FIRST DIVISION
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO,
AZCUNA, and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON.
JESUS G. BERSAMIRA, in his Promulgated:
capacity
as Judge of RTC, Branch
166,
OF THE
Respondents.
X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
Challenged in this petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules on Civil Procedure is the July 20, 1998 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 45954, which affirmed the May 10,
1993 Decision[2] of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 166, Pasig City, in Criminal Case No. 87229
convicting petitioner of Theft under Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC).
On
The
undersigned State Prosecutor accuses Orlando Apostol y Lim alias “Orlan” and America Floro y Ferma alias “Ameer” of the
crime of Qualified Theft, committed as follows:
That
[on] or about the period from June 7 to June 8, 1991, in the Municipality of
San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, to wit: Orlando Apostol y Lim being then employed as
driver and America Floro being then employed as stay-in, conspiring and
confederating together with Juanito Abanto alias Juan being then employed as
houseboy and Emma Oliva alias Baby, at-large, being then employed as housemaid
of Avelina Floro y Cabrera,
and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, and as such being
trusted persons and having trust and confidence reposed upon them by their
employer, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the
owner thereof, with abuse of confidence, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the following items:
Cash money P 40,000.00
$1,700.00 U.S. Dollars or its equivalent
Philippine currency 47,090.00
One (1) set colored
stones (diamonds) 120,000.00
One (1) set pearly
bagets (diamonds) 100,000.00
Two (2) pcs.
Tiffany ring (diamonds) 50,000.00
One (1) ring
emerald cut (diamonds) 45,000.00
One (1) set gold
pendant & bracelet 45,000.00
One (1) dangling
perfect earring with
diamond stones 80,000.00
One (1) diamond
grape earrings 70,000.00
One (1) men’s ring
domino princes 70,000.00
One (1) men’s gold
ring 15,000.00
One (1) set
earrings princess cut with baget 100,000.00
One (1) solid gold
bracelet for lady 35,000.00
One [1] solo
[T]ifanny ring 3K 210,000.00
One (1) maquez ring
4K 250,000.00
One (1) set pearl
with one green emerald 25,000.00
One (1) [cocktail]
ring plenty of stones 35,000.00
One (1) small pack
of loose diamond stones 400,000.00
One (1) gold chain
bracelet for men 20,000.00
One (1) gold
necklace with gold pendant 6,000.00
Two (2) pieces of
small solid gold earrings 5,000.00
One (1) men’s gold
bracelet 7,000.00
Two (2) pieces
earrings oreolla 5,000.00
all in the total
amount of P1,780,090.00 belonging to Avelina Floro y Cabrera, to the damage and
prejudice of the said owner thereof in the aforementioned amount of P1,780,090.00.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.[3]
Subsequently, Apostol and Floro
posted bail and were granted provisional liberty.[4]
During the arraignment on
Upon Apostol’s motion, however, the
warrant of arrest was lifted.[7] On
Trial ensued after an Amended
Information was filed, formally including from the title of the criminal action
Juanito Abanto and Emma Oliva, who are still at-large.[9]
The prosecution presented testimonial
and documentary evidence. On the part of
the defense, only Floro argued her case.
Apostol attended the hearings for the presentation of prosecution
evidence on
The trial court promulgated its
Decision[11] on
WHEREFORE,
the court finds accused Orlando Apostol [y]
Lim @ Orlan guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the
crime of theft and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
Twelve (12) years of Prision Mayor, as minimum[,] to Twenty (20) years of
Reclusion Temporal, as maximum[,] and indemnify Avelina Floro the sum of US
$1,700.00, or its equivalent in pesos, and P34,000.00, plus the costs of
suit.
On
the ground of reasonable doubt, accused America Floro y Ferma is acquitted of the crime charged in the
information.
SO
ORDERED.[12]
On
On November 4, 1997, Apostol filed an
Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment[14] with
Entry of Appearance[15]
of his new counsel, Atty. Gilbert M. Fabella, alleging that his conviction
based on trial in absentia unjustifiably violated his constitutionally
protected right to due process. Apostol
contended that he was not duly notified of the trial dates and, consequently,
failed to cross-examine the witnesses and present controverting evidence
because Atty. Salatandre, aside from not appearing in any of the scheduled
hearings, grossly neglected to inform the court that he (Apostol) had already
transferred residence.
The prosecution interposed no
opposition to the motion but the trial court denied the same. It held:
Accused’s
motion is untenable. The record shows that:
1. On
2.
On
3.
On January 23 and
4.
On
5.
On
6.
On
7.
On
8.
On
9.
On
10. On
11. Apostol had remained at large until he was arrested by the police on
12. The court has already committed Apostol to the Bureau of Corrections,
Clearly,
[every time] there was a hearing[,] accused Apostol was either personally
notified or a subpoena sent to him at his given address. Apostol’s failure to
appear, despite subpoena sent to him at his given address, was due to his own
fault because he went into hiding and remained at large until his apprehension.[16]
Apostol then filed a Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition with Prayer for the Immediate Issuance of a Preliminary
Injunction and/or Restraining Order[17] before
the Court of Appeals, claiming that the trial court acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in rendering a decision that
defeats his constitutional rights, to wit: (a) the right to be duly notified in
case of trial in absentia, with
the consequent rights to meet the witnesses face to face and to secure their
attendance and the production of evidence in his behalf; and (b) the right to
bail.
On
It
has been held that one who jumps bail can never offer a justifiable reason for
his non-appearance during the trial. Accordingly, after trial in absentia,
the court can render judgment in the case and promulgation may be made by
simply recording the judgment in the criminal docket with a copy thereof served
upon his counsel, provided that the notice requiring him to be present at the
promulgation is served through his bondsmen or warden and counsel.[20]
Through a new counsel, Escano and Partners
Law Offices, Apostol moved for reconsideration of the Decision, hinging
primarily on the alleged negligence and irresponsibility of Atty. Salatandre
which violated his constitutional and statutory rights.[21] The motion was denied.[22]
Hence, this petition.
Incidentally, however, following this
Court’s resolution to give due course to the petition and to require the
parties to submit their respective memoranda, which order was timely complied
with, Apostol, assisted by Paralegal Officer Angelito A. Salumbides, Jr., filed
a Notice of Withdrawal of Appeal on
Before this Court, Apostol argues
that:
1.
The
instant petition for certiorari is timely and proper;
2.
The
negligence and irresponsibility of Atty. Salatandre violated his human rights;
3.
The
trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it admitted in evidence
“the fruits” of his illegal arrest; and
4.
His
guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.[24]
Apostol expressly states that he
could no longer appeal his case when the judgment of the trial court became
final in 1997 and that neither does he have any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy available; hence, certiorari is proper in the instant case.
According to him, due consideration
must be given on the issue that it was the inexcusable and unjustified
negligence and the irresponsible acts of Atty. Salatandre which led to the
gross violation of his constitutional rights as an accused. Being a layman who is unaware of legal
technicalities, he said to have relied on his counsel’s constant assurance that
everything would be taken care of and that there would be no need to attend the
proceedings as he would just be informed of the developments of the case. It turned out, however, that despite the
knowledge of his change of address, Atty. Salatandre did not relay the matter
to the trial court. In addition, Apostol
claims that he was totally abandoned by his counsel, who purportedly did not
inform him that he was no longer interested in representing his cause. He, therefore, urges this Court that his case
should be an exception to the rule that clients are bound by the mistakes of
their counsels since his right to a fair trial would be prejudiced and that his
liberty would be deprived by mere technicality.
While Apostol acknowledges that a
number of counsel de oficio were appointed during the hearing dates when
neither he nor his counsel attended, he maintains that they had no ample
opportunity to exhaustively study his case, not to mention the lack of
continuity in handling it so as to ensure familiarity therewith. Worse, Apostol argues, was the trial court’s
haste to cause his conviction, as it did not exert efforts to ascertain the
reason for his or his counsel’s continued absence, to show that the notices
were indeed received, or even to sanction his counsel for negligence.
It is further contended that Apostol
was arrested without a valid warrant of arrest as his case does not fall under
Section 5, Rule 113 of the old Rules on Criminal Procedure which authorized
valid warrantless arrest. As the crime
happened on
Purportedly based on records, Apostol
also maintains that he was not accorded the rights of an accused during
custodial investigation, as expressly mandated in the 1987 Constitution and
Republic Act No. 7438. Particularly, he
notes that prosecution witness Efren Hilao of the San Juan Police admitted during
his cross-examination that he (Apostol) was not informed of his rights to
remain silent and to have an independent and competent counsel of his choice. Thus, conformably with Section 12, Article
III of the Constitution, any confession or admission obtained is inadmissible
in evidence against him.
Moreover, Apostol stresses that the
trial court erred in relying on the testimonies of Avelina Floro, Jerome Floro,
Florante Vera and Efren Hilao since all of them testified on matters not of
their own personal knowledge, hence, hearsay.
He likewise asserts that being “a person not in possession of the full
intellect of a person her age,” his co-accused, Floro, was merely coached to
absolve her and pin down Apostol. Her
susceptibility to influence and the inconsistencies in her statements are, for
Apostol, enough reasons not to give much weight on her testimonies.
Lastly, Apostol remarks that if
flight is indeed an indication of guilt, the trial court should have acquitted
him of the crime charged. He emphasizes
that despite having the opportunity to flee on his scheduled day-off at the
time, he did not leave the house of private complainant unlike Floro, Juanito
Abanto and Emma Oliva, who all immediately fled therefrom.
The petition is denied. The reglementary period within which to file
an appeal, which should have been the proper legal recourse of Apostol, had
already expired.
A basic requisite of the special
civil action of certiorari, which is governed by Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure, is that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari cannot
be used as a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of appeal.[25]
As this Court held:
x x
x [A] petition for certiorari cannot be a substitute for an appeal from a lower
court decision. Where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the action
for certiorari will not be entertained. The remedies of appeal (including
petitions for review) and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or
successive. Hence, certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal,
especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy
occasioned such loss or lapse. One of the requisites of certiorari is that
there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy. Where an
appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground [therefor]
is grave abuse of discretion.
As certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal, time and again, we have emphasized that the perfection of appeals in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and that the failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision of the trial court final and executory. This rule is founded upon the principle that the right to appeal is not part of due process of law but is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. Neither can petitioner invoke the doctrine that rules of technicality must yield to the broader interest of substantial justice. While every litigant must be given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from constraints of technicalities, the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. It raises a jurisdictional problem as it deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal.[26]
There is no compelling reason to
relax the rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client,[27]
particularly because petitioner is not entirely blameless.
Apostol wants this Court to believe
that he went on with his life in view of Atty. Salatandre’s convincing
assurance: he worked with his father as a subcontractor of the Floros and later
as a real estate agent, which resulted to his transfer of residence, and that,
as the number of years passed (1992 to 1997), he presumed that the case had already
been dismissed since he had seen the Floros in some social gatherings without
them mentioning anything about it. He
was, thus, shocked upon his arrest that he tried to get in touch with Atty. Salatandre whom
he could no longer locate.[28]
The lame justifications do not
persuade. This Court cannot make a
conclusive finding that there was excusable negligence on the part of Atty.
Salatandre which prejudiced Apostol’s right to appeal his conviction. To do so would be speculative.
What is obvious is that Apostol was
negligent in not exercising due diligence to keep himself updated of the
developments of his pending criminal case.
That Atty. Salatandre had not communicated for a long period of time and
that the trial court suddenly stopped furnishing any notice of hearing should
have alarmed him that something is amiss with the case. By that time, Apostol himself should have
initiated moves to locate the whereabouts of Atty. Salatandre or should have
gone to court and inquire on the progress of his case. Yet he did not. It is commonsensical that he should have
taken an active role considering that the criminal action would imperil his
much valued liberty.
While this Court has recognized that a
non-lawyer litigant is not expected to be familiar with the intricacies of the
legal procedures,[29] a
layman nonetheless must not be allowed to conveniently profit from his
improvident mistakes. Thus, it has been equally
stressed that litigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they
need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of the case;[30] instead,
they should give the necessary assistance to their counsel for what is at stake
is ultimately their interest.[31]
Considering the foregoing, it would
be unnecessary to proceed any further on the factual issues raised in this
petition. As a legal recourse, the
special civil action of certiorari is a limited form of review.[32] The jurisdiction of this Court is narrow in
scope; it is restricted to resolving errors of jurisdiction, not errors of
judgment.[33] Indeed, as long as the courts below act within
their jurisdiction, alleged errors committed in the exercise of their
discretion will amount to mere errors of judgment correctable by an appeal or a
petition for review.[34]
WHEREFORE, the
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Corona Ibay-Somera, with Associate Justices Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and Martin S. Villarama, Jr., concurring.
[2] Penned by Judge Jesus G. Bersamira.
[3] Records, pp. 1-2.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] CA rollo, pp. 1-18.
[18]
[19] G.R. Nos. 103604-05,
[20] CA rollo, pp. 84-85.
[21]
[22]
[23] Rollo,
p. 390.
[24]
[25] See Tolentino v. People, G.R.
No. 170396, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 721, 724; Villanueva v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 167726, July 20, 2006, 495 SCRA 824, 833; and Suyat,
Jr. v. Torres, G.R. No. 133530,
[26] David v. Cordova, G.R. No.
152992,
[27] See Friend v. Union Bank of the
[28] Rollo, pp. 10, 323.
[29] See Hilario v. People, G.R. No. 161070,
[30] Friend v. Union Bank of the
Philippines, supra note 27 at 459.
[31] See Dissenting Opinion of Justice Panganiban in Marcos v. Sandiganbayan (357 Phil. 762, 836 [1998]).
[32] See Almuete v. Andres, 421
Phil. 522, 531 (2001).
[33] See Tolentino v. People, G.R.
No. 170396, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 721, 724 and Suyat, Jr. v. Torres,
G.R. No. 133530, October 25, 2004, 441 SCRA 265, 274-275.
[34]