ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 129255.July 18, 2001]

PEOPLE vs. FELICITO MARTINEZ

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 18 2001.

G.R. No. 129255(People vs. Felicito Martinez.)

This resolves the Manifestation with Motion for Reconsideration ¹ Rollo, p. 73.filed by Atty. Ramir P. Sirios, counsel for accused-appellant, and the letter of his client by way of comment on the manifestation of his counsel. ² Id., p. 93.

On 13 April 1998 the Court required Atty. Sirios to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failure to file the appellant's brief and to comply with the resolution requiring him to file such brief. ³ Id., p. 51.On 29 June 1998 the Court imposed a fine of P1,000.00 on Atty. Sirios and required him to comply with the Resolution of 13 April 1998 by submitting the explanation and the appellant's brief. ⁴ Id., p. 52.However, Atty. Sirios still failed to file the appellant's brief and to pay the P1,000.00 fine, prompting the Court to issue its 21 June 1999 Resolution increasing the fine to P2,000.00 and reiterating its order to submit the explanation and the appellant's brief. ⁵ Id., p. 54.On 17 January 2000 Atty. Sirios was cited in contempt and was ordered to be detained until he complied with the Resolution of 21 June 1999. ⁶ Id., p. 55.

On 16 June 2000 Atty. Sirios filed a Manifestation with Motion for Reconsideration. He claimed that (a) sometime in the middle of March 1997 accused-appellant's wife informed him that they had decided to withdraw their appeal and asked him to turn over all the records of the case to them; (b) if ever they would change their minds and pursue the appeal they would procure the services of the Public Attorney's Office or another counsel from Manila; (c) although he maintained an office at his residence in Iriga City he spent most of his time in Naga City where he joined his sister's law office; (d) from the time he transferred to his sister's law office he had not heard anything about the accused-appellant's case, neither did she receive any notice regarding such matter; (e) he learned that accused-appellant's family was residing in Metro Manila; and, (f) except for some orders issued by the trial court, he could no longer locate any records or papers regarding the case of accused-appellant, thus making it impossible for him to draft and file the brief required by the Court. ⁷ Id., pp. 62-65.

On 16 August 2000 the Court noted Atty. Sirios' Manifestation with Motion for Reconsideration and his payment of the P2,000.00 fine but deferred any action on the said Manifestation until the accused-appellant submitted his comment on his counsel's allegations that he was no longer in possession of the records of the case and was unable to contact the accused-appellant's wife and family. Accused-appellant was also directed to inform the Court if he wanted to be assisted by a counsel de oficio in case the allegations of Atty. Sirios were true. ⁸ Id., p. 80.

In his letter entitled "(Legal Assistance) Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal" accused-appellant claims that (a) it appears that Atty. Sirios is no longer in possession of the records of the case; (b) aforesaid counsel is unable to contact accused-appellant's wife and family; (c) despite several letters to them accused-appellant himself has also lost contact with his wife and family; (d) accused-appellant wants to be assisted by counsel to help him in his motion to withdraw appeal; and, (e) he voluntarily withdraws his appeal and fully understands its legal consequences. ⁹ Id., pp. 93-94.

Since the allegations of Atty. Sirios in his Manifestation with Motion for Reconsideration were confirmed by accused-appellant's letter, counsel should be excused from filing the appellant's brief. Without any records of the case it is impossible for him to adequately prepare a brief for his client.

In his letter, accused-appellant also seeks the assistance of counsel to withdraw his current appeal. He adds that he is voluntarily making such withdrawal and is fully aware of the consequences of such action. Despite such claims this Court must ascertain if accused-appellant really understands the effects of the withdrawal of his appeal considering that he stands convicted of robbery with rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Thus, a counsel de oficio should be appointed to confer with accused-appellant who shall then inform the Court whether accused-appellant still intends to withdraw his appeal after knowing fully the legal consequences of such withdrawal.

With regard to the Resolution of 21 March 2001 ¹⁰ Id., p. 91.which required the postmaster concerned to explain the reason for the return of the Resolution of 13 December 2001 and the meaning of the notation 'OD' on the cover envelope of the registered mail, the Chief of the Administrative Section, Central Post Office, Manila, in a letter to the Court, requests the registry number and the date of mailing, or at least a photocopy of the cover envelope for her reference and to facilitate tracing thereof.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court before acting on the Motion for Reconsideration of Atty. Ramir P. Sirios Resolves to REQUIRE Atty. Sirios to confer personally with accused-appellant to ascertain whether his withdrawal of his appeal is voluntarily made, with assistance of counsel, and with full knowledge of its legal consequences, and to SUBMIT a report thereon to this Court, both within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof.

The Court further Resolves to DIRECT the Division Clerk of Court to furnish Ms. Viola D. Salvador, Chief of the Administrative Section, Central Post Office, Manila, with the registry number and date of mailing or a photocopy of the cover envelope of subject registered mail.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE