Tolentino v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Lope Dulfo and his wife mortgaged their Tamaraw FX motor vehicle to petitioner Roberth B. Tolentino for P150,000.00. Petitioner required them to sign a blank paper, which they believed was an acknowledgment of receipt of the loan. Petitioner subsequently converted this blank paper into a Deed of Sale, making himself the buyer. When the couple attempted to redeem the vehicle, petitioner refused to return it and later sold it to a third party, Errol Pamon, purportedly through a Deed of Sale signed by the Dulfos. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 92, Quezon City, convicted petitioner Roberth B. Tolentino of estafa under Article 315, par. 3(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty imposed was imprisonment from fourteen (14) years minimum to twenty (20) years maximum. Petitioner failed to appear during the promulgation of the decision on February 22, 2005. Subsequently, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied on September 14, 2005, citing Section 6 (par. 5), Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states that an accused who fails to appear during promulgation without justifiable cause loses available remedies. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to set aside the RTC Decision and praying for acquittal. The Solicitor General argued that certiorari cannot be availed of in lieu of a lost appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Whether certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy for petitioner.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The RTC correctly denied the motion for reconsideration, and certiorari was not the proper remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the motion for reconsideration: The Court held that the RTC correctly denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Section 6 (par. 5), Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly states that if the judgment is for conviction and the accused fails to appear during promulgation without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available against the judgment. Petitioner and his counsel failed to appear during the promulgation despite due notice. Petitioner did not present any evidence to prove that his absence was for a justifiable cause. Therefore, he lost his right to avail of the remedy of a motion for reconsideration against the judgment of conviction. On the propriety of certiorari: The Court reiterated that for a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 to issue, the petitioner must demonstrate that they have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal. Furthermore, certiorari will only lie to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors in the exercise of discretion are mere errors of judgment that are correctable by appeal. The petitioner failed to pursue the proper remedy of appeal within the reglementary period after receiving the order denying his motion for reconsideration. The Court also noted that the petition violated the hierarchy of courts by directly invoking the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction without first filing with the Court of Appeals, absent any special and important reasons.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration filed after the promulgation of a judgment of conviction, where the accused failed to appear without justifiable cause, is correctly denied, and the accused loses available remedies against the judgment. Certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal or to correct errors of judgment, and must respect the hierarchy of courts.