De Vera vs. De Vera
Storyboard-Text
- THE CASE OF DE VERA vs. DE VERA
- Sweetheart, please drop the case. I promise to fix everything between us.
- No! Suffer the consequence of your infidelity in our marriage!
- During trial...
- Taking into account the evidences presented by both parties, this honorable court has decided the case in the petitioner’s favor. The accused Geren De Vera, therefore, is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt.
- Oh No! I can’t believe this!
- During trial...
- There being two mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender,accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 6 MONTHS of ARRESTO MAYOR, as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS of PRISION CORRECCIONAL, as maximum.This is to promulgate further that the accused's application for probation is hereby approved.
- Petitioner Rosario T. De Vera accused her spouse Geren A. De Vera and Josephine F. Juliano of Bigamy for willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contracting a second marriage without the first marriage having been legally dissolved with which Josephine has previous knowledge thereof.
- Consultation of Rosario to her lawyer...
- Ms. Rosario, we need to take action on the decision of the CA. Under the Rules, petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 may be resorted to.
- Upon arraignment, Geren pleaded "Guilty"of the crime. However, he prayed that he be allowed to withdraw his plea in the mean time in order to prove the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,for which the RTC granted.
- After filing the petition to the Supreme Court...
- Hi Ms. Rosario, I just want to inform you that I already filed our petition for Review before the Supreme Court. It's result may come out any time soon.
- The RTC promulgated Geren’s Sentence as guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy as charged and there being two (2) mitigating circumstances (Plea of guilty and voluntary surrender) and applying the provision of Article 349 in relation to paragraph 5, Article 64, Revised Penal Code, as amended, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law,punishing the accused of Less Grave Felony.
- The Supreme Court's decision...
- The petition lacks merit. The penalty imposed by the court to a convict may not be modified at the instance of the prosecution or complainant. The reason being id that it would subject the accused to double jeopardy. Section 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides that modification of judgement is possible only when consented by the accused.
- Unsatisfied with the court’s decision, petitioner moved for the partial reconsideration of the decision and sought for the imposition of a higher penalty on the pretext that the trial court erroneously considered voluntary surrender in mitigating the penalty.
- That's what exactly I wanna do Attorney. Let's do everything so the penalty be increased and make them pay their wrongdoing.
- The denial of the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration which was then affirmed by the CA prompted her to seek for special civil action for certiorari before the SC.
- I am confident the SC will judge it in our favor since the RTC had misappreciated voluntary surrender in mitigating the penalty
- Section 7, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation.
- Finally, this Court held that as another exception to modification of judgement is when the same is rendered out of grave abuse of discretion amounting lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial judge.
Über 30 Millionen erstellte Storyboards