SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
144590
February 7, 2003
-versus-
ROMEO F. PARADEZA,
Accused-Appellant. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
R E S O L U T I
O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
QUISUMBING,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At issue is whether
this Court could grant the motion to withdraw the appeal filed by
accused-appellant,
despite the opposition of the Office of the Solicitor General.
In the judgment[1]dated June 7, 2000, of the
Regional
Trial Court of Iba, Zambales, Branch 69, in Criminal Case No.
RTC-2511-I,
the appellant, Romeo F. Paradeza, was found guilty of rape and
sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the time of the incident
in August 1998, appellant was a resident of Macarang, Palauig,
Zambales,
where he worked as a fisherman engaged in catching bangus (milkfish)
fry.
The private complainant, Lailani Gayas, lived with her parents a few
houses
away from appellant. Lailani was then 26 years old but had the
mentality
of a child 6 to 7 years old.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 11, 1998,
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Zambales charged the
appellant
of rape allegedly committed as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about the
13th day of August, 1998, at about 7:00 to 8:00 o’clock in the evening,
at Brgy. Macarang, in the Municipality of Palauig, Province of
Zambales,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said
accused, with lewd design(s) and by means of force, threats and
intimidation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
intercourse
with and carnal knowledge of one Lailani E. Gayas, a woman with mental
disability and/or emotional disorder, without her consent and against
her
will, and the same accused knew of said disability of Lailani E. Gayas,
to the damage and prejudice of the latter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When arraigned, appellant
with assistance of counsel de parte pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Pre-trial
then ensued, during which the parties agreed to the following
stipulation
of facts:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. The
identity of the accused;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The
nickname of the accused is "Rago";chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. The
name of the victim was Lailani E. Gayas and they are neighbors in
Barangay
Macarang, Palauig, Zambales;
4. The
victim is mentally retarded, illiterate (could not read and write); andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. The
existence of the medical records issued by the Municipal Health Officer
of Palauig, Zambales, Dr. Nicanor Egalla.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The pre-trial conference
was then terminated and Criminal Case No. RTC 2511-I was accordingly
tried.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution’s evidence
established that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Early in the evening
of August 13, 1998, complaining witness was at their house in Macarang,
Palauig, Zambales with her younger brother Joseph, who was then
watching
TV.[5]
The victim was about to go out of their house when appellant, who was
about
to enter, grabbed her.[6]
Appellant then brought her back inside the house and laid her on a
bamboo
bed.[7]
He undressed her and removed her underwear. He took out a knife, which
he placed on top of the "banguera."[8]
The victim became very frightened as a result.[9]
Appellant then fondled her breasts. He undressed himself, went on top
of
private complainant, and inserted ("tinusok")[10]
his phallus ("buto") inside her vagina.[11]
She felt pain as a result and noticed blood flow from her private part.[12]
Appellant covered her mouth with his hands and told her not to tell his
wife, Vivian.[13]
Appellant then twisted her arms. After satiating his lust, appellant
used
her clothing to wipe her pudendum. Appellant dressed her. After putting
his clothes on, he went home.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private complainant
told her grandmother and her mother, Carmelita Gayas, about the
incident.
Carmelita later brought the victim to Dr. Nicanor Egalla, Municipal
Health
Officer of Palauig, Zambales for a medico-legal examination. Dr. Egalla
found the victim to be mentally retarded.[14]His examination of her private parts disclosed "Healed
laceration of
the
hymen at 3:00, 6:00, and 9:00 o’clock positions"[15] and a fresh "laceration at 6:00 o’clock position" of
the victim’s vulva.[16]Dr. Egalla declared that the genital injuries suffered
by private
complainant
were consistent with sexual intercourse.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The victim was also
referred by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to
Estrella B. de Sesto, a professional psychologist and guidance
counselor
of Columban College, Olongapo City, for a psychological examination.
Ms.
de Sesto found that while the victim had a chronological age of 26
years,
her mental ability was that of a 6-or 7-year-old child.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant raised the
defense of denial and alibi. He averred that at the time of the
incident
he was out at sea the whole night with his wife catching bangus fry.[19]Appellant declared that he then sold his catch to his
neighbor, one
Noel
Apsay, after which he went to sleep.[20] He also claimed that the
reason why he was charged with rape was due to
his refusal to heed the demand of the victim’s grandmother that he
vacate
the place where he was residing.[21]He also declared that private complainant was not a
credible witness,
as
she was widely known in their neighborhood to be a "flirt."[22]He
did admit knowing that the victim had a mental disability.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On rebuttal, the prosecution
presented Albert Araña, barangay captain of Macarang, Palauig,
Zambales,
who declared that he had known the victim for eight (8) years or so and
refuted appellant’s allegation that she was a woman of loose morals.[24]
He also testified that he knew the victim’s family and described them
as
a poor and peaceable family, not known for creating trouble in the
community.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court found
complainant to be a credible witness and, as earlier stated, convicted
appellant of the offense charged and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty
of reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Seasonably, appellant
filed his notice of appeal anchored on the sole assignment of error
that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
OF
THE CRIME OF RAPE.[26]cralaw
On April 3, 2002, however,
the Public Attorney’s Office, as counsel for appellant, filed a motion
to withdraw his appeal.[27]
Earlier, the Brief for the appellant was filed on June 1, 2001, and the
Brief for the appellee was filed on November 20, 2001. In our
resolution
dated July 17, 2002, we required the Solicitor General to comment on
said
motion.[28]The OSG, in its comment seeking stiffer penalties,
pointed out that
since
the appellee as well as the appellant already filed briefs, under the
Rules
of Court, the approval of appellant’s motion to withdraw his appeal is
now a matter of discretion on the part of this Court.[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is not amiss to point
out that at this time the case is not yet submitted for our decision.
The
only question before us now is whether or not to grant appellant’s
motion
to withdraw his appeal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Rule 50, Section
3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,[30]the withdrawal of an appeal is a matter of right
before the filing of
the
appellee’s brief. After that, withdrawal may be allowed in the
discretion
of the court. Said Rule is applicable to this case pursuant to Rule
124,
Section 18 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.[31]In the present case, accused-appellant’s motion to
withdraw his appeal
was made only after the OSG had filed the Brief for Appellee. However,
the Court had required appellant to file his Reply Brief per its
Resolution
dated December 10, 2001. It could therefore be said that the
accused-appellant
had not yet completed the process of filing briefs when he moved to
withdraw
his appeal, a situation which may call for a more liberal rule.
Additionally,
it is our impression that from the records of this case, appellant is
hardly
literate functionally and of very low socio-economic standing as a mere
bangus fry catcher. In making his appeal, he is actually wagering his
life
as against his sentence below, a point not often stressed to or
understood
by the convict. In any event, we are persuaded that this Court
admittedly
has the discretion whether to grant or not the withdrawal sought.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
An appeal is a "resort
to a superior (i.e. appellate) court to review the decision of an
inferior
(i.e. trial) court or administrative agency."[32]As a statutory remedy to correct errors which might
have been committed
by the lower court, the object of an appeal is simply and solely the
protection
of the accused.[33] The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and
is not a natural
right or part of the due process.[34]Like any other right or privilege, it may be waived.
If a fundamental
right
of an accused enshrined in the Bill of Rights, such as the right
against
self-incrimination or the right to remain silent, among others, may be
deemed waived depending on the circumstances of a given case, then with
more reason may the right to appeal, which is merely statutory, be also
waived validly, subject as in this case to the sound discretion of the
Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A person accused and
convicted of an offense may withdraw his appeal not only because he is
guilty as charged. There could be other reasons. It could be due to his
prior erroneous perception of the applicable provision of law,or of the decision itself. He may feel that to seek a
pardon might be
the
better and faster remedy. Regardless of his reasons, in our view, he is
within his rights to seek the withdrawal of his appeal. This option
should
not be closed to herein accused-appellant except for clearly important
substantial reasons of law and policy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant in withdrawing
his appeal has accepted and recognized that the trial court’s judgment
of conviction and his sentence thereunder is conclusive upon him. He
will
remain in custody of the law and will continue to serve the sentence
imposed
by the lower court as the final verdict.
His action should also be viewed as showing full respect for the
ultimate
authority of this Court, an essential element for an effective criminal
justice system under the rule of law in a democratic society. His
exercise
of the option to withdraw appeal before the case is submitted for this
Court’s decision, but fully cognizant of its legal consequences at this
stage of the case, not only saves the Court precious time and
resources.
It also opens soonest the path for the reformation of the contrite
offender,
pursuant to the ideal of a just and compassionate society envisioned in
our fundamental law. Considering the particular circumstances of this
case,
this Court is not without justifiable reasons to act favorably on his
motion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in the interest
of justice and in the exercise of the sound discretion of this Court,
the
Motion to Withdraw Appeal of accused- appellant ROMEO F. PARADEZA is
hereby
GRANTED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Mendoza, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Records, pp. 261-282.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at 282.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
TSN, November 25, 1998, p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Supra, note 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Supra, note 7 at 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id. at 10-11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
TSN, April 21, 1999, pp. 8-9, 19-22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Exh. 'A', Records, p. 7; TSN, April 21, 1999, p. 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Ibid; Id. at 10-12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Supra, note 14 at 12-13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
TSN, February 24, 1999, p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
TSN, June 30, 1999, pp. 4, 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id. at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id. at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id. at 7, 13-14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Id. at 10-11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
TSN, January 12, 2000, pp. 4-5, 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id. at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Rollo, p. 55.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Id. at 154-155.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Id. at 159.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Id. at 164.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
SEC. 3. Withdrawal of appeal. - An appeal may be withdrawn as of right
at any time before the filing of the appellee’s brief. Thereafter, the
withdrawal may be allowed in the discretion of the court.
[31]
SEC. 18. Application of certain rules in civil procedure to criminal
cases.
- The provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46, and 48 to 56 relating to
procedure
in the Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court in original and
appealed
civil cases shall be applied to criminal cases insofar as they are
applicable
and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979) 88.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
U.S. v. Laguna, 17 Phil. 532, 540 (1910).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
U.S. v. Yu Ten, 33 Phil. 122, 127 (1916).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |