G.R. No. 192799 - Rodriguez y Olayres vs. People

Petitioner, Rolex Rodriguez y Olayres, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24 in Manila, for Unfair Competition under Sections 155, 168, 160 in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293 (the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines).
The conviction resulted in a sentence of two (2) years imprisonment, a fine of PhP 50,000, and actual damages of PhP 75,000.

After the promulgation of the RTC’s decision in Criminal Case No. 02-206499, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the 15th day – the last day of the reglementary period to appeal.
Fourteen (14) days after receiving the RTC order denying his motion for reconsideration, the petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal.

The RTC’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and subsequently, the petitioner’s Notice of Appeal was denied on the ground that it was filed out of time under Section 6 of Rule 122, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The petitioner contended that despite the procedural timeline, his filing should be covered by the “afresh period rule.”

The afresh period rule, as established in Neypes v. Court of Appeals, provides a fresh period of 15 days within which a litigant may file an appeal from the receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.
This rule aims to standardize appeal periods in both civil and criminal cases by counting the appeal period from the time of receipt of the order denying relief.
Petitioner asserted that this doctrine, initially articulated for civil cases, should also apply to criminal cases to afford accused persons the same opportunity to seek review.

The RTC, then the Court of Appeals (CA), and finally the Supreme Court addressed the petitioner's invocation of the afresh period rule.
A review of past decisions – including Neypes and Yu v. Tatad – was undertaken by the Court to determine whether the afresh period rule should be extended to criminal cases in light of the statutory framework of Rule 122.
The petitioner argued that a strict interpretation excluding criminal cases would result in a double standard favoring civil litigants over accused persons whose liberty is at stake.

Whether the afresh period rule, as set forth in Neypes, should apply to the appeals in criminal cases, specifically under Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Whether excluding criminal cases from this rule creates an unjust double standard that favors litigants in civil cases over accused persons in criminal cases.

If the afresh period rule is applicable, whether the petitioner’s Notice of Appeal, filed on February 2, 2009, falls within the allowed 15-day period counted from receipt of the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
What the implications are on the statutory privilege of appeal, particularly concerning the protection of the accused’s constitutional right to due process and liberty.