Vicoy v. People of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The petitioner, Lilia J. Vicoy, was convicted by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Tagbilaran, Branch 2, for violation of City Ordinance No. 365-B for peddling fish outside the public market and for Resistance and Serious Disobedience To Agents Of A Person In Authority. The MTCC sentenced her to a fine with subsidiary imprisonment for the ordinance violation and to three months of arresto mayor and a fine for the disobedience charge. Procedural History: Following her conviction on August 24, 1995, petitioner filed an application for probation. Subsequently, she withdrew this application and filed a notice of appeal. The MTCC granted the withdrawal of the probation application but denied the notice of appeal as it was filed out of time. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of this denial was also denied. Thereafter, she filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol, Branch 3, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the MTCC in denying her right to appeal. The RTC issued an order directing the City Prosecutor's Office to enter its appearance and requiring the petitioner to furnish them with copies of the assailed judgment and her memorandum. The RTC subsequently dismissed the certiorari action for failure to comply with this order, and a motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeks to overturn the RTC's dismissal of the special civil action for certiorari. The sole issue presented is whether the RTC validly dismissed the petition on the ground of the petitioner's failure to comply with the court's order to furnish the City Prosecutor's Office with the required documents. The petitioner argues that the dismissal was improper, while the respondent court's decision emphasizes the petitioner's non-compliance with a lawful order and, alternatively, posits that the filing of a probation application constituted a waiver of the right to appeal, rendering the appeal moot.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court validly dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground of petitioner's failure to comply with its Order dated August 2, 1996. Whether the petitioner's notice of appeal was filed out of time, considering her prior application for probation.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed February 9, 1998 and February 25, 1999 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, Branch 3, in SP. Civil Case No. 5881 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for certiorari: The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the certiorari petition based on Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, which allows dismissal for failure to comply with the Rules or any order of the court. The Court found that the petitioner failed to comply with the RTC's August 2, 1996 Order directing her to furnish the City Prosecutor's Office with copies of her memorandum and the assailed judgment. The Court emphasized that every court has the power to enforce its orders, and the petitioner's failure to comply, even if the City Prosecutor had not yet entered an appearance, did not justify her continued non-compliance. The dismissal was deemed a valid exercise of the RTC's power. On the timeliness of the appeal: Even if the dismissal for non-compliance were disregarded, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner's special civil action would still fail. This is because the petitioner had filed an application for probation. Section 7, Rule 120 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, and Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968 (Probation Law of 1976, as amended), explicitly state that the filing of an application for probation is deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. Consequently, the judgment of conviction had become final upon the filing of the probation application, leaving no further opportunity for the petitioner to exercise her right to appeal.
Main Doctrine
The filing of an application for probation is deemed a waiver of the right to appeal, rendering the judgment final and precluding any subsequent appeal.