People of the t he Philippines v. Rocha GR No. 173797 August 21, 2007 FAC!"
On 6 February 1996, RTC decided that Trumpeta, Cenita, Rocha and Ramos were guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, and imposed to them the penalty of reclusion perpetua Trump Trumpeta eta,, Ceni Cenita ta and accus accused ed!a !app ppell ellan ants ts appe appeale aled d to the RTC RTC Howe Howe"er "er,, Trumpeta filed an #rgent $otion to %ithdraw &ppeal which was granted by the court Cenita also filed his own #rgent $otion to %ithdraw &ppeal which was also granted by the court Then the case was transferred to the Court of &ppeals, which promulgated its 'ecision affirming with clarification the decision of the RTC Through the (ublic &ttorneys Office )(&O*, Rocha and Ramos appealed the decision of the Court of &ppeals to the +C, which later on reuired the parties to submit their respecti"e supplemental briefs Rocha, ha"ing been detained for more than se"enteen years, filed a $otion to %ithdraw &ppeal, stating that he intends to apply for parole He also manifested that his co!accused on this case, Romeo Trumpeta and -stauio Cenita, had already withdrawn their appeal On 1. February /00, (eople of the (hilippines, through the +olicitor 2eneral, filed a Comment opposing Rochas3 $otion to %ithdraw &ppeal Then Then Ramos Ramos follo followe wed d suit suit and filed filed his own own $anif $anifes estat tation ion with with $otion $otion to %ithdraw &ppeal He li4ewise manifested that he had already ser"ed fourteen years in prison and that all his other co!accused had already withdrawn their appeal, and applied for e5ecuti"e clemency to a"ail himself of parole The plaintiff!appellee plaintiff!appellee claim that the re"iew by this Honorable court of appellants3 con"iction is mandatory and the withdrawal of his appeal cannot be granted as it will contra"ene contra"ene the applicable applicable rules and urisprudence urisprudence They also claim that Rochas motion is actually a scheme to e"ade the supreme penalty of reclusion reclusion perpetua perpetua and that it is merely an afterthought designed to trifle not only with the procedural law, but more importantly, the udicial system (laintiff!appellee continues that if indeed Rocha was acting in good faith, he should ha"e withdrawn his appeal at the first opportunity 7nstead, he waited for the intermediate re"iew of the RTC 'ecision to be
first resol"ed and after an unfa"orable decision thereon that he now decides to withdraw his appeal #!!$%"
%hether or not the $otions to %ithdraw &ppeal of accused!appellants Rocha and Ramos should be granted R$&&#NG"
8es The $otions to %ithdraw &ppeal should be granted +ince the case of accused!appellants is not subect to the mandatory re"iew of this Court, the rule that neither the accused nor the courts can wai"e a mandatory re"iew is not applicable Conseuently, accused!appellants separate motions to withdraw appeal may be "alidly granted 7n the case at bar, howe"er, there is no reason to deny accused!appellants $otions to %ithdraw &ppeal There is no showing that accused!appellants had already applied for parole at the time of the filing of their $otions to %ithdraw &ppeal On the contrary, they stated in their motions that they merely intend to apply for the same The mandatory re"iew by this Court is only reuired for cases where the penalty imposed is death %here the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, a re"iew of the trial court decision is conducted only when the accused files a notice of appeal either the 'ecision of this Court in Mateo nor the abolition of the death penalty has changed this &s the penalty imposed by the trial court and the Court of &ppeals in the case at bar is reclusion perpetua, the re"iew by this Court is not mandatory and, therefore, the accused!appellants can "alidly withdraw their appeal The granting of a $otion to %ithdraw &ppeal is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court 7n the case at bar, there is no reason to deny accused! appellants $otion to %ithdraw &ppeal (laintiff!appellees allegation that the $otion was for the purpose of e"ading the penalty of reclusion perpetua and trifling with the udicial system is unsubstantiated, as the Court of &ppeals imposition of reclusion perpetua, unli4e an imposition of the death penalty, may be entered by said appellate court e"en without another re"iew by the Court either should deny the $otions ust because of accused!appellants intention to apply for e5ecuti"e clemency, since the granting of such e5ecuti"e clemency is within the prerogati"e of the -5ecuti"e 'epartment, and not of this Court #N '#%( )F *% F)R%G)#NG, the respecti"e $otions to %ithdraw &ppeal of accused!appellants -mmanuel Rocha and Ruel Ramos are GRAN%+, and the Court of &ppeals 'ecision is hereby deemed F#NA& AN+ %%C$)R-
