SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249217. September 28, 2020.]
DOMINGO PIOPONGCO, petitioner,vs. LTSG VICENTE LAMPAS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated28 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249217 (Domingo Piopongco v. LTSG Vicente Lampas). — The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner Domingo Piopongco's (petitioner) motion for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period, within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, WITH WARNING THAT THE SAME SHALL BE THE LAST AND NO FURTHER EXTENSION will be given.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court further resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the June 27, 2019 2 and September 6, 2019 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 160853 for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing outright his petition for certiorari due to procedural infirmities. While procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of justice, it is well-settled that these are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. The relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of justice is never intended to be a license for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity Liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules can be invoked only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. 4 As correctly pointed out by the CA, petitioner failed to justify the delay in the filing of his petition, positing only that such delay was not fatal. 5 As for the rest of the procedural infirmities attendant in the petition, no plausible explanation had likewise been forthcoming from petitioner. Hence, the CA cannot be faulted for dismissing the petition outright. HTcADC
Moreover, it is settled that when a criminal case based on demurrer to evidence is dismissed, the dismissal is equivalent to an acquittal, and any further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy. 6 Further, the grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the court, and its ruling on the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, 7 which does not obtain in this case. Accordingly, in view of the unjustified belated filing of the certiorari petition before the CA, the acquittal of respondent LTSG Vicente Lampas based on the grant of his demurrer to evidence has attained finality and can no longer be disturbed. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED. (Delos Santos, J., on official leave; Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-25.
2.Id. at 30-32. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Maria Filomena D. Singh, concurring.
3.Id. at 34-36.
4.Philippine Savings Bank v. Papa, G.R. No. 200469, January 15, 2018.
5. See rollo, pp. 34-35.
6.See Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 718 Phil. 455-478 (2013); See also People v. Sandiganbayan, 681 Phil. 90, 109 (2012).
7.See Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 6.