G.R. No. 147832 - People vs. Gabriel

The case involves Danilo P. Gabriel, charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act in two separate Informations.
The first Information (Criminal Case No. 27-99) alleged that on January 15, 1999, Gabriel sold, delivered, and gave away Methamphetamine Hydrochloride ("Shabu") weighing approximately 4.8535 grams.
The second Information (Criminal Case No. 28-99) alleged that on the same day, Gabriel unlawfully possessed approximately 62.9791 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.

Both Informations were raffled off and consolidated in Branch 74 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Olongapo City, presided over by Judge Fatima G. Asdala.
Assistant City Prosecutor Roel G. Samonte was initially assigned to prosecute the cases.

On July 19, 2000, Judge Asdala requested the reassignment of the case prosecution due to the perceived “poor performance” of Assistant City Prosecutor Samonte, which was allegedly disrupting the proceedings.
The reassignment involved requesting that Prosecutor Raymond C. Viray take over, leading to administrative changes within the Office of the City Prosecutor.
On July 20, 2000, Memorandum No. 45, Series 2000 was issued by Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Armando C. Velasco, relieving Samonte as the trial prosecutor.
On July 26, 2000, when the cases were set for hearing, Judge Asdala ordered their provisional dismissal due to the absence of a prosecutor.

On August 8, 2000, OIC Velasco issued Memorandum Order No. 53, Series 2000, designating Assistant City Prosecutor Ildefonso F. Recitis as the new prosecutor for Branch 74.
Assistant City Prosecutor Samonte, dissatisfied with the reassignment, filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 17, 2000, seeking to reassign the case back under his purview.
The motion was denied by Judge Reynaldo V. Roura on November 9, 2000.

On January 3, 2001, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) received a letter (dated November 24, 2000) from the Office of the City Prosecutor recommending the filing of a petition for certiorari to challenge the RTC Order dismissing the cases.
The petition for certiorari was subsequently filed with the Court of Appeals on March 5, 2001, in CA-G.R. SP No. 63552.

The Court of Appeals, on April 10, 2001, dismissed the petition on the ground that it was “time-barred”.
The critical date for the commencement of the 60-day period was identified as November 22, 2000 – the date on which the Olongapo City Prosecutor received the RTC Order.
Instead, the OSG argued that the period should be reckoned from January 3, 2001, the date when the OSG received the Order; however, the court found that the proper computation was from November 22, 2000.

Whether the petition for certiorari filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) with the Court of Appeals was filed within the reglementary 60-day period.

What is the proper date from which the 60-day period should commence?
Whether the delay in sending and receiving the RTC Order affects the timeliness of the petition filed by the OSG.

The implications of the assignment and re-assignment of the trial prosecutor on the prosecution’s ability to effectively prosecute the case.