Macapagal vs. People

 Macapagal vs. People
​
Facts:
On November 25, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa for misappropriating, for her own benefit, the total amount of P800,000.00 for unreturned and unsold pieces of jewelry. Petitioner received the decision on January 13, 2009 then she timely moved for reconsideration, but was likewise denied in an Order dated May 20, 2009 which the petitioner allegedly received on July 31, 2009. She supposedly filed a Notice of Appeal on August 3, 2009, but the same was denied on June 29, 2010 for having been filed out of time. Aggrieved, petitioner comes directly before the Supreme Court in this petition for review on certiorari alleging that the RTC of Manila gravely erred in denying their notice of appeal, in convicting petitioner for estafa and in denying their motion for reconsideration and/or new trial.

Issue:
Whether or not the regional trial court of manila, branch 9, gravely erred in denying the notice of appeal filed by the herein petitioner-appellant.

Held:
No. The Court notes that the instant case suffers from various procedural infirmities. First, petitioner availed of the wrong mode of assailing the trial court’s denial of her notice of appeal. Sections 2 and 3, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure lay down the rules on where, how and when appeal is taken, to wit: SEC. 2. Where to appeal. – The appeal may be taken as follows: (b) To the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the proper cases provided by law, in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court; and SEC. 3. How appeal taken. –
(a) The appeal to the Regional Trial Court or to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal filed with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken. – An appeal must be taken within fifteen days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from x x x. Consequently, the disallowance of the notice of appeal signifies the disallowance of the appeal itself. A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a mode of appeal of a lower court’s decision or final order direct to the Supreme Court. However, the questioned Order denying her notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken. The Rules of Court specifically provides that no appeal shall be taken from an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal. Rather, the aggrieved party can elevate the matter through a special civil action under Rule 65. Thus, in availing of the wrong mode of appeal in this petition under Rule 45 instead of the appropriate remedy of Rule 65, the petition merits an outright dismissal. Second, even if we treat this petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65, it is still dismissible for violation of the hierarchy of courts. Direct resort to this Court is allowed only if there are special, important and compelling reasons which are not present in this case. Third, the petitioner failed to attach a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed decision convicting her of estafa and the order denying her motion for reconsideration which she also assails in addition to the denial of her notice of appeal. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must contain a certified true copy or duplicate original of the assailed decision, final order or judgment.