THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 170979, February 09, 2011]

JUDITH YU, !TITION!R, VS. HON. ROS" S"#SON$T"T"D, R!SIDING JUDG!,
R!GION"% TRI"% &OURT, 'U!(ON &ITY, )R"N&H 10*, "ND TH! !O%! OF TH!
HI%IIN!S, R!SOND!NTS.
D ! & I S I O N
)RION, J.+
We resolve the petition for prohibition filed by petitioner Judith Yu to enjoin respondent Judge Rosa
Samson-Tatad of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) !ran"h #$% &ue'on City from ta(ing further
pro"eedings in Criminal Case )o* &-$#-#$%+,- entitled .People of the Philippines v. Judith Yu, et
al..
/#0
T,e Fa-.ua/ "0.e-e1e0.2
The fa"ts of the "ase gathered from the parties1 pleadings are briefly summari'ed belo2*
!ased on the "omplaint of Spouses Sergio and Cristina Casa"lang an information for estafa against
the petitioner 2as filed 2ith the RTC*
3n a 4ay 5+ 5$$% de"ision the RTC "onvi"ted the petitioner as "harged* 3t imposed on her a
penalty of three (6) months of imprisonment (arresto mayor) a fine of 76-$$$$$*$$ 2ith
subsidiary imprisonment and the payment of an indemnity to the Spouses Casa"lang in the same
amount as the fine*
/50
8ourteen (#9) days later or on June , 5$$% the petitioner filed a motion for ne2 trial 2ith the RTC
alleging that she dis"overed ne2 and material eviden"e that 2ould e:"ulpate her of the "rime for
2hi"h she 2as "onvi"ted*
/60
3n an ;"tober #< 5$$% order respondent Judge denied the petitioner1s motion for ne2 trial for la"(
of merit*
/90
;n )ovember #+ 5$$% the petitioner filed a noti"e of appeal 2ith the RTC alleging that pursuant
to our ruling in Neypes v. Court of Appeals
/%0
she had a .fresh period. of #% days from )ovember 6
5$$% the re"eipt of the denial of her motion for ne2 trial or up to )ovember #- 5$$% 2ithin
2hi"h to file a noti"e of appeal*
/+0
;n )ovember 59 5$$% the respondent Judge ordered the petitioner to submit a "opy of Neypes for
his guidan"e*
/<0
;n =e"ember - 5$$% the prose"ution filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for being filed #$ days
late arguing that Neypes is inappli"able to appeals in "riminal "ases*
/-0
;n January 9 5$$+ the prose"ution filed a motion for e:e"ution of the de"ision*
/,0
;n January 5$ 5$$+ the RTC "onsidered the t2in motions submitted for resolution*
;n January 5+ 5$$+ the petitioner filed the present petition for prohibition 2ith prayer for the
issuan"e of a temporary restraining order and a 2rit of preliminary injun"tion to enjoin the RTC from
a"ting on the prose"ution1s motions to dismiss the appeal and for the e:e"ution of the de"ision*
/#$0
T,e e.3.3o0
The petitioner argues that the RTC lost jurisdi"tion to a"t on the prose"ution1s motions 2hen she
filed her noti"e of appeal 2ithin the #%-day reglementary period provided by the Rules of Court
applying the .fresh period rule. enun"iated in Neypes*
T,e &a2e 4or .,e Re25o01e0.2
The respondent 7eople of the 7hilippines through the ;ffi"e of the Soli"itor >eneral (OSG) filed a
manifestation in lieu of "omment stating that Neypes applies to "riminal a"tions sin"e the evident
intention of the .fresh period rule. 2as to set a uniform appeal period provided in the Rules*
/##0
3n vie2 of the ;S>1s manifestation 2e re?uired the Spouses Casa"lang to "omment on the petition*
/#50
3n their "omment the Spouses Casa"lang aver that the petitioner "annot see( refuge in Neypes to
e:tend the .fresh period rule. to "riminal "ases be"ause Neypes involved a "ivil "ase and the
pronoun"ement of .standardi'ation of the appeal periods in the Rules. referred to the interpretation
of the appeal periods in "ivil "ases i.e* Rules 9$ 9# 95 and 9% of the #,,< Rules of Civil
7ro"edure among others@ no2here in Neypes2as the period to appeal in "riminal "ases Se"tion + of
Rule #55 of the Revised Rules of Criminal 7ro"edure mentioned*
/#60
I22ue
The "ore issue boils do2n to 2hether the .fresh period rule. enun"iated in Neypesapplies to appeals
in "riminal "ases*
T,e &our.62 Ru/307
8e 4301 9er3. 30 .,e 5e.3.3o0.
The right to appeal is not a "onstitutional natural or inherent right -- it is a statutory privilege and
of statutory origin and therefore available only if granted or as provided by statutes* 3t may be
e:er"ised only in the manner pres"ribed by the provisions of the la2*
/#90
The period to appeal is
spe"ifi"ally governed by Se"tion 6, of atas Pam!ansa l"* #5, (P #$%)
/#%0
as amended Se"tion 6
of Rule 9# of the #,,< Rules of Civil 7ro"edure and Se"tion + of Rule #55 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal 7ro"edure*
Se"tion 6, of !7 #5, as amended providesA
SBC* 6,* Appeals* - The period for appeal from final orders resolutions a2ards judgments or
de"isions of any "ourt 30 a// -a2e2 shall be fifteen (#%) days "ounted from the noti"e of the final
order resolution a2ard judgment or de"ision appealed fromA Provided, ho&ever That in ha!eas
'orpus "ases the period for appeal shall be forty-eight (9-) hours from the noti"e of the judgment
appealed from*
Se"tion 6 Rule 9# of the #,,< Rules of Civil 7ro"edure statesA
SBC* 6* Period of ordinary appeal* CDE The appeal shall be ta(en 2ithin fifteen (#%) days from noti"e
of the judgment or final order appealed from* Where a re"ord on appeal is re?uired the appellant
shall file a noti"e of appeal and a re"ord on appeal 2ithin thirty (6$) days from noti"e of the
judgment or final order*
T,e 5er3o1 o4 a55ea/ 2,a// be 30.erru5.e1 by a .39e/y 9o.3o0 4or 0e: .r3a/ or
re-o0231era.3o0* )o motion for e:tension of time to file a motion for ne2 trial or re"onsideration
shall be allo2ed*
Se"tion + Rule #55 of the Revised Rules of Criminal 7ro"edure readsA
SBC* +* (hen appeal to !e ta)en* -- Fn appeal must be ta(en 2ithin fifteen (#%) days from
promulgation of the judgment or from noti"e of the final order appealed from* T,32 5er3o1 4or
5er4e-.307 a0 a55ea/ 2,a// be 2u25e01e1 4ro9 .,e .39e a 9o.3o0 4or 0e: .r3a/ or
re-o0231era.3o0 32 43/e1 u0.3/ 0o.3-e o4 .,e or1er o;erru/307 .,e 9o.3o0 ,a2 bee0 2er;e1
u5o0 .,e a--u2e1 or ,32 -ou02e/ a. :,3-, .39e .,e ba/a0-e o4 .,e 5er3o1 be7302 .o ru0.
3n Neypes, the Court modified the rule in "ivil "ases on the "ounting of the #%-day period 2ithin
2hi"h to appeal* The Court "ategori"ally set a 4re2, 5er3o1 o4 1* 1ay2 4ro9 a 1e03a/ o4 a
9o.3o0 4or re-o0231era.3o0 :3.,30 :,3-, .o a55ea/ thusA
The Supreme Court may promulgate pro"edural rules in all "ourts* 3t has the sole prerogative to
amend repeal or even establish ne2 rules for a more simplified and ine:pensive pro"ess and the
speedy disposition of "ases* 3n the rules governing appeals to it and to the Court of Fppeals
parti"ularly Rules 95 96 and 9% the Court allo2s e:tensions of time based on justifiable and
"ompelling reasons for parties to file their appeals* These e:tensions may "onsist of #% days or
more*
To standardi'e the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to
appeal their "ases the Court deems it pra"ti"al to allo2 a fresh period of #% days 2ithin 2hi"h to file
the noti"e of appeal in the Regional Trial Court "ounted from re"eipt of the order dismissing a
motion for a ne2 trial or motion for re"onsideration*
Gen"eforth .,32 <4re2, 5er3o1 ru/e< 2,a// a/2o a55/y .o Ru/e =0 7o;er0307 a55ea/2 4ro9 .,e
#u03-35a/ Tr3a/ &our.2 .o .,e Re73o0a/ Tr3a/ &our.2> Ru/e =2 o0 5e.3.3o02 4or re;3e: 4ro9
.,e Re73o0a/ Tr3a/ &our.2 .o .,e &our. o4 "55ea/2> Ru/e =? o0 a55ea/2 4ro9 @ua23$Au13-3a/
a7e0-3e2 .o .,e &our. o4 "55ea/2 a01 Ru/e =* 7o;er0307 a55ea/2 by certiorari .o .,e
Su5re9e &our.* The ne2 rule aims to regiment or ma(e the appeal period uniform to be "ounted
from re"eipt of the order denying the motion for ne2 trial motion for re"onsideration (2hether full
or partial) or any final order or resolution*
/#+0
The Court also reiterated its ruling that it is the denial of the motion for re"onsideration that
"onstituted the final order 2hi"h finally disposed of the issues involved in the "ase*
The raison d*+,tre for the .fresh period rule. is to standardi'e the appeal period provided in the
Rules and do a2ay 2ith the "onfusion as to 2hen the #%-day appeal period should be "ounted*
Thus the #%-day period to appeal is no longer interrupted by the filing of a motion for ne2 trial or
motion for re"onsideration@ litigants today need not "on"ern themselves 2ith "ounting the balan"e
of the #%-day period to appeal sin"e the #%-day period is no2 "ounted from re"eipt of the order
dismissing a motion for ne2 trial or motion for re"onsideration or any final order or resolution*
While Neypes involved the period to appeal in "ivil "ases the Court1s pronoun"ement of a .fresh
period. to appeal should e?ually apply to the period for appeal in "riminal "ases under Se"tion + of
Rule #55 of the Revised Rules of Criminal 7ro"edure for the follo2ing reasonsA
-irst !7 #5, as amended the substantive la2 on 2hi"h the Rules of Court is based ma(es no
distin"tion bet2een the periods to appeal in a "ivil "ase and in a "riminal "ase* Se"tion 6, of !7 #5,
"ategori"ally states that ./t0he period for appeal from final orders, resolutions, a&ards, 1ud"ments,
or de'isions of any 'ourt in all cases shall !e fifteen 2#34 days 'ounted from the noti'e of the final
order, resolution, a&ard, 1ud"ment, or de'ision appealed from.. 5!i le6 non distin"uit ne' nos
distin"uere de!emos. When the la2 ma(es no distin"tion 2e (this Court) also ought not to
re"ogni'e any distin"tion*
/#<0
Se'ond the provisions of Se"tion 6 of Rule 9# of the #,,< Rules of Civil 7ro"edure and Se"tion + of
Rule #55 of the Revised Rules of Criminal 7ro"edure though differently 2orded mean e:a"tly the
same* There is no substantial differen"e bet2een the t2o provisions insofar as legal results are
"on"erned - the appeal period stops running upon the filing of a motion for ne2 trial or
re"onsideration and starts to run again upon re"eipt of the order denying said motion for ne2 trial
or re"onsideration* 3t 2as this situation that Neypes addressed in "ivil "ases* )o reason e:ists 2hy
this situation in "riminal "ases "annot be similarly addressed*
Third 2hile the Court did not "onsider in Neypes the ordinary appeal period in "riminal "ases under
Se"tion + Rule #55 of the Revised Rules of Criminal 7ro"edure sin"e it involved a purely "ivil "ase it
did in"lude Rule 95 of the #,,< Rules of Civil 7ro"edure on petitions for revie2 from the RTCs to the
Court of Fppeals (CF) and Rule 9% of the #,,< Rules of Civil 7ro"edure governing appeals
by 'ertiorari to this Court both of 2hi"h also apply to appeals in "riminal "ases as provided by
Se"tion 6 of Rule #55 of the Revised Rules of Criminal 7ro"edure thusA
SBC* 6* 7o& appeal ta)en* -- : : : :
(b) The appeal to the Court of Fppeals in "ases de"ided by the Regional Trial Court in the e:er"ise of
its appellate jurisdi"tion shall be by petition for revie2 under Rule 95*
: : : :
B:"ept as provided in the last paragraph of se"tion #6 Rule #59 all other appeals to the Supreme
Court shall be by petition for revie2 on'ertiorari under Rule 9%*
Clearly if the modes of appeal to the CF (in "ases 2here the RTC e:er"ised its appellate jurisdi"tion)
and to this Court in "ivil and "riminal "ases are the same no "ogent reason e:ists 2hy the periods
to appeal from the RTC (in the e:er"ise of its original jurisdi"tion) to the CF in "ivil and "riminal
"ases under Se"tion 6 of Rule 9# of the #,,< Rules of Civil 7ro"edure and Se"tion + of Rule #55 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal 7ro"edure should be treated differently*
Were 2e to stri"tly interpret the .fresh period rule. in Neypes and ma(e it appli"able only to the
period to appeal in "ivil "ases 2e shall effe"tively foster and en"ourage an absurd situation 2here a
litigant in a "ivil "ase 2ill have a better right to appeal than an a""used in a "riminal "ase - a
situation that gives undue favor to "ivil litigants and unjustly dis"riminates against the a""used-
appellants* 3t suggests a dou!le standard of treatment 2hen 2e favor a situation 2here property
interests are at sta(e as against a situation 2here liberty stands to be prejudi"ed* We must
emphati"ally reje"t this double and une?ual standard for being "ontrary to reason* ;ver time "ourts
have re"ogni'ed 2ith almost pedanti" adheren"e that 2hat is "ontrary to reason is not allo2ed in
la2 - 8uod est in'onveniens, aut 'ontra rationem non permissum est in le"e.
/#-0
Thus 2e agree 2ith the ;S>1s vie2 that if a delay in the filing of an appeal may be e:"used on
grounds of substantial justi"e in "ivil a"tions 2ith more reason should the same treatment be
a""orded to the a""used in see(ing the revie2 on appeal of a "riminal "ase 2here no less than the
liberty of the a""used is at sta(e* The "on"ern and the prote"tion 2e must e:tend to matters of
liberty "annot be overstated*
3n light of these legal realities 2e hold that the petitioner seasonably filed her noti"e of appeal on
)ovember #+ 5$$% 2ithin the fresh period of #% days "ounted from)ovember 6 5$$%the date of
re"eipt of noti"e denying her motion for ne2 trial*
8H!R!FOR! the petition for prohibition is hereby GR"NT!D* Respondent Judge Rosa Samson-
Tatad is DIR!&T!D to &!"S! and D!SIST from further e:er"ising jurisdi"tion over the
prose"ution1s motions to dismiss appeal and for e:e"ution of the de"ision* The respondent Judge is
also DIR!&T!D to give due "ourse to the petitioner1s appeal in Criminal Case )o* &-$#-#$%+,-
and to elevate the re"ords of the "ase to the Court of Fppeals for revie2 of the appealed de"ision on
the merits*
)o pronoun"ement as to "osts*
SO ORD!R!D*
Carpio 9orales, 2Chairperson4, ersamin, :illarama, Jr. and Sereno, JJ. "on"ur*