THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUNRO RUBIO Y RADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

On 29 October 2013, this Court sent accused-appellant a Notice to File Brief^[1] requiring him to file his Appellant’s Brief within thirty (30) days from receipt of said notice. The Notice was received by accused-appellant’s counsel on 03 December 2013, as shown by the registry return receipt^[2].

On 27 December 2013, accused-appellant through his counsel filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief^[3] praying for a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days or until 16 January 2014, within which to file his Brief.

Per this Court’s Judicial Records Division’s Verification Report^[4] dated 11 June 2014, no Appellants’ Brief had been filed by accused-appellant despite the lapse of the extended period he prayed for.

Paragraph 1, Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court states that:

Sec. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. – The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.

x x x

The right to appeal is not a natural right. It is also not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal.^[5]

WHEREFORE, pursuant to the above-quoted Section 8, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Court, the instant appeal is considered ABANDONED and DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Ingles,^* and Quijano-Padilla, JJ., concur.

---

^*Acting Chairman per Office Order No. 14-14-GTI dated 26 June 2014 vice Justice Hernando.

^[1] Rollo, p. 32

^[2] Ibid. (dorsal portion)

^[3] Id. at 33-35

^[4] Id. at 35 (dorsal portion)

^[5] Neypes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, 14 September 2005.