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

check for errors>

Rule 124 PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

Rule 124 Procedure in the Court of Appeals

SECTION 1. Title of the case. In all criminal cases a eale! "# "$e C#ur" #% A eals& "$e ar"' a ealin( "$e case s$all )e calle! "$e *a ellan"* an! "$e a!+erse ar"' "$e *a ellee&* )u" "$e "i"le #% "$e case s$all remain as i" ,as in "$e c#ur" #% #ri(in. -1a. SEC. 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused. I% i" a ears %r#m "$e rec#r! #% "$e case as "ransmi""e! "$a" -a. "$e accuse! is c#n%ine! in ris#n& -). is ,i"$#u" c#unsel !e ar"e #n a eal& #r -c. $as si(ne! "$e n#"ice #% a eal $imsel%& as/ "$e cler/ #% c#ur" #% "$e C#ur" #% A eals s$all !esi(na"e a c#unsel !e #%ici#. An a ellan" ,$# is n#" c#n%ine! in ris#n ma'& u #n re0ues"& )e assi(ne! a c#unsel !e #%ici# ,i"$in "en -11. !a's %r#m recei " #% "$e n#"ice "# %ile )rie% an! $e es"a)lis$es $is ri($" "$ere"#. -2a. SEC. 2. When brief for appellant to be filed. 3i"$in "$ir"' -21. !a's %r#m recei " )' "$e a ellan" #r $is c#unsel #% "$e n#"ice %r#m "$e cler/ #% c#ur" #% "$e C#ur" #% A eals "$a" "$e e+i!ence& #ral an! !#cumen"ar'& is alrea!' a""ac$e! "# "$e rec#r!& "$e a ellan" s$all %ile se+en -4. c# ies #% $is )rie% ,i"$ "$e cler/ #% c#ur" ,$ic$ s$all )e acc#m anie! )' r##% #% ser+ice #% ",# -2. c# ies "$ere#% u #n "$e a ellee.-2a. SEC. 4. When brief for appellee to be filed; reply brief of the appellant. 3i"$in "$ir"' -21. !a's %r#m recei " #% "$e )rie% #% "$e a ellan"& "$e a ellee s$all %ile se+en -4. c# ies #% "$e )rie% #% "$e a ellee ,i"$ "$e cler/ #% c#ur" ,$ic$ s$all )e acc#m anie! )' r##% #% ser+ice #% ",# -2. c# ies "$ere#% u #n "$e a ellan". 3i"$in ",en"' -21. !a's %r#m recei " #% "$e )rie% #% "$e a ellee& "$e a ellan" ma' %ile a re l' )rie% "ra+ersin( ma""ers raise! in "$e %#rmer )u" n#" c#+ere! in "$e )rie% #% "$e a ellan". -4a. SEC. 5. Extension of time for filing briefs. E6"ensi#n #% "ime %#r "$e %ilin( #% )rie%s ,ill n#" )e all#,e! e6ce " %#r (##! an! su%%icien" cause an! #nl' i% "$e m#"i#n %#r e6"ensi#n is %ile! )e%#re "$e e6 ira"i#n #% "$e "ime s#u($" "# )e e6"en!e!. -5a. SEC. 7. Form of briefs. 8rie%s s$all ei"$er )e rin"e!& enc#!e! #r "' e,ri""en in !#u)le s ace #n le(al si9e (##! 0uali"' un(la9e! a er& 221 mm. in len("$ )' 217 mm. in ,i!"$. -7a. SEC. 4. Contents of brief. T$e )rie%s in criminal cases s$all $a+e "$e same c#n"en"s as r#+i!e! in sec"i#ns 12 an! 14 #% Rule 44. A cer"i%ie! "rue c# ' #% "$e !ecisi#n #r %inal #r!er a eale! %r#m s$all )e a en!e! "# "$e )rie% #% "$e a ellan". -4a. The appellant is the tem 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. $% &ow# who prepares the appellee!s brief' A% The (olicitor )eneral. This is their mastery. &ormally# the (olicitor )eneral 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 e*ceed +, pages# you are very lucky. -verything is there. -verything is condensed. .et I wonder it takes them several e*tensions to file. I don!t think nahirapan silang mag/ file nun. Tamad lang siguro ba. 0aya galit man ang (C. There are so many (C resolutions berating the (olicitor

208

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

Rule 124 Procedure in the Court of Appeals

)eneral for asking for a lot of e*tensions for a very simple matter. They always claim pressure of work. That!s why the (C wants also to control the number of e*tensions of time. I have seen a brief prepared by the (olicitor )eneral in a criminal case. 1rom 2, days# e*tension# e*tension# e*tension3 umabot na siguro ng +,4 days 5 mga , months6 1inally# na/file. 7hen 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 9" paragraphs lang. And when I look at the appellant!s brief# ka/kapal masyado6 There are so many things discussed 5 why the court is wrong, why the court made an error. (inagot ng (olicitor )eneral# tag 9 or : paragraphs lang6 (o the appellant!s brief# mga :4 pages or more. (inagot ng (olicitor )eneral in 8 pages only. And then after several years I asked the defense counsel kung tapos na ba ang kaso mo. ; ano man' Affirmed.! <eaning# the conviction was affirmed. That is where you will see that in order to win a case on appeal# IT I( &;T TH=-&)TH ;1 TH- >?I-1 7HICH <ATT-?(. IT I( TH- (@>(TA&C-. (ubstance is more important than length. The CA is not impressed on haba. <ainis pa sila niyan because they have no time to read. This is a very good lesson% TH- =;&)-? I( .;@? P=-AAI&)# TH- =-(( CHA&C-( .;@ HAB-. That!s how I looked at it. -ven the (C# that!s how they behave. And there was somebody two weeks ago# who was asked to prepare a C;<<-&T. The CA required that lawyer to comment. C"##E$T% &wede na ba ito'! Ano ba yang comment mo' )aano kahaba' #ga () pages.! -h mahaba eh6 >awat comment niya may citations of authorities. (ige# paiiksiin natin ha' Tinanggal ko3 kadami kong tinanggal. @mabot ng : pages na lang. &aano yung iba'! =ook# when the CA says# CThe petition is hereby given due course. .ou are now required to file <-<;?A&AA3D that is now your time. >ombahan mo na6 Huwag kang mag/memorandum/memorandum sa comment. Pag comment# sabihin mo lang na hindi ito puwede . &uwede *o pala tapusin ito in one day'! ;f course6 (abi ko# in the CA or (C# it is not the length of your pleadings which matters but the substance. .an6 Alright# let!s go to (ection 8. SEC. :. +ismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. T$e C#ur" #% A eals ma'& u #n m#"i#n #% "$e a ellee #r m#"u r# ri# an! ,i"$ n#"ice "# "$e a ellan" in ei"$er case& !ismiss "$e a eal i% "$e a ellan" %ails "# %ile $is )rie% ,i"$in "$e "ime rescri)e! )' "$is Rule& e6ce " ,$ere "$e a ellan" is re resen"e! )' a c#unsel !e #%ici#. 66666 If the appellant will not file his appellant!s brief# the case is dismissed 5 same in civil cases 5 except where the appellant is represented by counsel de oficio because the counsel de oficio is really a court/appointed lawyer. (o why will the accused suffer if the court/designated lawyer is negligent' >ut 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 (C said in the case of FAROLAN ,s. COURT OF APPEALS Fe)ruar' 14& 1;;5 HELD% C@nder (ec. 8 of ?ule +92# the failure to file the appellantEs 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.D At least give him a warning. C>ut the e*ception to this rule has been clearly stated F i.e. when the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.D The second paragraph of (ection 8 is more important% T$e C#ur" #% A eals ma' als#& u #n m#"i#n #% "$e a ellee #r m#"u r# ri#& !ismiss "$e a eal i% "$e a ellan" esca es %r#m ris#n #r c#n%inemen"& <um s )ail #r %lees "# a %#rei(n c#un"r' !urin( "$e en!enc' #% "$e a eal. -:a.

209

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

Rule 124 Procedure in the Court of Appeals

There is an appeal pending in the CA# the appellant escaped from prison or Gumped bail# or flees to a foreign country# under the 9nd paragraph of (ection 8# his appeal will be dismissed. Abandoned na6 >y his act of running away# the Gudgment of conviction will become final. This provision prompted the (C to also apply doon sa promulgation. @nder ?ule +94# if during the promulgation the accused disappears# the promulgation will proceed in absentia and then the law says the accused forfeits all his remedies. 7hy' 0ung nag/appeal siya# and then nag/layas siya# the appeal will be dismissed# lalo na kung di siya nag/appeal6 .ou will also lose your right to appeal. The reason according to the (C# once the accused escaped from prison or confinement or Gumped bail# he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the Gurisdiction of the court# he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court. )imeneH vs. &aHareno# +I4 (C?A +" 7e will now answer the question of <r. >enito% $% 7hen a person who is sentenced to death escaped# can the automatic review still proceed' ;r assuming there is already an automatic review and while he is in Gail# naglayas# and the (C learns of his escape# what will happen to the automatic review' Tuloy or dismissed' A% This is the question which bugged the (C in the +JJI case of P-;P=- vs. -(PA?A( 9I4 (C?A ,:J" which was asked in the +JJ8 bar in remedial law. The (C here is not unanimous. (i* I" Gustices dissented from the maGority. There are two sections compared here 5 (ection 8 of ?ule +92 and (ection +4 of ?ule +99. PEOPLE ,s. ESPARAS 271 SCRA 52; K+JJIL ISSUE% 7ill the (C proceed to automatically review the death sentence of an accused who was tried in absentia and remained at large up to the present time' ;r even if he appealed# and while the appeal is pending# he escaped' HELD% The maGority said .-(. .ou cannot apply ?ule +92 because of the nature of the death penalty. There are I Gustices who disagreed. C(ection 8 of ?ule +92 of the ?ules of Court which# inter alia# authoriHes the dismissal of an appeal when the appellant Gumps bail# has no application to cases where the death penalty has been imposed. In death penalty cases# automatic review is mandatory. This is the te*t and tone of (ection +4# ?ule +99# which is the more applicable rule.D Ayun6 (o there is an applicable rule and not the general rule in ?ule +92. =et!s go to the philosophy of the ruling% CThere is more wisdom in our e*isting Gurisprudence mandating our review of all death penalty cases# regardless of the wish of the convict and regardless of the will of the court. &othing less than life is at stake and any court decision authoriHing the (tate to take life must be as error/free as possible. 7e must strive to realiHe this obGective# however# elusive it may be# and our efforts must not depend on whether appellant has withdrawn his appeal or has escaped. &or should the Court be influenced by the seeming repudiation of its Gurisdiction when a convict escapes. ;urs is not only the power but the duty to review all death penalty cases. &o 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 citiHen is our concern not only in crimes that slight but even more# in crimes that shock the conscience. This concern cannot be diluted.D ;f course# the (C anticipated criticisms 5 bakit ba masyado kayong (C" protective of the rights of the accused' That is the reason why criminality is rampant6 >ut the (C answered that% " CThe 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. ;ur unyielding stance is dictated by the policy that the (tate should not be given the license to kill without the final determination of this Highest Tribunal whose collective wisdom is the lastM effective hedge against an erroneous Gudgment of a one/Gudge 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. &either should this Court be moved alone

210

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

Rule 124 Procedure in the Court of Appeals

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.D <eaning# our decision shall not be influenced by the thinking of the people 5 social weather. And I think that is a very nice e*planation why you should not apply ?ule +92. And the last important portion here to master is the second paragraph of (ection +:% SEC. 12. -uorum of the court; certification or appeal of cases to .upreme Court. =6666 3$ene+er "$e C#ur" #% A eals %in! "$a" "$e enal"' #% !ea"$& reclusi#n er e"ua& #r li%e im ris#nmen" s$#ul! )e im #se! in a case& "$e c#ur"& a%"er !iscussi#n #% "$e e+i!ence an! "$e la, in+#l+e!& s$all ren!er <u!(men" im #sin( "$e enal"' #% !ea"$& reclusi#n er e"ua& #r li%e im ris#nmen" as "$e circums"ance ,arran". H#,e+er& i" s$all re%rain %r#m en"erin( "$e <u!(men" an! %#r"$,i"$ cer"i%' "$e case an! ele+a"e "$e en"ire rec#r! "$ere#% "# "$e Su reme C#ur" %#r re+ie,. -12a. 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% <r. Concon is charged with murder and the court convicted him only for homicide 5 so temporal yan. 7here will he appeal' (a 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 pala6 $% 7hat should the CA do' A% The CA should still decide and lay down the facts and the law as if it is the (C. And then the CA should really impose the death penalty or reclusion perpetua. >ut it should not enter Gudgment. After imposing death or perpetua# itapon sa (C# CPlease review our work and find out whether we are correct.D .aan6 Automatically# the CA will not enter Gudgement but should elevate the case. (o the (C should have the final say on whether or not to adopt the findings and conclusions of the CA. >ut definitely# the CA should not shirk from its responsibility of deciding the case on its merits imposing the correct penalty of death or perpetua. That is that correct procedure under the new rules. editor/in/chief0 m#r"m#r" editors: <a'cee)elle )ali"e > <?< "#rres > mic$ael el#"#n > ma'in( !a!ula > <essam'n a(us"in > l'le san"#s > aul r'an #n(/in(c# > !'nn (u"ierre9 > ma'a 0ui"ain > rie9l l#csin > a"ric/ "a)ar > mari"ess (#n9ales > maricel cul a)le > /enne"$ le'+a > <enn' nam#c > %er!inan! +i!# > melissa suare9 > ra'!a sullan# > rucel ca'e"an# > r#! 0uiac$#n > $anna$ e6amen > m'ra m#n"ecal+# > (enie sal+a@a > (race salesa N le# (illesania > (emma )e"#ni# > <enn' a0uia"an > mic$ael i"# N /aren !e le#n > elma "#rm#n > <u!ee u' > a# an(eles > <e" ascua > contributing editors0 )a)an( )al!#9a > marl# masan(/a'

211