G.R. No. 128517 - JOEBERT SANTIAGO, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing and finding the evidence of the prosecution to have sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the court hereby imposes upon the accused Joebert Santiago, Nonilon Waquez and Roger Lozada an indeterminate sentence of TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor in its maximum as the minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of reclusion temporal in its medium as the maximum, and to pay the private offended party Rodrigo Beloria the sum of P10,000.00 by way of moral damages and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs of the proceedings, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. "The case of accused John Dogohoy is hereby ordered archived and can be revived only upon proper motion." [6] On appeal, Respondent Court [7] affirmed the Decision of the lower court thus: "WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. 1862 is hereby AFFIRMED by this Court, with costs against accused-appellants." [8] In its March 11, 1997 Resolution, the appellate court denied, for lack of merit, the separate Motions for Reconsideration [9] filed by the petitioner and his co-accused. [10] Undaunted, Joebert Santiago filed this petition before us. Through Counsel Luis C. A. Sillano, Nonilon Waquez and Roger Lozada belatedly filed their Petition for Review on October 1, 1997. [11] On October 15, 1997, this Court issued a Resolution denying their petition for the following reasons: (1) the prescribed legal fees were not paid within the reglementary period; (2) the certification against forum-shopping was signed by counsel instead of Waquez or Lozada; (3) Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court was not complied with; (4) the petition was filed late on October 1, 1997 the due date being August 27, 1997; and (5) said petition was improperly verified in violation of Section 4, Rule 7 in relation to Section 1, Rule 45 of the said Rules. [12] Noting that the clerk of court erroneously accepted the deposit for costs paid on February 11, 1998 by Atty. Sillano, the Court in a Resolution dated April 11, 1998 directed the refund of such amount, "considering that the petition was denied on October 15, 1997." In its July 1, 1998 Resolution, the Court denied with finality the Motion for Reconsideration of Waquez and Lozada. Hence, only Joebert Santiagos Petition remains to be resolved. The Facts According to the Prosecution The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Pfc. Efren Felizardo, a member of the Philippine National Police stationed in Sapian; [13] (2) Police Sergeant Sergio Urdelas, who intercepted the jeep driven by Lozada and thereupon arrested him; [14] and November 17, 1992, pp. 2-4; records, pp. 341-344 and 400-402, respectively.14 (3) Pat. Gualberto Salomeo, administrative officer and police blotter clerk; [15] and (4) Rodrigo Veloria, the owner of the stolen carabao. [16] Adopted by the Court of Appeals in i