THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 248182. September 07, 2022
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOVENCIO ALLAN CIUDADANO Y SALCEDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
R E S O L U T I O N
INTING, J.:
This appeal1 seeks to nullify the Resolution2 dated February 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA), as reiterated in its Resolution3 dated May 28, 2018, which dismissed the appeal of Jovencio Allan Ciudadano y Salceda (accused-appellant) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09686 for failure to file his appellant's brief on time. In a Judgment4 dated July 4, 2017, Branch 26, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Naga City found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5,5 Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,6 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
"That on or about January 11, 2012, in the City of Naga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused while conspiring and confederating with each other, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell to herein complaining witness DENNIS C. VILLAMOR, a PDEA poseur-buyer, one (1) medium heat sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance known as SHABU or Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, with an aggregate weight of more or less 0.469, accused not having authority to sell and dispense such substance.Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. "John Doe" remained at large.8chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW."7chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused JOVENCIO ALLAN CIUDADANO y SALCEDA and FAUSTINO HABAGAT y TERNIDA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing them to SUFFER the penalty of life imprisonment and to PAY a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) with accessory penalties as provided in Section 35 of the same Act.Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
x x x x10chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In here, the Court sees the unsubstantiated explanation proffered by accused-appellant to be not a good and sufficient cause to grant his motion for extension of time to file appellant's brief. His explanation which can be related to heavy pressure of work and/or heavy workload is relative and often self-serving. Thus, standing alone, is not a sufficient ground to grant the subject motion. Worse, this is the third motion for extension of time sought by the appellant.On February 19, 2018, accused-appellant filed a Motion to Admit Attached Brief for the Accused-Appellant.18 The CA merely noted it without action in view of its previous Resolution which considered his appeal as abandoned and dismissed. He then moved for a reconsideration19 of the CA Resolution dated February 13, 2018.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Third Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Brief filed by accused-appellant is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, his appeal in the above entitled case is hereby deemed ABANDONED and DISMISSED for failure to file his Appellant's Brief for an unreasonable period of time.
SO ORDERED.17chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The [court] cannot accept hook and sinker the contentions of accused-appellant that the Third Motion for Extension was filed since his counsel was unaware of the Court's Resolution dated January 18, 2018 which granted his Second Motion for Extension of Time with warning against further extension; that a case was transferred by an outgoing lawyer of PAO to his counsel necessitating the latter to read and review the entire records of the case; and that his counsel had to perform equally important tasks assigned to him on January 2018 such as manning the desk for the Officer of the Day on January 11, 2018, and perusing and securing the records of the case due for filing with the JRD of this Court.Hence, the present appeal.
x x x x
Verily, had accused-appellant's counsel established efficient system to monitor orders from the courts and/or to see to it that the required pleading is filed on time, at the very least, the accused-appellant's brief could have been filed within the extended period. In not doing so, accused-appellant's counsel manifested lack of care of his duties. The well-established rule is, negligence of counsel binds his clients. Hence, the Court sees no reason to grant the Motion for Reconsideration and to grant the Motion to Admit and accept the attached Brief for the Accused-Appellant.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration as well as the Motion to Admit is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Consequently, the attached Brief for the Accused-Appellant CANNOT BE ACCEPTED but merely NOTED.
SO ORDERED.21chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Nevertheless, it should be observed that "if a rigid application of the rules of procedure will tend to obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of justice in light of the prevailing circumstances of the case, such as where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition, the Court may relax the strict application of the rules of procedure in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction." x x x "What should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant should be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities." x x xIn the case, if accused-appellant's appeal is denied due course, he could be wrongfully imprisoned for life over a mere technicality. It is beyond dispute that he failed to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period. However, it must be noted that his counsel de officio merely failed to file his appellant's brief within the period accorded to him.30 Under the circumstances, the Court can overlook the short delay in the filing of pleading if strict compliance with the Rules would mean sacrificing justice to technicality.
In this case, it appears that the appeal interposed by petitioner before the CA has ostensible merit owing to the alleged lapses of the arresting officers in duly complying with the chain of custody rule. While the Court cannot fault the CA for upholding procedural rules and acknowledges its adherence thereto, We cannot countenance the incarceration of an accused without the underlying conviction being thoroughly reviewed on account of the negligence of counsel. At the very least, if the CA would eventually find that petitioner's appeal should be denied and her conviction must be affirmed, it should be based on a full consideration of the merits of her appeal and not for reasons anchored on technicalities. Hence, the Court deems it proper to relax the technical rules of procedure in order to afford petitioner the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of her appeal. Accordingly, the Entry of Judgment made in this case should be recalled and the case be remanded to the CA for resolution of the appeal on its merits. Petitioner is given a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days upon receipt of this Decision to file her appellant's brief with the CA.29 (Italics supplied, citations omitted)
Endnotes:
1 See Notice of Appeal and Compliance, rollo, pp. 5-6.
2 Id. at 3-4. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of the Court) and Rafael Antonio M. Santos.
3 CA rollo, pp. 190-192.
4 Id. at 86-101. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Pablo Cabillan Formaran III.
5 Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 provides:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarySection 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. – The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.6 Approved on June 7, 2002.
x x x x
7 As culled from the RTC decision, CA rollo, p. 86.
8 Id. at 87.
9 Id. at 86-101. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Pablo Cabillan Formaran III.
10 Id. at 99.
11 Id. at 24.
12 See Entry of Appearance with Compliance and Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellants Brief, id. at 30-32.
13 Id. at 36-37.
14 See Resolution dated January 18, 2018, id. at 39.
15 Id. at 40-41.
16 Rollo, pp. 3-4.
17 Id. at 4.
18 CA rollo, id. at 46-48.
19 Id. at 105-112.
20 Id. at 190-192.
21 Id. at 191-192.
22 Tamayo v. Court of Appeals, 467 Phil. 603, 607-608 (2004), citing Acme Shoe, Rubber & Plastic Corp. v. CA, 329 Phil. 531, 538 (1996).
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id., citing Development Bank of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, 411 Phil. 121, 137 (2001).
26 791 Phil. 162 (2016).
27 Id. at 170, citing De Guzman v. People, 547 Phil. 654 (2007).
28 G.R. No. 248264, July 27, 2020.
29 Id.
30 People v. Ramos, supra note 26, at 170.
31 Tamayo v. Court of Appeals, supra note 22, at 610.
32 Rollo, p. 79.
33 Id. at 80.cralawredlibrary