Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21957)
Facts:
Rolex Rodriguez y Olayres v. People of the Philippines and Allied Domecq Spirits and Wines, G.R. No. 192799, October 24, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rolex Rodriguez y Olayres (petitioner) was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Manila, for Unfair Competition under Sections 155, 168, 160 in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293 (the Intellectual Property Code), and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, a fine of PhP50,000, and actual damages of PhP75,000. After promulgation of the conviction, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the last day of the reglementary period to appeal.
The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration; fourteen days after receipt of that denial petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC denied due course to the Notice of Appeal as having been filed out of time under Section 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (the 15-day appeal period and its suspension while a motion for new trial/reconsideration is pending). The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 108789, affirmed the RTC's April 14, 2009 Order in a March 2, 2010 Decision and a June 29, 2010 Resolution.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court assailing the CA's March 2, 2010 Decision and June 29, 2010 Resolution. The central factual dispute for purposes of appeal procedure was the applicability of the so‑called fresh period rule (from Neypes v. Court of Appeals) to criminal appeals under Section...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Does the fresh period rule enunciated in Neypes v. Court of Appeals apply to criminal appeals governed by Section 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure?
- Substantive: Was petitioner’s Notice of Appeal filed within the applicable fresh period and therefore...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)