G.R. No. L-20260. March 30, 1963
EDILBERTO CHAN, PETITIONER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
Decisions / Signed Resolutions March 30, 1963 DIZON, J.:
DIZON, J.:
On December 4, 1962, we dismissed the petition filed by Edilberto
Chan for the review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
No. 00,961-R on the ground that it was filed but of time. In our
resblution of December 21 of the same year, we set aside the former
resolution for the reason that it appeared from the certification
issued by the First Deputy Clerk of the Court of Appeals that the date
of entry of the final judgment rendered in CA-G.R. No. 00961-R, as far
as petitioner Chan is concerned, was not August 22, 1962, as previously
reported to this court, but September 6 of the same year this showing
that the petition for review was filed on time. However,, after
considering said petition, we found it to be without merit and resolved
to deny the same. Our resolution of December 21, however, suffers from
a clerical error in that, instead of showing that we denied the said
petition for review, it shows that we denied petitioner’s “motion for
reconsideration”.
Chan for the review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
No. 00,961-R on the ground that it was filed but of time. In our
resblution of December 21 of the same year, we set aside the former
resolution for the reason that it appeared from the certification
issued by the First Deputy Clerk of the Court of Appeals that the date
of entry of the final judgment rendered in CA-G.R. No. 00961-R, as far
as petitioner Chan is concerned, was not August 22, 1962, as previously
reported to this court, but September 6 of the same year this showing
that the petition for review was filed on time. However,, after
considering said petition, we found it to be without merit and resolved
to deny the same. Our resolution of December 21, however, suffers from
a clerical error in that, instead of showing that we denied the said
petition for review, it shows that we denied petitioner’s “motion for
reconsideration”.
Wherefore, our resolution of December 21, 1962 and the corresponding
entry of judgment made in connection therewith are hereby corrected.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.