People of the Philippines vs. Castaneda, Jr., et al.

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed, and the period is inextendible. While exceptions to strict observance exist, the party invoking liberality must advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for the failure to comply with the rules. Furthermore, a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process.

The case involves a criminal prosecution for violation of customs laws before the Court of Tax Appeals, which has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal offenses arising from violations of the Tariff and Customs Code. The private respondents were charged with fraudulent importation through misdeclaration of goods, specifically the importation of anti-virus software falsely declared as CD kit cleaner and plastic CD cases. The Bureau of Customs, through its Run After the Smugglers (RATS) Group and Revenue Collection Monitoring Group (RCMG), served as counsel for the BOC in the prosecution of the case.

Private respondents Myrna M. Garcia and Custodio Mendoza Vestidas, Jr. were charged before the Court of Tax Appeals with violation of Section 3602 in relation to Sections 2503 and 2530 (f) (i) and 1, (3) (4) and (5) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended. The Information alleged that on or about November 5, 2011, Garcia and Vestidas, Jr., as owner/proprietress and broker of Plinth Enterprise respectively, conspiring and confederating with each other, with intent to defraud the government, willfully, unlawfully, and fraudulently imported into the Port of Manila 858 cartons of 17,160 pieces of Anti-Virus Software Kaspersky Internet Security Premium 2012, subject to customs duties, by misdeclaration under Import Entry No. C-181011 and Bill of Lading No. PFCMAN1715. The shipment, a One Forty Footer (1x40) container van bearing No. KKFU7195683, was falsely declared to contain 40 pallets/1,690 cartons of CD kit cleaner and plastic CD case. The imported items had customs duties amounting to Php 3,341,245, of which only Php 100,362 was paid, to the prejudice and damage of the Government in the amount of Php 3,240,883.

At the hearing on August 1, 2012, Garcia and Vestidas, Jr. pleaded "Not Guilty." A preliminary conference was held on September 5, 2012, followed by pre-trial on September 13, 2012, where both the prosecution and the defense agreed to adopt the joint stipulations of facts and issues. Trial ensued, and the prosecution presented witnesses who essentially observed the physical examination of Container Van No. KKFU 7195638 conducted by the Bureau of Customs and explained the process of electronic filing under the Electronic to Mobile (E2M) Customs Systems of the BOC and the alleged misdeclared goods therein. The prosecution filed its Formal Offer of Evidence on December 10, 2012.

On January 15, 2013, Garcia and Vestidas, Jr. filed an Omnibus Motion to File Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court, which was granted. They filed their Demurrer to Evidence claiming that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt because: (a) the pieces of documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution were inadmissible in court; (b) the object evidence consisting of the allegedly misdeclared goods were not presented as evidence; and (c) none of the witnesses for the prosecution made a positive identification of the two accused as the ones responsible for the supposed misdeclaration. Despite opposition, the CTA dismissed the case in its March 26, 2013 Resolution for failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The CTA found that no proof was presented showing that the certified true copies of the public documents offered in evidence were in fact issued by the legal custodians, citing Section 26, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. The CTA also found that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 27, Rule 132 regarding private documents that became part of public records. The CTA further noted that the prosecution admitted that none of their witnesses ever positively identified the accused in open court and that the alleged misdeclared goods were not competently and properly identified in court. The prosecution's motion for reconsideration was denied on May 15, 2013, with the CTA stressing that to grant it would place the accused in double jeopardy.

On July 24, 2013, the RATS Group and RCMG, as counsel for the BOC, received a copy of the July 15, 2013 Resolution of the CTA ordering the entry of judgment. The petition stated that a copy of the May 15, 2013 Resolution was received by the BOC on May 17, 2013, but the RATS was only alerted to the developments on July 24, 2013. The petition was filed on August 12, 2013, almost a month late from the due date of July 16, 2013.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner argued that the CTA committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that: (1) the pieces of documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution were inadmissible in evidence; (2) the object evidence consisting of the alleged misdeclared goods were not presented as evidence; and (3) the witnesses failed to positively identify the accused as responsible for the misdeclaration of goods.

• Liberal Application of Rules: Petitioner prayed that the petition be given due course despite its late filing, arguing that the RATS was only alerted by the developments in the case on July 24, 2013, when Atty. Danilo M. Campos Jr. received the July 15, 2013 Resolution of the CTA ordering the entry of judgment, and it was only on that occasion when he discovered the May 15, 2013 Resolution of the CTA.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Private respondents argued in their Demurrer to Evidence that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt because: (a) the pieces of documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution were inadmissible in court; (b) the object evidence consisting of the allegedly misdeclared goods were not presented as evidence; and (c) none of the witnesses for the prosecution made a positive identification of the two accused as the ones responsible for the supposed misdeclaration.

• Timeliness of Petition: Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the CTA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the case against the private respondents on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.

• Timeliness of Petition: No. The petition was filed on August 12, 2013, almost a month late from the due date of July 16, 2013, and the reasons proffered by the petitioner do not carry even a tinge of merit that would deserve leniency. The 60-day period under Section 4, Rule 65 is inextendible.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. A perusal of the challenged resolutions of the CTA does not disclose any indication of grave abuse of discretion on its part or denial of due process. The subject resolutions of the CTA were issued in accordance with the rules on evidence and existing jurisprudence.

• Timeliness of Petition: Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit in stating that certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case. While there are recognized exceptions to such strict observance, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules. In this case, no convincing justification for the belated filing of the petition was advanced. The late filing was borne out of the petitioner's failure to monitor incoming court processes that needed to be addressed by the office, which is an admission of inefficiency, if not lack of zeal, on the part of an office tasked to effectively curb smuggling activities. The Court noted that the display of patent violations of even the elementary rules leads the Court to suspect that the case against Garcia and Vestidas, Jr. was doomed by design from the start. The Court also noted that the error committed by the RATS in filing a motion for reconsideration with the CTA displays gross ignorance as to the effects of an acquittal in a criminal case and the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Even if the Court decided to suspend the rules and permit the recourse, the end result would remain the same. While a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, it must be shown that there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. Here, the subject resolutions of the CTA have been issued in accordance with the rules on evidence and existing jurisprudence. The records are replete with indicators that the petitioner actively participated during the trial and, in fact, presented its offer of evidence and opposed the demurrer.

• Reglementary Period for Certiorari under Rule 65 — A petition for certiorari must be instituted within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case. While there are recognized exceptions to strict observance, the party invoking liberality must advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for the failure to comply with the rules. In this case, the petition was filed almost a month late, and the petitioner's failure to monitor incoming court processes was not a sufficient justification for relaxing the rules.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. A judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process.

• Double Jeopardy — A judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may not be appealed because to do so would place the accused in double jeopardy. The CTA correctly denied the prosecution's motion for reconsideration on this ground.

• "The 60-day period is inextendible to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case." — This passage articulates the rationale behind the strict application of the reglementary period for filing petitions for certiorari under Rule 65, emphasizing the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.

• "While a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, it must be shown that there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process." — This passage states the controlling doctrine on when a judgment of acquittal may be assailed through a petition for certiorari, which is a frequently cited principle in Philippine criminal procedure.

• "Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility." — This passage provides the canonical definition of grave abuse of discretion, which is the standard for reviewing judgments of acquittal through certiorari.

• Republic vs. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc., G.R. No. 192908, August 22, 2012, 678 SCRA 738 — Cited for the proposition that the 60-day period under Rule 65 is inextendible and for the recognized exceptions to strict observance of the reglementary period, citing Labao vs. Flores.

• De Vera vs. De Vera, G.R. No. 172832, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 506, 515 — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion as capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

• Section 4, Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that certiorari should be instituted within a period of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. Applied to dismiss the petition for being filed almost a month late.

• Section 26, Rule 132, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that when the original of a document is a public record, it should not generally be removed from the office or place in which it is kept. Cited by the CTA in finding that the prosecution failed to present certified true copies of public documents.

• Section 7, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that when the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. Cited by the CTA in requiring the presentation of certified true copies.

• Section 27, Rule 132, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that an authorized public record of a private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody. Cited by the CTA in finding that the prosecution failed to present certified true copies of private documents that became part of public records.

• Section 3602, Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended — Defines various fraudulent practices against customs revenue. The provision under which the private respondents were charged.

• Sections 2503 and 2530 (f) (i) and 1, (3) (4) and (5), Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended — Related provisions cited in the Information charging the private respondents.

• Canon 6, Chapter I, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that lawyers in government service are equally bound by the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility in the discharge of their official tasks. Cited in reminding RATS lawyers of their duties.

• Canon 12, Chapter III, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that lawyers should exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Cited in reminding RATS lawyers of their duties.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Diosdado M. Peralta, Roberto A. Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza, and Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen.