Case Digest (G.R. No. 124344)
Facts:
Anselmo De Leon Cuyo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192164, October 12, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Sereno, J., writing for the Court (Carpio, Brion, Reyes, and Perlas‑Bernabe, JJ., concurring).Petitioner Anselmo Cuyo and his brother Alejo Cuyo were estranged. In the course of a November 20, 2003 hearing before Judge Samuel H. Gaerlan (RTC, Branch 26, San Fernando City) on a CIDG application for a search warrant of Alejo’s house, petitioner allegedly made false statements under oath; Alejo later filed a perjury complaint against him.
On August 25, 2009, MTCC Branch 1, San Fernando City convicted petitioner of perjury (Art. 183, Revised Penal Code) and sentenced him to imprisonment of four months and one day to one year plus P10,000 for attorney’s fees; petitioner was absent at promulgation and was represented by counsel. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 28, 2009, which the MTCC denied on October 19, 2009 (order received by petitioner on October 23, 2009). Petitioner then filed a Motion for Probation on November 5, 2009.
The MTCC denied the Motion for Probation on January 6, 2010 on the ground that it was filed beyond the 15‑day reglementary period under the Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended), computing the period from the date of promulgation (August 25, 2009) and tolling it by the period from filing the Motion for Reconsideration until receipt of the denial. Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration of that denial were denied on February 3, 2010; the MTCC declined to apply the “fresh period” rule from Neypes v. Court of Appeals to probation applications.
Petitioner then filed a Petition under Rule 65 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 28 (Special Civil Action No. 0001‑10), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MTCC and asking the RTC to stay execution and recall any warrant. On April 26, 2010 the RTC denied the Rule 65 petition, ruling that the Motion for Probation was untimely and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Rule 65 petition properly dismissed for petitioner’s failure to implead the private complainant as a respondent?
- Was petitioner’s Motion for Probation timely and/or excused by a justifiable absence so that the trial court erred in...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)