Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls.

check for errors>

Rule 122 APPEAL

Rule 122 Appeal

SECTION 1. Who may appeal. Any party may appeal from a judgment or f nal order! unle"" t#e a$$u"ed % ll &e pla$ed n dou&le jeopardy. '2a( Q: What is appeal? A: Appeal means a review of a decision of a lower court by a higher court. The higher court will determine whether the decision of the lower court is correct, just, etc. Q: ay an accused appeal from a judgement of ac!uittal? A: "ormally, "#, because a judgement of ac!uittal becomes final immediately upon promulgation, so why will you appeal? And why are you appealing if you are ac!uitted? $ou mean to tell me, you are praying to be convicted? [sira!] %owever in the old case of PEOPLE vs. )EN*O+A ,- P# l. 11. /ACTS: The accused was ac!uitted but the decision contained some harsh remar&s against the accused which the accused feels are irrelevant. 'o he decided to appeal from the judgement of ac!uittal, not for the purpose of reversing it, but for the purpose of removing all those harsh, irrelevant remar&s against him in the decision. 0EL*: The accused may appeal from a judgement of ac!uittal if it contains statements that are irrelevant and should be e(punged from the record, for the purpose of stri&ing out those statements. Q: )an the *eople of the *hilippines or the prosecution appeal in a criminal case? A: +t depends. +f you read 'ection ,, it would seem so, for as long as the accused will not be placed in double jeopardy. -.T if the appeal of the prosecution will place the accused in double jeopardy, then he cannot appeal. Q: 'uppose the accused filed a otion to Quash the information on this or that ground and the court !uashed the information but the !uashing is wrong. )an the prosecution appeal from the judgement of the court !uashing the information? A: $/', because the elements of double jeopardy would not be present. 0irst, the dismissal is with his e(press consent. And normally, a dismissal on a technicality is not considered as an ac!uittal. +t is just a dismissal where there is no trial. 'o puwede. %owever, according to the 'upreme )ourt, if the otion to Quash is based on the grounds of e(tinction of criminal liability, or double jeopardy, then the prosecution cannot appeal because that would place the accused under double jeopardy. 1-andoy vs. )0+, ,2 *hil. ,345 Q: %ow about an appeal by the prosecution because the penalty is wrong? The accused is convicted but the penalty is very low. The penalty should be higher. 'o the prosecution is appealing for the purpose of correcting the penalty. +t should be higher. )an the prosecution do that? A: "#, because that will place the accused in double jeopardy. 1*eople vs. )abarles, 36 #.7. 483,9 *eople vs. *omeroy, :4 *hil. :;49 *eople vs. 0lores, April ;<, ,:3<5 +n other words, the error will remain as it is. %#W/=/>, based on jurisprudence, which you already &new, even if the accused is ac!uitted, but the judgement of ac!uittal is ".?? and =#+@, then the prosecution is allowed to appeal because a void judgement does not give rise to double jeopardy. 1*eople vs. -alisacan, August 2,, ,:AA5 Q: "ow give an e(ample of a case where the prosecution was allowed to appeal from a judgement of ac!uittal, because the ') said the ac!uittal is null and void. A: A good e(ample is what happened in the old case of *eople vs. -alisacan. This was already as&ed in the -A>.

193

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>
PEOPLE vs. 1ALISACAN Augu"t 21! 1.33

Rule 122 Appeal

/ACTS: The accused was charged with a certain crime which is not a capital offense. aybe the penalty is only reclusion temporal or prision mayor. And then during the arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty. And sabi ng accused: Your Honor, may we be allowed to present evidence to prove mitigating circumstance? $ou are guilty but you may still present evidence to prove mitigating circumstances for purposes of reducing the penalty. @o you &now during the presentation of the evidence for the accused to prove mitigating, he attempted to prove selfBdefense? And the court, after trial, said: self defense? After the hearing, self defense pala. #&ay, the accused is hereby ac!uitted. "agre&lamo ang prosecution, Why will you ac!uit him when he already pled guilty? ISS4E: )an the prosecution appeal the judgment of ac!uittal in the case at bar? HELD: $/', the prosecution can appeal because the judgement of ac!uittal is ".?? and =#+@. +n the first place, the hearing is not for the purpose of proving his innocence. The hearing is for the purpose only of proving mitigating circumstance so why will you give him the benefit of justifying circumstance? "ow what should be the correct procedure? $ou just say mitigating and tapos you are proving self defense? *ag ganyan, the court will say: "#ay, sel$ de$ense ba? %he plea o$ guilty is hereby erased. &et's go to trial. Ayan. And then the prosecution will present evidence. -ut here, he pled guilty, mitigating, he proved self defense, a&o 1prosecution5 hindi. What happens now to the prosecutionCs right to prove the crime? Well at least the prosecution should be given the right to prove the crime before ac!uitting him immediately. 'o the ') said, the judgement of ac!uittal is null and void. Therefore, the prosecution can appeal under 'ection , of >ule ,;;. +t will not place the accused in double jeopardy because of the void judgement. Q: Aside from the accused, *eople of the *hilippines unless there is double jeopardy, who can appeal? A: The offended party may appeal from any judgement, order or ruling which is adverse to his civil rights or to the civil liability, or on pure !uestions of law 1e.g. whether or not the information charges no offense5. *rovided, he has not waived or reserved the right to file a separate civil action and the civil action is deemed instituted, because the civil aspect is different from the criminal aspect. 'o the offended party can appeal from that portion of judgement adverse to his civil liability. Q: Who else can appeal? A: The bondsmen can appeal in case of judgement against the bond in a forfeiture case. +n bail, what happens when the accused failed to appear? The court may order the confiscation or forfeiture of the bond. And if the bondsman cannot satisfactorily e(plain why he failed to present the accused, then judgement may be rendered, holding the bondsmanDbonding company liable. )an he appeal? Ah yes. %e can appeal from the judgement ma&ing him liable for his bond. Q: Who else can appeal? A: The employer of the accused can also appeal from any order of the court ma&ing him subsidiarily liable for the civil liability of the accused under Article ,82 of the >evised *enal )ode. 'o these are the people who can appeal in criminal cases. Alright. SEC. 2. Where to appeal. T#e appeal may &e ta5en a" follo%"6 'a( To t#e Reg onal Tr al Court! n $a"e" de$ ded &y t#e )etropol tan Tr al Court! )un $ pal Tr al Court n C t e"! )un $ pal Tr al Court! or )un $ pal C r$u t Tr al Court7 '&( To t#e Court of Appeal" or to t#e Supreme Court n t#e proper $a"e" pro8 ded &y la%! n $a"e" de$ ded &y t#e Reg onal Tr al Court7 and '$( To t#e Supreme Court! n $a"e" de$ ded &y t#e Court of Appeal". '1a(

194

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 122 Appeal

SEC. 2. How appeal ta#en. 'a( T#e appeal to t#e Reg onal Tr al Court! or to t#e Court of Appeal" n $a"e" de$ ded &y t#e Reg onal Tr al Court n t#e e9er$ "e of t" or g nal jur "d $t on! "#all &e ta5en &y f l ng a not $e of appeal % t# t#e $ourt %# $# rendered t#e judgment or f nal order appealed from and &y "er8 ng a $opy t#ereof upon t#e ad8er"e party. '&( T#e appeal to t#e Court of Appeal" n $a"e" de$ ded &y t#e Reg onal Tr al Court n t#e e9er$ "e of t" appellate jur "d $t on "#all &e &y pet t on for re8 e% under Rule -2. '$( T#e appeal to t#e Supreme Court n $a"e" %#ere t#e penalty mpo"ed &y t#e Reg onal Tr al Court " deat#! re$lu" on perpetua! or l fe mpr "onment! or %#ere a le""er penalty " mpo"ed &ut for offen"e" $omm tted on t#e "ame o$$a" on or %# $# aro"e out of t#e "ame o$$urren$e t#at ga8e r "e to t#e more "er ou" offen"e for %# $# t#e penalty of deat#! re$lu" on perpetua! or l fe mpr "onment " mpo"ed! "#all &e &y f l ng a not $e of appeal n a$$ordan$e % t# paragrap# 'a( of t# " "e$t on. 'd( No not $e of appeal " ne$e""ary n $a"e" %#ere t#e deat# penalty " mpo"ed &y t#e Reg onal Tr al Court. T#e "ame "#all &e automat $ally re8 e%ed &y t#e Supreme Court a" pro8 ded n "e$t on 1: of t# " Rule. E9$ept a" pro8 ded n t#e la"t paragrap# of "e$t on 12! Rule 12-! all ot#er appeal" to t#e Supreme Court "#all &e &y pet t on for re8 e% on $ert orar under Rule -;. '2a( "ow the ne(t !uestion is where to appeal and how to appeal. We have 'ection ;. $ou have 'ection 2. Alright, let us try to outline. Actually itCs the same in civil cases. Q: 0rom the T) , where will you appeal? What is the mode of appeal? A: >T), the mode of appeal is #rdinary appeal by a notice of appeal 1>ule 685. Q: %ow about T) to >T) and then you are still convicted? Where will you appeal? A: )ourt of Appeals by *etition for review 1>ule 6;5. Q: "ow how about a case tried by the >T) 1pursuant to its original jurisdiction5? The accused is convicted, he wants to appeal to the )A? What is the correct mode of appeal? A: #rdinary appeal by notice of appeal to the )ourt of Appeals 1>ule 6,5 ("%)* +f it is >T) to )A, pursuant to the appellate jurisdiction of the >T), the mode of appeal is petition for review 1>ule 6;5. +f the case was tried by the >T) pursuant to its original jurisdiction, it is ordinary appeal by notice of appeal to the )A 1>ule 6,5. Q: %owever, suppose the penalty imposed by the >T) is death, what is the mode of appeal and where? A: To the 'upreme )ourt, no need to appeal, automatic review. Well, if you want to appeal, o&ay lang. -ut even if you do not appeal, there is automatic review. Q: 'uppose the >T) convicted the accused and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment 1not @eath5, where will you appeal? A: $ou appeal directly to the 'upreme )ourt 1#rdinary Appeal, >ule 6,5 because under the )onstitution, 'upreme )ourt yan e. Q: +n such case, is there an automatic review? A: "#E $ou must appeal. That is the common error Fno? any lawyers believe there is automatic review. "oE Automatic review is only for death penalty. $ou are confused, sabi &o sa &anila noon. G%indi ba, @eath sa ') yan, reclusion perpeuta sa ') din?H .nder the )onstitution, yes. G#, di automatic reviewEH "oE The automatic review is for the death penalty only. Iapag perpetua, you must file your notice of appeal. #therwise, madisgrasya &a niyan. The only similarity is the appeal is to the 'upreme )ourt. -ut there is no automatic review for reclusion perpetua. $ou must file a notice of appeal, that is what + said. -ecause naBconfuse, eh. Iay alam nila sa )onstitution, 'upreme )ourt, a&ala nila na automatic na rin.

195

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>
<ARCIA vs. PEOPLE 21= SCRA -2- >1...?

Rule 122 Appeal

/ACTS: The accused were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Their lawyer believed that there is automatic review of the case so he did not do anything. The prosecution now moves to enforce the judgment. The accused contended that there can be e(ecution yet because of the automatic review. ISS4E: ust the ') automatically review a trial courtCs decision convicting an accused of a capital offense and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua? +n other words, is the accused not re!uired to interpose an appeal from a trial courtCs decision sentencing him to reclusion perpetua to ') because the latterCs review of the sentence is automatic? 0EL*: The issue is not new. We have consistently ruled that it is only in cases where the penlty actually imposed is death that the trial court must forward the records of the case to the ') for automatic review of the conviction. As the petitioners did not file a notice of appeal or otherwise indicate their desire to appeal from the decision convicting them of murder and sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua, the decision became final and unappealable. Q: "ow, how about )A to ')? A: That is appeal by certiorari. That is paragraph JeK L )+cept as provided in the last paragraph, ,ection -., /ule -01, all other appeals to the ,upreme 2ourt shall be by petition $or review on certiorari under /ule 13 . GAll other appeals,H Ano yang Gall other appeals?H All other appeals, not mentioned in a, b, c, d. Ano yon? That is )A to '). #r, >T) direct to the 'upreme )ourt on !uestions of law only, because normally pag >T), dapat )A yan eh. -ut pure !uestions of law, diretso na iyan. #r, from 'andiganbayan to the 'upreme )ourt. +n case the 'andiganbayan convicts an accused, the appeal is direct to the 'upreme )ourt by petition for review. "ow letCs go to some interesting cases on appeal. Ta&e note, when an accused is sentenced by the >T) to death, he can appeal to the '). -ut even if he will not appeal, there will be an automatic review. "ow if he is sentenced to perpetua, he must appeal to the '). #therwise, the judgement will become final. %owever, there was an interesting /M)/*T+#" which happened in the case of PEOPLE vs. PAN<ANI1AN 12; SCRA ;.; /ACTS: The accused was charged in three 125 informations for murder and the three cases were tried together. And there were three 125 decisions. %e was convicted in all the three murders. +n the three cases for murder, he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua in one and death for the other two. %e did not appeal. "ow of course, the cases where he was sentenced to death, a&yat yan sa '). ISS4E: %ow about the other case where he was he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua? 'hould the ') also review the other one? 0EL*: $/'. "ormally, hindi dapat eh, because he did not appeal. %owever, since these 2 cases were tried together, he committed murder allegedly on the same occasion, We might as well review also the other one. 'o that is one instance where na&alusot Fno? GWhere a criminal case for murder where accused was sentenced to perpetua, arose out of the same occasion as two other criminal cases for murder where the same accused was sentenced to death in a joint decision. The former shall be deemed appealed automatically jointly with the latter two cases, even if the accused did not appeal from the court sentence of reclusion perpetua in the first case. +t would be absurd to re!uire accused, under the peculiar circumstances, to file a separate appeal because the three criminal cases of which he was convicted by the trial court in a single decision are so intertwined with each other, the three cases having arisen on the same occasion.

196

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 122 Appeal

Although there was a justice who dissented, G%indi pwede yan.H %e did not agree with the majority ruling. GWe stic& to the rule: &apag perpetua, you appeal. +f you will not, hindi pwede.H 'o dissenting justice A!uino says, GWe cannot set aside that portion of the judgment imposing reclusion perpetua because it is not under review. 4t has long become $inal and e+ecutory because there was no appeal $rom that portion o$ the 5udgment. +t should have been appealed in order to be reviewed by this )ourt.H That is the general rule. $ou cannot e(pect an automatic review in a penalty of reclusion perpetua. "ow another interesting case on death penalty was the case of */#*?/ ='. /")+'#, in$ra, which was also controversial decision. The 'upreme )ourt was not unanimous, no. Alright, what happened here? PEOPLE vs. ENCISO 13: SCRA ,2= /ACTS: Two accused were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide which is punishable by death. They pleaded guilty. )onsidering the gravity of the crime, the trial court ordered a mandatory presentation of evidence by the prosecutor. After hearing, the court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the death penalty. They did not appeal but the case was elevated to the 'upreme )ourt on automatic review. %owever, on appeal, the ') found the evidence insufficient. 0EL*: G@espite accusedCs pleas of guilty, We believe the pleas must not be ta&en against them, for as clearly borne out by the evidence presented, said guilt has not actually been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that they did not appeal is of no conse!uence, for after all, this case is before .s on automatic review 1that is whether appeal was made or not5, for after all, this case is before .s on automatic review, accused are ac!uitted on reasonable doubt.H Again, there were four 165 justices who refused to concur. Ang &anila, of course there is presentation of evidence, they argued, guilty. Tapos niBreview natin but dis&umpiyado tayo, then just impose perpetua, huwag mong iBac!uitE -ecause they pled guilty na. -ut the majority, GWe will ac!uit.H [palag?] Another interesting case on appeal is the ,::A case of )AN4EL vs. AL/EC0E! @R. 2;. SCRA -,; /ACTS: The petitioner here, @elia anuel, filed a criminal case for libel against the editorBinB chief, associate editor and asst. editor of a regional newspaper in the Western =isayas, &nown as *anay "ews, which has considerable circulation in *anay +sland and throughout Western =isayas. After trial, Nudge Alfeche found the accused guilty, so all the accused were convicted, but anuelCs claim for damages was dismissed. #f course, both parties were aggrievedE The accused were aggrieved because they were convicted. The offended party, anuel, was also aggrieved because her claim for civil liability was dismissed. 'o, the accused appealed the conviction to the )A because that is where the appeal should go. 'i anuel naman raised the correctness of the judgement depriving her of civil liability, on pure !uestion of law, to the ') by way of appeal by certiorari. ISS4E: +s that procedure correct? -ecause nahati eh L the offended party going to the ') and the other party to the )A. ag&agulo na yan eh because that would practically be splitting the appeal in two parts, Fno? 0EL*: While normally on !uestions of law, from the >T) to the ') should be by petition for review. "ow, because of this situation, everybody should go to )A. That is the ruling in this case. G+n view of the factual environment of this case, particularly that private respondents herein had already ta&en an appeal to the )ourt of Appeals to !uestion the trial courtOs judgment of conviction, the proper remedy for petitioner is simply ordinary appeal to the said tribunal. This is so because the award of moral and e(emplary damages by the trial court is ine(tricably lin&ed to and necessarily dependent upon the factual finding of basis therefor, namely, the e(istence

197

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 122 Appeal

of the crime of libel. +nasmuch as the very same @ecision herein assailed is already pending review by the )ourt of Appeals, there is a distinct possibility that said court may, if the facts and the law warrant, reverse the trial court and ac!uit the accused. +n such event, the appellate courtOs action could collide with a ruling finding merit in petitionerOs contentions before this )ourt. 'uch a situation would lead to absurdity and confusion in the ultimate disposition of the case. #bviously, this possibility must be avoided at all cost. This is at least the reason for the rule against forumBshopping. )learly, then, petitioner ought to have brought her challenge in the )ourt of AppealsH although she is appealing on pure !uestions of law. "andoon na yong accused, eh. 'umama &a na lang doon. ?et one court decide the whole thing. 677)6& 8/"9 %H) ,6(:4;6(<6Y6( Q: +f you are tried in the 'andiganbayan for, letCs say, graft, you are a grade ;4 employee of the government or higher. +f you are convicted, where will you appeal? A: $ou appeal to the 'upreme )ourt by way of appeal by certiorari under >ule 63. "ow, the constitutionality or validity of that procedure was attac&ed in the case of : N4AE+ vs. SAN*I<AN1ABAN 111 SCRA -22 /ACTS: The challenge in this case is that the 'andiganbayan law, at least on that portion on appeal, is unconstitutional because what is violated is e!ual protection of the law. -ecause for e(ample: An employee who is below 7rade ;4 is tried for AntiB7raft, where will case be filed? +t should be filed in >T). +n case he is convicted, where will he appeal? %e will appeal in the 'andiganbayan. And then from 'andiganbayan to '). #r, in case he is a civilian, or the case is not AntiB7raft, that would be from the >T) to )A, and )A to '). +f you notice in both e(amples, there are two levels of appeals, eh. "ow, if you are tried in the 'andiganbayan and you are 7rade ;4 or higher and you are convicted, you appeal will be to the ') L so, isang level lang. -a&it siya dalawa, a&o isa lang? 'o, the law is unconstitutional. +t violates the e!ual protection of the law. +t is discriminatory L that was the challenge. 0EL*: The majority still sustained the validity. -ut there were three senior members of the 'upreme )ourt at that time who dissented. They believe that the law is unconstitutional B ba&it all the rest dalawa ang appeal, a&o isa lang? Among those who dissented were Nustice Teehan&ee, a&asiar and 0ernandeP. These were very influential in the 'upreme )ourt and they were the ones who voted to declare the law unconstitutional. -ut the majority said it is valid. 'tarting with that, the ') adopted the policy that if you are convicted by the 'andiganbayan and you go to the 'upreme )ourt on appeal by certiorari, we will carefully review the petition for review because precisely, you are placed at a disadvantage. $ou have only one level, one appeal lang eh. And therefore, it is our obligation to really review everything to see to it that you were correctly convicted. + thin& that is what happened to +melda arcos, no? 'o the court said in the case of CESAR vs. SAN*I<AN1ABAN 12- SCRA 1:; 0EL*: G)onsidering further that no less than three senior members of this )ourt, Nustices Teehan&ee, a&asiar, and 0ernandeP dissented from the )ourtOs opinion in (u=e> vs. ,andiganbayan partly because of the absence of an intermediate appeal from 'andiganbayan decisions, where !uestions of fact could be fully threshed out, this )ourt has been most consistent in carefully e(amining all petitions see&ing the review of the special courtOs decisions to ascertain that the fundamental right to be presumed innocent is not disregarded. This tas& has added a heavy burden to the wor&load of this )ourt but it is a tas& we steadfastly discharge.H

198

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 122 Appeal

+n other words, it has become cumbersome, no? -ecause we have to be very careful. We have to be very meticulous. Iaya it has become an added burden. We have no choice because the accused is deprived of a second chance. This is his last chance, so we have to be very sure that he is really guilty. SEC. -. ,ervice o$ notice o$ appeal. If per"onal "er8 $e of t#e $opy of t#e not $e of appeal $an not &e made upon t#e ad8er"e party or # " $oun"el! "er8 $e may &e done &y reg "tered ma l or &y "u&"t tuted "er8 $e pur"uant to "e$t on" , and = of Rule 12. '-a( SEC. ;. Waiver o$ notice. T#e appellee may %a 8e # " r g#t to a not $e t#at an appeal #a" &een ta5en. T#e appellate $ourt may! n t" d "$ret on! enterta n an appeal not% t#"tand ng fa lure to g 8e "u$# not $e f t#e ntere"t" of ju"t $e "o reCu re. ';a( Q: Who is the appellant? A: +f you are convicted in the lower court and you appealed, you are the appellant. Q: Who is the appellee? A: *eople of the *hilippines. SEC. 3. When appeal to be ta#en. An appeal mu"t &e ta5en % t# n f fteen '1;( day" from promulgat on of t#e judgment or from not $e of t#e f nal order appealed from. T# " per od for perfe$t ng an appeal "#all &e "u"pended from t#e t me a mot on for ne% tr al or re$on" derat on " f led unt l not $e of t#e order o8errul ng t#e mot on #a" &een "er8ed upon t#e a$$u"ed or # " $oun"el at %# $# t me t#e &alan$e of t#e per od &eg n" to run. '3a( Q: When do you appeal? A: .nder 'ection A, fifteen 1,35 days from promulgation of the judgement or from notice of the order appealed from. Q: What happens if you filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration within the ,3Bday period? A: The same as in civil cases L the filing of the motion for reconsideration will suspend the running of the ,3B day period to appeal until notice of the order overruling the motion has been served upon the accused or his counsel, at which time, the balance of the period begins to run. That phrase was added in the new rules L 6t which time, the balance o$ the period begins to run. That is only emphasiPing what the rule should be. 'o, the ,3Bday period does not start to run all over again. -ut you can still apply the balance if the motion for reconsideration is denied. "ow, itong tanong &o: Q: 'uppose the motion for new trial is granted. After new trial, convicted &a pa rin. 'o there will be a second judgement. What is your period to appeal? +s it ,3 days all over again? #r we count the ,3Bday period from the first judgement, deducting the period during which the motion for new trial was pending? A: The ') said, the counting of the ,3Bday period starts all over again from the time you received the second decision. 1#bugan vs. *eople, ay ;;, ,::35 Q: "ow how do you reconcile that principle with 'ection A? A: 'ection A is different because here, the motion for new trial is denied but in the above e(ample, the motion for new trial was granted. -ut after new trial, convicted &a pa rin. 'o you start counting the period to appeal all over again from the time you received the second judgement. And the ') cited 'ection AJcK of >ule ,;,. Rule 121! SEC. 3. )$$ects o$ granting a new trial or reconsideration . T#e effe$t" of grant ng a ne% tr al or re$on" derat on are t#e follo% ng6 99999

199

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 122 Appeal

'$( In all $a"e"! %#en t#e $ourt grant" ne% tr al or re$on" derat on! t#e or g nal judgment "#all &e "et a" de or 8a$ated and a ne% judgment rendered a$$ord ngly. '3a( Q: What is the effect of a motion for new trial if it is granted? A: .nder >ule ,;,, the judgement is vacated. eaning, it doesnCt e(ist anymore. After new trial, convicted L all over, start na naman tayo. That was the ruling in the case of: O14<AN vs. PEOPLE )ay 22! 1..; 0EL*: +f a motion for new trial is granted, and after new trial, the accused is still convicted, he has ,3 days all over again to file an appeal because under >ule ,;,, the previous judgement of conviction was already vacated. +t does not e(ist anymore. GThus the rule provides for the interruption of the appeal period in the event the motion for new trial or reconsideration is overruled. The implication is that if the motion for new trial is granted, as in the case at bar, and a new judgment is rendered after the new trial was conducted, the period within which to perfect an appeal is fifteen days from receipt of the new judgment.H Alright, letCs go to another issue. $ou have two choices if you are convicted L ,5 0ile a motion for reconsideration. ;5 +f denied, you appeal. "ow, + will file a motion for reconsideration. And then while it is still pending, there is still no order, + changed my mind, GAppeal na lang a&o diretso. + will not anymore insist. Wala nang mangyayari diyan.H Q: )an + say, G+Cm withdrawing my motion for reconsideration and + am instead substituting it with a notice of appeal?H A: $/', because that is your choice. $ou can abandon your motion for reconsideration, withdraw it and then file a notice of appeal. "o problem about that. Q: -ut + will now reverse the situation: Within ,3 days after promulgation, + will file an appeal. And then after , or ; or 2 days, GTe&a muna. + will file muna pala a motion for reconsideration. %uwag muna yang appeal, ba&a sa&ali pala.H 'o + say, G+Cm withdrawing my notice of appeal, and instead file a motion for reconsideration.H )an + still do that? A: +n the case of */#*?/ ='. @/ ?A )>.Q 1;8, ')>A A2;5, The ') said, "#, you cannot because the moment you file your notice of appeal, the appeal is already perfected and the court has lost jurisdiction already over the case and can no longer change its own decision. 'o bali&tad Fno? L motion for reconsiderationBwithdrawBappeal, pwede. Appeal, and then withdraw L motion for reconsideration, hindi pwedeE because the court has no more jurisdiction over the case. "ow letCs go to 'ection ,,, one of the most important provisions. ?et us go to 'ection ,,, no. /ffect of appeal by several accused. SEC. 11. )$$ect o$ appeal by any o$ several accused . 'a( An appeal ta5en &y one or more of "e8eral a$$u"ed "#all not affe$t t#o"e %#o d d not appeal! e9$ept n"ofar a" t#e judgment of t#e appellate $ourt " fa8ora&le and appl $a&le to t#e latter. '&( T#e appeal of t#e offended party from t#e $ 8 l a"pe$t "#all not affe$t t#e $r m nal a"pe$t of t#e judgment or order appealed from. '$( 4pon perfe$t on of t#e appeal! t#e e9e$ut on of t#e judgment or f nal order appealed from "#all &e "tayed a" to t#e appeal ng party. '11a( paragraph JaK: 6n appeal ta#en by one or more o$ several accused shall not a$$ect those who did not appeal, e+cept inso$ar as the 5udgment o$ the appellate court is $avorable and applicable to the latter. Q: There are ; accused. -oth of them are convicted. #ne will appeal, the other will not appeal. 'uppose, the one who appealed, nanalo. Will it favor then other accused who did not appeal?

200

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 122 Appeal

A: The 7/"/>A? >.?/ is "# because if you do not appeal, the judgement of conviction will become final as far as you are concerned. %owever, there is an /M)/*T+#" L if the ruling in the appeal also applies to you, you will be favored. 0or e+ample: Two accused were convicted. #ne appealed, the other one did not appeal. #n the appeal sabi ng court, (o. %he victim was not #illed. He committed suicide. "alo&o naE Ac!uitted yunE 7aano na a#o? (a#ulong a#o! +t will also benefit you because the judgement of the appellate court is also favorable and applicable to you. -.T if the ruling is only applicable to the appealing accused, pasensya &a. ?i&e for e+ample, both of you are convicted. $ou will not appeal, he will appeal. %e will appeal tapos sabi niya, 9inor man a#o! 9inor! Tapos sabi ng appellate court , 6h, minor! He did not act with discernment. "#! 6c!uitted! 'o, paano &a? aiwan &a, hindi &a man minorE The defense of minority is not applicable to you. "ow, this provision has been applied already several times. Among the first cases where this was applied was the case of: PEOPLE vs. /ERNAN*E+ 1=3 SCRA =2: /ACTS: There were two accused charged for selling marijuana, under the @angerous @rugs Act. -oth of them were convicted. Accused "o. , appealed, but Accused "o. ; jumped bail and remained at large. #n appeal, the 'upreme )ourt ac!uitted Accused "o. , because of material discrepancies in the testimony of the star prosecution witness. ISS4E: What happens now to the conviction of Accused "o. ;, who escaped and did not appeal his conviction? 0EL*: +t applies to the Accused "o. ;. GWhile, in effect, he committed an act of defiance of the law by escaping, we are not without other prior incidents where such undesirable conduct, which should not be condoned, has sometimes been ascribed to a sense of desperation of those who believe they are guiltless but fear that they cannot prove their innocence. While we castigate and reprove his jumping bail and remaining at large up to now, we have to concede, however, that our dis!uisition in this case is applicable and favorable to him, hence he is affected by and shall benefit from the ac!uittal that we hand down in this appeal.H 'o ac!uitted &ahit na nagBjump bail, because of this provisionR'o with that, he can come out openly. And the ruling happened again. The same thing happened in the ,::A case of */#*?/ ='. */>/Q 1;A2 ')>A ;8A5. And one of the latest where this happened again is the ,::< case of PEOPLE vs. R4<AB 2.1 SCRA 3.2 0EL*: G0inally, the )ourt notes that the conviction of appellantOs coBaccused, Arvil =illalon, rests on the same evidence used to convict appellant. The )ourt finds that such evidence does not prove beyond reasonable doubt either of the accusedOs guilt. The ac!uittal of >icolito >ugay should also benefit Arvil =illalon, the withdrawal of the latterOs appeal notwithstanding.H "ow letCs go to JbK: '&( T#e appeal of t#e offended party from t#e $ 8 l a"pe$t "#all not affe$t t#e $r m nal a"pe$t of t#e judgment or order appealed from. This is what + told you earlier that the civil aspect is different from the criminal aspect. +t is possible that the accused is ac!uitted but the offended party may appeal insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned. +t shall not affect the criminal aspect of the judgement or order appealed from.

201

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>
Q: "ormally, who will handle the appeal in criminal cases? A: 'olicitorB7eneral. The 'olicitorB7eneral handles the appeal.

Rule 122 Appeal

-.T the ') said that if the appeal is only about the offended party, walang pa&ialam ang gobyerno diyanE ?et the offended party handle his own appeal and let him get his own lawyer to handle the appeal. 'o the )ourt said in the case of 1ERNAR*O vs. CO4RT O/ APPEALS 1.: SCRA 32 0EL*: GThe )ourt has clearly settled the matter by ruling that despite a judgment of ac!uittal, the offended party, private respondent in the case at bar, may appeal, only insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned.H G'uch an appeal dispenses with the authority and representation of both the fiscal and the 'olicitor 7eneral, considering that the subject matter of the action involves solely the interests of the offended party and hence, no longer concerns the 'tate.H ?etCs go to paragraph JcK: '$( 4pon perfe$t on of t#e appeal! t#e e9e$ut on of t#e judgment or f nal order appealed from "#all &e "tayed a" to t#e appeal ng party. '11a( Q: What are the effects of a perfected appeal? A: The following are the effects: parang sa civil procedure din ,. The e(ecution of the sentence is stayed9 ;. The trial court loses jurisdiction over the case because it is now transferred to the higher court, the )ourt of Appeals. 2. #nce you appeal, the entire case is open for review and you are waiving your right to double jeopardy. ThatCs what + told you. After appeal, ba&a mapasama &a pa. Ah, it happened several times. + already mentioned what happened before, 0alsification? The lawyer was sentenced to 0alsification as an accomplice. AppealBappeal pa, so nalo&o na. -ecause it was originally charged to the principal. "aBdisbar paE And there was a case where the accused was charged with murder, after trial, he was convicted of homicide, hindi pa na&untento. "agBappeal pa. AhE nabali& sa murderE -ecause there is no more double jeopardy. $ou are now waiving everything and the whole case is now open for review. Q: "ow finally, can you withdraw an appeal? A: $/'. The procedure for withdrawing an appeal is found in 'ection ,;: SEC. 12. Withdrawal o$ appealD Not% t#"tand ng perfe$t on of t#e appeal! t#e Reg onal Tr al Court! )etropol tan Tr al Court! )un $ pal Tr al Court n C t e"! )un $ pal Tr al Court! or )un $ pal C r$u t Tr al Court! a" t#e $a"e may &e! may allo% t#e appellant to % t#dra% # " appeal &efore t#e re$ord #a" &een for%arded &y t#e $ler5 of $ourt to t#e proper appellate $ourt a" pro8 ded n "e$t on =! n %# $# $a"e t#e judgment "#all &e$ome f nal. T#e Reg onal Tr al Court may al"o! n t" d "$ret on! all% t#e appellant from t#e judgment of a )etropol tan Tr al Court! )un $ pal Tr al Court n C t e"! )un $ pal Tr al Court! or )un $ pal C r$u t Tr al Court to % t#dra% # " appeal! pro8 ded a mot on to t#at effe$t " f led &efore rend t on of t#e judgment n t#e $a"e on appeal! n %# $# $a"e t#e judgment of t#e $ourt of or g n "#all &e$ome f nal and t#e $a"e "#all &e remanded to t#e latter $ourt for e9e$ut on of t#e judgment. '12a( "ow there is one interesting case about withdrawing an appeal. @efinitely, withdrawal of appeal is your prerogative, eh. +f you are convicted and you appeal and then later on you withdraw, that is your prerogative. $ou are now accepting the judgement of conviction. "ow letCs see what happened in the ,::A case of

202

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>
TEO*ORO vs. CO4RT O/ APPEALS 2;= SCRA 3-2

Rule 122 Appeal

/ACTS: Amado Teodoro was charged with the crime of grave slander by deed before the T) of andaluyong. %e was convicted of the lesser offense of simple slander by deed and sentenced to pay a fine of *,,8. 'o mababa. %indi pa siya &untento, Teodoro appealed to the >T). #f course, what is the procedure pag nasa >T) na? L both parties will prepare a memorandum. After TeodoroCs lawyer had received a copy of the appeal memorandum of the prosecution where the prosecution urged that Teodoro be held guilty of grave slander by deed, not just simple slander as the T), pagbasa niya ng memorandum ng prosecution, (a#u, deli#ado pala a#o dito! <asig masamot ba! ,o, o#ay na lang yong simple slander. <ayad na lang a#o ng $ine o$ 7--? . 'o he filed a motion to withdraw his appeal. Iay na&ita niya, deli&ado pala eE -a&a mabali& sa dati, sa original ba. 'o he is now accepting the decision. %e is now withdrawing his appeal. Apparently, he realiPed that his appeal was li&ely to result in the imposition of a higher penalty and he wanted to avoid that possibility. 0EL*: .nder 'ection ,; of >ule ,;;, the withdrawal of appeal is not a matter of right, but a matter which lies in the sound discretion of the court and the appellate court. After the parties in this case had been re!uired to file their memoranda and the memorandum of the prosecution had been filed and a copy served on appellant, it was too late for Teodoro to move for the withdrawal of the appeal. +t was apparent that petitionerOs motion was intended to frustrate a possible adverse decision on his appeal. That is what e(actly happened in this case. Withdrawal of the appeal at that stage would allow an apparent error and possibly an injustice to go uncorrected. Nustice is due as much to the 'tate S the *eople of the *hilippines S as to the accused. 'o even if he is accepting already the lower penalty, sabi ng )ourt, hindi na. "agBfile na yung &abila ng memorandum, eh. 'o, tuloy na. + do not &now what happened after that but definitely, he was not allowed anymore to withdraw the appeal anymore. $aanE That is the ris& nga of appealing, sometimes. SEC. 12. 6ppointment o$ counsel de o$icio $or accused on appeal D It "#all &e t#e duty of t#e $ler5 of $ourt of t#e tr al $ourt! upon f l ng of a not $e of appeal to a"$erta n from t#e appellant! f $onf ned n pr "on! %#et#er #e de" e" t#e Reg onal Tr al Court! Court of Appeal" or t#e Supreme Court to appo nt a $oun"el de of $ o to defend # m and to tran"m t % t# t#e re$ord on a form to &e prepared &y t#e $ler5 of $ourt of t#e appellate $ourt! a $ert f $ate of $ompl an$e % t# t# " duty and of t#e re"pon"e of t#e appellate to # " nCu ry. '12a( "ow, itong 'ection ,2, it just says about appointment of counsel de o$icio for accused on appeal. ?etCs say you are convicted here. Appeal &a sa '), bigyan &a man ng abogado ba by the ') if you have no counsel. #ne of the practitioners in anila will be appointed. +Cve seen appeal briefs filed by counsel de o$icio on appeal. And sometimes, the ') gets big lawyers as counsel the o$icio. $es, + have seen their briefs . Although, + believe that these big lawyers in anila who are appointed as counsel, mga death penalty cases. They are the ones who prepare the brief, they are the ones who sign. -ut + thin& an associate in their law office will help them especially when they are not handling criminal cases. -ut you can see, sometimes they are more effective than a counsel de parte in the provinces. +Cve seen it, beautifully worded, ha. 7anda na pag&agawa ng mga brief. "ow one interesting case about appointment of counsel de oficio, is what happened in the ,::, case of PEOPLE vs. RIO 2:1 SCRA ,:2 /ACTS6 The accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. %e was detained at the "ational *enitentiary. %e appealed. And then later, he wrote a letter to the '), G+ am withdrawing my appeal. + am no longer continuing my appeal because + cannot afford it. *overty prevents me from pursuing

203

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 122 Appeal

the appeal.H The ') got intrigued, Fno? The ') issued an order directing the cler& of )ourt to go to the "ational *enitentiary and loo& for this accused to confirm if he did really send this letter to the 'upreme )ourt. 'o hinanap siya. "a&ita. $ou wrote this letter? G$es.H $ou affirm what you say? G$es. %indi &o &aya. *obre a&o, eh. + cannot afford the appeal.H 'o, siya talaga. %e is withdrawing his appeal because of poverty. And the ') came up with this decision: 0EL*6 EThe right to a counsel de o$icio does not cease upon the conviction of an accused by a trial court. +t continues, even during appeal, such that the duty of the court to assign a counsel de oficio persists where an accused interposes an intent to appeal. /ven in a case, such as the one at bar, where the accused had signified his intent to withdraw his appeal, the court is re!uired to in!uire into the reason for the withdrawal. Where it finds the sole reason for the withdrawal to be poverty, as in this case, the court must assign a counsel de oficio, for despite such withdrawal, the duty to protect the rights of the accused subsists and perhaps, with greater reason. After all, those who have less in li$e must have more in law. Nustice should never be limited to those who have the means. +t is for everyone, whether rich or poor. +ts scales should always be balanced and should never e!uivocate or cogitate in order to favor one party over another.H 'o, sabi ng '), your desire to withdraw because of poverty, deniedE We will continue. We will appoint a lawyer for you. We will get the best. 'o, tuloy ang &aso. And then, after reviewing the evidence, sabi ng )ourt: You are guilty! [ha!ha!ha!] 7uilty pa rinE -ut definitely, you will not be allowed to withdraw. $es, he was still found guilty in the case of /io. A&ala niya siguro, paboran siya ng ') because he is poor. Ah, hinde. $ou are still guilty. editor@in@chie$* mortmort editors: jay$ee&elle &al te F jDj torre" F m $#ael peloton F may ng dadula F je""amyn agu"t n F lyle "anto" F paul ryan ong5 ng$o F dynn gut erreG F maya Cu ta n F r eGl lo$" n F patr $5 ta&ar F mar te"" gonGale" F mar $el $ulpa&le F 5ennet# ley8a F jenny namo$ F ferd nand 8 do F mel ""a "uareG F rayda "ullano F ru$el $ayetano F rod Cu a$#on F #anna# e9amen F myra monte$al8o F gen e "al8aHa F gra$e "ale"a T leo g lle"an a F gemma &eton o F jenny aCu atan F m $#ael p to T 5aren de leon F elma tormon F judee uy F pao angele" F jet pa"$ua F contributing editors* &a&ang &aldoGa F marlo ma"ang5ay

204