CRIM PRO DIGEST: People v. Rocha, et.al. (GR No. 173797)

 Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on Rule 122: Transmission of Records in Case of Death Penalty


GR No. 173797                    August 31, 2007


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,


v.


EMMANUEL ROCHA alias "Nopoy" and RUEL Ramos alias "Aweng", Accused-Appellants.


CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:


DOCTRINE:

The Doctrine of Mandatory Review applies when the penalty imposed is death, requiring an automatic review by the Supreme Court.


FACTS:

  • In 1994, an Information was filed against Emmanuel Rocha, Ruel Ramos, and others for robbing BPI on September 28, 1993, resulting in the deaths of security guards Roger Tarroquin and Tito Homeres.

  • The RTC found them guilty in 1999, imposing reclusion perpetua. However, Trumpeta and Cenita, co-accused, initially appealed but later withdrew their appeal in 2001.

  • Following the People v. Mateo decision in 2004, the case moved to Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC decision wit clarification.

  • Rocha and Ramos appealed to the Supreme Court, prompting the requirement for supplemental briefs.

  • In 2006, Rocha filed a motion to withdraw that appeal, expressing an intent to apply for parole.

  • In 2007, Ramos followed suit, indicating an intention to seek executive clemency.

  • The People of the Philippines opposed the withdrawal motions, citing People v. Maateo an arguing against contravening the Supreme Court's automatic review power for cases with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment sentences.

  • Emphasis was placed on the inability of appellants or the Supreme Court to waive this review through a mere motion to withdraw the appeal.


ISSUE:

Whether or not the Motions to Withdraw Appeal of Accused-Appellants Rocha and Ramos should be granted.


HELD:

YES, The Motions to Withdraw Appeal of Accused-Appellants, Rocha and Ramos are granted due to the ff. Legal principles:

  1. The confusion arose from the effects of the Decision in People v. Mateo, which mandated an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals for cases with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

  2. However, the Constitution and relevant legal provisions do not require a mandatory review by the Supreme Court for cases with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

  3. Accused-Appellants Rocha and Ramos filed Motions to Withdraw Appeal in 2006 and 2007, respectively, citing lengthy period of detention and expressing intentions to apply for parole or seek executive clemency.

  4. The People of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, opposed the withdrawal motions, relying on the People v. Mateo ruling and arguing against contravening the Supreme Court's automatic review power for cases with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

  5. The Court acknowledges the Doctrine of Mandatory Review for death penalties but clarifies it's in applicability to cases of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

  6. Emphasis is placed on the discretionary power of the Court, and in this instance, the motions are granted considering the circumstances presented by Rocha and Ramos.


SOURCE:

G.R. No. 173797. (n.d.). https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_173797_2007.html

                          



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CRIM PRO Digest: Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 213847)

  Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on  Rule 114:  Bail, a Matter of Right; Exception G. R. No. 213847                 July 12, 2016 JUAN PONCE ENRILE , Petitioner, vs.  SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  Respondents. BERSAMIN, J. : DOCTRINE: Primary objective of bail  – The strength of the Prosecution's case, albeit a good measure of the accused's propensity for flight or for causing harm to the public, is subsidiary to the primary objective of bail, which is to  ensure that the accused appears at trial . Bail is a right and a matter of discretion  – Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and repeated in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to wit: “No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of ...
Read more

How to Digest a Case: FORMAT

  FORMAT OF A CASE DIGEST TITLE: Include the petitioner and respondents of the case and the reference. Sometimes, students only include the Volume Number of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA)/Philippine Reports (Phil) and the first page where the case appeared or written. Others only include the Gazette Record Number together with the Date of the case. Still, others include both. Others even add the ponente or the justice that penned the case. FACTS: There is no need to include all the facts. Just include those that are relevant to the subject. The contents of the facts must be brief and concise. It must be limited to the main facts of the case which of course should focus on the particular subject assigned. ISSUES: Include only those that are relevant. Issues are usually framed in the form of questions that are answerable by "yes" or "no," for example, "Is the contract void? “Sometimes, students frame the question by starting it with the word "whe...
Read more

CRIM PRO Digest: Soria and Bista v. Desierto, et.al. (G.R. Nos. 153254-25)

  Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on  Rule 113:  Arrest, Duty of an Arresting Officer G. R. Nos. 153524-25                 January 31, 2005 RODOLFO SORIA and EDIMAR BISTA , Petitioners, vs.  HON. ANIANO DESIERTO in his capacity as Head of the Office of the Ombudsman, HON. ORLANDO CASIMIRO in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for Military, P/INS. JEFFREY T. GOROSPE, SPO2 ROLANDO G. REGACHO, SPO1 ALFREDO B. ALVIAR JR., PO3 JAIME D. LAZARO, PO2 FLORANTE B. CARDENAS, PO1 JOSEPH A. BENAZA, SPO1 FRANKLIN D. CABAYA and SPO4 PEDRO PAREL,  Respondents. CHICO-NAZARIO, J. : DOCTRINE: Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code states that the Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. - The penalties provided in the preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial autho...
Read more