ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 118945. January 25, 1999]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROSE de MATA y CAPIENDO.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 25, 1999.

G.R. No. 118945 (The People of the Philippines vs. Rose de Mata y Capiendo.)

This is an appeals from a decision, dated August 30, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 30) convicting accused-appellant Rose (Rosalinda) de Mata y Capiendo of large-scale illegal recruitment and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 and to indemnify private complainants Jocelyn A. Sarmiento, Ercelina P. Bautista, Maribeth G. Bautista, Elizabeth Salvador, and Ronabeth N. Villanueva in the amounts of P7,050.00, P8,050.00, P6,850.00, P3,500.00, and P9,000.00, respectively.

After she had filed her appellant's brief and the Solicitor General the appellee's brief, accused-appellant moved to withdraw her appeal without however stating her reason for doing so. The motion was signed by her in the presence of Filomena Uy and Rachel D. Ruelo, Fingerprint Examiner I and Superintendent IV of the Correctional Institution for Women, respectively.

In compliance with the Court's resolution, dated October 12, 1998, accused-appellant's counsel filed a Manifestation, dated November 24, 1998, stating that her conference with accused-appellant revealed that accused-appellant executed her motion to withdraw her appeal "freely and voluntarily with full understanding of the repercussions of the withdrawal of her appeal." For this reason, counsel prays that accused-appellant's motion be granted. On the other hand, in his Comment, dated January 4, 1999, the Solicitor General manifested that he has no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.

As the appellant has the right to withdraw his appeal subject only to the approval of the Court (People v. Redulosa, 255 SCRA 279 (1996)) and both accused-appellant's counsel and the Solicitor General interpose no objection, there appears to be no reason for denying her motion for the withdrawal of her appeal.

Accordingly, the Court RESOLVED to (1) GRANT the Solicitor General's first and second motions for extension of time to file his Comment on accused-appellant's motion to withdraw her appeal and to NOTE the aforesaid Comment as well as the Manifestation of accused-appellant's counsel and (2) GRANT accused-appellant Rose (Rosalinda) de Mata's motion to withdraw her appeal.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE