Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 141 views

    #29 People V Paradeza

    Uploaded by

    Pia Sotto
    The Supreme Court ruled that it has the discretion to grant an appellant's motion to withdraw their appeal. The case involved an individual convicted of raping a minor with the mentality of a 6-7 year old. While normally withdrawal is allowed as a matter of right before the appellee's brief is filed, and at the discretion of the court after, the circumstances in this case merited allowing the withdrawal. Specifically, the appellant was functionally illiterate and of very low socioeconomic status as a fisherman, and an appeal risked a heavier sentence if unsuccessful.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    #29 People V Paradeza

    Uploaded by

    Pia Sotto
    141 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that it has the discretion to grant an appellant's motion to withdraw their appeal. The case involved an individual convicted of raping a minor with the mentality of a 6-7 year old. While normally withdrawal is allowed as a matter of right before the appellee's brief is filed, and at the discretion of the court after, the circumstances in this case merited allowing the withdrawal. Specifically, the appellant was functionally illiterate and of very low socioeconomic status as a fisherman, and an appeal risked a heavier sentence if unsuccessful.

    Original Description:

    Criminal Procedure

    Original Title

    #29 People v Paradeza

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that it has the discretion to grant an appellant's motion to withdraw their appeal. The case involved an individual convicted of raping a minor with the mentality of a 6-7 year old. While normally withdrawal is allowed as a matter of right before the appellee's brief is filed, and at the discretion of the court after, the circumstances in this case merited allowing the withdrawal. Specifically, the appellant was functionally illiterate and of very low socioeconomic status as a fisherman, and an appeal risked a heavier sentence if unsuccessful.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    141 views1 page

    #29 People V Paradeza

    Uploaded by

    Pia Sotto
    The Supreme Court ruled that it has the discretion to grant an appellant's motion to withdraw their appeal. The case involved an individual convicted of raping a minor with the mentality of a 6-7 year old. While normally withdrawal is allowed as a matter of right before the appellee's brief is filed, and at the discretion of the court after, the circumstances in this case merited allowing the withdrawal. Specifically, the appellant was functionally illiterate and of very low socioeconomic status as a fisherman, and an appeal risked a heavier sentence if unsuccessful.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    #29 People v Paradeza, GR 144590, 7 Feb 2003

    QUISIMBING,J

    FACTS: At the time of the incident in Aug 1998, appellant worked as a fisherman
    engaged in catching bangys fry. The complainant, who has the mentality of a 6 to 7
    yr old, lived with her parents a few houses away from appellant.When arraigned,
    appellant with assistance of counsel de parte pleaded not guilty to the charge.
    However, RTC Zambales found the accused guilty of rape.appellant filed his notice
    of appeal anchored on the sole assignment of error that the court a quo gravely
    erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
    of rape. However, the PAO, as counsel for appellant, filed a motion to withdraw his
    appeal.

    ISSUE: Does the court have the discretion to grant the appellants motion to
    withdraw his appeal?

    RULING: YES.Under Rule 50, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the
    withdrawal of an appeal is a matter of right before the filing of the appellees
    brief. After that, withdrawal may be allowed in the discretion of the court. Said
    Rule is applicable to this case pursuant to Rule 124, Section 18 of the 2000 Rules
    of Criminal Procedure.In the present case, accused-appellants motion to withdraw
    his appeal was made only after the OSG had filed the Brief for Appellee. However,
    the Court had required appellant to file his Reply Brief per its Resolution dated
    December 10, 2001. It could therefore be said that the accused-appellant had not
    yet completed the process of filing briefs when he moved to withdraw his appeal, a
    situation which may call for a more liberal rule. Additionally, it is our
    impression that from the records of this case, appellant is hardly literate
    functionally and of very low socio-economic standing as a mere bangus fry catcher.
    In making his appeal, he is actually wagering his life as against his sentence
    below, a point not often stressed to or understood by the convict. In any event, we
    are persuaded that this Court admittedly has the discretion whether to grant or not
    the withdrawal sought.

    You might also like