Omandam, Melchizedek

People of the Philippines v. Regalario y Villagracia, Carlos Pabillar y Villon,

Jose Quiniquito y Magnata, Rolando de Chavez y Montalbo, Augurio
Villagracia, Jr, y Isabelo and Alberto Desembrana
G.R. Nos. 101451, March 23, 1993

FACTS:
This case deals with an appeal from the judgment of the Regional Trial
Court convicting of the murder of Menardo Garcia. The judgment of conviction
was promulgated in open court on January 17, 1991 and a copy was received by
appellants' former counsel on January 18, 1991.

The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on January 31, 2991 but
was denied on February 22, 1991. The defendants then filed their notice of appeal
on March 4, 1991 but this was denied for having been filed out of time.
Nonetheless, the court ordered the records and transcripts of the proceedings to be
forwarded to the Supreme Court.

The prosecution did not oppose the order of the RTC to elevate the case
records and, in fact, they filed their brief to the case. However, in such brief, they
questioned the jurisdiction of the court for entertaining an appeal which was filed
out of time.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court obtained jurisdiction over the case.

RULING

Yes, the Court obtained jurisdiction.

Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Rules of court provides the following:

 An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation
or notice of 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 attorney.

The filing of a motion for reconsideration serves to toll the running of the 15
day period. However, it is to be noted that from the receipt of the denial of the MR,
the defendant has only the remaining period in which he can file the appeal.

In this case, the judgment was entered into on January 17. Fourteen days
later, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration. A copy of the order denying
such motion was received by the defendant counsel on February 22. Thus, the
defendant only had one more day to file their notice of appeal since fourteen days
had elapsed before the filing of the motion for reconsideration. Consequently, the
Trial Court was correct in rejecting the notice of appeal since it was filed beyond
the reglementary period.

The appeal should have been dismissed outright; however, the trial court
elevated the case records to the Supreme Court for the obvious purpose of
appellate review. Despite this, the prosecution did not oppose the order of the
court. The prosecution raised the question of jurisdiction only after the filing of the
appellants' brief (when they filed their own brief).

The SC held that the principle of estoppel by laches has been repeatedly
applied by this court. In the case of People vs Tamani, the SC held that although
the accused filed his appeal out of time, to obviate a miscarriage of justice, the
court nevertheless reviewed the case and rendered judgment on the merits
since the late filing was because of the inadvertence of the lawyer coupled with
the fact that the briefs of the parties were already filed. The circumstances of
the case at hand is similar to the case of Tamani and the Court followed the same
judicial path.