by:

nttt""

Fri

' |i i

toutt Suprenre
fl[snils
FIRST DIVISION

! t! 0ci 201?

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice tlrct the Court. First Division. issueda Resolution dated 13 September 2012 which reads asfollov,s:

"G.R No. 193476-

ALVIN SEBASTIAI{ Q. MALIG, petitioner, versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ANd PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPAIVY (PLDT), respondents.

Beforethis Court is a petitionlor certiorariandprohibitionunderRule 65 of the 1997RulesofCivil Procedure, amended, as assailingthe December11,2009r and (CA) in CA-G.R.CR No. 31139. July19,,?0102 Resolutions theCourtof Appeals of
The antecedents ofthe casefollorv:

On September 16,2004, respondent PhilippineLong DistanceTelephone Company (PLDT), through its authorized representative, Engr. Richard de Dios (DOJ), a complaint-affrdavit3 theft Lapefla, filed beforethe Department Justice for of underArticle 308,in relationto Article 309,ofthe Revised PenalCode,asamended, (RPC)against petitioner Alvin Sebastian Malig. PLDT alleged that a prepaidcard Q. servicebeing marketedin the U.S.A. was channeling international calls into the PLDT network without the latter's consentthrough a phone number of which petitioner a subscriber. is On June29,2005, the DOJ filed beforethe RegionalTrial Court @TC) of Makatithreeinformations violationof Article 308of theRPC. for
' 'I Rollo, pp. 3l-35. Penned by Associate Justice Arnelita G. Tolentino with AssociateJusticesEstela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of this Court) and StephenC. Cruz concuning. Id. at 37-38. I d . a r9 9 - 1 4 . 1 - over- five (5) pages. . . ...

128

G.R.No. 193476 2012 13September

Orr November 7, 2005. petilioner filed a Motion to Quash arguing that intemational long distance call minutes do not coltstitute personal property as contemplated the RPC and other relevantlavr's. by and therefore,any usagethereof is not a "taking" penalizedby larv.

On February 27,2006, the RTC issued a Joint Order denying petitioner's Motion to Quasl.r.

Petitioner moved to reconsidertlte Februa4' )7. 2006 Joint Order citing this Court's ruling in Lan'el r. ^lbrogar.t ln Laurel. this Court ruled that the humanr.oice and electronic voice sisnals or current are intangible and not susceptible of possession; thus they cannot be talien for purposesof theft. At that time. the Court's ruling in lazrel u-asstill the subjectof a motion for reconsideration,

As Laurel rras still prending.the RTC issued an Order cn- Ma1-29- 2006. holding in abeyance proceedings tle beiore it. . On October2, 2006, the RTC receivedfrom petitioner a Notice of Changeof Address. It appearshorvt-ver. ordersand processes the RTC continued be that by to sentto the lbrmer address.

In an Orders dated December 19. 1006. the RTC directed the qlashal of the informations against petitioner. PLDT mored to reconsider the said order but its motion was deniedby the RTC in a Joint Order datedApril 3, 2007. On May 8, 2007. PLDT, through the private prosecutor, filed a Notice of Appeal.6This was given duecourse the RTC in its OrderdatsdMay 11,2007. by

On April 24.2008, petitioner a Motionto Dismiss filed Appeal before CA the ou the gt'ound the Noticeo1'Appeal not properly that was served uponhim or his counsel.
On May 5, 2008. PLDT filed a nranifestation indicatingconcuffence publicprosecutor its appeal theCA.7 with to
4 5 6 7

G.R.No. 155076, February 21,2006,483 243. SCRA Rollo, pp. 144-t46. Id. at 40.

Motion to Dismissciting On June18,2008,petitionerfiled a Supplemental for grounds dismissal' as ofthe publicprosecutor fuilher participation thebelated denying Resolution the assailed il' On December 2009' the CA issued Motion to Disnriss Thoughit Motion to Dismissand Supplemental petitioner's to the Notice of Appeal was furnished found that there is no proof that a copy of
rvith a copy of the trial he rvasfunrished the or petitiot.rer his coutlsel' CA ruled thal held that courseto pLDT's appeal. The CA court-s Ma.v i1.2007 order gi'ing due mo\ the \la1 l l' 2007 Order' he cannot silce petitioner did not mose to reconsider liberal in the CA found cogent reason to be for the dismissal of the appeal' The Notably' dismissal pral ed tbr b1' petitioner' application of the rules and denied the his issue raised br petitioner in the CA did not elucidate on the horrever. belated participation of the public Motion to Dismiss regarding the Supplemental proscutor. appellate court's December l1moved for reconsideration ol the assailed Resolution dated July but the CA detfed the motion in the prosecutor's

Petitioffi 2009 Resolution'

the issue regarding the public f-q,2OlO. Again, the CA did not discuss i ' tl pa 1 - c l a r c d r t i c i p a r i . rr P I U I ' s a p p q l l

lia the present petition raising the Pe*itiom Dora'conres to this Court following argunents: of the criminal aspectof A. The Peopledid not appeal the dismissal was not filed by the ofltce the the casebecause itttice of appeal Prosecutor' of the Solicitor Generalor the Public B.serviceofthenoticeofappealisindispensableto[the]per|ection of the aPPeal' was not fatal' C' Failure to file a motion for reconsideration rules is inapplicable to D. Liberal constructionr of procedural
t" gl tttt"tttut]- f.t"t'odt'

the in the instantpetitionis whether to the Essentially, mainissue be resolved within the was petitioner perfected against of ofthe disrnissal thecriminalcase appeal by oeriodprovided theRulesof Court'
grant the petition' This Courl rules in the negative We vote to

8 Id.at 10.16,18and20.

- over -

128

Section 5,e Rule I l0 of the Rules of Cour1.as amended,mandatesthat all crimrnal actionscommencedby a conrplaintor infonnation shall be prosecuted under the direclion and control of the public prosecutor. The offended party can take part in the prosecution ofa criniinalaction,anclin certaininslances appealfrom the order on or judgment of the courls in a criminal action. but the perrnissionto take part is true only where the party inj ured has to protect his pecuniary inlerest as part of the civil liabilitl ol the accused. "' In the instantcase.PLDT. the private oftendedpaq. filed prr i1s6*r a \otice of Appeal to a-isailthe order of the RTC directing the quashal ol the inlbrmations againsrpetitioner. Clearll. such appealbf PLDT \\ a-i n(lr made to protecttheir pecuniaryinterestbut lo cause the reinstatenrent the crintinal action against tri petitioner.PLDT did not hale the requisire Iegalstanding app'eal dismissal ro the of rhe criminal ca-ses, PLDT filed the nolice of appallit'm rhe RTC Order directing the qrrasilai of rhe informarions against fririlrner s'ilht'ut ct-nlbmri{ of the public prosecutor. As an ofiended pan. PLDT ma\ not take an aptal tiom the criminal aspectof the case.lI

rritb -\s to the subsequent publie!.ro--ecutor Pl-DT'sfiling cL'n.uircnce Lhe oi oi a \orice ol.{ppeal. this Jtes not at all cure the ,letect ol the appeal. It sas t-tled aimosr a y'earafter PLDT liled ir-. \otice oi -{ppeal and obr-iouslr'.sar- bevond the period in u'hich the RTC order mal be assailed. Thus. as no Notice of Appeal rr,as filed bv the proper part), rvithin the period required b1' the Rules of Court, the RTC order directing the quashalof the infonnations becamefinal and executory.

WHEREFORE, the petition is herebyGIVEN DUE COURSE and the writs prayed for, accordinglyGRANTED. The December I1,2009 and July 19,2()10 ' SEC. 5. ll/ho nrust prosecutecrintinal actions. AII crirtinal actions either cot.itutenced a corlplaint rrl in{bnralion shallltc prosecuted frv underthe direction and conJroi of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy-work schedule of the public prosecutoror in the event of lack of public prosecutors,the private prosecutor may be authorized in wtiting by the Chief ProsecutionOffice or the Regional StateProsecutorto prosecutethe casesubject to tl.reapproval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the crirninal action, the private prosecutor shall contlnue to prosecutethe caseup to the end of 1hetrial even in the absenceof a public prosecutor,unlessthe authority is revokedor otherwisewithdrawn.
XXXX

'.'.' "

Do"n, v. Lacion,G.R. No. 196209. June8, 201l, p. 8 (Unsigned Resolution). SeeBangoyan,.Ir. Bangoyar,G.R.Nos. 172777 172792, v. & October19,2011, 659 SCRA 59. 597. - over

t28
It'

of Resolutions the Court of Appealsin CA-G.R. CR No. 31139are herebySET irr the Motiorr Dismiss petition to ASIDE. The Motionto DismissandSupplemental are CR CA-G.R. No. 31139 GRANTED.
as No pronouncement to costs.

SO ORDERED."

Very trul,vyours.

. ARICHETA
ion Clerk of C.ourt

6* tzs

DISIbiI& DISINI LAW OFFICE Counselfor Petitios Center ' 3]S.Plt*. Soeid Scierrce Ave. Commonrvealth Dilin.ran128Quezon 1 Citr' Public InfomrationOffice (x) (x) Library Services Court Supreme Division(x) Judgment Court Supreme

Court of Appeals(x; Manila (CA-G.R No.3l139) CR ANGAR,\ABEI,LOCONCEPCION & REGAL.A, CRUZ for Priv. ResPondent Counsel 22T. ACCRALAW Tower Ave. cor. 30ftStSecond ParkWest Crescent GlobalCity Bonifacio Tagirig City 1630 (x) TheSolicitorGeneral MakatiCity ' Judge TheHon.Presiding TrialCou( Br. 146 Regional MakatiCity 1200 to (Crim. Nos.05-1524 26) Case
/

,.r.,:"\,_,:._,^.

,,

SR

t/