PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ERLINDA LAREZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Lareza

The Case

People versus Lareza is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Erlinda Lareza, who was convicted below and sentenced to life imprisonment for a heinous crime. The matter before the Supreme Court is not a retrial of her guilt but the fate of her appeal: she failed to file her appellant's brief within the period fixed by the Rules, despite notice, and the question is whether that failure justifies dismissing her appeal outright. The case matters to every reviewee because it shows that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised according to the Rules, and that even a person facing life imprisonment can lose her appeal by failing to comply with the court's directives without justifiable cause.

Procedural History

The accused was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for a heinous crime, and she appealed. Her appeal went up to the Court of Appeals, which issued a resolution requiring her to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to file an appellant's brief. The resolution noted that this was a heinous crimes case in which the accused had been sentenced to life imprisonment, and required her to show cause within ten days from notice why her appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file her brief within the reglementary period despite due notice. Her counsel received that resolution, yet she neither filed the brief nor complied with the order. A report of the Judicial Records Division later confirmed that she still had not filed an appellant's brief or complied with the resolution. The Court of Appeals then dismissed the appeal, and the matter reached the Supreme Court, which resolved it in the decision from which this brief is drawn.

Facts

Erlinda Lareza was charged and tried for a heinous crime. The trial court found her guilty and sentenced her to life imprisonment. Like any convicted accused, she elevated her case on appeal.

In the Court of Appeals, however, she did not file the appellant's brief required of her within the reglementary period, despite due notice. On September 3, 2010, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution requiring her to show cause, within ten days from notice, why her appeal should not be dismissed for that failure. The resolution expressly took account of the gravity of the case, noting that this was a heinous crimes case in which the accused had been sentenced to life imprisonment.

Her counsel received the resolution on September 27, 2010. Even so, she filed no appellant's brief and did nothing to comply with the order. A Judicial Records Division report dated January 24, 2013 confirmed that the brief had never been filed and the resolution had never been obeyed. With the appeal thus left unprosecuted, the Court of Appeals dismissed it.

Issues

• Whether or not the failure of the accused appellant to file her appellant's brief within the reglementary period, despite due notice, justifies the dismissal of her appeal under Section 1, paragraph e of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not her failure to comply with the resolution of the Court of Appeals requiring her to show cause, without justifiable cause, is an additional ground for dismissing the appeal under Section 1, paragraph h of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, on the grounds for dismissal of appeal, provides in its paragraph e:

Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules.

This is the primary ground on which the Court rests the dismissal, because the accused never filed her appellant's brief within the time fixed by the Rules.

The same Section 1 of Rule 50 provides in its paragraph h:

Failure of the appellant to appear at the preliminary conference under Rule 48 or to comply with orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause.

This supplies a second and independent ground, because the accused disobeyed the resolution requiring her to show cause, and no justifiable cause appears in the record.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal must be dismissed. Under Section 1, paragraph e of Rule 50, and as emphasized in the Court's earlier pronouncements, the failure of the appellant to file the appellant's brief on time justifies the dismissal of the appeal. The Court quoted the ground it applied:

Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appeal is likewise dismissible under Section 1, paragraph h of Rule 50, for the accused's failure to comply with the resolution of September 3, 2010. The Court quoted that ground as well:

Failure of the appellant to appear at the preliminary conference under Rule 48 or to comply with orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause.

Supporting this second ground, the Court invoked its own teaching in Zamboanga Forest Managers Corporation versus New Pacific Timber and Supply Company, that by and of itself, a party's failure to comply with the directive of the Court of Appeals without justifiable cause is also a ground for the dismissal of an appeal under Section 1, paragraph h of Rule 50 of the Rules. The Court noted that the accused had been given every opportunity: the show cause resolution was served on her counsel, ten days were granted, and still no brief and no explanation came. The gravity of the penalty did not exempt her from the Rules; it was precisely why the Court of Appeals had paused to require cause before dismissing.

Doctrine

First, the timely filing of an appellant's brief is a condition of the right to appeal, and its breach is a ground for dismissal under Section 1, paragraph e of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. Second, a party's failure to comply with the orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause is itself, and independently, a ground for dismissal of the appeal under Section 1, paragraph h of Rule 50. Third, the dismissal may be ordered by the Court of Appeals on its own motion or on that of the appellee, so the appellate court need not wait for the appellee to move. Fourth, the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the penalty, even life imprisonment, do not dispense with compliance; the appellate court's solicitude is shown by requiring the appellant to show cause, not by excusing the default. For the Bar answer, state the rule as the Court did: failure to file the brief on time justifies dismissal, and failure to obey the court's directives without justifiable cause is a separate ground for the same result.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the appeal of the accused appellant, Erlinda Lareza, for her failure to file her appellant's brief and her failure to comply with the resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Remember This

Memorize the line that an appellant's failure to file the brief on time, and her failure to comply with the court's directives without justifiable cause, each justify dismissal of the appeal under Section 1 of Rule 50. Examiners use this case to test whether you know that the right to appeal must be exercised in accordance with the Rules, and that even a life sentence does not excuse an appellant who sleeps on her appeal.