Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rule 122-125
Rule 122-125
b
c
rape. The victims are Pajos daughters, AAA (14 y/o) and
BBB (12 y/o), assisted by their aunt, CCC.
Due to the imposition of the death penalty in the 3
criminal cases, the Decision of the RTC imposing the death
penalty therein is now before us on automatic review.
ISSUE:
May the court consider through automatic appeal all
the convictions even if the penalty of some of the convictions
is not death?
RULING:
NO. The Court resolves to dismiss the appeals
wherein the RTC convicted PAJO of two counts of acts of
lasciviousness and sentenced him to ten (10) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years
and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum for
each count, considering that PAJO failed to file notices of
appeal for said cases.
We likewise dismiss the appeal of PAJO's co-accused,
LIQUIGAN, for the reason that she similarly failed to file a
notice of appeal of the judgment convicting her as an
accomplice to the crime of rape. The appeal to the
Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is
life imprisonment or where a lesser penalty is imposed
but involving offenses committed on the same occasion
or arising out of the same occurrence that gave rise to
the more serious offense for which the penalty of death
or life imprisonment is imposed shall be by filing a
notice of appeal with the court which rendered the
judgment or order appealed from, and by serving a copy
thereof upon the adverse party. Inasmuch as both PAJO
and LIQUIGAN have taken no appeal with respect to these
cases, they became final and executory after the lapse of
fifteen (15) days, the period for perfecting an appeal. On the
other hand, Criminal Cases Nos. 97-233, 97-664 and 97-665
are now before this Court on automatic review in view of the
imposition of the death penalty. It is only in cases where
the accused is sentenced to death when the appeal of
the decision to the Supreme Court is automatic. We thus
limit our discussion to Criminal Cases Nos. 97-233, 97-664
and 97- 665 where the death penalty was imposed on PAJO.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ANTONINE B. SALEY a.k.a. ANNIE B. SALEY, accusedappellant.
G.R. No. 121179, July 2, 1998
TOPIC: How appeal is taken
committed on the same occasion
when
offenses
And
are
Illegal
Facts:
Topic: Withdrawal of appeal Sec. 12
Crime: grave slander by deed
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. Petitioner is the brother of the
president of the corporation, Donato Teodoro, while
complainant is the daughter of the chairman of the board of
the corporation, Agustin Tanco. The Board Treasurer,
Carolina Tanco-Young questioned the propriety of having the
document signed as there was, according to her, no such
meeting that ever took place as to show a supposed
resolution to have been deliberated upon. A verbal exchange
of words and tirades took place between the accused
Secretary and the Treasurer. One word led to another up to
the point where Carolina Tanco-Young, the treasurer, either
by implication or expressed domineering words, alluded to
the accused as a "falsifier" which blinded the accusedappellant to extreme anger and rage, thus leading him to slap
Tanco-Young the alleged name caller.
The MeTC found petitioner guilty of simple slander
by deed and sentenced him to pay a fine of P110.00.
Petitioner appealed. It appears that the parties were required
to file their memoranda by the RTC, but petitioner filed
instead a motion to withdraw his appeal and paid the fine of
P110.00 imposed in the judgment of the MTC. RTC denied his
motion and gave petitioner ten (10) days within which to file
his memorandum, but petitioner insisted on the withdrawal
of his appeal, filing for this purpose a motion for
reconsideration of the order denying his motion to
withdrawal appeal. RTC denied reconsideration and rendered
a decision finding petitioner guilty of grave slander by deed.
Petitioner filed a petition for review, which the Court of
Appeals dismissed. Hence this petition.
Issue:
Is the CA correct in dismissing the petition for review?
Held: Yes
The Court of Appeals correctly ruled, the withdrawal
of appeal is not a matter of right, but a matter which lies in
the sound discretion of the court and the appellate court. In
this case, petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his appeal
only on June 6, 1985, after he had been required to file his
memorandum and after his counsel had received the
memorandum of the prosecution. Apparently, he realized that
his appeal was likely to result in the imposition of a higher
penalty and he wanted to avoid that possibility. The
prosecution in fact urged in its memorandum that petitioner
Held:
Yes, The CA is correct in its findings that the
evidence sought to be presented by the petitioner do not fall
under the category of newly-discovered evidence because the
same his alleged appointment as an agent of the Philippine
Constabulary and a permit to possess a handgrenade were
supposed to be known to petitioner and existing at the time
of trial and not discovered only thereafter.
It is indeed an established rule that for a new trial to
be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it
must be shown that (a) the evidence was discovered after
trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and
HELD:
CA Decision affirmed.
None. At the heart of almost all of rape cases is the
issue of credibility of witnesses. This is primarily because the
conviction or acquittal of the accused depends entirely on the
credibility of the victims testimony as only the participants
therein can testify to its occurrence. The manner of assigning
values to declarations of witnesses on the witness stand is
best and most competently performed by the trial judge who