Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > January 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-29729 January 31, 1969 - DEMETRIO JAUGAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-29729. January 31, 1969.]

DEMETRIO JAUGAN, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; APPEAL BY CERTIORARI PROM THE COURT OF APPEALS TO THE SUPREME COURT; PERIOD THEREFOR NOT SUSPENDED BY A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. — A motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and/or new trial does not suspend the running of the period of fifteen days within which to appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals as provided for in Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Consequently, petitioner’s motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration is denied for the reason that the period provided for in Section 1, Rule 45, had long expired.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


The matter before the Court is a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration which, in truth, is already a motion for reconsideration because it prays "that the two resolutions of this Honorable Court dated November 5 and December 2, 1968 be corrected and that the petition for certiorari be given due course."cralaw virtua1aw library

On October 29, 1968 petitioner filed a petition for the review, by way of certiorari, of the decision of the Court of Appeals in G.R. No. CA-02912-CR finding him guilty of homicide, with two aggravating circumstances and one mitigating circumstance, and sentencing him accordingly, and praying, as a consequence, that said case "be ordered re-opened and that a new trial be granted with the end in view of allowing the introduction of Annexes A, B and C, as evidence, so that they could be considered by the court before rendering a final judgment on the merits of the criminal case." By our resolution of November 5, 1968. We denied said petition "for being late." Petitioner’s counsel received notice of this resolution by registered mail on November 11, 1968 Ten (10) days thereafter, or more specifically, on November 21 he filed a motion for reconsideration which we denied in our resolution of December 2, both dates of the year 1968. Petitioner received notice of this last resolution on December 6,1968. Eleven (11) days thereafter, or on December 17, 1968 he filed the motion for leave etc. under consideration.

Under Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, the motion for leave etc. was filed out of time.

On the question of whether or not the petition for certiorari was filed on time, the record shows the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Petitioner received notice of the decision of the Court of Appeals on June 20, 1968. Therefore, the fifteen-day period for the filing of a petition for certiorari by way of appeal to the Supreme Court, or for the filing of a motion for rehearing was to expire on July 5, 1968. As petitioner was granted by the Court of Appeals thirty days extension for the filing of a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial, the period therefore to appeal by certiorari was extended up to August 4, 1968. He filed his motion for reconsideration and/or new trial on July 23, 1968 — admittedly within the extended period.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and/or new trial mentioned above was denied by the Court of Appeals in its resolution of August 6, 1968, notice of which was received by petitioner on August 22, 1968. Consequently, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, he had fifteen days from August 23, 1968 (inclusive) within which to appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals. Said period expired on September 6, 1968.

On August 23, 1968 petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals again a motion for permission to file a second motion for reconsideration and/or new trial, which said Court denied in its resolution of September 3, 1968, notice of which was received by petitioner either on the 10th or 11th of September of the same year.

The abovementioned motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and/or new trial — contrary to the belief apparently entertained by petitioner’s counsel — did not suspend the running of the period of fifteen days provided for in Section 1 of Rule 45. Neither, of course, did the subsequent motions for reconsideration filed by him. Consequently, when he filed his petition for certiorari with Us on October 29, 1968, the period provided for in Section 1, Rule 45, had long expired. This is the reason why We denied the same in our resolution of November 5, 1968.

WHEREFORE, petitioner’s motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration dated December 16, 1968 is hereby denied.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano and Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., did not take part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 554 January 3, 1969 - BRIGIDO TOQUIB v. VALERIANO TOMOL, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-24266 January 24, 1969 - AMPARO D. SANTOS v. ANGEL H. MOJICA, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26556 January 24, 1969 - MARIA REYES DE TOLENTINO v. GODOFREDO ESCALONA

  • G.R. No. L-18841 January 27, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-20143 January 27, 1969 - PHIL. AMERICAN EMBROIDERIES, INC. v. EMBROIDERY & GARMENT WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-26093 January 27, 1969 - VIRGINIA L. DE CASTRO v. PIO MARCOS

  • G.R. No. L-26170 January 27, 1969 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. SUSANA ROMUALDO, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29354 January 27, 1969 - ALEJANDRO C. SIAZON v. HON. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF COTABATO (BRANCH II)

  • A.C. No. 716 January 30, 1969 - EDUARDO J. BERENGUER v. PEDRO B. CARRANZA

  • G.R. No. L-22552 January 30, 1969 - COM. OF IMMIGRATION v. ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-29599 January 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO MONTEMAYOR, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22670 January 31, 1969 - GUALBERTO V. MAGNO v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-25305 January 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONCHITA COOK, ET., AL.

  • A.C. No. 724 January 31, 1969 - FLORENTINO B. DEL ROSARIO v. EUGENIO MILLADO

  • G.R. No. L-25450 January 31, 1969 - LEONARDO SANTOS v. ANGEL H. MOJICA

  • G.R. No. L-26968 January 31, 1969 - TROPICAL BUILDING SPECIALTIES v. JAIME NUEVAS

  • G.R. No. L-27005 January 31, 1969 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25141 January 31, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SYLVIA DE KALINTAS, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25553 January 31, 1969 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORP. v. GABINO MARQUEZ, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26104 January 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELSO ACABADO

  • G.R. No. L-24471 January 31, 1969 - SILVERIO MARCHAN v. ARSENIO MENDOZA, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25739 & L-25886 January 31, 1969 - DIONISIO PALTENG, ET., AL. v. JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-27802 January 31, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. No. L-23247 January 31, 1969 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN v. CONCEPCION KAPUNAN DE SALCEDO, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-23513 January 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE OMPAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26751 January 31, 1969 - JOSE S. MATUTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-27319 January 31, 1969 - JOSE MA. LOCSIN, ET., AL. v. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO

  • G.R. No. L-20908 January 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. UNUH BAKANG, ET., AL

  • G.R. No. L-29729 January 31, 1969 - DEMETRIO JAUGAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-29755 January 31, 1969 - DOMINGO N. SARCOS v. RECAREDO CASTILLO