PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILLINGTON NEVADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Nevado

The Case

People versus Nevado is a criminal appeal that ends not with a judgment on the merits but with a withdrawal. The accused, Willington Nevado, had appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, and then changed his mind. Through counsel he filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal, attaching his own handwritten letter in which he said he fully understood that once the withdrawal was granted, the trial court's decision of January 5, 2012 would become final and executory. The case matters for a narrow but examinable reason: it shows that an accused may himself abandon a pending appeal, and that once the appeal is withdrawn, the judgment of conviction stands and the case is closed. It is a procedural ruling, not a ruling on guilt.

Procedural History

The accused was convicted by the trial court, whose decision is dated January 5, 2012. From that conviction he went up on appeal, and the case reached the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the Office of the Solicitor General filed the appellee's brief for the People. On December 1, 2014, counsel for the accused filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal, to which was attached the accused's handwritten letter dated November 27, 2014. The Supreme Court resolved the motion in a short order, granting it and declaring the case withdrawn, closed, and terminated.

Facts

The material facts are few. The trial court rendered a decision against the accused on January 5, 2012. The accused appealed. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed their appellee's brief, so the appeal was joined and awaiting resolution.

On November 27, 2014, the accused wrote a handwritten letter expressing his desire to withdraw the appeal. In that letter he stated that he fully understood that if his motion to withdraw appeal were granted, the trial court's decision of January 5, 2012 would become final and executory.

On December 1, 2014, through counsel, he filed the Motion to Withdraw Appeal, attaching the letter. The People did not oppose the motion; the Office of the Solicitor General accepted that approval of the withdrawal was discretionary upon the Court.

Issues

• Whether or not an accused who has perfected an appeal may withdraw that appeal while it is pending before the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not the grant of the withdrawal renders the trial court's judgment of conviction final and executory.

Applicable Provisions

Section 18, Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, in relation to Section 3, Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is the provision the Court cites for the withdrawal of an appeal:

Section 18. Withdrawal of appeal. — The appellant may withdraw his appeal at any time before the rendition of judgment by the appellate court.

This is the authority for allowing the accused to abandon his appeal, and it fixes the cutoff: the withdrawal must come before the appellate court renders judgment.

Section 3, Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, to which the criminal rule refers, governs the effect of such a withdrawal:

Section 3. Withdrawal of appeal. — An appeal may be withdrawn as of right at any time before the filing of the appellee's brief. After the filing of the appellee's brief, the withdrawal of the appeal may be allowed only upon motion of the appellant with notice to the appellee, and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem proper.

Because the appellee's brief had already been filed, the withdrawal was no longer a matter of right but addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, which is exactly how the People treated it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court granted the Motion to Withdraw Appeal. The accused asked to withdraw, and his handwritten letter confirmed that he understood the consequence. The People had already filed their appellee's brief, so under the rule the withdrawal could be allowed only upon motion with notice to the appellee and on such terms as the Court deemed proper. The motion was filed through counsel, the appellee had been heard through its brief, and the Court exercised its discretion in favor of the accused.

On the second issue, the Court declared the case withdrawn and considered it closed and terminated, and ordered the records removed from its docket. The consequence the accused had acknowledged in his letter follows: the trial court's decision of January 5, 2012 becomes final and executory. There was no adjudication of the merits of the conviction; the appeal simply ceased to exist.

Doctrine

An appellant in a criminal case may withdraw his appeal at any time before the appellate court renders judgment. Before the appellee's brief is filed, the withdrawal is a matter of right; after the appellee's brief is filed, it may be allowed only upon motion of the appellant with notice to the appellee, and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem proper. The grant of the withdrawal leaves the judgment of the trial court standing, and that judgment becomes final and executory. The appellate court does not pass upon the merits; it merely closes the case.

Disposition

The Motion to Withdraw Appeal was granted; the case was declared withdrawn and considered closed and terminated, and its records were ordered removed from the docket of the Supreme Court.

Remember This

Memorize the rule: an appellant may withdraw his appeal at any time before judgment, but once the appellee's brief is filed the withdrawal is discretionary, and the trial court's judgment then becomes final and executory. Examiners use this case on the timing and effect of withdrawal of appeal, and on the point that a withdrawn appeal is not a decision on the merits.