DOCTRINE

The appeal taken by petitioner shall be applied to Obay, Esperas, Valencia, and Pastorizo since it is favorable and applicable to them.

FACTS

Petitioner Jovit Buella, along with co-accused Obay, Esperas, Valencia, and Pastorizo, was charged with illegal possession of bladed instruments without a COMELEC-issued permit during the election period of the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections. Upon arraignment, all accused pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, two of the accused filed a Motion to Dismiss, challenging the constitutionality of the COMELEC Resolution’s provisions that included “all types of bladed instruments” as prohibited deadly weapons. The RTC of Naga City declared these provisions unconstitutional and dismissed the charges against all accused. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion. The CA granted the petition, annulled the RTC’s decisions, and remanded the cases for further proceedings. Only Buella appealed to the Supreme Court where the latter declares “bladed instruments” excluded from the definition of “deadly weapons” in the COMELEC resolution in question.

ISSUE

Should an appeal filed by one accused be extended to the rest if it is both favorable and applicable to them?

RULING

Yes. Sec. 11(a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as amended, states that:

Section 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. (Emphasis supplied)

The appeal taken by petitioner shall be applied to Obay, Esperas, Valencia, and Pastorizo since it is favorable and applicable to them. As discussed, Obay, Esperas, Valencia, and Pastorizo all face a criminal charge of violating the prohibition on carrying bladed instruments without the necessary permit during the 2016 election period as provided for in COMELEC Resolution No. 10015. Thus, the decision in the appeal taken by petitioner is pertinent to their respective criminal cases. Most importantly, it is beneficial to them since the Court hereby declares “bladed instruments” excluded from the definition of “deadly weapons” in COMELEC Resolution No. 10015.

Accordingly, Criminal Case No. 2016-0211 against Obay, Criminal Case No. 2016-0254 against Esperas, Criminal Case No. 2016-0131 against Valencia, and Criminal Case No. 2016-0313 against Pastorizo are dismissed.