THIRD DIVISION
FREDELITO P.
VITTO,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
134981
June 18, 2003
-versus-
THE HON. COURT OF
APPEALSAND
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
D E C I S I
O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is a Petition
for Certiorari[1]
seeking to set aside the Resolution dated August 6, 1998 of the Court
of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20245, "People of the Philippines vs. Danilo
Pajaron, et al.," denying petitioner Fredelito P. Vitto’s Motion For
Leave
Of Court To File Appellant’s Brief.chanrobles virtual law library
The facts are as follows:
Fredelito Vitto, petitioner,
together with Vic O. Pizarro and Danilo P. Pajaron, were charged with
homicide
under an Information filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 117,
Pasay
City, docketed as Criminal Case No. 94-5749.cralaw:red
After hearing, or on
October 23, 1996, the trial court rendered a Decision[2]
convicting all the accused of Homicide and sentencing them to six (6)
years,
four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor, as minimum, to
twelve
(12) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal,
as maximum.cralaw:red
All the accused interposed
an appeal to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No.
20245.
Since then, they have remained at large for failure to post bail on
appeal.cralaw:red
On November 13, 1997,
the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution[3]
requiring them to explain why their appeal should not be
deemed
abandoned in view of their failure "to submit themselves to the proper
authorities" during the pendency of their appeal.cralaw:red
On December 1, 1997,
petitioner, through counsel de parte, submitted his explanation stating
that he was not aware that he should surrender to the Court of
Appeals.
His counsel then requested an additional period, or up to December 20,
1997, within which (a) to contact the accused who is in Mindoro and
advise
him to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals; and
(b) to file the appellant’s brief.[4]chanrobles virtual law library
However, petitioner
did not present himself to the Appellate Court within the period
requested
by his counsel. Neither did he file an appellant’s brief.
Thus,
on March 31, 1998, the court issued a Resolution[5]
dismissing the appeal.cralaw:red
On July 21, 1998, petitioner,
through counsel, filed a Motion For Leave Of Court To File Appellant’s
Brief stating that his failure "to surrender himself to the
authorities"
and to file the brief within the time requested was because he works in
a remote farm in Mindoro and has no sufficient funds to pay for his
transportation
to Metro Manila.cralaw:red
In a Resolution dated
August 6, 1998, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion, thus:
"As the Resolution of
March 31, 1998 dismissing the respective appeals of the
accused-appellants
had already become final and executory on May 5, 1998 insofar as the
accused-appellant
Fredelito Vitto is concerned, the Motion for Leave of Court to File
Appellant’s
Brief filed by his counsel only on July 21, 1998 is DENIED outright."[6]chanrobles virtual law library
Hence, this petition.cralaw:red
Petitioner contends
that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction in denying his Motion For Leave Of Court To
File
Appellant’s Brief. He thus prays that the application of
the
Rules of Court be suspended in his favor and that his brief be admitted
considering his predicament.cralaw:red
In his comment on the
petition, the Solicitor General prayed that the petition be denied for
being unmeritorious.cralaw:red
Section 8, Rule 124
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure of 2000 provides:
"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.
"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)"
In People vs. Potajo,[7]
we held that an appeal by the accused is considered abandoned where he
fails to properly prosecute his appeal or does some act inconsistent
with
its prosecution, such as when he refuses to submit himself to the
jurisdiction
of the authorities.[8]
In the present case,
the record shows that petitioner, through counsel, asked the Court of
Appeals
for an extension until December 20, 1997 within which to submit himself
before it and to file the appellant’s brief.[9]
However, petitioner failed to comply with his commitment. Such
omission
is fatal to his appeal.[10]
Thus, the Court of Appeals, in its Resolution of March 31, 1998,
considered
petitioner’s appeal as having been abandoned and consequently dismissed
the same. The Resolution became final and executory on May 5,
1998.[11]
As such, the Appellate Court, in its assailed Resolution dated August
6,
1998, correctly denied petitioner’s subsequent Motion For Leave To File
Appellant’s Brief submitted on July 21, 1998, or more than two (2)
months
after the finality of the Resolution dismissing the appeal.chanrobles virtual law library
While petitioner, who
is being represented by a counsel de parte, wants to avail himself of
the
opportunity to prove his innocence, yet he insolently refused to submit
himself to the jurisdiction of the very same Appellate Court from which
he is seeking relief. Such actuation cannot be countenanced.cralaw:red
Petitioner’s claim that
he was not aware that he must surrender himself to the court is a
flimsy
excuse. It bears stressing that he was represented by counsel
throughout
the trial and while his case was on appeal. Considering that he
was
facing a serious charge, it was incumbent upon him to inform his lawyer
of his whereabouts and to inquire about the status of his case from
time
to time. In the same manner, his counsel should have exercised
the
required diligence incumbent upon him to acquaint his client regarding
the proceedings in the appellate court.chanrobles virtual law library
Indeed, the law cannot
protect a party who sleeps on his rights,[12]
or does some acts inconsistent with its prosecution.cralaw:red
In sum, we find that
the Court of Appeals did not act with grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing
petitioner’s appeal.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the instant
petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Panganiban,
Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, as amended.
[2]
Penned by Judge Leonardo M. Rivera, Rollo at 14-28.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Penned by Justice Demetrio G. Demetria and concurred in by Justices
Artemon
D. Luna and Hector L. Hofileña, Rollo at 31-32.
[4]
CA Resolution dated March 31, 1998, Rollo at 36.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Id. at 37.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Id. at 13.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
G.R. No. 57718, November 24, 1988, cited in People vs. Balanag, G.R.
No.
103225, September 15, 1994, 236 SCRA 474.
[8]
People vs. Balanag, id.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
CA Resolution dated March 31, 1998, Rollo at 36.
[10]
Torres vs. Orden, G.R. No. 4646, April 6, 2000, 330 SCRA 1.
[11]
CA Resolution dated August 6, 1998, Rollo at 13.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
Sy Chin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136233, November 23, 2000, 345
SCRA
673. |