G.R. No. 192164 - Cuyo vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192164)

Factual Background

Petitioner and Alejo Cuyo were estranged brothers. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal possession of firearms against Alejo. On 20 November 2003, petitioner appeared before then-Judge Samuel H. Gaerlan of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, for purposes of an application for a search warrant by the Criminal Investigation and Detective Group (CIDG) concerning the search of Alejo’s house. During those proceedings, petitioner made untruthful statements under oath.

As a result, Alejo filed a complaint for perjury against petitioner.

MTCC Conviction and Petitioner’s Subsequent Motions

On 25 August 2009, the MTCC, Branch 1, found petitioner guilty of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code. The MTCC sentenced him to imprisonment of four (4) months and one (1) day to one (1) year, and ordered him to pay Alejo P10,000 for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. Petitioner did not attend the promulgation; his counsel appeared in his stead.

On 28 August 2009, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The MTCC denied it on 19 October 2009. Petitioner received the denial order on 23 October 2009. He then filed a Motion for Probation on 5 November 2009.

MTCC Denial of Probation as Untimely

On 6 January 2010, the MTCC denied the Motion for Probation. It held that the application was filed beyond the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended (the Probation Law of 1976). In computing that fifteenth-day period, the MTCC used 25 August 2009 (the day of promulgation of the decision) as the reckoning date, then tolled the period by the time from filing the Motion for Reconsideration until receipt of the order denying it on 23 October 2009. It reasoned that only eleven days remained of the fifteen-day period as of 23 October 2009, and that those eleven days ended on 3 November 2009. Since the Motion for Probation was received on 5 November 2009, the MTCC concluded the judgment had become final and executory by 3 November 2009.

Petitioner’s Arguments and RTC Proceedings Under Rule 65

On 7 January 2010, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the MTCC order denying probation. He asked for a liberal interpretation of the computation of the probation period. He also filed, on 10 January 2010, a Supplemental Motion seeking deferment of the issuance of a warrant of arrest or recall of any warrant already issued. The MTCC denied these on 3 February 2010.

The MTCC rejected petitioner’s reliance on the “fresh period rule” discussed in Neypes v. Court of Appeals, reasoning that Neypes applied only to Rules 40, 42, 43, and 45 appeals and not to a Rule 122 appeal. Petitioner then filed a Petition under Rule 65 before the RTC alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when the MTCC denied his Motion for Probation. He argued that the “fresh period rule” in Neypes should be applied to criminal cases, and he requested liberal construction and application of the Rules. He also sought to stay execution of the 25 August 2009 MTCC decision and to recall the warrant of arrest pending resolution.

On 26 April 2010, the RTC denied the petition. It ruled that the probation application period had lapsed because petitioner neither surrendered nor filed a motion for leave to avail himself of remedies under the Rules of Court. The RTC further ruled that petitioner failed to implead private complainant Alejo Cuyo as a respondent, citing Rule 65, Section 5, which required joining the person interested in sustaining the proceedings.

The Rule 45 Petition and the Court’s Limited Grounds for Reversal

Petitioner sought review on Rule 45, contending that the RTC erred in computing the fifteen-day period for probation and in dismissing his petition on procedural grounds without determining whether he was entitled to probation’s benefits. The Court held that merit existed only with respect to the RTC’s additional procedural ground involving the failure to implead Alejo as a respondent in the Rule 65 certiorari petition. The Court affirmed the rest of the RTC’s decision, including its dispositive effect.

Compliance with Rule 65, Sec. 5, and the Effect of Misjoinder or Non-joinder

The Court agreed that petitioner did not comply with Rule 65, Sec. 5, which provides that when the petition relates to acts or omissions of a judge or court, the petitioner must join as private respondent(s) the person interested in sustaining the proceedings. However, the Court ruled that the RTC should not have dismissed the petition on that basis alone.

The Court invoked Rule 3, Sec. 11, which states that neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for dismissal of an action. It explained that the proper remedy would have been for the RTC to order petitioner to add the private complainant as a respondent rather than dismiss the certiorari petition outright.

Timeliness Under Rule 120, Sec. 6, and the Nature of Petitioner’s Offense

Although the Rule 65 impleader issue could not justify dismissal, the Court upheld the MTCC and RTC’s core finding that petitioner’s Motion for Probation was filed out of time.

The Court relied on Rule 120, Sec. 6 on promulgation of judgment. It emphasized the rule that when the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation despite notice, and the failure is without justifiable cause, the accused loses the remedies available in the Rules against the judgment. The Rules provide that within fifteen (15) days from promulgation, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail himself of those remedies, and the motion must state the reasons for absence so the court may determine whether the cause was justifiable.

The Court then characterized petitioner’s offense and penalty. Petitioner was convicted of perjury and sentenced to imprisonment ranging from four (4) months and one (1) day to one (1) year, which the Court treated as a correctional penalty. Under Article 9 of the Revised Penal Code, “light felonies” were those punishable by arresto menor (one to thirty days) or a fine not exceeding P200, or both. The Court concluded that perjury was not a light felony contemplated by the exception in Rule 120, Sec. 6. Accordingly, the Court held that it was mandatory for petitioner to be present during promulgation, and since he was absent despite notice, he stood to lose remedies unless he had first availed himself of the remedy recognized by Rule 120, Sec. 6 through surrender and a timely motion for leave of court.

The Court explained that petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 28 August 2009, but without a motion for leave to avail of remedies, the MTCC should not have entertained the Motion for Reconsideration. Because petitioner did not file a motion for leave to avail himself of remedies before filing that Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner had only the fifteen-day period from 25 August 2009 for purposes of filing a Motion for Probation, which the Court, following the reasoning in the MTCC/RTC decisions, effectively ended by 9 September 2009. Thus, the Court held that the MTCC committed grave abuse of discretion when it entertained the Motion for Reconsideration instead of immediately denying any subsequent attempt to pursue remedies without compliance with Rule 120, Sec. 6.

Grave Abuse Doctrine from People of the Philippines v. De Grano

In support of the principle that the trial court exceeds jurisdiction when it entertains prohibited or improperly filed motions despite an accused’s failure to regain standing in court, the Court cited People of the Philippines v. De Grano, where the RTC had taken cognizance of a motion for reconsideration filed by accused who were at large. The Court reiterated the doctrine that an accused who fails to surrender or otherwise submit to jurisdiction and who remains at large loses standing in court, and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction, the accused waives the right to seek relief. The Court applied the logic of De Grano to the present context: by not observing the requisites of Rule 120, Sec. 6, petitioner’s attempts to seek relief were not entitled to procedural leniency that would revive the probation window.

Justifiable Cause Clai

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 192164)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Anselmo Cuyo (petitioner) filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 assailing an Order issued by Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando City, La Union in Special Civil Action Case No. 0001-10.
People of the Philippines (respondent) defended the RTC’s denial of petitioner’s Rule 65 petition for certiorari.
Petitioner previously challenged the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of San Fernando City, La Union rulings through a Rule 65 petition filed before the RTC.
The MTCC found petitioner guilty of perjury and later denied petitioner’s application for probation.
The RTC denied petitioner’s certiorari petition, but the Supreme Court affirmed the result based on the same ultimate conclusion that petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.
The Supreme Court held that the RTC’s additional ground for dismissal of the certiorari petition, relating to misjoinder, could not justify dismissal, yet affirmed the RTC because the probation issue was decided correctly against petitioner.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner and Alejo Cuyo were estranged brothers.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal possession of firearms against Alejo.
On 20 November 2003, petitioner appeared before Judge Samuel H. Gaerlan of the RTC Branch 26 regarding an application for a search warrant sought by the CIDG for the search of Alejo’s house.
In the course of those proceedings, petitioner made untruthful statements under oath.
Alejo filed a complaint for perjury against petitioner.
On 25 August 2009, Branch 1 of the MTCC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.
The MTCC sentenced petitioner to imprisonment of four (4) months and one (1) day to one (1) year.
The MTCC also ordered petitioner to pay Alejo P10,000 for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
Petitioner was not present during promulgation and was represented by counsel.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 28 August 2009, which the MTCC denied on 19 October 2009.
Petitioner received the order denying reconsideration on 23 October 2009.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Probation on 5 November 2009.
The MTCC denied probation on 6 January 2010, holding that the motion was filed beyond the fifteen (15) days allowed by the Probation Law of 1976.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the probation denial on 7 January 2010 and filed a Supplemental Motion on 10 January 2010 seeking deferment of the warrant of arrest or recall of the warrant.
The MTCC denied both motions, and the RTC later sustained the MTCC’s handling of the probation application.
Petitioner alleged that his absence during promulgation had a justifiable cause because he was on board an international vessel as a seaman.
Petitioner claimed the MTCC had been informed of his work assignment during the date of promulgation.

Statutory Framework

The application for probation was governed by Presidential Decree No. 968, particularly Section 4 on the Grant of Probation.
P.D. No. 968, Sec. 4 required that the trial court, after conviction and sentence, may suspend execution and place the defendant on probation upon application by the defendant within the period of perfecting an appeal, subject to specified conditions.
The text emphasized that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.
The text stated that probation applications must be filed with the trial court and that filing the application waives the right to appeal.
P.D. No. 968, Sec. 4 also provided that an order granting or denying probation is not appealable.
The determination of procedural effect of promulgation and loss of remedies relied on Rule 120, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court.
Rule 120, Sec. 6 required reading the judgment in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court where rendered, with limited exceptions.
Rule 120, Sec. 6 provided that if the accused fails to appear despite notice, the promulgation is made by recording in the criminal docket and serving a copy, and if the failure is without justifiable cause, the accused loses remedies available in the Rules.
Rule 120, Sec. 6 also provided that within fifteen (15) days from promulgation, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of remedies, and that if justifiable cause is proved, the accused may avail of remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.
The RTC’s dismissal ground relied on Rule 65, Sec. 5 regarding respondents and costs in certain cases.
The Supreme Court cited Rule 3, Sec. 11, stating that neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for dismissal of an action.

Issues Raised

Whether the MTCC and RTC erred in computing the fifteen (15)-day period for filing a Motion for Probation.
Whether the doctrine in Neypes v. Court of Appeals should apply to the computation of the probation period in criminal cases.
Whether petitioner’s absence during promulgation fell under justifiable cause such that petitioner would not lose remedies under Rule 120, Sec. 6.
Whether petitioner could be barred from relief due to failure to comply with procedural requirements for a certiorari petition, specifically the alleged failure to implead the private complainant as required by Rule 65, Sec. 5.
Whether the RTC was correct in dismissing the certiorari petition based on petitioner’s alleged procedural defects without determining the merits of petitioner’s entitlement to probation.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner contended that the RTC erred in the computation of the 15-day period under the probation rule