ROSIE QUIDET, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DOCTRINE
an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not
appeal except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable
to the latter
FACTS
 Rosie Quidet (petitioner), Feliciano Taban, Jr. (Taban), and Aurelio Tubo (Tubo)
were charged with homicide for the death of Jimmy Tagarda
 The RTC found (1) Quidet and Tubo guilty of homicide, (2) all three guilty of
frustrated homicide
 From this RTC judgment, only petitioner appealed to the CA
 The CA affirmed the RTC decision
ISSUE
WON the CA’s decision affirming the RTC finding conspiracy between the three is
correct
HELD
 It is not. The existence of conspiracy was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, petitioner is criminally liable only for his individual acts.
 The SC concluded that for failure of the prosecution to prove conspiracy beyond
reasonable doubt, petitioner's liability is separate and individual. Considering that
it was duly established that petitioner boxed Jimmy and Andrew and absent proof
of the extent of the injuries sustained by the latter from these acts, petitioner
should only be made liable for two counts of slight physical injuries.
 Anent the penalty imposed on Taban and Tubo, the crime committed was
attempted homicide and not frustrated homicide because the stab wounds that
Andrew sustained were not life-threatening.
 Although Taban and Tubo did not appeal their conviction, this part of the
appellate court's judgment is favorable to them, thus, they are entitled to a
reduction of their prison terms. cЃa The rule is that an appeal taken by one or
more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal except insofar
as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter
IRENORIO B. BALABA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Respondent.
DOCTRINE
An error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal. However, the
correction in designating the proper appellate court should be made within the 15-day
period to appeal.
FACTS
 Balaba is a municipal treasurer of the Municipality of Guindulman, Bohol
 State Auditors found a cash shortage of P114,186.34. Balaba was asked to
explain the discrepancy
 Unsatisfied with Balaba’s explanation, an information for Malversation of Public
Funds was filed against him. The RTC found Balaba guilty.
 Balaba filed his Notice of Appeal and subsequently filed his Appellant's Brief
 The Office of the Solicitor General, instead of filing an Appellee's Brief, filed a
Manifestation and Motion praying for the dismissal of the appeal for being
improper since the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal.
 The CA dismissed Balaba’s appeal contending that it had no jurisdiction over his
appeal.
ISSUE
WON the CA erred in dismissing his appeal instead of certifying the case to the proper
court.
HELD
 NO. Upon Balaba's conviction by the trial court, his remedy should have been an
appeal to the Sandiganbayan.
 Paragraph 3, Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 8249 which further defined the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, reads:
o The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
final judgments, resolutions or orders of the regional trial courts whether in
the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate
jurisdiction as herein provided.
 Clearly, the Court of Appeals is bereft of any jurisdiction to review the judgment
Balaba seeks to appeal.
 An error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal. However, the
correction in designating the proper appellate court should be made within the
15-day period to appeal. Once made within the said period, the designation of
the correct appellate court may be allowed even if the records of the case are
forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Otherwise, the second paragraph of Section
2, Rule 50 of the Rules of court would apply.
 The second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court reads:
 o "An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be
transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright."
 In this case, The Court of Appeals issued the Decision declaring its lack of
jurisdiction on 15 December 2004. Balaba tried to correct the error only on 27
January 2005, clearly beyond the 15-day period to appeal from the decision of
the trial court. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not commit any error when it
dismissed Balaba's appeal because of lack of jurisdiction.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. CHARMEN OLIVO, NELSON DANDA, and
JOEY ZAFRA, Appellants.
DOCTRINE
an appeal taken by one or more several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal,
except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the
latter.
FACTS
 Accused-appellants Olivo, Danda and Zafra were charged in an Information for
Robbery with Homicide
 The RTC convicted them. Only Olivo and Danda appealed to the CA.
 The CA affirmed the RTC decision
ISSUE
WON the CA erred in affirming the RTC
HELD

 Yes. The accused was acquitted by the SC

 The fact that prosecution’s witness was not able to identify accused-appellants as
the perpetrators of the crime impinges heavily on the credibility of prosecution's
evidence. For if, indeed, the accused-appellants were the malefactors of the crime
who did not hide their faces during the robbery, the eyewitness, who had such close,
traumatic encounter with them, should automatically have recalled their faces upon
seeing them. It behooves this Court to declare that she was not able to do so
positively. The trial court misconstrued and misapplied facts and circumstances of
the case, warranting the modification or reversal of the outcome of the case
 The other accused, Joey Zafra, who is identically circumstanced as the other
appellants and who was likewise convicted on the same evidence, does not appear
to have perfected an appeal from the trial court's judgment. The record does not
show the reason therefor.
 Be that as it may, the present rule is that an appeal taken by one or more several
accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of
the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. Our pronouncements
here with respect to the insufficiency of the prosecution evidence to convict
appellants beyond reasonable doubt are definitely favorable and applicable to
accused Joey Zafra. He should not therefore be treated as the odd man out and
should benefit from the acquittal of his co-accused. In fact, under similar conditions
and on the same ratiocination, Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court has
justified the extension of our judgment of acquittal to the co-accused who failed to
appeal from the judgment of the trial court which we subsequently reversed.
MERCEDITA T. GUASCH, Petitioner, v. ARNALDO DELA CRUZ, Respondent.
DOCTRINE
To require a separate civil action simply because the accused was acquitted would
mean needless clogging of court dockets and unnecessary duplication of litigation with
all its attendant loss of time, effort, and money on the part of all concerned.FACTS
 Respondent alleged that petitioner was his neighbor and kumadre. On several
occasions, petitioner transacted business with him by exchanging cash for
checks of small amount without interest. On July 26, 1999, petitioner went to his
residence requesting him to exchange her check with cash of P3,300,000.00.
 Petitoner was able to convince respondent upon her assurance that she will have
the funds and bank deposit to cover the said check
 On the date of maturity and upon presentment, however, the check was
dishonored for the reason that the account against which it was drawn was
already closed.
 An information for estafa was filed against petitioner
 During trial, the RTC granted petitioner’s demurrer to evidence. Accordingly, her
guilt not having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, petitioner was acquitted.
 When respondent received a copy of the order, respondent filed a Manifestation
with attached Motion to Amend Order to include a finding of civil liability of
petitioner. In the Manifestation, respondent's counsel justified his failure to file
the motion within the reglementary period of 15 days because all postal offices in
Metro Manila were allegedly ordered closed in the afternoon due to the rally
staged on Ayala Avenue.
 The RTC denied the Motion to Amend finding that counsel for respondent was
inexcusably negligent; hence, the Order dated June 16, 2005 has become final
and executory.
 Upon filing a petition for certiorari, the CA ruled that the RTC gravely abused its
discretion in denying respondent's Motion to Amend. The Court of Appeals
ratiocinated that matters of paramount importance outweigh rules of procedure in
this instance.
ISSUE
WON the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court committed grave abuse of
discretion when it denied respondent's Motion to Amend.
HELD
 NO. there is ostensible merit to respondent's cause.
 Records show that petitioner admits her civil obligation to respondent and
respondent did not waive, reserve, nor institute a civil action for the recovery of
civil liability.
 As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, respondent's actual and active
participation in the criminal proceedings through a private prosecutor leaves no
doubt with respect to his intentions to press a claim for the unpaid obligation of
petitioner in the same action. Hence, since the civil action is deemed instituted
with the criminal action, the trial court was duty-bound to determine the civil
liability of petitioner pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure which provides:
o SECTION 2. Contents of the judgment.'
 In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the
evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of
the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or
omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
 records below shows that the evidence to make a determination of petitioner's
civil liability is already at the disposal of the trial court. For example, the checks
covering the amounts owed by petitioner to respondent in the total amount of
P3,300,000.00 were already submitted by petitioner to the trial court as Annexes
to the Motion to Quash that she filed. Neither can it be said that petitioner's right
to due process shall be violated if her civil liability be determined in the same
case.
 There appear to be no sound reasons to require a separate civil action to still be
filed considering that the facts to be proved in the civil case have already been
established in the criminal proceedings where the accused was acquitted.
 It is a cherished rule of procedure that a court should always strive to settle the
entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the
seeds of future litigation." Given the circumstances in this case, we find that the
trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied respondent's
Motion to Amend.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO TARUC @
TARUC, Accused-Appellant.
DOCTRINE
Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign
country, he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the
jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the
court.
FACTS
 Accused-appellant Francisco Taruc was charged with the crime of murder in
connection with the death of Emelito Sualog.
 In 2005, The RTC convicted the accused and sentenced him to death.
 Upon automatic review by the CA, the court ordered counsel to furnish it with the
present and complete address of Taruc.
 The PAO lawyer informed the CA that Taruc escaped from prison and has no
means of knowing the current whereabouts of the accused-appellant.
 The Warden of the Bataan Provincial Jail conveyed to the CA that accused-
appellant was indeed committed to said jail on 10 November 2000 but escaped
at about 11:00 p.m. on 23 August 2002.
 the CA affirmed the RTC decision but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua
 accused, thru PAO, filed his Notice of Appeal to the SC, hence this case
ISSUE
WON accused has lost his right to appeal
HELD
 YES. An accused is required to be present before the trial court at the
promulgation of the judgment in a criminal case. If the accused fails to appear
before the trial court, promulgation of judgment shall be made in accordance with
Rule 120, Section 6, paragraphs 4 and 5
o If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear
was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these
Rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within
fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused
may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these
remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled
promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause,
he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from
notice.
 Consistently, Rule 124, Section 8, paragraph 2 of the same Rules allows the
Court of Appeals, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, to dismiss the
 appeal of the accused-appellant who eludes the jurisdiction of the courts over his
person,
o 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.
o 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
 Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a
foreign country, he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or
submits to the jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived any right to
seek relief from the court.
 It is indisputable that accused-appellant herein, by escaping from jail, was not
present at the promulgation by the RTC of its Decision dated 29 June 2005 in
Criminal Case No. 8010, finding him guilty of the crime of murder. Accused-
appellant failed to surrender and file the required motion within 15 days from the
promulgation of the RTC Decision. This alone already deprived him of any
remedy against said judgment of conviction available under the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, including the right to appeal the same.
 The foregoing notwithstanding, the escape of the accused-appellant did not
preclude the Court of Appeals from exercising its review jurisdiction, considering
that what was involved was capital punishment. Automatic review being
mandatory, it is not only a power of the court but a duty to review all death
penalty cases.