G.R. No. 199070 and G.R. No. 199237, April 7, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. VICENTE R. ESPINOSA and LINDSEY BUENAVISTA, Respondents. (G.R. No. 199070)

RAMON CAESAR T. ROJAS for himself and as representative of the HEIRS OF RAMON ROJAS JR., Petitioners, vs. VICENTE R. ESPINOSA and LINDSEY BUENAVISTA, Respondents. (G.R. No. 199237)

FACTS

On May 22, 2008, Ramon Rojas, Jr., former Vice-Mayor of Ajuy, Iloilo, was shot and killed. The initial complaint for murder was filed against Edgar Cordero and Dennis Cartagena. A second complaint later included respondents Vicente Espinosa and Lindsey Buenavista. The Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor’s Office found no probable cause against respondents and dismissed the case against them on August 12, 2008. The private complainants filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. Meanwhile, an Information for Murder was filed against Cordero and Cartagena in the RTC. On August 29, 2008, Cordero was killed and Cartagena was wounded. Cartagena, in a sworn statement dated September 4, 2008, admitted involvement in the killing and implicated Espinosa as the one who paid for the killing and Buenavista as the one who killed Cordero. A Department of Justice panel, created by Department Order, conducted a new preliminary investigation and found probable cause for murder against respondents on October 9, 2009. Consequently, an Amended Information for Murder was filed in the RTC on July 14, 2010, including respondents as accused. Respondent Espinosa filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause. The RTC, through Judge Florian D. Abalajon, issued an Order dated August 12, 2010, dismissing the Amended Information against respondents, ruling that Cartagena’s extrajudicial confession was inadmissible hearsay against his co-accused under the res inter alios acta rule (Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court) as the conspiracy was not first proved by independent evidence. The petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed in a Resolution dated January 21, 2011, due to the late filing of the petition. The CA found that the 60-day period to file the petition started from notice of the August 12, 2010 RTC Order on August 16, 2010, and expired on October 15, 2010, but the petition was filed only on December 14, 2010. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 3, 2011. Hence, these consolidated petitions for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari on the ground of late filing.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the CA Resolutions and remanded the case for reinstatement. The Court ruled that the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari should be reckoned from the petitioner’s receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration of the assailed order, not from the receipt of the assailed order itself. In this case, the petitioners received the RTC’s August 12, 2010 Order on August 16, 2010. They filed a motion for reconsideration on August 26, 2010, which was denied by the RTC in an Order dated October 12, 2010. The petitioners received this denial order on October 18, 2010. The 60-day period to file the petition for certiorari thus started on October 18, 2010, and expired on December 17, 2010. The petition was filed on December 14, 2010, which was within the period. The Court found that the OSG, which filed the petition, received the necessary records only on December 3, 2010, and filed the petition 11 days later, which was a reasonable time given its workload. Therefore, the petition was timely filed. The case was remanded to the CA to reinstate and decide the petition on its merits.