FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248329. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROSALIE ADELANTAR y PORRA @ "MITCH", and ROGIE SALONGA y NIEVA @ "OGIE", accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 16, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248329 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosalie Adelantar y Porra @ "Mitch", and Rogie Salonga y Nieva @ "Ogie", Accused-Appellants). — This is an appeal 1 filed by accused-appellants Rosalie Adelantar y Porra @ "Mitch" and Rogie Salonga y Nieva @ "Ogie" (accused-appellants), seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions 2 dated 20 October 2017 and 14 March 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09393, which dismissed accused-appellants' appeal for failure to file the appellants' brief within the required period.
Accused-appellants were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 127 with violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Information reads:
That on or about the 20th day of August, 2014 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping with one another and without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO2 RAFAEL ESPADERO who posed as poseur-buyer, METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) a dangerous drug, weighing 98.05 gram, 97.22 gram & 98.13 gram, contained in three plastic bags, knowing the same to be such, whereby accused Rogie Salonga y Nieva @ "Ogie" received the buy-bust money from said PO2 Rafael Espadero and immediately turned over the same to accused Rosalie Adelantar y Porras and the latter handed to PO2 Rafael Espadero the paper bag containing the object three (3) plastic bags also containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride and from whom the buy-bust money was recovered. 3
Upon arraignment, accused-appellants, assisted by their counsel de officio from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision 4 dated 05 June 2017, finding accused-appellants guilty as charged and sentencing them both to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Accused-appellants appealed to the CA. Their counsel de officio from the PAO (PAO counsel) moved for an additional 30 days from 31 August 2017 or until 30 September 2017 within which to file the appellants' brief, which the CA granted. On 29 September 2017, accused-appellants filed another motion to extend the filing of the appellants' brief, or until 30 October 2017. AaCTcI
In a Resolution 5 dated 20 October 2017, the CA denied the Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Accused-Appellants' Brief filed on 29 September 2017, and deemed accused-appellants' appeal abandoned and dismissed "for failure to file their appellants' brief for an unreasonable period of time." 6 The CA stated that the unsubstantiated explanation of accused-appellants was not sufficient cause to grant their motion for extension. The CA also held that their PAO counsel's explanation of heavy workload is self-serving.
Meanwhile, on 30 October 2017, accused-appellants, thru their PAO counsel, requested for a final extension of 25 days from 30 October 2017 or until 24 November 2017 within which to file the subject brief. On 22 November 2017, the accused-appellants filed their Appellants' Brief.
It was only on 27 November 2017 that accused-appellants' PAO counsel received the CA's Notice of Resolution dated 24 October 2017, with the attached CA Resolution dated 20 October 2017. Thereafter, accused-appellants moved for reconsideration of the Resolution dated 20 October 2017, contending that under Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules), the CA may dismiss the appeal upon failure to file appellant's brief within the required period except where the appellant is represented by a counsel deofficio.
On 14 March 2018, the CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellants pray that: (1) the CA Resolutions dated 20 October 2017 and 14 March 2018 be reversed and set aside; (2) the Appellants' Brief filed on 22 November 2017 be duly admitted; and (3) the appeal be reinstated. 7
Issue
The lone issue in the instant case is whether the CA erred in dismissing the appeal for non-filing of the appellants' brief within the required period.
Ruling of the Court
At the outset, the Court notes that accused-appellants availed of the wrong remedy in assailing the CA's Resolutions before this Court. Instead of filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, accused-appellants filed a notice of appeal pursuant to Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the Rules, which provides:
SEC. 13. Certification or appeal of cases to the Supreme Court. — x x x
(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter judgment imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.
In the assailed CA Resolutions, accused-appellants' appeal of the RTC Decision was deemed abandoned and dismissed for failure to file their Appellants' Brief within the required period. Therefore, the more appropriate remedy to appeal the CA Resolutions was appeal via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 rather than filing a notice of appeal. Section 3 (e) of Rule 122 of the Rules states that "[e]xcept as provided in the last paragraph of Section 13, Rule 124, all other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. 8 Thus, in Tamboa v. People, 9Polintan v. People, 10 and Masas v. People, 11 which also assailed the CA's dismissal of the appeal for failure to file appellant's brief, the appeal to this Court was via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Nevertheless, in the interest of substantial justice, this Court shall treat this appeal as an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari to resolve the issue raised by the accused-appellants.
We rule for the accused-appellants. The CA erred in dismissing outright the appeal of accused-appellants.
Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules provides:
SEC. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. — The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprioand 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 officio.
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. (Boldfacing and underscoring provided)
The provision clearly provides for an exception in the dismissal of appeal for failure to file appellant's brief where the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio, which is the case for the accused-appellants herein who are represented by a PAO counsel. Moreover, the Court finds that the PAO counsel enumerated sufficient grounds for the grant of the motion for extension. In fact in the Motion for Reconsideration 12 dated 05 December 2017, the PAO counsel even attached several documents to prove heavy workload, coupled with the required attendance of the MCLE Accredited National Convention for Public Attorneys on 18-22 September 2017.
As the Court held in People v. Ramos: 13
At the onset, our rules of procedure are more lenient to appellants who are represented by a counsel de officio when it comes to filing their briefs. The Rules of Court provides that the CA may dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the period prescribed by the rules, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio.
In De Guzman v. People, we clarified that if the appellant is represented by a counsel de parte and he fails to file his brief on time, the appeal may be dismissed by the CA with notice to the appellant. However, the rule takes exception when the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio. EcTCAD
In other words, when it comes to appellants represented by a counsel de officio, the appeal should not be dismissed outright as the rule on filing briefs on time — applied to appellants represented by a counsel de parte — is not automatically applied to them.
Furthermore, Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Rules requires notice to the appellant prior to dismissal of appeal. As held in Masas v. People, 14 "[t]he phrase 'with notice to the appellant' means that a notice must first be furnished the appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. In this case, no such notice was given to accused-appellants prior to the dismissal of the appeal for failure to file the appellants' brief.
WHEREFORE, we hereby SET ASIDE the Resolutions dated 20 October 2017 and 14 March 2018 of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE accused-appellants' appeal in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09393. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals, which is DIRECTED to resolve the appeal filed by Rosalie Adelantar y Porra and Rogie Salonga y Nieva on the merits.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 8-11; see Notice of Appeal dated 17 April 2018.
2.Id. at 3-5, and 6-7, 13, penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, and concurred in by Associate Justices Socorro B. Inting and Rafael Antonio M. Santos of the Fifteenth (15th Division) and Former Fifteenth (15th Division), Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, p. 51.
4.Id. at 51-69; penned by Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
5.Rollo, pp. 3-5.
6.Id. at 4. The dispositive portion of the Resolution dated 20 October 2017 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Further Extension of Time to File Accused-Appellants' Brief is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, accused-appellants' appeal in the above entitled case is hereby deemed ABANDONED and DISMISSED for failure to file their appellants' brief for unreasonable period of time.
SO ORDERED.
7.Id. at 43.
8.See People v. Pagal, G.R. No. 241257, 29 September 2020 [Per J. Gesmundo].
9. G.R. No. 248264, 27 July 2020 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
10. 604 Phil. 41 (2009), G.R. No. 161827, 21 April 2009 [Per J. Carpio].
11. 565 Phil. 574 (2007), G.R. No. 177313, 19 December 2007 (Per J. Carpio].
12. CA rollo, pp. 79-91.
13. G.R. No. 206906, 25 July 2016 [Per J. Brion].
14.Supra at note 11.