Sanico vs. People

In appeals from Municipal Circuit Trial Courts to Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases, the filing of a memorandum on appeal is optional, not mandatory, and the RTC must decide the case on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings and such memoranda as may have been filed, such that dismissal of the appeal solely for failure to file a memorandum constitutes a denial of due process.

Petitioner Jose "Pepe" Sanico and co-accused Marsito Batiquin were charged with trespassing and theft of minerals in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Catmon-Carmen-Sogod, Cebu. On April 2, 2009, the MCTC convicted them of theft of minerals under Section 103 of Republic Act No. 7942 (the Philippine Mining Act of 1995), sentencing them to imprisonment and ordering payment of damages to private complainant Jennifer S. Tenio, while acquitting them of trespassing.

• The Conviction: On April 2, 2009, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Catmon-Carmen-Sogod, Cebu rendered judgment in Criminal Case No. 3434-CR finding Jose "Pepe" Sanico and Marsito Batiquin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 103 of Republic Act No. 7942 (the Philippine Mining Act of 1995), sentencing them to imprisonment of six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional as maximum, and to pay a fine of P10,000.00 each. The truck used in the crime was ordered confiscated in favor of the government. Both accused were ordered to solidarily pay private complainant Jennifer S. Tenio actual damages of P4,042,500.00, moral damages of P500,000.00, exemplary damages of P200,000.00, attorney's fees of P100,000.00, and litigation expenses of P50,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 3433-CR for trespassing, both accused were acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Perfection of Appeal: On April 22, 2009, Sanico's counsel filed a notice of appeal in the MCTC.
• RTC Proceedings: On January 5, 2010, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Danao City ordered Sanico to file his memorandum on appeal. Sanico did not comply.
• Dismissal of Appeal: On March 16, 2010, the RTC dismissed the appeal with prejudice, ruling that failure to file the memorandum on appeal was a ground for dismissal pursuant to Section 7, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
• Motion for Reconsideration: On April 26, 2010, Atty. Dennis Cañete, new counsel for Sanico, filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that Sanico failed to file the memorandum due to his wife's debilitating illness and eventual death, as well as the medical condition of prior counsel Atty. Baring which caused her to forget the case details.
• Denial of MR: On June 1, 2010, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of verification and affidavit of merit, and because the reasons given were found not justifiable.
• Petition for Review: On June 23, 2010, Sanico filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals contesting his conviction and assailing the dismissal of his appeal.
• CA Dismissal: On April 14, 2011, the CA dismissed the petition for review on procedural grounds including non-payment of docket fees, lack of proper proof of service, failure to furnish the RTC a copy of the petition, defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and submission of plain photocopies instead of certified true copies.
• Denial of MR: On September 15, 2011, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration, holding that payment of docket fees is mandatory and jurisdictional, and that a client is generally bound by the acts or mistakes of his counsel.
• Execution Proceedings: Meanwhile, on March 28, 2011, the RTC authorized the issuance of a writ of execution. The entry of judgment was issued on March 30, 2011, and the writ of execution on April 19, 2011. Execution sales of Sanico's personal properties were made on June 14 and 16, 2011, with certificates of sale issued in favor of Tenio.
• Omnibus Motion: Sanico filed an omnibus motion to recall the order and quash the entry of judgment, which the RTC denied on August 22, 2011 and October 3, 2011.

• Erroneous Application of Rules: The petitioner contended that the CA erred in not nullifying the RTC's dismissal of the appeal, arguing that the RTC wrongly applied Section 7, Rule 40 (civil procedure) instead of Rule 122 (criminal procedure), which makes the filing of a memorandum optional rather than mandatory.
• Due Process Violation: The dismissal of the appeal deprived him of his right to have the conviction reviewed by the RTC despite having timely perfected his appeal by filing the notice of appeal.
• Premature Entry of Judgment: The CA erred in not nullifying the entry of judgment issued by the RTC despite the pendency of the petition for review in the CA.
• Gross Negligence of Counsel: The petitioner argued that he should not be bound by the gross and inexcusable negligence of his former counsel, which deprived him of his day in court.

• Evaluation of Evidence: Private respondent Tenio argued that the appeal sought to evaluate findings of lower courts, which cannot be done in a petition for review on certiorari.
• Procedural Non-Compliance: The petitioner lost all opportunities to contest the decision by failing to comply with requirements to submit his appeal memorandum to the RTC and by filing a petition for review plagued with congenital infirmities.
• Mandatory Docket Fees: The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, submitted that the CA did not err in dismissing the petition for review for failure to comply with procedural requirements, particularly the mandatory payment of docket fees.
• Binding Effect of Counsel's Negligence: The petitioner was bound by the mistakes of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique.
• Immediate Executory Nature: Decisions of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction were immediately executory without prejudice to an appeal.

• Applicability of Rule 40 vs. Rule 122: Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the criminal appeal for failure to file a memorandum on appeal under Section 7, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
• Binding Effect of Counsel's Negligence: Whether the petitioner is bound by the gross negligence of his former counsel in failing to file the required memorandum and in filing a defective petition for review.
• Prematurity of Petition for Review: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on procedural grounds despite the pendency of the appeal before the Regional Trial Court.
• Remand: Whether the case should be remanded to the Regional Trial Court for appellate review of the conviction.

• Applicability of Rule 40 vs. Rule 122: The dismissal was erroneous because Section 7, Rule 40 applies only to civil appeals, whereas Rule 122, Section 9(c) governs criminal appeals and specifies that parties "may submit memoranda or briefs," making such submission optional and imposing a mandatory duty on the RTC to decide the appeal based on the entire record regardless of whether a memorandum is filed.
• Binding Effect of Counsel's Negligence: The petitioner was not bound by the gross negligence of counsel where such incompetence deprived him of his day in court; the litigation was reopened to afford the petitioner another opportunity to present his case.
• Prematurity of Petition for Review: The CA erred in dismissing the petition for review on procedural grounds and in failing to correct the RTC's prejudicial error; the petition was premature because the appeal to the RTC had not yet been resolved when the petition was filed.
• Remand: The case was remanded to the RTC for appellate review as if the appeal had been timely perfected; the RTC was directed to quash the execution, order restitution of properties levied and sold, and review the conviction.

• Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Appeals from MCTC to RTC — In appeals from Municipal Circuit Trial Courts to Regional Trial Courts, Rule 122 (criminal procedure) applies, not Rule 40 (civil procedure). Under Rule 122, Section 9(c), the filing of a memorandum on appeal is optional ("may submit"), whereas under Rule 40, Section 7, it is mandatory ("shall be the duty") and failure to file is a ground for dismissal. The RTC has a mandatory duty under Rule 122 to decide the criminal appeal on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings and such memoranda as may have been filed.
• Effect of Gross Negligence of Counsel — Where the incompetence of counsel is so great and the error committed as a result is so serious that the client is prejudiced by a denial of his day in court, the litigation ought to be reopened to give the client another chance to present his case.
• Right to Appeal as Component of Due Process — Although the right to appeal is statutory, it is an essential component of due process and must be respected and observed by lower courts; lower courts must be alert in safeguarding this right.

• "The dismissal by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of an appeal by an accused on the ground of his failure to submit his memorandum on appeal should be nullified because the pertinent rule of procedure governing the appeal specifies such submission as optional on his part, and commands the resolution of the appeal by the RTC on the basis of the records of the trial court and of any memoranda of appeal as the parties may file in the case."
• "The failure to file the memorandum on appeal is a ground for the RTC to dismiss the appeal only in civil cases. The same rule does not apply in criminal cases, because Section 9(c), supra, imposes on the RTC the duty to decide the appeal 'on the basis of the entire record of the case and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been filed' upon the submission of the appellate memoranda or briefs, or upon the expiration of the period to file the same."
• "If the incompetence of counsel was so great and the error committed as a result was so serious that the client was prejudiced by a denial of his day in court, the litigation ought to be re-opened to give to the client another chance to present his case."
• "Finally, it behooves the Court to remind all lower courts and their judges to be alert in safeguarding the right of the parties to appeal. Although the right to appeal is statutory, it must be respected and observed because it is an essential component of due process."

• Tamayo v. Tamayo, Jr., G.R. No. 148482, August 12, 2005, 466 SCRA 618 — Cited for the principle that payment of docket fees is mandatory and jurisdictional for the perfection of appeals; distinguished in this case because the appeal to the RTC had not yet been completed when the petition for review was filed.
• Enriquez v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 139303, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 77 — Cited for the principle that payment of docket fees is a condition sine qua non for the perfection of appeal by petition for review.

• Section 7, Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Erroneously applied by the RTC; provides that failure to file a memorandum on appeal is a ground for dismissal in civil cases.
• Rule 122, Sections 3, 8, and 9 of the Rules of Court — Governs appeals in criminal cases; Section 9(c) makes submission of memoranda optional and mandates the RTC to decide the case based on the entire record and filed memoranda.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Jose Portugal Perez, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.