THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234167. March 14, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RONALDO ABAGAT y SACAYAN, RUEL PABICO y ALBO, AND GILBERT CAPITA y BRAVANTE, accused, GILBERT CAÑITA y BRAVANTE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2018, which reads as follows: TAIaHE
"G.R. No. 234167 (People of the Philippines vs. Ronaldo Abagat y Sacayan, Ruel Pabico y Albo, and Gilbert Cañita y Bravante, accused; Gilbert Cañita y Bravante, accused-appellant). — The Court NOTES:
(1) the letters, all dated February 15, 2018 of P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of (a) accused-appellant, Gilbert Cañita y Bravante, since November 25, 2015; (b) accused Ronaldo Abagat y Sacayan since November 25, 2015; and (c) accused Ruel Pabico y Albo since November 25, 2015;
(2) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation and Motion (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 13, 2018 stating that it would adopt and replead its Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee of June 28, 2016 as its supplemental brief since said brief had amply discussed its staunch position on accused-appellant's guilt; and
(3) accused-appellant's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated March 5, 2018 stating that he would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that he had exhaustively discussed the assigned errors in the appellant's brief.
It must be noted that on April 6, 2017, accused-appellants Ronaldo Abagat y Sacayan and Ruel Pabico y Albo, instead of awaiting the automatic elevation of the case via an appeal to this Court, instituted a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the same CA Decision subject of this present appeal. Said Petition for Review was docketed as G.R. No. 230369. Accordingly, in a Resolution dated June 21, 2017, this Court denied said petition for lack of merit. In view of the denial of the Petition for Review, the instant appeal must suffer the same fate.
WHEREFORE, considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated September 30, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07740 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction; and AFFIRM said Decision of the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court