G.R. No. 178405 - Deus y Santos vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 178405)

Factual Background of the Alleged Buy-Bust

The prosecution’s evidence narrated that, acting on an informant’s tip, police formed a buy-bust team composed of SPO1 Jose Magallanes as team leader, PO2 Virginio Costa as poseur-buyer, and PO1 Randy Santos as back-up. On 28 October 2003, the team conducted the operation on 3rd Street, Barangay Pembo, Makati. The subject was initially identified as a certain Jake, later identified as petitioner. The officers testified that petitioner stood in front of his house talking to an unidentified person. PO2 Costa and the informant approached petitioner and offered to buy shabu. After the completion of the transaction, PO2 Costa wiped his face as a pre-arranged signal. PO1 Santos approached, arrested, and handcuffed petitioner. While in handcuffs, petitioner attempted to run away, but the back-up officers prevented his escape.

As they moved toward the police vehicle, PO2 Costa was stabbed in his left arm by Ofelia Gajardo, petitioner’s live-in partner. Bystanders allegedly prevented them from taking petitioner away. PO1 Santos fired a warning shot. Petitioner was brought to the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) office where markings were placed on the shabu by PO2 Costa. The plastic sachet was then submitted to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, where Sharon Lontoc Fabros, a forensic chemist, issued a Physical Science Report dated 28 October 2003 finding the specimen to be Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu).

The Defense Version and Denials

Petitioner presented a contrary account. He claimed that on the same date and time, three armed men and a woman entered his house through the kitchen, poked him with a gun, and accused him of selling illegal drugs. Petitioner’s stepdaughter, Anabelle Manlangit, allegedly shouted for help. Gajardo came down from the second floor and allegedly saw petitioner being dragged out and forcibly taken into a vehicle. Petitioner was subsequently brought to the DEU office, while Gajardo was taken to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID). Petitioner denied that he was selling shabu at the time of his arrest and asserted that he only saw the plastic sachet with markings “RDS” at the CID.

RTC Proceedings and Conviction

On 17 May 2006, the RTC rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, imposing the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00. The RTC held that the prosecution established the elements of illegal sale through the testimony of its witnesses. It also found that the defense version was marked by inconsistencies. Petitioner, unassisted by counsel, filed a very urgent motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied on 17 May 2006.

Petitioner’s Certiorari Filing Before the Court of Appeals and Appointment of PAO

After the denial of his motion, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals on 24 August 2006, and also moved to litigate as pauper. He argued that the RTC judge failed to comply with Rule 118 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly that the pre-trial order should be signed by the accused and his counsel. He also questioned police non-compliance with Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165.

The appellate court, in a resolution dated 1 September 2006, appointed and designated the PAO as counsel de oficio. The PAO filed a notice of appearance on 19 September 2006. On 16 November 2006, the appellate court furnished PAO a copy of the petition and directed the filing of the appropriate pleading within ten days from notice. PAO sought extensions, filing two manifestations with motions for extension of thirty (30) days each, on 7 December 2006 and 12 January 2007, which the appellate court granted. When PAO failed to file the appropriate pleading within the third extended period, on 9 March 2007 it filed a motion to admit the petition for certiorari attached to it.

The Court of Appeals Disposition Dismissing on the Procedural Ground

On 22 March 2007, the Court of Appeals issued the challenged resolution dismissing the petition. It reasoned that, in the “higher interest of justice,” it admitted and submitted the petition for initial action, but it found that the assailed RTC decision was rendered in the exercise of original jurisdiction. As such, the proper remedy for a party aggrieved was an ordinary appeal pursuant to Sections 3 and 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. It held that petitioner, instead of filing a notice of appeal within the required period of fifteen (15) days from notice, filed a petition for certiorari which could not be treated as an appeal because it was filed on 24 August 2006, “way beyond” the appeal period.

Petitioner sought reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied it on 4 June 2007 for lack of merit.

Positions of the Parties in the Supreme Court

In his petition for review, petitioner urged a liberal interpretation of procedural rules. He argued that Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court should apply by analogy, and that the appellate court should not have dismissed his certiorari petition because he was represented by counsel de oficio.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintained that petitioner should have availed himself of the remedy of appeal rather than filing a Rule 65 certiorari. However, the OSG conceded that because petitioner acted without the assistance of counsel when he filed his urgent motion for reconsideration and the certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals, the appellate court should have, in the interest of justice, treated the certiorari petition as an appeal rather than dismissing it.

Core Issue: Whether the Certiorari Petition Could Be Dismissed as an Improper Remedy

The Supreme Court treated the crux of the controversy as not the RTC’s conviction, but the appellate court’s dismissal of petitioner’s certiorari petition that essentially sought review of the conviction. The Court reaffirmed the rule that when the RTC decides a case in the exercise of original jurisdiction, the mode of appeal is by notice of appeal with the court that rendered the judgment. It also reiterated that the extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus are available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and that certiorari does not lie where an appeal may be taken or where another adequate remedy exists.

The Court observed that because the judgment of conviction was not appealed within the time and manner prescribed, it would generally become final and executory upon lapse of the reglementary appeal period. It also addressed petitioner’s reliance on Section 8, Rule 124, explaining that the provision was directed at dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute and involved conditions tied to filings in an ordinary appeal, such as the filing of briefs; it did not, as a rule, prevent dismissal where petitioner pursued an improper remedy.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling: Liberal Treatment and Remand for Merits

Despite these procedural rules, the Supreme Court agreed with the OSG that the appellate court should have treated the certiorari petition as an appeal. The Court emphasized that petitioner had been unrepresented by counsel when he filed the certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals. It held that petitioner could not be presumed to know the legal remedies to pursue, particularly given that his right to liberty was at stake. These circumstances, according to the Court, should have prompted the appellate court to relax procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice. The Court further not

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 178405)

The case arose from a Petition for Review assailing a Court of Appeals decision and resolution that dismissed petitioner’s petition for certiorari challenging his conviction for illegal sale of shabu.
The controversy reached the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition on the ground that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal and that the petition was filed beyond the period to appeal.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for disposition on the merits as an ordinary appeal.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Reynaldo Deus y Santos was the petitioner, having been convicted by the Regional Trial Court for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
People of the Philippines was the respondent, defending the conviction and urging that petitioner should have used the proper appellate remedy.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition for being the wrong remedy and for having been filed after the reglementary period to appeal.
The Court of Appeals later denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, prompting petitioner to file the instant Petition for Review.
The Supreme Court treated the central issue as the appellate court’s dismissal of the certiorari petition that essentially questioned the conviction.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner was charged that on or about 28 October 2003 in Makati, he, without license or prescription, willfully and unlawfully sold, gave away, distributed and delivered 0.01 gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu).
The prosecution’s version relied on a buy-bust operation conducted by a team led by SPO1 Jose Magallanes, with PO2 Virginio Costa as poseur-buyer and PO1 Randy Santos as back-up.
During the operation on a third street in Barangay Pembo, Makati, the buy-bust team identified the subject as petitioner after he stood in front of his house talking to an unidentified person.
PO2 Costa and the informant approached petitioner and offered to buy shabu, and after the transaction, PO2 Costa wiped his face as a pre-arranged signal.
PO1 Santos approached and arrested petitioner, and even while in handcuffs petitioner attempted to escape, but the arresting officers prevented his flight.
While the officers were on the way to the police vehicle, PO2 Costa was stabbed in the left arm by Ofelia Gajardo, described as petitioner’s live-in partner.
PO1 Santos fired a warning shot, and petitioner was brought to the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) office where markings were placed on the shabu by PO2 Costa.
The seized plastic sachet was brought to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, and the forensic chemist Sharon Lontoc Fabros issued a Physical Science Report dated 28 October 2003 confirming that the specimen was Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.
Petitioner’s defense denied involvement, asserting that three armed men and a woman entered his house through the kitchen, accused him of selling illegal drugs, and forcibly took him to the DEU while Gajardo was taken elsewhere.
Petitioner claimed he saw the plastic sachet with the marking “RDS” only at the CID, and he denied that he was selling shabu when arrested.

RTC Findings and Conviction

On 17 May 2006, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The RTC imposed life imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00.
The RTC held that the prosecution witnesses established the elements of illegal sale of shabu.
The RTC found petitioner’s defense version to be inconsistent and declined to give it credence.

Petitioner’s Post-Conviction Motions

Petitioner filed an urgent motion for reconsideration without the assistance of counsel, and the RTC denied it on 17 May 2006.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on 24 August 2006 and a motion to litigate as pauper.
Petitioner alleged that the trial court judge failed to comply with Rule 118 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure requiring that the pre-trial order be signed by the accused and counsel.
Petitioner also questioned the police operatives’ purported non-compliance with Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165.
In a Resolution dated 1 September 2006, the Court of Appeals appointed the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) as counsel de oficio for petitioner.
The PAO filed a Notice of Appearance on 19 September 2006, and the Court of Appeals furnished it a copy of the petition on 16 November 2006, directing appropriate filing within ten days.
The PAO obtained two extensions of thirty days each, filed manifestations on 7 December 2006 and 12 January 2007, and the Court of Appeals granted them.
After failure to file the appropriate pleading within the third extended period, the PAO filed a motion to admit the petition for certiorari on 9 March 2007.
The Court of Appeals issued the challenged resolution dated 22 March 2007 dismissing the certiorari petition, and it denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 4 June 2007.

Court of Appeals’ Dismissal Rationale

The Court of Appeals stated tha