Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

SPECIAL FORMER THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR No. 43948

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:

*Cruz,Chairperson
- versus - Azcarraga-Jacob, and
**Quimpo-Sale, JJ.

Promulgated:
GREGORY WASAN, JR. y Rivas,
August 31, 2022
Accused-Appellant. __________________
x- - - – - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
RESOLUTION

Quimpo-Sale, J.

This Court, on May 31, 2021, rendered a Decision 1 denying

the appeal of accused-appellant and affirming the Judgment 2 of
the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Baguio City,
Branch 6, finding him guilty of robbery with violence against
persons. The dispositive portion of this Court's Decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. The

Judgment dated 4 July 2019 of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial
Region, Baguio City, Branch 6, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”3

Accused-appellant now files the herein Motion for

Reconsideration4 contending that the failure of the prosecution to

* New member vice Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, per raffle on December 3, 2021.
** New ponente vice Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, per raffle on December 3, 2021.
1 Decision, May 31, 2021, Rollo, pp. 74-81.
2 Judgment in Criminal Case No. 41906-R, July 4, 2019, Rollo, pp. 41-46.
3 Rollo, p. 81.
4 Motion for Reconsideration, June 29, 2021, Rollo, pp. 86-92.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 43948
Resolution
Page 2 of 3
===============
establish the element of unlawful taking, as well as his firm and
unswerving denial of the same raised reasonable doubt on his
guilt over the crime charged, which therefore entitles him to an
acquittal.

Opposing the motion, plaintiff-appellee, through the Office

of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment5 arguing that the
motion does not present any new or compelling argument, but is
merely a reiteration of the assertions raised in the appellant's brief
which had already been addressed in the appellee's brief and
judiciously considered and passed upon by this Court in its
Decision.

A careful review of the motion reveals that the issues raised

therein are the same issues in the appeal, and which were already
exhaustively discussed in the Decision. Therefore, there exists no
cogent reason to reconsider the Decision of this Court.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Motion for

Reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Original Signed
ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE
Associate Justice

5 Comment on the Motion for Reconsideration, January 27, 2022, Rollo, pp. 95-97.
 CA-G.R. CR No. 43948
Resolution
Page 3 of 3
===============

WE CONCUR:

Original Signed
RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice

Original Signed
MARIE CHRISTINE AZCARRAGA-JACOB
Associate Justice