Galedo, Abegail P.

444. YU VS. TATAD

PETITIONER : JUDITH YU
RESPONDENT : HON. ROSA SAMSON-TATAD
DATE : February 9, 2011
PONENTE : BRION, J.
TOPIC : RULE 42: Petition for review from the RTCs to the Court of Appeals (CA)

FACTS:

 Petitioner was convicted for the crime of estafa filed by spouses Sergio & Cristina Casaclang.
 Petitioner filed a motion for new trial with RTC alleging that she discovered new and material
evidence that would exculpate her of the crime.
 Respondent Judge denied petitioner’s Motion for New Trial for lack of merit.
 Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with RTC alleging that she had a fresh period of 15 days from
Nov. 3 up to Nov. 18 within which to appeal pursuant to ruling in Neypes vs. CA.
 Prosecution contends that Neypes Rule is inapplicable to appeals in criminal cases. The
prosecution filed a motion for execution of decision.
 Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition to enjoin RTC from executing the decision.

ISSUE:

WON the “Fresh Period Rule” applies to appeals in Criminal cases.

HELD: Yes, fresh period rule applies to appeals in criminal cases.

 In Neypes, the court set a fresh period of 15 days from denial of MR within which to appeal. Fresh
period rule also apply to:
o Rule 40 – appeals from MTC to RTC
o Rule 42 – petitions for review from RTC to CA
o Rule 43 – appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to CA
o Rule 45 – appeals by certiorari to SC

 This is to standardize appeal period provided in the rules and to do away with any sort of
confusion.

 The 15 day period to appeal I no longer interrupted by filing of motion for new trial or MR. Litigants
need not concern themselves with counting balances of 15-day period since 15-day period is now
counted from receipt of the order dismissing motion for new trial or MR of final order or resolution.

 Although Neypes case involved period to appeal in civil cases, fresh period should be
applied for appeal in criminal cases under Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedures. If we were to apply Neypes rule only to period to appeal in civil cases, it would
create a situation wherein a litigant in civil cases will have better right to appeal than an
accused in a criminal case.

 Hence, SC held that petitioner seasonably filed her NOA on Nov. 16, 2005 within fresh period of
15-days counted from Nov. 3, 2008, date of receipt of notice denying her motion for new trial.

 Petition for prohibition is granted.