Case Digest (G.R. No. 210972)
Facts:
Petitioner Roger Allen Bigler was charged with libel before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City due to allegations of maligning his former spouse, private respondent Linda Susan Patricia E. Barreto, via a letter sent to her lawyer, containing defamatory imputations. Upon pleading "not guilty," the trial commenced. On November 21, 2003, Bigler's attorney filed a Withdrawal of Appearance, requesting future legal correspondence be sent to Bigler's new address in Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. The RTC, in a Decision dated November 25, 2003, convicted Bigler of libel and sentenced him to imprisonment for a minimum of one year and eight months to a maximum of two years and eleven months, along with the costs of the suit. Aggrieved by the ruling, Bigler filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on May 22, 2006, leading to the issuance of a warrant for his arrest. He was arrested on October 8, 2010. Following his arrest, he filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion on OctobeCase Digest (G.R. No. 210972)
Facts:
- Chronology and Initiation of the Case
- Petitioner Roger Allen Bigler was charged with the crime of libel for allegedly maligning his former spouse, private respondent Linda Susan Patricia E. Barreto, by sending her a letter containing malicious and defamatory imputations.
- The case was instituted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 59, Criminal Case No. 99-2439.
- Plea and Early Proceedings
- Petitioner pleaded “not guilty” to the charge, thereby necessitating a trial on the merits.
- On November 21, 2003, petitioner’s counsel, Capuyan Quimpo & Salazar, filed a Withdrawal of Appearance and directed that all future notices and legal processes be forwarded to petitioner’s new address or new counsel.
- RTC Judgment and Subsequent Developments
- On November 25, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of libel.
- The RTC sentenced him to imprisonment ranging from one (1) year, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21) days to two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and ten (10) days, and ordered payment of costs.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the decision, which was denied on May 22, 2006.
- On the same day, a Warrant of Arrest was issued against him.
- Arrest, Post-Conviction Motions, and Claims of Procedural Defects
- Petitioner was arrested on October 8, 2010.
- Subsequently, he filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion on October 13, 2010 requesting:
- The reopening of the proceedings;
- Permission to file his Notice of Appeal; and
- The recall of the Warrant of Arrest.
- In the Motion, petitioner argued that he had not received proper notice of the promulgation of the judgment nor was present during its reading, and that the Order denying his earlier motion for reconsideration (dated May 22, 2006) was not properly served.
- Petitioner also filed a Notice of Appeal on October 22, 2010, contending that he only became aware of the Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration on October 11, 2010.
- RTC Action on the Post-Conviction Motions
- On November 3, 2010, the RTC issued an Order denying petitioner’s Urgent Omnibus Motion and refused due course to his Notice of Appeal.
- The RTC held that:
- The Notice of Promulgation was properly sent via registered mail to petitioner’s address and received by his employee, Sally Tanyag;
- Petitioner was effectively notified—having been present during the promulgation—and was thus estopped from claiming ignorance of the judgment; and
- His Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time, further affirming the finality of the judgment.
- Court of Appeals (CA) Review and Affirmation
- Petitioner, aggrieved by the RTC rulings, filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
- On May 16, 2013, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC’s rulings.
- The CA acknowledged that the registered mail service, though a slight deviation from the personal service requirement under Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, was justified due to petitioner’s change of counsel.
- The CA also agreed that petitioner’s belated filing of his Motion for Reconsideration rendered the judgment final and executory.
- Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated January 21, 2014, prompting the instant petition.
Issues:
- Validity of the Promulgation of the Judgment
- Whether the service of the Notice of Promulgation via registered mail (instead of personal service) complied with the requirements of Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- Whether petitioner’s contention that he did not receive notice or participate in the promulgation of the judgment is tenable in light of the evidence, including the receipt by his employee and his presence at the hearing.
- Timeliness of the Motion for Reconsideration
- Whether petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was timely filed within the prescribed period.
- Whether the untimely filing of the motion renders the judgment final and executory, precluding any modification or appeal.
- Scope of Judicial Review in Final Judgments
- Whether the findings of fact, particularly regarding the service of notice and the timing of filings, should be re-examined in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether a review of these procedural matters is permissible when the lower courts’ findings have attained finality and are supported by evidence.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)