Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in litigation committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party is prevented from fully exhibiting his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, such as by keeping him away from court, by giving him a false promise of a compromise, or where the defendant never had the knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff, or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat.[6]
In the instant case, none of the foregoing circumstances exist that would justify a finding that extrinsic fraud was extant in the proceedings before the CA. The records would show that in the CA, the respondent-complainant was the People of the
The fact that the herein petitioners were not able to participate in the proceedings before the CA is immaterial. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, they were not parties to the criminal case. The petitioners, as private complainants in the case below, were merely witnesses for the prosecution. The cases cited by the petitioners herein in support of the instant petition aptly pertain to civil cases.
In Palu-ay v. Court of Appeals, [7] we held that:
It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant’s role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the
While there may be instances where a private complainant or offended party in a criminal case may be allowed to file a petition directly with this Court, as when there is a denial of due process, the foregoing circumstance is not extant here.
Moreover, the instant petition for review on certiorari was not filed on time. A petition for review on certiorari must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment.[8]
Here, the petitioners alleged that they received a copy of the August 20, 2008 Decision of the CA only on February 10, 2009. Thus, the petitioners only had until February 25, 2009 to assail the August 20, 2008 Decision of the CA via a petition for review on certiorari. However, the petitioners were only able to file the instant petition on April 27, 2009. Clearly, the instant petition was filed out of time.
Nevertheless, the petitioners invoke the principle of substantial justice and beg this Court to suspend the rules in their favor. We are
however loath to heed the petitioners’ invocation of substantial justice. It bears stressing that the petitioners utterly failed to advance any cogent or intelligible explanation for their failure to file the petition on time.
The petitioners ought to be reminded that the bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.[9]
Lastly, a review of the findings of the CA acquitting Socorro of the charge against her is not warranted under the circumstances as it runs afoul of the avowed constitutional right of an accused against double jeopardy. A verdict of acquittal is immediately final, and a re-examination of the merits of such acquittal, even in the appellate courts, will put the accused in jeopardy for the same offense.[10]
