[G.R. No. 129112. February 22, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. vs. JIMMY MIJANO

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 22 2000.

G.R. No. 129112 (The People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Mijano y Tamora.)

Before the Court is a motion, later supplemented, seeking reconsideration of our decision dated July 23, 1999 which affirmed the Judgment of conviction imposed upon accused-appellant, except for the award of civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages.

Accused-appellant posits that so far, only the poor have been successfully prosecuted and as one who is indigent, he deserves the compassion of the Court. Accordingly his penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua as the imposition of the death penalty shows that there is discrimination in the application of the law.

After once again reviewing the record, we find no reason to reverse or modify our previous judgment, painful as this is.

The arguments of accused-appellant calling for the discussion of the propriety of the death penalty law have been amply and fully discussed. The Court is indeed perturbed by the grim economic scenario evidently facing the country today but the Court does not see fully well the proposed turnabout of its decision in this case to be the solution to that great problem (Ponce vs. NLRC, 296 SCRA 596 [1998]).

Accused-appellant invites our attention to certain remarks made by President Estrada as printed in a newspaper concerning compartmentalized justice. We express our grave concern with the manner accused-appellant’s counsel emotionally presents her arguments in trying to induce this Court into resolving the instant case on the basis of considerations other than the applicable law, rules and jurisprudence, and the evidence on record. We wish to emphasize that notwithstanding some adverse comments in the print media, and the insinuations of accused-appellant’s counsel, the assailed decision was arrived at in the pursuit of justice and the rule of law. Verily, for those who refuse to understand, no explanation is possible, but for those who understand, no explanation is necessary (Fortich vs. Corona, 298 SCRA 678 [1998]).

WHEREFORE, the instant motion is hereby DENIED. This denial is FINAL. Buena, J., is on leave.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court