Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • D.1.5. People Vs Castaneda

    Uploaded by

    Rosalie Recaido
    42 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecution's petition for certiorari against a Court of Tax Appeals decision that acquitted two respondents of charges related to misdeclaring imported software. First, the petition was filed beyond the 60-day deadline and the prosecution did not provide a reasonable justification. Second, even if the deadline was suspended, the CTA's decision did not demonstrate grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process, as required to overturn an acquittal. The records showed the prosecution actively participated in trial and the CTA's resolutions followed evidentiary rules and jurisprudence.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    D.1.5. People vs Castaneda

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecution's petition for certiorari against a Court of Tax Appeals decision that acquitted two respondents of charges related to misdeclaring imported software. First, the petition was filed beyond the 60-day deadline and the prosecution did not provide a reasonable justification. Second, even if the deadline was suspended, the CTA's decision did not demonstrate grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process, as required to overturn an acquittal. The records showed the prosecution actively participated in trial and the CTA's resolutions followed evidentiary rules and jurisprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    42 views2 pages

    D.1.5. People Vs Castaneda

    Uploaded by

    Rosalie Recaido
    The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecution's petition for certiorari against a Court of Tax Appeals decision that acquitted two respondents of charges related to misdeclaring imported software. First, the petition was filed beyond the 60-day deadline and the prosecution did not provide a reasonable justification. Second, even if the deadline was suspended, the CTA's decision did not demonstrate grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process, as required to overturn an acquittal. The records showed the prosecution actively participated in trial and the CTA's resolutions followed evidentiary rules and jurisprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    208290, December 11, 2013

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE JUANITO C.


    CASTANEDA, JR., HONORABLE CAESAR A. CASANOVA, HONORABLE CIELITO
    N. MINDARO–GRULLA, AS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SPECIAL SECOND
    DIVISION, COURT OF TAX APPEALS; AND MYRNA M. GARCIA AND CUSTODIO
    MENDOZA VESTIDAS, JR., Respondents.

    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.

    Issue: A. Whether the belated filing should be allowed by the Court;


    B. Whether a judgment of acquittal in the present criminal case may correctly be
    assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65

    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.

    You might also like