G.R. No. 192799 : Rolex Rodriquez y Olayres v.

People of the…UPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 22/09/2018, 9)52 PM

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 > October 2012 Decisions > G.R. No. 192799 : Rolex
Rodriquez y Olayres v. People of the Philippines and Allied Domecq Spirits and Wines, represented by Allied
Domecq Phils., Inc.:

Custom Search Search

G.R. No. 192799 : Rolex Rodriquez y Olayres v. People of the Philippines and Allied Domecq Spirits and
Wines, represented by Allied Domecq Phils., Inc.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 192799 : October 24, 2012

ROLEX RODRIGUEZ y OLAYRES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ALLIED

DOMECQ SPIRITS AND WINES, represented by ALLIED DOMECQ PHILS., INC., Respondents.

RESOLUTION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner assails the March 2, 2010 Decision1 and June 29, 2010 ςrνll

Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 108789, which affirmed the April 14, 2009
ςrνll

Order3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24 in Manila, denying due course to petitioners Notice of
ςrνll

Appeal in Criminal Case No. 02-206499.

The RTC convicted petitioner for Unfair Competition penalized under Sections 155, 168, 160 in relation to
Sec. 170 of Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, and sentenced him
to serve imprisonment of two (2) years, to pay a fine of PhP 50, 000 and actual damages of PhP 75,000.

The pertinent factual antecedents are undisputed.

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
After promulgation of the Decision in Criminal Case No. 02-206499 convicting him for unfair competition,
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the RTC on the 15th or the last day of the
reglementary period to appeal. Fourteen (14) days after receipt of the RTC Order denying his motion for
reconsideration, petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal.4 Thus, the denial of his Notice of Appeal on the
ςrνll

ground of its being filed out of time under Sec. 6, Rule 122, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Before
the RTC, the CA and now here, petitioner was unwavering in his assertion of the applicability of the "fresh
period rule" as laid down in Neypes v. Court of Appeals.5 ςrνll

The rationale of the "fresh period rule" is:

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal
their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice
of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial
or motion for reconsideration.

Henceforth, this "fresh period rule" shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals from the Municipal Trial

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012octoberdecisions.php?id=655 Page 1 of 5
G.R. No. 192799 : Rolex Rodriquez y Olayres v. People of the…UPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
October-2012 Jurisprudence
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1787 : Office of the Court
Administrator v. Marianito C. Santos, Presiding
Judge, MeTC, Branch 57, San Juan City
A.C. No. 6733 : Herminia P. Voluntad-Ramirez v.
Atty. Rosario B. Bautista
A.M. No. P-06-2196 : Marites Flores-Tumbaga v.
Joselito S. Tumbaga, Sheriff IV, OCC-RTC, La
Trinidad, Benguet
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2289 : Re: Anonymous letter dated
August 12, 2010 complaining against Judge Ofelia T.
Pinto, RTC, Branch 60, Angeles City, Pampanga
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2316 : Office of the Court
Administrator v. Hon. Liberty O. Castaneda, et al
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2321 : Sps. Jesus G. Crisologo and
Nannette B. Crisologo v. Judge George E. Omelio,
Regional Trial Court, Br. 14, Davao City
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2333 : Prosecutors Hydierabad A.
Casar, Jonal E. Hernandez, Dante P. Sindac and Atty.
Jobert D. Reyes v. Corazon D. Soluren, Presiding
Judge, RTC, Branch 96, Baler, Aurora
G.R. Nos. 130714 & 139634 : People of the
Philippines v. Val de los Reyes and Donel Go/People
of the Philippines v. Val de los Reyes
G.R. No. 153478 : Mr Holdings, Ltd. v. Citadel
Holdings, Incorporated, Vercingetorix Corp., Manila
Golf and Country Clug, Inc. and Marcopper Mining
Corp.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012octoberdecisions.php?id=655
22/09/2018, 9)52 PM
Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the Regional Trial Courts to the
Court of Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals and Rule 45
governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. The new rule aims to regiment or make the appeal
period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for new trial, motion for
reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution.6 ςrνll
Neypes elucidates that the "fresh period rule" applies to appeals under Rule 40 (appeals from the
Municipal Trial Courts to the RTC) and Rule 41 (appeals from the RTCs to the CA or this Court); Rule 42
(appeals from the RTCs to the CA); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the CA); and Rule 45
(appeals by certiorari to this Court).7 A scrutiny of the said rules, however, reveals that the "fresh period
ςrνll
rule" enunciated in Neypes need NOT apply to Rules 42, 43 and 45 as there is no interruption in the 15-
day reglementary period to appeal. It is explicit in Rules 42, 43 and 45 that the appellant or petitioner is
accorded a fresh period of 15 days from the notice of the decision, award, judgment, final order or
resolution or of the denial of petitioners motion for new trial or reconsideration filed.8 ςrνll
The pivotal question is whether the "fresh period rule" is applicable to appeals from conviction in criminal
cases governed by Sec. 6 of Rule 122 which pertinently provides: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sec. 6. When appeal to be taken. An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of
the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall
be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order
overruling the motion has been served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the
period begins to run. (Emphasis supplied.)
While Neypes was silent on the applicability of the "fresh period rule" to criminal cases, the issue was
squarely addressed in Yu v. Tatad,9 which expanded the scope of the doctrine in Neypes to criminal cases
ςrνll
in appeals of conviction under Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the
Court held in Yu: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
While Neypes involved the period to appeal in civil cases, the Courts pronouncement of a "fresh period"
to appeal should equally apply to the period for appeal in criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule 122 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure x x x.10 ςrνll
xxxx
Were we to strictly interpret the "fresh period rule" in Neypes and make it applicable only to the period to
appeal in civil cases, we shall effectively foster and encourage an absurd situation where a litigant in a
civil case will have a better right to appeal than an accused in a criminal casea situation that gives undue
favor to civil litigants and unjustly discriminates against the accused-appellants. It suggests a double
standard of treatment when we favor a situation where property interests are at stake, as against a
situation where liberty stands to be prejudiced.
We must emphatically reject this double and unequal standard for being contrary to reason. Over time,
courts have recognized with almost pedantic adherence that what is contrary to reason is not allowed in
lawQuod est inconveniens, aut contra rationem non permissum est in lege.
Thus, we agree with the OSGs view that if a delay in the filing of an appeal may be excused on grounds
of substantial justice in civil actions, with more reason should the same treatment be accorded to the
accused in seeking the review on appeal of a criminal case where no less than the liberty of the accused
is at stake. The concern and the protection we must extend to matters of liberty cannot be overstated.11 ςrνll
(Emphasis supplied.)
It is, thus, now settled that the fresh period rule is applicable in criminal cases, like the instant case,
where the accused files from a judgment of conviction a motion for new trial or reconsideration which is
denied by the trial court. The accused will have a fresh 15-day period counted from receipt of such denial
within which to file his or her notice of appeal.
Verily, the application of the statutory privilege of appeal must not prejudice an accused who must be
accorded the same statutory privilege as litigants in civil cases who are granted a fresh 15-day period
within which to file an appeal from receipt of the denial of their motion for new trial or reconsideration. It
is indeed absurd and incongruous that an appeal from a conviction in a criminal case is more stringent
than those of civil cases. If the Court has accorded litigants in civil casesunder the spirit and rationale in
Neypesgreater leeway in filing an appeal through the "fresh period rule," with more reason that it should
equally grant the same to criminal cases which involve the accuseds "sacrosanct right to liberty, which is
protected by the Constitution, as no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law."12 ςrνll
Consequently, in light of the foregoing, we hold that petitioner seasonably filed his notice of appeal on
February 2, 2009, within the fresh period of 15 days, counted from January 19, 2009, the date of receipt
of the RTC Order denying his motion for reconsideration. ςηαοblενιrυαllαωlιbrαr
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the April 14, 2009 Order of the RTC, Branch
24 in Manila and the assailed March 2, 2010 Decision and June 29, 2010 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R.
SP No. 108789 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Notice of Appeal of petitioner Rolex Rodriguez y
Olayres dated January 29, 2009 is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE. Let the case records be elevated by the
RTC to the CA for the review of petitioners appeal with dispatch. No costs. ςrαlαωlιbrαr
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
* Acting member per Special Order No. 1343 dated October 9, 2012.
1 Rollo, pp. 69-81. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and
ςrνll
concurred in by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and Francisco P. Acosta.
2
ςrνll Id. at 82-83.
3ςrνll Id. at 62-63. Penned by Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr.
4ςrνll Id. at 56-59, dated January 29, 2009.
5ςrνll G.R. No. 241524, April 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633.
Page 2 of 5
G.R. No. 192799 : Rolex Rodriquez y Olayres v. People of the…UPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 22/09/2018, 9)52 PM

6 Id. at 644-645.
G.R. No. 153852 : Spouses Humberto Delos Santos
ςrνll

and Carmencita Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank 7 See Panolino v. Tajala, G.R. No. 183616, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 309, 315.
and Trust Company
ςrνll

8 Sec. 1 of Rule 42; Sec. 4 of Rule 43; and Sec. 2 of Rule 45.
G.R. No. 159370 : Palm Tree Estates, Inc., et al. v. ςrνll

Philippine National Bank 9

ςrνll G.R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 421.
G.R. Nos. 159561-62 : R.V. Santos Company, Inc. v.
10 Id. at 428.
Belle Corporation ςrνll

G.R. No. 160260 : Westmont Bank, formerly 11 ςrνll Id. at 430.

Associates Bank now United Overseas Bank
Philippines v. Myrna Dela Rosa-Ramos, Domingo Tan 12 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 1; Macasasa v. Sicad, G.R. No. 146547, June 20, 2006,
and William Co
ςrνll

491 SCRA 368, 383.

G.R. No. 163182 : Tom Tan, Annie U. Tan and
Nathaniel Tan v. Heirs of Antonio F. Yamson

G.R. No. 164051 : Philippine National Bank v. Lilian

S. Soriano
Back to Home | Back to Main
G.R. No. 166462 : P.L. Uy Realty Corporation v. ALS
Management and Development Corporation and
Antonio K. Litonjua
QUICK SEARCH
G.R. No. 166803 : Crewlink, Inc. and/or Gulf Marine
Services v. Editha Teringtering, for her behalf and in
behalf of minor Eimareach Rose De Garcia
Teringtering 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
G.R. No. 168331 : United International Pictures, AB 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. 168987 : Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
Francisco Lao Lim, The Heirs of Henry Go, Manuel 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
Limtiong and Rainbow Tours and Travel, Inc.
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. 169391 : Sps. Eugene C. Go and Angelita 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
Go, and Minor Emerson Chester Kim B. Go v. Colegio
De San Juan De Letran, et al. 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
G.R. No. 170454 : Cecilia T. Manese, Julietes E.
Cruz, and Eufemio Peñano II v. Jollibee Foods 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Corporation, Tony Tan Caktiong, Elizabeth Dela Cruz, 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
Divina Evangelista and Sylvia M. Mariano
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
G.R. No. 170677 : VSD Realty & Development 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Corporation v. Uniwide Sale, Inc. and Dolores Baello
Tejada 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016
G.R. No. 170732 : Atlantic Erectors, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals and Herbal Cove Realty Corporation

G.R. No. 171845 : Sps. Godfrey and Gerardina

Serfino v. Far East Bank and Trust Company, Inc.,
now Bank of the Philipine Islands
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
G.R. No. 171855 : Fe V. Rapsing, Tita C. Villanueva
and Annie F. Aparejado, represented by Edgar
Aparejado v. Hon. Judge Maximino R. Ables, of RTC-
Branch 47, Masbate City; SSGT. Edison Rural, et al.

G.R. No. 172825 : Spouses Miniano B. Dela Cruz and

Leta L. Dela Cruz v. Ana Marie Concepcion

G.R. No. 173211 : Heirs of Dr. Mario S. Intac and

Angelina Mendoza-Intac v. Court of Appeals and
Spouses Marcelo Roy, Jr. and Josefina Mendoza-Roy,
et al.

G.R. No. 173610 : Town and Country Enterprises,

Inc. v. Hon. Norberto J. Quisumbing, Jr., et al./Town
and Country Enterprises

G.R. No. 174582 : The Heirs of the Late Spouses

Laura Yadno and Pugsong Mat-an, namely, Lauro
Mat-an, et al. v. The Heirs of the Late Spouses Mauro
and Elisa Achales, namely, Johnny S. Anchales, et al.

G.R. No. 174715 : Filinvest Land, Inc., Efren C.

Gutierre v. Abdul Backy, Abehera, Baiya, Edris, et al.

G.R. No. 175155 : John C. Arroyo, Jasmin Alipato,

Primitivo Belanders, et al. v. Rosal Homeowners
Association, Inc.

G.R. No. 175177 : Republic of the Philippines v.

Gloria Jaralve (deceased), substituted by Alan Jess
Jaralve-Document, Jr., et al.

G.R. No. 175990 : Heirs of Albina G. Ampil, namely

Precious A. Zavalla, Eduardo Ampil, et al. v. Teresa
Manahan and Mario Manahan

G.R. No. 176162 : Civil service Commission v. Court

of Appeals, et al./Atty. Honesto L. Cueva v. Court of
Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 177140 : People of the Philippines v.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012octoberdecisions.php?id=655 Page 3 of 5
G.R. No. 192799 : Rolex Rodriquez y Olayres v. People of the…UPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 22/09/2018, 9)52 PM

Alejandro Violeja y Asartin

G.R. No. 177232 : RCJ bus Lines, Incorporated v.

Master Tours and Travel Corporation

G.R. No. 177357 : People of the Philippines v. Val

Delos Reyes

G.R. No. 178584 : Associated Marine Office and

Seamen's Union of the Philippines PTGWO-ITW v.
Noriel Decena

G.R. No. 178909 : Superior Packaging corporation

v. Arnel Balagsay, et al.

G.R. No. 181089 : Merlinda Cipriano Montañez v.

Lourdes Tajolosa Cipriano

G.R. No. 176579 : Heirs of Wilson P. Gamboa v.

Finance Secretary Margarito B. Teves, et al.

G.R. No. 182018 : Norkis Trading Corporation v.

Joaquin Buenavista, et al.

G.R. No. 182209 : Land Bank of the Philippines v.

Emiliano R. Santiago, Jr.

G.R. No. 183053 : Emilio A.M. Suntay III v. Isabel

Cojuangco Suntay

G.R. No. 184903 : Digital Telecommunications

Philippines, Inc. v. Digitel Employees Union (DEU), et
al.

G.R. No. 184950 : NGEI Multi-Purpose Cooperative,

Inc. and Hernancito Ronquillo v. Filipinas Palmoil
Plantation Inc. and Dennis Villareal

G.R. No. 185368 : Arthur F. Mechavez v. Marlyn M,

Bermudez

G.R. No. 186592 : Governor Enrique T. Garcia, Jr.,

Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr., Emerlinda S. Talento and
Rodolfo H. De Mesa v. Leo Ruben C. Manrique

G.R. No. 188571 : People of the Philippines v.

Maricar Brainer y Mangulabnan

G.R. No. 189754 : Lito Bautista and Jimmy

Alcantara v. Sharon G. Cuneta-Pangilinan

G.R. No. 189817 : People of the Philippines v.

Reyna Bataluna Llanita and Sotero Banguis Buar

G.R. No. 189820 : People of the Philippines v. Jovel

S. Apole, et al.

G.R. No. 192650 : Felix Martos, Jimmy Eclana,

Rodel Pilones, et al. v. New San Jose Builders, Inc.

G.R. No. 192088 : Initiative for Dialoque and

Emprovement through Alternative Legal Services,
Inc., et al. v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management Corpotation etc., et al.

G.R. No. 192799 : Rolex Rodriquez y Olayres v.

People of the Philippines and Allied Domecq Spirits
and Wines, represented by Allied Domecq Phils., Inc.

G.R. No. 194122 : Hector Hernandez v. Susan San

Pedro Agoncillo

G.R. No. 193237 : Dominador G. Jalosjos, Jr. v.

Commission on Elections, et al./Agapito J. Cardino v.
Dominador G. Jalosjos, Jr., et al.

G.R. No. 194366 : Napoleon D. Neri, et al. v. Heirs

of Hadji Yusop Uy and Julpha Ibrahim Uy

G.R. No. 194758 : Rubenj D. Andrada v. Agemar

Manning Agency, Inc. and/or Sonnet Shipping
Ltd./Malta

G.R. No. 196383 : Robert Pascua, doing business

under the name and style Tri-Web Construction v. G
& G Realty Corporation

G.R. No. 195229 : Efren Racel Aratea v. Commission

on Elections and Estela D. Antipolo

G.R. No. 196434 : People of the Philippines v. Chito

Nazareno

G.R. No. 196539 : Marietta N. Portillo v. Rudolf

Lietz, Inc., et al.

G.R. No. 197151 : SM Land, Inc. (Formerly

Shoemart, Inc.) and Watsons Personal Care Store,
Phils., Inc. v. City of Manila, Liberty Toledo, in her
official capacity as the City Treasurer of Manila, et al.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012octoberdecisions.php?id=655 Page 4 of 5
G.R. No. 192799 : Rolex Rodriquez y Olayres v. People of the…UPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 22/09/2018, 9)52 PM

G.R. No. 197309 : Ace Navigation, Co., Inc., et al. v.

Teodorico Fernandez assisted by Glenita Fernandez

G.R. No. 196804 : Mayor Barbara Ruby C. Talaga v.

Commission on Elections and Roderick A.
Alcala/Philip M. castillo v. Commission on Elections,
Barbara Ruby Talaga and Roderick A. Alcala

G.R. No. 197315 : Republic of the Philippines v.

Angel T. Domingo and Benjamin T. Domingo

G.R. No. 198423 : Leo A. Gonzales v. Solid Cement

Corporation and Allen Querubin

G.R. No. 198733 : Johansen World Group

Corporation and Anna Liza F. Hernandez v. Rene
Manuel Gonzales III

G.R. No. 199264 : People of the Philippines v. Noel

T. Laurino

G.R. No. 199735 : People of the Philippines v. Asia

Musa y Pinasilo, Ara Monongan y Papao, Faisah Abas
y Mama, and Mike Solalo y Mlok

G.R. No. 201112 : Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla,

et al. v. The Hon. Commission on Elections/Solidarity
for Sovereignty (S4S) etc., et al. v. Commission on
Electons etc./Teofisto T. Guingona, et al. v.
Commission on Elections, et al./Tanggulang
Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc., et al. v. Commission on
Elections

Copyright © 1998 - 2018 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012octoberdecisions.php?id=655 Page 5 of 5