GR No.
/ Title of Case Facts
G.R. No. 205015 Petitioner was reported to be in
November 19, 2014 possession of lumbers below his
MA. MIMIE house. When the police officers
CRESCENCIO, Petitioner, came to investigate, he admitted
vs. owning the lumber which he
PEOPLE OF THE bought from a certain shop.
PHILIPPINES, However, he was not able to
Respondent support his claim of buying the
lumber because the receipt he
showed to the authorities did not
match the description of the
lumber stockpiled under his
house.
This case stemmed from Ma.
Mimie Crescencio's (petitioner)
conviction for violation of Section
681 of Presidential Decree (P.D.)
No. 705,2 otherwise known as the
Revised Forestry Code of the
Philippines (Forestry Code), as
amended by Executive Order
(E.O.) No. 277,3 rendered by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Talibon, Bohol, Branch 52, in
Criminal Case No. 96-27, on
August 12, 2008.4 The Court of
Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR No.
01162, dismissed the appeal in its
Resolution5 dated April 15, 2011
Issues
The core issue to be resolved is
whether or not the CA’s dismissal
of the appeal due to the
petitioner’s failure to serve a copy
of the Appellant’s Brief to the
OSG is proper, in view of the
attendant factual circumstances
and in the interest of substantial
justice.
Ruling
As a general rule, the inadvertence of
counsel cannot be considered as an
adequate excuse as to call for the
appellate court’s indulgence except: (a)
where the reckless or gross negligence
of counsel deprives the client of due
process of law; (b) when application of
the rule will result in outright deprivation
of the client’s liberty or property; or (c)
where the interests of justice so require.
In this regard, the Court agrees that the
CA should have taken a liberal view of
the rules and ruled on the merits of the
appeal, especially when what is involved
is no less than the petitioner’s liberty.
Nonetheless, even if the Court brushes
aside the technicality issue, it will still find
that the prosecution was able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the petitioner’s
culpability.
As to the imposable penalty on the
petitioner, the RTC imposed an
indeterminate sentence of six (6) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor as
minimum to eleven (11) years, six (6)
months and twenty-one (21) days of
prision mayor as maximum, the court
does not agree. WHEREFORE, the
Decision on August 12, 2008 of the
Regional Trial Court of Talibon, Bohol,
 for failure to serve a copy of the
Appellant’s Brief to the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG). The
CA, in its Resolution6 dated
November 19, 2012, also denied
the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration of the said
resolution.
G.R. No. 179611 Section 6,1 Rule 120 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure
March 12, 2013 allows promulgation of judgment
in absentia and gives the accused
EFREN S. ALMUETE, a period of fifteen (15) days from
Petitioner, notice to him or his counsel within
vs. which to appeal; otherwise, the
PEOPLE OF THE decision becomes final.2
PHILIPPINES,
Respondent This Petition for Review on
Certiorari3 under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court assails the May 4,
2007 Resolution4 and the
September 4, 2007 Resolution5 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. SP No. 98502.
Branch 52, in Criminal Case No. 96-27,
is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that petitioner Ma. Mimie Crescencio is
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of four ( 4) months and one (1)
day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to
three (3) years, six (6) months and
twenty-one (21) days of prision
correccional, as maximum.
1. Whether x x x the Decision of
the RTC convicting petitioner
Almuete of the charge against him
passed the requisite conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether x x x the promulgation
of the Decision of the RTC The promulgation of judgment is valid.
convicting the petitioner was valid
despite the absence of the
petitioner and regardless of
petitioner’s intention to be present
at the promulgation of the
Decision.
3. Whether x x x the Honorable The appellate court acted with grave
CA committed grave abuse of abuse of its discretion when it ventured
discretion when it acquitted beyond the sphere of its authority and
petitioner Almuete in a Petition for arrogated unto itself, in the certiorari
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the proceedings, the authority to review
perceived errors of the trial court in the
 Rules of Court.
4. Whether x x x the judgment of
acquittal by the Honorable CA
bars further proceedings and that
to do so would constitute a
violation of petitioner’s
constitutional right against double
jeopardy.
5. Whether x x x the denial of the
RTC of petitioner’s motion for re-
promulgation is in order, the
denial being based on an
inappropriate
Administrative Order of this
Honorable Supreme Court
(Administrative Order No. 16-93).
G.R. No. 158182 Petioner felled a narra tree on 1) Whether the trial court
June 12, 2008 instruction of the alleged owner. acquired jurisdiction over
The attention of the DENR was Criminal Case No. 2207
SESINANDO called and he was advised not to even though it was based
MERIDA, petitioner, turn the felled tree into lumber but on a complaint filed by
vs. he still did, thus a case was filed Tansiongco and not by a
PEOPLE OF THE against him. DENR forest officer; and
PHILIPPINES, respondent
This is a petition for review of the 2) Whether petitioner is
exercise of its judgment and discretion,
which are correctible only by appeal by
writ of error
Clearly, petitioner’s right to appeal the
RTC’s September 8, 1998 Decision has
long prescribed. Consequently, the said
Decision is no longer open to an appeal.
The penalty imposed must be modified.
The Decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27, docketed
as Criminal Case No. 2672, is hereby
MODIFIED insofar as the penalty of
imprisonment is concerned. The
accused, namely, Efren S. Almuete,
Johnny Ila y Ramel and Joel Lloren y
dela Cruz are each sentenced to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of six ( 6) years
of prision correccional, as minimum, to
thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal,
as maximum
Here, it was not "forest officers or
employees of the Bureau of Forest
Development or any of the deputized
officers or officials" who reported to
Hernandez the tree-cutting in the Mayod
Property but Tansiongco, a private
citizen who claims ownership over the
Mayod Property. Thus, Hernandez
cannot be faulted for not conducting an
Decision2 dated 28 June 2002
and the Resolution dated 14 May
2003 of the Court of Appeals. The
28 June 2002 Decision affirmed
the conviction of petitioner
Sesinando Merida (petitioner) for
violation of Section
68,3 Presidential Decree No. 705
(PD 705),4 as amended by
Executive Order No. 277. The
Resolution dated 14 May 2003
denied admission of petitioner's
motion for reconsideration.
liable for violation of investigation to determine "if there is
Section 68 of PD 705, as prima facie evidence to support the
amended complaint or report."23 At any rate,
Tansiongco was not precluded, either
under Section 80 of PD 705 or the
Revised Rules, from filing a complaint
before the Provincial Prosecutor for
petitioner's alleged violation of Section 68
of PD 705, as amended. For its part, the
trial court correctly took cognizance of
Criminal Case No. 2207 as the case falls
within its exclusive original jurisdiction.24
Here, petitioner was charged with having
felled a narra tree and converted the
same into "several pieces of sawn
lumber, about three (3) pcs. 2x16x6 and
three (3) pcs. 2x18x7 x x x consisting of
111 board feet x x x."
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 28
June 2002 and the Resolution dated 14
May 2003 of the Court of Appeals is
affirmed, with the modification that
petitioner Sesinando Merida is sentenced
to four (4) months and one (1) day
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three
(3) years, four (4) months and twenty-
one (21) days of prision correcional, as
maximum.