ROLEX RODRIGUEZ y OLAYRES, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ALLIED DOMECQ SPIRITS AND WINES, represented
by ALLIED DOMECQ PHILS., INC., respondents.
G.R. No. 192799.– October 24, 2012.
J. Velasco

Digest Author: Your Name

Topic: General Principles – Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules

Case Summary: Petitioner convicted for unfair competition, appealed to RTC initially denied, tried to
appeal again but 2nd appeal was denied on the basis of it being outside of the provided appeal period under
Rule 122 Sec. 6 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner assails denial, arguing that the
fresh period doctrine which provides that a new (15) day period to appeal is given as opposed to just one
continuous (15) day period for multiple appeals should also be applicable to the criminal cases. SC agrees
with him.

Petitioners: ROLEX RODRIGUEZ y OLAYRES

Respondents: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ALLIED DOMECQ SPIRITS AND
WINES, represented by ALLIED DOMECQ PHILS., INC.

Doctrines Involved: Here, SC amends Rule 122 Sec. 6 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure in
order to provide a uniform period for appeal in both civil cases and criminal cases. Initially, only civil
cases provided for a fresh (15) day period of appeal after receipt of notice of denial of appeal. However,
SC amends this in order to grant the same statutory privileges for litigants in criminal and civil cases.

FACTS:
1. Petitioner was convicted for unfair competition in Criminal Case No. 02-206499 petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration before the RTC on the 15 th day of the reglementary period to appeal
(appeal period was 15 days max so last day na)
a. Motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC.
b. (14) days after petitioner received denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner
filed a notice of appeal before the CA. Under Rule 122, Sec. 6 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedurei an appeal must be taken (15) days after the promulgation of the
judgment OR from notice of the final order therefrom. Thus, petitioner’s notice of appeal
was denied.
i. 2nd appeal was filed on February 2, 2009 whereas receipt of RTC order denying
motion for reconsideration was on January 19 2009. (no dates for initial appeal)
2. Leading to current appeal before the SC.
3. Current petition is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA decision which affirmed the
RTC order denying the petitioner’s notice of appeal in the original criminal case which convicted
the petitioner for unfair competition as penalized by RA 8293 1.
a. Flow: (1) Petitioner convicted for unfair competition  Petitioner filed for
reconsideration before the RTC, denied  Filed for a notice of appeal past the period
provided by Rule 122 Sec. 6 before the CA, denied  Current appeal to SC.

1
Intellectual Property Coe of the Philippines
ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:
 Petitioner’s Argument related to Doctrine: That the “fresh period rule” established in Neypes v.
CA should apply to the present case.
o Fresh Period Rule -– in appeals taken under the ff: a fresh period of (15) days, counted
from the receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration within which appellants may file a notice of appeal before the RTC.
(Ratio – to make appeal periods uniform, being counted from receipt of final order in
order to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal)
 Rule 40 (appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the RTC) and Rule 41
(appeals from the RTCs to the CA or this Court); Rule 42 (appeals from the
RTCs to the CA); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the CA); and
Rule 45 (appeals by certiorari to this Court)

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N fresh period rule applicable to appeals covered by Rule 122 Sec. 6 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure? – YES
a. Rule 122 Sec. 6 provides that the (15) day period for perfecting an appeal is suspended
from the time a motion for a new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order
overruling the motion has been served upon the accused or their counsel at which time,
the timer begins to run again.
i. In the present case, petitioner filed notice of appeal (14) days after receipt of the
denial of his motion, because he took (15) days to file the first motion for
reconsideration his original (15) day period had already elapsed.
o While the fresh period rule was initially only applicable to civil cases, the SC in the case
of Yu v. Tatad provided that the fresh period rule was now equally applicable to criminal
cases. Therefore, a new (15) day period shall begin from the day the accused receives
notice of the denial of their appeal.
 SC points out that it would be absurd to make the appeals for Criminal cases
more stringent than appeals taken in civil cases. Under the rationale of Neypes,
which accords greater leeway to file appeals in civil cases, the same should be
applied in criminal cases which involves the accused’s right to liberty.
o Petitioner therefore, seasonably filed notice of appeal under the fresh doctrine rule as 2 nd
appeal was filed on February 2, 2009 whereas receipt of RTC order denying motion for
reconsideration was on January 19 2009 which was well within the (15) day period.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the April 14, 2009 Order of the
RTC, Branch 24 in Manila and the assailed March 2, 2010 Decision and June 29, 2010
Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 108789 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Notice
of Appeal of petitioner Rolex Rodriguez y Olayres dated January 29, 2009 is hereby GIVEN
DUE COURSE. Let the case records be elevated by the RTC to the CA for the review of
petitioner’s appeal with dispatch. No costs.

SO ORDERED

NOTES:
i
Section 6. When appeal to be taken. — An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the
judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. 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 motion shall have been
served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins to run. (6a)