GR 147832; (December, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147832 ; December 6, 2006
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. DANILO P. GABRIEL, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Danilo P. Gabriel was charged in two separate Informations for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The cases were consolidated in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City. The trial judge requested the relief of the assigned prosecutor for poor performance. Following this, the Office of the City Prosecutor issued a memorandum relieving the prosecutor. During a subsequent hearing where no prosecutor appeared, the trial court ordered the provisional dismissal of the cases for failure to prosecute. A motion for reconsideration filed by the relieved prosecutor was later denied by the court.
The Office of the City Prosecutor received a copy of the order denying the motion for reconsideration on November 22, 2000. It then recommended that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) file a petition for certiorari. The OSG received the recommendation and the order on January 3, 2001, and subsequently filed the petition with the Court of Appeals on March 5, 2001.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for certiorari filed by the OSG with the Court of Appeals was filed within the reglementary period.
RULING
No, the petition was filed out of time. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. The reglementary period to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is sixty (60) days from notice of the assailed order. In criminal proceedings, while the public prosecutor controls the case at the trial level, the OSG has the sole authority to represent the government before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. However, the rule on notice to counsel governs. Since the RTC sent the order to the Olongapo City Prosecutor, who received it on November 22, 2000, the 60-day period commenced from that date. The period is counted from the prosecution office’s receipt, not from the OSG’s later receipt. The OSG filed the petition on March 5, 2001, which was 84 days from November 22, 2000, exceeding the 60-day limit. The period is non-extendible to prevent unreasonable delays and ensure the speedy disposition of cases. Thus, the petition was correctly dismissed for being time-barred.