Case Digest (G.R. No. 178405)
Facts:
Reynaldo Deus y Santos v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 178405, October 15, 2008, the Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Reynaldo Deus y Santos (petitioner) was charged by information with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for allegedly selling 0.01 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) on 28 October 2003 in Makati City. The prosecution's version, based on a buy-bust operation, was that police operatives effected a controlled buy, gave the pre-arranged signal, arrested petitioner, and marked the seized sachet; forensic testing confirmed the specimen as shabu.Petitioner testified to a different account: that armed men entered his house, accosted and forced him into a vehicle, and that he did not sell drugs; his live-in partner, Ofelia Gajardo, allegedly stabbed the poseur-buyer during the incident. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, Branch 64, convicted petitioner on 17 May 2006 of illegal sale of shabu, sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P400,000 fine, and denied his motion for reconsideration on the same day.
Instead of filing a notice of appeal under the Rules of Court, petitioner—unassisted by counsel—filed on 24 August 2006 a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) and sought pauper status. The CA appointed the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) as counsel de oficio on 1 September 2006; the PAO sought and received several extensions but, after delays, filed a motion to admit the petition on 9 March 2007. On 22 March 2007, the CA issued a resolution dismissing the certiorari petition for being the wrong remedy (the proper remedy being an ordinary appeal under Rule 122, to be filed within 15 days), and later denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 4 June 2007.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for review. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a comment conceding that, given petitioner’s lack of counsel at the time he filed his pleadings, the CA ought to have treat...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals the proper remedy to challenge the RTC judgment of conviction?
- Should the Court of Appeals have treated the certiorari petition as an ordinary appeal and resolved it on the merits in view of petitioner’s lack of counsel and the interest ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)