Name: NOA, Monique Camille Title: People v. TamaniG.R. Nos: L-22160 & L-22161Link: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/jan1974/gr_l_22160_61_1974.html

People v. Tamani1

Facts:

On February 14, 1963, the lower court found Tamani guilty of consummated and attempted murder. On February 25, 1963, Tamani’s counsel received a copy of the decision and consequently filed for a motion for reconsideration on March 1, 1963. It was denied. On July 13, 1963, the lower court sent a denial order to the counsel through his wife via registered mail. On September 10, 1963, the said counsel appealed the lower court’s decision. Then, the appellees argued that the appeal should be dismissed contending that the appeal should have been made up to July 24, 1963 which is the 15 day period of appeal from the date of notice and not from the date of promulgation. Thus, the appellees claimed that the appeal was filed 47 days late.2

Issue:

Whether the 15-day period should commence from the date of promulgation or from the date of notice of the decision.

Held:

Appeal was dismissed. The 15-day period should commence from the date of promulgation.

Ratio:

Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides:

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.3

The assumption that the fifteen-day period should be counted from February 25, 1963, when a copy of the decision was allegedly served on appellant's counsel by registered mail, is not well-taken. The word "promulgation" in section 6 should be construed as referring to "judgment" while the word "notice" should be construed as referring to "order". That 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". Therefore, when the order denying appellant's motion for reconsideration was served by registered mail on July 13th on appellant's counsel, he had only 1 day within which to file his notice of appeal and not 11 days. Appellant Tamani's notice of appeal, filed on September 10, 1963, was 58 days late.4

1 G.R. Nos. L-22160 & L-22161, January 21, 1974.2 Id.3 Rules of Court, Rule 122, § 6.4 Id. at 1.