PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GILBERT DELFIN Y AMOROSO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Decisions / Signed Resolutions April 15, 2014 SIXTEENTH DIVISION CORALES, J.:


CORALES, J.:


On April 16, 2014, the Public Attorney’s Office, as counsel for accused-appellant, filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal[1] alleging that the latter had freely and voluntarily requested for the withdrawal of the present appeal. Attached to the motion is the letter[2] of accused- appellant dated April 15, 2014, to wit:

Ako po si Gilbert A. Delfin, N214 P_0356 na convict ng frostrated murder ng R.T.C. Nais ko pong iurong ang aking apela sa court of appeal’s. Tanggap ko na po ang aking sentensiya at bubunoin ko na lang ito sa loob ng kulungan. Naintindihan ko ang paliwanag niya Atty Joy Rivera na magiging penal ang disisyon ng R.T.C. sa gagawin kong pag urong ng apela, sa kabila nito iuurong ko parin ang apela. Bukal sa loob ko ang disisyon kong ito. Ang aasahan ko po na maisusumite sa Court of Appeal’s sa lalong madaling panahon ang motion to withdraw appeal’s.

   
(sgd)
   
Gilbert A. Delfin

 

Under Rule 50, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the withdrawal of an appeal is a matter of right before the filing of the appellee’s brief. After that, withdrawal may be allowed in the discretion of the court. Said Rule is applicable to this case pursuant to Rule 124, Section 183 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.4 Finding the Motion to Withdraw Appeal to be well-taken, the same is hereby GRANTED.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is WITHDRAWN and the case is deemed CLOSED and TERMINATED. Let entry of judgment be issued.

SO ORDERED.

Villon, J., Chairperson and Macalino, JJ., concur.


[1] Rollo, pages 14-16.

[2] Ibid., page 18.

[3] Section 18. Application of certain rules in civil procedure to criminal cases. – The provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court in original and appealed civil cases shall be applied to criminal cases insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.

[4] People v. Paradeza, G.R. No. 144590. February 7, 2003.