Bernardo v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Carmelo C. Bernardo was charged with six counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22), the Bouncing Checks Law. The charges stemmed from the issuance of six postdated checks on December 3, 1997, payable to F.T. Ylang-Ylang Marketing Corporation. Four of the informations alleged that the checks were dishonored due to an "Account Closed" status. The remaining two informations specified that the account was already closed even before the checks' maturity dates. Procedural History: Initially charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Bernardo pleaded not guilty. After failing to appear at the pre-trial conference, a warrant of arrest was issued, and trial proceeded in absentia. He later filed motions to quash and to lift the warrant, which were denied. The MeTC found him guilty on October 23, 2001, sentencing him to one year imprisonment, a fine, and indemnity for each count. Following the promulgation of the judgment, Bernardo posted a bond, which was later cancelled, and an alias warrant of arrest was issued after he failed to appear for hearings and his motion for new trial was denied. He appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed his conviction but modified the penalty to a fine with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and increased the indemnity. His motion for partial reconsideration was denied. He then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: Petitioner assails the CA's Resolutions dismissing his petition and denying reconsideration. The CA dismissed his petition for review for being filed 15 days late and for failing to attach the MeTC Decision and other pertinent documents. The CA granted an initial 15-day extension to file the petition, pursuant to Rule 42, Section 1, but Bernardo filed his petition 15 days after this extended period expired. He also failed to attach all required lower court decisions and orders in the proper format. The petition before this Court argues that the CA erred in reckoning the extension period, in strictly applying procedural rules, and in not considering the merits of his petition for review.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review for being filed 15 days late. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review for failure to attach the required lower court decisions. Whether the petitioner was denied due process of law and the right to counsel before the trial court.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for review. The RTC judgment, having become final and executory due to the perfected appeal, renders it unnecessary to dwell on the petitioner's assertion of denial of due process.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for review for being filed late. Pursuant to A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC, any extension of time to file a pleading is counted from the expiration of the original period. The petitioner's argument that the extension should be reckoned from the receipt of the resolution granting the extension was rejected. The Court clarified that the petitioner's prayer for extension was to be counted from June 1, 2004, which the appellate court correctly used. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that motions for extension are not granted as a matter of right and lawyers should not presume they will be granted or that they will be granted the length of time prayed for. The petitioner's justification for a 30-day extension, based on counsel's preoccupation and daily court appearances, was not considered a "most compelling reason" for a further extension under Rule 42, Section 1. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed the CA's dismissal of the petition for failure to comply with Section 2(d) of Rule 42, which mandates the attachment of clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts. The petitioner failed to attach the MeTC Orders dated January 10, 2003, and May 26, 2003, and the MeTC Decision dated October 23, 2001, which were appealed to the RTC. While the MeTC Decision was attached to the motion for reconsideration, it was a mere photocopy and uncertified. The Court reiterated that the mandatory tenor of this requirement is well-settled. Failure to perfect an appeal due to non-compliance with these requirements renders the RTC judgment final and executory. On Issue 3: The Court found it unnecessary to dwell on the petitioner's assertion of denial of due process and the right to counsel. It stated that the requisites for a valid trial in absentia were present: the accused was arraigned, duly notified of the trial, and his failure to appear was unjustifiable. The Court cited Estrada v. People and People v. Salas to support the validity of trial and promulgation of judgment in absentia when an accused jumps bail or escapes, as they are deemed to have waived their right to be present and to confront witnesses. The promulgation of judgment in absentia is also authorized under Section 6 of Rule 120, with notice served at the last known address if the accused has absconded.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed that extensions of time to file pleadings are counted from the expiration of the original period, irrespective of when the resolution granting the extension is received. Furthermore, it reiterated that a petition for review must be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, and failure to comply with this mandatory requirement is a ground for dismissal of the petition. The Court also clarified that trial in absentia is valid if the accused has been arraigned, duly notified, and their failure to appear is unjustifiable.