Case Digest (G.R. No. 112389-90)
Facts:
Mercedes D. Navarro v. The Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 112389-90, August 01, 1994, the Supreme Court First Division, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Mercedes D. Navarro was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan in Criminal Cases Nos. L-3848 and L-3849 for violations of B.P. 22. She appealed to the Court of Appeals, where she filed a motion dated September 15, 1992 requesting a 90-day extension from September 17, 1992 to file her appellant’s brief; the extension was granted but she failed to file any brief within the period or thereafter.
On February 9, 1993 the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court for abandonment or failure to prosecute. Navarro received notice of the dismissal on February 17, 1993. On March 1, 1993 she filed a motion for new trial in the Court of Appeals claiming “newly-discovered evidence”; the Court denied the motion on June 9, 1993, explaining that the dismissal had become final and that Navarro should have sought reconsideration and reinstatement of the appeal before filing a motion for new trial. Navarro filed a motion for reconsideration on July 5, 1993, which the Court of Appeals denied on October 20, 1993.
Navarro then filed a petition for review before this Court challenging the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of her appeal and its denial of her motion for new trial. In its opposition the Solicitor General maintained that the appeal had already been dismissed and that Navarro should have first sought reinstate...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the dismissal of Navarro’s appeal by the Court of Appeals for failure to file an appellant’s brief proper?
- Was Navarro’s motion for new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence timely and did the alleged evidence warrant granting a new trial and overturning her conv...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)