Case Summary (G.R. No. 238298)
Procedural History before the RTC
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the conviction, but the RTC denied it for lack of a proper notice of hearing as required by Rule 15, §§ 4–5. Petitioner then manifested against dismissing the motion on a technicality and filed a notice of appeal, which the RTC treated as belated and dismissed, citing failure to comply with the 15-day reglementary period and the mandatory notice requirement.
Dismissal by the Court of Appeals
Petitioner sought certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA, contending that the RTC erred in dismissing his appeal. The CA dismissed the petition for multiple procedural deficiencies: no motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s order denying appeal; non-impleadment of the People of the Philippines; lack of service on the Office of the Solicitor General; absence of proof of service; and untimely filing. An omnibus motion for reconsideration filed after nearly five months was likewise denied as belated and procedurally flawed.
Invocation of Substantial Justice and Relaxation of Rules
On review under Rule 45, petitioner argued that his reclusion perpetua sentence justified equitable relief and that rigid application of technical rules would deprive him of due process. Citing Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court and precedents on liberal construction, the Supreme Court recognized its prerogative to relax procedural rules to secure substantial justice, particularly where life or liberty is at stake.
Grounds for Liberal Construction and Exceptional Circumstances
The Court enumerated factors justifying relaxation of procedural finality: matters of life or liberty; compelling circumstances; meritorious claims; absence of fault entirely attributable to the party; lack of frivolous or dilatory intent; and no unfair prejudice to the opposing party. Given petitioner’s life and liberty were imperiled by a final conviction grounded on technical lapses, and considering the merits and absence of dilatory intent, the Court deemed liberal construction appropriate.
Negligence of Counsel and Protection of Substantive Rights
The decision noted gross negligence and incompetence of petitioner’s counsel manifested in repeated procedural lapses—defective notices, belated filings, improper verifications—and held that while mistakes of counsel generally bind the client, such a rule
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 238298)
Facts and Background
- On November 8, 2009, in Baguio City, petitioner Joel F. Latogan allegedly attacked Mary Grace Cabbigat with a piece of wood, inflicting lacerations, hematomas, and a fatal head injury.
- The Information charged murder with qualifying circumstance of treachery (sudden attack) and aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex (victim was a woman).
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
RTC Proceedings and Decision
- Branch 5, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Baguio City convicted petitioner of Murder on June 5, 2015, based solely on circumstantial evidence:
• Petitioner and victim were together from midnight until 1:45 a.m. when he brought her to the hospital with fatal injuries.
• As last companion, petitioner was found to have inflicted the fatal blow; a romantic relationship and possible quarrel were noted.
• Abuse of superior strength was treated as an additional qualification for murder. - Sentence imposed: reclusion perpetua; civil indemnity ₱50,000; moral damages ₱50,000; actual damages ₱37,900, all with 6% interest from finality of decision.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied for failure to give notice of hearing under Rule 15, Secs. 4–5.
Notice of Appeal and RTC Order
- On July 24, 2015, petitioner filed a Manifestation and Notice of Appeal.
- Private Prosecutor opposed, arguing the RTC decision had become final 15 days after promulgation.
- RTC denied the appeal on August 19, 2015, holding that (a) no reconsideration of the July 13 Order was sought, (b) the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time, and (c) technical compliance could not be excused by gravity of conviction.
Petition for Certiorari Before the CA
- Petitioner filed a Rule 65 certiorari petitio