G.R. No. 229395 [Formerly UDK-15672]. November 10, 2021
JOHN PAUL S. ATUP, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 252705]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOHN PAUL S. ATUP, JOHN PAUL S. ATUP, PETITIONER.

FACTS

Petitioner John Paul S. Atup filed two consolidated petitions. In G.R. No. 229395 , he assailed the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolutions dismissing his appeal for failure to file an appellant’s brief, which rendered final the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol, Branch 51. The RTC convicted petitioner and his co-accused of two counts of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in Criminal Case Nos. 0101 and 0101-A, and convicted petitioner of Frustrated Murder under Article 248 of the RPC in Criminal Case No. 0102, all committed on October 7, 1997. In G.R. No. 252705, petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus, asserting he was a minor at the time of the crime’s commission and is entitled to benefits under Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006).
The charges stemmed from an incident on October 7, 1997, where petitioner and his co-accused allegedly robbed, raped AAA, and killed BBB. The prosecution evidence established that the group, armed with a knife, demanded money from AAA and BBB at a dam. After taking their money, they brought the victims to a lower portion of the dam. There, BBB was stabbed, pushed into a canal, and hit with stones and wood, resulting in his death. AAA was then undressed and successively raped by co-accused Sodum Decasa and Jairius Atup while the others, including petitioner, held her. After the rape, AAA was stabbed 31 times but survived. The defense denied the allegations, claiming they were elsewhere attending parties.

ISSUE

1. In G.R. No. 229395 : Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief within the reglementary period.
2. In G.R. No. 252705: Whether petitioner is entitled to the writ of habeas corpus based on his claim of being a minor at the time of the offense, warranting the application of Republic Act No. 9344 .

RULING

1. On G.R. No. 229395 (Petition for Review): The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court upheld the CA’s dismissal of the appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief. The right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory, and its perfection requires strict compliance with procedural rules. Petitioner’s failure to file the brief within the extended period granted constituted a waiver of his right to appeal. The Court found no compelling reason to relax the rules, as the negligence of his counsel was inexcusable and binding on him. The RTC’s Joint Decision had thus become final and executory.
2. On G.R. No. 252705 (Petition for Habeas Corpus): The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The writ of habeas corpus is not available to question the legality of a judgment rendered by a competent court. Petitioner’s claim of minority at the time of the offense (alleging he was born on October 10, 1981, making him 15 years old in October 1997) is a factual issue that should have been raised during trial or on appeal. The RTC, in its judgment, made a factual finding that petitioner was over 18 years old based on the evidence presented. A habeas corpus petition cannot be used to correct errors of judgment or as a substitute for appeal. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if minority was proven, it would not render the judgment void but would only affect the execution of the penalty under applicable laws.