604 Phil. 42
CARPIO, J.:
[T]he case of the prosecution is air tight and conclusive to convict the accused. The inability and/or failure of the accused to appear and testify in these two (2) cases must be probably due to his belief and conviction that he could not rebut the incontrovertible testimonial and documentary evidence of the prosecution. The accused must have realized the futility of disproving prosecution evidence.Polintan filed an omnibus motion[6] for new trial and reconsideration of the 17 January 1996 Decision. In an Order[7] dated 24 May 2002, the RTC denied the omnibus motion. On 3 July 2002, Polintan filed a notice[8] of appeal. In an Order[9] dated 14 August 2002, the RTC denied the notice of appeal for being filed out of time. Polintan filed a motion[10] for reconsideration of the 14 August 2002 Order. In an Order[11] dated 18 November 2002, the RTC, "[i]n the higher interest of justice," granted the motion for reconsideration.
The prosecution has proved and established the guilt of the accused Sesinando Polintan beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has established that the accused issued and has drawn the two (2) subject checks of City Trust Banking Corp. against insufficient funds (DAIF) which were dishonored when presented for payment and encashment at the bank as evidenced by the notation -- DAIF -- on the dorsal side of the said two (2) checks. The accused could not therefore escape from his culpability and liability to the private complainant for the issuance of the two (2) dishonored checks.[5]
In his Very Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Admit Appellant's Brief, accused-appellant's counsel stated that he instructed Mr. Perez to file said brief on June 11, 2003 before he left for Camarines Sur. However, when he reported to the law firm on October 22, 2003, he learned that Mr. Perez failed to file it.Hence, the instant petition. Polintan claims that the Rules of Court, specifically Section 8 of Rule 124, should not be followed.
Granting that Mr. Perez overlooked such responsibility, and, if indeed said appellant's brief was ready and about to be filed on June 11, 2003, this Court is in a quandary why the appellant's brief was only filed on October 29, 2003, a week after appellant's counsel allegedly reported back to the law firm, when said law firm is just a few meters away from this Court.
x x x x
Records show that the accused-appellant was granted by this Court a total of seventy-five (75) days extension, from March 30, 2003 or until June 13, 2003. Yet, he failed to do so, which failure can only be construed as lack of interest to pursue his appeal.[15]
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. (Emphasis supplied)Section 8 is clear -- the Court of Appeals may, motu proprio and with notice to the appellant, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.
[T]he right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules, Failing [sic] to do so, the right to appeal is lost. Rules of Procedure are required to be followed.The negligence and mistakes of counsel are binding on the client.[17] The Court cannot tolerate Polintan's habitual failure to follow the Rules of Court and his flimsy excuses. First, Polintan failed to appear before the RTC during the presentation of evidence. He alleged that he was not duly notified of the hearing because he had moved from the address on record. However, when members of the Criminal Intelligence Division of Camp Crame apprehended him, he gave the same address. Second, Polintan failed to file his notice of appeal within the time prescribed. He alleged that his counsel was in Naga City. Third, Polintan failed to file his appellant's brief within the time prescribed. He alleged that his counsel was in Camarines Sur.