People v. Gabriel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The respondent, Danilo P. Gabriel, was charged in two separate Informations with violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The first Information alleged the unlawful sale, delivery, and giving away of approximately 4.8535 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (Shabu). The second Information charged him with unlawfully possessing 62.9791 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (Shabu) without a license or prescription. Procedural History: Both criminal cases were consolidated before Branch 74 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Olongapo City. The presiding judge requested the relief of the assigned prosecutor due to poor performance. Subsequently, the cases were provisionally dismissed for failure to prosecute. A motion for reconsideration of this dismissal was denied. The Office of the City Prosecutor then recommended to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) the filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to challenge the RTC's denial order. The Petition: The OSG filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn the RTC's order denying the motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition, holding that it was time-barred. The appellate court reasoned that the 60-day reglementary period for filing the petition should have commenced from the date the Office of the City Prosecutor received the RTC's order (November 22, 2000), not from the date the OSG received it (January 3, 2001). The OSG's subsequent petition to this Court challenges this dismissal, arguing that the filing was within the prescribed period.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) with the Court of Appeals was filed within the sixty (60)-day reglementary period, considering the notice received by the Olongapo City Prosecutor. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that it was time-barred, given the OSG's argument regarding the date of their actual receipt of the RTC Order.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for certiorari is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for certiorari: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition for certiorari for being filed out of time. Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a petition for certiorari must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution, or from notice of the denial of a timely filed motion for reconsideration. In criminal actions before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, notice to the prosecuting prosecutor's office is considered notice to the OSG. The RTC sent a copy of its Order dated November 9, 2000, to the Olongapo City Prosecutor, who received it on November 22, 2000. Consequently, the 60-day period to file the petition for certiorari commenced on November 22, 2000. On the Court of Appeals' dismissal: The Olongapo City Prosecutor received the order on November 22, 2000, but it was only sent to the OSG on January 3, 2001, a delay of 41 days. The OSG then filed the petition on March 5, 2001, 43 days later. This resulted in a total elapsed time of 84 days from the City Prosecutor's receipt of the order to the OSG's filing of the petition, exceeding the 60-day reglementary period. The 60-day period is intended to avoid unreasonable delay and is considered inextendible, citing Yutingco v. Court of Appeals.
Main Doctrine
The 60-day reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure commences from the date the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) receives notice of the judgment, order, or resolution, or from notice of the denial of a timely filed motion for reconsideration. When the OSG is the party filing the petition, notice to the prosecuting prosecutor's office is considered notice to the OSG, and the period for filing the petition runs from the date the prosecuting prosecutor's office receives the order.