SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246932. September 21, 2020.]
ARMAN AMPASO SAOMAY, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated21 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246932 (Arman Ampaso Saomay v. People of the Philippines). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for being the wrong remedy in assailing the June 27, 2018 Decision 2 and the March 5, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02413. Petitioner Arman Ampaso Saomay (petitioner) should have filed a notice of appeal before the CA instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is settled that if the CA imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an accused may: (a) file a notice of appeal under Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the Rules of Court to avail of an appeal as a matter of right before the Court and open the entire case for review on any question; or (b) file a Rule 45 Petition to resort to an appeal as a matter of discretion and raise only question of law. 4 In this case, petitioner raised questions of fact in assailing the testimonial and documentary evidence presented before the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental. Branch 59 (RTC), rendering this petition procedurally infirmed.
In any event, even if the Court treats the instant petition as an ordinary appeal, no reversible error could be attributed to the CA in affirming the RTC's ruling of conviction. As correctly found by the CA, the prosecution had satisfactorily established all the elements of the crime charged, as well as the chain of custody over the seized items. Moreover, there being no indication that the courts a quo overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from their factual findings. In this regard, it should be noted that the trial court is in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties. 5
SO ORDERED. (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-20.
2.Id. at 151-162. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
3.Id. at 182-184. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Edward B. Contreras, concurring.
4. See Macad v. People, G.R. No. 227366, August 1, 2018.
5. See Cahulogan v. People, G.R. No. 225695, March 21, 2018, 860 SCRA 86; See also People v. Matibag, 757 Phil. 286, 293 (2015).