Crim Pro Digest: DEUS V. PEOPLE

DEUS V. PEOPLE

RTC rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine ofP400,000.00.

Petitioner, unassisted by counsel, filed a very urgent motion for reconsideration which the trial court denied on 17 May 2006.

On 24 August 2006, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, as well as a motion to litigate as pauper. He raised as issue the failure of the trial court judge to comply with Rule 118 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure requiring that the pre-trial order be signed by the accused and his counsel. He likewise questioned the police operatives non-compliance with Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165.

CA ruling - A perusal of the petition, however, reveals that the assailed Decision was rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 64, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. As such, the proper remedy for a party aggrieved thereby is an ordinary appeal pursuant to Sections 3 and 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended, which can be availed of by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment, within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof,.However, instead of filing an appeal within 15 days from notice of the denial of his motion for reconsideration of the subject decision on June 24, 2006, accused-petitioner resorted to the instant petition for certiorari which the Court cannot treat as an appeal for having been filed on August 24, 2006 or way beyond the period to appeal.

HELD:

Basic is the rule that the mode of appeal in cases decided by the regional trial court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is by a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment appealed from (Rule 122, Sec. 3). On the other hand, the extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The writ of certiorari does not lie where an appeal may be taken or where another adequate remedy is available for the correction of the error.

Since the judgment of conviction had not been appealed within the time and in the manner prescribed by the rules, it became final and executory upon the lapse of the reglementary appeal period.

Petitioner likewise erred in contending that Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court prohibits the dismissal of the certiorari petition when appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio. First, said provision only refers to dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. Second, the dismissal of the appeal is conditioned on the appellants failure to file a brief. An appellants brief is a pleading filed in an ordinary appeal. Clearly, Section 8 contemplates an ordinary appeal filed before the Court of Appeals.