9.

PEOPLE vs GATWARD,
G.R. 119722-73, February 7, 1997, 267 SCRA 785

FACTS: U Aung Win was charged and convicted with violating RA 6425 for importing and
bringing into the Philippines 5, 579.80 grams of heroin. Nigel Gatward was also charged the
same for transporting 5, 237.70 of heroin. The former (U Aung Win) was caught at NAIA after
arriving from Bangkok. While his luggage was being inspected, he then proceeded to the
conveyor as if to get another luggage, but never came back. The Customs Examiner became
alarmed by this and subjected the luggage under x-ray and found the powdery substance of
heroin. Thereafter, Customs Police were alerted and U Aung Win was arrested a day after.
Meanwhile, Gatward was caught with the help of U Aung Wins information during his
investigation. U Aung Win pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the RTC to 25 years of
reclusion perpetua, taking into the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty. Gatward
was sentenced to 35 years of reclusion perpetua, there being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance present. The Court rationalized the penalty (reclusion perpetua to death) under
R.A. 6425 as divisible into 3 periods: 20 years and 1 day as minimum, 30 years and 1 day as
medium, and death as maximum. During the pendency of the case and while awaiting the filing
of appellants brief, the Court received a mimeographed Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal. It
was signed by appellant, but not by his counsel. The Court denied the motion for lack of merit.
The pleading of the appellant was unauthorized, and the Court does not discuss or transmit
notices of judicial action except to counsel of the parties.

ISSUE: Did the Supreme Court err in denying the appeal of the appellant?

RULING: NO. The basic rule is that, in appeals taken from the RTC to either the CA or SC, the
same may be withdrawn and allowed to be retracted by the trial court before the records of the
case are forwarded to the appellate court. Once the records are brought to the appellate court,
only the latter may act on the motion for withdrawal of appeal. In the Supreme Court, the
discontinuance of appeals before the filing of the appellees brief is generally permitted. Where
the death penalty is imposed, the review shall proceed notwithstanding withdrawal of the appeal
as the review is automatic and this the Court can do without the benefit or arguments filed by the
appellant. In the case at bar, however, the denial of the motion to withdraw his appeal by herein
appellant is not only justified but it is necessary since the trial court had imposed a penalty based
on an erroneous interpretation of the governing law thereon. The trial court had, by considering
reclusion perpetua as a divisible penalty, imposed an unauthorized penalty on both accused
which would remain uncorrected if the appeal had been allowed to be withdrawn.
DOCTRINE: When the lower and appellate courts erroneously interpreted the law in deciding a
case before it, the SC may change the basic rule as applied to that particular case so as not to let
the case remain uncorrected.