Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82740:56590&catid=1580&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:16:52+00:00

Document:
CORAZON MACAPAGAL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Regional Trial Court1 (RTC) Decision dated November 25, 2008 convicting petitioner Corazon Macapagal of the crime of Estafa;2 the Order denying her Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial;3 and the Order4 dated June 29, 2010 denying her Notice of Appeal,5 in Criminal Case No. 98–166722.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 9, GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING THE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY THE HEREIN PETITIONER–APPELLANT.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 9, GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE HEREIN PETITIONER–APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA.
At the outset, the Court notes that the instant case suffers from various procedural infirmities which this Court cannot ignore and are fatal to petitioner’s cause. It appears that petitioner assails not only the denial by the RTC of her notice of appeal but likewise seeks the reversal of her conviction for estafa. For reasons that will be discussed below, the petition is bound to fail, because of petitioner’s complete disregard of the procedural rules and the orders of the Court.
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.
Despite the directive, no such compliance was made prompting the Court to require her counsel to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with for non–compliance. Records likewise show that petitioner also failed to file a Reply to respondent’s Comment to the petition.
On August 2, 2011, petitioner’s counsel submitted his explanation for non–compliance and asked for more time within which to comply with the Court’s resolution, because of heavy workload and his failure to contact petitioner who apparently transferred residence. In a Resolution23 dated August 31, 2011, the Court, while granting the motion for extension requested, admonished petitioner’s counsel for the unsatisfactory explanation. Yet again, petitioner failed to file the required Reply prompting the Court again to ask for the counsel’s explanation why he should not be disciplinary dealt with. Petitioner’s counsel claimed that he could not prepare the required reply because the documents needed had been destroyed by typhoon “Pedring.” He, likewise, pointed out that he exerted earnest efforts to locate petitioner but he could not do so at that point.24 After the Court required him again to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with for not complying with the Court’s resolutions, and since his efforts to communicate with his client proved futile, he asked the Court that he be relieved of all his duties and responsibilities as counsel on record.25 In a Resolution26 dated December 10, 2012, we required petitioner herself to comment thereon, but no such compliance was made to date.
2 Petition, rollo, pp. 3–4.
4 Penned by Presiding Judge Amelia Tria–Infante, id. at 24–25.
6 Comment, id. at 29–30.
9 Petition, id. at 7–8.
10Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, 433 Phil. 844, 854 (2002).
14Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano v. Benemerito, 545 Phil. 311, 319 (2007).
SEC. 4. Contents of the petition. – The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by petitioner, and shall x x x (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of the record as would support the petition; x x x.
18Spouses Lanaria v. Planta, 563 Phil. 400, 414 (2007).
19 Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec. 5.
20B.E. San Diego, Inc. v. Alzul, 551. Phil. 841, 860 (2007).
27Hilario v. People, G.R. No. 161070, April 14, 2008, 551 SCRA 191, 203.
28Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, supra note 10, at 855.
30Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano v. Benemerito, supra note 14, at 320; id. at 867.
31Basuel v. Fact–Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB), 526 Phil. 608, 614 (2006).

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