Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51722:gr-178405-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:31:45+00:00

Document:
REYNALDO DEUS Y SANTOS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Assailed in this Petition for Review1 is the Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals dated 22 March 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 5585-UDK, as well as its 4 June 2007 Resolution3 dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by Reynaldo Deus y Santos (petitioner) appealing his conviction for the crime of illegal sale of shabu.
That on or about the 28th day of October 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without the corresponding license or 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 dangerous drug.
The facts according to the evidence for the prosecution follow.
Acting on an informant's tip, a buy-bust team was formed composed of SPO1 Jose Magallanes, its team leader, with PO2 Virginio Costa (PO2 Costa) as the poseur-buyer, and back-up, PO1 Randy Santos (PO1 Santos). On 28 October 2003, the team conducted an anti-narcotics 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 house talking to an unidentified person. PO2 Costa and the informant approached petitioner and offered to buy shabu from him.
Upon completion of the transaction, PO2 Costa wiped his face as a pre-arranged signal to the back-up team. PO1 Santos immediately approached the area, arrested and handcuffed petitioner. While in handcuffs, petitioner tried to run away but PO2 Costa and PO1 Santos foiled his escape. On their way to the police car, PO2 Costa was stabbed in his left arm by Ofelia Gajardo (Gajardo), the live-in partner of petitioner, while other bystanders were preventing them from taking petitioner away.6 PO1 Santos fired a warning shot and they succeeded in bringing petitioner to the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) office where markings were put on the shabu by PO2 Costa.7 Thereafter, the plastic sachet was brought to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination.
On the other hand, the defense presented a different version of the incident. Petitioner claimed that on the date and time aforestated, three armed men and a woman entered his house through the kitchen.
They poked a gun at petitioner and accused him of selling illegal drugs.9 Petitioner's stepdaughter, Anabelle Manlangit shouted for help. Gajardo came down from the second floor and saw that petitioner was being dragged out of the house and forcibly taken into a vehicle. Petitioner was subsequently brought to the DEU office while Gajardo was taken to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID).10 Petitioner denied that he was selling shabu at the time he was arrested and that he saw the plastic sachet with marking "RDS" only at the fsdCID.
Petitioner, unassisted by counsel, filed a very urgent motion for reconsideration14 which the trial court denied on 17 May 2006.
In the higher interest of justice, the petition for certiorari filed by PAO is ADMITTED and submitted for initial action.
The crux of the controversy in this petition is not the trial court's judgment of conviction but the appellate court's dismissal of the petition for certiorari essentially questioning the judgment of conviction.
Since the judgment of conviction had not been appealed within the time and in the manner prescribed by the rules, it became final and executory upon the lapse of the reglementary appeal period.
Petitioner likewise erred in contending that Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court prohibits the dismissal of the certiorari petition when appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio. First, said provision only refers to dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. Second, the dismissal of the appeal is conditioned on the appellant's failure to file a brief. An appellant's brief is a pleading filed in an ordinary appeal. Clearly, Section 8 contemplates an ordinary appeal filed before the Court of Appeals.
The aforecited legal principles notwithstanding, we agree with the OSG that the appellate court should have treated the certiorari petition as an appeal.
Petitioner was not represented by counsel when he filed the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Thus, he cannot be presumed to know the legal remedies to take in pursuing his appeal. Moreover, his right to liberty is at stake. These attending circumstances should have spurred the appellate court to relax the rules of procedure in the interest of substantial justice. It should have extended the same liberality it evinced in granting the two motions for extension filed by petitioner.
Hence, the dismissal of the petition on the basis of a technicality should be set aside. The Court of Appeals should be directed to resolve the petition, treated as an ordinary appeal, on the merits.
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 petition dated 9 March 2007 filed before it by the petitioner, on the merits as an ordinary appeal with deliberate dispatch.
2 Id. at 58-60. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Lucas D. Bersamin.
4 CA rollo, p. 30.
5 TSN, 8 July 2004, p. 3.
6 TSN, 24 August 2004, pp. 6-9.
7 TSN, 8 July 2004, pp. 7-8.
9 TSN, 22 September 2005, pp. 5-7.
10 TSN, 29 November 2005, pp. 5-7.
11 Rollo, pp. 56-57; Penned by Judge Delia H. Panganiban.
15 CA rollo, pp. 3-17.
20 CA rollo, pp. 56-57.
27 CA rollo, pp. 110-115.
33 Rules of Court, Rule 122, 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, 255 SCRA 703 (1996).

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