5/28/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
to suffer the penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to TWO (2)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correctional (sic) and to indemnify
Anthony Mancera y Rey the amount of PI20,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
3) In Crim. Case No. 03-216191, accused VILMA SULIMAN GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Estafa and is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision
correctional (sic) and to indemnify private complainant Perlita A. Prudencio
the amount of PI 32,460.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the costs.
4) In Crim. Case No. 03-216192, for failure of the prosecution to prove the
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused VILMA SULIMAN is hereby
ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
5) In Crim. Case No. 03-216193, accused VILMA SULIMAN is GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt as principal of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced
to suffer the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of
prision correctional (sic) and to indemnify Jimmy Tumabcao the amount of
P21,400.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in cases of insolvency and to
pay the cost.
Accordingly, the
CANCELLED.
bond
posted
for
her
provisional
liberty
is
hereby
Considering that the accused Vilma Suliman was detained from January 6,
2003 to July 23, 2004 prior to her posting bond for her provisional liberty,
her period of detention shall be credited in the service of her sentence.
Considering that Luz Garcia has not been apprehended nor voluntarily
surrendered to date, let warrant be issued for her arrest and let the case
against her be ARCHIVED to be reinstated upon her apprehension.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[6] but the RTC denied it in its Order[7]
dated January 23, 2007 for lack of merit.
Petitioner then filed an appeal with the CA.
On May 21, 2009, the CA promulgated its Decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the appeal filed in this
case is hereby DENIED and consequently, DISMISSED. The assailed
Decision dated June 7, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, in the
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58317
2/11