G.R. No. L-75310. January 16, 1987.
Wilfredo Advincula and Eduardo Villaflor, petitioners, vs. The Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court and The Honorable Solicitor General, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were convicted of two counts of rape by the Court of First Instance of Leyte. After their motion for new trial was denied, they filed a notice of appeal. The trial court ordered the transmittal of the complete records, including transcripts. However, some stenographic notes were lost. The Appellate Court, in 1982, remanded the case for the retaking of a specific defense witness’s testimony, which was completed and forwarded in June 1982. In May 1983, the Appellate Court required petitioners to take necessary steps to complete the records within 20 days, warning of dismissal under Rule 50. In September 1983, acting on a report that petitioners had not complied, the court dismissed the appeal. Entry of judgment was made in December 1983.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration in January 1984, arguing the retaken testimony might not have been attached to the records. The Solicitor General opposed, citing the finality of the judgment. The Appellate Court later required petitioners to verify record completeness. Their new counsel submitted a certification from the trial court deputy clerk stating that other original stenographic notes were either lost or remained untranscribed by the responsible stenographers. The Solicitor General maintained the appeal should not be reinstated due to the still-incomplete record. In November 1984, the Appellate Court denied the motion for reconsideration, upholding the finality of its dismissal resolution.

ISSUE

Did the respondent Appellate Court commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal for failure to complete the records?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Appellate Court committed grave abuse of discretion. The right to appeal is statutory and part of due process; its denial violates constitutional guarantees. The power to dismiss an appeal under Rule 50, Section 1(h) for failure to complete the record is directory, not mandatory, and must be exercised with great circumspection. The primary cause of the incomplete record was the negligence and lackadaisical attitude of the court stenographers in losing notes and failing to transcribe them. This official non-feasance should not prejudice the accused-appellants’ right to appellate review, especially where their liberty is at stake.
The Rules place the duty to transcribe and forward notes on the stenographic reporters and the responsibility to transmit complete records on the Clerk of Court. It is the government’s obligation, not the defendant’s, to ensure a complete record is kept and sent to the appellate court. Where a deficient record cannot be completed, the remedy is to remand the case for a new trial concerning the missing evidence, not to dismiss the appeal. The deprivation of the right to appeal vitiated the final order of dismissal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Appellate Court’s resolutions and directed it to reinstate the appeal and take steps to complete the records, including potential administrative sanctions or a remand for new trial.