People v. Paradeza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Romeo F. Paradeza, was charged with rape for an incident allegedly occurring on August 13, 1998, against Lailani Gayas, a 26-year-old woman with the mentality of a 6-to-7-year-old child. The prosecution presented evidence detailing the sexual intercourse, including the use of a knife and threats. Medico-legal examination revealed healed and fresh lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse. A psychological examination confirmed the victim's mental disability. The accused raised the defense of denial and alibi, claiming he was out at sea. He also alleged the charge was motivated by a refusal to vacate his residence and characterized the victim as a "flirt." The prosecution presented the barangay captain in rebuttal, who refuted the victim's alleged loose morals and described her family as peaceable. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales, Branch 69, found the appellant guilty of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The appellant filed a notice of appeal, assigning as sole error the RTC's finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Petition: Subsequently, the Public Attorney's Office, counsel for the appellant, filed a motion to withdraw after both parties had filed their respective briefs. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the motion, arguing that the withdrawal was now a matter of discretion. This Court required the Solicitor General to comment and subsequently considered the motion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court may grant the motion to withdraw the appeal filed by the accused-appellant after the appellee's brief has been filed. Whether the accused-appellant's conviction for rape should be upheld.
Ruling
The Court GRANTED the Motion to Withdraw Appeal of accused-appellant Romeo F. Paradeza in the interest of justice and in the exercise of its sound discretion. The conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court are deemed conclusive upon the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of withdrawal of appeal: The Court reiterated that under Rule 50, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an appeal may be withdrawn as a matter of right before the filing of the appellee's brief. Thereafter, the withdrawal is allowed in the discretion of the court. Applying this to the present case, the motion to withdraw was filed after the appellee's brief was submitted. However, the Court noted that the appellant had not yet completed the filing process as a Reply Brief was still required. The Court also considered the appellant's apparent illiteracy, low socio-economic standing, and the gravity of the sentence, which represented a wager of his life. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and can be waived. Therefore, the Court exercised its discretion to grant the withdrawal in the interest of justice, recognizing that the appellant accepted the trial court's judgment as conclusive and was showing respect for the Court's authority. This action also saved judicial resources and allowed for the potential reformation of the offender. On the issue of conviction for rape: This issue was rendered moot by the granting of the motion to withdraw the appeal. By withdrawing his appeal, the accused-appellant effectively accepted the trial court's judgment of conviction and the sentence of reclusion perpetua. He will continue to serve the sentence imposed by the lower court as the final verdict, and the conviction stands as conclusive upon him. The Court's decision to grant the withdrawal signifies that the appellant is no longer challenging the conviction, thereby rendering the substantive issue of his guilt moot for the purpose of appellate review.
Main Doctrine
The withdrawal of an appeal filed by an accused, after the appellee's brief has been filed, is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, which may be granted in the interest of justice, considering the circumstances of the case and the accused's situation.