G.R. No. 125164 September 25, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellant, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. LORENZO VENERACION, RICARDO B. BANGAYAN, BENJAMIN BANGAYAN, JR., ROBERTO BANGAYAN, RODRIGO BANGAYAN, LANIE L. ZIPAGAN, ATTY. ALMARIO AMADOR, MANNY SIA, SGT. JOSE “PEPE” AGUILAR, ANGELITO CHUA, EDUARDO R. IGNACIO, BERNADETTE C. CRISTOBAL, OSCAR L. MACALINO, HILARIO L. CULLA, BASILIO B. ZAPATA, RICARDO J. EBUNA, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

On March 30, 1993, an information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila against private respondents for violation of Section 3602 in relation to Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code. The information alleged that from July 16 to August 12, 1992, the accused conspired to cause the entry of 64,480 bags of PVC resins from Korea, secured their release from the Manila International Container Port using Bureau of Customs Official Receipts (BCORs) purportedly representing payment of duties and charges totaling P13,265,225.00, when in truth no such payments were remitted to the National Treasury, and the importers were fictitious. It further alleged that on September 20 and 21, 1992, they illegally withdrew 14 truckloads of the resins from a warehouse by breaking official Customs seals. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 93-118715 and assigned to Branch 47 presided by Judge Lorenzo Veneracion. The accused filed omnibus motions to quash the information, arguing that the facts charged did not constitute an offense, the criminal liability had been extinguished, and the information contained averments constituting a legal excuse. They claimed that the amount of P13,265,225.00 had been fully paid to the Bureau of Customs through RCBC before the information was filed, as shown by official receipts, and that the importers were legitimate. The RTC, in an order dated May 19, 1993, dismissed the case, finding that the duties had been paid, the importers were authorized, and the withdrawal was covered by a valid Temporary Restraining Order. The prosecution received the dismissal order on June 3, 1993. On June 10, 1993, it filed a motion for reconsideration, which lacked a notice of hearing. The RTC, on June 11, 1993, issued an order stating it could not act on the motion due to the lack of a hearing date. The prosecution only asked for leave to set the motion for hearing on July 1, 1993. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration on August 19, 1993. The prosecution filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which was denied in a decision dated May 23, 1996. The prosecution then filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 93-118715 by the Regional Trial Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s dismissal order was a mere scrap of paper because it did not contain a notice of hearing as required by Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the RTC’s order of dismissal became final and executory after fifteen days from the prosecution’s receipt thereof on June 3, 1993. The prosecution’s subsequent act of asking for leave to set the motion for hearing on July 1, 1993, was filed beyond the reglementary period and could not toll the running of the period for appeal. The Court also noted that a previous motion for extension of time to file a petition for review (G.R. No. 111510) was rendered moot as the order sought to be challenged had long become final. Thus, the resolution of the propriety of the dismissal order was unnecessary. The petition was denied for lack of merit.