TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that the withdrawal of an appeal is not an absolute right but lies within the sound discretion of the court. This means a higher court can refuse to allow an individual to withdraw their appeal, especially if doing so would allow a potential error or injustice to go uncorrected. The Court emphasized that once the appellate process is underway, and particularly after memoranda have been submitted, the court can deny a withdrawal if it appears the appellant is trying to avoid a potentially adverse ruling. This decision ensures that justice is served, not just to the accused but also to the State.

Slander by Slap: Can an Appeal Be Withdrawn to Dodge a Harsher Sentence?

This case revolves around Amado B. Teodoro, who was initially found guilty of simple slander by deed and fined. Unsatisfied, Teodoro appealed, but later sought to withdraw it, offering to pay the original fine. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied his request, re-evaluated the case, and found him guilty of the more severe crime of grave slander by deed, imposing a harsher penalty. The central legal question is whether Teodoro had an absolute right to withdraw his appeal, thereby reinstating the lighter sentence, or if the RTC had the discretion to proceed with the appeal and correct the perceived error. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Now the Supreme Court must decide whether the withdrawal of an appeal is a matter of right or judicial discretion.

The heart of the matter rests on the interpretation of Rule 122, §12 of the Rules of Court, which governs the withdrawal of appeals. While it allows for withdrawal, it vests the decision in the hands of the court. The Court of Appeals and the RTC both agreed that allowing Teodoro to withdraw his appeal would essentially permit an incorrect judgment to stand uncorrected, as the crime committed was deemed a grave slander, not a simple one. The RTC considered the fact that the offended party, Carolina Tanco-Young, was a pregnant woman, making the act of slander by deed more serious due to the potential emotional distress and harm it could cause.

Petitioner Teodoro argued that his appeal merely stayed the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) decision and that by paying the fine, he effectively satisfied the original judgment, rendering it final. He cited Rule 120, §7, which states that a judgment becomes final when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this provision applies only when no appeal has been filed. Because Teodoro filed an appeal, the MeTC decision was not final, and the RTC had the authority to act on the appeal.

Moreover, the Court highlighted that the withdrawal of an appeal is not an absolute right but is subject to the court’s discretion. Rule 122, §12 explicitly grants the RTC the power to allow or deny such motions. In this case, Teodoro’s motion to withdraw came after he was required to file a memorandum and after the prosecution had already submitted its brief. It appeared that he was attempting to avoid a potentially higher penalty. The prosecution, in its memorandum, argued for a conviction of grave slander by deed, emphasizing the aggravating circumstances, such as the victim’s pregnancy and Teodoro’s position as a lawyer.

§12. Withdrawal of Appeal. –

……                                                      

The Regional Trial Court may also, in its discretion, allow the appellant from the judgment of a Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, or Metropolitan Trial Court to withdraw his appeal, provided a motion to that effect is filed before judgment of the case on appeal, in which case the judgment of the court a quo shall become final and the case shall be remanded to the court a quo for execution of the judgment.

The Supreme Court also drew a parallel to the case of People v. Rapirap, where the Court ruled against allowing an appeal to be withdrawn when it appeared the accused was trying to manipulate the judicial process to avoid a harsher sentence. Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that allowing Teodoro to withdraw his appeal at that stage would have allowed a potential injustice to go uncorrected, thus ensuring that justice must be served for both the accused and the State.

However, the Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed by the RTC. While affirming the conviction for grave slander by deed, the Court noted that because there was a mitigating circumstance (voluntary surrender) and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its minimum period. The Court therefore sentenced Teodoro to a prison term of six months of arresto mayor, and ordered the return of the fine he had originally paid.

FAQs

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of ensuring justice is served not only to the accused but also to the State. The discretion granted to the courts in allowing or denying the withdrawal of appeals prevents the manipulation of the judicial process and ensures that errors are corrected. This case serves as a reminder that the pursuit of justice requires a careful balancing of rights and responsibilities within the legal framework.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Teodoro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103174, July 11, 1996