ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 134134. October 23, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. CAMILO IMAM y PENACIDAO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 23 2000.

G.R. No. 134134 (The People of the Philippines v. Camilo Imam y Penacidao.)

On April 27, 2000, accused-appellant Camilo Imam y Penacidao filed an Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal. In view thereof, the Court appointed the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) as counsel de oficio for accused-appellant and required it to verify the voluntariness of his motion to withdraw appeal. The Court also required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on accused-appellant's motion.

On September 11, 2000, the PAO filed its Report/Compliance stating the following:

1. The undersigned has visited the accused (Camilo Imam y Penacidoa) today pursuant to the Resolution of June 7, 2000 and has verified the voluntariness of his motion to withdraw appeal.

2. The undersigned has adequately explained to the accused the legal effects/consequences of his withdrawal of appeal. He has examined him personally and is fully satisfied that the motion has been executed voluntarily and was filed on his own free will.

3. The accused is intending to apply for a parole with the Board of Pardons & Parole of the Department of Justice.

4. Hence, the case may be now regarded as closed and terminated.

For its part, the OSG notes that accused-appellant stated in his letter to this Court dated January 26, 2000 that he is withdrawing his appeal because he is not represented by private counsel, and expresses doubt whether accused-appellant fully understands the consequences of withdrawing his appeal. The OSG likewise notes that, as stated in the PAO's report, accused-appellant is withdrawing his appeal in order to apply for parole, and points Out that the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to accused-appellant since he has been sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Consequently, he is not qualified to apply for parole, in accordance with Act No. 4103. For these reasons, the OSG believes that accused-appellant has not been made aware of the consequences of the withdrawal of his appeal.

The foregoing observations of the Office of the Solicitor General are well-taken.

WHEREFORE, accused-appellant's motion for withdrawal of his appeal is DENIED. The Public Attorney's Office is hereby required to file within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof nine (9) copies of the Brief for accused-appellant, serving a copy thereof on the plaintiff-appellee.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE