SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236499. April 10, 2019.]
LYDIA S. SEGURITAN, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 1respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236499 — Lydia S. Seguritan versus People of the Philippines
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Resolutions dated March 15, 2017, 2 October 12, 2017 3 and January 8, 2018 4 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39031, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and AFFIRM the aforesaid Resolutions WITH MODIFICATION.
The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege and as such, it must be exercised in accordance with law and applicable rules. A relaxation of the rules of procedure is only warranted under exceptional circumstances, which, in this case, are absent. Time and again, the Court has held that the negligence or mistake of counsel is binding upon the party being represented; an act or omission made by counsel is, in the eyes of the law, an act or omission by the client himself or herself. Moreover, the records show that petitioner was personally notified of the Resolution dated March 15, 2017 of the CA and despite such receipt, she failed to take immediate action.
Section 1 (e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides that an appeal may be dismissed by the CA, on its own motion or on that of the appellee for failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided. In the present case, the Court affirms the CA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal, finding no merit in petitioner's reasons for her failure to file the Appellant's Brief on time.
Be that as it may, a modification of the penalty imposed by the CA is in order in light of the recent enactment of Republic Act No. (RA) 10951, 5 which adjusted the value of the damage on which a penalty is based. 6 As amended by RA 10951, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code now reads:
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000). 7 ATICcS
To recall, petitioner was found liable for the following amounts in connection with the charges for Estafa, all of which fall under the third paragraph of the above-cited provision:
|
Criminal Case No. |
Amount |
Penalty |
|
2006-8803-MK |
P232,360.00 |
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum |
|
2006-8804-MK |
P138,000.00 |
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum |
In this regard, the penalty originally applied by the Regional Trial Court should now be arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period following the third paragraph of Article 315, as presently amended. Applying further the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court is guided by its disposition in People v. Dejolde, Jr., 8 which also involved the application of RA 10951 vis-à-vis the third paragraph of Article 315, as amended:
x x x [I]n view of the recent enactment of RA 10951, there is a need to modify the penalties imposed by the CA insofar as the two counts of estafa, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 27592-R and 27602-R, are concerned. For committing estafa involving the amounts of P440,000.00 and P350,000.00, Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by RA 10951, now provides that the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed if the amount involved is over P40,000.00 but does not exceed P1,200,000.00. There being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, the maximum penalty should be one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, the range of which is one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months. Thus, the indeterminate penalty for each count of estafa should be modified to a prison term of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum. 9 (Emphasis supplied)
Proceeding from the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the Decision dated April 21, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 273 in Criminal Case No. 2006-8803-04-MK is hereby MODIFIED accordingly. Petitioner is meted the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum, for each count of Estafa. In addition, an interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the filing of the Information until June 30, 2013 and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until finality of this Resolution is imposed on the amounts of P232,360.00 and P138,000.00. The total amount of the foregoing shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. TIADCc
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The instant Petition is related to Wilfredo G. Balbin v. Nelia S. Gonzales, et al., docketed as G.R. No. 235479.
2.Rollo, pp. 44-45. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Renato C. Francisco concurring.
3.Id. at 47-49.
4.Id. at 40-42.
5. AN ACT ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OR THE VALUE 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, August 29, 2017.
6. See Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 237874, December 5, 2017.
7. RA 10591, Sec. 85.
8. G.R. No. 219238, January 31, 2018.
9.Id. at 7.