G.R. No. 144590. February 7, 2003.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO F. PARADEZA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Romeo F. Paradeza was convicted of rape by the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution established that in August 1998, Paradeza sexually assaulted his neighbor, Lailani Gayas, a 26-year-old woman with the mental capacity of a 6-to-7-year-old child. The victim’s credible testimony was corroborated by medical findings of recent and healed lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse. Paradeza raised the defense of denial and alibi, claiming he was fishing at sea during the incident, but the trial court found the prosecution’s evidence conclusive.
Paradeza filed a notice of appeal. Subsequently, after both his Brief and the appellee’s Brief (filed by the Office of the Solicitor General or OSG) had been submitted, the Public Attorney’s Office filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal on his behalf. The OSG opposed the motion, arguing that since the briefs had been filed, the grant of such withdrawal was discretionary upon the Court. The case was not yet submitted for decision at the time of the motion.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the accused-appellant’s motion to withdraw his appeal despite the opposition of the Office of the Solicitor General.

RULING

Yes, the motion to withdraw appeal is granted. The Court ruled that while the withdrawal of an appeal is a matter of right before the filing of the appellee’s brief, it becomes discretionary thereafter under Rule 50, Section 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, applied suppletorily to criminal cases via Rule 125, Section 18 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. In exercising this discretion, the Court considered that the case was not yet submitted for decision. The appellant, in seeking withdrawal, accepts the finality of the trial court’s judgment and his consequent continued service of the sentence.
The Court found no compelling reason to deny the motion. The appellant’s decision demonstrates respect for the Court’s authority and the finality of its processes. Granting the motion conserves judicial resources and allows the appellant to immediately pursue other potential remedies, such as executive clemency, while serving his sentence. This action aligns with the compassionate ideals of the justice system. Therefore, in the sound exercise of its discretion and in the interest of justice, the Supreme Court granted the Motion to Withdraw Appeal.