A case in obligations and contracts for law students. uploaded by a student of san beda alabang discusses the case of marie teresa pangilinan vs peopleFull description
Criminal Law 1
.Full description
PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ PEOPLE VS PASUDAG, PEOPLE VS ZUELA, PEOPLE VS ABE VALDEZ CasesFull description
OBLICON digestFull description
Case Digest, Law
dsgr
lezama v rodriguezFull description
TERRITORIALITYFull description
Digest for People vs. PagalFull description
Crim case digest
Assigned caseFull description
crim digestFull description
Full description
case digestFull description
criminal lawFull description
Harry Go vs PeopleFull description
Case Digest - Criminal Case 1Full description
Trial Memorandum
people vs rafanan digest
1
RODRIGUEZ vs PEOPLE (#6) G.R. No. 192799, October 24, 2012 TOPIC: REMEDIAL TOPIC: REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT; FRESH PERIOD RULE PRINCIPLE: If PRINCIPLE: If the Court has accorded litigants in civil cases greater leeway in filing an appeal through the “fresh period rule,” with more reason that it should equally grant the same to criminal cases. The accused will have a fresh 15-day period counted from receipt of such denial within which to file his or her notice of appeal. FACTS: The RTC convicted petitioner Rolex Rodriguez y Olayres for Unfair Competition penalized under RA 8293. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration before the RTC on the 15th or the last day of the reglementary period to appeal. Fourteen (14) days after receipt of the RTC Order denying his motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal. Thus, the denial of his Notice of Appeal on the ground of its being filed out of time under Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Before the RTC, the CA and the Supreme Court, petitioner was unwavering in his assertion of the applicability of the “fresh period rule” as laid down in Neypes v. Court of Appeals. Appeals . ISSUE: Is the “fresh period rule” applicable to appeals from conviction in criminal cases governed by Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure? RULING: YES. While Neypes was silent on the applicability of the “fresh period rule” to criminal cases, the issue was squarely addressed in Yu v. Tatad, “While Neypes involved the period to appeal in civil cases, the Court’s pronouncement of a ‘fresh period’ to appeal should equally apply to the period for appeal in criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure x x x.”
The accused will have a fresh 15-day period counted from receipt of such denial within which to file his or her notice of appeal… appeal… If the Court has accorded litigants in civil cases—under cases— under the spirit and rationale in Neypes—greater Neypes—greater leeway in filing an appeal through the “fresh period rule,” with more reason that it should equally grant the same to criminal cases which involve the th e accused’s “sacrosanct right to liberty, which is protected by the Constitution, as no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”