Case Summary (G.R. No. 114282)

Background of the Case

• Petitioner Aceyork Aguilar and co-accused Ma. Lourdes Salvador were charged with Estafa in the Regional Trial Court of Makati.
• Both entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment.
• On July 19, 1991, the trial court convicted them, sentencing each to an indeterminate penalty of 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal and ordering them to indemnify the offended party P250,000.00.

Appeal Process and Counsel's Negligence

• Petitioner, through former counsel Atty. Edgardo Arandia, filed a timely appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court.
• Atty. Arandia failed to file the appellant's brief by the due date and did not communicate with the petitioner regarding this failure.
• Petitioner made unsuccessful attempts to contact Atty. Arandia, leading to the hiring of new counsel, Atty. Marcelino Arias, on January 22, 1993.

Motion for Extension and Dismissal of Appeal

• Atty. Arias requested a 45-day extension to file the appellant's brief, citing difficulties in gathering case records.
• The respondent court denied this motion on March 15, 1993, as it was deemed filed out of time.
• Petitioner filed two motions to reconsider the denial, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed on July 30, 1993, due to the late filing of the brief.

Petitioner's Arguments for Relief

• Petitioner argued that he was an ordinary layman unaware of legal procedures and was unfairly abandoned by his former counsel.
• He sought to be treated equally with his co-accused, whose late brief was admitted by the court in the interest of substantial justice.
• Petitioner contended that valid issues were raised in his brief, indicating that his appeal was meritorious.

Court's Analysis of the Appeal

• The court emphasized the importance of the right to appeal as a fundamental aspect of the judicial system.
• It noted that courts should exercise discretion carefully to avoid depriving parties of their right to appeal, balancing the need for expediency with the right to be heard.
• The court recognized that the petitioner had appealed on time, but his former counsel's negligence led to the failure to file the brief.

Equal Treatment and Judicial Discretion

• The court highlighted the inconsistency in the treatment of the two appellants, noting that both were charged with the same crime and their cases were based on similar facts.
• It asserted that equal protection under the law requires treating similarly situated individuals alike.
• The court found no justification for denying the petitioner's brief while admitting his co-accused's late brief.

Importance of Justice Over Technicalities

• The court reiterated that a defendant's liberty is at stake, and the loss of freedom should not result from the negligence of counsel.
• It cited established jurisprudence ...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 114282)

Case Background

• The case revolves around petitioner Aceyork Aguilar (also known as Ace Vergel) and co-accused Ma. Lourdes Salvador, who were charged with Estafa.
• The Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, where both defendants pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
• The trial court convicted both Aguilar and Salvador on July 19, 1991, sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 17 years and 4 months to 20 years of reclusion temporal, in addition to ordering the payment of P250,000.00 to the offended party without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

Appeal Process

• Following the conviction, Aguilar, through his former counsel, Atty. Edgardo Arandia, filed a timely appeal to the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court (now known as the Court of Appeals).
• Atty. Arandia failed to file the appellant's brief within the stipulated time and did not communicate with Aguilar regarding this failure.
• Despite Aguilar's attempts to contact Atty. Arandia, he was unable to reach him, leading to his abandonment as a client.

Change of Counsel

• On January 22, 1993, Atty. Marcelino Arias entered his appearance as the new counsel for Aguilar.
• Atty. Arias requested a 45-day extension to file the appellant's brief, citing challenges in gathering the case records.
• The respondent court denied ...continue reading