Professional Documents
Culture Documents
D.1.5. People Vs Castaneda
D.1.5. People Vs Castaneda
PER CURIAM
Facts: Myrna M. Garcia (Garcia) and Custodio Mendoza Vestidas, Jr. (Vestidas Jr.) as
owner/proprietress and broker of Plinth Enterprise respectively, were charged for violation of
Section 36023 in relation to Sections 2503 and 2530 (f) (i) and 1, (3) (4) and (5) of the Tariff and
Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended, for importing 858 cartons of 17,160 pieces of Anti-
Virus Software Kaspersky Internet Security Premium 2012, with the CTA. They pleaded "Not
Guilty".
Petitioner’s contention: filed their Omnibus Motion to File Demurrer to Evidence, claiming that
the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the following reasons:
a) The pieces of documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution were inadmissible in court;
b) The object evidence consisting of the allegedly misdeclared goods were not presented as
evidence; and
c) None of the witnesses for the prosecution made a positive identification of the two accused as
the ones responsible for the supposed misdeclaration.which the CTA granted ( CTA dismissed
the case).
Respondent’s contention: Prosecution filed its motion for reconsideration which the CTA denied.
Prosecution filed petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, more than 60 days from receipt
of the decision.
Ruling: A. No, Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit in stating
that certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment,
order or resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any
unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of
their case. While there are recognized exceptions to such strict observance, there should be an
effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation
for his/her failure to comply with the rules.
In the case at bench, no convincing justification for the belated filing of the petition was advanced
to warrant the relaxation of the Rules [reason of the late filing: petitioner’s failure to monitor
incoming court processes]. Even the error committed by the RATS in filing a motion for
reconsideration with the CTA displays gross ignorance as to the effects of an acquittal in a
criminal case and the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.
B. No, in any case, even if the Court decides to suspend the rules and permit this recourse,
the end result would remain the same. While a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be
assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, it must be shown that
there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of
due process. In this case, a perusal of the challenged resolutions of the CTA does not disclose any
indication of grave abuse of discretion on its part or denial of due process. The records are replete
with indicators that the petitioner actively participated during the trial and, in fact, presented
its offer of evidence and opposed the demurrer. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the
power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. Here,
the subject resolutions of the CTA have been issued in accordance with the rules on evidence and
existing jurisprudence.