Neplum vs. Orbeso

11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384 11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384
referring to ‘judgment,’ while the word ‘notice’ should be

construed as referring to ‘order.’ ” The interpretation in that case
was very clear. The period for appeal was to be counted from the
date of promulgation of the decision. Text writers are in
agreement with this interpretation.
Same; Same; Same; It is but logical to begin tolling such
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED period only upon service of the notice of judgment upon the
offended party, and not from its promulgation to the accused.—
Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso
Clearly, the Rule on the promulgation of judgment refers to the
* accused, not to the private offended party, who is not even
G.R. No. 141986. July 11, 2002. required to be present during the proceedings. Since the judgment
may be promulgated in the absence of the latter, it will be
NEPLUM, INC., petitioner, vs. EVELYN V. ORBESO, inequitable to count from that date the period of appeal for the
respondent. said party. It is but logical to begin tolling such period only upon
service of the notice of judgment upon the offended party, and not
from its promulgation to the accused. It is only through notice to
Remedial Law; Appeal; Court has often admonished litigants
the former that an appeal can reasonably be made, for it is only
for unnecessarily burdening it with the task of determining under
from that date that the complainant will have knowledge of the
which rule a petition should fall.—This Court has often
need to elevate the case. Till then, the remedy of appeal would not
admonished litigants for unnecessarily burdening it with the task
be an option in the event of an adverse judgment.
of determining under which rule a petition should fall. It has
likewise warned lawyers to follow scrupulously the requisites for Same; Same; Court has definitely ruled that in a criminal
appeal prescribed by law, ever aware that any error or case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of the
imprecision in compliance may well be fatal to the client’s cause. private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the
civil liability arising therefrom.—In People v. Santiago, the Court
Same; Same; The period for appeal was to be counted from the
has definitively ruled that in a criminal case in which the
date of promulgation of the decision.—Had it been the accused
offended party is the State, the interest of the private
who appealed, we could have easily ruled that the reckoning
complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil
period for filing an appeal be counted from the promulgation of
liability arising therefrom. If a criminal case is dismissed by the
the judgment. In People v. Tamani, the Court was confronted with
trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal of the criminal
the question of when to count the period within which the accused
aspect may be undertaken, whenever legally feasible, only by the
must appeal the criminal conviction. Answered the Court: “The
State through the solicitor general. As a rule, only the solicitor
assumption that the fifteen-day period should be counted from
general may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal.
The private offended party or complainant may not undertake
______________ such appeal.
* THIRD DIVISION. Same; Same; Same; The offended party or complainant may
appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused; The
appeal becomes a suit analogous to a civil action.—The offended
467 party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the
acquittal of the accused. As such, the present appeal undertaken
by the private offended party relating to the civil aspect of the
criminal judgment can no longer be considered a criminal action
VOL. 384, JULY 11, 2002 467 per se, wherein the State prosecutes a person for an act or
omission punishable by law. Instead, it becomes a suit analogous
to a civil action.
February 25, 1963, when a copy of the decision was allegedly 468
served on appellant’s counsel by registered mail is not well-taken.
The word ‘promulgation’ in section 6 should be construed as
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca11ce294acb92bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/22 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca11ce294acb92bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/22
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED filing an appeal has the burden of proving the existence of
exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such deviation.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
Same; Same; Same; An offended party’s appeal of the civil Regional Trial Court of Makati, Br. 133.
liability ex delicto of a judgment of acquittal should be filed within
469
15 days from notice of the judgment or the final order appealed
from; Trial courts are directed to cause, in criminal cases, the
service of their judgments upon the private offended parties or VOL. 384, JULY 11, 2002 469
their duly appointed counsels—the private prosecutors.—In sum,
we hold that an offended party’s appeal of the civil liability ex
delicto of a judgment of acquittal should be filed within 15 days
from notice of the judgment or the final order appealed from. To The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
implement this holding, trial courts are hereby directed to cause, Picazo, Buyco, Tan, Fider & Santos for petitioner.
in criminal cases, the service of their judgments upon the private Horacio R. Makalintal, Jr. for respondent.
offended parties or their duly appointed counsels—the private
PANGANIBAN, J.:
prosecutors. This step will enable them to appeal the civil aspects
under the appropriate circumstances.
Within what period may private offended parties appeal
Same; Same; Same; By mere presence, the offended party was the civil aspect of a judgment acquitting the accused based
already actually notified of the decision of acquittal and should on reasonable doubt? Is the 15-day period to be counted
have taken the necessary steps to ensure that a timely appeal from the promulgation of the decision to the accused or
should be filed.—If petitioner or its counsel had never been from the time a copy thereof is served on the offended
notified of the Judgment, then the period for appeal would never party? Our short answer is: from the time the offended
have run. True, no law requires the offended party to attend the party had actual or constructive knowledge of the judgment,
promulgation, much less to secure a copy of the decision on that whether it be during its promulgation or as a consequence
date. But fiction must yield to reality. By mere presence, the of the service of the notice of the decision.
offended party was already actually notified of the Decision of
acquittal and should have taken the necessary steps to ensure
that a timely appeal be filed. The Case
1
Same; Same; The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
a part of due process; Its requirements must be strictly complied 45 of the Rules of
2
Court, seeking to set aside the February
with.—It should be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a 17, 2000 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a procedural Makati City (Branch 133) in Criminal Case No. 96-246.
remedy of statutory origin and may be exercised only in the The Order reads in full as follows:
manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its
exercise. Hence, its requirements must be strictly complied with. “Opposition to Notice of Appeal being well-taken, as prayed for,
The failure of petitioner to file a timely notice of appeal from the the Notice of Appeal
3
and the Amended Notice of Appeal are
Judgment, thus rendering the Judgment final and executory, is denied due course.”
not a denial of due process. It might have lost its right to appeal,
The foregoing Order effectively prevented petitioner from
but it was not denied its day in court.
appealing the civil aspect of the criminal proceedings in
Same; Same; Anyone seeking exemption from the application which the accused was acquitted based on reasonable
of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of doubt.
proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious instances
warranting such deviation.—Neither has petitioner justified a
deviation from an otherwise stringent rule. Anyone seeking The Facts
exemption from the application of the reglementary period for
The factual antecedents,
4
as narrated by petitioner in its
Memorandum, are as follows:
______________ The RTC6

refused to give due course to petitioner’s
7
Notice of
Appeal and Amended Notice of Appeal. It accepted
1 Rollo, pp. 54-73.
respondent’s arguments that the Judgment from which the
2 Rollo, p. 73; issued by Judge Napoleon E. Inoturan.
appeal was being
3 Assailed RTC Order, Annex “A” of the Petition; Rollo, p. 73.
4 Rollo, pp. 131-143.
______________
470
5 Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 132-133; italics supplied.
6 Annex “F” of the Petition, ibid., pp. 88-89.
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 7 Annex “G” of the Petition; id., pp. 91-92.
471
“2.01 On 29 October 1999, the trial court promulgated its

judgment (the ‘Judgment’) in Criminal Case No. 96-246 acquitting VOL. 384, JULY 11, 2002 471
the accused of the crime of estafa on the ground that the Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The accused and her counsel as well as the
taken had become final, because the Notice of Appeal and
public and private prosecutors were present during such
the Amended Notice of Appeal were filed beyond the
promulgation.
reglementary period. The 15-day period was counted by the
‘2.01.1 The private prosecutor represented the interests of the petitioner trial court from the promulgation of the Decision sought to
who was the private offended party in Criminal Case No. 96-246.’ be reviewed. 8
Hence, this Petition.
“2.02 On 12 November 1999, the petitioner, through the
private prosecutor, received its copy of the Judgment.
“2.03 On 29 November 1999, petitioner filed its 25 November The Issue
1999 Motion for Reconsideration (Civil Aspect) of the Judgment.
In its Memorandum, petitioner submits this lone issue for
‘2.03.1 Considering that 27 November 1999 was a Saturday,
our consideration:
petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration on 29 November
1999, a Monday.’ “Whether the period within which a private offended party may
appeal from, or move for a reconsideration of, or otherwise
“2.04 On 28 January 2000, a Friday, petitioner received its copy of the 24
challenge, the civil aspect of a judgment in a criminal action
January 2000 Order of the Trial Court denying for lack of merit
should be reckoned from the date of promulgation or from the
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
date of such party’s actual receipt of a copy of such judgment
“2.05 On 31 January 2000, a Monday, petitioner filed its 28 considering that any party appealing or challenging such
January 2000 Notice of Appeal from the Judgment. On the same judgment would necessarily need a copy thereof, which is in
day, petitioner filed by registered mail its 28 January 2000 writing and which clearly express the factual and legal bases 9
Amended Notice of Appeal. thereof to be able to file an intelligent appeal or other challenge.”
“2.06 On 17 February 2000, the Trial Court issued its
Challenged Order, which petitioner received through the private
prosecutor on 22 February 2000, denying due course to The Court’s Ruling
petitioner’s
5
Notice of Appeal and Amended Notice of Appeal x x
x.” The Petition is unmeritorious.
Preliminary Matter:
Ruling of the Trial Court Mode of Review

Petitioner brought this case to this Court through a of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
Rules of Court. The Petition seeks to set aside the February ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a
17, 2000 Order of the RTC which, in effect, disallowed verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
petitioner’s appeal of its Judgment. certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
An ordinary appeal from the RTC to the Court of modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and 13
Appeals (CA) is “taken by filing a notice of appeal with the granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.”
court which rendered (Italics supplied)
______________ ______________
8 The Court deemed the case submitted for resolution on May 16, 2001, 10 §2(a), Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. However, an appeal in
upon receipt of petitioner’s Memorandum signed by Atty. Riche L. Tiblani cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall
of Picazo Buyco Tan Fider & Santos. The Memorandum for respondent, be by a petition for review, not by a simple notice of appeal.
signed by Atty. Horacio R. Makalintal, Jr., was filed on April 6, 2001. 11 §1(d), Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Court.
9 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 3; Rollo, p. 133. Original in upper case. 12 Ibid.
13 §1, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Court.
472
473
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso VOL. 384, JULY 11, 2002 473
the judgment or final order appealed 10from and serving a
copy thereof upon the adverse party.” Consequently, the By availing itself of the wrong or inappropriate mode of14
disallowance of the notice of appeal signifies the appeal, the Petition merits an outright dismissal.
15
disallowance of the appeal itself. Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 hereinafter “Circular”)
A petition for review under Rule 45 is a mode of appeal is unequivocal in directing the dismissal of an
of a lower court’s decision or final order direct to the inappropriate mode of appeal thus:
Supreme Court. However, the questioned Order is not a
“decision or final order” from which an appeal may be “4. Erroneous Appeals—An appeal taken to either the Supreme
taken. The Rules of Court states explicitly: Court or the Court of
16
Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode
shall be dismissed.”
“No appeal may be taken from:
x x x x x x x x x The same Circular provides that petitioner’s counsel has
11
(d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;” the duty of using the proper mode of review.
On the other hand, a petition for certiorari is the suitable “e) Duty of counsel—It is therefore incumbent upon every attorney
remedy that petitioner should have used, in view of the last who would seek review of a judgment or order promulgated
paragraph of the same provision which states: against his client to make sure of the nature of the errors he
proposes to assign, whether these be of fact or of law; then upon
“In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is such basis to ascertain carefully which Court has appellate
not appealable, the aggrieved party 12
may file an appropriate jurisdiction; and finally, to follow scrupulously the requisites for
special civil action under Rule 65.” appeal prescribed by law, ever aware that any error or 17
imprecision in compliance may well be fatal to his client’s cause.”
In turn, Rule 65, Section 1, provides:
This Court has often admonished litigants for
“SEC. 1. Petition for certiorari.—When any tribunal, board or
unnecessarily burdening it with the task of determining
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
under which rule a petition should fall. It has likewise
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
warned lawyers to follow scrupulously the requisites for
appeal prescribed by law, ever aware that any error or appeal must be taken. It shall be counted from the
imprecision
18
in compliance may well be fatal to the client’s promulgation or the notice of the judgment or order.
cause. It is petitioner’s assertion that “the parties would always
On this score alone, the Petition could have been given need a written reference or a copy of the judgment x x x to
short shrift and outrightly dismissed. Nevertheless, due to intelligently examine and consider 19
the judgment from
the novelty of the issue presented and its far-reaching which an appeal will be taken.” Thus, it concludes that
effects, the Court will deal with the arguments raised by the 15-day period for filing a notice of appeal must be
petitioner and lay down the rule on counted from the time the losing party actually receives a
copy of the decision or order. Petitioner ratiocinates that it
______________ “could not be expected to capture or memorize all the
material20details of the judgment during the promulgation
14 Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 138270, June thereof.” It likewise poses the question: “why require all
28, 2001, 360 SCRA 173. proceedings in court to be recorded in writing if the parties
15 Circular No. 2-90 dated March 9, 1990, signed by the then Chief thereto would not be 21 allowed the benefit of utilizing these
Justice Marcelo B. Fernan. written [documents]?”
16 Ibid., at No. 4. We clarify. Had it been the accused who appealed, we
17 Id. at No. 4(e). could have easily ruled that the reckoning period for filing
18 Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, supra; Ybañez v. CA, 253 an appeal be
SCRA 540, February 9, 1996.
______________
474
19 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 7; Rollo, p. 137.
20 Ibid.
21 Id.
475
this matter. As an exception to Circular 2-90, it will treat
the present proceedings as a petition for certiorari under VOL. 384, JULY 11, 2002 475
Rule 65.
Main Issue: counted from the promulgation of the judgment. In People

Timeliness of Appeal 22
v. Tamani, the Court was confronted with the question of
when to count the period within which the accused must
Petitioner contends that an appeal by the private offended
appeal the criminal conviction. Answered the Court:
party under the Rules of Criminal Procedure must be made
within 15 days from the time the appealing party receives a “The assumption that the fifteen-day period should be counted
copy of the relevant judgment. It cites Section 6, Rule 122 of from February 25, 1963, when a copy of the decision was allegedly
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides: served on appellant’s counsel by registered mail is not well-taken.
The word ‘promulgation’ in section 6 should be construed as
“SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken.—An appeal must be taken
referring to ‘judgment,’ while 23 the word ‘notice’ should be
within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice of the
construed as referring to ‘order.’ ”
judgment or order appealed from. This period for perfecting an
appeal shall be interrupted from the time a motion for new trial The interpretation in that case was very clear. The period
or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the for appeal was to be counted 24
from the date of promulgation
motion shall have been served upon the accused or his counsel.” of the decision. Text writers are in agreement with this
(Italics supplied) interpretation. 25
In an earlier case, this Court explained the same
The italicized portion of the provision uses the conjunctive
interpretation in this wise:
“or” in providing for the reckoning period within which an
“It may, therefore, be stated that one who desires to appeal in a “(3)
Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical
criminal case must file a notice to that effect within fifteen days publication;
from the date the decision is announced or promulgated to the “(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
defendant. And this can be done by the court either by “(5) Freedom of suffrage;
announcing the judgment in open court as was done in this case,
“(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of
or by promulgating the judgment in the26 manner set forth in
law;
[S]ection 6, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court.”
“(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken
Clear as those interpretations may have been, they cannot for public use;
be applied to the case at bar, because in those instances it “(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
was the accused who appealed, while here we are “(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects
confronted with the offended party’s appeal of the civil against unreasonable searches and seizures;
aspect only. Thus, the question arises whether the accused- “(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
appellant’s period for appeal, as construed in the cited
“(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence,
cases, is the same as that for the private offended party.
We answer in the negative. “(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for
purposes not contrary to law;
“(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the
______________
Government for redress of grievances;
22 55 SCRA 153, January 21, 1974. “(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
23 Ibid., p. 157, per Aquino, J. (later C.J.). “(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
24 Pamaran, The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure Annotated, 1998
“(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
ed., pp. 497-498; Herrera, Remedial Law, Vol. IV, 1999, p, 595. informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to
25 Landicho v. Tan, 87 Phil. 601, November 16, 1950. have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face,
26 Ibid., p. 605, per Bautista Angelo, J. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witness in his behalf;
476
“(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one’s self, or
from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a
477
VOL. 384, JULY 11, 2002 477

No Need to Reserve Independent Civil Action
At the outset, we must explain that the 2000 Rules on
Criminal Procedure deleted the requirement of reserving 28 29 30
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code shall remain
independent civil actions and allowed these to proceed “separate, distinct and independent” of any Criminal
separately from criminal 27
ones. Thus, the civil actions prosecution based on the same act. Here are some direct
referred to in Articles 32, consequences of such revision and omission:
______________
______________
27 “ART. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual,
promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except
who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner
when the person confessing becomes a State witness;
impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another
“(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment,
person shall be liable to the latter for damages.
unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a
“(1) Freedom of religion; statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional;
“(2) Freedom of speech; and

“(19) Freedom of access to the courts. Thus, deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is
“In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the the liability arising from the crime or delict per se (civil
de-fendant’s act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the liability ex delicto), but not those liabilities from quasi-
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. In fact, even if a civil
distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action is filed separately, the ex delicto civil liability in the
action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if criminal prosecution remains, and the offended party may
the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of —subject to the control of the prosecutor—still intervene in
evidence. the criminal action 31
in order to protect such remaining civil
“The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages interest therein. By the same token, the offended party
may also be adjudicated. may appeal a judgment in a criminal case acquitting the
accused on reasonable doubt, but only in regard to the civil
“The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge
liability ex delicto.
unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code
And this is precisely what herein petitioner wanted to
or other penal statute.”
do: to appeal the civil liability arising from the crime the
28 “ART. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil civil liability ex delicto.
action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal
Period for Perfecting an Appeal
action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only Section 6 of Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
a preponderance of evidence.” Procedure declares:
29 “ART. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses
“Section 6. When appeal to be taken.—An appeal must be taken
or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or
within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or
property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the
from notice of the final order appealed from. This period for
city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil
perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion
action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings,
for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order
and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.”
overruling the motions has been served upon the accused or his
30 “ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
counsel at which time the balance of the period begins to run.”
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the ______________
provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)”
31 Panganiban, Transparency, Unanimity & Diversity, 2000 ed., pp.
478 214-215.
479
Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso VOL. 384, JULY 11, 2002 479
1. The right to bring the foregoing actions based on
the Civil Code need not be reserved in the criminal
This provision is similar, though not identical, to Section 6
prosecution, since they are not deemed included
of Rule 122 of the 1985 Rules invoked by petitioner. The
therein.
difference is that the former makes clear that promulgation
2. The institution or waiver of the right to file a refers to “judgment,” and notice refers to “final order
separate civil action arising from the crime charged appealed from.”
does not extinguish the right to bring such action. Taken on its face, the provision seems to suggest that
3. The only limitation is that the offended party the period for any appeal, whether by the accused or by the
cannot recover more than once for the same act or private offended party, must be counted from and
omission. understood in conjunction with the provision on the
promulgation of the judgment. This provision mentions the
presence of the accused, the judge or the clerk of court in for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the
certain instances, and/or the counsel or representative of reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he
the accused. Petitioner is correct in observing that the proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be
private offended party is not required to be present during allowed32 to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from
the promulgation; in fact, the said party is not even notice.”
mentioned in the provision.
For clarity, the 2000 Rule on the promulgation of
Appeal of the Accused Different from That of the Offended
judgment is quoted in full hereunder:
Party
“Section 6. Promulgation of judgment—The judgment is Clearly, the Rule on the promulgation of judgment refers to
promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any the accused, not to the private offended party, who is not
judge of the court in which it was rendered. However, if the even required to be present during the proceedings. Since
conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced the judgment may be promulgated in the absence of the
in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the judge is latter, it will be inequitable to count from that date the
absent or outside the province or city, the judgment may be period of appeal for the said party. It is but logical to begin
promulgated by the clerk of court. tolling such period only upon service of the notice of
“If the accused is confined or detained in another province or judgment upon the offended party, and not from its
city, the judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of promulgation to the accused. It is only through notice to
the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the place of the former that an appeal can reasonably be made, for it is
confinement or detention upon request of the court which only from that date that the complainant will have
rendered the judgment. The court promulgating the judgment knowledge of the need to elevate the case. Till then, the
shall have authority to accept the notice of appeal and to approve remedy of appeal would not be an option in the event of an
the bail bond pending appeal; provided, that if the decision of the adverse judgment.
trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the We clarify also that the situations covered by this Rule
offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can (Section 6, Rule 122) are limited to appeals of judgments
only be filed and resolved by the appellate court. rendered by regional trial and inferior courts. In higher
“The proper clerk of court shall give notice to the accused courts, there is no promulgation in the concept of Section
personally or through his bondsman or warden and counsel, 6,Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure. In the
requiring him to be present at the promulgation of the decision. If Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, a decision is
the accused was tried in absentia because he jumped bail or promulgated when the signed copy thereof is filed with the
escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his last clerk of court, who then causes copies to be served upon the
33
known address. parties or their counsels. Hence, the presence of either
“In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of party during promulgation is not required.
promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall The period to appeal, embodied in Section 6 of Rule 122
be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, cannot be applied
serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his equally to both
counsel.
______________
480
32 §6, Rule 120, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 33 §9, Rule 51, 1997 Rules of Court; §4, Rules of Court; 1997 Rules of
Court.
481
“If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused
to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies
available in these rules against the judgment and the court shall VOL. 384, JULY 11, 2002 481
order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso
judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion

accused-appellant and private offended party. Further Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso
bolstering this argument is the second sentence of this
provision which mandates as follows: by the State through the solicitor general. As a rule, only
the solicitor general may represent the People of the
“x x x. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended
Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or
from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed
complainant may not undertake such appeal.
until notice of the order overruling the motions has been served
However, the offended party or complainant may appeal
upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the
34
the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused. As
period begins to run.” (Italics supplied)
such, the present appeal undertaken by the private
The above-quoted portion provides for the procedure for offended party relating to the civil aspect of the criminal
suspending and resuming the reglementary period of judgment can no longer be considered a criminal action per
appeal specifically mentioned in the preceding sentence. se, wherein the State prosecutes a person for an act or
However, it is clear that the procedure operates only in omission punishable by law. Instead, it becomes a suit
relation to the accused. This conclusion can be deduced analogous to a civil action.
from the fact that after being interrupted, the period to Being in the nature of a civil case, the present intended
appeal begins to run again only after the accused or the appeal involves proceedings brought to the Court of
counsel of the accused is given notice of the order Appeals from a decision of the RTC in the exercise of the
overruling the motion for reconsideration or for new trial. latter’s original jurisdiction. Thus,37
it should be properly
Verily, the assumption behind this provision is that the done by filing a notice of appeal. An appeal by virtue of
appeal was taken by the accused, not by the private such notice shall be filed within 15 days 38from notice of the
offended party. judgment or final order appealed from. For the private
Indeed, the rules governing the period of appeal in a offended party, this rule then forecloses the counting of the
purely civil action should be the same as those covering the period to appeal from the “promulgation” of the judgment
civil aspects of criminal judgments. If these rules are not to the accused.
completely identical, the former may be suppletory to the In sum, we hold that an offended party’s appeal of the
latter. As correctly pointed out by petitioner, “[t]he Appeal civil liability ex delicto of a judgment of acquittal should be
from the civil aspect of a judgment in a criminal action is, filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or the final
for all intents and purposes, an appeal from a judgment in order appealed from. To implement this holding, trial
a civil action as such appeal cannot affect the criminal courts are hereby directed to cause, in criminal cases, the
35
aspect thereof.” Being akin to a civil action, the present service of their judgments upon the private offended
appeal may be guided by 36the Rules on Civil Procedure. parties or their duly appointed counsels—the private
In People v. Santiago, the Court has definitively ruled prosecutors. This step will enable them to appeal the civil
that in a criminal case in which the offended party is the aspects under the appropriate circumstances.
State, the interest of the private complainant or the private
General Rule Not Applicable to the Present Case
offended party is limited to the civil liability arising
therefrom. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court Having laid down the general rule on the appeal of civil
or if there is an acquittal, an appeal of the criminal aspect liabilities ex delicto, we now determine its application to
may be undertaken, whenever legally feasible, only the present controversy. In short, was petitioner’s appeal
timely filed?
______________
______________
34 §6, Rule 122, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
35 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 9; Rollo, p. 139. Italics supplied. 37 §2, Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Court.
36 174 SCRA 143, June 20, 1989. 38 §3, Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Court.
482 483
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 384, JULY 11, 2002 483
Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso 484
If we were to follow the reasoning of petitioner, the Notice 484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
of Appeal filed on January 31, 2000 was on time,
considering that (1) the Judgment had been received by its Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso
counsel only on November 12, 1999; and (2) the Motion for
Reconsideration filed on November 29, 2000 interrupted writing and with the factual and legal bases thereof clearly
the running of the reglementary period. expressed.
However, a peculiar circumstance in this case militates Petitioner posits that it can make an appeal only after
against this conclusion. Here, the private prosecutor himself receiving a written copy of the Judgment, for “the parties
was present during the promulgation of the Judgment. This would always need a written reference or a copy [thereof 42
fact is undeniable, as petitioner itself admits his presence which] they can review or refer to from time to time.” To
in its Memorandum as follows: rule otherwise would supposedly deny them due process.
We clarify. If petitioner or its counsel had never been
“2.01 On 29 October 1999, the Trial Court promulgated its notified of the Judgment, then the period for appeal would
judgment (the ‘Judgment’) in Criminal Case No. 96-246 acquitting never have run. True, no law requires the offended party to
the accused of the crime of estafa on the ground that the attend the promulgation, much less to secure a copy of the
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond decision on that date. But fiction must yield to reality. By
reasonable doubt. The accused and her counsel as well as the mere presence, the offended party was already actually
public and private
39
prosecutors were present during such notified of the Decision of acquittal and should have taken
promulgation.” (Italics supplied) the necessary steps to ensure that a timely appeal be filed.
40 Besides, all that petitioner had to do was to file a simple
Further, private prosecutor even signed a copy of the
notice of appeal—a brief statement of its intention to
Judgment dated October 29, 1999, a signature which in
elevate the trial court’s Decision to the CA. There was no
unequivocal terms signifies notification of the party he
reason why it could not have done so within 15 days after
represents notification of the party he represents—herein
actually knowing the adverse Judgment during the
petitioner. 43
promulgation. Parties and their counsels are presumed to
Having been present during the promulgation and
be vigilant in protecting their interests and must take the
having been furnished a copy of the judgment at the time,
necessary remedies without delay and without resort to
private offended party was in effect actually notified of the
technicalities.
Judgment, and from that time already had knowledge of
the need to appeal it. Thus, the very raison d’etre of this Appeal Not Part of Due Process
Decision is already satisfied: the filing of an appeal by the
said party, only after being notified of the Judgment. As It should be stressed that the right to appeal is neither a
argued by respondent, “did not the public and private natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a
prosecutors acquire notice of Judgment at its promulgation procedural remedy of statutory origin and may be exercised
because of their presence? Notice 41of the judgment may not only in the manner prescribed
44
by the provisions of law
be defined in any other way x x x.” authorizing its exercise. Hence, its requirements must be
45
Petitioner stresses the need for service of the Judgment strictly complied with. The failure of
on the offended party. It harps on the fact that—based on
constitutional, statutory and even jurisprudential edicts— ______________
judgments must be in
42 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 7; Rollo, p. 137.
______________
43 Republic v. CA, 322 SCRA 81, January 18, 2000.
44 Oro v. Judge Diaz, G.R. No. 140974, July 11, 2001, 361 SCRA 108;
39 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 2; Rollo, p. 132. Mercury Drug Corp. v. CA, 335 SCRA 567, July 13, 2000; Ortiz v. CA, 299
40 Atty. Froilan Rocas; Records, p. 245-A. SCRA 708, December 4, 1998.
41 Respondent’s Memorandum, p. 3; Rollo, p. 124. 45 Pedrosa v. Hill, 257 SCRA 373, June 14, 1996; Del Rosario v. CA, 241
SCRA 553, February 22, 1995.
485 51 Ibid.
486
VOL. 384, JULY 11, 2002 485
Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Javier
petitioner to file a timely notice of appeal from the
Judgment, thus rendering the Judgment final and
executory, is not a denial of due process. It might have lost WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED and the
its right to appeal, but it was not denied its day in court. assailed Order AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
It would be incorrect to perceive the procedural SO ORDERED.
requirements of the rules on appeal as merely 46harmless
Puno (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio,
and trivial technicalities that can be discarded. 47Indeed,
JJ., concur.
deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated. “The
rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
appreciate. These rules are designed to facilitate the
orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an age where Note.—The right of appeal is merely a statutory
courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, these rules need to privilege and may be exercised only in the manner
be followed by appellants with greater fidelity. Their prescribed by and in accordance with the provisions of the
observance 48cannot be left to the whims and caprices of law. (Antonio vs. Commission on Elections, 315 SCRA 62
appellants.” [1999])
Neither has petitioner justified a deviation from an
otherwise stringent rule. Anyone seeking exemption from ——o0o——
the application of the reglementary period for filing an
appeal has the burden of proving the existence of
exceptionally
49
meritorious instances warranting such
deviation.
A fundamental precept is that the reglementary periods
under the Rules are to be strictly observed, for they are
indispensable interdictions against needless delay and for © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
50
an orderly discharge of judicial business. After judgment
has become final, vested rights are acquired by the winning
party. Just as the losing party has the right to file an
appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winning
party also have the correlative
51
right to enjoy the finality of
the resolution of the case. This principle becomes even
more essential in view of the fact that the criminal aspect
has already been adjudicated.
______________
46 Casim v. Flordeliza, G.R. No. 139511, January 23, 2002, 374 SCRA
386.
47 People v. Marong, 119 SCRA 430, December 27, 1982.
48 Del Rosario v. CA, supra, at p. 557, per Bidin, J.
49 Republic v. CA, supra.
50 Videogram Regulatory Board v. CA, 265 SCRA 50, November 28,
1996.

Neplum vs. Orbeso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neplum vs. Orbeso

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neplum vs. Orbeso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384 11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 384

referring to ‘judgment,’ while the word ‘notice’ should be

______________ The RTC6

“2.01 On 29 October 1999, the trial court promulgated its

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca11ce294acb92bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/22 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca11ce294acb92bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/22

472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Main Issue: counted from the promulgation of the judgment. In People

VOL. 384, JULY 11, 2002 477

“(2) Freedom of speech; and

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca11ce294acb92bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/22 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca11ce294acb92bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/22

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca11ce294acb92bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/22 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca11ce294acb92bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/22

Neplum, Inc. vs. Orbeso 484

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca11ce294acb92bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/22 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca11ce294acb92bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/22

You might also like