G.R. No. L-33654; July 23, 1987
Meynardo Jamilano y Quizon, petitioner, vs. Hon. Serafin B. Cuevas, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and the People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Meynardo Jamilano was convicted of parricide by the Court of First Instance of Manila. The decision was promulgated on October 5, 1970. His counsel received a copy on October 13, 1970. On October 28, 1970, petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging the trial court’s failure to consider his insanity defense and irregularities in the promulgation for being conducted in his counsel’s absence. The motion was denied on November 18, 1970, with notice received by counsel on November 30, 1970.
On December 1, 1970, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied, with notice of denial received on December 16, 1970. On that same day, December 16, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. The respondent judge dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time. Petitioner thus filed this petition for mandamus to compel the approval of his appeal.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the promulgation of judgment was invalid due to the absence of petitioner’s counsel; and (2) whether the notice of appeal filed on December 16, 1970, was timely.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the first issue, the promulgation was valid. Rule 120, Section 6 of the Rules of Court requires the judgment to be read in the presence of the defendant and any judge of the court for grave offenses. The rule does not mandate the presence of counsel for validity. The Court, citing U.S. v. Gimeno, held that counsel’s absence does not invalidate promulgation, as no substantial right on the merits is prejudiced.
On the second issue, the notice of appeal was filed out of time. The period to appeal is 15 days from promulgation or notice of judgment. Counting from the valid promulgation on October 5, 1970, the last day to appeal was October 20. Even if counted from counsel’s receipt on October 13, the last day was October 28. The Motion for New Trial, filed on October 28, suspended the running of the period. Upon receipt of the denial order on November 30, petitioner had only until December 1 to perfect his appeal. The motion for reconsideration filed on December 1 was pro-forma and did not further suspend the period. Thus, the notice of appeal on December 16 was indisputably late. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal, as the rules were correctly applied and no compelling interest of justice warranted liberality, the conviction being supported by the records.