People v. Galicgic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellants, Joseph Galicgic y Wakangan, Augusto Pespes y Pakidao, and Wilbur Aligayen y Tinong, were found guilty of illegal possession of ten kilos of marijuana by the trial court. Procedural History: Judge Antonio Belen, who handled the case, retired from the service. Judge Emilio Angeles received notice of the Supreme Court's resolution requiring him to investigate the whereabouts of accused-appellant Joseph Galicgic on July 21, 1999, leading to a delay in filing the compliance. Appellant Galicgic, along with his co-accused, escaped from the provincial jail of Lingayen on June 10, 1995. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal. Atty. Armando G. Mislang, Sr. filed a motion to withdraw his appearance, stating that appellants Pespes and Aligayen secured new counsel, and he lost contact with the relatives of appellant Galicgic. Judge Angeles filed an explanation and compliance regarding the whereabouts of appellant Galicgic.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal of an escaped accused should be dismissed. Whether the motion to withdraw appearance of counsel should be acted upon.
Ruling
The appeal of appellant Joseph Galicgic y Wakangan is DISMISSED. Action on Atty. Mislang's motion to withdraw appearance is deferred. Appellants Pespes and Aligayen are required to furnish the Court with the name and address of their new counsel or to inform the Court if they wish to be represented by a counsel appointed by the Court within ten days from notice.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the appeal of an escaped accused: The Court, in its resolution, noted the explanation and compliance filed by Judge Emilio Angeles. It was established that appellant Joseph Galicgic, along with his co-accused, had escaped from the provincial jail of Lingayen on June 10, 1995. In view of this escape, the Court found it necessary to dismiss the appeal of appellant Galicgic. This action is consistent with the established principle that an appeal is deemed abandoned or dismissed when the appellant evades the jurisdiction of the court, particularly when they escape from confinement. The purpose of the appeal process is to allow for a review of the conviction, but this review is predicated on the accused being available to face the consequences of the judgment, whether affirmance or reversal. An escape signifies a disregard for the judicial process and the authority of the court, thereby rendering the appeal moot and academic from the perspective of the escaped convict. On the motion to withdraw appearance: The Court deferred action on the motion to withdraw appearance filed by Atty. Armando G. Mislang, Sr. This deferral was due to the circumstances surrounding the case, including the escape of one appellant and the need to ascertain the representation of the other appellants. The Court recognized that the appellants Pespes and Aligayen had secured the services of another lawyer, but also noted that Atty. Mislang had lost contact with the relatives of appellant Galicgic. To ensure due process and proper representation for all parties, the Court required the detained appellants, Pespes and Aligayen, to provide the name and address of their new counsel or to indicate their desire for court-appointed counsel within a specified period. This measure aims to guarantee that all appellants are adequately represented before the Court.
Main Doctrine
An appeal by an accused who has escaped from confinement shall be dismissed.