People v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case involves allegations of violations of Sections 3602 in relation to Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines. Specifically, private respondents were accused of conspiring to cause the entry and release of approximately 64,480 bags of PVC resins from Korea, using falsified Bureau of Customs Official Receipts purportedly representing payment of P13,265,225.00 in customs duties and charges. The information further alleged that these payments were not remitted to the National Treasury and that the importers were fictitious. Additionally, the accused were alleged to have illegally withdrawn the resins from a warehouse by breaking official Customs seals. 2. Procedural History: An information was filed on March 30, 1993, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, docketed as Criminal Case No. 93-118715. The private respondents filed omnibus motions to quash the information, arguing that the facts did not constitute an offense and that the criminal liability had been extinguished due to the alleged full payment of customs duties. On May 19, 1993, the RTC dismissed the case, finding that the customs duties had been paid and that the importers were not fictitious. The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC on August 19, 1993, for procedural defects and lack of merit. The prosecution then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was referred to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated May 23, 1996, denied the petition, primarily on the grounds that the appeal was filed out of time due to a defective motion for reconsideration and that certiorari could not be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, the People of the Philippines, seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case on technicalities, specifically regarding the timeliness of the appeal and the defect in the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner contends that the absence of a notice of hearing in the motion for reconsideration was cured by the trial court's subsequent action of taking cognizance of the motion and that the adverse party was notified. Furthermore, petitioner asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing the information, as the payment of duties was made after the alleged commission of the offense and after the goods were constructively seized, and that the proviso in Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code, stating that payment after apprehension is not a valid defense, should have been applied.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the criminal case based on procedural technicalities, specifically the defect in the motion for reconsideration. Whether the payment of customs duties and charges after the alleged commission of the offense under Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code extinguishes criminal liability, particularly when such payment is made after apprehension.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petition was filed out of time because the motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecution with the RTC was a mere scrap of paper, lacking a notice of hearing, and thus did not toll the period to appeal. Consequently, the order of dismissal had become final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issue of the defective motion for reconsideration: The Court reiterated the established rule that every written motion must be set for hearing and served with a notice of hearing. A motion lacking these requirements is considered pro forma, a mere scrap of paper, and does not toll the period to appeal. The prosecution's motion for reconsideration, filed on June 10, 1993, lacked a notice of hearing. The RTC's order on June 11, 1993, correctly pointed out this defect. The subsequent filing of a motion for leave to set the motion for reconsideration for hearing on July 1, 1993, was too late, as the order of dismissal dated May 19, 1993, had already become final and executory on June 18, 1993, fifteen days after the prosecution received it on June 3, 1993. The Court emphasized that the duty to give notice of hearing devolves upon the movant, not the court. Therefore, the petition filed with the Supreme Court was indeed filed beyond the reglementary period, rendering the grant of an extension moot and academic. On the substantive issue of payment extinguishing criminal liability: While the Court did not extensively delve into the substantive merits due to the procedural bar, it acknowledged the RTC's finding that the payment of P13,265,225.00 was made in compliance with a demand from the Bureau of Customs and that the receipts were genuine. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to present evidence of "apprehension" as contemplated in the proviso of Section 3602 of the TCCP, which states that payment of the tax due after apprehension shall not constitute a valid defense. The Court found that the payment was made due to a demand, not as a result of an apprehension, and that the prosecution's argument that the crime was committed before payment was not sufficiently established in light of the RTC's findings and the lack of proof of apprehension. The Court also pointed out that the prosecution's argument that the payment did not extinguish criminal liability was based on the premise that the offense was committed in July and August 1992, but the payment was made on October 13, 1992. However, the crucial element of "apprehension" was not proven, making the proviso inapplicable.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that lacks a notice of hearing is considered a mere scrap of paper and does not toll the period to appeal. Consequently, the order or judgment becomes final and executory.