December 2006 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 147832 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DANILO P. GABRIEL
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 147832 : December 6, 2006]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. DANILO P. GABRIEL, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Resolution1 of the Court of Appeals (Special Third Division) dated April 10, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 63552.
In two (2) separate Informations dated January 16, 1999, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Olongapo City charged Danilo P. Gabriel, respondent, with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The first Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 27-99, reads:
That on or about the fifteenth (15th) day of January 1999, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being lawfully authorized, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another person Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as "Shabu", which is a regulated drug, approximately weighing Four Grams and Eight Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Five Ten Thousandths (4.8535) of a gram.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The other Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 28-99, is quoted as follows:
That on or about the fifteen (15th) day of January 1999, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his person, possession and control Sixty-two Grams and Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety One Ten Thousandths (62.9791) of a gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as "Shabu", which is a regulated drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Both cases were raffled off and consolidated in Branch 74 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Olongapo City, then presided by Judge Fatima G. Asdala. Assistant City Prosecutor Roel G. Samonte was assigned to prosecute the cases.
On July 19, 2000, Judge Asdala wrote the Office of the City Prosecutor of Olongapo City asking for the immediate relief of Assistant City Prosecutor Samonte for his "poor performance which has disrupted and adversely affected the smooth and orderly proceedings in the criminal cases." She requested that Prosecutor Raymond C. Viray be assigned to prosecute the cases.
On July 20, 2000, Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Armando C. Velasco of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Olongapo City issued Memorandum No. 45, Series 2000 relieving Assistant City Prosecutor Samonte as trial prosecutor of Branch 74.
On July 26, 2000, when Criminal Cases Nos. 27-99 and 28-99 were called for hearing, Judge Asdala ordered the provisional dismissal of the cases for failure to prosecute as no prosecutor appeared.
On August 8, 2000, OIC Velasco issued Memorandum Order No. 53, Series 2000 designating Assistant City Prosecutor Ildefonso F. Recitis as prosecutor of Branch 74.
On August 17, 2000, Assistant City Prosecutor Samonte filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated July 26, 2000 dismissing the cases. He alleged that the Office of the City Prosecutor of Olongapo City could not assign Prosecutor Viray to Branch 74 since he is the prosecutor in a Family Court; and that Assistant City Prosecutor Recitis, having been assigned to Branch 74 effective August 17, 2000, can now prosecute the cases.
On November 9, 2000, Judge Reynaldo V. Roura, the pairing judge of Judge Asdala in Branch 74, denied the motion for reconsideration.
On January 3, 2001, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) received a letter dated November 24, 2000 from the Office of the City Prosecutor, Olongapo City, recommending the filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals in order to challenge the RTC Order dated November 9, 2000 dismissing the cases.
On March 5, 2001, the OSG filed with the Court of Appeals the corresponding petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 63552.
On April 10, 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that it was "time-barred." It held that the 60-day period within which to file the petition should be counted from November 22, 2000, the date the Office of the City Prosecutor of Olongapo City received a copy of the assailed Order, not from January 3, 2001, the date of receipt by the OSG of the same Order.
The only issue for our determination is whether the filing by the OSG of the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals is within the reglementary period.
Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, reads in part:
SEC. 4. When and where petition filed. - The petition (for certiorari ) may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
x x x
In criminal actions brought before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the State is solely vested in the OSG. This is pursuant to Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987, as amended, providing that the OSG shall represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings. In People v. Eduarte,2 People v. Nano,3 and People v. Mendoza,4 we ruled that "only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the People of the Philippines once such actions are brought before the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court."
Under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, "All criminal actions, either commenced by complaint or by information, shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor." The rule is that when a party is represented by counsel in an action in court, notices of all kinds, including motions, pleadings, and orders must be served on said counsel and notice to him is notice to the client.5 The RTC sent a copy of its Order dated November 9, 2000 to the Olongapo City Prosecutor who received it on November 22, 2000. Perforce, it follows that the running of the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari must commence from that date, not from January 3, 2001, as claimed by the Solicitor General.
It appears that the Olongapo City Prosecutor did not act with dispatch in sending the questioned Order to the OSG. He received it on November 22, 2000. But it was only on January 3, 2001, or after 41 days, when the OSG received the same. In turn, the latter filed with the Court of Appeals the petition only on March 5, 2001, or after 43 days. Clearly, a total of 84 days had elapsed from receipt of the challenged Order by the Olongapo City Prosecutor before the Solicitor General filed the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
In Yutingco v. Court of Appeals,6 we explained that the 60-day period was set "to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their cases" and for this reason, "ought to be considered inextendible."
Thus, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari for having been filed late.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and we AFFIRM the Resolution of the Court of Appeals (Special Third Division) dated April 10, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 63552. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, J., Chairperson, Corona, Azcuna, and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 7-8. Penned by Associate Justice Hilarion L. Aquino (retired), with Associate Justice Maria Alicia Austria-Martinez (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, concurring.
2 G.R. No. 88232, February 26, 1990, 182 SCRA 750.
3 G.R. No. 94639, January 13, 1992, 205 SCRA 155.
4 G.R. No. 80845, March 14, 1994, 231 SCRA 264.
5 GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v. Principe, G.R. No. 141484, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 555, 565, citing Balgani v. Court of Appeals, 445 SCRA 591 (2004).
6 G.R. No. 137264, August 1, 2002, 386 SCRA 85.
