Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 122
Appeal

Rule 122
APPEAL

SECTION 1. Who may appeal. Any party may appeal from a judgment or final
order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. (2a)
Q: What is appeal?
A: Appeal means a review of a decision of a lower court by a higher court. The higher court will
determine whether the decision of the lower court is correct, just, etc.
Q: May an accused appeal from a judgment of acquittal?
A: Normally, NO, because a judgment of acquittal becomes final immediately upon promulgation,
so why will you appeal? And why are you appealing if you are acquitted? You mean to tell me, you are
praying to be convicted? [sira!] However in the old case of
PEOPLE vs. MENDOZA
74 Phil. 119
FACTS: The accused was acquitted but the decision contained some harsh remarks
against the accused which the accused feels are irrelevant. So he decided to appeal from
the judgment of acquittal, not for the purpose of reversing it, but for the purpose of
removing all those harsh, irrelevant remarks against him in the decision.
HELD: The accused may appeal from a judgement of acquittal if it contains statements
that are irrelevant and should be expunged from the record, for the purpose of striking out
those statements.
Q: Can the People of the Philippines or the prosecution appeal in a criminal case?
A: It depends. If you read Section 1, it would seem so, for as long as the accused will not be placed
in double jeopardy. BUT if the appeal of the prosecution will place the accused in double jeopardy,
then he cannot appeal.
Q: Suppose the accused filed a Motion to Quash the information on this or that ground and the
court quashed the information but the quashing is wrong. Can the prosecution appeal from the
judgment of the court quashing the information?
A: YES, because the elements of double jeopardy would not be present. First, the dismissal is with
his express consent. And normally, a dismissal on a technicality is not considered as an acquittal. It is
just a dismissal where there is no trial. So puwede.
However, according to the Supreme Court, if the Motion to Quash is based on the grounds of
extinction of criminal liability, or double jeopardy, then the prosecution cannot appeal because that
would place the accused under double jeopardy. (Bandoy vs. CFI, 13 Phil. 157)
Q: How about an appeal by the prosecution because the penalty is wrong? The accused is
convicted but the penalty is very low. The penalty should be higher. So the prosecution is appealing
for the purpose of correcting the penalty. It should be higher. Can the prosecution do that?
A: NO, because that will place the accused in double jeopardy. (People vs. Cabarles, 54 O.G. 7051;
People vs. Pomeroy, 97 Phil. 927; People vs. Flores, April 28, 1958) In other words, the error will
remain as it is.
HOWEVER, based on jurisprudence, which you already knew, even if the accused is acquitted, but
the judgment of acquittal is NULL and VOID, then the prosecution is allowed to appeal because a void
judgment does not give rise to double jeopardy. (People vs. Balisacan, August 31, 1966)
Q: Now give an example of a case where the prosecution was allowed to appeal from a judgment of
acquittal, because the SC said the acquittal is null and void.

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 122
Appeal

A: A good example is what happened in the old case of People vs. Balisacan. This was already
asked in the BAR.
PEOPLE vs. BALISACAN
August 31, 1966
FACTS: The accused was charged with a certain crime which is not a capital offense.
Maybe the penalty is only reclusion temporal or prision mayor. And then during the
arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty. And sabi ng accused: Your Honor, may we be
allowed to present evidence to prove mitigating circumstance? You are guilty but you may
still present evidence to prove mitigating circumstances for purposes of reducing the
penalty. Do you know during the presentation of the evidence for the accused to prove
mitigating, he attempted to prove self-defense? And the court, after trial, said: self
defense? After the hearing, self defense pala. Okay, the accused is hereby acquitted.
Nagreklamo ang prosecution, Why will you acquit him when he already pled guilty?
ISSUE: Can the prosecution appeal the judgment of acquittal in the case at bar?
HELD: YES, the prosecution can appeal because the judgment of acquittal is NULL and
VOID. In the first place, the hearing is not for the purpose of proving his innocence. The
hearing is for the purpose only of proving mitigating circumstance so why will you give him
the benefit of justifying circumstance? Now what should be the correct procedure? You
just say mitigating and tapos you are proving self defense? Pag ganyan, the court will say:
Okay, self defense ba? The plea of guilty is hereby erased. Lets go to trial. Ayan. And
then the prosecution will present evidence.
But here, he pled guilty, mitigating, he proved self defense, ako (prosecution) hindi.
What happens now to the prosecutions right to prove the crime? Well at least the
prosecution should be given the right to prove the crime before acquitting him immediately.
So the SC said, the judgment of acquittal is null and void. Therefore, the prosecution can
appeal under Section 1 of Rule 122. It will not place the accused in double jeopardy
because of the void judgment.
Q: Aside from the accused, People of the Philippines unless there is double jeopardy, who can
appeal?
A: The offended party may appeal from any judgment, order or ruling which is adverse to his civil
rights or to the civil liability, or on pure questions of law (e.g. whether or not the information charges
no offense). Provided, he has not waived or reserved the right to file a separate civil action and the
civil action is deemed instituted, because the civil aspect is different from the criminal aspect. So the
offended party can appeal from that portion of judgment adverse to his civil liability.
Q: Who else can appeal?
A: The bondsmen can appeal in case of judgment against the bond in a forfeiture case. In bail,
what happens when the accused failed to appear? The court may order the confiscation or forfeiture
of the bond. And if the bondsman cannot satisfactorily explain why he failed to present the accused,
then judgment may be rendered, holding the bondsman/bonding company liable. Can he appeal? Ah
yes. He can appeal from the judgment making him liable for his bond.
Q: Who else can appeal?
A: The employer of the accused can also appeal from any order of the court making him
subsidiarily liable for the civil liability of the accused under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
So these are the people who can appeal in criminal cases. Alright.

SEC. 2. Where to appeal. The appeal may be taken as follows:

(a) To the Regional Trial Court, in cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court;

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 122
Appeal

(b) To the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the proper cases provided by
law, in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court; and
(c) To the Supreme Court, in cases decided by the Court of Appeals. (1a)
SEC. 3. How appeal taken. (a) The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the
Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction, shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which
rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon
the adverse party.
(b) The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court
in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42.
(c) The appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the
Regional Trial Court is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or where a
lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or which
arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which
the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed, shall be by
filing a notice of appeal in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the death penalty is imposed by
the Regional Trial Court. The same shall be automatically reviewed by the Supreme
Court as provided in section 10 of this Rule.
Except as provided in the last paragraph of section 13, Rule 124, all other appeals
to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. (3a)

Now the next question is where to appeal and how to appeal. We have Section 2. You have Section
3. Alright, let us try to outline. Actually its the same in civil cases.
Q: From the MTC, where will you appeal? What is the mode of appeal?
A: RTC, the mode of appeal is Ordinary appeal by a notice of appeal (Rule 40).
Q: How about MTC to RTC and then you are still convicted? Where will you appeal?
A: Court of Appeals by Petition for review (Rule 42).
Q: Now how about a case tried by the RTC (pursuant to its original jurisdiction)? The accused is
convicted, he wants to appeal to the CA? What is the correct mode of appeal?
A: Ordinary appeal by notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals (Rule 41)
NOTE: If it is RTC to CA, pursuant to the appellate jurisdiction of the RTC, the mode of appeal is
petition for review (Rule 42). If the case was tried by the RTC pursuant to its original jurisdiction, it is
ordinary appeal by notice of appeal to the CA (Rule 41).
Q: However, suppose the penalty imposed by the RTC is death, what is the mode of appeal and
where?
A: To the Supreme Court, no need to appeal, automatic review. Well, if you want to appeal, okay
lang. But even if you do not appeal, there is automatic review.
Q: Suppose the RTC convicted the accused and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment (not Death), where will you appeal?
A: You appeal directly to the Supreme Court (Ordinary Appeal, Rule 41) because under the
Constitution, Supreme Court yan e.
Q: In such case, is there an automatic review?
A: NO! You must appeal.
That is the common error no? Many lawyers believe there is automatic review. No! Automatic
review is only for death penalty. You are confused, sabi ko sa kanila noon. Hindi ba, Death sa SC
yan, reclusion perpeuta sa SC din? Under the Constitution, yes. O, di automatic review! No! The
automatic review is for the death penalty only. Kapag perpetua, you must file your notice of appeal.

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 122
Appeal

Otherwise, madisgrasya ka niyan. The only similarity is the appeal is to the Supreme Court. But
there is no automatic review for reclusion perpetua. You must file a notice of appeal, that is what I
said. Because na-confuse, eh. Kay alam nila sa Constitution, Supreme Court, akala nila na automatic
na rin.
GARCIA vs. PEOPLE
318 SCRA 434 [1999]
FACTS: The accused were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Their lawyer believed that
there is automatic review of the case so he did not do anything. The prosecution now moves
to enforce the judgment. The accused contended that there can be execution yet because of
the automatic review.
ISSUE: Must the SC automatically review a trial courts decision convicting an accused
of a capital offense and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua? In other words, is the
accused not required to interpose an appeal from a trial courts decision sentencing him to
reclusion perpetua to SC because the latters review of the sentence is automatic?
HELD: The issue is not new. We have consistently ruled that it is only in cases where
the penalty actually imposed is death that the trial court must forward the records of the
case to the SC for automatic review of the conviction.
As the petitioners did not file a notice of appeal or otherwise indicate their desire to
appeal from the decision convicting them of murder and sentencing each of them to
reclusion perpetua, the decision became final and unappealable.

Q: Now, how about CA to SC?

A: That is appeal by certiorari. That is paragraph [e] Except as provided in the last paragraph,
Section 13, Rule 124, all other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45. All other appeals, Ano yang all other appeals? All other appeals, not mentioned in a,
b, c, d. Ano yon? That is CA to SC. Or, RTC direct to the Supreme Court on questions of law only,
because normally pag RTC, dapat CA yan eh. But pure questions of law, diretso na iyan. Or, from
Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court. In case the Sandiganbayan convicts an accused, the appeal is
direct to the Supreme Court by petition for review.
Now lets go to some interesting cases on appeal. Take note, when an accused is sentenced by the
RTC to death, he can appeal to the SC. But even if he will not appeal, there will be an automatic
review. Now if he is sentenced to perpetua, he must appeal to the SC. Otherwise, the judgement will
become final. However, there was an interesting EXCEPTION which happened in the case of
PEOPLE vs. PANGANIBAN
125 SCRA 595
FACTS: The accused was charged in three (3) informations for murder and the three
cases were tried together. And there were three (3) decisions. He was convicted in all the
three murders. In the three cases for murder, he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua in one
and death for the other two. He did not appeal. Now of course, the cases where he was
sentenced to death, akyat yan sa SC.
ISSUE: How about the other case where he was he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua?
Should the SC also review the other one?
HELD: YES. Normally, hindi dapat eh, because he did not appeal. However, since these
3 cases were tried together, he committed murder allegedly on the same occasion, We might
as well review also the other one. So that is one instance where nakalusot no?
Where a criminal case for murder where accused was sentenced to perpetua, arose out
of the same occasion as two other criminal cases for murder where the same accused was
sentenced to death in a joint decision. The former shall be deemed appealed automatically

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 122
Appeal

jointly with the latter two cases, even if the accused did not appeal from the court sentence
of reclusion perpetua in the first case. It would be absurd to require accused, under the
peculiar circumstances, to file a separate appeal because the three criminal cases of which
he was convicted by the trial court in a single decision are so intertwined with each other,
the three cases having arisen on the same occasion.
Although there was a justice who dissented, Hindi pwede yan. He did not agree with the majority
ruling. We stick to the rule: kapag perpetua, you appeal. If you will not, hindi pwede. So dissenting
justice Aquino says, We cannot set aside that portion of the judgment imposing reclusion perpetua
because it is not under review. It has long become final and executory because there was no appeal
from that portion of the judgment. It should have been appealed in order to be reviewed by this Court.
That is the general rule. You cannot expect an automatic review in a penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Now another interesting case on death penalty was the case of PEOPLE VS. ENCISO, infra, which was
also controversial decision. The Supreme Court was not unanimous, no. Alright, what happened
here?
PEOPLE vs. ENCISO
160 SCRA 728
FACTS: Two accused were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide which is
punishable by death. They pleaded guilty. Considering the gravity of the crime, the trial
court ordered a mandatory presentation of evidence by the prosecutor.
After hearing, the court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the
death penalty. They did not appeal but the case was elevated to the Supreme Court on
automatic review. However, on appeal, the SC found the evidence insufficient.
HELD: Despite accuseds pleas of guilty, We believe the pleas must not be taken against
them, for as clearly borne out by the evidence presented, said guilt has not actually been
proved beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that they did not appeal is of no consequence, for
after all, this case is before Us on automatic review (that is whether appeal was made or
not), for after all, this case is before Us on automatic review, accused are acquitted on
reasonable doubt.
Again, there were four (4) justices who refused to concur. Ang kanila, of course there is
presentation of evidence, they argued, guilty. Tapos ni-review natin but diskumpiyado tayo, then just
impose perpetua, huwag mong i-acquit! Because they pled guilty na. But the majority, We will
acquit. [palag?] Another interesting case on appeal is the 1996 case of
MANUEL vs. ALFECHE, JR.
259 SCRA 475
FACTS: The petitioner here, Delia Manuel, filed a criminal case for libel against the
editor-in-chief, associate editor and asst. editor of a regional newspaper in the Western
Visayas, known as Panay News, which has considerable circulation in Panay Island and
throughout Western Visayas. After trial, Judge Alfeche found the accused guilty, so all the
accused were convicted, but Manuels claim for damages was dismissed.
Of course, both parties were aggrieved! The accused were aggrieved because they were
convicted. The offended party, Manuel, was also aggrieved because her claim for civil
liability was dismissed. So, the accused appealed the conviction to the CA because that is
where the appeal should go. Si Manuel naman raised the correctness of the judgement
depriving her of civil liability, on pure question of law, to the SC by way of appeal by
certiorari.
ISSUE: Is that procedure correct? Because nahati eh the offended party going to the
SC and the other party to the CA. Magkagulo na yan eh because that would practically be
splitting the appeal in two parts, no?

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 122
Appeal

HELD: While normally on questions of law, from the RTC to the SC should be by
petition for review. Now, because of this situation, everybody should go to CA. That is the
ruling in this case.
In view of the factual environment of this case, particularly that private respondents
herein had already taken an appeal to the Court of Appeals to question the trial court's
judgment of conviction, the proper remedy for petitioner is simply ordinary appeal to the
said tribunal.
This is so because the award of moral and exemplary damages by the trial court is
inextricably linked to and necessarily dependent upon the factual finding of basis therefor,
namely, the existence of the crime of libel. Inasmuch as the very same Decision herein
assailed is already pending review by the Court of Appeals, there is a distinct possibility
that said court may, if the facts and the law warrant, reverse the trial court and acquit the
accused. In such event, the appellate court's action could collide with a ruling finding merit
in petitioner's contentions before this Court. Such a situation would lead to absurdity and
confusion in the ultimate disposition of the case. Obviously, this possibility must be
avoided at all cost. This is at least the reason for the rule against forum-shopping. Clearly,
then, petitioner ought to have brought her challenge in the Court of Appeals although she
is appealing on pure questions of law. Nandoon na yong accused, eh. Sumama ka na lang
doon. Let one court decide the whole thing.

APPEAL FROM THE SANDIGANBAYAN

Q: If you are tried in the Sandiganbayan for, lets say, graft, you are a grade 27 employee of the
government or higher. If you are convicted, where will you appeal?
A: You appeal to the Supreme Court by way of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.
Now, the constitutionality or validity of that procedure was attacked in the case of :
NUEZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
111 SCRA 433
FACTS: The challenge in this case is that the Sandiganbayan law, at least on that
portion on appeal, is unconstitutional because what is violated is equal protection of the
law. Because for example: An employee who is below Grade 27 is tried for Anti-Graft, where
will case be filed? It should be filed in RTC. In case he is convicted, where will he appeal?
He will appeal in the Sandiganbayan. And then from Sandiganbayan to SC.
Or, in case he is a civilian, or the case is not Anti-Graft, that would be from the RTC to
CA, and CA to SC. If you notice in both examples, there are two levels of appeals, eh. Now,
if you are tried in the Sandiganbayan and you are Grade 27 or higher and you are
convicted, you appeal will be to the SC so, isang level lang. Bakit siya dalawa, ako isa
lang? So, the law is unconstitutional. It violates the equal protection of the law. It is
discriminatory that was the challenge.
HELD: The majority still sustained the validity. But there were three senior members of
the Supreme Court at that time who dissented.
They believe that the law is
unconstitutional - bakit all the rest dalawa ang appeal, ako isa lang? Among those who
dissented were Justice Teehankee, Makasiar and Fernandez. These were very influential in
the Supreme Court and they were the ones who voted to declare the law unconstitutional.
But the majority said it is valid.
Starting with that, the SC adopted the policy that if you are convicted by the Sandiganbayan and
you go to the Supreme Court on appeal by certiorari, we will carefully review the petition for review
because precisely, you are placed at a disadvantage. You have only one level, one appeal lang eh. And
therefore, it is our obligation to really review everything to see to it that you were correctly convicted. I
think that is what happened to Imelda Marcos, no? So the court said in the case of
CESAR vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 122
Appeal

134 SCRA 105

HELD: Considering further that no less than three senior members of this Court,
Justices Teehankee, Makasiar, and Fernandez dissented from the Court's opinion in Nuez
vs. Sandiganbayan partly because of the absence of an intermediate appeal from
Sandiganbayan decisions, where questions of fact could be fully threshed out, this Court
has been most consistent in carefully examining all petitions seeking the review of the
special court's decisions to ascertain that the fundamental right to be presumed innocent
is not disregarded. This task has added a heavy burden to the workload of this Court but it
is a task we steadfastly discharge.
In other words, it has become cumbersome, no? Because we have to be very careful. We have to be
very meticulous. Kaya it has become an added burden. We have no choice because the accused is
deprived of a second chance. This is his last chance, so we have to be very sure that he is really guilty.

SEC. 4. Service of notice of appeal. If personal service of the copy of the notice of
appeal can not be made upon the adverse party or his counsel, service may be done by
registered mail or by substituted service pursuant to sections 7 and 8 of Rule 13. (4a)
SEC. 5. Waiver of notice. The appellee may waive his right to a notice that an
appeal has been taken. The appellate court may, in its discretion, entertain an appeal
notwithstanding failure to give such notice if the interests of justice so require. (5a)
Q: Who is the appellant?
A: If you are convicted in the lower court and you appealed, you are the appellant.
Q: Who is the appellee?
A: People of the Philippines.
SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken. An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days
from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. This
period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial
or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion has been
served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins
to run. (6a)
Q: When do you appeal?
A: Under Section 6, fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the order
appealed from.
Q: What happens if you filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration within the 15-day period?
A: The same as in civil cases the filing of the motion for reconsideration will suspend the running
of the 15-day period to appeal until notice of the order overruling the motion has been served upon the
accused or his counsel, at which time, the balance of the period begins to run. That phrase was
added in the new rules At which time, the balance of the period begins to run. That is only
emphasizing what the rule should be.
So, the 15-day period does not start to run all over again. But you can still apply the balance if the
motion for reconsideration is denied. Now, itong tanong ko:
Q: Suppose the motion for new trial is granted. After new trial, convicted ka pa rin. So there will
be a second judgment. What is your period to appeal? Is it 15 days all over again? Or we count the 15day period from the first judgment, deducting the period during which the motion for new trial was
pending?
A: The SC said, the counting of the 15-day period starts all over again from the time you received
the second decision. (Obugan vs. People, May 22, 1995)

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 122
Appeal

Q: Now how do you reconcile that principle with Section 6?

A: Section 6 is different because here, the motion for new trial is denied but in the above example,
the motion for new trial was granted. But after new trial, convicted ka pa rin. So you start counting
the period to appeal all over again from the time you received the second judgement. And the SC cited
Section 6[c] of Rule 121.
Rule 121, SEC. 6. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration. The effects of
granting a new trial or reconsideration are the following:
xxxxx
(c) In all cases, when the court grants new trial or reconsideration, the original
judgment shall be set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered accordingly. (6a)
Q: What is the effect of a motion for new trial if it is granted?
A: Under Rule 121, the judgment is vacated. Meaning, it doesnt exist anymore. After new trial,
convicted all over, start na naman tayo. That was the ruling in the case of:
OBUGAN vs. PEOPLE
May 22, 1995
HELD: If a motion for new trial is granted, and after new trial, the accused is still
convicted, he has 15 days all over again to file an appeal because under Rule 121, the
previous judgment of conviction was already vacated. It does not exist anymore.
Thus the rule provides for the interruption of the appeal period in the event the motion
for new trial or reconsideration is overruled. The implication is that if the motion for new
trial is granted, as in the case at bar, and a new judgment is rendered after the new trial
was conducted, the period within which to perfect an appeal is fifteen days from receipt of
the new judgment.
Alright, lets go to another issue. You have two choices if you are convicted 1) File a motion for
reconsideration. 2) If denied, you appeal. Now, I will file a motion for reconsideration. And then while it
is still pending, there is still no order, I changed my mind, Appeal na lang ako diretso. I will not
anymore insist. Wala nang mangyayari diyan.
Q: Can I say, Im withdrawing my motion for reconsideration and I am instead substituting it with
a notice of appeal?
A: YES, because that is your choice. You can abandon your motion for reconsideration, withdraw it
and then file a notice of appeal. No problem about that.
Q: But I will now reverse the situation: Within 15 days after promulgation, I will file an appeal.
And then after 1 or 2 or 3 days, Teka muna. I will file muna pala a motion for reconsideration. Huwag
muna yang appeal, baka sakali pala. So I say, Im withdrawing my notice of appeal, and instead file a
motion for reconsideration. Can I still do that?
A: In the case of PEOPLE VS. DE LA CRUZ (201 SCRA 632), The SC said, NO, you cannot because
the moment you file your notice of appeal, the appeal is already perfected and the court has lost
jurisdiction already over the case and can no longer change its own decision.
So baliktad no? motion for reconsideration-withdraw-appeal, pwede. Appeal, and then withdraw
motion for reconsideration, hindi pwede! because the court has no more jurisdiction over the case.
Now lets go to Section 11, one of the most important provisions. Let us go to Section 11, no.
Effect of appeal by several accused.
SEC. 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. (a) An appeal taken by one or
more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the
judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 122
Appeal

(b) The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect shall not affect the
criminal aspect of the judgment or order appealed from.
(c) Upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of the judgment or final order
appealed from shall be stayed as to the appealing party. (11a)
paragraph [a]: An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not
appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.
Q: There are 2 accused. Both of them are convicted. One will appeal, the other will not appeal.
Suppose, the one who appealed, nanalo. Will it favor then other accused who did not appeal?
A: The GENERAL RULE is NO because if you do not appeal, the judgment of conviction will become
final as far as you are concerned.
However, there is an EXCEPTION if the ruling in the appeal also applies to you, you will be
favored.
For example: Two accused were convicted. One appealed, the other one did not appeal. On the
appeal sabi ng court, No. The victim was not killed. He committed suicide. Naloko na! Acquitted yun!
Paano na ako? Nakulong ako! It will also benefit you because the judgment of the appellate court is
also favorable and applicable to you. BUT if the ruling is only applicable to the appealing accused,
pasensya ka.
Like for example, both of you are convicted. You will not appeal, he will appeal. He will appeal
tapos sabi niya, Minor man ako! Minor! Tapos sabi ng appellate court , Ah, minor! He did not act with
discernment. Ok! Acquitted! So, paano ka? Maiwan ka, hindi ka man minor! The defense of minority
is not applicable to you.
Now, this provision has been applied already several times. Among the first cases where this was
applied was the case of:
PEOPLE vs. FERNANDEZ
186 SCRA 830
FACTS: There were two accused charged for selling marijuana, under the Dangerous
Drugs Act. Both of them were convicted. Accused No. 1 appealed, but Accused No. 2
jumped bail and remained at large. On appeal, the Supreme Court acquitted Accused No. 1
because of material discrepancies in the testimony of the star prosecution witness.
ISSUE: What happens now to the conviction of Accused No. 2, who escaped and did not
appeal his conviction?
HELD: It applies to the Accused No. 2. While, in effect, he committed an act of defiance
of the law by escaping, we are not without other prior incidents where such undesirable
conduct, which should not be condoned, has sometimes been ascribed to a sense of
desperation of those who believe they are guiltless but fear that they cannot prove their
innocence. While we castigate and reprove his jumping bail and remaining at large up to
now, we have to concede, however, that our disquisition in this case is applicable and
favorable to him, hence he is affected by and shall benefit from the acquittal that we hand
down in this appeal.
So acquitted kahit na nag-jump bail, because of this provisionSo with that, he can come out
openly. And the ruling happened again. The same thing happened in the 1996 case of PEOPLE VS.
PEREZ (263 SCRA 206). And one of the latest where this happened again is the 1998 case of
PEOPLE vs. RUGAY
291 SCRA 692
HELD: Finally, the Court notes that the conviction of appellant's co-accused, Arvil
Villalon, rests on the same evidence used to convict appellant. The Court finds that such

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 122
Appeal

evidence does not prove beyond reasonable doubt either of the accused's guilt. The
acquittal of Ricolito Rugay should also benefit Arvil Villalon, the withdrawal of the latter's
appeal notwithstanding.
Now lets go to [b]:
(b) The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect shall not affect the
criminal aspect of the judgment or order appealed from.
This is what I told you earlier that the civil aspect is different from the criminal aspect. It is
possible that the accused is acquitted but the offended party may appeal insofar as the civil aspect of
the case is concerned. It shall not affect the criminal aspect of the judgement or order appealed from.
Q: Normally, who will handle the appeal in criminal cases?
A: Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General handles the appeal.
BUT the SC said that if the appeal is only about the offended party, walang pakialam ang gobyerno
diyan! Let the offended party handle his own appeal and let him get his own lawyer to handle the
appeal. So the Court said in the case of
BERNARDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
190 SCRA 63
HELD: The Court has clearly settled the matter by ruling that despite a judgment of
acquittal, the offended party, private respondent in the case at bar, may appeal, only
insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned.
Such an appeal dispenses with the authority and representation of both the fiscal and
the Solicitor General, considering that the subject matter of the action involves solely the
interests of the offended party and hence, no longer concerns the State.
Lets go to paragraph [c]:
(c) Upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of the judgment or final order
appealed from shall be stayed as to the appealing party. (11a)
Q: What are the effects of a perfected appeal?
A: The following are the effects: parang sa civil procedure din
1. The execution of the sentence is stayed;
2. The trial court loses jurisdiction over the case because it is now transferred to the higher
court, the Court of Appeals.
3. Once you appeal, the entire case is open for review and you are waiving your right to double
jeopardy.
Thats what I told you. After appeal, baka mapasama ka pa. Ah, it happened several times. I
already mentioned what happened before, Falsification? The lawyer was sentenced to Falsification as
an accomplice. Appeal-appeal pa, so naloko na. Because it was originally charged to the principal.
Na-disbar pa! And there was a case where the accused was charged with murder, after trial, he was
convicted of homicide, hindi pa nakuntento. Nag-appeal pa. Ah! nabalik sa murder! Because there is
no more double jeopardy. You are now waiving everything and the whole case is now open for review.
Q: Now finally, can you withdraw an appeal?
A: YES. The procedure for withdrawing an appeal is found in Section 12:
SEC. 12. Withdrawal of appeal- Notwithstanding perfection of the appeal, the
Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be, may allow
the appellant to withdraw his appeal before the record has been forwarded by the clerk

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 122
Appeal

of court to the proper appellate court as provided in section 8, in which case the
judgment shall become final. The Regional Trial Court may also, in its discretion, allow
the appellant from the judgment of a Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court to withdraw his appeal,
provided a motion to that effect is filed before rendition of the judgment in the case on
appeal, in which case the judgment of the court of origin shall become final and the
case shall be remanded to the latter court for execution of the judgment. (12a)
Now there is one interesting case about withdrawing an appeal. Definitely, withdrawal of appeal is
your prerogative, eh. If you are convicted and you appeal and then later on you withdraw, that is your
prerogative. You are now accepting the judgement of conviction. Now lets see what happened in the
1996 case of
TEODORO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
258 SCRA 643
FACTS: Amado Teodoro was charged with the crime of grave slander by deed before the
MTC of Mandaluyong. He was convicted of the lesser offense of simple slander by deed and
sentenced to pay a fine of P110. So mababa. Hindi pa siya kuntento, Teodoro appealed to
the RTC. Of course, what is the procedure pag nasa RTC na? both parties will prepare a
memorandum.
After Teodoros lawyer had received a copy of the appeal memorandum of the
prosecution where the prosecution urged that Teodoro be held guilty of grave slander by
deed, not just simple slander as the MTC, pagbasa niya ng memorandum ng prosecution,
Naku, delikado pala ako dito! Basig masamot ba! So, okay na lang yong simple slander.
Bayad na lang ako ng fine of P110.
So he filed a motion to withdraw his appeal. Kay nakita niya, delikado pala e! Baka
mabalik sa dati, sa original ba. So he is now accepting the decision. He is now withdrawing
his appeal. Apparently, he realized that his appeal was likely to result in the imposition of a
higher penalty and he wanted to avoid that possibility.
HELD: Under Section 12 of Rule 122, the withdrawal of appeal is not a matter of right,
but a matter which lies in the sound discretion of the court and the appellate court. After
the parties in this case had been required to file their memoranda and the memorandum of
the prosecution had been filed and a copy served on appellant, it was too late for Teodoro to
move for the withdrawal of the appeal. It was apparent that petitioner's motion was
intended to frustrate a possible adverse decision on his appeal. That is what exactly
happened in this case. Withdrawal of the appeal at that stage would allow an apparent
error and possibly an injustice to go uncorrected. Justice is due as much to the State the
People of the Philippines as to the accused.
So even if he is accepting already the lower penalty, sabi ng Court, hindi na. Nag-file na yung
kabila ng memorandum, eh. So, tuloy na. I do not know what happened after that but definitely, he
was not allowed anymore to withdraw the appeal anymore. Yaan! That is the risk nga of appealing,
sometimes.
SEC. 13. Appointment of counsel de oficio for accused on appeal - It shall be the duty
of the clerk of court of the trial court, upon filing of a notice of appeal to ascertain from
the appellant, if confined in prison, whether he desies the Regional Trial Court, Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court to appoint a counsel de oficio to defend him and to
transmit with the record on a form to be prepared by the clerk of court of the appellate
court, a certificate of compliance with this duty and of the response of the appellate to
his inquiry. (13a)
Now, itong Section 13, it just says about appointment of counsel de oficio for accused on appeal.
Lets say you are convicted here. Appeal ka sa SC, bigyan ka man ng abogado ba by the SC if you
have no counsel. One of the practitioners in Manila will be appointed. Ive seen appeal briefs filed by

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal

Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 122
Appeal

counsel de oficio on appeal. And sometimes, the SC gets big lawyers as counsel the oficio. Yes, I have
seen their briefs . Although, I believe that these big lawyers in Manila who are appointed as counsel,
mga death penalty cases. They are the ones who prepare the brief, they are the ones who sign. But I
think an associate in their law office will help them especially when they are not handling criminal
cases. But you can see, sometimes they are more effective than a counsel de parte in the provinces.
Ive seen it, beautifully worded, ha. Ganda na pagkagawa ng mga brief.
Now one interesting case about appointment of counsel de oficio, is what happened in the 1991
case of
PEOPLE vs. RIO
201 SCRA 702
FACTS: The accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He was detained at the
National Penitentiary. He appealed. And then later, he wrote a letter to the SC, I am
withdrawing my appeal. I am no longer continuing my appeal because I cannot afford it.
Poverty prevents me from pursuing the appeal. The SC got intrigued, no? The SC issued
an order directing the clerk of Court to go to the National Penitentiary and look for this
accused to confirm if he did really send this letter to the Supreme Court.
So hinanap siya. Nakita. You wrote this letter? Yes. You affirm what you say? Yes.
Hindi ko kaya. Pobre ako, eh. I cannot afford the appeal. So, siya talaga. He is withdrawing
his appeal because of poverty. And the SC came up with this decision:
HELD: The right to a counsel de oficio does not cease upon the conviction of an
accused by a trial court. It continues, even during appeal, such that the duty of the court
to assign a counsel de oficio persists where an accused interposes an intent to appeal. Even
in a case, such as the one at bar, where the accused had signified his intent to withdraw
his appeal, the court is required to inquire into the reason for the withdrawal. Where it
finds the sole reason for the withdrawal to be poverty, as in this case, the court must assign
a counsel de oficio, for despite such withdrawal, the duty to protect the rights of the
accused subsists and perhaps, with greater reason. After all, those who have less in life
must have more in law. Justice should never be limited to those who have the means. It is
for everyone, whether rich or poor. Its scales should always be balanced and should never
equivocate or cogitate in order to favor one party over another.
So, sabi ng SC, your desire to withdraw because of poverty, denied! We will continue. We will
appoint a lawyer for you. We will get the best. So, tuloy ang kaso. And then, after reviewing the
evidence, sabi ng Court: You are guilty! [ha!ha!ha!] Guilty pa rin! But definitely, you will not be
allowed to withdraw. Yes, he was still found guilty in the case of Rio. Akala niya siguro, paboran siya
ng SC because he is poor. Ah, hinde. You are still guilty.