Rule 122.

APPEAL

Sec. 1. Who May Appeal

1.

Party can Appeal

4.

Appeal of civil aspect by employer

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
[G.R. No. 147703. April 14, 2004
On July 27, 1994, accused [Napoleon Roman y Macadangdang] was found guilty and convicted of the crime of reckless
imprudence resulting to triple homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage to property and was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days to six (6) years, and to pay damages. Simultaneously,
on August 6, 1994, [petitioner] filed its notice of appeal from the judgment of the trial court. On April 29, 1997, the trial court
gave due course to [petitioners] notice of appeal.On December 8, 1998, [petitioner] filed its brief. On December 9, 1998, the
Office of the Solicitor General received [a] copy of [petitioners] brief. On January 8, 1999, the OSG moved to be excused
from filing [respondents] brief on the ground that the OSGs authority to represent People is confined to criminal cases on
appeal. The motion was however denied per Our resolution ofMay 31, 1999. On March 2, 1999, [respondent]/private
prosecutor filed the instant motion to dismiss.
Issue: Whether or not an employer, who dutifully participated in the defense of its accused-employee, may appeal the
judgment of conviction independently of the accused.
Held:
Section 1 of Rule 122 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states thus:
Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy.
Clearly, both the accused and the prosecution may appeal a criminal case, but the government may do so only if the
accused would not thereby be placed in double jeopardy.[9]Furthermore, the prosecution cannot appeal on the ground that
the accused should have been given a more severe penalty.[10] On the other hand, the offended parties may also appeal the
judgment with respect to their right to civil liability. If the accused has the right to appeal the judgment of conviction, the
offended parties should have the same right to appeal as much of the judgment as is prejudicial to them. [11

2. Appeal by offended party of civil aspect

HEIRS OF TITO RILLORTA, petitioner,
vs.
HON. ROMEO N. FIRME, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of La Union, Branch IV, Bauang, La Union; and
ANDREW COSTALES, respondents.
G.R. No. L-54904 January 29, 1988
Facts: Accused of killing Tito Rillorta, Andrew Costales, was held guilty only of less serious physical injuries and sentenced
to twenty days of arresto menor and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P500.00. The trial court said the
defendant could not be held liable for homicide because the wound inflicted on the victim was only superficial. The certified
cause of death was pneumonia, and this was obviously induced by the exploratory surgery which was needlessly performed
upon him. In short, the victim had succumbed not to the skin-deep wound that did not affect any vital organ but as a result of
the attending physician's gross incompetence

Issue: The question of whether or not the civil award in a criminal case may be appealed
Held: The petitioners are urging that the civil award in the sum of only P500.00 be increased because the accused should
not have been found guilty of only less serious physical injuries but of homicide. They are not confining themselves to the
civil aspect of the challenged decision. In their own words, their appeal involves "both the criminal aspect and the civil
liabilities in the criminal cases." 10 This is not permitted under the rule on double jeopardy.11
Section 2 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides that "the People of the Philippines cannot appeal if the defendant would
be placed thereby in double jeopardy." This provision is based on the old case of Kepner v. United States, 12 where the U.S.
Supreme Court, reviewing a decision of the Philippine Supreme Court in 1904, declared by a 5-4 vote that appeal of the
prosecution from a judgment of acquittal (or for the purpose of increasing the penalty imposed upon the convict) would place
him in double jeopardy. It has been consistently applied since then in this jurisdiction.
3. Appeal of civil aspectby accused
EFREN SALVAN y PRESENES, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Facts: Petitioner Efren Salvan, a bus driver, was charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide for the death of
John Barry Abogado, in Criminal Case No. 718-M-00 before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 13. [3] At his
arraignment, petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge. The trial court then proceeded to receive evidence to determine the civil
liability of petitioner. During the course of the hearing, petitioner and private complainant Edna Abogado, the mother of the
accused, agreed to amicably settle the civil aspect of the case.
Issue: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED GIVING DUE COURSE TO ACCUSEDS NOTICE OF PARTIAL
APPEAL EXCLUSIVELY ON THE AWARD OF DAMAGES
HELD: Thus, we rule that, in an appeal from a judgment of conviction, the criminal liability and the civil liability ex
delicto should be considered independently, each with its own corresponding effects. In the present case, the law that bars
an appeal of the judgment of conviction, as well as its corresponding criminal liability, should not bar an appeal of the civil
aspect of the same judgment.

SEC2 WHERE TO APPEAL

1.DECISION OF RTC
People v. Pajo
FACTS: Jose Pajo y Bagtong was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and convicted of three counts of rape and two
counts of acts of lasciviousness. his co-accused, Imelda Liquigan y Kasibayan, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
as an accomplice of the crime of rape.On February 21, 1997, an Information] for rape was filed against the accused Jose
Pajo y Bagtong (PAJO) upon the complaint of his daughter.
That on or about the 31st day of January 1997, in the City of XXX, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, being the father of said AAA, a 13 year old minor, by means of force, violence and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the said AAA, without her
consent and against her will, to her damage and prejudice."
Held :Under Section 1 (b), Rule 122 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the appeal of a judgment rendered by the regional
trial court in its original jurisdiction sentencing the accused to other than life imprisonment] or death must be taken to the
Court of Appeals by the filing of a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or order appealed from, and
by serving a copy thereof on the adverse party.[x][10]

Sec. 3 How Appeal Taken

1.

Resolutionperpetua as maximum penalty

Sammy Malacat v CA
G. R. no 123595
December 12, 1997
Facts:That on or about August 27, 1990, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly keep, possess and/or acquire a hand grenade, without first securing the
necessary license and/or permit therefor from the proper authorities.
Held:For purposes of determining appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases, the maximum of the penalty, and not the
minimum, is taken into account. Since the maximum of the penalty isreclusion perpetua, the appeal therefrom
should have been to us, and not the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Section 9(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act
of 1980 (B.P. Blg. 129),[27] in relation to Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, [28] Section 5(2) of Article VIII of the
Constitution[29] and Section 3(c) of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.[30] The term life imprisonment as used in Section
9 of B.P. Blg. 129, the Judiciary Act of 1948, and Section 3 of Rule 122 must be deemed to
include reclusion perpetua in view of Section 5(2) of Article VIII of the Constitution.

2.

Crimes committed on the same occasion

Limpangog v. CA
G.r No. 134229
November 29, 1999
Facts:Three Informations, one for murder and two for frustrated murder, all signed by Provincial Prosecutor I
Rosario D. Beleta, were filed against Petitioners Lito Limpangog and Jerry Limpangog before the Regional Trial
Court of Ormoc City.[3] Petitioners pleaded not guilty during their arraignment. Thereafter, trial on the merits
ensued. On September 15, 1994, a Joint Decision[4] adjudging them guilty of all the charges was rendered by the
trial court in this wise.
Issue: jurisdiction of CA
Held: Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction over the appeals filed by herein petitioners. Petitioners Lito
Limpangog and Jerry Limpangog were sentenced by the trial court to reclusion perpetua as penalty for murder;
and to an indeterminate period of ten years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, for each frustrated murder conviction. The three crimes were committed on the same
occasion and arose from the same facts. In this light, the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction over the
appeals filed by herein petitioners. Section 9 (3) of the judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (BP Blg. 129) states
that the CA has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of
regional trial courts except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with
the Constitution, the provisions of BP Blg. 129, and of the judiciary Act of 1948.

3.

Review of death penalty

People v. Mateo
Facts: On. october 30, 1996 ten (10) information, one for each count of rape, allegedly committed on ten different
dates by the accused efren mateo The accused who is the guardian of the complaining witness, did then and
therewillfully, unlawfully,and feloniously and by means of force and intimidation have a carnal knowledge with said
Imelda mateo in their house against her consent.
Held: If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
is imposed, the court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the court of appeals
before the case is elevated to the supreme court; A prior determination by the court of Appeal on particularly the
factual issue would minimize the possibility of an error of judgment.

Pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and any other rule insofar as they provide for
direct appeals from the RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion
perpetua or life, imprisonment. As well as the resolution of the Supreme Court en banc dated September 19, 1995
in Internal Rules of the Supreme Court in case similarly involving the death penalty are to be deemed modified
accordingly. Pertinent provisions of the Revised Rule on Criminal Procedure, more particularly section 3 and
section 4 of the Rule 122, section 13 of Rule 124, section 3 of rule 125, and anyother rule insofar as they provide
for direct appeals from the RTC to the SC in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment.
People v. Ochoa
Facts:Convicting appellant Rosario Rose Ochoa of illegal recruitment in large scale. The accused did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit Robert Gubat, Junior Agustin, Cesar Aquino, Richard Luciano,
Fernando Rivera, Mariano R. Mislang, Helen B. Palogo, Jeobert Decolongon, Corazon S. Austria, Cristopher A.
Bermejo, Letecia D. Londonio, Alma Borromeo, Francisco Pascual, Raymundo A. Bermejo and Rosemarie A.
Bermejo, for a consideration ranging from P2,000.00 to P32,000.00 or a total amount of P124,000.00 as placement
fee which the complainants paid to herein accused without the accused having secured the necessary license from
the Department of Labor and Employment.
Held: As Held in People of the Philippines v. Efren Mateo,where it was held that appeals from decisions of the
RTC, wherein the accused is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, should be made to the
CA. Moreover, in Administrative Matter No. 00-5-03-SC, the Court resolved to revise Rule 122, Section 3(c) of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to read as follows:
Sec. 3. How appeal taken. - (a) The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the Court of Appeals in cases decided
by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be by notice of appeal filed with the court
which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.
(c) The appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court
is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or where a lesser penalty is imposed for offenses committed on
the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense
for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed, shall be by notice of
appeal to the Court of Appeals in accordance with paragraph (a) of this Rule.
4.

Escape of death convict pending review

People v. Esparas

Facts: Accused Josefina A. Esparas was charged with violation of R.A. No. 6425 as amended by R.A. No. 759 for
importing into the country twenty (20) kilograms of "shabu" in Criminal Case No. 94-5897 before the RTC of Pasay
City, Br. 114.After arraignment, the accused escaped from jail and was tried in absentia. On March 13, 1995, the trial
court found her guilty as charged and imposed on her the death penalty.As the accused remains at large.
Issue: whether or not will proceed to automatically review her death sentence.
Held: The issue need not befuddle us. In the 1910 ground-breaking case of U.S. vs. Laguna, et al.,[1] we already held
thru Mr. Justice Moreland, that the power of this Court to review a decision imposing the death penalty cannot
be waived either by the accused or by the courts.

5.

Appeal of interlocutory
Basa v People
Facts:On January 12, 2000, Francisco C. Basa, Manuel H. Omea, Mark Philip L. Basa and Renato H. Uy, herein
petitioners, were charged with swindling under paragraph 2, Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code; and
falsification of public document under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the same Code, before the Metropolitan Trial
Court.
Issue: only issue for our resolution is whether petitioners appeal is proper.

Held:To tolerate the practice of allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would unduly delay the administration of
justice but also would unduly burden the courts.It is axiomatic that an order denying a motion to quash on the
ground that the allegations in the Informations do not constitute an offense cannot be challenged by an
appeal. This Court generally frowns upon this remedial measure as regards interlocutory orders. The evident
reason for such rule is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action. [11] To tolerate the practice of allowing
appeals from interlocutory orders would not only delay the administration of justice but also would unduly burden
the courts.In Latican vs. Vergara, this Court defined the proper procedure in case of denial of a motion to quash.
The accused has to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses he had
invoked in his motion to quash and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal
therefrom in the manner authorized by law
6.

Appeal of pure question of law

Tan v. People
Facts: On 12 December 1996, petitioner Willy Tan was found guilty of bigamy by the Regional Trial Court. He was
sentenced to suffer a prison term of prision correccional in its medium period ranging from two (2) years, four (4)
months, and one (1) day, to four (4) years and two (2) months. On 23 December 1996, petitioner applied for
probation. On 8 January 1997, the application was granted by the trial court but the release order was withheld in
view of the filing by the prosecution, on 21 January 1997, of a motion for modification of the penalty. The
prosecution pointed out that the penalty for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code was prision
mayor and the imposable penalty, absent any mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, should be the medium
period of prision mayor, or from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Thus, the prosecution argued,
petitioner was not eligible for probation.
The trial court denied the motion of the prosecution for having been filed out of time since the decision sought to
be modified had already attained finality. Indeed, petitioner had meanwhile applied for probation. Upon motion of
the prosecution, however, the trial court reconsidered its order and rendered an amended decision, promulgated
on 10 July 1998, concluding thusly:
Issue: a pure question of law. Citing Article VIII, Section 5(2)(e), of the Constitution, the appellate court explained
that jurisdiction over the case was vested exclusively in the Supreme Court

Held: Neither the Constitution nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure exclusively vests in the Supreme Court the
power to hear cases on appeal in which only an error of law is involved. [7] Indeed, the Court of Appeals, under Rule
42 and 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, is authorized to determine errors of fact, of law, or both. [8] These rules
are expressly adopted to apply to appeals in criminal cases, [9] and they do not thereby divest the Supreme Court of
its ultimate jurisdiction over such questions.

Sec 4. Service of Notice to Appeal

Sec. 5 Waiver of Notice
Sec. 6 When Appeal to be Taken
1.

Appeal in promulgation in absentia

Estrada v. People
Gr. NO 162371
May 25, 2005
Facts:The present case has its origin in a criminal case filed against petitioner. An Information charging petitioner
with estafa was filed with the RTC. In view of the fact that petitioner jumped bail, the RTC issued an Order dated
May 14, 1997, considering petitioner to have waived her right to present evidence. Thus, the RTC rendered
judgment based only on prosecution evidence..Junimar Bermundo applied for employment in Japan with the
accused. Accused collected money from Junimar and his wife in the total amount of P68,700.00.These payments
were all evidenced by various receipts bearing different dates. They obtained from a loan with the Luzon
Development Bank using their parcel of land. The accused told Junimar to proceed to the Japanese Embassy to

claim the plane tickets in December 1993, but when they went to the Japanese Embassy, they were told that
nothing was filed with their office then informed the accused.
Issue: whether or not the jumped of bail by petitioner waived his right to be present at the trial
Held:The holding of trial in absentia is authorized under Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution which
provides that after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he
has been duly notified and his failure to appear unjustifiable. In fact, in People vs. Tabag,[7] the Court even
admonished the trial court for failing to proceed with the trial of some accused who escaped from preventive
detention, to wit:
Finally, the trial court also erred in not proceeding with the case against Laureo Awod and Artemio Awod after their
successful escape on 19 October 1989 while in preventive detention. They had already been
arraigned. Therefore, pursuant to the last sentence of paragraph (2), Section 14, Article III of the
Constitution, trial against them should continue and upon its termination, judgment should be rendered
against them notwithstanding their absence unless, of course, both accused have died and the fact of
such death is sufficiently established. Conformably with our decision in People v.Salas, their escape
should have been considered a waiver of their right to be present at their trial, and the inability of the court
to notify them of the subsequent hearings did not prevent it from continuing with their trial. They were to
be deemed to have received notice. The same fact of their escape made their failure to appear unjustified
because they have, by escaping, placed themselves beyond the pale and protection of the law. This being so, then
pursuant to Gimenez v. Nazareno, the trial against the fugitives, just like those of the others, should have been
brought to its ultimate conclusion.Thereafter, the trial court had the duty to rule on the evidence presented by
the prosecution against all the accused and to render its judgment accordingly. It should not wait for the
fugitives re-appearance or re-arrest. They were deemed to have waived their right to present evidence on
their own behalf and to confront and cross-examine the witnesses who testified against them.
2.
a.

Effect of motion for new trial

Where motion is granted
Obugan v. People
G. R. Nos 116506-07
May 22, 1995
Facts:Petitioner was accused in two criminal cases of violation of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act. In Criminal Case No. 11716-R, he was charged with selling 200 grams of
dried marijuana on August 1, 1993, in violation of Art. II, 8 of Republic Act No. 6425.After trial, petitioner was
found guilty by the trial court, presided over by respondent judge, and sentenced accordingly. The dispositive
portion of the decision, dated January 10, 1994,
Issue: The sole issue before us is whether, given the facts above stated, the fifteen-day period for appealing
should be counted from the date of promulgation of the original decision subject of the motion for new trial,
deducting the time the motion was pending, or from the time a new judgment was rendered.
Held: Once a new trial is granted the original judgment is vacated. The nullification of the original judgment is not
dependent on whether or not the new trial results in a new of modified judgment. The mere grant of the motion for
new trial operates to vacate the original judgment. The effect of granting a new trial is not to acquit the accused of
the crime of which the judgment finds him guilty, but, precisely, to set aside the judgment so that the case may be
tried de novo as if no trial had been had before, for the purpose of rendering a judgment in accordance with the
law, taking into consideration the evidence to be presented during the second trial. While evidence already taken in
the original trial is not disregarded but is to be taken into account together with the new evidence, original judgment
is automatically set aside and the case is reverted to its original status before judgment, upon the granting of a
motion for new trial.

b.

Where motion is denied

Jamiliano v. cuevas
Gr.no.L33654
July 23, 1987
Facts:Petitioner Meynardo Jamilano y Quizon was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IV,
presided over by respondent judge, with the crime of parricide for having stabbed his father to death in their house
in Tondo, Manila on October 13, 1968. Upon arraignment which took place on October 18, 1968, petitioner (then

accused) pleaded not guilty and was thereafter accordingly tried and finally convicted in a decision promulgated on
October 5, 1970, a copy of which was served on and duly received by his counsel on October 13, 1970. On
October 28, 1970 or 23 days after promulgation but only 15 days from service of the aforesaid decision upon
counsel, petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging that "errors of law and irregularities have been committed
during the trial prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused." The said errors or irregularities consist of the
alleged failure of respondent judge to consider the defense of insanity in favor of the petitioner. On November 13,
1970, petitioner filed a Supplemental Motion wherein he emphasized the alleged irregularities attendant to the
promulgation of the decision. December 16, 1970, petitioner appealed by filing a notice of appeal, which appeal
was dismissed by respondent Judge, for having been filed out of time.
Issue: whether or not the notice of appeal on December 16, 1970, was seasonably interposed.
Held: under Rule 122, Section 6 of the Rules of Court provides;
"When appeal to be taken An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice of the
judgment or order appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be interrupted from the time a motion
for new trial is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion shall have been served upon the defendant or his
attorney."cralaw virtua1aw library
In this case, since the decision was validly promulgated on October 5, 1970, when petitioners counsel filed a
Motion for New Trial on October 28, 1970, the period for perfecting the appeal had already expired, the last day
being October 20, 1970, the 15th day from promulgation. Even if We are to count the period of fifteen days to
appeal from the date when petitioners counsel received a copy of the decision (October 13, 1970) the last day of
the fifteen day period was October 28, 1970. His notice of appeal filed on December 16, 1970 was out of time. The
filing of the Motion for New Trial on October 28, 1970, suspended the running of the appeal period. This left
petitioners counsel only one (1) day to perfect appeal in the event his Motion for New Trial was denied. On
November 30, 1970, petitioners counsel received the order denying his Motion for New Trial. Therefore, he had
only up to December 1, 1970 within which to perfect his appeal. Needless to state, the motion for reconsideration
filed on December 1, 1970 being merely pro-forma, did not suspend the running of the period of appeal.

3.

Effect of motion is denied

HEIRS OF TITO RILLORTA, petitioner, vs.HON. ROMEO N. FIRME, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance
of La Union, Branch IV, Bauang, La Union; and ANDREW COSTALES, respondents.
G.R. No. L-54904 January 29, 1988
Facts: Accused of killing Tito Rillorta, Andrew Costales, was held guilty only of less serious physical injuries and
sentenced to twenty days of arresto menor and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P500.00. The
trial court said the defendant could not be held liable for homicide because the wound inflicted on the victim was
only superficial. The certified cause of death was pneumonia, and this was obviously induced by the exploratory
surgery which was needlessly performed upon him. In short, the victim had succumbed not to the skin-deep wound
that did not affect any vital organ but as a result of the attending physician's gross incompetence
Issue: The question of whether or not the civil award in a criminal case may be appealed
Held: The petitioners are urging that the civil award in the sum of only P500.00 be increased because the accused
should not have been found guilty of only less serious physical injuries but of homicide. They are not confining
themselves to the civil aspect of the challenged decision. In their own words, their appeal involves "both the
criminal aspect and the civil liabilities in the criminal cases." 10 This is not permitted under the rule on double
jeopardy.11
Section 2 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides that "the People of the Philippines cannot appeal if the
defendant would be placed thereby in double jeopardy." This provision is based on the old case of Kepner v.
United States, 12 where the U.S. Supreme Court, reviewing a decision of the Philippine Supreme Court in 1904,

declared by a 5-4 vote that appeal of the prosecution from a judgment of acquittal (or for the purpose of increasing
the penalty imposed upon the convict) would place him in double jeopardy. It has been consistently applied since
then in this jurisdiction.
4.

Effect of application for probation

a. Non suspension of period
Palo v Milante
GR. No. 76100
April 18, 1990
Facts:The petition at bar seeks to nullify the following: (a) Judgment of conviction, dated June 11, 1986,
sentencing petitioner to suffer imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day and to pay a fine of P6,000.00
and the costs of suit; (b) Order of respondent judge, dated August 25, 1986, denying petitioners application
for probation; and (c) Order of respondent judge, dated September 19, 1986, denying petitioners omnibus
motion for reconsideration. The facts which gave rise to the foregoing judicial issuances follow.
On May 10,1986, agents of the Narcotics Command in Cebu City apprehended petitioner who was in
possession of three (3) sticks of marijuana cigarettes. He was subsequently charged with violation of the
second paragraph of Section 8, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, as amended.
Issue: Whether or not Batas Pambansa Bilang 76 was repealed by Presidential Decree No. 1990 so as to
disqualify petitioner from the benefits of probation
Held MUST BE MADE WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL; RATIONALE. Equally
devoid of merit is petitioners contention that the filing of an application for probation suspends the running of
the period for perfecting an appeal. The pertinent portion of Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 1990, provides: "SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. Subject to the provisions
of this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant, and upon
application by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the
sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may
deem best; Provided, That no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has
perfected an appeal from its judgment of conviction." (Emphasis ours.) It is clear that what the law requires is
that the application for probation must be filed within the period for perfecting an appeal. The need to file it
within such period was intended to encourage offenders, who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated, to
avail of probation at the first opportunity. Such provision, was never intended to suspend the period for the
perfection of an appeal.

b.

Waiver of appeal
Cal v. CA
Facts:After an information for illegal recruitment was filed with the aforementioned trial court on September 5,
1990, petitioner posted bail for his provisional liberty. On June 8, 1992, a decision was rendered in the
aforesaid criminal case wherein the petitioner herein was found guilty of violation of Article 36(a) of the Labor
Code as amended [illegal recruitment], and sentenced to, among other things, suffer imprisonment of four
years and pay a fine of P20,000. The decision was promulgated on July 15, 1992, in the presence of the
petitioner, after which he was committed to jail by virtue of an order of commitment issued the same day. The
following day, July 16, Petitioner, assisted by his counsel, filed with the court a quo an application for
probation, an affidavit of recognizance, and an application for release on recognizance. Also on the same day,
the trial court issued an order directing the petitioner to report to the Provincial Probation and Parole Officer,
and for the latter to conduct an investigation of the applicant and submit his report and recommendation within
sixty days.
issue: whether or not the application for probation instead of challenging the legality of the trial courts actof
issuing such commitment order to forecloses his right to appeal.

Held: yes. With respect to the first issue, there is no dispute that, as a rule, and unless the trial court directs
otherwise, the bail bond posted by an accused remains in force at all stages of the case until its final
determination. Now, in this case, since the trial court, immediately after the promulgation of judgment (and
without waiting for the finality thereof), issued a commitment order despite petitioners being out on bail,
petitioner should have challenged the legality of such commitment order. However, instead of doing
so, Petitioner, after having been properly advised by counsel on the effects and consequences of probation,
voluntarily and with the assistance of counsel filed an application for probation, along with an affidavit of
recognizance and an application for release on recognizance of his counsel. Petitioners actuations thus
foreclosed his right to appeal
Section 4 of P.D. No. 968, pertaining to the grant of probation, was amended by P.D. 1990 in order to make
appeal and probation mutually exclusive remedies 3 . Thus. Sec. 4 provides specifically that" (T)he filing of the
application (for probation) shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal"
"The purpose of the amendment [of Sec. 4 of P.D. 968 by P.D. 1990] was, precisely, to prohibit an application
for probation if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction [and vice versa].

Sec. 7 Transcribing and Filing of Notes of Stenographer Reporter Upon Appeal

1.

Completion of stenographic notes

Advincula v. IAC
g. r. no.L 75310
January 16, 1987
Facts:On 9 January 1979, petitioners were convicted by the then Court of First Instance of two (2) crimes of
Rape and sentenced in each case to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to seventeen (17) years
and one (1) day of reclusion temporal. 1 After denial of a Motion for New Trial by said Court, they filed a
Notice of Appeal on 8 August 1979. In an Order dated 31 August 1979, the Trial Court directed the Clerk of
Court to transmit to the Appellate Court the complete record of the case including the transcript of
stenographic notes within five days from said date. However, due to the loss of some of the stenographic
notes, the Appellate Court, in a Resolution dated 11 January 1982, and upon previous comments obtained
from petitioners and the Solicitor General, ordered the remand of the case to the Trial Court for the retaking of
the testimony of defense. t.
Issue:whether or not respondent Appellate Court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
appeal
Held:NON-FEASANCE OF STENOGRAPHER SHOULD NOT PREJUDICE RIGHT OF ACCUSED. It was
primarily because of the negligence and lackadaisical attitude of the Court stenographic reporters that the
notes of the proceedings were either lost or not transcribed. This non-feasance should not prejudice the right
of the accused-appellants to have their convictions reviewed by a higher Court, especially since it is their
liberty which is at stake.
DUTY OF STENOGRAPHER. The Rules impose upon the stenographic reporters the duty to transcribe
their stenographic notes of the proceedings, to certify to the correctness of the notes and the transcript thereof
and to file the transcripts with the Clerk without unnecessary delay.

Sec. 8 Transmission of Papers to Appellate Court Upon Appeal

1.

Officer to whom duty is imposed

Tan v. Califlores
Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-972.
January 20, 1995.

Facts:In a letter-complaint dated April 4, 1994, Eteria T. Tan charged respondent Judge and Branch Clerk of Court of the
Metropolitan Trial Court of "obviously intentional deferment and delaying tactics" in the transmission to the Regional Trial
Court of the original records of Criminal Case No. 10781-R (People v. Alfonso Tan, et al.) for concubinage which she had
filed against her husband, Alfonso Uy Tan, and the latter's supposed paramour, Audita Laurente.cralaw
issue: whether or not respondent judge is liable for the delay of transmission of record.
Held. No. Rule 122, 8 provides that the clerk or judge of the court with whom the notice of appeal has been filed must,
within five (5) days after filing of the notice, transmit to the clerk of court to which the appeal is taken, the complete record in
the case together with the notice of appeal.cralaw
As far as Judge Coliflores is concerned, we find him not liable for the year-long delay in the transmission of the records.
While he has supervision of respondent Legaspi, respondent Judge cannot be expected to constantly check on the latter's
performance of his duties since respondent Legaspi is presumed to be a responsible employee. To the contrary, respondent
Judge had a right to expect that the Branch Clerk of Court would enforce his order.cralaw
Sec. 9 Appeal to Regional Trial Court
Sec.10 Transmission of Records in any Case of Death Penalty
1.

Judgment where accused escapes

People v. Palabrica
G. R. NO. 129285
May 7, 2001
Facts:"That on August 17, 1995 abovenamed accused, armed with a bladed weapon, with intent to kill and with
treachery and evident premeditation, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, and use
personal violence upon the person of one VIC JUN SILVANO. Finding accused-appellant Roberto Palabrica y Barcuma
guilty of murder for the killing of Vic Jun Silvano and sentencing him to death and ordering him to pay the deceaseds
mother, Conchita Silvano, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P11,169.00 as damages for medicines, transportation of
the cadaver, and funeral expenses.
Issue: whether or not the court can rendered judgment despite the accused escapes
Held: yes. The preliminary question is whether we can render a decision considering that accused-appellant is still at
large. As stated at the beginning, review of the trial courts decision is required under the ruling in People v. Esparas 20
which held that automatic review in death penalty cases despite the absence of the accused is mandatory considering
that "nothing less than life is at stake and any court decision must be as error free as possible

Sec 11 Effect of Appeal by any of the several accused

1.

Where judgement is reversed

People v.Escano
G. R. NO. 129756-58
January 29, 2001
Facts:Escao, together with accused-appellants Usana and Lopez, was charged with violation of Section 4, Article
II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, in Criminal Case No. 95-936. Escao and Usana were also charged with
violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 in Criminal Cases Nos. 95-937 and 95-938, respectively. The cases were
consolidated and jointly tried.Escao filed a Notice of Appeal but he withdrew the same by motion, which was
granted by the trial court in its Order of 17 July 1997. In filing the instant motion, Escao relies on a single ground,
that is, that the 28 January 2000 Decision of this Court on the appeal interposed by his co-accused is applicable
and favorable to him and entitles him to an acquittal pursuant to Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the New Rules on
Criminal Procedue.
ISSUE:whether or not the previous judgment of acquittal of co accused also applied to escano.
HELD: Yes. The acquittal on appeal of certain accused based on reasonable doubts benefits a co-accused who did
not appeal or who withdrew his appeal.in filling the instant motion escano relies on single ground that is on January

28,2000 decision of this court on appeal inposed by his co-accused is applicable and favorable to hi, and entitles
him to an acquittal pursuant to section 11 (a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect
those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the
latter.
Escao argues that the Decision of this Court is applicable and favorable to him in that "the factual findings therein
equally support the conclusion that not all the elements of the offense charged have been prove[d] and that no
criminal liability can, thus, be imputed to [him]." 3
After evaluating the issue and arguments raised by Escao, the Office of the Solicitor General manifested no
objection to his Manifestation and Motion and recommended that the same be given due course.
We find merit in the instant Manifestation and Motion. Consistent with our ruling in a number of cases, 4 the
acquittal of Usana and Lopez based on reasonable doubt should benefit movant Escao notwithstanding the fact
that he withdrew his appeal.

2.

Where civil liability is modified

People v. Cabales G. R No. gr. Nos.102723-24 June 19, 1997
Facts:Accused Eduardo Caballes and Reynaldo Mabini charged with two (2) counts of rape against Miguella
Baculi.She recognized both because they had been her neighbors past eight years. Upon confronting her, Mabini
covered her mouth and pointed a knife at her while Caballes held her hands. They led her to a secluded area
where they initially molested her. She was able to wriggle herself free and run for a short distance but her
abductors caught up with her. She was slapped, punched and strangled before she was brought to another
secluded and dark area farther away. After satisfying his lust, Caballes exchanged positions with Mabini who
likewise violated her chastity against her will. Thereafter, Miguela was escorted towards her home by the accused.
Mabini threatened to kill her if she reported the incident to the police. After parting from her attackers, the rape
victim went home but, not finding her husband, proceeded to the house of his relatives, the spouses Bernardo and
Juanita Jumaoas, to whom she related her shameful experience. It was the spouses Jumaoas who reported the
rape to the police which led to the arrest of the accused that same evening.
Issue: whether or not additional penalties cannot prejudice a co-accused who is who did not appeal.
Held: Yes. Additional penalties cannot prejudice a co-accused who is who did not but modifications to the
judgment beneficial to him are considered in his favor. The same cannot apply, however, in the case of Reynaldo
Mabini who did not appeal his conviction. Additional penalties cannot prejudice him, but modifications to the
judgment beneficial to him are considered in his favor. Because of the deletion of the award of exemplary
damages, he is only liable, jointly and severally with Appellant Caballes, for the sum of P50,000.00 as moral
damages for the two counts of rape as adjudged by the trial court. Moreover, he is not affected by the increase in
the amount of the said award. In the same vein that the additional moral damages can no longer be imposed upon
Reynaldo Mabini, so we cannot order him to pay civil indemnity.

3.

Where accused escapes before trial

People v. Fernandez Gr no. 80481 June 27, 1990
Facts On February 20, 1985 at about 9:30 in the evening, Maj. Vivencio Ramilo, received information from an
informer that one alias `Ben was selling `marijuana immediately organized a team for a `buy-bust operation,
composed of Sgt. Gilberto Gumawid, Narcom agent Inocencio Yee and CIC Edgar Groyon. Together with the
informer. The informer introduced agent Yee to Pitogo as one who wanted to buy marijuana After a while, Pitogo
left later, Pitogo returned accompanied by one alias `Fritz appellant Fernandez handed Agent Yee a tin foil
containing dried crushed marijuana leaves and, in turn, Agent Yee handed to him the marked ten peso bill. Right
after the sale was consummated, Agent Yee gave signal to his two other companions who approached them to
effect the arrest. Sensing them, appellant Fernandez drew a gun from his waist but Sgt. Gumawid wrested it away
from him. Taking advantage of the situation, appellant Pitogo ran away. They recovered from the pocket of

Fernandez the marked ten peso bill used to pay.

Issue: whether or not the judgment of acquittal affects the co accused who escapes.
Held: yes. Where crime is not successfully proved judgment of acquittal affects co-accused who jumped bail or
who successfully ran away and hid from police before casewas filed.We now return to what we clarified at the
outset with respect to accused Josefino Fernandez. While, 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 disquisition in this case is applicable and favorable to him, hence he is
affected by and shall benefit from the acquittal that we hand down in this appeal.

Sec 12 Wthdrawal of Appeal

1.

Discretion of the court

Teodoro v. CA
Gr. No 103174
July 11, 1996
Facts:Petitioner Amado B. Teodoro was vice-president and corporate secretary of the DBT-Marbay Construction,
Inc., while complainant, Carolina Tanco-Young, was treasurer of the same corporation. hanrIt appears that there
was a controversial document being insisted upon by the accused, as secretary, to be signed by the chairman. The
Board Treasurer, Carolina Tanco-Young questioned the propriety of having the document signed. A verbal
exchange of words and tirades took place between the accused Secretary and the Treasurer. Carolina TancoYoung, the treasurer, either by implication or expressed domineering words, alluded to the accused as a "falsifier"
which blinded the accused-appellant to extreme anger and rage, thus leading him to slap Tanco-Young the
alleged name caller. Carolina Tanco-Youngs father, Agustin Tanco, being present and so proximate to the
daughter, was helplessly observing and hearing the verbal tirades between the two members of the board and
when the accused Teodoro slapped Tanco-Young, he stood and made a move to lunge at his daughters assailant.
Knowing that her father has a heart condition, Tanco-Young, in order to prevent her father from engaging a much
younger man to a physical confrontation, simply embraced her father .

Issue: withdrawal of appeal is discretion of court

Held:Withdrawal of appeal is not a matter of right, but a matter which lies in the sound discretion of the court and
appellate court.

2. Withdrawal to pave way for new trial

People v. dela cruz g.r no.68319 March 31, 1992
Facts:In an information filed with the then Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Cabarroguis, Quirino, on 28
October 1982, Accused-appellants Jesus dela Cruz, Demerold Ayado and Abecidueo Ajedo, Jr. were charged with the
crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as
follows:chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
"That on or about the 21st day of July, 1982, in the municipality of Diffun, Province of Quirino, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Jesus dela Cruz, Demerold Ayado and Abecidueo Ajedo,
did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously by conspiring together and mutually helping one another and by
means of treachery and evident premeditation and with the use of bladed instruments and stones attack, assault, strike and
stab one Felipe Natura by inflicting upon the latter multiple wounds resulting to (sic) the death of said Felipe Natura
therefore.

issue: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BECAUSE THE HEREIN ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS WERE PREJUDICED AND PREVENTED FROM FAIRLY PRESENTING THEIR DEFENSE DUE TO THE
SERIOUS ERROR ON THE PART OF THEIR ATTORNEY WHO FAILED TO EXERT SUFFICIENT EFFORTS TO BRING
THE VITAL WITNESS TO TESTIFY IN COURT.
hELD.; NOTICE OF APPEAL; ONCE FILED, CANNOT BE VALIDLY WITHDRAWN. A notice of appeal, once filed, cannot
be validly withdrawn to give way to a motion for reconsideration or a petition for new trial since, as above stated, the filing of
the notice perfected the appeal and the court thereby lost its jurisdiction over the case; hence, it can no longer act on either
the motion or the petition. The only valid withdrawal of an appeal would be one where an accused decides to serve the
sentence.
3. Where withdrawal should be denied
People v. GatwardG.R. Nos. 119772-73 February 7, 1997
Facts: "That on or about the 30th day of August 1994, at the arrival area of Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Pasay
City, . . ., the above-named accused not being authorized by law, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
import and bring into the Philippines 5579.80 grams of heroin which is legally considered as a prohibited drug." (Information
also dated Sept. 14, 1994)Accused Nigel Richard Gatward in Criminal Case No. 94-6268 pleaded not guilty of the charge
when arraigned.
On the other hand, Accused U Aung Win in Criminal Case No. 94-6269, assisted by Atty. Willy Chan of the Public Attorneys
Office of the Department of Justice, entered a plea of guilty of the crime charged upon his arraignment. Since it is a capital
offense, the Court asked searching questions to determine the voluntariness and the full comprehension by the accused of
the consequences of his plea. The accused manifested that he was entering a plea of guilty voluntarily without having been
forced or intimidated into doing it. The nature of the charge was explained to him, with emphasis that the offense carries with
it the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and his pleading guilty of it might subject him to the penalty of death. The
accused answered that he understood fully the charge against him and the consequences of his entering a plea of guilty.
The defense counsel likewise made an assurance in open court that he had explained to U Aung Win the nature of the
charge and the consequences of his pleading guilty of it.

Issue: when WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL ALLOWED

Held: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; APPEAL; WITHDRAWAL THEREOF; WHEN ALLOWED. The basic rule is that, in
appeals taken from the Regional Trial Court to either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, 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
(Section 12, in relation to Section 8, Rule 122, Rules of 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 of briefs or arguments filed
by the Appellant.
Sec. 13 Appointment of Counsel de Officio for Accused on Appeal
People v. Rio G.R. No. 90924 Septmeber 24, 2011
Facts: On 26 June 1985, at the arraignment, the accused-appellant, assisted by Atty. Leonido Manalo of the Makati CLAO
office, as counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. 11 The evidence for the prosecution adduced
at the trial established the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
At about 2:00 oclock in the afternoon of 24 March 1984, classes having closed for vacation and while Maria Zena Phua Rio
was in the house occupied by her family, her daughter Wilma (complainant) asked her for the key to the comfort room of the
uninhabited house because she had to answer a call of nature. After relieving herself but before she could raise her panty,
the accused entered the bathroom with his body already exposed, held Wilmas hands, and ordered her in a loud voice to lie
down and when she resisted, the accused got mad and ordered her to lie down. After she lay down on her back, the
accused put himself on top of her and tried to insert his private organ into her private part. Wilma kept pushing the accused
away and calling for her mother; however, since the accused was heavier than she, the accused succeeded in overpowering

her, inserting his penis into her vagina and having sexual intercourse with her. After satisfying his lust, the accused released
Wilma and allowed her to leave the bathroom. Only after the departure of the accused did Wilma report to her mother the
fact that she had been raped by the accused four (4) times between the months of February and March of that year (1984).
Issue: whether or not the court may appoint counsel de oficio for the accused?
Held: Yes. DUTY OF THE COURT TO ASSIGN ONE DE OFFICIO FOR THE ACCUSED IF HE SO DESIRES AND HE IS
POOR. It is for this reason that the right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so important that it has become a
constitutional right and it is so implemented that under our rules of procedure it is not enough for the Court to apprise an
accused of his right to have an attorney, it is not enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is
essential that the court should assign one de oficio for him if he so desires and he is poor, or grant him a reasonable time to
procure an attorney of his own.Mandate provided in section 11 of Article III of the constitution.