Sapitula y Olaes v. People
This is a criminal case, Bernad Sapitula y Olaes v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 253462, November 9, 2020), where the Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that the 15-day reglementary period for filing motions for new trial and/or reconsideration and notices of appeal are inextendible. The petitioner's argument that his counsel was experiencing heavy work-related pressure was not considered a cogent reason to relax this rule. The Supreme Court reiterated that the 15-day period for filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration is non-extendible, and the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration did not toll the 15-day period before a judgment becomes final and executory.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253462. November 9, 2020.]
BERNARD SAPITULA y OLAES, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated09 November 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253462 (Bernard Sapitula y Olaes v. People of the Philippines). — The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner Bernard Sapitula y Olaes' (petitioner) motion for extension of fifteen (15) days from the expiration of the reglementary period, within which to file a petition for certiorari.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the June 3, 2019 2 and July 27, 2020 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 158870 for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 78 (RTC) did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time 4 to file his motion for reconsideration.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the reglementary period for filing motions for new trial and/or reconsideration, and notices of appeal are in extendible, and that the fact that his counsel is experiencing heavy work-related pressure is not a cogent reason to relax said rule. 5 It is settled that the fifteen (15)-day period for filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration is non-extendible. Hence, the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration did not toll the 15-days period before a judgment becomes final and executory, 6 as in this case.
SO ORDERED. (Rosario, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2797 dated November 5, 2020.)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Titled "Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 (With Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction"; rollo, pp. 8-34.
2.Id. at 39-42. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring.
3.Id. at 37-38. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Maria Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring.
4.Id. at 95-96.
5. See id. at 41.
6.Rivelisa Realty, Inc. v. First Sta. Clara Builders Corporation, 724 Phil. 508-519 (2014), citing Rolloque v. CA, 271 Phil. 40, 49-50 (1991). See also De Leon v. Hercules Agro Industrial Corporation, 734 Phil. 652-664 (2014).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU