GOMEZ-ESTOESTA // APPRAC-A
BAÑADERA • CADIENTE •CARIAGA • CHENG • DE LUIS • DUEÑAS • ESCASURA • GARCIA • ORQUINAZA • RUBIO • SANTOS • YU
Appeal as a Statutory Privilege: Requisites
YU v. SAMSON-TATAD (Cheng)
[GR. No. 170979; February 9, 2011]
The Neypes Ruling is also applicable to criminal cases.
Recit-Ready:
Facts: The RTC convicted Yu of Estafa on May 26, 2005. Before the
decision became final and executory, she had filed a motion for
new trial (MNT) alleging newly discovered evidence. However, it
was denied. 13 days after she had received the resolution of her
MNT, she had filed a notice of appeal with the RTC alleging that
the RTC has jurisdiction over her appeal pursuant to the Neypes
Ruling. Respondent RTC judge ordered Yu to submit a copy of the
Neypes Ruling for his guidance. The Prosecution argues the
Neypes Ruling only applies to civil cases.
Issue/s: Does the "fresh period rule" enunciated in Neypes Ruling apply to
appeals in criminal cases? – YES
Held: The Court ruled that there is no difference between the wording
under Rule 41, Section and Rule 122, Section with regard to
appeal in judgment. In the Neypes Ruling, the SC held that the
Neypes Ruling also applies with regard to Rule 42 and Rule 45. As
criminal cases will be using Rule 42 and Rule 45 to question the
decisions of the lower court, it will be absurd to apply the Neypes
Ruling in Civil cases and not Criminal cases.
Facts:
 The RTC convicted Yu of Estafa on May 26, 2005.
 On June 9 or 14 days later from receipt of the decision, Yu filed with the
RTC a motion for new trial (MNT) alleging that she discovered new and
material evidence.
o On October 17, the judge had denied the MNT for lack of merit.
o Yu had received the October 17 decision only on November 3.
 On Nov 16, Yu filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC alleging she has a
fresh period of 15 days pursuant to the Neypes Rule from Nov 3 (the
receipt of the denial of her MNT) OR up to Nov 18 to file her Notice of
Appeal.
 On November 24, 2005, the respondent RTC Judge ordered Yu to submit
a copy of Neypes Ruling for his guidance.
 On December 8, 2005, the prosecution filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal for being filed 10 days late, arguing that Neypes is inapplicable to
appeals in criminal cases as the Neypes case is a civil case.
 As the prosecution filed a Motion for Execution, Yu had filed a petition for
prohibition and TRO against the RTC.
o Yu argues that the RTC lost jurisdiction to act on the
prosecution's motions when she filed her notice of appeal within
the 15-day reglementary period.
Issue/s: Does the "fresh period rule" enunciated in Neypes Ruling apply to
appeals in criminal cases? – YES
Held/Ratio:
 While Neypes involved the period to appeal in civil cases, the Court held
that the "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 for the following reasons:
1. BP 129 makes no distinction between the periods to appeal
in criminal and civil cases when it categorically stated “for
appeal from final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments, or
decisions of any court in all cases shall be fifteen (15) days
counted from the notice of the final order, resolution, award,
judgment, or decision appealed from”
2. The provisions of Rule 41, Section 3 and Rule 122, Section
6 although differently worded, mean exactly the same. There
is no substantial difference between the two provisions
insofar as legal results are concerned - the appeal period
stops running upon the filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration and starts to run again upon receipt of the
order denying said motion for new trial or reconsideration. It
was this situation that Neypes addressed in civil cases. No
reason exists why this situation in criminal cases cannot be
similarly addressed.
3. While the SC did not consider in Neypes the ordinary appeal
in criminal cases by virtue of Rule 122, however, it did include
 GOMEZ-ESTOESTA // APPRAC-A
BAÑADERA • CADIENTE •CARIAGA • CHENG • DE LUIS • DUEÑAS • ESCASURA • GARCIA • ORQUINAZA • RUBIO • SANTOS • YU

the use of Rule 42 on petitions for review from the RTC to

the CA and Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the
SC. Both of which are applicable to civil and criminal cases..
 Clearly, if the modes of appeal to the CA (in cases where the RTC
exercised its appellate jurisdiction) and to the SC in civil and criminal
cases are the same, no cogent reason exists why the periods to appeal
from the RTC (in the exercise of its original jurisdiction) to the CA in civil
and criminal cases under Section 3 of Rule 41 and Section 6 of Rule 122
should be treated differently.
 If the SC were to interpret strictly the fresh period rule, a double standard
of treatment would exist. In light of these legal realities, the Supreme Court
held that the petitioner seasonably filed her notice of appeal on November
16, 2005, within the fresh period of 15 days, counted from November 3,
2005, the date of receipt of notice denying her motion for new trial.