G.R. No. 173797 - People vs. Rocha

Case Summary (G.R. No. 173797)

Factual Background

The Information charged that on 28 September 1993, in Quezon City, the accused and several others, all armed, conspired to rob the Bank of the Philippine Islands. While a bank representative was placing two duffle bags into the armored van vault, the assailants opened fire, fatally wounding security guards S/G Roger Tarroquin and S/G Tito Homeres. The Information alleged that the accused took two duffle bags containing P1.5 million, and stole a 12-gauge shotgun and a .38 revolver issued to the victims and owned by Eaglestar Security Services, Incorporated.

Trial Court Proceedings

On 6 February 1996, the Regional Trial Court convicted Romeo Trumpeta, Emmanuel Rocha, Ruel Ramos, and Eustaquio Cenita of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court ordered joint and several civil indemnities of P50,000.00 each to the heirs of the two deceased security guards and indemnity to the Bank of the Philippine Islands in the amount of P1,600,000.00.

Court of Appeals Disposition

On 31 March 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with clarification, finding Emmanuel Rocha and Ruel Ramos guilty as co-principals of Robbery with Homicide and imposing reclusion perpetua upon each. The CA ordered the same civil indemnities and maintained the other aspects of the RTC decision. Co-accused Trumpeta and Cenita had earlier withdrawn their appeals to this Court.

Motions to Withdraw Appeal and Parties' Contentions

After the CA decision and during the pendency of review before the Supreme Court, Emmanuel Rocha and Ruel Ramos filed separate Motions to Withdraw Appeal, stating their intention to apply for parole and executive clemency. The Solicitor General, representing People of the Philippines, opposed the motions. The prosecution argued that appeals in reclusion perpetua cases are a matter of right and that this Court’s review is mandatory for such severe penalties, invoking jurisprudence including U.S. v. Laguna and People v. Mateo. The prosecution further alleged that the motions were a scheme to evade punishment and to trifle with the judicial process.

Legal Issue Presented

The central issue was whether the Motions to Withdraw Appeal filed by accused-appellants serving sentences of reclusion perpetua could be granted where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua and where prior jurisprudence and rule amendments had altered appellate procedure in capital and life-penalty cases.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined the import of People v. Mateo and the amendments to Rule 122 and Rule 124 effected by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC. The Court explained that People v. Mateo had recommended intermediate review by the Court of Appeals in cases where the penalty imposed was death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, but that Mateo had not converted reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment into cases subject to mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Court distinguished mandatory automatic review of death-penalty cases from the appellate mode applicable to reclusion perpetua and life-imprisonment cases, noting that the constitutional text in Article VIII, Section 5, 1987 Constitution confers jurisdiction but does not itself create mandatory review of all categories enumerated. The Court traced the historical rule provisions and their amendment: prior Rule 122 provided for notice of appeal in reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment cases and automatic review only in death penalty cases; the amended Rule 122 retained that distinction and directed automatic review to the Court of Appeals where the death penalty was imposed. The Court further cited Rule 124, Section 13, as amended, which requires the Court of Appeals to certify death-penalty cases to the Supreme Court without entering judgment, but to render and enter judgment in cases where it imposes reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and to allow appeal by notice. The Court concluded that the Supreme Court’s review is mandatory only for death-penalty cases; review in reclusion perpetua cases occurs only upon appeal.

Parole, Clemency, and Public Policy Considerations

The Court addressed concerns that withdrawal of appeal might be used to secure parole or clemency improperly. It reiterated controlling precedents that deny parole or pardons during the pendency of appeals and acknowledged decisions declaring parole or pardon applications void if granted while appeals remain pending. Nevertheless, the Court found no evidence that the accused had already obtained parole or clemency at the time of their motions; they merely intended to apply. The Court recognized that the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Republic Act No. 4108, does not apply to persons sentenced to death or life imprisonment and that jurisprudence treated reclusion perpetua as synonymous with life imprisonment for purposes of inapplicability of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Court emphasized that executive clemency is an executive function under CONSTITUTION, Article VII, Section 19

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 173797)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines was the plaintiff-appellee in the criminal prosecution for robbery with homicide.
Emmanuel Rocha alias "Nopoy" and Ruel Ramos alias "Aweng" were accused-appellants convicted below and who later sought to withdraw their appeal to this Court.
Co-accused Romeo Trumpeta and Eustaquio Cenita were impleaded in the Amended Information and withdrew their appeals before this Court.
The case originated in the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 215, in Criminal Case No. Q-93-49474 with an Information filed on 12 May 1994.
The Court of Appeals entertained the appeal pursuant to this Court's decision in People v. Mateo and issued a decision on 31 March 2006 affirming with clarification the RTC judgment.
The present relief sought was the Court's determination whether accused-appellants' Motions to Withdraw Appeal should be granted and whether the CA decision should be made final and executory.

Key Factual Allegations

The Amended Information alleged that on or about the twenty-eighth day of September, 1993, in Quezon City, the accused conspired with others and, while armed with high-powered firearms, robbed the Bank of the Philippine Islands represented by Alex Babasa, Jr.
The Information alleged that the accused opened fire while a bank employee was placing money in two duffle bags, hitting security guards Roger Tarroquin and Tito Henares and inflicting wounds which were the immediate cause of their deaths.
The Information alleged that the accused took two duffle bags containing P1.5 million pesos and two firearms issued to the victims, causing pecuniary damage to the bank and injury to the heirs of the victims.

Trial Court Disposition

The RTC, in a Decision promulgated on 6 February 1996, found Romeo Trumpeta, Emmanuel Rocha, Ruel Ramos, and Eustaquio Cenita guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.
The RTC ordered joint and several civil indemnity of P50,000.00 each to the heirs of deceased Roger Tarroquin and Tito Henares and joint and several indemnity of P1,600,000 to the Bank of the Philippine Islands.
The RTC noted that the accused could have been sentenced to death but for the suspension of the death penalty at the time of the commission of the crime.

Appellate Course

Romeo Trumpeta filed an Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal on 13 September 1999, which this Court granted on 11 October 1999.
Eustaquio Cenita filed an Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal on 29 May 2001, which this Court granted on 15 August 2001.
Pursuant to People v. Mateo, this Court transferred the appeals to the Court of Appeals on 25 August 2004.
The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01765, on 31 March 2006 affirmed with clarification the RTC Decision and expressly found appellants Emmanuel Rocha and Ruel Ramos guilty as co-principals and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua.
Emmanuel Rocha and Ruel Ramos appealed the CA Decision to this Court on 18 April 2006 and later filed Motions to Withdraw Appeal on 14 November 2006 and 28 February 2007, respectively.

Issues Presented

Whether a motion by an accused to withdraw a notice of appeal in a case where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua may be granted.
Whether the automatic or mandatory review by this Court extends to cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Whether intent to apply for parole or executive clemency constitutes a basis to deny a motion to withdraw appeal.
Whether a motion to withdraw appeal is a permissible mechanism to evade penal consequences or to trifle with the judicial process.

Parties' Contentions

The plaintiff-appellee contended that review by this Court is mandatory in cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua and that neither the accused nor the courts can waive such mandatory review, relying on U.S. v. Laguna and People v. Mateo.
The plaintiff-appellee further contended that accused-appellant Rocha's motion was a scheme to eva