G.R. No. 221006 - Gerobiese y Alemania vs. People

In 2001, petitioner Jeoffy Gerobiese y Alemania, also known as "Jeff", was charged with two offenses:

Illegal possession of 12 caliber .38 live ammunitions under Republic Act No. 8294 (Criminal Case No. H-1201).
Illegal possession of dangerous drugs (shabu) under Republic Act No. 6425 (Criminal Case No. H-1051).

The incident occurred on or about March 2, 2001, in the Municipality of Bato, Province of Leyte, Philippines.
The Information for the ammunition charge alleged that the accused unlawfully possessed ammunition without the required license, while the dangerous drugs charge detailed the possession of various quantities of shabu along with paraphernalia.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bato-Matalom, Leyte, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The conviction was based on the clear allegations that he unlawfully possessed 12 live ammunitions.
The judgment imposed imprisonment ranging from Four (4) years, Two (2) months and One (1) day to Six (6) years, along with a fine of Fifteen thousand pesos (₱15,000.00), and ordered the confiscation and forfeiture of the seized ammunition.

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court reduced the penalty to a term ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 14, 2005 before the RTC, which was denied in an Order issued on March 20, 2006.

Proceedings in Criminal Case No. H-1051 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs)

The Information detailed the possession of shabu, including methamphetamine sachets, decks of shabu, tinfoil items, and alleged proceeds from illegal activities.
On September 17, 2012, the Regional Trial Court of Hilongos, Leyte, found petitioner guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for a term with a minimum of Six (6) Months of Arresto Mayor and a maximum of Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months.

On September 20, 2012, petitioner filed an application for probation under Presidential Decree No. 968 (Probation Law of 1976).
The Chief Probation and Parole Officer of Baybay City filed a motion to deny the petition, citing petitioner’s disqualification due to his prior conviction for illegal possession of ammunition.
On December 2, 2013, the RTC denied the probation application, stating that petitioner was properly notified of the Court’s Order (via registered mail served to his counsel’s wife) and that the criminal case for illegal possession of ammunition had long attained finality and executory status.
On December 19, 2013, petitioner filed a Joint Omnibus Motion before the RTC to dismiss Criminal Case No. H-1201 and to reconsider the probation denial.
On January 16, 2014, the RTC denied the Joint Omnibus Motion, affirming that the case had reached finality and noting concerns over reopening litigation as it would conflict with the doctrine of immutability of judgments.

The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated December 16, 2016, and subsequent Resolution dated August 27, 2015, affirmed the RTC’s orders denying both the probation application and the joint motion.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.
In his petition, petitioner raised issues regarding:

The validity of the service of the Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration.
The jurisdiction of the RTC in dismissing Criminal Case No. H-1201, arguing that the two offenses (ammunition and drugs) arose from one incident and should have been treated as one offense.

Whether the Order denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was validly and properly served, given that the registry return card shows service to his counsel’s wife.
Whether petitioner’s claim of non-receipt of the Order, which allegedly led to his lack of follow-up, can be substantiated.

Whether reopening the case for illegal possession of ammunition is permissible despite its finality and executory status, in light of the doctrine of immutability of judgments.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to dismiss Criminal Case No. H-1201 based on the principle that a final judgment, once rendered, cannot be re-opened.

Whether the separate filing and trial of the offenses (illegal possession of ammunition and dangerous drugs) affect the application of RA 8294.
Whether petitioner’s contention that the two offenses arose from one incident—a fact that could potentially fuse them under RA 8294—has any merit against the prosecutorial discretion in filing separate cases.