RULE 124: Procedure in the Court of Appeals

A. Dismissal of Appeal for Abandonment or Failure to Prosecute

1. Celestial vs. People, G.R. No. 214865, 19 August 2015
2. Villena vs. People, G.R. No. 184091, 31 January 2011
3. Dimarucot vs. People, G.R. No. 183975, 20 September 2010

B. Scope of Judgment
1. People vs. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, 27 July 2011

C. Quorum of the Court; Certification or Appeal of Cases to Supreme Court

1. Dungo vs. People, G.R. No. 209464, 01 July 2013

D. Motion for New Trial

1. Baylosis, Sr. vs. People, G.R. No. 152119, 14 August 2007
2. Dinglasan, Jr. vs. CA, Supra.

E. Application of Certain Rules in Civil Procedure to Criminal Cases

1. People vs. Balinga, G.R. No. 159222, 26 June 2007
Topic: Rule 124 Procedure in the Court of Appeals; Dismissal of Appeal for Abandonment or
Failure to Prosecute

CELESTIAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 214865, 19 August 2015, Third Division (Velasco, Jr., J.)

Petitioner Rosvee Celestial was employed by Glory Philippines as Accounting-in-charge.

As such she handles the company’s bank transactions and record keeping. She was terminated
upon discovery of the falsification and withdrawal of company’s dollar transactions.

Glory filed a complaint, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor-Cavite City finding probable
cause filed 6 counts of qualified theft through falsification of commercial documents

RTC convicts the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Petitioner elevated the case to CA via notice of appeal. On November 28,2013 petitioner
received a copy of CA Notice dated November 20, 2013 directing her to file within thirty (30) days
from receipt. Former counsel moved for a thirty-day extension or until January 26, 2014. Counsel
would inform petitioner that he prayed for another extension until February 26, 2014.

Allegedly unknown to petitioner the CA on April 28, 2014 issued a resolution which
considered petitioner’s appeal abandoned and dismissed for failure to file her appellant’s brief.

On August 22, 2014 petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for reconsideration and attachment
of appellant’s brief. Dismissed by CA.

ISSUE:
W/N CA erred in dismissing the case for petitioner’s failure to file the required brief?

RULING:
No, the petition is not meritorious and the CA’s dismissal of the appeal for failure to
prosecute was in order pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124 of the ROC to wit:

Sec. 8 Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute- The CA 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 prescribe by this Rule, except where
the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio.

In the case at bar, it cannot be disputed that Atty. Paredes represented the petitioner before
CA and based on the registry receipt return counsel received a copy. The CA complied with the
procedural requirements under Sec. 8 Rule 124 and no violation of petitioner’s right to notice of
dismissal can be attributed to the appellate court. (Notice to counsel, notice to client)
Topic: Rule 124 Procedure in the Court of Appeals; Dismissal of Appeal for Abandonment or
Failure to Prosecute

VILLENA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 214865, 19 August 2015, Third Division (Velasco, Jr., J.)

Seven police officers (Villena et al) and a private individual (Borcelis) were indicted for
robbery (extortion) before the Las Pinas RTC. After arraignment, where the accused all pled not
guilty, and pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. However, only Macalinao appeared before the court
to present his evidence. The RTC convicted all the petitioners for robbery. During the
promulgation of judgment, petitioners failed to appear despite proper notices to them at their
addresses of record thus, the promulgation was made pursuant to Section 6, Rule 120 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, and warrants of arrest were issued against them. Petitioners,
on the other hand, filed their separate notices of appeal before the RTC contending that they failed
to attend the promulgation of judgment because they did not receive any notice thereof since they
were transferred to another police station. The RTC denied the notices of appeal. Macalinao filed
a Motion with Leave of Court to Reconsider while petitioners filed a joint Motion for
Reconsideration. The RTC granted Macalinao’s motion and denied the petitioners’ joint motion.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court before the CA, however, the latter initially dismissed the petition for not
being accompanied with clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copy of the questioned
Orders. Petitioners moved to reconsider CA’s resolution, the CA nevertheless denied the same for
failure to show prima facie evidence of any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. Thus,
the present petition before the Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in upholding the RTC in its denial of petitioners’ notices of
appeal since they already contained the required manifestation and information as to the cause of
their non-appearance.

RULING:
No, the CA did not err in upholding RTC’s decision.

An appeal is perfected upon the mere filing of a notice of appeal and that the trial court
thereupon loses jurisdiction over the case, this principle presupposes that the party filing the notice
of appeal could validly avail of the remedy of appeal and had not lost standing in court. In this
case, petitioners have lost their standing in court by their unjustified failure to appear during the
trial and, more importantly, during the promulgation of judgment of conviction, and to surrender
to the jurisdiction of the RTC.

Even if petitioners’ notices of appeal were given due course, the CA would only be
constrained to dismiss their appeal. This is because petitioners, who had standing warrants of arrest
but did not move to have them lifted, are considered fugitives from justice. Since it is safe to
assume that they were out on bail during trial, petitioners were deemed to have jumped bail when
they failed to appear at the promulgation of their sentence.
 This is a ground for dismissal of an appeal under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court,
which provides

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 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.

Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail (as in the case of
petitioners), or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court. 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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

Topic: Rule 124 Procedure in the Court of Appeals; Dismissal of Appeal for Abandonment or
Failure to Prosecute

DIMARUCOT vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 184091, 31 January 2011, Second Division (Nachura, J.)

Petitioner is the accused in Criminal Case for Frustrated Murder in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. After trial, on September 11, 2006, the RTC promulgated its
Decision convicting petitioner of frustrated homicide, and sentencing him an indeterminate
penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to eight (8) years and
one (1) day, as maximum, of imprisonment.

Upon receiving the notice to file appellants brief, petitioner thru his counsel de parte
requested and was granted additional period of twenty (20) days within which to file said brief.
This was followed by three (3) successive motions for extension which were all granted by the
CA.

On August 29, 2007, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal, as follows:
Considering the JRD verification report dated July 24, 2007 that the accused-appellant failed to
file his appellants brief within the reglementary period which expired on June 6, 2007, his appeal
is considered ABANDONED and thus DISMISSED.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration the CA, finding the allegations of petitioner
unpersuasive and considering that the intended appellants brief was not at all filed on October 4,
2007, denied the motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petitioner’s
appeal.

RULING:
Section 8, paragraph 1, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended,
provides:
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.

It is clear under the foregoing provision that a criminal case may be dismissed by the
CA motu proprio and with notice to the appellant if the latter fails to file his brief within the
prescribed time. The 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 the case at bar, there is no showing that petitioner was served with a notice requiring
him to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file appellants brief. The
purpose of such a notice is to give an appellant the opportunity to state the reasons, if any, why the
appeal should not be dismissed because of such failure, in order that the appellate court may
determine whether or not the reasons, if given, are satisfactory.

Notwithstanding such absence of notice to the appellant, no grave abuse of discretion was
committed by the CA in considering the appeal abandoned with the failure of petitioner to file his
appeal brief despite four (4) extensions granted to him and non-compliance to date. Dismissal of
appeal by the appellate court sans notice to the accused for failure to prosecute by itself is not an
indication of grave abuse. Thus, although it does not appear that the appellate court has given the
appellant such notice before dismissing the appeal, if the appellant has filed a motion for
reconsideration of, or to set aside, the order dismissing the appeal, in which he stated the reasons
why he failed to file his brief on time and the appellate court denied the motion after considering
said reasons, the dismissal was held proper. Likewise, where the appeal was dismissed without
prior notice, but the appellant took no steps either by himself or through counsel to have the appeal
reinstated, such an attitude of indifference and inaction amounts to his abandonment and
renunciation of the right granted to him by law to prosecute his appeal.
Topic: Rule 124 Procedure in the Court of Appeals; Scope of Judgement

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MIRANDILLA

G.R. No. 186417, 27 July 2011, Second Division (Perez, J.)

Felipe Mirandilla was convicted by RTC of kidnapping, four counts of rape, and one count
of rape through sexual assault. The CA affirmed with modification the RTC ruling, convicting
Mirandilla. It found him guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape (instead of
kidnapping as the RTC ruled), four counts of rape, and one count of rape by sexual assault.
Mirandilla repeats his allegations that the prosecutions lone witness, AAA, was not a credible
witness and that he and AAA were live-in partners whose intimacy they expressed in consensual
sex.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the modification of CA to the decision rendered by the RTC is valid.

RULING:
Yes, the modification is valid. Under Section 11 of Rule 124 of Rules on Criminal
Procedure, the law provides that The Court of Appeals may reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment
and increase or reduce the penalty imposed by the trial court, remand the case to the Regional Trial
Court for new trial or retrial, or dismiss the case. The Supreme Court agrees with the CA in finding
Mirandilla guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, instead of simple
kidnapping as the RTC ruled.
Topic: Rule 124 Procedure in the Court of Appeals; Quorum of the Court: Certification or Appeal
of Cases to Supreme Court
DUNGO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 209464, 01 July 2015, Second Division (Mendoza, J.)

On January 14, 2006, at Villa Novaliches, Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, Laguna, the Alpha
Phi Omega Fraternity in conspiracy with more or less twenty other members and officers
conducted initiation rite. MARLON VILLANUEVA, a neophyte was subjected to physical harm.
After the initiation rites, accused Sibal inquired about Villanueva's condition but he was ignored
by Castillo. He then called co-accused Dungo for help. After Dungo arrived at the resort, they
hailed a tricycle and brought Villanueva to JP Rizal Hospital. There, he gave a false name to the
security guard as he heard that Dungo had done the same.

RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty of the crime of violating Section 4 of the Anti-Hazing
Law and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. CA affirms with the RTC
ruling.

ISSUE:
WoN the judgments of the RTC and the CA quo constitute a violation of the constitutional
right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against them because the
offense proved as found and pronounced thereby is different from that charged in the information.

RULING:
An appeal is a proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by bringing it to a
higher court authority. The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due
process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance
with the provisions of law. Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03, dated October 15, 2004, governs the procedure on the appeal
from the CA to the Court when the penalty imposed is either reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. According to the said provision, “[i]n 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.”

Hence, an accused, upon whom the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment had
been imposed by the CA, can simply file a notice of appeal to allow him to pursue an appeal as a
matter of right before the Court. An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on
any question including one not raised by the parties. Section 13(c), Rule 124 recognizes the
constitutionally conferred jurisdiction of the Court in all criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. An accused, nevertheless, is not precluded in resorting to
an appeal by certiorari to the Court via Rule 45 under the Rules of Court. An appeal to this Court
by petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law. Moreover, such review is not
a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special
and important reasons. In other words, when the CA imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment, an accused may: (1) file a notice of appeal under Section 13(c), Rule 124 to
avail of an appeal as a matter of right before the Court and open the entire case for review on any
question; or (2) file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to resort to an appeal as a
matter of discretion and raise only questions of law.

In this case, the CA affirmed the RTC decision imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua
upon the petitioners. The latter opted to appeal the CA decision via a petition for certiorari under
Rule 45. Consequently, they could only raise questions of law. Oddly, the petitioners began to
assail the existence of conspiracy in their reply, which is a question of fact that would require an
examination of the evidence presented. In the interest of justice, however, and due to the novelty
of the issue presented, the Court deems it proper to open the whole case for review.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
Topic: Rule 124 Procedure in the Court of Appeals; Motion for New Trial

BAYLOSIS, SR. VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 152119, 14 August 2007, Second Division (Velasco, Jr., J.)

Petitioner Baylosis was convicted for estafa before the RTC of Cebu for misappropriating
collections and inventories of Pepsi Cola Products Philippines Inc. (PCPPI) he committed as
Warehouse Supervisor of said company.

Baylosis filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said Decision, but the RTC denied it. After
filing his Notice of Appeal, Baylosis filed a Motion for New Trial before the CA. He implored the
CA to consider an affidavit from the Collection Manager of PPCI stating that his remaining balance
from PCPPI was only PhP 21,981.71 and that he be allowed to change his previous plea to guilty.

The CA, however, denied his motion.

ISSUE:
WoN the motion should prosper.

RULING:
No. The ground cited by Baylosis is not valid.

The CA, in denying petitioners motion, observed the fact that the lone affidavit dealt with
statements made by PCPPIs Credit and Collection Manager, regarding the payments made by
petitioner of the amounts that he borrowed after the trial court promulgated its January 10,
1992 judgment.

For a newly discovered evidence to be appreciated as a ground for granting a motion for
new trial, it must fairly be shown that:

(1) the evidence was discovered after trial;

(2) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the
exercise of reasonable diligence;
(3) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and
(4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted.

In granting a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the evidence
presented must be in actual existence and unknown to the party even if a judgment had been
rendered before. The Court, in granting this remedial remedy, is well aware that more often than
not, newly discovered evidence is material evidence which would mean the success or defeat of a
partys campaign, of which a party is oblivious during trial, and grants him/her this second
opportunity to prove his/her claim.
Topic: Rule 124 Procedure in the Court of Appeals; Motion for New Trial

DINGLASAN, JR. VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 145420, 19 September 2006, First Division (Chico-Nazario, J.)

Elmyra's Trading Corp., represented by its President, Dinglasan had an outstanding loan to
Antrom, Inc. in the amount of P1,476,000.58. As initial payment, Dinglasan issued a Commercial
Bank check with Antrom as payee, in the amount of 515k. However, the said check was
dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Both the trial court and the CA convicted Dinglasan for
violation of BP 22.
G.R. No. 137800
 Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the SC, questioning the Decision of
the CA, docketed as G.R. No. 137800, A. Rafael C. Dinglasan v. Court of Appeals.
 In a Resolution, the SC resolved to deny the petition for failure to show that a reversible
error had been committed by the appellate court. The judgment in G.R. No. 137800 is
denied and become final and executory.
G.R. No. 145420
 Dinglasan filed a Petition for New Trial and, in the alternative, for the Reopening of the
Case based on newly discovered evidence, docketed as G.R. No. 145420, entitled, "A.
Rafael C. Dinglasan Jr. v. Court of Appeals."
 The alleged newly discovered evidence was that Elmyra issued a Solidbank Manager's
check in the amount of 150k intended to cover a part of the amount of the bounced check.
The Solidbank check, together with its transmittal letter was sent to Antrom and was
received by its representative as evidenced by the signature appearing on the receiving
copy.

ISSUE:
WON a new trial or reopening of the case based on newly discovered evidence should be
allowed.

RULING:
Rule 124 – Procedure in the Court of Appeals.

Section 14. Motion for New Trial. – At any time after the appeal from the lower court has
been perfected and before the judgment of the Court of Appeals convicting the accused
becomes final, the latter may move for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered
evidence material to his defense. The motion shall conform to the provisions of section 4
Rule 121.

Explicit from the above stated rule, A Motion for New Trial should be filed before the
judgment of the appellate court convicting the accused becomes final.

The Supreme Court held that after the judgment or final resolution is entered in the entries
of judgment, the case shall be laid to rest. A decision that acquired finality becomes immutable
and unalterable and it may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant
to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that
rendered it or by the highest court of the land.

The filing of Dinglasan of the instant Petition for New Trial and/or Reopening of the Case
on 30 October 2000 was made way beyond the prescriptive period for doing so. The claim of
Dinglasan that he honestly believed that this Court will appreciate his defense of payment as
reiterated in his Second Motion for Reconsideration which was why he deemed it pre-mature to
file the instant petition before receiving the Court's ruling on the said motion, could not be given
credence.

The finality of decision is a jurisdictional event which cannot be made to depend on the
convenience of the party. To rule otherwise would completely negate the purpose of the rule on
completeness of service, which is to place the date of receipt of pleadings, judgment and processes
beyond the power of the party being served to determine at his pleasure.
Topic: Rule 124 Procedure in the Court of Appeals; Application of Certain Rules on Civil and
Criminal Cases

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BITANGA

G.R. No. 159222, 26 June 2007, Third Division (Austria-Martinez, J.)

On the basis of a complaint lodged by Traders Royal Bank (TRB), [6] an

information for estafa was filed against Rafael M. Bitanga (Bitanga) before the RTC and docketed
as Criminal Case No. 103677. Bitanga pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. He was allowed
to post bail.

During trial on the merits, the People presented the testimonies of three TRB employees
on how Bitanga duped the bank into accepting three foreign checks for deposit and encashment,
which were however returned to TRB by reason of unlocated accounts.[7]

When it was time for the defense to present his case, however, Bitanga and his counsel
failed to appear and adduce evidence.[8] Upon motion of the public prosecutor, a warrant of arrest
was issued against respondent and his right to adduce evidence was deemed waived.[9]

On February 29, 2000, the RTC promulgated in absentia a Decision finding Bitanga guilty
as charged. On January 28, 2002, Bitanga filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment
with Prayer for Other Reliefs[11] on the ground that extrinsic fraud was allegedly perpetuated upon
him by his counsel of record, Atty. Benjamin Razon.[12] He alleged that he received copy of
the February 29, 2000 RTC Decision only on December 13, 2001.[13]The People filed an
Answer] opposing the Petition.

The CA granted the Petition for Annulment of Judgment in the March 31, 2003 Decision
assailed herein.

ISSUE:
WON the CA is correct in upholding the order of RTC?

RULING:
The remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment being questioned was rendered
in a criminal case. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure itself does not permit such
recourse, for it excluded Rule 47 from the enumeration of the provisions of the 1997 Revised Rules
of Civil Procedure which have suppletory application to criminal cases. Section 18, Rule 124
thereof, provides:

Sec. 18. Application of certain rules in civil procedure to criminal cases. The provisions
of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the Court of Appeals and in the
Supreme Court in original and appealed civil cases shall be applied to criminal cases
insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
 There is no basis in law or the rules, therefore, to extend the scope of Rule 47 to criminal
cases. As we explained in Macalalag v. Ombudsman,[18] when there is no law or rule providing for
this remedy, recourse to it cannot be allowed.

GRANTED!