SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 185833. March 14, 2018.]
ROBERT TAGUINOD, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 185833 (ROBERT TAGUINOD v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES). — For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration dated November 8, 2011 of petitioner Robert Taguinod, which seeks to reverse and set aside this Court's Decision dated October 12, 2011.
This Court, on October 12, 2011, denied the petition for review dated February 5, 2009 of petitioner and affirmed the Decision dated September 8, 2008 and Resolution dated December 19, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA), with the modification that the attorney's fees are omitted. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition for review dated February 5, 2009 of petitioner Robert Taguinod is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals, dated September 8, 2008, and its Resolution dated December 19, 2008 are hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the attorney's fees are OMITTED. TIADCc
SO ORDERED.
The said Decision of the CA affirmed the Decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, dated September 6, 2007 and November 8, 2006, respectively, which found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of malicious mischief as defined in and penalized under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Petitioner enumerated the following grounds to support his motion:
I. The Honorable Court overlooked the weakness of the prosecution's evidence and upheld the unsubstantiated conclusions of the lower courts on the existence of all the elements of the offense and the award of moral damages.
II. The Honorable Court failed to consider other relevant, material and equally important evidence presented by the defense that casts improbability upon the version of the prosecution.
On January 18, 2012, the Court issued a Resolution requiring the respondent to comment on the motion for reconsideration of petitioner and in compliance therewith, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment dated March 5, 2012.
The motion is unmeritorious.
The arguments of petitioner are mere rehash of the issues he previously raised in his petition which have already been passed upon and resolved by this Court. Basically, petitioner insists that the evidence presented by the prosecution is weak and that the lower courts and the CA erred in their appreciation of facts. In this Court's questioned decision, it has already been discussed that when it comes to factual findings, the lower courts, especially if affirmed by the CA, should be given the highest respect even by this Court. This Court places great weight on the factual findings of the trial judge. 1 The trial judge conducted the trial and heard the testimonies of the witnesses. 2 He personally observed their conduct, demeanor and deportment while responding to the questions propounded by both the prosecutor and defense counsel. 3 He had the opportunity to pose clarificatory questions to the parties. 4 Tersely put, when a trial judge makes his findings as to the issue of credibility, such findings bear great weight, at times even finality, on the appellate court. 5 AIDSTE
Petitioner once again raises the issue as to the failure of the courts to consider the evidence he presented. This Court reiterates its ruling that what really governs in this particular case is that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt as all the elements of the crime of malicious mischief under Article 327 of the RPC are clearly proven.
However, pending the resolution of the motion for reconsideration, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951 6 was enacted into law, which effectively adjusted the values of the property and damage whereon penalties are based. Likewise, the law expressly provides for retroactive effect when it is favorable to the accused, 7 as in this case.
Under Section 88 of R.A. No. 10951 and based on the value involved as alleged in the information, the imposable penalty is thus:
Art. 329. Other mischiefs. — The mischiefs not included in the next preceding article shall be punished:
xxx xxx xxx
3. By arresto menor or a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000), if the amount involved does not exceed Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) or cannot be estimated.
Consequently, pursuant to Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 10951, petitioner is meted the penalty of fine of P200.00.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated November 8, 2011, of petitioner Robert Taguinod, is DENIED. The Decision dated October 12, 2011 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that petitioner Robert Taguinod is meted the penalty of Fine of P200.00. AaCTcI
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.People v. Castro, 588 Phil. 872, 888 (2008).
2.Id.
3.Id. at 888-889.
4.Id. at 889.
5.Id., citing People v. Rayles, 555 Phil. 377, 385 (2007); People v. Lua, 326 Phil. 556 (1996).
6. 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," approved on August 29, 2017.
7. Section 100. Retroactive Effect. — This Act shall have retroactive effect to the extent that it is favorable to the accused or person serving sentence by final judgment.