G.R. No. 96776 February 5, 1993
PABLO RETONI, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pablo Retoni, Jr., along with two others, was charged with Serious Physical Injuries in the MTC of Dasmariñas, Cavite for boxing complainant Teotimo Rodriguez, causing a nasal bone fracture requiring at least thirty days to heal. The MTC, presided by Judge Arthur A. Famini, convicted petitioner and his co-accused on February 1, 1990. Only petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court, where his case was assigned to Judge Luis R. Reyes of Imus, Cavite. On May 21, 1990, Judge Reyes rendered a decision affirming petitioner’s conviction, which was promulgated on June 14, 1990. Petitioner received a copy of the decision on the day of its promulgation. No motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed within fifteen days, so the decision became final, and the case was remanded for execution on July 6, 1990. Petitioner’s counsel, claiming he only received a copy of the decision on July 9, 1990 because he was in the United States from June 9 to July 6, 1990, filed a Motion for Reconsideration on July 20, 1990. Petitioner then filed a petition with the Court of Appeals seeking review of his conviction. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated January 7, 1991, for having been filed beyond the reglementary fifteen-day period, reasoning that receipt by counsel’s office during his absence was valid service and the period began to run from that time.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period of 15 days.
2. Whether or not there was conspiracy among petitioner and his two other co-accused.

RULING

1. Yes, the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period. The period for perfecting an appeal is fifteen days from promulgation or notice of the judgment. Petitioner received the decision on June 14, 1990, and his counsel’s office received it during counsel’s absence abroad. Counsel’s failure to arrange for proper service during his absence constituted negligence, and service upon the party himself was valid. The Motion for Reconsideration was filed on July 20, 1990, which was 46 days after promulgation, thus out of time. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the judgment final and executory and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition.
2. The issue of conspiracy is inconsequential. Petitioner was shown to be a principal by direct participation in the commission of the offense, as established by the testimonies of the complainant and his sister that petitioner, together with his co-accused, successively boxed the complainant causing the injury. Petitioner did not controvert this allegation. Therefore, petitioner is personally liable for his direct participation regardless of conspiracy. The findings of the trial court on questions of fact are accorded the highest respect on appeal.
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit.