Appeal

 It is a proceeding
 For review
 By which the whole case
 Is transferred to the higher court
 For a final determination
 It is not an inherent right of a convicted person
 The right of appeal is statutory
 Only final judgments and orders are appealable

No double jeopardy – in an appeal by the prosecution from the order of dismissal

1) The dismissal is
 Made upon motion
 Or with the express consent of the accused
2) The dismissal is
 Not an acquittal
 Or based upon consideration of the evidence or of the merits of the
case
3) The question to be passed
 Upon by the appellate court
 Is purely legal
 So that should the dismissal be found incorrect
 The case would have to be remanded to the court of origin
 For it to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused

When is there double jeopardy?

 Case was dismissed after trial on the merits
 An appeal by petition for review on certiorari filed by the prosection
 To set aside the order of dismissal
 Would constitute double jeopardy

Double Jeopardy
 The rule on double jeopardy
 Means that when a person is charged with an offense
 And the case is terminated either by conviction or acquittal,
 Or in any manner without the consent of the accused,
 The latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense

Requisites
 A first jeopardy must have validly attached prior to the second
o There is a valid complaint or information
o Filed with the court of competent jurisdiction
o Arraignment
o Plea
 o The defendant is acquitted, convicted, or the case was dismissed
o The judgment should be final and executory, and that it has to be
promulgated
 The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated
 The second jeopardy must be for the same offense or the second offense
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first
information or is an attempt to commit the offense or a frustration thereof

State the procedure in appeals in criminal cases

1) letter A
 Cases decided by an inferior court
 Is appealable to the RTC
 The decisions therein,
 In its exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
 Is appealable
 On the questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law,
 To the court of appeals by petition for review
2) Letter B
 Cases decided by the Regional Trial Court
 In the exercise of its original jurisdiction,
 Where the penalty imposed is lower than Reclusion Perpetua
 Are appealable to the Court of Appeals
 On the question of fact, of law, or of mixed questions of fact and of law
 By regular appeal
3) Letter C
 Cases decided by the Regional Trial Court
 Whether in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction
 BUT the appeal wherefrom is purely on questions of law,
 Are appealable to the Supreme Court
 By petition for review
4) Letter D
 Cases decided by the Regional Trial Court
 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
 Or where a lesser penalty is imposed by it
 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 reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
 Is imposed by law
 Are appealable on both questions of fact and law
 To the Court of Appeals
 By regular appeal
5) Letter E
 Special cases decided by the inferior court and the RTC but appealable to the
Sandiganabayan are governed by the same procedure, in a and b,
respectively as to the mode of appeal
6) Letter F
 Cases decided by the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan
 Whether in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction
 Are appealble on questions of law
 To the supreme court
 By petition for review on certiorari

Yu vs. Samson-Tatad (2011)

 May 26, 2005: RTC convicted the petitioner of estafa.
 She then filed a motion for new trial.
 November 3, 2005: receipt of the denial of her motion for new trial.
 November 16, 2005: petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the RTC
(petitioner alleges she is under the fresh period of 15 days from November 3,
2005 or until November 18).
 December 8, 2005: prosecution filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for being
filed 10 days late, hence, not applicable to appeals in criminal cases
 January 26, 2006 : Petitioner filed the present petiion: prohibition with
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of
preliminary injuction to enjoin the RTC from acting on the prosecution’s
motion to dismiss the appeal and for the exection of the ceision

Issue: Fresh period rule to apply to appeals in criminal cases

Ruling:
 Yes, to standardize the appeal period provided in the Rules and do
away with the confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period should
be counted.
 The 15-day period to appeal is no longer interrupted by the filling of
a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration, litigants today
need not concern themselves with counting the balance of a 15-day
period to appeal since the 15-day period is now counted from the
receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for
reconsideration or any final order or resolution.
People vs. Sanico (2015
 Tresspnassing and theft of minerals in the MCTC of Catmon-Sogod,
Cebu
 After trial – April 2, 2009 conviction—him and his co-accused, Marsio
Batiguin with violation of Sec. 103 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995
 Acquitted them of tresppasin
 Damages in favor of complainant Tenio
 Apr. 22, 2009 – Jose’s counsel filed a Notice of Appeal of the MCTC
judgment
 Jan. 5, 2010 – RTC ordered to file his memorandum on appeal, to which
Jose did not comply
 RTC dismissed the appeal
 Atty. Canete, filed his motion for reconsideration, averring that Jose
was preoccupied with the condition of his ailing wife who subsequently
died,
 Counsel – Atty. Baring suffered from a medical condition which caused
her to forget how she got the case and whom to contact as principal
counsel
 RTC denied
o Lack of verification and affidavit of service
o Then counsel filed a petition for review with the CA
 CA – dismissed the petition for review. why?
o Docket fees were not paif
o No proper proof of service of the petition for review on the
adverse party
o Petitioner did not furnitsh to the RTC a copy of the petition fore
review
o Affidavit of service was absent
o No written explantion for not resorting to personal filing
o Copies of pleadings and other material portions of the record
were attached
o Verification and certification of non-forum shopping did not
contain competent evidence of identity of the petitioner
 Then motion for reconsideration
o CA denie it
o Jose was biund by the mistakes of his counsel
o RTC granted Tenio moved for ussuance of writ of execution and
the record of the case indicated that it was granted and serveral
properties of Jose were levied on execution
 Jose then elevated his case to the Supreme Court
o RTC erred in dismiising his appeal for non filing of the
momemordaum on Appeal. CA erred in the not reversing the
RTC orders, and finding him liable for the mistakes of his
counsels
  ISSUe: W/O the non-filing of the memorandum of appeal by Jose merits
the dismissal of his appeal by the RTC
No. RTC to dismiss the appeal only in civil cases, why? Because Sec. 9 imposes
on the RTC the duty to decide the appeal = on the baseis of the entire record of
the case and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been filed

Hernan vs Sandiganbayan (2017)

People vs Bitanga (2007)

Final Order
 Disposes of the whole subject matter
 Or terminates a particular issue
 Leaving nothing to be done
 But to enforce
 By execution
 What has been determined