Motion To Modify Judgment

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
JOQUES T. JUMAGDAO
Petitioner,
-versus- S.C. G.R. NO. 230408

C.A. G.R. NO. 131242
Crim. Case No. 12-292787
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent.
x----------------------------------------x
MOTION TO MODIFY JUDGMENT
Petitioner, through the undersigned counsel and before this

Honorable Supreme Court of the Philippines, most respectfully states
that:
1. On 24 August 2017, accused-petitioner, thru the

undersigned counsel, received a copy of the Resolution
dated 3 July 2017 of the First Division of the Honorable
Supreme Court of the Philippines, denying his Petition for
Review on Certiorari dated 16 April 2017.
2. Under the Rules of Court, he has a period of fifteen (15)

days or until 8 September 2017 to appeal the Decision of the
Supreme Court, upholding the ruling of the Court of
Appeals, before the same becomes final and executory.
3. The said Decision convicts the accused-petitioner of the

crime of maltreatment under Article 266, paragraph three
(3) of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing the accused-
petitioner to suffer imprisonment of ten (10) days of arresto
menor in its minimum period.
Page 1 of 4
4. Article 266, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code reads:
ART. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment ---

The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:
xxxx
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not

exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat
another by deed without causing any injury.
Therefore, imposition of a fine can be an alternative

punishment for the crime of maltreatment under Article
266, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code.
5. The Honorable Supreme Court once held in the cases of

Rosa Lim vs. People of the Philippines1 and Eduardo Vaca and
Fernando Nieto vs. Court of Appeals2 that the present physical
condition along with the record of no prior conviction
should be considered in modifying the judgment of
imprisonment into an imposition of a fine.
6. Here, the accused-petitioner is suffering from diabetes and

hypertension as evidenced by the medical certificate issued
by his doctor. Moreover, he also has a certificate from the
Bureau of Immigration that he has no record of prior
conviction. Lastly, his good standing in society is also
proven by a priest as stated in a certificate made by said
priest.
7. Therefore, as willing as the accused-petitioner can be to

comply with the order of the Supreme Court, we fervently
beseech and plead for the understanding and indulgence of
this Honorable Court to modify the judgment in such a way
that the 10-days imprisonment be changed to an imposition
of a fine.
8. Moreover, we humbly seek that this Honorable Court will

temper justice with mercy. We firmly appeal to the mercy of
this Court and consider observing the underlying principle
of the Indeterminate Sentence Law which is redeeming
valuable human material and prevent unnecessary
1 G.R. No. 130038, September 18, 2000.

2 G.R. No. 131714, November 16, 1998.
Page 2 of 4
deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness
with due regard to the protection of the social order.
9. Finally, the instant motion is not intended to delay the

execution of the judgment of this Honorable Court but only
for the reasons stated above.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

that this Honorable Court MODIFY the judgment sentencing the
accused-petitioner of imprisonment of 10 days of arresto menor to a
payment of a fine only.
Other just and equitable reliefs/remedies under the foregoing

circumstances are likewise prayed for.
Makati City for the City of Manila, 6 September 2017.
THE VALERA LAW

Unit 4 Unlimited Grp., 2/F Corinthian Plaza Building
121 Paseo De Roxas St., Legaspi Village, Makati City
TeleFax No. (632) 515 4057
E-Mail Address: aris.cvmbtlaw@gmail.com
Counsel for the Petitioner
By:
ARISTOTLE O. VALERA
Roll No. 49328
Lifetime IBP Member No. 7602 | Isabela
P.T.R. No. 5965969 | 2.03.17 | Makati City
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0022165 | 5.30.16
ERNEST PAUL B. MANCENIDO

Roll No. 69287
PTR No. 4675884; 06/27/17; Quezon City
IBP No. 003143; 05/10/17; Quezon City
Admitted to the Bar 2017
Page 3 of 4
Copy furnished:
Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
1229 Makati City
The Hon. Court of Appeals

Special Former Ninth (9th) Division
Ma. Orosa St., Manila
Office of the City Prosecutor

1000 Manila
The Hon. Presiding Judge

RTC Branch 19
1000 Manila
EXPLANATION
In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of

Court, the foregoing motion was filed through registered mail and
served to all or one of the adverse parties through registered mail in
lieu of personal service due to manpower, time and distance
constraints.
ARISTOTLE O. VALERA
Page 4 of 4

Motion To Modify Judgment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Modify Judgment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Modify Judgment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the petitioner requesting from the Supreme Court?

What is the petitioner requesting from the Supreme Court?

What is the petitioner's argument for modifying the judgment?

What is the petitioner's argument for modifying the judgment?

Republic of the Philippines

-versus- S.C. G.R. NO. 230408

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

MOTION TO MODIFY JUDGMENT

Petitioner, through the undersigned counsel and before this

1. On 24 August 2017, accused-petitioner, thru the

2. Under the Rules of Court, he has a period of fifteen (15)

3. The said Decision convicts the accused-petitioner of the

ART. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment ---

3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not

Therefore, imposition of a fine can be an alternative

5. The Honorable Supreme Court once held in the cases of

6. Here, the accused-petitioner is suffering from diabetes and

7. Therefore, as willing as the accused-petitioner can be to

8. Moreover, we humbly seek that this Honorable Court will

1 G.R. No. 130038, September 18, 2000.

9. Finally, the instant motion is not intended to delay the

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

Other just and equitable reliefs/remedies under the foregoing

Makati City for the City of Manila, 6 September 2017.

THE VALERA LAW

ERNEST PAUL B. MANCENIDO

Office of the Solicitor General

The Hon. Court of Appeals

Office of the City Prosecutor

The Hon. Presiding Judge

In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of

You might also like