G.R. No. 177313 - NIÑO MASAS Y MILAN, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly DISMISSED for failure to file the required Appellants Brief. It cited Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court as its basis for dismissing the appeal. This is erroneous. Rule 50 is under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Since the instant case is a criminal case, the appropriate rule is found in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. As ground for the petition, petitioner invokes Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and contends that he was represented by counsel de oficio and that he was not furnished a prior notice to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. The Court of Appeals outrightly dismissed petitioners appeal without looking into the merits of the case and disregarded the exception under Section 8 of Rule 124. Petitioner points out that a mere reading of the decision of the RTC-Branch 36 will reveal several glaring errors which necessitate a review of the case. These errors include the conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 5 (sale of dangerous drugs) despite the fact that the information merely alleged possession of dangerous drugs; the sentence of life imprisonment despite the absence in the Information of any allegation on the weight or volume of the alleged drugs; the questionable findings of a buy-bust operation; and obvious irregularity in the chain of custody of the confiscated items. Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: SEC. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute . - The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio . The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio , dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. (emphasis supplied) The provision is clear and unambiguous. Section 8 provides for an exception in the dismissal of appeal for failure to file the appellants brief, that is, where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio . The respondent, thru the Office of the Solicitor General, opposes the petition and argues that petitioner is not represented by a counsel de oficio as the latter was not duly appointed by the court to represent petitioner. However, it should be noted that in the Resolution dated 22 September 2006 dismissing the appeal and the Resolution dated 6 February 2007 denying petitioners motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals itself referred to Atty. Sumile as petitioners counsel de oficio and ruled that the failure of petitioners counsel de oficio to comply with Our resolution [is] a gross disregard to the Rules. Further, petitioner even filed a motion to litigate as pauper [2] in this Court as he ha