Crimpro - Estoesta Vs CA - Villonco

B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL 32 [August 6, 1991]
Estoesta v CA
Manila Public School Teacher’s Assoc v Laguio, Jr
I. Recit-ready summary withdraw petition for review for the purpose of applying for probation in the
Petitioner was charged with the crime of slight physical injuries. Petitioner, court of origin, "she being a first offender and possesses (sic) all the
without counsel, filed a motion to withdraw petition for review, which was qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided for under the said
granted by the appellate court. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a joint or probation law. On November 17, 1989, the petitioner filed a joint or
alternative motion for reconsideration and reinstatement of petition for alternative motion for reconsideration and reinstatement of petition for
review and petition for relief from judgment with a prayer for a TRO based review and petition for relief from judgment with prayer for a temporary
on the ground that the motion to withdraw the petition for review was filed restraining order based on the ground that the motion to withdraw the petition
without the advice of her lawyer. However, the appellate court denied the for review was filed without the advice of her lawyer. The CA denied this
petition. motion.
III. Issue/s
1. WON CA gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of .
jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s motion to reinstate petition? NO
1. WON CA gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of
DOCTRINE: The Court emphasizes the fact that it is always better for a jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s motion to reinstate petition? NO
party to be represented by counsel in a litigation. Nevertheless, it is the right IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
of such party to appear in his or her own behalf to prosecute or defend a Sec 34, Rule 138 of the ROC provides that a party in a case may conduct
cause in the court. But must face the consequences of her actions. a litigation either personally or by an attorney in the courts. He may also be
assisted by an agent or a friend for the purpose in the inferior courts. And
II. Facts of the case even if a party may have chosen to appear through counsel, he may at any
time dispense with the services of his/her lawyer and prosecute or defend
Petitioner was charged with the crime of slight physical injuries his/her case personally.
committed against Perla Y. Corpuz in an information filed with the it is clear that a party in a case may conduct a litigation either personally
Metropolitan Trial Court of Marikina, Metro Manila. By the same token, on or by an attorney in the courts. He may also be assisted by an agent or friend
a countercharge of petitioner, Perla Y. Corpuz was charged in an information for the purpose in the inferior courts. And even if a party may have chosen to
for the same offense before the same court. appear through counsel, he may at any time dispense with the services of
The cases were consolidated and after a joint trial on the merits where his/her lawyer and prosecute or defend his/her case personally. In this case
both parties were duly represented by counsel, the trial court rendered a the Court notes that before the Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional
decision dated January 12, 1989 convicting the petitioner of the crime Trial Court, the petitioner was duly represented by counsel. However, when
charged and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment of arresto menor in its she decided to elevate her case to the Court of Appeals she chose to handle
medium period of eleven (11) days to twenty (20) days but acquitting Perla her case personally, first, by asking for an extension of time within which to
Y. Corpuz with costs de oficio in both cases. On September 20, 1989, file a petition for review and second, by filing thereafter a petition to
petitioner, without the assistance of counsel, filed with the Court of Appeals withdraw the petition for review to enable her to apply for probation.
a motion for extension of time of thirty (30) days from September 30, 1989 Unfortunately, under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1257 as amended
or up to October 19, 1989 within which to file a petition for review on the by Presidential Decree No. 1990 dated October 5, 1985, it is specifically
ground that she has to look for another lawyer to represent her and prepare provided that "no application for probation shall be entertained or granted
the necessary petition. The motion was granted by the appellate court in a when the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of
resolution dated October 16, 1989. conviction."
However, instead of filing the petition for review, petitioner in her own The petitioner made this motion so that petitioner could very well
behalf filed on October 9, 1989 a written manifestation and motion to demonstrate that the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses by the
G.R. NO: 177056 PONENTE: Chico Nazario, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: EmEquity Jurisdiction DIGEST MAKER: Digest life
B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL 32 [August 6, 1991]
Estoesta v CA
Manila Public School Teacher’s Assoc v Laguio, Jr
lower court which was relied upon by the Regional Trial Court is misplaced
as the one who decided the case is different from the judge who heard the
case.
The said alternative motion for reconsideration or petition for relief
from judgment, however, was filed only on November 17, 1989, beyond the
reglementary period. Petitioner received a copy of the questioned resolution
dated October 24, 1989 on October 30, 1989. Hence, said resolution had
become final by the time petitioner filed her motion. Besides, the alternative
petition for relief from judgment is not accompanied by an affidavit of merit
as required by the rules.
The court said that it is always better do be assisted and represented
by an attorney. But if there are any errors or due to her lack of skill then she
should face the consequences of her act
V. Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED without pronouncement as to

costs.
VI. Notes
G.R. NO: 177056 PONENTE: Chico Nazario, J

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: EmEquity Jurisdiction DIGEST MAKER: Digest life

Crimpro - Estoesta Vs CA - Villonco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crimpro - Estoesta Vs CA - Villonco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crimpro - Estoesta Vs CA - Villonco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL 32 [August 6, 1991]

G.R. NO: 177056 PONENTE: Chico Nazario, J

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED without pronouncement as to

G.R. NO: 177056 PONENTE: Chico Nazario, J

You might also like