People v. Go
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Jose Go was charged with attempted homicide and frustrated homicide in two separate criminal cases. To secure his provisional release, Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. posted bail bonds totaling P9,000 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. 2. Procedural History: On the scheduled trial date, Jose Go failed to appear. The court ordered the forfeiture of the bail bonds and gave the surety company thirty days to produce the defendant or explain his absence. The surety company moved to set aside the forfeiture, presenting a certificate of confinement in a mental hospital, but this motion was denied. Subsequent motions for reconsideration and to set aside the forfeiture were also denied by the court, leading the surety company to file a notice of appeal. The People of the Philippines moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was filed out of time. 3. The Petition: The surety company appealed the orders of forfeiture and denial of its motions. The People moved to dismiss the appeal, contending it was not perfected within the fifteen-day period prescribed for appeals from orders of forfeiture in criminal cases, as established by precedent. The surety company argued for a longer period based on rules for civil appeals and brief filing. The Supreme Court deferred action on the motion to dismiss until considering the merits, ultimately finding the appeal was perfected out of time and thus dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal from the order directing the execution of the bail bond forfeiture was perfected within the reglementary period. Whether the notice from the Clerk of Court regarding the filing of briefs can confer appellate jurisdiction despite a late appeal.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The appellate court acquired no jurisdiction to review the order of forfeiture of the bonds appealed from.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal was filed out of time. Applying the doctrine in People vs. Lorredo (50 Phil. 209), the Court held that the proceedings for the execution of a forfeiture order must follow the law of criminal procedure. Under the prevailing rules, an appeal must be perfected within the non-extendible fifteen-day period following the notification of the order directing the execution of the judgment of forfeiture. In this case, the appellant received the order of forfeiture on July 19 and did not file its motion for reconsideration until August 6, which was 18 days later. Consequently, the 15-day period had already elapsed before the motion was even filed, meaning the court lost jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Even if calculated from the denial of the second motion, the underlying period had already expired. On Issue 2: The Court clarified that clerical or administrative notices from the Clerk of Court do not possess the power to cure jurisdictional defects. The appellant argued that because the Clerk of Court served notice that the brief must be filed within 45 days, the Court had effectively accepted jurisdiction. The Court rejected this, stating that such a notice does not and cannot confer appellate jurisdiction upon the Court when the appeal was taken beyond the statutory period. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and the timely filing of an appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. Once the period to appeal expires, the order becomes final and executory, and no act by a court officer can revive the right to appeal.
Main Doctrine
An appeal from an order directing the execution of the forfeiture of a bail bond must be perfected within the fifteen-day period prescribed by the Rules of Court, otherwise, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction.