in authority as evidenced by the fact that he knew that it was the victim that he needed to approach so that the bayanihan activity would be stopped. Finally, there was no public uprising during the attack.
Thus, even on the merits, the Petition would likewise fail.
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 57-60. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon concurring.
2.Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, 708 Phil. 443, 445 and 452 (2013).
3.Id. at 445 and 452.
4.Indoyon, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 706 Phil. 200, 212 (2013).
5.Velbes v. People, G.R. No. 213747, October 22, 2014 (Unsigned Resolution).