Vina v CA

G.R. No. 132936. February 17, 2003

FACTS:
Petitioner Vina was convicted by RTC Butuan for violation of RA 6425. Petitioner filed a
notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction. The records of the case were forwarded
to the CA.
On Sept 5, 1997, petitioner received a notice from CA requiring him to file the appellants
brief within 30 days from notice, or until Oct 5, 1997. On Oct 20, 1997, petitioner filed a
motion for extension of time to file appellants brief. CA denied the motion for having
been filed 15 days late and dismissed the appeal.
On Jan 12, 1998, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that his motion
for extension was timely filed since he has 45 days, not 30 days, from notice to file the
appellants brief. CA denied the motion. Hence the instant petition.
Petitioner contends that his motion for extension of time to file appellants brief was
seasonably filed within the 45-day reglementary period provided under Section 7, Rule 44
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended (in other words, Pet contends that the
1997 Rules of Civ Pro, providing for a 45-day period, impliedly repealed Sec 3, Rule 124).
ISSUE: Did the 1997 Rules of Civ Pro repeal the 30-day period in Sec 3 Rule 124? NO
HELD:
Section 7, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, did not impliedly
repeal Section 3, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. There is no such
implied repeal here whatsoever since these two rules deal with distinct subject
matters. Section 7, Rule 44 provides for the period within which an appellants brief
must be filed in civil cases, which is 45-days, while Section 3, Rule 124 provides when
brief for the appellant should be filed in criminal cases, which is 30 days.
Petitioner, being a lawyer, should have readily understood that the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, apply only to civil cases, not to criminal cases which are
governed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Moreover, petitioner submits that he honestly believes he followed the correct procedure.
Petitioners avowal of honest belief is misplaced. He was fully aware that the Court of
appeals directed him to file the appellants brief within 30 days from notice. But he did
not comply. He even faulted the Chief of the Judicial Records Division of the Court of
Appeals for sending him a notice which was presumably an old form.
Petition denied.