Neplum Inc. v.

Evelyn Orbeso (GUTIERREZ)

2002 | Panganiban, J. | Period to Appeal on Criminal Cases Ruling: The Court said that the short is answer is when the aggrieved party had
actual or constructive knowledge of the judgment, whether it be during its
PETITIONERS: Neplum, Inc. promulgation or as a consequence of the service of the notice of the decision.
RESPONDENTS: Evelyn V. Orbeso
The Court first ruled as to which rule shall apply in cases of appeals on the civil
SUMMARY: aspect of the criminal case. The Court said that it cannot be Section 6, Rule 122
The petitioner is the private offended party in an Estafa case against the since the it provides that “the period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended
respondent. Respondent was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. During from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the
the promulgation of the judgment, both the public and private prosecutors were order overruling the motion has been served upon the accused or his counsel…”
present. The respondent appealed the decision insofar as the civil aspect of the This implies that this provision shall only apply to appeals by the accused upon
decision was involved. Proceedings are summarized as follows: conviction by the Trial Court.

October 29, 1999 – Promulgation of judgment. (Acquittal based on reasonable Since in criminal cases, only the Solicitor General can appeal on behalf of the
doubt) State upon acquittal of the accused, and consequently, the private prosecutor is
November 12, 1999 – Receipt of copy of judgment by the private prosecutor on only allowed to appeal the civil aspect of the case, the latter ceases to be criminal
behalf of the petitioner. in nature. Instead, it becomes akin to a civil action, thus guided by the Rules on
November 29, 1999 – Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Civil aspect). Civil Procedure. Thus, as a general rule, the Notice of Appeal involving appeals
(Note that Nov. 27, 1999 was a Saturday, hence the filing was made the following on the civil aspect of a criminal case shall be filed within 15 days from the receipt
Monday) of notice of judgment or final order appealed from.
January 28, 2000 – Receipt by the petitioner of a copy of the Order denying MR.
January 31, 2000 – Filing of Notice of Appeal from Judgment with Amended HOWEVER, the Court noted the fact that the private prosecutor was also present
Notice of Appeal. during the promulgation of the judgment, thus having actual knowledge of the
February 17, 2000 – Trial Court denied both Notice of Appeal and Amended judgment appealed from on that day. As such, it is only logical to count the 15-
Notice of Appeal. day period from the date of promulgation of judgment. The RTC was correct in so
February 25, 2000 – Receipt by petitioner of the Feb. 17 Order. ruling. The private prosecutor even signed a copy of the Judgment, signifying
notification to the party he represents. (sad) Since the filing of Notice of Appeal
The RTC, in refusing to give due course to the Notice of Appeal, said that the was filed beyond the reglementary period, the Decision had become final.
Judgment from which the appeal was being taken had become final because the
NOA was filed beyond the reglementary period. The 15-day period was counted DOCTRINE:
by the trial court from the promulgation of the Decision.
General Rule: An offended party's appeal of the civil liability ex-delicto of a
Petitioner assigns as an error the RTC’s decision that the 15-day period shall begin judgment of acquittal should be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment
to run from the promulgation of the decision. The petitioner argues that based on or the final order appealed from. To implement this holding, trial courts are hereby
Section 6, Rule 122, an appeal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation
directed to cause, in criminal cases, the service of their judgments upon the private
of the judgment or from the notice of the final order. The Rule used the conjunctive
“or” indicating that the period shall start to run from either date. Petitioner also offended parties or their duly appointed counsels —the private prosecutors. This
argues that service of copy of the decision is necessary since it is only then can step will enable them to appeal the civil aspects under the appropriate
the aggrieved party have the opportunity to examine the judgment appealed from. circumstances.

Hence the present petition. Exception: Having been present during the promulgation and having been
furnished a copy of the judgment at the time, private offended party was in effect
Issue: From which date should the 15-day period of filing of Notice of Appeal actually notified of the Judgment, and from that time already had knowledge of
start to run? From the date of promulgation of the judgment or from the receipt or the need to appeal it. Thus, the very raison d'être of this Decision is already
notice of the final order?
satisfied: the filing of an appeal by the said party, only after being notified of the
 Judgment. As argued by respondent, "did not the public and private prosecutors RTC of the petitioner’s notice of appeal was due to the fact that it was filed
acquire notice of judgment at its promulgation because of their presence? Notice beyond the 15-day reglementary period counted from the date of
promulgation of judgment.
of the judgment may not be defined in any other way . . . ." 3. The petitioner posits that Section 6, Rule 122 provides:

SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken. — An appeal must be taken within fifteen

(15) days from promulgation or notice of the judgment or order appealed
from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be interrupted from the time
a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order
overruling the motion shall have been served upon the accused or his
counsel."

4. The italicized portion of the provision uses the conjunctive "or" in providing
for the reckoning period within which an appeal must be taken. It shall be
counted from the promulgation or the notice of the judgment or order. It is
petitioner's assertion that "the parties would always need a written reference
or a copy of the judgment . . . to intelligently examine and consider the
FACTS: judgment from which an appeal will be taken." Thus, it concludes that the 15-
1. The petitioner is the private offended party in an Estafa case against the day period for filing a notice of appeal must be counted from the time the
respondent who was acquitted based on reasonable doubt. The following are
the pertinent dates: losing party actually receives a copy of the decision or order.
a. October 29, 1999 – Promulgation of judgment. (Acquittal based
5. Hence, the present Rule 45 Petition.
on reasonable doubt)
ISSUES:
b. November 12, 1999 – Receipt of copy of judgment by the private
1. W/N Rule 45 was the correct remedy. No. Denial of notice of appeal was
prosecutor on behalf of the petitioner. neither a judgment nor final order. Rule 65 was the correct remedy.
2. W/N The notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period. No.
c. November 29, 1999 – Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration It shall run from the date that the party intending to appeal had actual or
(Civil aspect). (Note that Nov. 27, 1999 was a Saturday, hence the constructive knowledge of the judgment appealed from.
filing was made the following Monday)
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Order
d. January 28, 2000 – Receipt by the petitioner of a copy of the Order AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
denying MR.

e. January 31, 2000 – Filing of Notice of Appeal from Judgment with RATIO:
Amended Notice of Appeal. 1. The Rules provide that an ordinary appeal from the RTC to the Court of
appeals is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the
f. February 17, 2000 – Trial Court denied both Notice of Appeal and judgment or final order appealed from. Rule 45 is a mode of appeal of a lower
Amended Notice of Appeal. court’s decision directed at the Supreme Court.

2. However, an order denying notice of appeal is not a judgment or final order

g. February 25, 2000 – Receipt by petitioner of the Feb. 17 Order.
which may be subject of an appeal. The Rules expressly provides that no
appeal shall be taken from an order disallowing or allowing an appeal. Rule
2. It should be noted that during the promulgation of the judgment of acquittal,
65 petition for certiorari is the suitable remedy.
both the public and private prosecutors were present. Thus, the denial by the
3. By availing of the erroneous remedy, the Supreme Court said that this case delicto of a judgment of acquittal should be filed within 15 days from notice
merits an outright dismissal. However, due to the novelty of the issue of the judgment or the final order appealed from. To implement this holding,
presented and the far-reaching effects, the Court deemed it necessary to treat trial courts are hereby directed to cause, in criminal cases, the service of their
it as a Rule 65 petition.
judgments upon the private offended parties or their duly appointed counsels
4. Petitioner argues that the period shall start from the actual receipt by a party — the private prosecutors. This step will enable them to appeal the civil
of the copy of the judgment. The Court clarified that this Rule only applies aspects under the appropriate circumstances.
to an appeal made by an accused. In this case, it was the offended party who
appealed the civil aspect of the case. 9. However, the general rule above cannot be applied in this case. Here, the
private prosecutor himself was present during the promulgation of the
5. Clearly, the Rule on the promulgation of judgment refers to the accused, not Judgment. This fact is undeniable, as petitioner itself admits his presence in
to the private offended party, who is not even required to be present during its Memorandum.
the proceedings. Since the judgment may be promulgated in the absence of
the latter, it will be inequitable to count from that date the period of appeal 10. Further, private prosecutor even signed a copy of the Judgment dated October
for the said party. It is but logical to begin tolling such period only upon 29, 1999, a signature which in unequivocal terms signifies notification of the
service of the notice of judgment upon the offended party, and not from its petitioner which he represents. Having been present during the promulgation
promulgation to the accused. It is only through notice to the former that an and having been furnished a copy of the judgment at the time, private
appeal can reasonably be made, for it is only from that date that the offended party was in effect actually notified of the Judgment, and from that
complainant will have knowledge of the need to elevate the case. Till then, time already had knowledge of the need to appeal it.
the remedy of appeal would not be an option in the event of an adverse
judgment. 11. By mere presence, the offended party was actually notified of the Decision
of acquittal and should have taken necessary steps to ensure that a timely
6. The period to appeal, embodied in Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Rules on appeal be filed.
Criminal Procedure, cannot be applied equally to both accused-appellant and
private offended party. Further bolstering this argument is the second
sentence of this provision which mandates as follows:

". . . . This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the
time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the
order overruling the motions has been served upon the accused or his
counsel at which time the balance of the period begins to run."

7. The above-quoted portion provides for the procedure for suspending and
resuming the reglementary period of appeal specifically mentioned in the
preceding sentence. However, it is clear that the procedure operates only in
relation to the accused. This conclusion can be deduced from the fact that
after being interrupted, the period to appeal begins to run again only after the
accused or the counsel of the accused is given notice of the order overruling
the motion for reconsideration or for new trial. Verily, the assumption behind
this provision is that the appeal was taken by the accused, not by the private
offended party.

8. The Court thus holds that an offended party's appeal of the civil liability ex-