Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 124 – Procedure

Procedure 2002 Edition in the

Court of Appeals

Rule 124
PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

SECTION 1. Title of the case. – In all criminal cases appealed to the Court of
Appeals, the party appealing the case shall be called the "appellant" and the adverse
party the "appellee," but the title of the case shall remain as it was in the court of origin.
(1a)

SEC. 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused. – If it appears from the
record of the case as transmitted that (a) the accused is confined in prison, (b) is
without counsel de parte on appeal, or (c) has signed the notice of appeal himself, ask
the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals shall designate a counsel de oficio.
An appellant who is not confined in prison may, upon request, be assigned a
counsel de oficio within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice to file brief and he
establishes his right thereto. (2a)

SEC. 3. When brief for appellant to be filed. – Within thirty (30) days from receipt by
the appellant or his counsel of the notice from the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals
that the evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to the record, the
appellant shall file seven (7) copies of his brief with the clerk of court which shall be
accompanied by proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee.(3a)

SEC. 4. When brief for appellee to be filed; reply brief of the appellant.– Within thirty
(30) days from receipt of the brief of the appellant, the appellee shall file seven (7) copies
of the brief of the appellee with the clerk of court which shall be accompanied by proof
of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellant.
Within twenty (20) days from receipt of the brief of the appellee, the appellant may
file a reply brief traversing matters raised in the former but not covered in the brief of
the appellant. (4a)

SEC. 5. Extension of time for filing briefs.– Extension of time for the filing of briefs
will not be allowed except for good and sufficient cause and only if the motion for
extension is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended. (5a)

SEC. 6. Form of briefs.– Briefs shall either be printed, encoded or typewritten in

double space on legal size good quality unglazed paper, 330 mm. in length by 216 mm.
in width. (6a)

SEC. 7. Contents of brief. – The briefs in criminal cases shall have the same contents
as provided in sections 13 and 14 of Rule 44. A certified true copy of the decision or
final order appealed from shall be appended to the brief of the appellant. (7a)

The appellant is the term applied to the party making the appeal. Appellee is the term applied to
the party in whose favor the decision is rendered.

Procedure in the CA. Halos pareho man din. It is almost similar in civil cases. The accused will be
required to file his brief (appellant’s brief), to be followed by the appellee’s brief with the government,
and if possible appellant’s reply brief.

Q: Now, who prepares the appellee’s brief?

A: The Solicitor General. This is their mastery.

Normally, the Solicitor General files the brief, maiksi lang masyado. I’ve seen a lot of briefs for the
People of the Philippines. If I can see a brief which does not exceed 15 pages, you are very lucky.
Everything is there. Everything is condensed. Yet I wonder it takes them several extensions to file. I
don’t think nahirapan silang mag-file nun. Tamad lang siguro ba. Kaya galit man ang SC. There are so
many SC resolutions berating the Solicitor General for asking for a lot of extensions for a very simple
matter. They always claim pressure of work. That’s why the SC wants also to control the number of
extensions of time.

I have seen a brief prepared by the Solicitor General in a criminal case. From 45 days, extension,
extension, extension… umabot na siguro ng 150 days – mga 5 months! Finally, na-file. When I look at
it, 8 pages lang. I was looking at the brief and then for eevry assignment of error by the appellant,
sinagot niya ng mga dalawang (2) paragraphs lang. And when I look at the appellant’s brief, ka-kapal
masyado! There are so many things discussed – why the court is wrong, why the court made an error.
Sinagot ng Solicitor General, tag 2 or 3 paragraphs lang!
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 124 – Procedure
Procedure 2002 Edition in the
Court of Appeals

So the appellant’s brief, mga 30 pages or more. Sinagot ng Solicitor General in 8 pages only. And
then after several years I asked the defense counsel kung tapos na ba ang kaso mo. O ano man?
“Affirmed.” Meaning, the conviction was affirmed. That is where you will see that in order to win a
case on appeal, IT IS NOT THE LENGTH OF THE BRIEF WHICH MATTERS. IT IS THE SUBSTANCE.
Substance is more important than length. The CA is not impressed on haba. Mainis pa sila niyan
because they have no time to read. This is a very good lesson: THE LONGER IS YOUR PLEADING, THE
LESS CHANCES YOU HAVE. That’s how I looked at it. Even the SC, that’s how they behave.

And there was somebody two weeks ago, who was asked to prepare a COMMENT. The CA required
that lawyer to comment. “COMMENT… Pwede na ba ito?” Ano ba yang comment mo? Gaano kahaba?
“Mga 15 pages.” Eh mahaba eh! Bawat comment niya may citations of authorities. Sige, paiiksiin
natin ha? Tinanggal ko… kadami kong tinanggal. Umabot ng 3 pages na lang. “Paano yung iba?” Look,
when the CA says, “The petition is hereby given due course. You are now required to file
MEMORANDA…” that is now your time. Bombahan mo na! Huwag kang mag-memorandum-
memorandum sa comment. Pag comment, sabihin mo lang na hindi ito puwede. “Puwede ko pala
tapusin ito in one day?” Of course! Sabi ko, in the CA or SC, it is not the length of your pleadings
which matters but the substance. Yan! Alright, let’s go to Section 8.

SEC. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. – The Court of

Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the
appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within
the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel
de oficio.

xxxxx

If the appellant will not file his appellant’s brief, the case is dismissed – same in civil cases – except
where the appellant is represented by counsel de oficio because the counsel de oficio is really a court-
appointed lawyer. So why will the accused suffer if the court-designated lawyer is negligent? But if it is
a lawyer of your own choice who failed to file the brief, then you suffer the consequence.

Although we are talking of criminal cases, if you based it on the guidelines, it would seem that
when the CA dismisses the appeal, it should give a warning to the accused. This is what the SC said in
the case of
FAROLAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS
February 07, 1995

HELD: “Under Sec. 8 of Rule 124, the failure to file the appellant's brief on time may
cause the dismissal of the appeal, upon either the motion of the appellee or on the own
motion of the appellate court, provided that notice must be furnished to the appellant to
show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed.” At least give him a warning.
“But the exception to this rule has been clearly stated — i.e. when the appellant is
represented by a counsel de oficio.”

The second paragraph of Section 8 is more important:

The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio,
dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail or
flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. (8a)

There is an appeal pending in the CA, the appellant escaped from prison or jumped bail, or flees to
a foreign country, under the 2nd paragraph of Section 8, his appeal will be dismissed. Abandoned na!
By his act of running away, the judgment of conviction will become final.

This provision prompted the SC to also apply doon sa promulgation. Under Rule 120, if during the
promulgation the accused disappears, the promulgation will proceed in absentia and then the law says
the accused forfeits all his remedies. Why? Kung nag-appeal siya, and then nag-layas siya, the appeal
will be dismissed, lalo na kung di siya nag-appeal! You will also lose your right to appeal. The reason
according to the SC, once the accused escaped from prison or confinement or jumped bail, he loses his
standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to
have waived any right to seek relief from the court. (Gimenez vs. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1)

We will now answer the question of Mr. Benito:

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 124 – Procedure
Procedure 2002 Edition in the
Court of Appeals

Q: When a person who is sentenced to death escaped, can the automatic review still proceed? Or
assuming there is already an automatic review and while he is in jail, naglayas, and the SC learns of
his escape, what will happen to the automatic review? Tuloy or dismissed?
A: This is the question which bugged the SC in the 1996 case of PEOPLE vs. ESPARAS (260 SCRA
539) which was asked in the 1998 bar in remedial law. The SC here is not unanimous. Six (6) justices
dissented from the majority. There are two sections compared here – Section 8 of Rule 124 and Section
10 of Rule 122.

PEOPLE vs. ESPARAS

260 SCRA 539 [1996]

ISSUE: Will the SC proceed to automatically review the death sentence of an accused
who was tried in absentia and remained at large up to the present time? Or even if he
appealed, and while the appeal is pending, he escaped?

HELD: The majority said YES. You cannot apply Rule 124 because of the nature of the
death penalty. There are 6 justices who disagreed.
“Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court which, inter alia, authorizes the dismissal
of an appeal when the appellant jumps bail, has no application to cases where the death
penalty has been imposed. In death penalty cases, automatic review is mandatory. This is
the text and tone of Section 10, Rule 122, which is the more applicable rule.”
Ayun! So there is an applicable rule and not the general rule in Rule 124. Let’s go to the
philosophy of the ruling:
“There is more wisdom in our existing jurisprudence mandating our review of all death
penalty cases, regardless of the wish of the convict and regardless of the will of the court.
Nothing less than life is at stake and any court decision authorizing the State to take life
must be as error-free as possible. We must strive to realize this objective, however, elusive
it may be, and our efforts must not depend on whether appellant has withdrawn his appeal
or has escaped. Nor should the Court be influenced by the seeming repudiation of its
jurisdiction when a convict escapes. Ours is not only the power but the duty to review all
death penalty cases. No litigant can repudiate this power which is bestowed by the
Constitution. The power is more of a sacred duty which we have to discharge to assure the
People that the innocence of a citizen is our concern not only in crimes that slight but even
more, in crimes that shock the conscience. This concern cannot be diluted.”
(Of course, the SC anticipated criticisms – bakit ba masyado kayong (SC) protective of
the rights of the accused? That is the reason why criminality is rampant! But the SC
answered that: )
“The Court is not espousing a “soft, bended, approach” to heinous crimes for we have
always reviewed the imposition of the death penalty regardless of the will of the convict.
Our unyielding stance is dictated by the policy that the State should not be given the
license to kill without the final determination of this Highest Tribunal whose collective
wisdom is the last; effective hedge against an erroneous judgment of a one-judge trial court.
This enlightened policy ought to continue as our beacon light for the taking of life ends all
rights, a matter of societal concern that transcends the personal interest of a convict. The
importance of this societal value should not be blurred by the escape of a convict which is a
problem of law enforcement. Neither should this Court be moved alone by the outrage of
the public in the multiplication of heinous crimes for our decisions should not be directed
by the changing winds of the social weather.”

Meaning, our decision shall not be influenced by the thinking of the people – social weather. And I
think that is a very nice explanation why you should not apply Rule 124.

And the last important portion here to master is the second paragraph of Section 13:

SEC. 13. Quorum of the court; certification or appeal of cases to Supreme Court.
Xxxxx

Whenever the Court of Appeals find that the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment should be imposed in a case, the court, after discussion of the
evidence and the law involved, shall render judgment imposing the penalty of death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment as the circumstance warrant. However, it shall
refrain from entering the judgment and forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire
record thereof to the Supreme Court for review. (13a)

How can this happen that the CA finds the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment should be imposed? This happens normally in a situation like this: Mr. Concon is
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Rule 124 – Procedure
Procedure 2002 Edition in the
Court of Appeals

charged with murder and the court convicted him only for homicide – so temporal yan. Where will he
appeal? Sa CA because the penalty imposed is not death or perpetua. The trouble is when the CA
reviews the case and finds that the crime should be murder pala!

Q: What should the CA do?

A: The CA should still decide and lay down the facts and the law as if it is the SC. And then the CA
should really impose the death penalty or reclusion perpetua. But it should not enter judgment. After
imposing death or perpetua, itapon sa SC, “Please review our work and find out whether we are
correct.” Yaan!

Automatically, the CA will not enter judgment but should elevate the case. So the SC should have
the final say on whether or not to adopt the findings and conclusions of the CA. But definitely, the CA
should not shirk from its responsibility of deciding the case on its merits imposing the correct penalty
of death or perpetua. That is that correct procedure under the new rules.