Dismissal of Appeal, Counsel's Negligence, and the Right to Be Heard
The Supreme Court reinstated an arson convict's appeal after his lawyer withdrew without notice, ruling that procedural rules must yield to substantial justice.
When a criminal conviction is elevated to the Court of Appeals, the accused's liberty depends on whether the appeal is actually heard. In Tamayo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 147070, February 17, 2004), the Supreme Court refused to let an appeal die on a technicality, holding that the negligence or unexplained withdrawal of counsel should not automatically be visited upon the client.
The conviction and the appeal
Santiago Tamayo, also known as "Batog," was convicted on December 15, 1998 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, San Carlos City, of arson punishable under Article 321, no. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. He was sentenced to imprisonment ranging from six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
He filed a notice of appeal, which the Court of Appeals accepted. On June 30, 1999, the appellate court required him to file an appellant's brief. That brief was never filed.
Dismissal for failure to file the appellant's brief
A full year passed without the brief. On November 10, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, treating the failure as an abandonment under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Tamayo moved for reconsideration. He
Have a question about this topic?
This article is general information, not legal advice. Ask ASG Legal AI for a cited, plain-language answer on your own situation — free, no sign-up.