DOCTRINE
Time and again, the Court has stressed that the right to appeal is not a natural but a statutory privilege and must be pursued in accordance with the law. It follows that the party who intends to pursue it must observe the requirements of the Rules; otherwise, his or her right to appeal is lost.
FACTS
John Paul S. Atup and his co-accused were charged with multiple offenses, including two counts of rape, frustrated murder, and robbery with homicide, committed on October 7, 1997, in Bohol. The RTC found Atup guilty of two counts of rape and one count of frustrated murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each rape count and a term of imprisonment for frustrated murder. Atup filed a notice of appeal on February 4, 2013.
The Court of Appeals directed Atup to file his appellant’s brief. Despite a motion for extension, Atup failed to submit the brief within the extended period. Consequently, on May 27, 2015, the CA dismissed the appeal for abandonment. Atup’s motion for reconsideration was filed 287 days late and was denied by the CA on August 16, 2016.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals properly dismiss petitioner’s appeal for failure to file an appellant’s brief within the reglementary period?
RULING
Yes. Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court provides that the CA may, upon motion or on its own, with notice to the appellant, dismiss the appeal if the appellant did not file his or her appellant’s brief within the reglementary period, unless the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio.
In the case, petitioner and his co-accused, who were not shown to be represented by a counsel de officio, filed a motion for extension of time to file brief; yet, they did not submit the required brief before the CA. While petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the dismissal of the appeal, the motion did not give any explanation for his noncompliance with the requirement to file a brief on time. Apart from this, petitioner did not at all append in the motion the appellant’s brief required by the Rules. On these facts alone, the Court finds that the CA has sufficient reasons in considering the appeal abandoned and accordingly dismissing it.
Let it be underscored too, that petitioner did not only fail to submit his appellant’s brief with the CA within the reglementary period; but even belatedly filed his motion for reconsideration. In fact, it took him more than nine months from notice before he moved for a reconsideration on the denial of his appeal. As noted by the CA, the Motion for Reconsideration was submitted only on the 287th day from receipt of notice by petitioner’s counsel of the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal. As a consequence, the CA issued an entry of judgment in the case.
Under the circumstances, for failure to submit his appellant’s brief within the prescribed period, the CA had basis, in fact and law, in dismissing the appeal.
Time and again, the Court has stressed that the right to appeal is not a natural but a statutory privilege and must be pursued in accordance with the law. It follows that the party who intends to pursue it must observe the requirements of the Rules; otherwise, his or her right to appeal is lost.
