Decision
3
G.R. No. 211829
On July 31, 2013, the CA dismissed petitioner's appeal for failure to
file the required appellant's brief. Entry of Judgment then followed after the
dismissal became final on August 31, 2013.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed in the same case a "Petition for Relief from
Resolution or Judgment in Case Entry was Already Ordered" dated
December 26, 2013, alleging gross negligence on the part of Atty. Cerdon.
Treated as a petition for relief under Rule 3 8 of the Rules of Court, the
petition was denied by the CA on January 29, 2014.
Undeterred, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration 8 on
February 17, 2014, which the CA denied for utter lack of merit on March 24,
2014. Hence, petitioner's present recourse.
Without necessarily giving due course to the instant petition, the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was required to file its Comment,
which it complied with on September 18, 2014. 9 The OSG points out that
petitioner's conviction had already attained finality and is, thus, no longer
subject to review; the negligence of petitioner's counsels binds him; and
that, the elements of the crime of bigamy were proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
Through a Reply 10 filed on October 7, 2014, petitioner invokes this
Court's authority to vacate null and void decisions notwithstanding their
finality. Reasoning that his collaborating counsel could have only done so
much, petitioner argues that he should not be bound by the negligence of his
lead counsel. Finally, petitioner insists that the elements of bigamy were not
proven in his case.
The present petition essentially seeks the reopening of petitioner's lost
appeal and reasserts the merits of his case. Framed as one raising quest.ions
of law, 11 petitioner argues that Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code,
particularly the last clause, 12 violates the equal protection clause and the due
process clause. The petitioner also claims that he was convicted on facts not
stated in the Information.
On procedural grounds, petitioner asserts that he could still withdraw
his appeal before the CA and substitute the same with a motion for
reconsideration before the RTC. Allegedly, the CA unjustly and incorrectly
treated his petition as one under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. Contending
that there are compelling reasons to give due course to his appeal, petitioner
10
11
12
Id. at 57-77.
Id. at 122 and 143-155.
Id. at 156-163.
Id.atp.13.
Bigamy. - The penalty ofpris ion mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second
or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent
spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper
proceedings. (Emphasis supplied)
{