5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly City of Manila in Criminal Cases Nos. 03-216188, 03-216189, 03-216190, 03-216191 and 03-216193 are hereby AFFIRMED with the following modifications: 1. In Criminal Case Nos. 03-216188 and 03-216189 for illegal recruitment, the Court sentences accused-appellant VILMA SULIMAN to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) for each count. 2. In Criminal Case No. 03-216190 for estafa involving private complainant Anthony Mancera, the Court sentences accused-appellant Vilma Suliman to suffer a minimum period of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional to a maximum term of fifteen (15) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal. 3. In Criminal Case No. 03-216191 for estafa involving private complainant Perlita A. Prudencio, the Court sentences accused-appellant Vilma Suliman to suffer the minimum period of four (4) years and two (2) months of prison correccional to maximum term of seventeen (17) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal. 4. In Crim. Case No. 03-216193 for estafa involving private complainant Jimmy Tumabcao, the Court sentences accused-appellant Vilma Suliman to suffer the minimum term of six (6) months and one (1) month and twentyone (21) days of prison mayor. SO ORDERED.[8] Petitioner's counsel received a copy of the above CA Decision on May 26, 2009.[9] However, neither petitioner nor her counsel filed a motion for reconsideration within the 15-day reglementary period for filing the said motion. Hence, on June 11, 2009, the subject CA Decision became final. On July 3, 2009, petitioner, through her new collaborating counsel, filed a Motion to Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration[10] praying that the same be admitted in the higher interest of "substantial justice and due process." Petitioner contended that her former counsel committed gross and inexcusable neglect of his duty as counsel in failing to immediately inform petitioner about his receipt of the subject CA Decision, thereby depriving petitioner of her right to file a motion for reconsideration which, in turn, is a violation of her right to due process. On July 21, 2009, the CA issued a Resolution denying petitioner's Motion to Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, [11] but the CA denied it in its Resolution dated January 8, 2010. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58317 3/11