TodayisSaturday,September26,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.178405October15,2008
REYNALDODEUSYSANTOSpetitioners,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents.
DECISION
TINGA,J.:
AssailedinthisPetitionforReview1istheResolution2oftheCourtofAppealsdated22March2007inCAG.R.
SPNo.5585UDK,aswellasits4June2007Resolution3dismissingthepetitionforcertiorarifiledbyReynaldo
DeusySantos(petitioner)appealinghisconvictionforthecrimeofillegalsaleofshabu.
RecordsshowthatpetitionerwaschargedwiththeoffenseofviolationofSection5,ArticleIIofRepublicAct(R.A.)
No.9165inaninformationwhichreads:
That on or about the 28th day of October 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,withoutthecorrespondinglicenseor
prescription did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and
deliver zero point zero one (0.01) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a
dangerousdrug.
CONTRARYTOLAW.4
Thefactsaccordingtotheevidencefortheprosecutionfollow.
Actingonaninformantstip,abuybustteamwasformedcomposedofSPO1JoseMagallanes,itsteamleader,
withPO2VirginioCosta(PO2Costa)astheposeurbuyer,andbackup,PO1RandySantos(PO1Santos).On28
October 2003, the team conducted an antinarcotics operation on 3rd Street, Barangay Pembo in Makati. The
subject was a certain Jake, who was later identified as petitioner.5 They saw petitioner standing in front of his
housetalkingtoanunidentifiedperson.PO2Costaandtheinformantapproachedpetitionerandofferedtobuy
shabufromhim.
Uponcompletionofthetransaction,PO2Costawipedhisfaceasaprearrangedsignaltothebackupteam.PO1
Santosimmediatelyapproachedthearea,arrestedandhandcuffedpetitioner.Whileinhandcuffs,petitionertried
to run away but PO2 Costa and PO1 Santos foiled his escape. On their way to the police car, PO2 Costa was
stabbedinhisleftarmbyOfeliaGajardo(Gajardo),theliveinpartnerofpetitioner,whileotherbystanderswere
preventingthemfromtakingpetitioneraway.6PO1Santosfiredawarningshotandtheysucceededinbringing
petitioner to the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) office where markings were put on the shabu by PO2 Costa.7
Thereafter,theplasticsachetwasbroughttothePhilippineNationalPoliceCrimeLaboratoryforexamination.
InherPhysicalScienceReportdated28October2003,SharonLontocFabros,aforensicchemist,foundthatthe
specimensubmittedtoherwasMethylamphetamineHydrochloride,otherwiseknownasshabu.8
Ontheotherhand,thedefensepresentedadifferentversionoftheincident.Petitionerclaimedthatonthedate
andtimeaforestated,threearmedmenandawomanenteredhishousethroughthekitchen.
They poked a gun at petitioner and accused him of selling illegal drugs.9 Petitioners stepdaughter, Anabelle
Manlangitshoutedforhelp.Gajardocamedownfromthesecondfloorandsawthatpetitionerwasbeingdragged
out of the house and forcibly taken into a vehicle. Petitioner was subsequently brought to the DEU office while
GajardowastakentotheCriminalInvestigationDivision(CID).10Petitionerdeniedthathewassellingshabu at

thetimehewasarrestedandthathesawtheplasticsachetwithmarking"RDS"onlyatthefsdCID.
On17May2006,theRegionalTrialCourtrenderedjudgment11findingpetitionerguiltyofviolationofSection5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P400,000.00.12
The trial court held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of shabu through the
testimony of its witnesses. The trial court noted in contrast that the version of the defense is fraught with
inconsistencies.13
Petitioner,unassistedbycounsel,filedaveryurgentmotionforreconsideration14whichthetrialcourtdeniedon
17May2006.
On24August2006,petitionerfiledapetitionforcertiorari15underRule65beforetheCourtofAppeals,aswellas
amotiontolitigateaspauper.16HeraisedasissuethefailureofthetrialcourtjudgetocomplywithRule118of
theRulesonCriminalProcedurerequiringthatthepretrialorderbesignedbytheaccusedandhiscounsel.17He
likewisequestionedthepoliceoperativesnoncompliancewithSection21(1)ofR.A.No.9165.18
In a Resolution dated 1 September 2006, the appellate court appointed and designated the Public Attorneys
Office(PAO)ascounseldeoficioforpetitioner.19
The PAO filed its Notice of Appearance on 19 September 2006.20 On 16 November 2006, the appellate court
furnished the PAO a copy of the petition and ordered the latter to file the appropriate pleading within ten days
fromnotice.21
ThePAOscounselfiledtwomanifestationswithmotionforextensionof30dayseach,withinwhichtocomplywith
theappellatecourtsresolution,on7December200622and12January2007,23respectively.Theappellatecourt
grantedthemanifestationswithmotions.24Afterfailingtofiletheappropriatepleadingwithinthethirdextended
period,on9March2007,thePAOfiledamotiontoadmitthepetitionforcertiorariattachedthereto.25
On22March2007,theCourtofAppealsissuedthechallengeddecisiondismissingthepetition.Itreads:
Inthehigherinterestofjustice,thepetitionforcertiorarifiledbyPAOisADMITTEDandsubmittedfor
initialaction.
Aperusalofthepetition,however,revealsthattheassailedDecisionwasrenderedbytheRegional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 64, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. As such, the
proper remedy for a party aggrieved thereby is an ordinary appeal pursuant to Sections 3 and 6,
Rule122oftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedureasamended,whichcanbeavailedofbyfiling
a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment, within fifteen (15) days from notice
thereof,.However,insteadoffilinganappealwithin15daysfromnoticeofthedenialofhismotionfor
reconsiderationofthesubjectdecisiononJune24,2006,accusedpetitionerresortedtotheinstant
petitionforcertiorariwhichtheCourtcannottreatasanappealforhavingbeenfiledonAugust24,
2006orwaybeyondtheperiodtoappeal.26
Petitioner moved for reconsideration27 but the appellate court denied the motion for lack of merit on 4 June
2007.28
PetitionernowcomestothisCourtviathispetitionforreview.29HeurgestheapplicationofSection8,Rule124of
the Rules of Court by analogy to the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals. He argues that the
appellate court should not have dismissed his petition since he was represented by a counsel de oficio.
Essentially,heappealsforaliberalinterpretationoftherulesofprocedureintheinterestofsubstantialjustice.30
On10September2007,thisCourtissuedaresolutionrequiringtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)tofileits
comment.31
The OSG maintains that petitioner should have availed of the remedy of appeal instead of filing a petition for
certiorariunderRule65.However,itconcedesthatsincepetitioneractedwithouttheassistanceofcounselwhen
hefiledhisurgentmotionforreconsiderationofthetrialcourtsjudgmentofconvictionandthespecialcivilaction
for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, the appellate court should have, in the interest of justice, treated the
petitionasanappealinsteadofdismissingthesame.32
Thecruxofthecontroversyinthispetitionisnotthetrialcourtsjudgmentofconvictionbuttheappellatecourts
dismissalofthepetitionforcertiorariessentiallyquestioningthejudgmentofconviction.

Basicistherulethatthemodeofappealincasesdecidedbytheregionaltrialcourtintheexerciseofitsoriginal
jurisdiction is by a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment appealed from.33 On the other
hand, the extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are available only when there is no
appealoranyplain,speedyandadequateremedyintheordinarycourseoflaw.Thewritofcertioraridoesnotlie
whereanappealmaybetakenorwhereanotheradequateremedyisavailableforthecorrectionoftheerror.34
Since the judgment of conviction had not been appealed within the time and in the manner prescribed by the
rules,itbecamefinalandexecutoryuponthelapseofthereglementaryappealperiod.
PetitionerlikewiseerredincontendingthatSection8,Rule124oftheRulesofCourtprohibitsthedismissalofthe
certiorari petition when appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio. First, said provision only refers to
dismissalofappealforabandonmentorfailuretoprosecute.Second,thedismissaloftheappealisconditioned
on the appellants failure to file a brief. An appellants brief is a pleading filed in an ordinary appeal. Clearly,
Section8contemplatesanordinaryappealfiledbeforetheCourtofAppeals.
The aforecited legal principles notwithstanding, we agree with the OSG that the appellate court should have
treatedthecertioraripetitionasanappeal.
Petitioner was not represented by counsel when he filed the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
Thus,hecannotbepresumedtoknowthelegalremediestotakeinpursuinghisappeal.Moreover,hisrightto
liberty is at stake. These attending circumstances should have spurred the appellate court to relax the rules of
procedureintheinterestofsubstantialjustice.Itshouldhaveextendedthesameliberalityitevincedingranting
thetwomotionsforextensionfiledbypetitioner.
Hence,thedismissalofthepetitiononthebasisofatechnicalityshouldbesetaside.TheCourtofAppealsshould
bedirectedtoresolvethepetition,treatedasanordinaryappeal,onthemerits.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 22 March 2007 is
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals which is directed to resolve the
petitiondated9March2007filedbeforeitbythepetitioner,onthemeritsasanordinaryappealwithdeliberate
dispatch.
SOORDERED.
DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1Rollo,pp.923.
2 Id. at 5860. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. PerlasBernabe, and concurred in by Associate

JusticesRodrigoV.CosicoandLucasD.Bersamin.
3Id.at61.
4CArollo,p.30.
5TSN,8July2004,p.3.
6TSN,24August2004,pp.69.
7TSN,8July2004,pp.78.
8Records,p.12.
9TSN,22September2005,pp.57.
10TSN,29November2005,pp.57.
11Rollo,pp.5657PennedbyJudgeDeliaH.Panganiban.
12Rollo,p.50.
13Id.
14Records,pp.130133.
15CArollo,pp.317.
16Id.at2.
17Id.at13.
18 CA rollo, pp. 317. Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered

Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernaliaand/orLaboratoryEquipment.ThePDEAshalltakechargeandhavecustody
ofalldangerousdrugs,plantsourcesofdangerousdrugs,controlledprecursorsandessentialchemicals,
as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered,forproperdispositioninthefollowingmanner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
andanyelectedpublicofficialwhoshallberequiredtosignthecopiesoftheinventoryandbegiven
acopythereof
19Id.at5960.
20CArollo,pp.5657.
21Id.at63.
22Id.at6465.
23Id.at6770.
24Id.at71.
25Id.at7576.

26Rollo,p.59.
27CArollo,pp.110115.
28Supranote3.
29Supranote1.
30Id.at1719.
31Id.at62.
32Id.at7576.
33RulesofCourt,Rule122,Sec.3(a).
34 Dwikarna v. Domingo, G.R. No. 153454, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 748, 754 citing Marawi Marantao

General Hospital, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 321 (2001) Heirs of Pedro Atega v. Garilao, 357
SCRA 203 (2001) Zarate, Jr. v. Olegario, 263 SCRA 1 (1996) Filoteo, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA
222 (1996) Solis v. National Labor Relations Commission, 263 SCRA 629 (1996) Ongsitco v. Court of
Appeals,255SCRA703(1996).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation