Case Digest (G.R. No. 141986)
Facts:
Neplum, Inc. filed a Petition under Rule 45 after the Regional Trial Court, Makati City (Branch 133) issued an Order dated February 17, 2000 denying due course to its Notice of Appeal and Amended Notice of Appeal from the civil aspect of a criminal judgment acquitting the accused on October 29, 1999. The trial court counted the fifteen-day reglementary period from promulgation; petitioner’s private prosecutor was present at promulgation, petitioner received a written copy on November 12, 1999, filed a motion for reconsideration on November 29, 1999, and filed its Notice of Appeal on January 31, 2000.
Issues:
- Was a Petition for Review under Rule 45 the proper mode of relief from the RTC order disallowing an appeal?
- For a private offended party appealing the civil aspect of an acquittal, should the fifteen-day period in Section 6, Rule 122 be counted from promulgation or from notice/receipt of the judgment?
Ruling:
The Court held that the use of Rule 45 was improper and that the proper remedy was certiorari under Rule 65, but, given the novelty of the issue, treated the petition as a Rule 65 petition and resolved the merits. The Court denied the petition and affirmed the RTC Order, ruling that an offended party must file an appeal of the civil liability ex delicto within fifteen days from notice of the judgment or final order, and that actual presence at promulgation and receipt of a signed copy constituted notice in this case, rendering petitioner’s appeal untimely.
Ratio:
The Court distinguished the accused’s appeal, which is reckoned from promulgation under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, from the private offended party’s appeal of the civil aspect, which is akin to a civil action and thus governed by the rule counting from notice. Section 6, Rule 122 and the promulgation provisions refer specifically to the accused and to circumstances when the accused is notified; the civil aspect is ex delicto and appeals thereof are analogous to civil appeals counted from service or notice. Because petitioner’s private prosecutor was present at promulgation and signed a copy, petitioner had actual notice and failed to perfect its appeal within the reglementary period; the right to appeal is statutory and must be strictly observed.
Doctrine:
- The proper remedy from an order disallowing an appeal is a special civil action under Rule 65, not Rule 45.
- An appeal of the civil liability *ex delicto* in a criminal case is analogous to a civil appeal and is taken within fifteen days from notice of the judgment or final order under Section 6, Rule 122.
- Promulgation provisions in the Rules on Criminal Procedure refer to the accused and do not automatically trigger the offended party’s appeal period.
- Actual or constructive notice to the offended party (including presence at promulgation or service of a signed copy) starts the fifteen-day period.
- The right to appeal is procedural and statutory and must be strictly complied with.