Courts should not sacrifice justice to procedural technicality -- SC

Once again, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that courts should not sacrifice the dispensation of justice in favor of procedural rules particularly when the life and liberty of a person are at stake.

Citing previous rulings, the SC said: “The Court can overlook the short delay in the filing of pleading if strict compliance with the Rules would mean sacrificing justice to technicality.”

With its ruling, the SC ordered the Court of Appeals (CA) to review “with reasonable dispatch” the appeal of two Panabo City residents who were convicted by the trial court in 2018 of illegal sale, trade, and delivery of dangerous drugs.

On July 10, 2015, Jaime S. Edlay Sr. and Kenneth Paul G. Edlay were arrested in a buy-bust operation. They were charged for the delivery of six packs of marijuana weighing 1,330 grams to policemen who acted as buyers.

They pleaded not guilty to the charges. After trial, the regional trial court (RTC) found the Edlays guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P10 million.

They appealed to the CA.  On Dec. 18, 2018, the CA required them, through their lawyer, to file their appellants’ brief. Their lawyer received the CA resolution on Jan. 4, 2019 and under the rules, the Edlays had until Feb. 4, 2019 to file their appellants’ brief.

The report of the CA’s case management information system showed that as of Sept. 3, 2019, the Edlays had not filed their appellants’ brief.

On Sept.11, 2019, the CA issued a resolution that dismissed the appeal for failure to file the required appellants’ brief and declared the appeal abandoned.

The Edlays then filed a motion to reconsider the CA resolution and pleaded to accept their appellants’ brief.  Their motion was denied by the CA in a resolution issued on May 25, 2021.

They filed a petition before the SC.  They told the SC that the dismissal of their appeal was a denial of their right to due process.

After resolving in their favor the technicality on the petition filed by the Edlays before the SC, the High Court said:

“Settled is the rule that an appeal from the judgment of the lower court is generally ‘not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion,’ except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or death.

“As the Court repeatedly held, ‘[t]he circulars of this Court prescribing technical and other procedural requirements are meant to promptly dispose of unmeritorious petitions that clog the docket and waste the time of the courts.’

“It must be stressed, however, that technical and procedural rules are ‘intended to ensure, not suppress, substantial justice.’ Thus, a deviation from the rigid enforcement of technical and procedural rules may be allowed to attain their prime objective, that is, the dispensation of justice.

“In the case, it must be observed that petitioners (Edlays) timely filed their notice of appeal, and that the CA acquired jurisdiction over the case. Their counsel simply failed to submit the appellants' brief within the period provided by the rules.

“At this point, the failure to file a notice of appeal within the reglementary period must be distinguished from the failure to file a brief within the period granted by the CA.

“In People vs Ramos, the Court held that the ‘failure to file an appellant's brief within the prescribed period is not fatal to the case of the accused if there are substantial considerations in giving due course to the appeal.’

“Accordingly, if the appellant is represented by a counsel de parte (lawyer hired by the accused) and he fails to file his brief on time, the CA may dismiss the appeal. However, when the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio (court-appointed lawyer), the appeal should not be dismissed outright as the rule on filing briefs on time is not automatically applied to the appellant.

“In the case, if petitioners' appeal is denied due course, they could be wrongfully imprisoned for life over a mere technicality. It is beyond dispute that petitioners timely filed their notice of appeal. However, their counsel merely failed to file their appellants' brief within the period accorded to them.

"’The Court can overlook the short delay in the filing of pleading if strict compliance with the Rules would mean sacrificing justice to technicality.’

“A criminal case may be dismissed by the CA motu proprio (on its own) and with notice to the appellant if the latter fails to file his brief within the prescribed time. The phrase ‘with notice to the appellant’ means that the appellant must first be furnished a notice to show cause why his or her appeal should not be dismissed.

“Here, significantly, there is no showing that petitioners were served with a notice requiring them to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file the appellants' brief.

“Precisely, the required notice is meant to give the appellants the opportunity to state the reasons why the appeal should not be dismissed on the ground of such failure, so that the CA may determine whether such explanation, if given, is satisfactory.

“’A healthy respect for petitioner's rights should caution courts against motu proprio dismissals of appeals, especially in criminal cases where the liberty of the accused is at stake. The rules allowing motu proprio dismissals of appeals merely confer a power and do not impose a duty; and the same are not mandatory but merely directory which thus require a great deal of circumspection, considering all the attendant circumstances.’

“’Courts are not exactly impotent to enforce their orders, including those requiring the filing of appellant's brief. This is precisely the raison d'etre (reason for being) for the court's inherent contempt power. Motu proprio dismissals of appeals are thus not always called for.’

“’Although the right to appeal is a statutory, not a natural, right, it is an essential part of the judicial system and courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of this prerogative, but instead, afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and

just disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.’

“In sum, while it is true that it is upon the discretion of the CA to consider an appeal despite the failure to file an appellant's brief on time, it must be emphasized that the dismissal of the appeal on purely technical grounds is frowned upon because the ‘general policy is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits.’

“In the case, procedural rules take a step back when the life and liberty of the accused are at stake.

“Accordingly, the case is referred back to the CA for resolution of the appeal on its merits with reasonable dispatch.”