People v. Redulosa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants Romeo Redulosa and Roselo Carton were found guilty by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City of kidnapping for ransom with murder and were sentenced to death. The information alleged that on December 3, 1981, they kidnapped Christopher Jason Tan, aged 9, demanding P100,000.00 ransom, and upon failure to pay the full amount, killed the child with treachery, abuse of superior strength, evident premeditation, and disregard for the victim's age. Noel Tano testified that Redulosa proposed the kidnapping of Christopher Jason Tan, the son of Luisita and Tomas Tan, who was a first cousin of Redulosa, with Roselo Carton included in the plan. Several attempts to lure the boy failed, with the third attempt involving Redulosa driving a taxicab to bump Tomas Tan's car, after which Tano and Carton would snatch the child by pretending to be military men; this also failed, and Tano withdrew from the plan. Tomas Tan testified that on December 3, 1981, a man phoned demanding P100,000.00 ransom, later reduced to P15,000.00, to be left near the Taoist Temple, with a subsequent call indicating the ransom was raised to P50,000.00 and a promise to call again, which never happened. The police, led by Sgt. Godofredo Lucasan, apprehended Noel Tano, who pointed to Redulosa. Redulosa executed an extra-judicial confession implicating Carton and led the police to where Jason's body was found, identified by dental records. Redulosa claimed Sonny, a military man introduced by Tano, was the mastermind seeking revenge and money, and that Sonny and Tano forced him at gunpoint to go to the school, where Tano brought Jason, proceeding to Redulosa's residence for the ransom call. Redulosa claimed he tried to leave to report to the police but was forced back by Sonny, who later took Jason in Carcar and told Redulosa to return to Cebu City. Procedural History: The RTC found Redulosa and Carton guilty, appreciating the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and use of a motor vehicle, and sentenced them to death. Carton escaped from detention, and his appeal was dismissed. Redulosa filed an "Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal" from his prison cell. The Petition: Appellant Romeo Redulosa filed an urgent motion to withdraw his appeal. The Court required the Public Attorney's Office to comment, and Atty. Froilan Valdez confirmed the withdrawal was voluntary and with full understanding. The Solicitor General found no valid reason to object, and the Court granted the motion.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant can withdraw his appeal. Whether the imposition of the death penalty is still applicable given the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution.
Ruling
The Court GRANTED appellant Romeo Redulosa's motion to withdraw his appeal and DISMISSED the appeal. The case was REMANDED to the trial court for execution of its decision with the modification that the penalty of death is reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of withdrawal of appeal: The Court held that an accused has the right to withdraw his appeal, subject to the approval of the Court. This right is not affected by the fact that the death penalty imposed was automatically commuted to reclusion perpetua by the 1987 Constitution. The Court noted that the case remained in the Supreme Court only because the appellant chose to continue with his appeal. However, just as he had the right to continue, he also had the right to terminate the appeal by withdrawing it. Both the appellant's counsel and the Solicitor General urged the approval of the motion, indicating no valid objection. On the applicability of the death penalty: The Court reiterated that the death penalty imposed on the appellant was automatically reduced to reclusion perpetua in view of Article III, Section 19(1) of the Constitution, which took effect on February 2, 1987. The Court clarified that the subsequent enactment of R.A. No. 7659, which reimposed the death penalty for heinous crimes, does not apply to crimes committed prior to its effectivity. The Court cited the Constitutional Commission's records, which indicated that any new law reimposing the death penalty would be prospective in character. Therefore, the appellant could not be subjected to the death penalty under the new law for a crime committed before its enactment.
Main Doctrine
An accused has the right to withdraw his appeal, even after the death penalty imposed has been automatically commuted to reclusion perpetua due to the abolition of the death penalty, provided the motion is made with the assistance of counsel and with full understanding of the consequences.