PEOPLE V.

TAMANI
G.R. # 22160 & G.R. # 22161
Aquino, J
Digester: Alonzo, Group 6

NATURE: Appeal of Defendant Teodoro Tamani from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Isabela, (a) sentencing
him to "life imprisonment" for the murder of Jose Siyang and ordering him to indemnify the victim's heirs in the sum of
P6,000 and (b) further sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day
of prision correccional to eight (8) years and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor for the attempted murder of
Eduardo Domingo and ordering him to indemnify the victim in the sum of P2,000

FACTS:
1. After respondent Tamani filed his appeal, the OSG filed a motion to dismiss, due to the fact that the notice of
appeal was 47 days late, to which Tamani’s counsel did not oppose
2. Action was deferred until the case was to be considered on its merits; but the Court held that this preliminary
question should first be resolved
3. Lower Court’s decision convicting Tamani was promulgated on Feb. 14, 1963; a copy was given to his then
counsel by Feb. 25, 1963.
4. Tamani’s camp then filed a Motion for Reconsideration on March 1, 1963, which was denied. The copy of the
order of denial was served on July 13, 1963 through his wife.
5. Starting from said date, he had 11 days (July 24, 1963) to appeal. This was the reglementary 15 day period for
appeal, but he only filed his appeal on September 10, 1963, 48 days from July 24.
6. Silvestre Bello, defendant’s counsel, argued that even if the appeal was received by Tamani’s wife on July 13,
it was never brought to his attention only until Sep. 7. He added that this was probably because his wife had
lost the envelope containing the order
7. The Trial court then opined that
a) the wife’s affidavit should have been submitted
b) a motion praying that the tardy appeal be given due course
8. But due to the gravity of the two penalties on the accused plus the plea of the defense, the RTC gave the
appeal its due course, while still allowing the OSG to “raise the question of jurisdiction on the ground of a late
appeal.”

ISSUE: When does the 15-day period start: from the date of promulgation or from the date of notice of the
Decision?

RULING: 15-day period commences from the date of promulgation.

RATIO:
1. Rule 122, Rules of Court :
SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken.—An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation
or notice of the judgment or order appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be
interrupted from the time a motion for new trial is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion
shall have been served upon the defendant or his attorney.

2. The word MUST connotes a MANDATORY provision that said appeal should be EFFECTED WITHIN 15 DAYS from
the promulgation of the judgment
3. Tamani’s counsel clearly understood this due to the fact that he filed the Motion for Reconsideration on March
1, 15 days from the promulgation of the decision on Feb. 14
4. Thus, the word “promulgated” should be interpreted as referring to “judgment,” while the word “notice” should
be construed as referring to “order”
5. This construction is sanctioned by the rule of reddendo singula singulis: "referring each to each; referring each
phrase or expression to its appropriate object", or "let each be put in its proper place, that is, the words should
be taken distributively."
6. Therefore, when the order denying Tamani’s Motion for Reconsideration was served on July 13, he only had
one day to file his notice of appeal, not eleven days. His appeal that was filed on September 10, 1963, was also
58 days late. His appeal must be dismissed.
7. But due to the Court’s decision to uphold the appeal, due to the gravity of the crime, due course was given to
the respondent; the facts of the Criminal case are as follows: (I did not include this anymore; it does not seem
relevant to our lesson)

DECISION if re: the Appeal: DISMISSED