Rule 115 Case Digests
Rule 115 Case Digests
Rule 115 Case Digests
G.R. No. L-69500 July 22, 1985 Held : Roth- Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is
JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ in behalf of MALAYA FILMS, LINO material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest.
BROCKA, JOSE F. LACABA, and DULCE Q. SAGUISAG, petitioners, The portrayal of sex, e.g., in art, literature and scientific works, is not itself
vs. sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of freedom
CHAIRMAN MARIA KALAW KATIGBAK, GENERAL WILFREDO C. of speech and press. Sex, a great and mysterious motive force in human
ESTRADA (Ret.), and THE BOARD OF REVIEW FOR MOTION life has indisputably been a subject of absorbing interest to mankind
PICTURES AND TELEVISION (BRMPT), respondents. through the ages; it is one of the vital problems of human interest and
Irene R. Cortes, Perfecto V. Fernandez, Haydee Yorac and Joker P. Arroyo public concern. In the Philippine context, E.O. 876 applied contemporary
for petitioners. Filipino cultural values as a standard. Moreover, as far as the question of
The Solicitor General for respondents. sex and obscenity are concerned, it cannot be stressed strongly that the
arts and letters "shall be under the patronage of the State. Given this
In this case of first impression, a certiorari proceeding filed on January 10, constitutional mandate, It will be less than true to its function if any
1985, there is a persuasive ring to the invocation of the constitutional right government office or agency would invade the sphere of autonomy that an
to freedom of expression 1 of an artist—and for that matter a man of artist enjoys. There is no orthodoxy in what passes for beauty or for
letters too—as the basis for a ruling on the scope of the power of reality. It is for the artist to determine what for him is a true
respondent Board of Review for Motion Pictures and Television and how it representation. It is not to be forgotten that art and belleslettres deal
should be exercised. The dispute between the parties has been narrowed primarily with imagination, not so much with ideas in a strict sense. What
down. The motion picture in question, Kapit sa Patalim was classified "For is seen or perceived by an artist is entitled to respect, unless there is a
Adults Only." There is the further issue then, also one of first impression, showing that the product of his talent rightfully may be considered
as to the proper test of what constitutes obscenity in view of the objections obscene. On the question of obscenity, therefore, such standard set forth
raised. Thus the relevance of this constitutional command: "Arts and in Executive Order No. 878 is to be construed in such a fashion to avoid
letters shall be under the patronage of the State.2 any taint of unconstitutionality. To repeat, what was stated in a recent
decision in Trinidad- an elementary, a fundamental, and a universal role of
Facts : In a resolution of a sub-committee of respondent Board of October construction, applied when considering constitutional questions, that when
23, 1984, a permit to exhibit the film Kapit sa Patalim under the a law is susceptible of two constructions' one of which will maintain and
classification "For Adults Only," with certain changes and deletions the other destroy it, the courts will always adopt the former. There can be
enumerated was granted. A motion for reconsideration was filed by no valid objection to the controlling standard. There was really a grave
abuse of discretion when the Board and its perception of what obscenity is June 15, 2005
is very restrictive. But, sadly, THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH VOTES TO
MAINTAIN THAT THERE WAS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. The ROSENDO HERRERA, petitioner,
supporting evidence was in the fact that some scenes were not for young vs.
people. They might misunderstand the scenes. The respondents offered to ROSENDO ALBA, minor, represented by his mother ARMI A. ALBA,
make it GP if the petitioners would remove the lesbian and sex scenes. But and HON. NIMFA CUESTA-VILCHES, Presiding Judge, Branch 48,
they refused. The ruling is to be limited to the concept of obscenity Regional Trial Court, Manila, respondents.
applicable to motion pictures. It is the consensus of this Court that where
television is concerned: a less liberal approach calls for observance. This is Carpio, J.:
so because unlike motion pictures where the patrons have to pay their
way, television reaches every home where there is a set. It is hardly the This is a petition for review1 to set aside the Decision2 dated 29 November
concern of the law to deal with the sexual fantasies of the adult 2000 of the Court of Appeals ("appellate court") in CA-G.R. SP No. 59766.
population. It cannot be denied though that the State as parens patriae is The appellate court affirmed two Orders3 issued by Branch 48 of the
called upon to manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of the young. Regional Trial Court of Manila ("trial court") in SP No. 98-88759. The Order
dated 3 February 2000 directed Rosendo Herrera ("petitioner") to submit
WHEREFORE, this Court, in the light of the principles of law enunciated in to deoxyribonucleic acid ("DNA") paternity testing, while the Order dated 8
the opinion, dismisses this petition for certiorari solely on the ground that June 2000 denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
there are not enough votes for a ruling that there was a grave abuse of
discretion in the classification of Kapit sa Patalim as "For-Adults-Only." SUMMARY: Herrera, the putative father of Rosendo, did not want to
Teehankee, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, undergo a DNA paternity test ordered by the RTC in a paternity proceeding
Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur. against him; so he questioned the order before the CA and the SC.
Aquino, J., concurs in the result. Upholding the lower courts, SC ordered him to undergo the test, brushing
De la Fuente, J., took no part. aside his arguments that: DNA testing is not legally accepted; DNA testing
is unreliable; and DNA testing is self-incriminatory. SC also laid down
standards for the consideration of DNA evidence with respect to its weight
and probative value, which later formed part of the basis for the DNA
evidence rule.
HELD:
NO. FIRST, the drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons G.R. No. 135406 July 11, 2000
apprehended or arrested for any unlawful act, but only for DAVID GUTANG Y JUAREZ, petitioner,
unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A. 9165. To make the vs.
provision applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for any crime PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
not listed under Article II is tantamount to unduly expanding its meaning. DECISION
Note that accused appellant here was arrested in the alleged act of DE LEON, JR., J.:
extortion.
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision1 dated
SECOND, the drug test is not covered by allowable non-testimonial September 9, 1998 rendered by the former Twelfth Division of the Court of
compulsion. We are aware of the prohibition against testimonial Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 19463. The assailed Decision affirmed the
compulsion and the allowable exceptions to such proscription. Cases where judgment2 dated October 13, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig,
non-testimonial compulsion has been allowed reveal, however, that the Metro Manila, finding petitioner David J. Gutang guilty beyond reasonable
pieces of evidence obtained were all material to the principal cause of the doubt for violation of Sections 8 and 16 of RA 6425, as amended, (for
arrest. In the instant case, we fail to see how a urine sample could illegal possession and use of prohibited drugs) as charged in Criminal
be material to the charge of extortion. The RTC and the CA, Cases Nos. 2696-D and 2697-D, respectively.
therefore, both erred when they held that the extraction of petitioner’s
urine for purposes of drug testing was “merely a mechanical act, hence, FACTS:
falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation.” David Gutang, together with Noel Regala, Alex Jimenez and Oscar de
Venecia, Jr. was arrested by policemen in connection with the enforcement
LASTLY, the drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to of a search warrant in his residence at Greenhills, San Juan. Several drug
privacy and right against self-incrimination. It is incontrovertible that paraphernalia, which later tested positive for marijuana and
petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and tested for drugs. He also methamphetamine hydrochloride, were seized along with a small quantity
asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test. He was adamant in exercising his of marijuana fruiting tops.
rights, but all of his efforts proved futile, because he was still compelled to
submit his urine for drug testing under those circumstances. Such acts The four were brought to Camp Crame and were subjected to a drug-
were in violation of Sec 2 and Sec 17 of the 1987 Constitution. In the face dependency test and were asked to give a sample of their urine to which
of these constitutional guarantees, we cannot condone drug testing of all they complied. Their urine samples all tested positive for shabu.
arrested persons regardless of the crime or offense for which the arrest is
being made. De Venecia, Jr. voluntarily submitted himself for treatment, rehabilitation
and confinement. Gutang, Regala and Jimenez pleaded not guilty. They
DISPOSITIVE: were found guilty of possession and use of prohibited drugs.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated 22
June 2011 issued by the Twentieth Division, and the Resolution Gutang argued that the urine sample is inadmissible in evidence because
dated 2 February 2012 issued by the former Twentieth Division of he had no counsel during the custodial investigation when it was taken. In
effect, it is an uncounselled extra-judicial confession and a violation of the The accused wanted for the speedy trial so they requested to held the trial
Constitution. even on Saturday on the chamber of Judge Gamboa. The petitioner
granted the request.(as police officers under suspension because of the
ISSUE: cases, desired the same to be terminated as soon as possible and as there
Whether or not the urine samples taken were admissible in evidence. were many cases scheduled for trial on the usual criminal trial days
(Monday, Wednesday and Friday).
RULING: On appeal the prosecution said that there was no trial, therefore the
The Court ruled that it was admissible. The right to counsel begins from petioner judge order should be reversed.
the time a person is taken into custody and placed under investigation for Issue:
the commission of crime. Such right is guaranteed by the Constitution and Whether or not the judge denied the accused of public trial.
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Held:
Yes. Public trial possesses that character when anyone interested in
However, what the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral observing the manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom
compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not an inclusion may do so. There is to be no ban on such attendance. His being a stranger
of his body in evidence, when it may be material to ascertain physical to the litigants is of no moment. No relationship to the parties need be
attributes determinable by simple observation and not to unearth shown.
undisclosed facts. There is the well-recognized exception though that warrants the exclusion
of the public where the evidence may be characterized as "offensive to
decency or public morals." 21
An accused may validly be compelled to be photographed or measured, or WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari prayed for is granted .
his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable
the foregoing things to be done without going against the proscription
against testimonial compulsion. G.R. No. 195032 : February 20, 2013
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of ISABELO A. BRAZA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE
Appeals affirming the judgment of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED. SANDIGANBAYAN (1st Division), Respondents.
SO ORDERED.
MENDOZA, J.:
HON. GREGORIO. N. GARCIA, Judge of the City Court of Manila vs. This is a petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Isabelo
HON. FELIX DOMINGO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Braza (Braza) seeking to reverse and set aside the October 12, 2009
Manila Resolution 1 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB-08-CRM-0275,
FERNANDO, J.: entitled People v. Robert G. Lala, et al., as well as its October 22, 2010
Facts: Resolution,2 denying his motion for reconsideration.
In Branch I the City Court of Manila presided over by petitioner Judge,
there were commenced, by appropriate informations eight (8) criminal FACTS:
actions against respondent Edgardo Calo, and Simeon Carbonnel and
Petitioner Francisco Lorenzana. The Philippines was assigned the hosting rights for the 12th ASEAN
Leaders Summit scheduled in December 2006. In preparation for this
international diplomatic event with the province of Cebu as the designated and private contractors, FABMIK President Braza and GAMPIK Board
venue, the DPWH identified projects relative to the improvement and Chairman Gerardo S. Surla (Surla). It was alleged therein that Braza acted
rehabilitation of roads and installation of traffic safety devices and lighting in conspiracy with the public officials and employees in the commission of
facilities. The then Acting Secretary of the DPWH, Hermogenes E. Ebdane, the crime charged.
approved the resort to alternative modes of procurement for the
implementation of these projects due to the proximity of the ASEAN On August 14, 2008, the motions for reinvestigation filed by Arturo Radaza
Summit. (Radaza), the Mayor of Lapu-lapuCity, and the DPWH officials were denied
by the Sandiganbayan for lack of merit. Consequently, they moved for the
One of the ASEAN Summit-related projects to be undertaken was the reconsideration of said resolution. On August 27, 2008, Braza filed a
installation of street lighting systems along the perimeters of the Cebu motion for reinvestigation anchored on the following grounds: (1) the
International Convention Center in Mandaue City and the ceremonial import documents relied upon by the OMB-Visayas were spurious and
routes of the Summit to upgrade the appearance of the convention areas falsified; (2) constituted new evidence, if considered, would overturn the
and to improve night-time visibility for security purposes. Four (4) out of finding of probable cause; and (3) the finding of overpricing was bereft of
eleven (11) street lighting projects were awarded to FABMIK Construction factual and legal basis as the same was not substantiated by any
and Equipment Supply Company, Inc. (FABMIK). independent canvass of prevailing market prices of the subject lampposts.
He prayed for the suspension of the proceedings of the case pending such
Three other projects were bidded out only on November 28, 2006 or less reinvestigation. The Sandiganbayan treated Braza's motion as his motion
than two (2) weeks before the scheduled start of the Summit. Thereafter, for reconsideration of its August 14, 2008 Resolution.
the DPWH and FABMIK executed a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)
whereby FABMIK obliged itself to implement the projects at its own During the proceedings held on November 3, 2008, the Sandiganbayan
expense and the DPWH to guarantee the payment of the work reconsidered its August 14, 2008 resolution and directed a reinvestigation
accomplished. FABMIK was able to complete the projects within the of the case. According to the anti-graft court, the allegations to the effect
deadline of ten (10) days utilizing its own resources and credit facilities. that no independent canvass was conducted and that the charge of
The schedule of the international event, however, was moved by the overpricing was based on falsified documents were serious reasons enough
national organizers to January 9-15, 2007 due to typhoon Seniang which to merit a reinvestigation of the case.
struck Cebu for several days.
On October 12, 2009, the Sandiganbayan issued the first assailed
After the summit, a letter-complaint was filed before the Public Assistance resolution admitting the Amended Information, denying Braza's plea for
and Corruption Prevention Office(PACPO), Ombudsman Visayas, alleging dismissal of the criminal case. The Sandiganbayan ruled that Brazawould
that the ASEAN Summit street lighting projects were overpriced. A panel not be placed in double jeopardy should he be arraigned anew under the
composing of three investigators conducted a fact-finding investigation to second information because his previous arraignment was conditional. It
determine the veracity of the accusation. Braza, being the president of continued that even if he was regularly arraigned, double jeopardy would
FABMIK, was impleaded as one of the respondents. On March 16, 2007, still not set in because the second information charged an offense different
the Ombudsman directed the DBM and the DPWH to cease and desist from from, and which did not include or was necessarily included in, the original
releasing or disbursing funds for the projects in question. offense charged. Lastly, it found that the delay in the reinvestigation
proceedings could not be characterized as vexatious, capricious or
Eventually, the OMB-Visayas filed several informations before the oppressive and that it could not be attributed to the prosecution.
Sandiganbayan for violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A. 3019 against the officials
of DPWH Region VII, the officials of the cities of Mandaue and Lapu-lapu On November 6, 2009, Braza moved for reconsideration with alternative
motion to quash the information reiterating his arguments that his right theSandiganbayan or by the regular Rules of Procedure, this Court had
against double jeopardy was violated and, thus, warranting the dismissal of tangentially recognized such practice inPeople v. Espinosa, provided that
the criminal case with prejudice. In the alternative, Braza moved for the the alleged conditions attached to the arraignment should be
quashal of the second information vigorously asserting that the same was "unmistakable, express, informed and enlightened." The Court further
fatally defective for failure to allege any actual, specified and quantifiable required that the conditions must be expressly stated in the order
injury sustained by the government as required by law for indictment disposing of arraignment; otherwise, it should be deemed simple and
under Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019, and that the charge of overpricing was unconditional.
unfounded.
A careful perusal of the record in the case at bench would reveal that the
On October 22, 2010, the Sandiganbayan issued the second assailed arraignment of Braza under the first information was conditional in nature
resolution stating, among others, the denial of Braza's Motion to Quash the as it was a mere accommodation in his favor to enable him to travel
information. The anti-graft court ruled that the Amended Information was abroad without the Sandiganbayan losing its ability to conduct trial in
sufficient in substance as to inform the accused of the nature and causes absentia in case he would abscond. TheSandiganbayan's June 6, 2008
of accusations against them. Further, it held that the specifics sought to be Order clearly and unequivocally states that the conditions for
alleged in the Amended Information were evidentiary in nature which could Braza'sarraignment as well as his travel abroad, that is, that if the
be properly presented during the trial on the merits. Braza was effectively Information would be amended, he shall waive his constitutional right to
discharged from the first Information upon the filing of the second be protected against double jeopardy and shall allow himself to be
Information but said discharge was without prejudice to, and would not arraigned on the amended information without losing his right to question
preclude, his prosecution for violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The the same. It appeared that these conditions were duly explained to Braza
Sandiganbayan, however, deemed it proper that a new preliminary and his lawyer by the anti-graft court. He was afforded time to confer and
investigation be conducted under the new charge. consult his lawyer. Thereafter, he voluntarily submitted himself to such
conditional arraignment and entered a plea of "not guilty" to the offense of
ISSUE: Whether or not double jeopardy has already set in basis of Braza violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019.
"not guilty" plea in the first Information and, thus, he can no longer be
prosecuted under the second Information. Verily, the relinquishment of his right to invoke double jeopardy had been
convincingly laid out. Such waiver was clear, categorical and intelligent. It
HELD: The petition is devoid of merit. may not be amiss to state that on the day of said arraignment, one of the
incidents pending for the consideration of the Sandiganbayan was an
It is Braza stance that his constitutional right under the double jeopardy omnibus motion for determination of probable cause and for quashal of
clause bars further proceedings in Case No. SB-08-CRM-0275. He asserts information or for reinvestigation filed by accused Radaza. Accordingly,
that his arraignment under the first information was simple and there was a real possibility that the first information would be amended if
unconditional and, thus, an arraignment under the second information said motion was granted. Although the omnibus motion was initially
would put him in double jeopardy. denied, it was subsequently granted upon motion for reconsideration, and
a reinvestigation was ordered to be conducted in the criminal case.
His argument cannot stand scrutiny.
Having given his conformity and accepted the conditional arraignment and
While it is true that the practice of the Sandiganbayan of conducting its legal consequences, Braza is now estopped from assailing its conditional
"provisional" or "conditional" arraignment of the accused is not specifically nature just to conveniently avoid being arraigned and prosecuted of the
sanctioned by the Revised Internal Rules of the Procedure of new charge under the second information. Besides, in consonance with the
ruling in Cabo v.Sandiganbayan, this Court cannot now allow Braza to the first information charged an offense different from that charged in the
renege and turn his back on the above conditions on the mere pretext that second information since both charges arose from the same transaction or
he affirmed his conditional arraignment through a pleading denominated as set of facts. Relying on the antiquated ruling of People v. Del
Manifestation filed before the Sandiganbayan on November 13, 2008. After Carmen,Braza claims that an accused should be shielded against being
all, there is no showing that the anti-graft court had acted on, much less prosecuted for several offenses made out from a single act.
noted, his written manifestation.
It appears that Braza has obviously lost sight, if he is not altogether aware,
Assuming, in gratia argumenti, that there was a valid and unconditional of the ruling in Suero v. Peoplewhere it was held that the same criminal act
plea, Braza cannot plausibly rely on the principle of double jeopardy to may give rise to two or more separate and distinct offenses; and that no
avoid arraignment under the second information because the offense double jeopardy attaches as long as there is variance between the
charged therein is different and not included in the offense charged under elements of the two offenses charged. The doctrine of double jeopardy is a
the first information. The right against double jeopardy is enshrined in revered constitutional safeguard against exposing the accused from the
Section 21 of Article III of the Constitution, which reads: risk of being prosecuted twice for the same offense, and not a different
one.
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance conviction or There is simply no double jeopardy when the subsequent information
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the charges another and different offense, although arising from the same act
same act. or set of acts. Prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. What is
forbidden is the prosecution for the same offense.
This constitutionally mandated right is procedurally buttressed by Section
17 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. To substantiate Petition for certiorari is DENIED.
a claim for double jeopardy, the accused has the burden of demonstrating
the following requisites:
As to the first requisite, the first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid
indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment, (d) when
a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused was acquitted or
convicted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent. The test for the third element is whether one offense is
identical with the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration
thereof; or whether the second offense includes or is necessarily included
in the offense charged in the first information.
Braza, however, contends that double jeopardy would still attach even if
ANITA RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE As such, the judgment of conviction against her has attained finality. The
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. CA also opined that since the petitioner knew she could not attend the
RESOLUTION promulgation of judgment on March 25, 2009, she should have exerted
REYES, J.: earnest efforts to confer with her counsel to request for its re-setting.
In this petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Failing to do so, the CA considered her absence without justifiable cause a
Court, petitioner Anita Ramirez (petitioner) seeks the reversal of the Court blatant disrespect of the judicial process.10 Thus, the CA denied her
of Appeals (CA) Resolutions dated January 31, 20112 and June 30, 20113 in application for provisional liberty in view of the finality of the judgment of
CA-G.R. CR No. 33099, denying her "Most Deferential Omnibus Motion to conviction against her.
Admit Notice of Appeal and Post Bond on Appeal".
The Facts Hence, this petition.
On January 5, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch The petitioner wants the Court to take note of the fact that the OSG did
97 convicted the petitioner and one Josephine Barangan (Barangan) of the not object to the belated filing of her notice of appeal with the CA. The
crime of Estafa in Criminal Case No. Q-01-100212. After several re- petitioner also attributes such lapse to her counsel whom she expected to
settings, the judgment was finally promulgated on March 25, 2009 and take care of her legal concerns. She claims that her counsel did not apprise
warrants of arrests were accordingly issued. According to the petitioner, her of the status of the case and that it would have been unforgivable for
she failed to attend the promulgation of judgment as she had to attend to her not to pay her last respects to her deceased father. She also maintains
the wake of her father.4cralawlibrary that since the CA would also be reviewing Barangan’s appeal, it would
serve the interest of substantial justice if the CA were to admit the
Three (3) months after, or on June 6, 2009, the petitioner filed an Urgent petitioner’s appeal. She also seeks the application of the exceptional cases
Ex-parte Motion to Lift Warrant of Arrest and to Reinstate Bail Bond, which where the Court admitted a belated appeal.11cralawlibrary
was denied by the RTC in its Order dated October 7, 2009.5cralawlibrary
In its Comment,12 the OSG contends that the petitioner is bound by the
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the motion to admit notice of appeal and to negligence of her counsel. It also manifests that while it did not object to
post bond with the CA, asking for the reversal of the RTC Order dated her appeal being heard by the CA, it is now withdrawing such position
October 7, 2009. She subsequently filed her notice of appeal on November given the petitioner’s continued refusal to submit to the jurisdiction of the
17, 2010.6 The OSG, for its part, did not oppose the petitioner’s belated RTC despite the CA’s denial of her omnibus motion.
filing of the notice of appeal but objected to her application for the posting
of a bond pending appeal.7cralawlibrary The petition is devoid of merit.
In Resolution8 dated January 31, 2011, the CA denied the omnibus motion. Section 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the the period when an appeal from a judgment or final order in a criminal
CA in Resolution9 dated June 30, 2011. In denying the omnibus motion, case should be taken, viz:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
the CA ruled that the petitioner failed to file the notice of appeal within the Sec. 6. When appeal to be taken. – An appeal must be taken within
15-day reglementary period prescribed by the Rules, reckoned from the fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from
date of notice of the RTC’s judgment of conviction, as she filed her notice notice of the final order appealed from. This period for perfecting an
of appeal with the CA only on November 17, 2010. The CA opined that as appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or
early as June 10, 2009, the petitioner was already aware of the RTC reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motions has
judgment; however, she opted to file a motion to lift the warrant of arrest.
been served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of counsel in the defense of her case.
the period begins to run.chanrob1esvirtualawlibrary
In this case, the judgment convicting the petitioner of the crime of Estafa Moreover, the petitioner should have seen to it that, at the very least,
was promulgated on March 25, 2009. Instead of filing a notice of appeal communication was sent to the trial court to inform the presiding judge of
within fifteen (15) days from the promulgation or notice of judgment, the the demise of her father and that she could not be present during the
petitioner filed with the RTC a motion to lift warrant of arrest and to promulgation of judgment as she had to attend to his funeral
reinstate bail bond three (3) months later. It was only in November 2010 arrangements; or, as stated by the CA, “she should have filed a motion for
or more than a year later since the RTC denied her motion that the the resetting of the promulgation to another date.”19In Neplum, Inc. v.
petitioner filed with the CA her motion to admit notice of appeal. At that Orbeso,20 the Court affirmed the lower court’s refusal to give due course to
point, her judgment of conviction has already attained finality and cannot the notice of appeal filed by the petitioner therein, stating that “all that
be modified or set aside anymore in accordance with Section 7, Rule 120 petitioner had to do was to file a simple notice of appeal - a brief
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.13 Thus, the CA did not commit statement of its intention to elevate the trial court’s Decision to the CA. x x
any reversible error in denying the petitioner’s motion inasmuch as by the x Parties and their counsels are presumed to be vigilant ,in protecting their
time the petitioner filed the same, the appellate court was already bereft of interests and must take the necessary remedies without delay and without
any jurisdiction to entertain the motion. The Court has already stressed resort to technicalities."21cralawlibrary
that “the right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due
process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in While the Court commiserates with the petitioner’s loss, "the bare
accordance with the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must invocation of ’the interest of substantial justice’ is not a magic wand that
comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules."22 Strict
appeal is lost.”14cralawlibrary compliance with the Rules of Court is indispensable for the orderly and
speedy disposition of justice. The Rules must be followed; otherwise, they
In exceptional cases, the Court has in fact relaxed the period for perfecting will become meaningless and useless.23cralawlibrary
an appeal on grounds of substantial justice or when there are other special
and meritorious circumstances and issues.15 Thus, in Remulla v. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of
Manlongat,16 the Court considered the one-day late filing of the merit.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
prosecution’s notice of appeal as excusable given the diligent efforts
exerted by the private prosecutor in following up its filing with the public SO ORDERED.
prosecutor.