[G.R.
No. 139542. May 7, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. INOCENCIO GONZALES, JR.
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated MAY 7 2002.
G.R. No. 139542 (People
of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Inocencio Gonzales, Jr. y Esquivel,
accused-appellant.)
This refers to the Motion filed by private complainant
Noel Andres, in his behalf and in behalf of his son Kenneth Andres and nephew
Kevin Valdez, both minors, seeking a Reconsideration of this Court’s Decision
dated June 21, 2001 modifying the trial court’s decision and finding appellant
guilty of homicide and slight physical injuries, instead of the complex crime
of murder with double frustrated murder and attempted murder.
In the Motion for Reconsideration private complaint
alleges that treachery clearly attended the killing of Feliber Andres and the
injury of Kenneth Andres and Kevin Valdez. He argues that the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength qualified the crime to murder as the
appellant used a firearm, a Glock 9 mm. automatic pistol which is a special
kind of gun with a special kind of bullet, against his defenseless and unarmed
victims.
Appellant interposed his objection contending that
the filing of a Motion for reconsideration by private complainant would place
appellant in double jeopardy and that the grounds relied upon in the said
motion have been passed upon and thoroughly discussed by the Court. Appellant
further contends that a judgment of conviction that carries the imposition of a
penalty may be modified only upon motion of the accused or at least with the
latter’s consent. Appellant is of the view that a motion for reconsideration
may be filed only by the accused and not by the prosecution or the private
complainant.
The Office of the Solicitor General interposed no
objection to the filing by private complainant of the motion for
reconsideration but nonetheless filed its Comment thereto. The Solicitor
General opined that the issue on treachery was thoroughly and comprehensively
discussed. The make and kind of the gun used becomes immaterial and assumes
less significance with the finding that the shooting was clearly a spur of the
moment or impulsive decision made by appellant which was preceded by a heated
altercation at the instance of the private complainant. In short, it is the
opinion of the Solicitor General that private complainant failed to raise new
issues or any new matter which would warrant a reversal or modification of this
Court’s Decision.
We agree with appellant and the Solicitor General.
The purpose of private complainant in filing the
motion for reconsideration is to correct the penalty imposed. Private
respondent’s prayer in the Motion for Reconsideration seeks a modification of
this Court’s decision from the finding of guilt of the appellant of the crimes
of homicide and slight physical injuries to the complex crime of murder with
double frustrated murder and attempted murder. In effect, this would increase
the penalty already imposed as private respondent is seeking for a more severe
penalty. This we cannot do.
While private respondent, no doubt, has the legal
personality to file a motion for reconsideration having an interest in the
maintenance of the criminal prosecution,[1]
the limitation is inscribed in Section 1, [2]
Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (effective December 1, 2000)
that “(A)ny party may appeal from a final judgment or order, except if the
accused would be placed thereby in double jeopardy.” To reconsider the case for
the purpose of increasing the penalty would be placing the appellant in double
jeopardy. This has been a time-honored and long-standing jurisprudence. [3]
On this score alone, the motion for reconsideration filed by private
complainant should be denied.
Finally,
as correctly pointed out by appellant and the Solicitor General, the arguments
raised by private complainant in his motion for reconsideration have been
discussed and passed upon in the Court’s Decision sought to be reconsidered. No
compelling nor cogent reason exists to warrant a modification of this Court’s
decision.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by private
complainant is hereby DENIED with FINALITY.
No further pleadings is allowed. (Justices Puno, Kapunan and Panganiban
reiterate their dissent; Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez is on leave). (De Leon, J., abroad on official business.)
Very
truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA
D. PUNO
Clerk
of Court
(Sgd.)
MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst.
Clerk of Court