G.R. No. 173390 - MELCHOR L. LAGUA, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly dismissed pursuant to the Rules. On 14 October 2004, petitioners counsel of record, Atty. Salvador Quimpo, manifested to the Court that he had already withdrawn as defense counsel for petitioner, but that he had failed to secure the latters conformity. [8] The following day, petitioner himself filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the 1 September 2004 Resolution, requesting more time to secure the services of another counsel. On 20 October 2004, the Solicitor General, manifesting that accused-appellants abandonment of his appeal rendered the judgment of conviction final and executory, moved for his immediate arrest and confinement at the New Bilibid Prison. [9] In its Resolution dated 9 February 2005, the CA stated that it had never received a Notice of Withdrawal from Atty. Quimpo, but nevertheless granted a 30-day period for petitioner and his new counsel to file a Notice of Appearance. Again, petitioner failed to comply. On 8 July 2005, the CA issued another Show Cause Order, directing him to explain within 10 days why he had not caused the appearance of his new counsel, and why the appeal should not be considered abandoned. Instead of filing a timely compliance, petitioners new counsel, Atty. Emerson Barrientos filed a Notice of Appearance on 8 March 2005 or almost a month after the Show Cause Order. On 17 August 2005, the CA filed a Resolution stating that in the interest of justice, the Notice of Appearance was considered sufficient compliance with the Order of 8 July 2005. It granted the Motion for Reconsideration, set aside the Order of Dismissal issued on 1 September 2004, and gave petitioner and his new counsel a non-extendible period of 30 days within which to file the appellants brief. Notwithstanding the new non-extendible period, petitioner again failed to seasonably file his brief, prompting the CA to issue the first assailed Resolution dated 25 November 2005, which, for the second time, declared his appeal abandoned and accordingly dismissed. Roused from inaction, he filed another Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Appellants Brief on 19 December 2005, or 18 days after his counsel received the 25 November 2005 Resolution. In its second assailed Resolution issued on 17 May 2006, the CA denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration and ordered the Appellants Brief to be expunged from the records, viz: Indeed the present appeal has been dismissed twice by the Court because of accused-appellants failure to file his brief. The present motion for reconsideration of the second dismissal of the appeal was even filed three (3) days beyond the reglementary period. Ineluctably, the dismissal of the present appeal has become final and accused-appellant has lost his right to appeal. It bears stressing that accused-appellant cannot simply trifle with the rules of procedure on the pretext that his life and liberty are at stake. For appeal is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised in the manner and in accorda