G.R. No. 198753 - Sanico vs. People

Petitioner Jose aPepea Sanico and Marsito Batiquin were charged in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Catmon-Carmen-Sogod, Cebu with:

Convicted Sanico and Batiquin for violation of Section 103 of Republic Act No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995) in Criminal Case No. 3434-CR. Each sentenced to 6 months and 1 day minimum to 2 years 4 months and 1 day maximum imprisonment, a fine of ₱10,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Confiscated the truck (Plate No. GAX-119) used as an instrument of the crime in favor of the government.
Ordered accused to pay private complainant Jennifer S. Tenio actual damages (₱4,042,500.00), moral damages (₱500,000.00), exemplary damages (₱200,000.00), attorney’s fees (₱100,000.00), and litigation expenses (₱50,000.00) solidarily.
Found accused not guilty in Criminal Case No. 3433-CR (Trespassing) due to failure of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

On April 22, 2009, Sanico's counsel filed a notice of appeal in the MCTC.
On January 5, 2010, RTC Branch 25 in Danao City ordered Sanico to file his memorandum on appeal.
Sanico failed to file the memorandum on appeal; thus, on March 16, 2010, the RTC dismissed the appeal with prejudice on the ground of failure to file memoranda.
On April 26, 2010, Atty. Dennis CaAete filed a motion for reconsideration, citing personal and counsel’s medical difficulties as reasons for non-filing.
On June 1, 2010, RTC denied the motion for reconsideration due to lack of verification and unsubstantiated excuses.

On June 23, 2010, Sanico filed a petition for review in the CA contesting his conviction and assailing the dismissal of his appeal.
On April 14, 2011, the CA dismissed the petition for review citing numerous procedural defects, including:

Sanico’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on September 15, 2011; the CA emphasized the mandatory nature of compliance with procedural requirements and held that Sanico was bound by the negligence of his counsel.

Respondent Jennifer S. Tenio’s counsel filed an Ex Parte Motion for Entry of Judgment, authorized by the RTC on March 28, 2011.
Sanico filed an omnibus motion to recall the order and quash entry of judgment, which the RTC denied on August 22, 2011, citing lack of notification of the appeal pending in the CA.
Entry of judgment issued on March 30, 2011 and writ of execution on April 19, 2011.
Execution sales of Sanico’s properties made on June 14 and 16, 2011, with certificates of sale issued in favor of Tenio.

Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to file a memorandum on appeal.
Whether the CA committed reversible error in upholding the dismissal of the petition for review due to procedural defects.
Whether the CA erred in failing to nullify the entry of judgment and the execution proceedings despite the pendency of the petition for review in the CA.
Whether the negligence of petitioner’s counsel should be imputed to the petitioner denying his right to due process.
Whether the case should be remanded to the RTC for review of alleged legal infirmities in the MCTC’s judgment, including the award of damages.