G.R. No. 75310 - Advincula vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

On January 9, 1979, petitioners were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch IV at Palo, Leyte, in Criminal Case No. 763, for two counts of rape.

In the criminal cases, petitioners were sentenced to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor and seventeen (17) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, respectively.

After the trial court denied a Motion for New Trial, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal on August 8, 1979.

On August 31, 1979, the trial court directed that the complete record, including the transcript of stenographic notes, be transmitted to the Appellate Court within five days.

Subsequent to this, it was discovered that some stenographic notes were missing, particularly those containing vital testimony, prompting remedial actions.

Due to the loss of some stenographic notes, especially those containing the testimony of Father Bartolome Pastor, the Appellate Court, by its resolution dated January 11, 1982, ordered the case be remanded for:

Identification of specific exhibits designated “G”, “H”, “4”, and “4-A” from the prosecution and the defense.

The retaken testimony of Father Pastor was conducted on April 27, 1982, and June 1, 1982, and the revised documents were forwarded on June 8, 1982.

On May 17, 1983, the Appellate Court required petitioners, within 20 days, to take the necessary steps for completing the record, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Section 1(h), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.

On September 30, 1983, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal based on the incomplete records, as petitioners did not comply with its directive.

The dismissal resolution became final and executory on November 16, 1983, with judgment entry on December 19, 1983.

On January 12, 1984, petitioners moved for reconsideration on the ground that the retaken transcript of Father Pastor’s testimony might not have been attached to the records.

Petitioners’ new counsel later submitted a certification noting that the steno-type notes taken by the former stenographers Remedios Petilla and Herminigilda Aguila were either lost or not yet transcribed, further questioning the completeness of the record.

On November 8, 1984, the Appellate Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration, confirming that its September 30, 1983 resolution had already become final.

Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Court for failure to complete the record violates the constitutional right to a full and fair appeal.
Whether the Appellate Court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal based on deficiencies in the record that were attributable to administrative lapses and the negligence of court stenographic reporters.
Whether the procedural requirement under Section 1(h) of Rule 50 should be strictly enforced when the deficiencies in the record were not solely attributable to the petitioners, but rather to systemic administrative nonfeasance.