ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 149505.September 19, 2001]

DOMINADOR CARAMAT vs. HON. REYES

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 19 2001.

G.R. No. 149505(Dominador Caramat vs. Hon. Amor A. Reyes, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 21, Regional Trial Court, Manila, et al.)

On complaint of the National Bureau of Investigation-Presidential Anti-Smuggling task force, petitioner Dominador Caramat, together with Efren Bautista and Diosdado Quinto, was charged with violation of �3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code.Pending appeal from the resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor with the Department of Justice, a complaint for violation of ��3601 and 3607 of the Tariff and Customs Code was filed against petitioner and his co-accused before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Manila.

In a resolution, dated November 13, 2000, the Secretary of Justice reversed and set aside the resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor and directed him to seek the amendment of the information then pending before the trial court by excluding petitioner Dominador Caramat as one of the accused in the criminal case.The Chief State Prosecutor was also directed to inform the Secretary ofJustice of his action.

For failure of the Chief State Prosecutor to cause the amendment of the information, petitioner moved for the dismissal of the case against him pending before the trial court.But his motion was denied by the trial court in its order, dated December 4, 2001, on the ground that the resolution of the Secretary of Justice reversing the findings of the Investigating Prosecutors would not, in itself, be sufficient to warrant the granting of the motion to dismiss.On February 26, 2001, the trial court denied reconsideration on the ground that the mere absence of any opposition by the prosecution does not constitute a ground for dismissing a criminal information.

On March 15, 2001, the trial court denied petitioner's motion for inhibition of Judge Amor A. Reyes for lack of factual and legal basis.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of Appeals, but the same was dismissed for failure of petitioner to attach certified true copies of the assailed orders, dated February 26, 2001 and March 15, 2000, of respondent Judge Reyes.His motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed this present petition for review on certiorari.Petitioner alleges that his failure to attach original certified true copies of the two assailed orders of the trial court was due to his counsel's inadvertence and to honest mistake.He thus seeks the benevolence of this Court over his counsel's procedural lapse.

The petition has no merit.

Rule 42, �2(d) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a petition for certiorari must be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the judgments or final orders of the Regional Trial Court, certified correct by its Clerk of Court, together with the requisite number of plain copies thereof and the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.This requirement is mandatory.The alleged negligence of this counsel binds petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE