Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82938:56825&catid=1582&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:59:48+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 199070, April 07, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. VICENTE R. ESPINOSA AND LINDSEY BUENAVISTA, Respondents. G.R. NO. 199237 RAMON CAESAR T. ROJAS FOR HIMSELF AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEIRS OF RAMON ROJAS JR., Petitioners, v. VICENTE R. ESPINOSA PROMULGATED: AND LINDSEY BUENAVISTA, Respondents.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. VICENTE R. ESPINOSA AND LINDSEY BUENAVISTA, Respondents.
RAMON CAESAR T. ROJAS FOR HIMSELF AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HEIRS OF RAMON ROJAS JR., Petitioners, v. VICENTE R. ESPINOSA PROMULGATED: AND LINDSEY BUENAVISTA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 199070 was filed by the People of the Philippines (petitioner) represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), while G.R. No. 199237 was filed by Ramon Caesar T. Rojas, for himself and as representative of the heirs of Ramon Rojas, Jr. (private complainants).
After examining the testimonies of additional witnesses, the Ajuy Municipal Police Office filed a second complaint on 2 June 2008 which included Vicente Espinosa alias “Bulldog” and Lindsey Buenavista alias “Bebe” (respondents).
Meanwhile, the Information for Murder was filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo (RTC–Branch 66), which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2008–4303.10 The RTC–Branch 66 also issued warrants of arrest against Cordero and Cartagena.
On 29 August 2008, a group of armed assailants shot Cartagena and Cordero. While Cartagena survived, Cordero died of gunshot wounds. Cartagena was arrested and turned over to the custody of Col. Ricardo Delapaz, Iloilo Philippine National Police Provincial Director. Thereafter, he was brought back to Iloilo City.
21. Can you tell me the reason why you and Edgar Cordero shot Vice Mayor Rojas?
22. Do you really know Vicente “Etik” Espinosa alias “Bulldog”?
Yes. Because I was one of his bodyguards during the elections in May 2007.
23. You said that you are only one of his bodyguards. [D]o you know his other bodyguards?
Yes. They are Rey Peña, Lindsey Buenavista alias “Bebe” and certain alias “Remy”.
26. When did Vicente “Etik” Espinosa tell you to murder Vice Mayor Rojas?
In its Resolution dated 9 October 2009, the panel found probable cause for Murder against respondents. Espinosa then filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
On 24 February 2010, former Secretary of Justice Agnes VST Devanadera dismissed the private complainants’ Petition for Review. The Resolution stated that in view of the panel’s finding that there is probable cause to charge respondents with Murder, the Petition for Review was now moot.
In accordance with the Resolution dated 24 February 2010, then Acting Secretary of Justice Alberto C. Agra issued Department Order No. 409 directing the Regional State Prosecutor of Iloilo, who was designated as Acting Provincial Prosecutor, to “file an amended information for murder in Criminal Case No. 2008–4303, entitled People of the Philippines vs. Dennis Cartagena and Edgar Cordero.”16 Thus, on 14 July 2010, the Regional State Prosecutor, Region VI, filed with the RTC–Branch 38 an Amended Information for Murder in Criminal Case No. 2008–4303.
x x x the sworn statement of Dennis Cartagena x x x is only admissible against Cartagena and not against his co–accused or co–respondent. x x x [T]he exclusionary rule on admission and on confession as provided for under Section[s] 30 and 33 of the Rules of Court can be invoked during the preliminary investigation and reinvestigation of a case.
Admission by a Conspirator – The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
c.) It has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.
Petitioner and private complainants filed an Urgent Motion for Inhibition on 26 August 2010 alleging that public respondent was “utterly one–sided” in favor of the accused and “oppressively biased against the complainants.”21 A Motion for Reconsideration was later filed on 27 August 2010.
Wherefore, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration, the motion for inhibition and motion to expunge are hereby denied, respectively.
Let these cases be therefore returned/forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of Court for their proper disposition by the Executive Judge.
The Order was received by private complainants on 14 October 2010.23 Then, Criminal Case No. 2008–4303 was re–raffled to RTC–Branch 24, Iloilo City (RTC–Branch 24).
Private complainants claimed that the documents were transmitted to the Office of Hon. Anselmo I. Cadiz, Solicitor General, as evidenced by a letter dated 30 November 2010. The letter erroneously stated that the deadline for filing was 14 December 2010, instead of 13 December 2010. The letter was received by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on 3 December 2010.25 According to the OSG, the case was assigned to the handling solicitors on 8 December 2010.
The OSG, through Assistant Solicitor General (ASG) John Emmanuel F. Madamba and Associate Solicitor (AS) Melissa A. Santos, assured Atty. Penetrante that respondents were furnished with copies of the petition. However, “the Affidavit of Service was attached to the original of the petition that was filed with the Court of Appeals.”28 The OSG also stated that private complainants would be furnished with the proof of service to the private respondents after receipt of the registry cards from the post office.
The petitioner and private complainants each filed a petition for review before this Court.
The basic issue raised in both petitions is the propriety of the CA–Cebu’s dismissal of the OSG’s petition for certiorari based on procedural lapses.
We note that the OSG failed to follow procedural rules. First, it admitted that it erroneously computed the deadline for filing the petition. Second, the respondents were furnished a copy of the petition after its filing. Third, the Explanation required under Section 11, Rule 13 referred to a Motion for Extension and not a Petition for Certiorari .
The CA–Cebu dismissed the Petition for Certiorari because of these procedural errors. Petitioner and private complainants claim that the rigid technical rules should have been relaxed by the CA–Cebu in view of the circumstances of the case.
Sec. 6. Construction. – These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
SECTION 4. When and Where to File the Petition. — The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion.
Nevertheless, in the more recent case of Domdom v. Sandiganbayan, we ruled that the deletion of the clause in Section 4, Rule 65 by A.M. No. 07–7–12–SC did not, ipso facto, make the filing of a motion for extension to file a Rule 65 petition absolutely prohibited. We held in – that if absolute proscription were intended, the deleted portion could have just simply been reworded to specifically prohibit an extension of time to file such petition. Thus, because of the lack of an express prohibition, we held that motions for extension may be allowed, subject to this Court’s sound discretion, and only under exceptional and meritorious cases.
In the instant case, private complainants had to transmit documents to the OSG. Records clearly show that they were able to do so promptly. On 30 November 2010, counsel for private complainants Atty. Penetrante submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor General the draft petition for certiorari , the verification and certification against forum shopping, the original copies containing the signatures of the private prosecutors, and the certified copies of the annexes.38 These documents were received by the OSG on 3 December 2010 only.
Given the circumstances, we hold that the CA–Cebu should have applied the rules liberally and excused the belated filing.
Section 13 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court states that for pleadings served through registered mail, proof of service shall be made through an affidavit of the person mailing the pleading, and the registry receipts issued by the post office. The OSG was remiss in its duties as counsel when it failed to serve a copy to respondents before filing of the petition. As regards the Explanation, it is clear that the erroneous referral to a “Motion for Extension” instead of a Petition for Certiorari was just a mere typographical error.
It was then that the private prosecutors noticed on Page 39 of the petition under the “Copy furnished:” portion that the names of the private respondents Vicente Espinosa and Lindsey Buenavista were not among the list of parties who were furnished with copies of the petition as required by Rule 65. The copies sent to the private prosecutors also did not include a copy of the OSG’s Affidavit of Service. Thereupon, Atty. Penetrante in a letter dated January 12, 2011 brought this matter to the attention of the OSG thru ASG John Emmanuel F. Madamba as AS Melissa A. Santos x x x.
The circumstances in Building Care are clearly different from the facts of this case. In the present case, there was a transfer of documents from private complainant’s original counsel, Atty. Penetrante to the OSG. This Court has always recognized the fact that the OSG has a heavy workload. Further, the OSG only received the documents on 3 December 2010 despite prompt submission of the required documents.
WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals–Cebu dated 21 January 2011 and 3 October 2011 are hereby SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals which is DIRECTED to reinstate and give due course to the petition for review in CA–G.R. SP No. 05617 and to decide the same on the merits.
Brion, Del Castillo, Perez, and Perlas–Bernabe, JJ., concur.
1 Rollo (G.R. No. 199070), pp. 69–71. Penned by Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. with Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Agnes Reyes–Carpio, concurring.
2 Id. at 72–74. Penned by Justice Eduardo B. Peralta with Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
5Rollo (G.R. No. 199237), pp. 164–165.
10 Rollo (G.R. No. 199070), p. 20.
17Rollo (G.R. No. 199237), pp. 327–344.
19Rollo (G.R. No. 199237), p. 441.
26 Rollo (G.R. No. 199070), p. 178.
27Rollo (G.R. No. 199237), p. 44.
29Rollo (G.R. No. 199070), pp. 69–71.
31 G.R. No. 198357, 10 December 2012, 687 SCRA 643.
33Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc., G.R. No. 192908, 22 August 2012, 678 SCRA 738.
36 G.R. No. 187984, 15 November 2010, 634 SCRA 723.
38Rollo (G.R. No. 199237), pp. 42–43.
41 608 Phil. 478 (2009).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.