G.R. No. 226615 - EMILIO J. AGUINALDO IV, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Amended Decision dated August 25, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 36063, finding petitioner Emilio J. Aguinaldo IV guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa, defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, is hereby AFFIRMED . [3] Verily, the assailed CA Amended Decision sentenced petitioner to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four (4) years and two (2) months of prison correccional , as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal , as maximum, [4] but deleted the awards of actual damages and interest due to petitioner's payment of the judgment award in the amount of P2,050,000.00 which was duly acknowledged by the private complainant. [5] Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration, [6] which was denied with finality in a Resolution [7] dated January 14, 2019. The said Resolution came with a directive that "[n]o further pleadings or motions shall be entertained in this case. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately." [8] Accordingly, Entry of Judgment [9] was issued on even date. The foregoing notwithstanding, petitioner still filed the following motions, namely: (a) Omnibus Motion (1) For Leave to File Incorporated Second Motion for Reconsideration; (2) To Refer Case to the Honorable Court En Banc ; and (3) For Second Reconsideration [10] dated March 20, 2019; and (b) Urgent Motion for Recomputation of Penalty [11] dated March 9, 2020. Essentially, the first motion insists on petitioner's innocence and prays for his acquittal from the crime charged; whereas the second motion prays that petitioner's sentence be readjusted in accordance with Republic Act No. (RA) 10951. [12] In a Resolution [13] dated July 27, 2020, the Court, inter alia , required petitioner's counsel to submit petitioner's prison record. However, in a Manifestation and Compliance [14] dated September 4, 2020, petitioner informed the Court that he is on bail pending appeal, and therefore, not confined in any prison. The Court now resolves. At the outset, it must be noted that by virtue of the Entry of Judgment issued on January 14, 2019, petitioner's conviction for Estafa had become final and executory; and hence, immutable. In Uy v. Del Castillo , [15] the Court explained the doctrine of immutability of judgment as follows: Time and again, the Court has repeatedly held that "a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. This principle, known as the doctrine of immutability of judgment, has a two-fold purpose, namely: ( a ) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and ( b ) to put an end to judicial controvers