Foralan v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Fernando Foralan was charged with qualified theft. After conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), petitioner, acting by himself, filed a notice of appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA). Although the notice of appeal was signed by petitioner alone, the Special and Appealed Cases Division (SAC Division) of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) received a Notice to File Brief from the CA, requiring the filing of the appellant's brief within 30 days from receipt, or until October 5, 1992. Procedural History: The SAC Division received the complete records of the case only on October 5, 1992. Consequently, on October 6, 1992, the SAC Division filed a Notice of Appearance with a Motion for a Fresh Period of thirty days to file the appellant's brief. This motion was dismissed by the CA on October 15, 1992, for failure to file the brief within the reglementary period. The SAC Division moved for reconsideration, arguing that the CA failed to consider Section 8, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, particularly the exception for appellants represented by a counsel de officio. The Petition: The CA denied the motion for reconsideration. The CA ruled that the absence of prior notice was cured by the filing of the motion for reconsideration and that the counsel for the accused-appellant was not a counsel de officio but a de parte counsel. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which issued a temporary restraining order.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of petitioner's appeal by the respondent court, upon its own motion, on the ground that the appellant's brief was filed out of time, was in accord with Section 8, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, and whether proper notice was given to the appellant. Whether the petitioner was represented by a counsel de officio or de parte, and the implications for the notice requirement before dismissal of the appeal.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals is ordered to REINSTATE petitioner's appeal in CA-G.R. CR No. 11466, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Fernando Foralan". The temporary restraining order issued on May 3, 1993, is made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the dismissal of the appeal: The Supreme Court found that the motu proprio dismissal by the respondent court of petitioner's appeal was not proper. It clarified that under Section 8, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, the failure to file the appellant's brief on time may cause the dismissal of the appeal, either upon motion of the appellee or on the appellate court's own motion, provided that notice must be furnished to the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. The Court emphasized that the rule requires notice to the appellant before dismissal, unless an exception applies. On the exception for counsel de officio: The Court highlighted that Section 8, Rule 124 explicitly provides an exception to the notice requirement: when the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio. The respondent court erred in dismissing the appeal, insisting that petitioner was represented by a de parte counsel, when the facts strongly indicated otherwise. The Court reasoned that petitioner was initially represented by a counsel de officio at the inception of the trial, and upon filing the notice of appeal by himself, the respondent court's act of requiring the Public Attorney's Office to file the appellant's brief effectively amounted to the court's appointment of a counsel de officio to represent the petitioner. Therefore, the exception applied, and the dismissal without proper notice was improper.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of an appeal due to the late filing of the appellant's brief is not mandatory when the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio, and the appellate court must provide notice to the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, unless the exception for counsel de officio applies.