Vina v CA

G.R. No. 132936. February 17, 2003

FACTS:
Petitioner Vina was convicted by RTC Butuan for violation of RA 6425. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from
the judgment of conviction. The records of the case were forwarded to the CA.

On Sept 5, 1997, petitioner received a notice from CA requiring him to file the appellant’s brief within 30 days
from notice, or until Oct 5, 1997. On Oct 20, 1997, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file
appellant’s brief. CA denied the motion for having been filed 15 days late and dismissed the appeal.

On Jan 12, 1998, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that his motion for extension was
timely filed since he has 45 days, not 30 days, from notice to file the appellant’s brief. CA denied the motion.
Hence the instant petition.

Petitioner contends that his motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief was seasonably filed within
the 45-day reglementary period provided under Section 7, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended (in other words, Pet contends that the 1997 Rules of Civ Pro, providing for a 45-day period, impliedly
repealed Sec 3, Rule 124).

ISSUE: Did the 1997 Rules of Civ Pro repeal the 30-day period in Sec 3 Rule 124? NO

HELD:
Section 7, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, did not impliedly repeal Section 3, Rule
124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. There is no such implied repeal here whatsoever since these
two rules deal with distinct subject matters. Section 7, Rule 44 provides for the period within which an
appellant’s brief must be filed in civil cases, which is 45-days, while Section 3, Rule 124 provides when brief for
the appellant should be filed in criminal cases, which is 30 days.

Petitioner, being a lawyer, should have readily understood that the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
apply only to civil cases, not to criminal cases which are governed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Moreover, petitioner submits that he honestly believes he followed the correct procedure.

Petitioner’s avowal of “honest belief” is misplaced. He was fully aware that the Court of appeals directed him
to file the appellant’s brief within 30 days from notice. But he did not comply. He even faulted the Chief of the
Judicial Records Division of the Court of Appeals for sending him a notice which was “presumably an old form.”

Petition denied.