Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pobre vs. CA
Pobre vs. CA
Same; Same; Pleadings and Practice; A petition for review 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
under Rule 45, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, is the
Pobre vs. Court of Appeals
proper remedy in assailing final dispositions of a case before the
Court of Appeals.—The Court also notes that petitioner filed a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of stage of the trial, a grant thereof can be questioned any time and
Court, instead of a petition for review under Rule 45. A petition without regard to the period of filing provided by the Rules of
for review under Rule 45 is the proper remedy in assailing the CA Court.
Resolutions dated December 22, 1998 and dated September 7,
Same; Certiorari; Pleadings and Practice; Interlocutory statute, should be retroactively applied.—Strictly speaking, the
Orders; Words and Phrases; An order granting bail is an CA did not err in dismissing the special civil action for certiorari
interlocutory order; The word “interlocutory” refers to something for having been filed out of time. At the time the CA dismissed the
intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit petition filed before it on December 22, 1998, Section 4, Rule 65,
which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of of the Rules of Court, as amended by Circular No. 39-98, provides
the whole controversy; The 60-day period within which to file a that the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari shall be
special civil action for certiorari was specifically set to avoid any interrupted by the filing of a motion for reconsideration or new
unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of trial. In the event that the motion is denied, the petitioner had
parties to a speedy disposition of their cases.—An order granting only the remaining period within which to file the petition.
bail is an interlocutory order. The word interlocutory refers to However, with the issuance of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC on September
something intervening between the commencement and the end of 1, 2000, amending Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to wit: “SEC. 4.
a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final When and where petition filed.—The petition shall be filed not
decision of the whole controversy. In that sense, it does not attain later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or
finality since there leaves something else to be done by the trial resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is
court with respect to the merits of the case. If and when the trial timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60)
court issued such interlocutory order without or in excess of day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and when the motion. The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it
assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, then a special relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation,
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as board or officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
amended, can be considered an appropriate remedy to assail the jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
same. However, Rule 65, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, as Court. In may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not
amended, prescribes a period of 60 days within which to file a the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the
special civil action for certiorari. The 60-day period was Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it
specifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate involves the acts or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be
case. Such right to a speedy disposition of the case pertains not filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. No extension
only to a private complainant in a criminal case, but to an accused of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling
as well. While the periods set by law are technical rules of reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days.” The petition
procedure, these are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. filed before the CA should now be considered as timely filed. In
These are provided to effect the proper and orderly disposition of PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Emily Rose Go Ko, the Court,
cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets. citing Narzoles vs. NLRC, ruled that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, being a
Rules of procedure, especially those prescribing the time within curative statute should be retroactively applied.
which certain acts must be done, have oft been held as absolutely
PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the
indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the
Court of Appeals.
orderly and speedy discharge of business. The reason for rules of
this nature is because the dispatch of business by courts would be The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
impossible, and intolerable delays would result, without rules Crispin P. Perez, Jr. for respondent Ovalles.
governing practice. Such rules are a necessary incident to the The Solicitor General for the People.
proper, efficient and orderly discharge of judicial functions.
54
53
In an Information dated May 8, 1998, private respondent scheduled hearing, Atty. Mario G. Aglipay filed his entry of
Andrew Ovalles was charged before the Regional Trial appearance for private complainant Genevieve C. Pobre,
Court of San Jose (Branch 46), Occidental Mindoro, with the victim’s sister (herein petitioner). Atty. Aglipay prayed
the crime of Parricide, committed as follows: that he be given ten days within which to file his opposition
to the motions, and that the hearing be re-set to July 10,
“That on or about the 18th day of October, 1997, at around 1:46 1998. Judge Pagayatan, however, pushed through with the
o’clock in the morning, in Barangay Pag-asa, San Jose, Occidental hearing on June 26, 1998 and treated private respondent’s
Mindoro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this motions as one to fix bail. During the hearing, Fiscal
Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there Salcedo informed the court that Atty. Aglipay was not able
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill and with to come to the hearing because he was left by the boat
abuse of superior strength and in the course of their quarrel, did going to Mindoro, and that Atty. Aglipay was asking that
then and there pushed Alma Casaclang-Ovalles, his legitimate the hearing be re-set to Friday. Counsel for the defense,
spouse, causing her to fall, her head hitting the hard floor and however, stated that it is the government prosecutor who
thereby inflicting upon her fatal injury, rendering her controls the prosecution of the case. Judge Pagayatan then
unconscious which caused her1
death shortly thereafter. asked Fiscal Salcedo if he was willing to submit the
“CONTRARY TO LAW.” motions for resolution, to which the latter acceded. The
motions were then considered submitted for resolution. On
Assistant Prosecutor Levitico F. Salcedo recommended bail
the same day, private respondent posted a property bond.
in the amount of P200,000.00, but a copy of the Information
It was on June 29, 1998, that Judge Pagayatan issued
attached to the records of this case shows a cancellation of
an order granting private respondent’s9 motion to fix bail,
the amount and the words “no bail” were annotated
2
with the amount fixed at P40,000.00. Judge Pagayatan
therein. Judge Ernesto F. Pagayatan issued an order of
also issued an order on the same day approving private
arrest on May 15, 1998, with the recommended bail of 10
respondent’s property bond.
P200,000.00 likewise canceled and “no bail” written
3
On July 10, 1998, private respondent was arraigned and
thereon. When the warrant was returned unserved, Judge4 11
pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
Pagayatan issued an alias order of arrest on June 3, 1998.
Private respondent was arrested in Quezon City on June 8,
1998, and committed to the Municipal Jail of San Jose, _______________
5
Occidental Mindoro on the same day. 6 Id., p. 27.
7 Id., pp. 37-40.
_______________ 8 Id., p. 43.
1 Records, p. 1.
9 Id., pp. 55-58.
2 Id., p. 2.
10 Id., p. 59.
3 Id., p. 21.
11 Id., p. 71.
4 Id., p. 25.
56
5 Id., p. 26.
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and dismissed the petition per its Resolution dated December
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assaulted with intent 22, 1998, to wit:
to kill and inflicted fatal head and brain injury upon her 18
legitimate spouse, Alma Casaclang-Ovalles, causing her death Petition for review having been filed late, the appeal
19
is deemed
shortly thereafter on October 18 1997 at around 1:46 o’clock in the ABANDONED and hereby ordered DISMISSED.
morning or thereabout. 14
20
“CONTRARY TO LAW.” A motion for reconsideration was filed but the CA denied
it in its Resolution dated February 7, 212000 for the reason
Petitioner contends that the previous Information, which that the petition was filed 83 days late.
states in part: Thereafter, petitioner filed the present petition for
certiorari, arguing that:
. . . with intent to kill and with abuse of superior strength and in
the course of their quarrel, did then and there pushed Alma
_______________
Casaclang-Ovalles, his legitimate spouse, causing her to fall, her
head hitting the hard floor and thereby inflicting upon her fatal 15 Id., p. 116.
injury, rendering her unconscious which caused her death shortly 16 Id., p. 103.
thereafter. 17 Per Associate Justice Jesus M. Elbinias, with Associate Justices
Eugenio S. Labitoria and Marina L. Buzon, concurring.
limits the prosecution in presenting evidence that will
18 Should be petition for certiorari.
prove that private respondent had intent to kill his wife by
19 CA Rollo, p. 76.
pushing her.
20 Per Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, with Associate Justices
Hearing on the motion was held on August 28, 1998.
Marina L. Buzon and Candido V. Rivera, concurring.
21 Id., pp. 132-133.
_______________
58
12 Id., p. 74.
13 Id., pp. 74-88.
14 Rollo, p. 24. 58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Pobre vs. Court of Appeals
57
I
VOL. 463, JULY 8, 2005 57
THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION SEEKING THE
Pobre vs. Court of Appeals
ANNULMENT OF THE ORDER ADMITTING THE ACCUSED
ON BAIL IS A LEGAL ERROR IN THAT THE PETITION IS
On September 28, 1998, Judge Pagayatan issued an order NOT SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE REGLAMENTARY (sic)
granting the motion to inhibit and ordering the raffle of the PERIOD CONSIDERING THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT
case to the other sala of the court, but the motion to set 15 ENTITLED TO BAIL “REGARDLESS OF THE STAGE OF THE
aside the Order dated June 29, 1998 was denied. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.”
Consequently, the case was raffled to Branch 45 of the
Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. II
However, during the hearing on November 26, 1998,
proceedings were temporarily deferred due to the THE ENTIRE RECORD SHOWS THAT THERE IS A GREAT
impending retirement of the judge assigned to Branch 45 in PRESUMPTION THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE
59
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 463, JULY 8, 2005 59 Pobre vs. Court of Appeals
Pobre vs. Court of Appeals
that it is the allegations in the complaint or petition and
the character of the relief sought that determine the nature
(NBI) Calapan District Office informed the Court that 27
of an action.
private respondent’s counsel, Atty. Crispin P. Perez,
Petitioner argues that the CA erred in dismissing her
voluntarily surrendered at the NBI Calapan District Office
petition for certiorari on the ground that it was filed out of
on May 24, 2005. Atty. Perez likewise filed a Memorandum
time. She believes that the filing thereof is not subject to
for private respondent via courier on May 27, 2005,
the period prescribed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
together with a postal money order for P4,000.00,
because of Rule 114, Sec. 7 thereof, which states: “(N)o
representing the fine imposed on him.
person charged with the capital offense, or an offense
Initially, the Court recognizes the legal standing of
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
herein petitioner as she is the victim’s sister. In Narcisco
24 shall be admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is
vs. Romana-Cruz, involving the crime of parricide, the
strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.”
Court sustained the legal standing of the sister of the
According to petitioner, a null and void order granting bail
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/15
11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463 11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463
cannot reach finality any time during the stage of the procedure, these are not designed to frustrate the ends of
criminal prosecution and may be questioned on appeal or justice. These are provided to effect the proper and orderly
petition28 for review even if filed beyond the reglementary disposition of cases and34 thus effectively prevent the
period. clogging of court dockets. Rules of procedure, especially
The Court cannot sustain petitioner’s argument. It is those prescribing the time within which certain acts must
true that under Rule 114, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Court, an be done, have oft been held as absolutely indispensable to
accused charged with a capital offense is not entitled to bail the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and
at any time during trial when the evidence of guilt is speedy discharge of business. The reason for rules of this
strong. It does not mean however that since the accused is nature is because the dispatch of business by courts would
not entitled to bail at any stage of the trial, a grant thereof be impossible, and intolerable delays would result, without
can be questioned any time and without regard to the rules governing practice. Such rules are a necessary
period of filing provided by the Rules of Court. incident to the proper,
35
efficient and orderly discharge of
An order granting bail is an interlocutory order. The judicial functions.
word interlocutory refers to something intervening between
the commencement and the end of a suit which decides _______________
some point or 29
matter but is not a final decision of the whole
controversy. In that sense, it does not attain finality since 30 Heirs of Hinog vs. Melicor, G.R. No. 140954, April 12, 2005, 455
there leaves something else to be done by the trial court SCRA 460.
with respect to the merits of the case. If and when the trial 31 Yutingco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137264, August 1, 2002, 386
court SCRA 85, 92.
32 Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution.
_______________
33 Article III, Section 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution.
34 Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141947, July 5, 2001, 360
27 Supra., Oaminal case. SCRA 521, 528.
28 Rollo, p. 17. 35 Lazaro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137761, April 6, 2000, 330
29 Ramiscal, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 140576-99, December SCRA 208, 214.
13, 2004, 446 SCRA 166, 177.
62
61
that the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari There is a need, therefore, to remand the case to the CA
shall be interrupted by the filing of a motion for for disposition of the issues raised by petitioner, which
reconsideration or new trial. In the event that the motion is were not resolved by it, namely: the propriety of the grant
denied, the petitioner had only the remaining period within of bail; the propriety of amending the Information; and the
which to file the petition. alleged nullity of the proceedings before the trial court due
38
However, with the issuance of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC on to the “manifest partiality” in favor of private respondent.
September 1, 2000, amending Rule 65 of the Rules of WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals
Court, to wit: dated December 22, 1998 and February 7, 2000 in CA-G.R.
SP No. 49878 are hereby SET ASIDE. The case is
“SEC. 4. When and where petition filed.—The petition shall be REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further
filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, proceedings on matters indicated in the text of this
order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new decision.
trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the SO ORDERED.
sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of
said motion. Puno (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., Tinga and Chico-
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates Nazario, JJ., concur.
to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board
or officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
_______________
jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
Court. In may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not 36 G.R. No. 148641, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 586.
the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the 37 G.R. No. 141959, September 29, 2000, 341 SCRA 533.
Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it 38 CA Rollo, pp. 11-18.
involves the acts or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
64
otherwise provided by law or these
63
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Court of
VOL. 463, JULY 8, 2005 63 Appeals
Pobre vs. Court of Appeals
Resolutions set aside, case remanded to Court of Appeals for
rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the further proceedings.
Court of Appeals.
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except Notes.—The word “homicide” used in the special
for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days.” complex crime of Robbery with Homicide is to be
understood in the generic sense as to include murder and
the petition filed before the CA should now be considered parricide. (People vs. Manalang, 170 SCRA 149 [1989])
as timely filed.
36
In PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs.37 Emily Abuse of superior strength cannot be considered by the
Rose Go Ko, the Court, citing Narzoles vs. NLRC, ruled mere fact that the husband is stronger than the wife.
that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, being a curative statute should (People vs. Peralta, 237 SCRA 218 [1994])
be retroactively applied.
The Omnibus Motion filed by Atty. Aglipay contesting ——o0o——
the grant of bail, is, in effect, a motion for reconsideration
of the June 29, 1998 order of Judge Pagayatan. This was
denied by the trial court per Order dated September 28,
1998. Petitioner received a copy thereof on October 12,
1998. Taking into account A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, the
petition filed on December 11, 1998, or on the 60th day
should then be considered filed on time. © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0d77eea18a97dd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15