Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 124 Procedure

in the
Court of Appeals

Rule 124

PROCEDURE IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS
SECTION 1. Title of the case. In all criminal cases appealed to the Court
of Appeals, the party appealing the case shall be called the "appellant" and the
adverse party the "appellee," but the title of the case shall remain as it was
in the court of origin. (1a)
SEC. 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused. If it appears
from the record of the case as transmitted that (a) the accused is confined in
prison, (b) is without counsel de parte on appeal, or (c) has signed the notice
of appeal himself, ask the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals shall
designate a counsel de oficio.
An appellant who is not confined in prison may, upon request, be assigned a
counsel de oficio within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice to file brief
and he establishes his right thereto. (2a)
SEC. 3. When brief for appellant to be filed. Within thirty (30) days from
receipt by the appellant or his counsel of the notice from the clerk of court of
the Court of Appeals that the evidence, oral and documentary, is already
attached to the record, the appellant shall file seven (7) copies of his brief
with the clerk of court which shall be accompanied by proof of service of two
(2) copies thereof upon the appellee.(3a)
SEC. 4. When brief for appellee to be filed; reply brief of the appellant.
Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the brief of the appellant, the appellee
shall file seven (7) copies of the brief of the appellee with the clerk of court
which shall be accompanied by proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon
the appellant.
Within twenty (20) days from receipt of the brief of the appellee, the
appellant may file a reply brief traversing matters raised in the former but not
covered in the brief of the appellant. (4a)
SEC. 5. Extension of time for filing briefs. Extension of time for the
filing of briefs will not be allowed except for good and sufficient cause and
only if the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the time
sought to be extended. (5a)
SEC. 6. Form of briefs. Briefs shall either be printed, encoded or
typewritten in double space on legal size good quality unglazed paper, 330 mm.
in length by 216 mm. in width. (6a)
SEC. 7. Contents of brief. The briefs in criminal cases shall have the
same contents as provided in sections 13 and 14 of Rule 44. A certified true
copy of the decision or final order appealed from shall be appended to the brief
of the appellant. (7a)

The appellant is the tem applied to the party making the appeal. Appellee is the term
applied to the party in whose favor the decision is rendered.
Procedure in the CA. Halos pareho man din. It is almost similar in civil cases. The
accused will be required to file his brief (appellants brief), to be followed by the appellees
brief with the government, and if possible appellants reply brief.
Q: Now, who prepares the appellees brief?
A: The Solicitor General. This is their mastery.
Normally, the Solicitor General files the brief, maiksi lang masyado. Ive seen a lot of
briefs for the People of the Philippines. If I can see a brief which does not exceed 15 pages,
you are very lucky. Everything is there. Everything is condensed. Yet I wonder it takes
them several extensions to file. I dont think nahirapan silang mag-file nun. Tamad lang
siguro ba. Kaya galit man ang SC. There are so many SC resolutions berating the Solicitor
General for asking for a lot of extensions for a very simple matter. They always claim
pressure of work. Thats why the SC wants also to control the number of extensions of
time.

Lakas Atenista

208

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 124 Procedure

in the
Court of Appeals

I have seen a brief prepared by the Solicitor General in a criminal case. From 45 days,
extension, extension, extension umabot na siguro ng 150 days mga 5 months! Finally,
na-file. When I look at it, 8 pages lang. I was looking at the brief and then for eevry
assignment of error by the appellant, sinagot niya ng mga dalawang (2) paragraphs lang.
And when I look at the appellants brief, ka-kapal masyado! There are so many things
discussed why the court is wrong, why the court made an error. Sinagot ng Solicitor
General, tag 2 or 3 paragraphs lang!
So the appellants brief, mga 30 pages or more. Sinagot ng Solicitor General in 8 pages
only. And then after several years I asked the defense counsel kung tapos na ba ang kaso
mo. O ano man? Affirmed. Meaning, the conviction was affirmed. That is where you will
see that in order to win a case on appeal, IT IS NOT THE LENGTH OF THE BRIEF WHICH
MATTERS. IT IS THE SUBSTANCE. Substance is more important than length. The CA is not
impressed on haba. Mainis pa sila niyan because they have no time to read. This is a very
good lesson: THE LONGER IS YOUR PLEADING, THE LESS CHANCES YOU HAVE. Thats how
I looked at it. Even the SC, thats how they behave.
And there was somebody two weeks ago, who was asked to prepare a COMMENT. The
CA required that lawyer to comment. COMMENT Pwede na ba ito? Ano ba yang
comment mo? Gaano kahaba? Mga 15 pages. Eh mahaba eh! Bawat comment niya may
citations of authorities. Sige, paiiksiin natin ha? Tinanggal ko kadami kong tinanggal.
Umabot ng 3 pages na lang. Paano yung iba? Look, when the CA says, The petition is
hereby given due course. You are now required to file MEMORANDA that is now your
time. Bombahan mo na! Huwag kang mag-memorandum-memorandum sa comment. Pag
comment, sabihin mo lang na hindi ito puwede. Puwede ko pala tapusin ito in one day?
Of course! Sabi ko, in the CA or SC, it is not the length of your pleadings which matters but
the substance. Yan! Alright, lets go to Section 8.
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.
x x x x x

If the appellant will not file his appellants brief, the case is dismissed same in civil
cases except where the appellant is represented by counsel de oficio because the
counsel de oficio is really a court-appointed lawyer. So why will the accused suffer if the
court-designated lawyer is negligent? But if it is a lawyer of your own choice who failed to
file the brief, then you suffer the consequence.
Although we are talking of criminal cases, if you based it on the guidelines, it would
seem that when the CA dismisses the appeal, it should give a warning to the accused.
This is what the SC said in the case of
FAROLAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS
February 07, 1995
HELD: Under Sec. 8 of Rule 124, the failure to file the appellant's brief on
time may cause the dismissal of the appeal, upon either the motion of the
appellee or on the own motion of the appellate court, provided that notice must
be furnished to the appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be
dismissed. At least give him a warning.
But the exception to this rule has been clearly stated i.e. when the
appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.
The second paragraph of Section 8 is more important:

Lakas Atenista

209

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 124 Procedure

in the
Court of Appeals

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. (8a)

There is an appeal pending in the CA, the appellant escaped from prison or jumped
bail, or flees to a foreign country, under the 2nd paragraph of Section 8, his appeal will be
dismissed. Abandoned na! By his act of running away, the judgment of conviction will
become final.
This provision prompted the SC to also apply doon sa promulgation. Under Rule 120, if
during the promulgation the accused disappears, the promulgation will proceed in
absentia and then the law says the accused forfeits all his remedies. Why? Kung nagappeal siya, and then nag-layas siya, the appeal will be dismissed, lalo na kung di siya
nag-appeal! You will also lose your right to appeal. The reason according to the SC, once
the accused escaped from prison or confinement or jumped bail, he loses his standing in
court and 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. (Gimenez vs. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1)
We will now answer the question of Mr. Benito:
Q: When a person who is sentenced to death escaped, can the automatic review still
proceed? Or assuming there is already an automatic review and while he is in jail,
naglayas, and the SC learns of his escape, what will happen to the automatic review? Tuloy
or dismissed?
A: This is the question which bugged the SC in the 1996 case of PEOPLE vs. ESPARAS
(260 SCRA 539) which was asked in the 1998 bar in remedial law. The SC here is not
unanimous. Six (6) justices dissented from the majority. There are two sections compared
here Section 8 of Rule 124 and Section 10 of Rule 122.
PEOPLE vs. ESPARAS
260 SCRA 539 [1996]
ISSUE: Will the SC proceed to automatically review the death sentence of an
accused who was tried in absentia and remained at large up to the present time?
Or even if he appealed, and while the appeal is pending, he escaped?
HELD: The majority said YES. You cannot apply Rule 124 because of the
nature of the death penalty. There are 6 justices who disagreed.
Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court which, inter alia, authorizes the
dismissal of an appeal when the appellant jumps bail, has no application to
cases where the death penalty has been imposed. In death penalty cases,
automatic review is mandatory. This is the text and tone of Section 10, Rule 122,
which is the more applicable rule.
Ayun! So there is an applicable rule and not the general rule in Rule 124. Lets
go to the philosophy of the ruling:
There is more wisdom in our existing jurisprudence mandating our review of
all death penalty cases, regardless of the wish of the convict and regardless of
the will of the court. Nothing less than life is at stake and any court decision
authorizing the State to take life must be as error-free as possible. We must
strive to realize this objective, however, elusive it may be, and our efforts must
not depend on whether appellant has withdrawn his appeal or has escaped. Nor
should the Court be influenced by the seeming repudiation of its jurisdiction
when a convict escapes. Ours is not only the power but the duty to review all
death penalty cases. No litigant can repudiate this power which is bestowed by
the Constitution. The power is more of a sacred duty which we have to discharge
to assure the People that the innocence of a citizen is our concern not only in
crimes that slight but even more, in crimes that shock the conscience. This
concern cannot be diluted.

Lakas Atenista

210

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 124 Procedure

in the
Court of Appeals

(Of course, the SC anticipated criticisms bakit ba masyado kayong (SC)

protective of the rights of the accused? That is the reason why criminality is
rampant! But the SC answered that: )
The Court is not espousing a soft, bended, approach to heinous crimes for
we have always reviewed the imposition of the death penalty regardless of the
will of the convict. Our unyielding stance is dictated by the policy that the State
should not be given the license to kill without the final determination of this
Highest Tribunal whose collective wisdom is the last; effective hedge against an
erroneous judgment of a one-judge trial court. This enlightened policy ought to
continue as our beacon light for the taking of life ends all rights, a matter of
societal concern that transcends the personal interest of a convict. The
importance of this societal value should not be blurred by the escape of a
convict which is a problem of law enforcement. Neither should this Court be
moved alone by the outrage of the public in the multiplication of heinous crimes
for our decisions should not be directed by the changing winds of the social
weather.
Meaning, our decision shall not be influenced by the thinking of the people social
weather. And I think that is a very nice explanation why you should not apply Rule 124.
And the last important portion here to master is the second paragraph of Section 13:
SEC. 13. Quorum of the court; certification or appeal of cases to Supreme
Court.
X x x x x
Whenever the Court of Appeals find that the penalty of death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment should be imposed in a case, the court, after
discussion of the evidence and the law involved, shall render judgment imposing
the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment as the
circumstance warrant. However, it shall refrain from entering the judgment and
forthwith certify the case and elevate the entire record thereof to the Supreme
Court for review. (13a)

How can this happen that the CA finds the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment should be imposed? This happens normally in a situation like this: Mr.
Concon is charged with murder and the court convicted him only for homicide so
temporal yan. Where will he appeal? Sa CA because the penalty imposed is not death or
perpetua. The trouble is when the CA reviews the case and finds that the crime should be
murder pala!
Q: What should the CA do?
A: The CA should still decide and lay down the facts and the law as if it is the SC. And
then the CA should really impose the death penalty or reclusion perpetua. But it should
not enter judgment. After imposing death or perpetua, itapon sa SC, Please review our
work and find out whether we are correct. Yaan!
Automatically, the CA will not enter judgement but should elevate the case. So the SC
should have the final say on whether or not to adopt the findings and conclusions of the
CA. But definitely, the CA should not shirk from its responsibility of deciding the case on its
merits imposing the correct penalty of death or perpetua. That is that correct procedure
under the new rules.

editor-in-chief: mortmort editors: jayceebelle balite j-j torres michael peloton maying dadula jessamyn
agustin lyle santos paul ryan ongkingco dynn gutierrez maya quitain riezl locsin patrick tabar
maritess gonzales maricel culpable kenneth leyva jenny namoc ferdinand vido melissa suarez
rayda sullano rucel cayetano rod quiachon hannah examen myra montecalvo genie salvaa grace

Lakas Atenista

211

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 124 Procedure

in the
Court of Appeals

salesa leo gillesania gemma betonio jenny aquiatan michael pito karen de leon elma tormon
judee uy pao angeles jet pascua contributing editors: babang baldoza marlo masangkay

Lakas Atenista

212