[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
113 views2 pages

People vs. Alejandro (820 SCRA 189, 13 March 2017)

Alejandro was charged with one count of simple rape and one count of homicide. He pleaded not guilty but later filed a motion to withdraw his appeal. The court granted his motion, deeming the case closed and terminated for him. What remained was the appeal of co-accused Angeles. The court confirmed that a criminal appeal allows the reviewing court full jurisdiction over the case to examine records and revise the judgment, even if no errors were assigned.

Uploaded by

Drimtec Trading
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
113 views2 pages

People vs. Alejandro (820 SCRA 189, 13 March 2017)

Alejandro was charged with one count of simple rape and one count of homicide. He pleaded not guilty but later filed a motion to withdraw his appeal. The court granted his motion, deeming the case closed and terminated for him. What remained was the appeal of co-accused Angeles. The court confirmed that a criminal appeal allows the reviewing court full jurisdiction over the case to examine records and revise the judgment, even if no errors were assigned.

Uploaded by

Drimtec Trading
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs
ALBERTO ALEJANDRO y RIGOR and JOEL ANGELES y
DE JESUS, Accused-Appellants
FACTS:
On March 28, 1996, a total of three (3) separate
Informations were filed before the R TC, each charging
accused-appellants of one (1) count of Simple Rape and one
(1) count of Homicide.
Upon Alejandro's arrest, he pleaded not guilty to the charges
against him as stated in Crim. Case Nos. 72-SD(96) and 74-
SD(96).
In a Decision dated June 3, 2015, the CA affirmed the RTC
ruling with the modifications.
At the outset, the Court notes that during the pendency of
the instant appeal, Alejandro filed a Motion to Withdraw
Appeal dated January 19, 2017, stating that despite knowing
the full consequences of the filing of said motion, he still
desires to have his appeal withdrawn. In view thereof, the
Court hereby grants said motion, and accordingly, deems
the case closed and terminated as to him. Thus, what is left
before the Court is the resolution of Angeles's appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Motion to Withdraw Appeal
should be granted.
Decision:
Yes, the court granted his motion to withdraw appeal

a) To the Regional Trial Court, in cases decided by


the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial
Court;
(b) To the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court
in the proper cases provided by law, in cases decided
by the Regional Trial Court; and

(c) To the Supreme Court, in cases decided by the


Court of Appeals

In criminal cases, "an appeal throws the entire case wide


open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct
errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or
even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds
other than those that the parties raised as errors. The
appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the
case and renders such court competent to examine records,
revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty,
and cite the proper provision of the penal law.

You might also like