Jamilano vs. Cuevas

A judgment of conviction is validly promulgated without the presence of the accused’s counsel, because Rule 120, Section 6 requires only that the judgment be read in the presence of the defendant and any judge; and a motion for reconsideration that merely reiterates the grounds of a motion for new trial is pro forma and does not suspend the appeal period.

Petitioner Meynardo Jamilano y Quizon was the accused in a parricide case before the CFI of Manila, Branch IV, presided over by respondent Judge Serafin B. Cuevas; the People of the Philippines was the prosecution. The Rules of Court supplied the controlling framework: Rule 120, Section 6 governed promulgation of judgment, while Rule 122, Section 6 governed the 15-day appeal period and its interruption by a motion for new trial.

On October 13, 1968, Meynardo Jamilano y Quizon was charged with parricide for having stabbed his father to death in their house in Tondo, Manila, before the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IV, presided over by respondent Judge Serafin B. Cuevas. At arraignment on October 18, 1968, he pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial. The CFI convicted him in a decision promulgated on October 5, 1970; a copy was served on and received by his counsel on October 13, 1970.

On October 28, 1970, or 23 days after promulgation but only 15 days from service of the decision on counsel, petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging that errors of law and irregularities had been committed during trial prejudicial to his substantial rights. These consisted of the alleged failure of respondent judge to consider the defense of insanity in his favor. On November 13, 1970, he filed a Supplemental Motion emphasizing irregularities in the promulgation, claiming that because the decision was promulgated to him in the absence of his counsel, the promulgation was irregular.

Respondent judge denied the Motion for New Trial on November 18, 1970, and petitioner’s counsel received a copy of the denial on November 30, 1970. The following day, December 1, 1970, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration reiterating the same grounds — failure to consider insanity and alleged irregularities in the promulgation. The motion for reconsideration was denied, and a copy of the denial was served on petitioner’s counsel on December 16, 1970.

On the same day, December 16, 1970, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. Respondent judge dismissed the appeal for having been filed out of time. Petitioner then filed the present petition for mandamus seeking to compel respondent court to approve and give due course to his appeal.

• Promulgation Without Counsel: Petitioner argued that the decision having been promulgated to him in the absence of his counsel, the promulgation was irregular.
• Defense of Insanity: Petitioner argued that errors of law and irregularities were committed during trial prejudicial to his substantial rights because respondent judge failed to consider the defense of insanity in his favor.

• Validity of Promulgation: Whether the promulgation of the judgment on October 5, 1970 in the absence of petitioner’s counsel was valid.
• Timeliness of Appeal: Whether the notice of appeal filed on December 16, 1970 was seasonably interposed.

• Validity of Promulgation: Yes. Rule 120, Section 6 requires the judgment to be read in the presence of the defendant and any judge; it does not require the presence of counsel, and the absence of counsel does not invalidate the promulgation.
• Timeliness of Appeal: No. The 15-day appeal period had expired; even counted from counsel’s receipt of the decision, the motion for new trial was filed on the last day, leaving only one day after denial, and the pro forma motion for reconsideration did not suspend the period.

• Validity of Promulgation: The SC applied Rule 120, Section 6, which provides that the judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the defendant and any judge; the defendant must be personally present if the conviction is for a grave offense; if for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his attorney or representative; and when the judge is absent or outside the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated or read to the defendant by the Clerk of Court. In petitioner’s case, a valid promulgation required a reading of the sentence or judgment in the presence of the accused and any judge of the CFI of Manila. The provision does not require the presence of counsel for the validity of the promulgation. The SC cited U.S. vs. Pantaleon Gimeno, which categorically held that the absence of defendant’s counsel at the reading of the sentence would not affect the validity of the promulgation. The promulgation was therefore valid and legal.
• Timeliness of Appeal: The SC applied Rule 122, Section 6, which requires an appeal to be taken within 15 days from promulgation or notice of the judgment or order appealed from, and provides that the period is interrupted from the time a motion for new trial is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion is served upon the defendant or his attorney. Since the decision was validly promulgated on October 5, 1970, the period for perfecting an appeal had already expired when petitioner filed his Motion for New Trial on October 28, 1970; the last day was October 20, 1970, the 15th day from promulgation. Even counting the 15 days from counsel’s receipt of the decision on October 13, 1970, the last day was October 28, 1970. The filing of the Motion for New Trial on October 28, 1970 suspended the running of the appeal period, leaving petitioner’s counsel only one day to perfect appeal if the motion was denied. Counsel received the order denying the Motion for New Trial on November 30, 1970, so he had only until December 1, 1970 to perfect the appeal. The motion for reconsideration filed on December 1, 1970 was merely pro forma and did not suspend the running of the appeal period. The notice of appeal filed on December 16, 1970 was therefore out of time. The SC also noted that the pleadings filed after promulgation seemed to indicate merely an intent to delay execution; the Motion for New Trial was filed on the last day, and upon receipt of the denial counsel could have immediately filed a notice of appeal. The promulgation being valid and the dismissal being in conformity with the rules and jurisprudence, petitioner was not entitled to mandamus. The SC acknowledged that it had allowed appeals outside the prescribed period in the interest of justice, but only where strong considerations of substantial justice existed; where they did not, a lower court could not be cited for grave abuse of discretion simply because it correctly but strictly applied the rules, as held in Vda. de Crisologo vs. Court of Appeals and Castro vs. Court of Appeals. The decision of the lower court was satisfactorily supported by the records, and a remand would only result in needless delay.

• Valid promulgation without counsel — Under Rule 120, Section 6, promulgation is valid when the judgment is read in the presence of the accused and any judge; counsel’s presence is not required. Applied to petitioner’s parricide conviction; the absence of counsel did not invalidate the promulgation.
• 15-day appeal period — An appeal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation or notice of the judgment or order appealed from; a motion for new trial interrupts the period until notice of the order overruling it. Applied: the period had expired, and the late motion for new trial left only one day to appeal after denial.
• Pro forma motion for reconsideration — A motion for reconsideration that merely reiterates grounds already raised in a motion for new trial is pro forma and does not suspend the appeal period. Applied: the December 1 motion did not toll the period, so the December 16 notice of appeal was late.
• Mandamus and strict application of procedural rules — Mandamus does not lie to compel approval of an appeal where the dismissal is correct; courts may relax appeal periods only for strong considerations of substantial justice, not where none exist. Applied: no grave abuse of discretion was shown, and the petition was dismissed.

• "The aforecited provision does not require the presence of counsel for the validity of the promulgation." — The SC construes Rule 120, Section 6 and rejects the claim that the absence of counsel made the promulgation irregular.
• "The filing of the Motion for New Trial on October 28, 1970, suspended the running of the appeal period. This left petitioner's counsel only one (1) day to perfect appeal in the event his Motion for New Trial was denied." — The SC computes the remaining appeal period after the motion for new trial was filed on the last day.
• "the motion for reconsideration filed on December 1, 1970 being merely pro-forma, did not suspend the running of the period of appeal." — The SC rejects the motion for reconsideration as a tolling event.
• "Where the interest of justice would not be served by a policy of liberality, however, We cannot cite a lower court as having acted with grave abuse of discretion simply because it has correctly but strictly applied the rules." — The SC refuses to relax the appeal period and finds no grave abuse of discretion in the strict application of the rules.

• U.S. vs. Pantaleon Gimeno, 3 Phil. 233-234 — Followed; held that the absence of defendant’s counsel at the reading of the sentence does not affect the validity of the promulgation.
• Vda. de Crisologo vs. Court of Appeals, 137 SCRA 231 — Cited in support; liberal relaxation of the appeal period requires strong considerations of substantial justice, and strict application of the rules is not grave abuse of discretion where none exist.
• Castro vs. Court of Appeals, 123 SCRA 787 — Cited with Vda. de Crisologo for the same rule on liberal application of appeal periods.

• Rule 120, Section 6, Rules of Court — Provides that judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the defendant and any judge; the defendant must be personally present if the conviction is for a grave offense; if for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his attorney or representative; and if the judge is absent or outside the province or city, the judgment may be read to the defendant by the Clerk of Court. Applied: the parricide conviction was a grave offense, but counsel’s presence was not required; the promulgation was valid.
• Rule 122, Section 6, Rules of Court — Provides that an appeal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation or notice of the judgment or order appealed from, and that the period is interrupted from the filing of a motion for new trial until notice of the order overruling the motion is served. Applied: the appeal period had expired; the motion for new trial filed on the last day left only one day to appeal after denial; the pro forma motion for reconsideration did not suspend the period.