THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235689. August 14, 2019.]
ROLEX O. RODRIGUEZ, JR., petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 14, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235689 (Rolex O. Rodriguez, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines). — Assailed in this Petition for Certiorari (Under Rule 65) are respondent Court of Appeals' (CA) Resolution dated March 31, 2017 and Resolution dated July 10, 2017, which denied petitioner's appeal on the ground that petitioner Rolex O. Rodriguez, Jr. (petitioner) is a fugitive from justice, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's alleged ruling in Rodriguez v. People, et al., 1 giving due course to petitioner's Notice of Appeal dated January 29, 2009, to wit:
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, 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. (Boldfacing in the original) 2
The pertinent factual antecedents are as follows:
In G.R. No. 192799, petitioner was charged with Unfair Competition under Sections 155, 168, 160, in relation to Section 170, of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293, otherwise known as the "Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines." The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 24 convicted petitioner in Criminal Case No. 02-206499, and sentenced him to serve the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, and to pay a fine of P50,000.00 and actual damages of P75,000.00.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision on the fifteenth (15th) day of the reglementary period to appeal, which the RTC denied. Fourteen (14) days after receipt of the RTC Order denying his motion, petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal alleging error on the part of the RTC. However, the same was denied for being filed out of time under Section 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Throughout all his appeals, petitioner has maintained the applicability in his case of the "fresh period rule" laid down by the Court in Neypes v. Court of Appeals, 3 which permitted a fresh period of fifteen (15) days within which to file the notice of appeal to the RTC, counted from the receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration. 4
Based on both the Neypes ruling and the Court's findings in Yu v. Hon. Samson-Tatad, et al., 5 which expanded the scope of the doctrine in Neypes to criminal cases in appeals of conviction, 6 the Court granted petitioner's Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 192799 and held that petitioner seasonably filed his Notice of Appeal on February 2, 2009, within the 15-day reglementary period counted from January 19, 2009 when petitioner allegedly received a copy of the RTC Order denying his motion for reconsideration.
Notably, the Court, without ruling on the merits of the case, gave due course to petitioner's notice of appeal and remanded the case to the CA for review of his appeal.
In its Resolution 7 dated March 31, 2017, however, the CA dismissed petitioner's appeal, holding that petitioner "may be deemed to have jumped bail since he is under provisional liberty without a validly issued bail despite his conviction." After a review of the case records, the CA discovered that petitioner has been under provisional liberty without a validly issued bail, since petitioner's bail with Pacific Union Insurance Company (PUIC) was effective only until the promulgation of the trial court's judgment on November 6, 2008. 8 The CA, ruling upon petitioner's Notice of Appeal motu proprio, held that petitioner lost his standing to appeal when he failed to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
Petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration, alleging error on the part of the CA for disregarding the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 192799. The CA, in its Resolution dated July 10, 2017, denied petitioner's motion and held that:
Considering that no motion for reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period, the Resolution dated March 31, 2017 has attained finality on April 26, 2017.
Accused-appellant's Motion for Reconsideration belatedly filed on April 27, 2017 is MERELY NOTED. 9
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari, alleging that the CA acted "without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed petitioner's appeal and his Motion for Reconsideration." 10
The core issue to be resolved by this Court is whether or not the CA erred in ruling that it did not have jurisdiction over petitioner because of the latter's failure to procure a validly issued bail.
We rule in the negative.
At the outset, the Court deems it appropriate to clarify its initial ruling in G.R. No. 192799 on behalf of petitioner. While it cannot be denied that the Court granted petitioner's petition for review in G.R. No. 192799 and gave due course to his notice of appeal before the CA, said resolution was not a ruling on the merits of the case and did not constitute a grant of said notice of appeal. The Court, in G.R. No. 192799, merely ruled upon whether or not the same was seasonably filed, and ruled that:
[I]n 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. 11
In the present petition, petitioner attempts to muddle the issue by persistently citing the Court's ruling in G.R. No. 192799, which only gave due course to his notice of appeal before the CA. However, the records show that the primary issue to be determined by this Court is the status of petitioner's bailbond posted with PUIC, and whether the same remained in effect even after the promulgation of the RTC Decision.
Petitioner claims that the "trial court maintained petitioner's provisional liberty after the latter's appeal to the Honorable Court, [and] the trial court also issued subsequent Orders affirming his liberty while the controversy remained pending on appeal." 12 Petitioner also maintains that the trial court did not issue any subsequent Order withdrawing the same, hence the same remained effective and, thus, petitioner cannot be deemed to have absconded. 13
Under Section 1, 14 Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, provisional liberty, otherwise known as bail, is defined as "the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under certain conditions." The same Section enumerates the forms of bail available to an applicant, namely: a corporate surety, property bond, case deposit, or recognizance. 15
In this case, petitioner gave his bond in the form of a corporate surety, which he posted with PUIC. On November 6, 2008, the RTC convicted petitioner of committing Unfair Competition and denied his motion for reconsideration.
Section 2 (a), 16 Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as cited by the CA, provides that the bail "shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the case until promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it."
Moreover, this Court, citing its Resolution 17 dated July 20, 2004, as amended, clarified that "[u]nless and until the court concerned directs otherwise, the lifetime or duration of the effectivity of any bond issued in criminal and civil action/special proceedings, or in any proceeding or incident therein shall be from its approval by the court until the action or proceeding is finally decided, resolved or terminated." 18
Likewise, in Enriquez v. The Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc., 19 the Court held that a surety bond remains effective until the action or proceeding is finally decided, resolved, or terminated. This condition is deemed incorporated in the contract between the applicant and the surety, regardless of whether they failed to expressly state it.
It is undeniable that the RTC resolved the case when it convicted petitioner of Unfair Competition in its Decision dated November 3, 2008, and subsequently, denied his motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision. Pursuant to the aforementioned rules, petitioner's provisional liberty had already concluded. In addition, the records are want of any Order expressly extending the lifetime or duration of the effectivity of petitioner's bail posted with PUIC. Notwithstanding the fact that PUIC, in its Manifestation dated May 5, 2016, stated that its accreditation to issue bail bonds had already expired in 2008, and is, therefore, no longer licensed as a surety in accordance with law.
Hence, petitioner cannot insist on the effectivity and efficacy of its provisional liberty on the basis of a bailbond posted with an unlicensed and unauthorized domestic entity. Furthermore, petitioner has failed to show any proof to support its claim that the RTC had extended the duration of his bail through an Order expressly stating such fact.
By reason of petitioner's failure to post a new bailbond after his conviction, the CA did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner and, thus, had no jurisdiction to entertain the latter's appeal.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 698 Phil. 165, 170 (2012).
2. Petition dated September 19, 2017, p. 2; Rodriguez v. People, et al., supra, at 170.
3. 506 Phil. 613 (2005).
4.Id. at 626. (Emphasis supplied).
5. 657 Phil. 431, 439 (2011).
6. Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 122, Sec. 6.
7.Rollo, pp. 28-35.
8.Id. at 32.
9.Id. at 45.
10.Id. at 8.
11.Rodriguez v. People, et al., supra note 1, at 170.
12.Rollo, p. 10.
13.Id.
14. SECTION 1. Bail defined. — Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.
15.Id.
16. SECTION 2. Conditions of the Bail; Requirements. — All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions:
(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the case until promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it;
xxx xxx xxx
17.Guidelines on Corporate Surety Bonds, A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC, July 20, 2004; OCA Circular No. 155-15.
18.Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental, 847 Phil. 517, 543 (2017).
19. G.R. No. 210950, August 15, 2018.