PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RONNIE OMBAO Y SARMENTO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Ombao versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Ronnie Ombao y Sarmento, a criminal case in which the accused was convicted below and then appealed, only to change his mind and ask to take that appeal back. What brings the case before the Supreme Court is not the merits of the conviction but a procedural question: when may an appellant withdraw an appeal as a matter of right, and when does withdrawal lie in the sound discretion of the court? The decision matters to every bar candidate because it turns on a single sentence of the Rules of Court and shows how the Court treats a withdrawal that is voluntary, informed, and timely.

Procedural History

The accused was convicted by the trial court and, through the Public Attorney's Office, brought his case up on appeal. While the appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, and before either the appellant's brief or the appellee's brief had been filed, the accused sent word that he wished to withdraw the appeal. The Public Attorney's Office filed a Manifestation with Motion for Leave of Court to Withdraw Appeal dated 11 February 2014. The matter thus reached the Supreme Court as a pending appeal with a motion to withdraw, and the Court resolved that motion in the decision now under study.

Facts

The Public Attorney's Office received a letter from the accused dated 29 January 2014 informing it of his desire to withdraw the appeal. Counsel then sent the accused a letter of the same date explaining the consequences of withdrawing an appeal and asking whether his decision was voluntarily made. Counsel also contacted the accused on 31 January 2014 through the Bureau of Corrections, giving him time for reflection and telling him to write again should he finally decide to withdraw.

On 10 February 2014 the Public Attorney's Office received a second letter from the accused reiterating his decision to withdraw the appeal. In that letter he stated that the decision was made of his own volition and in the presence of two witnesses, both jail guards of the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City.

Counsel then filed the Manifestation with Motion for Leave of Court to Withdraw Appeal dated 11 February 2014. At that point, neither the appellant's brief nor the appellee's brief had been filed.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused may withdraw his appeal as a matter of right at the time he made the request.
• Whether or not the withdrawal of the appeal should be given due course, considering that the accused was informed by counsel of its consequences and that the withdrawal was voluntary on his part.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 3. Withdrawal of appeal — An appeal may be withdrawn as of right at any time before the filing of the appellee's brief. Thereafter, the withdrawal may be allowed in the discretion of the court.

This provision fixes the dividing line between withdrawal as a matter of right and withdrawal subject to the court's discretion, and it is the sole basis on which the Court acted.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the withdrawal was a matter of right. It quoted the rule and reasoned that, in this case, neither the appellant's brief nor the appellee's brief had been filed. Because the withdrawal came before the filing of the appellee's brief, it fell within the period when an appeal may be withdrawn as of right, and the Court gave it due course.

On the second issue, the Court likewise ruled in favor of the accused. It considered that the accused had been sufficiently informed by his counsel of the consequences and legal implications of withdrawing the appeal, and it appeared that the withdrawal was voluntary on his part. The Court therefore granted the Manifestation with Motion for Leave of Court to Withdraw Appeal.

Doctrine

An appeal may be withdrawn as of right at any time before the filing of the appellee's brief; only thereafter does withdrawal rest in the discretion of the court. Where neither the appellant's brief nor the appellee's brief has been filed, the withdrawal is a matter of right and may be given due course. The Court will grant the withdrawal where the appellant was sufficiently informed by counsel of its consequences and legal implications, and where the withdrawal appears voluntary. These rules are drawn directly from Section 3, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, which supplies both the timing rule and the discretionary standard.

Disposition

The Court granted the motion, considered the appeal of Ronnie Ombao withdrawn pursuant to Section 3, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, deemed the case closed and terminated, and directed the Division Clerk of Court to issue the corresponding Entry of Judgment.

Remember This

Memorize the line: withdrawal of appeal is as of right before the appellee's brief is filed, and discretionary thereafter. Examiners use this case to test the timing rule of Section 3, Rule 50, and the requirement that the withdrawal be voluntary and made with knowledge of its consequences.