Estinozo v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sometime in February and March 1986, petitioner Cecilia B. Estinozo represented to seven private complainants that she was an owner of Golden Overseas Employment and was recruiting workers for overseas deployment. She collected placement and processing fees totaling P15,000.00 from them. Despite promises of deployment by July and later by September 1986, the complainants were never deployed. When they demanded their money back, petitioner issued promissory notes but failed to refund the amounts. In early 1987, formal charges for estafa were filed. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24 of Maasin, Southern Leyte, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of seven counts of estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). She was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty for each count and ordered to reimburse the private complainants. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, finding that the complainants positively identified petitioner and relied on her false pretenses. Petitioner's defense that she was merely an agent was rejected. Petitioner's subsequent motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA, as was her motion for reconsideration of the denial. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner assailed the CA issuances, arguing that her previous counsel's filing of a prohibited pleading foreclosed her right to file a motion for reconsideration and appeal. She contended she should not be bound by her counsel's mistake, that the CA gravely abused its discretion in affirming her conviction in four cases without direct testimony, that she was deprived of her right to cross-examine, and that she presented sufficient evidence to cast reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question the issuances of the Court of Appeals when an appeal under Rule 45 was available. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, leading to the finality of the judgment. Whether petitioner was convicted of estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45. The CA correctly denied the motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, as the 15-day reglementary period cannot be extended. Consequently, the CA decision had already attained finality and could no longer be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy of last resort and is only available when there is no appeal, plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 was available to the petitioner to question the CA's judgment, her resort to a Rule 65 certiorari petition was improper. The Court emphasized that Rule 45 and Rule 65 are mutually exclusive remedies, and certiorari cannot co-exist with an available appeal. On the denial of the motion for extension and the finality of the judgment: The Court reiterated the rule that the 15-day reglementary period for appealing or filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial cannot be extended, except in cases before the Supreme Court itself. This rule applies even if the motion is filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended. Therefore, the CA correctly denied petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 52, Section 1 of the Rules of Court and Rule 9, Section 2 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals. As a consequence of the erroneous filing of a motion for extension and the non-filing of a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review within the reglementary period, the challenged decision of the CA had already attained finality. The Supreme Court clarified that a Rule 65 petition cannot substitute for a lost appeal, and once a decision becomes final and executory, the court loses jurisdiction over the case. Allowing such a substitution would lead to endless litigation and defeat the purpose of settling controversies with finality. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: Even assuming arguendo that the certiorari petition was the appropriate remedy, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion committed by the CA. The CA's affirmation of the petitioner's conviction was based on the evidence presented and the established facts, including the positive identification of the petitioner by the complainants and her admission of receiving the fees. The CA correctly dismissed her defense of being a mere agent due to lack of substantiating evidence.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45. The 15-day reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review cannot be extended, and failure to file within the period renders the judgment final and executory.