View full case

ROMEO P. NAZARENO v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's appeal from a judgment of conviction for serious physical injuries. In the criminal case, petitioner Romeo Nazareno and his wife were charged with serious physical injuries. The Municipal Trial Court initially set the promulgation of judgment but postponed it due to petitioner's motion to re-open the case. The motion was denied, and petitioner brought the matter to the Court of Appeals on certiorari, which issued a temporary restraining order to stop the promulgation. However, the Court of Appeals later denied petitioner's petition to declare the nullity of judgment. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court but failed to file it on time. Upon receiving the resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Municipal Trial Court, but it was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court for being filed out of time. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Mandamus and Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which also dismissed the petition. Petitioner filed this present petition, raising four issues for resolution.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was filed on time.

  2. Whether the filing of a supplemental petition and a motion for reconsideration in CA-G.R. No. 14329 interrupted the running of the 15-day period to perfect the petitioner's appeal.

  3. Whether the respondent court and the respondent judge exceeded their authority or acted in excess of jurisdiction when they dismissed the petitioner's appeal.

RULING:

  1. The appeal filed by the petitioner was not filed on time. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time, as the petitioner filed his notice of appeal twelve (12) days late.

  2. The filing of a supplemental petition, a motion for reconsideration, a petition for review on certiorari, and a motion for reconsideration in G.R. No. 97812 did not interrupt the running of the 15-day period to perfect the petitioner's appeal. The Supreme Court held that these filings did not suspend the running of the period to perfect the appeal.

  3. The respondent court and the respondent judge did not exceed their authority or act in excess of jurisdiction when they dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court found that the appeal was filed out of time, and there was no grave abuse of discretion in the dismissal of the appeal.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The timely filing of an appeal is essential to the perfection of an appeal. Failure to file an appeal within the prescribed period renders the decision final and executory.

  • Filing pleadings or motions in other courts or tribunals does not suspend the running of the period to perfect an appeal in the original case.

  • Dismissal of an appeal for being filed out of time does not constitute an excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, as long as the dismissal is in accordance with the rules and applicable laws.