Ampo v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In December 1991, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 2323, known as the Gun Ban, for the May 11, 1992 synchronized national and local elections. On January 20, 1992, Philippine National Police (PNP) officers manning a checkpoint in Santiago, Agusan del Norte, flagged down petitioner Datu Eduardo Ampo because a homemade .45-caliber pistol was visible tucked in his waist. Upon being asked to present documents permitting him to carry a firearm during the election period, petitioner failed to do so. He claimed he left the memorandum receipt at his house and did not possess a COMELEC permit to carry the firearm. The police officers recovered the handgun and issued a temporary receipt. Subsequently, on January 27, 1992, the officers visited petitioner's house to ask for the memorandum receipt or COMELEC permit. Petitioner again failed to produce any permit, leading to the confiscation of the firearm and the issuance of another receipt. Petitioner claimed the firearm was covered by a memorandum receipt issued on August 20, 1991, and that he was on his way to Camp Bancasi to surrender the firearm when accosted. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 1, found petitioner guilty of violating COMELEC Resolution No. 2323 on December 10, 1997, sentencing him to one year imprisonment and disqualifying him from holding public office and from suffrage for four years. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision on May 16, 2002. The CA decision became final and executory on November 16, 2003. Petitioner received a Notice of Promulgation of Judgment from the RTC on April 20, 2005, scheduling the promulgation for May 5, 2005. On June 17, 2005, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Petition: Petitioner argued that he was deprived of due process and the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration because his counsel, Atty. Paquito A. Arjona, had died on May 15, 2001, without his knowledge, and he only learned of the CA's adverse decision upon receiving the notice of promulgation. He also contended that the CA decision was contrary to jurisprudence and unsupported by evidence, citing conflicting receipts issued by the police.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail a final and executory judgment. Whether petitioner was deprived of due process due to the death of his counsel and lack of notice of the CA decision. Whether the evidence sufficiently established petitioner's guilt for violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2323. Whether the conflicting receipts issued by the police officers render the evidence unreliable.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the conviction of the petitioner for violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2323.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and timeliness of the petition: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to set aside a judgment that has become final and executory. The appropriate remedy for a party unjustly deprived of a hearing or prevented from taking an appeal due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect is a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38. This petition must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment and not more than six months after its entry. The instant petition was filed on June 17, 2005, which was beyond the six-month period from the entry of judgment on November 21, 2002. The Court emphasized that equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights, and that strict compliance with the periods for filing a petition for relief is mandatory. On the claim of deprivation of due process: The Court found no merit in petitioner's claim of deprivation of due process. It stated that litigants are expected to periodically keep in touch with their counsel and inquire about the status of their cases. Petitioner's failure to do so for almost three years from the rendition of the judgment until he learned of it demonstrated a lack of prudence and zeal. The Court reiterated that relief will not be granted to a party whose loss of remedy is due to their own negligence. The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard, which is satisfied when parties are afforded a fair opportunity to explain their sides; failure to avail of this opportunity is deemed a waiver. On the sufficiency of evidence and guilt for violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2323: The Court found no error in the decisions of the appellate and trial courts. The testimonies of the police officers were deemed credible, enjoying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The evidence sufficiently established that petitioner was carrying a firearm during the election period without the required authorization. Petitioner's claim that he was on his way to surrender the firearm was contradicted by his request to see the commanding officer instead of voluntarily surrendering it. Furthermore, COMELEC Resolution No. 2323 defines a violation that is mala prohibita, meaning the intent of the offender is immaterial; the mere act of carrying the gun without the necessary permit constitutes the offense. The Court cited United States v. Go Chico to support the principle that in mala prohibita crimes, the act itself is penalized regardless of criminal intent. On the issue of conflicting receipts: The Court found nothing anomalous with the receipts issued by the police officers. The first receipt was a temporary acknowledgment of the firearm's possession pending investigation. The second receipt was issued after the investigation, formally noting the confiscation of the firearm due to the petitioner's failure to produce the required documents. These receipts were consistent with the progression of the police investigation and did not render the evidence unreliable.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to set aside a judgment that has become final and executory, especially when the proper remedy of a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 was not timely filed within the prescribed periods. Furthermore, a litigant's failure to monitor the status of their case, including the death of their counsel, constitutes negligence and may result in the forfeiture of their right to due process and appeal.