G.R. No. 170396 , August 31, 2006
Roberth B. Tolentino, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and Lope Dulfo, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Roberth B. Tolentino was convicted of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 3(a) of the Revised Penal Code by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The criminal complaint stemmed from an alleged mortgage transaction where complainant Lope Dulfo and his wife mortgaged their vehicle to Tolentino for P150,000.00. The complainants were made to sign a blank paper, which Tolentino later converted into a Deed of Sale naming himself as the buyer. When the complainants sought to redeem the vehicle, Tolentino refused, and they later discovered he had sold it to another party.
Tolentino failed to appear during the promulgation of the RTC’s conviction decision on February 22, 2005. He subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC, in an Order dated September 14, 2005, denied the motion, citing Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The rule states that if an accused fails to appear during the promulgation of a judgment of conviction without justifiable cause, he shall lose all available remedies against the judgment. The RTC held that Tolentino lost his right to file the motion.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to set aside the RTC’s conviction and order a new judgment of acquittal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot substitute for a lost appeal. Tolentino’s proper remedy was to appeal the RTC’s September 14, 2005 Order denying his motion for reconsideration to the Court of Appeals within the 15-day reglementary period. He received the Order on October 12, 2005, but failed to appeal. Instead, he directly filed this certiorari petition, which is impermissible. Certiorari is only available to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment, and only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Furthermore, the petition violated the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, as it should have been filed with the Court of Appeals absent special and compelling reasons for direct filing with the Supreme Court.
The Court affirmed the RTC’s application of procedural rules. Since Tolentino failed to appear at the promulgation without showing a justifiable cause, he validly lost all remedies against the judgment of conviction under Rule 120, Section 6 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The petition, being an improper remedy, warranted dismissal.