Case Digest (G.R. No. 75310)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Wilfredo Advincula and Eduardo Villaflor, who were convicted on January 9, 1979, by the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch IV, in Palo, Leyte, for two counts of rape under Criminal Case No. 763. They were sentenced to imprisonment ranging from ten years and one day of prision mayor to seventeen years and one day of reclusion temporal for each count. Following the denial of their Motion for New Trial, the petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal on August 8, 1979. The trial court subsequently ordered the Clerk of Court to transmit the complete record of the case, including the stenographic notes, to the Appellate Court within five days. However, some stenographic notes were lost, prompting the Appellate Court to issue a resolution on January 11, 1982, remanding the case to the trial court for the retaking of testimony from a defense witness, Father Bartolome Pastor, and for the identification of certain exhibits. The retaken testimony was comple...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 75310)
Facts:
Conviction and Appeal: On 9 January 1979, petitioners Wilfredo Advincula and Eduardo Villaflor were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Leyte for two counts of rape and sentenced to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal for each count. They filed a Notice of Appeal on 8 August 1979 after their Motion for New Trial was denied.
Loss of Stenographic Notes: The Trial Court ordered the Clerk of Court to transmit the complete records, including the transcript of stenographic notes, to the Appellate Court within five days from 31 August 1979. However, some stenographic notes were lost, prompting the Appellate Court to order the remand of the case on 11 January 1982 for the retaking of the testimony of defense witness Fr. Bartolome Pastor and the identification of certain exhibits.
Retaking of Testimony: The retaken testimony was forwarded to the Appellate Court on 8 June 1982. On 17 May 1983, the Appellate Court required petitioners to complete the records within 20 days, warning that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the appeal under Section 1(h), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
Dismissal of Appeal: On 30 September 1983, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal due to petitioners' failure to complete the records. The dismissal became final and executory on 16 November 1983, with entry of judgment made on 19 December 1983.
Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 12 January 1984, arguing that the retaken testimony might not have been attached to the records. The Solicitor General opposed the motion, stating it was filed too late. The Appellate Court denied the motion on 8 November 1984, finding the Solicitor General's comment well-founded.
Missing Transcripts: Petitioners' new counsel submitted a certification from the Deputy Clerk of Court stating that some stenographic notes could not be found, and others had not been transcribed. The Solicitor General maintained that the appeal should not be reinstated due to the incomplete records.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Right to Appeal: The right to appeal is a statutory right and part of due process. Denial of this right violates the due process clause of the Constitution. Courts must proceed cautiously to avoid depriving a party of this right.
Duty of Stenographers and Clerks: Stenographic reporters are required to transcribe their notes and file them with the Clerk of Court without unnecessary delay. The Clerk of Court is primarily responsible for ensuring that complete records, including transcripts, are transmitted to the Appellate Court.
Government's Responsibility: In criminal cases, it is the government's responsibility, not the defendant's, to ensure that a complete record of the proceedings is kept and transmitted to the Appellate Court. Deficiencies in the record should not lead to the dismissal of the appeal.
Remedy for Missing Evidence: If the record is incomplete and the missing testimony cannot be obtained, the case must be remanded for a new trial to the extent of the missing evidence.
Finality of Judgment: A final and executory judgment can be set aside if it was rendered in violation of due process, as in this case where the petitioners' right to appeal was denied.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the Appellate Court's Resolutions, reinstated the appeal, and directed the completion of the records or a new trial if necessary. The negligence of court personnel should not deprive the accused of their right to appeal, especially in criminal cases where liberty is at stake.