G.R. No. 141805 - GENEVIEVE C. POBRE, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 45, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ANDREW OVALLES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, petitioner filed her Memorandum. The Office of the Solicitor General, in behalf of the People of the Philippines, filed its Memorandum. However, private respondent, despite several extensions granted by the Court, failed to file his memorandum. In a Resolution dated April 25, 2005, the Court declared private respondent's counsel guilty of contempt of court under Rule 71, Section 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, as amended, and his arrest and detention were ordered until he complies and pays the fine of P4,000.00. [23] In a Return of Order of Arrest dated May 25, 2005, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Calapan District Office informed the Court that private respondent's counsel, Atty. Crispin P. Perez, voluntarily surrendered at the NBI Calapan District Office on May 24, 2005. Atty. Perez likewise filed a Memorandum for private respondent via courier on May 27, 2005, together with a postal money order for P4,000.00, representing the fine imposed on him. Initially, the Court recognizes the legal standing of herein petitioner as she is the victim's sister. In Narcisco vs. Romana-Cruz , [24] involving the crime of parricide, the Court sustained the legal standing of the sister of the deceased to file a petition for certiorari as she is a party-litigant who is akin to the "offended party," she being a close relative of the deceased. The Court also notes that petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, instead of a petition for review under Rule 45. A petition for review under Rule 45 is the proper remedy in assailing the CA Resolutions dated December 22, 1998 and dated September 7, 2000, considering that these are final dispositions of the case before it. In any case, the Court may disregard petitioner's lapse and treat the present petition as one for review under Rule 45. This is in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, especially (1) if the petition was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review; (2) errors of judgment are averred; and (3) there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules. [25] The petition in this case actually asserts errors of judgment committed by the CA, which are proper in a petition for review, [26] and it is settled that it is the allegations in the complaint or petition and the character of the relief sought that determine the nature of an action. [27] Petitioner argues that the CA erred in dismissing her petition for certiorari on the ground that it was filed out of time. She believes that the filing thereof is not subject to the period prescribed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court because of Rule 114, Sec. 7 thereof, which states: "(N)o person charged with the capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal p