01 Rodriguez V PP

G.R. No. 192799. October 24, 2012.
*
ROLEX RODRIGUEZ y OLAYRES, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES and ALLIED DOMECQ SPIRITS AND
WINES, represented by ALLIED DOMECQ PHILS., INC.,
respondents.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Fresh Period Rule;

While Neypes vs. Court of Appeals, 469 SCRA 633 (2005), involved the
period to appeal in civil cases, the Court’s pronouncement of a “fresh
period” to appeal should equally apply to the period for appeal in criminal
cases under Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.―The pivotal question is whether the “fresh period rule” is
applicable to appeals from conviction in criminal cases governed by Sec. 6
of Rule 122 which pertinently provides: Sec. 6. When appeal to be
taken.―An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from
promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed
from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time
a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order
overruling the motion has been served upon the accused or his counsel at
which time the balance of the period begins to run. (Emphasis supplied.)
While Neypes was silent on the applicability of the “fresh period rule” to
criminal cases, the issue was squarely addressed in Yu v. Tatad, 642 SCRA
421 (2011), which expanded the scope of the doctrine in Neypes to criminal
cases in appeals of conviction under Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the Court held in Yu: While Neypes involved
the period to appeal in civil cases, the Court’s pronouncement of a “fresh
period” to appeal should equally apply to the period for appeal in
criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
Same; Same; Same; Same; It is now settled that the fresh period rule is
applicable in criminal cases, like the instant case, where the accused files
from a judgment of conviction a motion for new trial or reconsideration
which is denied by the trial court. The accused will have a fresh 15-day
period counted from receipt of such denial within
_______________
* THIRD DlVlSION.
581
VOL. 684, OCTOBER 24, 2012 581
Rodriguez vs. People
which to file his or her notice of appeal.―It is now settled that the fresh
period rule is applicable in criminal cases, like the instant case, where the
accused files from a judgment of conviction a motion for new trial or
reconsideration which is denied by the trial court. The accused will have a
fresh 15-day period counted from receipt of such denial within which to file
his or her notice of appeal. Verily, the application of the statutory privilege
of appeal must not prejudice an accused who must be accorded the same
statutory privilege as litigants in civil cases who are granted a fresh 15-day
period within which to file an appeal from receipt of the denial of their
motion for new trial or reconsideration. It is indeed absurd and incongruous
that an appeal from a conviction in a criminal case is more stringent than
those of civil cases. If the Court has accorded litigants in civil cases―under
the spirit and rationale in Neypes―greater leeway in filing an appeal
through the “fresh period rule,” with more reason that it should equally
grant the same to criminal cases which involve the accused’s “sacrosanct
right to liberty, which is protected by the Constitution, as no person should
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution

of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Britanico, Britanico & Associates Law Offices for petitioner.
Vergara, Mamangun, Jamero, Gonzales Law Office for private
respondent.
RESOLUTION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner assails the

March 2, 2010 Decision1 and June 29, 2010 Resolu-
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 69-81. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernandez
and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Francisco P. Acosta.
582
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tion2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 108789,

which affirmed the April 14, 2009 Order3 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 24 in Manila, denying due course to
petitioner’s Notice of Appeal in Criminal Case No. 02-206499.
The RTC convicted petitioner for Unfair Competition penalized
under Sections 155, 168, 160 in relation to Sec. 170 of Republic Act
No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, and
sentenced him to serve imprisonment of two (2) years, to pay a fine
of PhP 50,000 and actual damages of PhP 75,000.
The pertinent factual antecedents are undisputed.
After promulgation of the Decision in Criminal Case No. 02-
206499 convicting him for unfair competition, petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration before the RTC on the 15th or the last
day of the reglementary period to appeal. Fourteen (14) days after
receipt of the RTC Order denying his motion for reconsideration,
petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal.4 Thus, the denial of his Notice
of Appeal on the ground of its being filed out of time under Sec. 6,
Rule 122, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Before the RTC,
the CA and now here, petitioner was unwavering in his assertion of
the applicability of the “fresh period rule” as laid down in Neypes v.
Court of Appeals.5
The rationale of the “fresh period rule” is:
To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford

litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to
allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in
the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a
motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.
_______________
2 Id., at pp. 82-83.
3 Id., at pp. 62-63. Penned by Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr.
4 Id., at pp. 56-59, dated January 29, 2009.
5 G.R. No. 241524, April 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633.
583
VOL. 684, OCTOBER 24, 2012 583

Henceforth, this “fresh period rule” shall also apply to Rule 40 governing
appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule
42 on petitions for review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of
Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of
Appeals and Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court.
The new rule aims to regiment or make the appeal period uniform, to be
counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for new trial, motion
for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution.6
Neypes elucidates that the “fresh period rule” applies to appeals

under Rule 40 (appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the RTC)
and Rule 41 (appeals from the RTCs to the CA or this Court); Rule
42 (appeals from the RTCs to the CA); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-
judicial agencies to the CA); and Rule 45 (appeals by certiorari to
this Court).7 A scrutiny of the said rules, however, reveals that the
“fresh period rule” enunciated in Neypes need NOT apply to Rules
42, 43 and 45 as there is no interruption in the 15-day reglementary
period to appeal. It is explicit in Rules 42, 43 and 45 that the
appellant or petitioner is accorded a fresh period of 15 days from the
notice of the decision, award, judgment, final order or resolution or
of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or
reconsideration filed.8
The pivotal question is whether the “fresh period rule” is
applicable to appeals from conviction in criminal cases governed by
Sec. 6 of Rule 122 which pertinently provides:
Sec. 6. When appeal to be taken.―An appeal must be taken within

fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the
final order appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be
suspended from the time a motion for new trial or
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 644-645.
7 See Panolino v. Tajala, G.R. No. 183616, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 309, 315.
8 Sec. 1 of Rule 42; Sec. 4 of Rule 43; and Sec. 2 of Rule 45.
584

reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion has
been served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of
the period begins to run. (Emphasis supplied.)
While Neypes was silent on the applicability of the “fresh period

rule” to criminal cases, the issue was squarely addressed in Yu v.
Tatad,9 which expanded the scope of the doctrine in Neypes to
criminal cases in appeals of conviction under Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the Court held in Yu:
While Neypes involved the period to appeal in civil cases, the Court’s
pronouncement of a “fresh period” to appeal should equally apply to
the period for appeal in criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule 122 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure x x x.10
xxxx
Were we to strictly interpret the “fresh period rule” in Neypes and make
it applicable only to the period to appeal in civil cases, we shall effectively
foster and encourage an absurd situation where a litigant in a civil case will
have a better right to appeal than an accused in a criminal case―a situation
that gives undue favor to civil litigants and unjustly discriminates against
the accused-appellants. It suggests a double standard of treatment when we
favor a situation where property interests are at stake, as against a situation
where liberty stands to be prejudiced. We must emphatically reject this
double and unequal standard for being contrary to reason. Over time, courts
have recognized with almost pedantic adherence that what is contrary to
reason is not allowed in law―Quod est inconveniens, aut contra rationem
non permissum est in lege.
Thus, we agree with the OSG’s view that if a delay in the filing of an
appeal may be excused on grounds of substantial justice in civil actions,
with more reason should the same treatment be accorded to the accused in
seeking the review on appeal of a criminal case where no less than the
liberty of the accused is at stake. The concern and
_______________
9 G.R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 421.
10 Id., at p. 428.
585
VOL. 684, OCTOBER 24, 2012 585

the protection we must extend to matters of liberty cannot be overstated.11

(Emphasis supplied.)
It is, thus, now settled that the fresh period rule is applicable in
criminal cases, like the instant case, where the accused files from a
judgment of conviction a motion for new trial or reconsideration
which is denied by the trial court. The accused will have a fresh 15-
day period counted from receipt of such denial within which to file
his or her notice of appeal.
Verily, the application of the statutory privilege of appeal must
not prejudice an accused who must be accorded the same statutory
privilege as litigants in civil cases who are granted a fresh 15-day
period within which to file an appeal from receipt of the denial of
their motion for new trial or reconsideration. It is indeed absurd and
incongruous that an appeal from a conviction in a criminal case is
more stringent than those of civil cases. If the Court has accorded
litigants in civil cases―under the spirit and rationale in
Neypes―greater leeway in filing an appeal through the “fresh period
rule,” with more reason that it should equally grant the same to
criminal cases which involve the accused’s “sacrosanct right to
liberty, which is protected by the Constitution, as no person should
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law.”12
Consequently, in light of the foregoing, we hold that petitioner
seasonably filed his notice of appeal on February 2, 2009, within the
fresh period of 15 days, counted from January 19, 2009, the date of
receipt of the RTC Order denying his motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly,
the April 14, 2009 Order of the RTC, Branch 24 in Manila and the
assailed March 2, 2010 Decision and June 29,
_______________
11 Id., at p. 430.
12 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1; Macasasa v. Sicad, G.R. No. 146547, June 20,
2006, 491 SCRA 368, 383.
586

2010 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 108789 are

REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Notice of Appeal of petitioner
Rolex Rodriguez y Olayres dated January 29, 2009 is hereby
GIVEN DUE COURSE. Let the case records be elevated by the
RTC to the CA for the review of petitioner’s appeal with dispatch.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo De-Castro,** Peralta, Abad and Mendoza, JJ.,

concur.
Petition granted.
Notes.―The “fresh period rule” shall also apply to appeals from

the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts, petitions for
review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals,
appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals and
petitions for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. (PCI
Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Milan, 617 SCRA 258 [2010])
The raison d’être for the “fresh period rule” is to standardize the
appeal period provided in the Rules and do away with the confusion
as to when the 15-day appeal period should be counted; the 15-day
period is now counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion
for new trial or motion for reconsideration or any final order or
resolution. (Yu vs. Samson-Tatad, 642 SCRA 421 [2011])
――o0o――
_______________
** Acting member per Special Order No. 1343 dated October 9, 2012.
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

01 Rodriguez V PP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 Rodriguez V PP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

01 Rodriguez V PP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 192799. October 24, 2012.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Fresh Period Rule;

Rodriguez vs. People

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner assails the

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tion2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 108789,

To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford

VOL. 684, OCTOBER 24, 2012 583

Neypes elucidates that the “fresh period rule” applies to appeals

Sec. 6. When appeal to be taken.―An appeal must be taken within

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

While Neypes was silent on the applicability of the “fresh period

VOL. 684, OCTOBER 24, 2012 585

the protection we must extend to matters of liberty cannot be overstated.11

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

2010 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 108789 are

Leonardo De-Castro,** Peralta, Abad and Mendoza, JJ.,

Notes.―The “fresh period rule” shall also apply to appeals from

You might also like