The Supreme Court has granted the petition of Roberto Licup y Villalon, a drug convict whose appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA) after his Appellant's Brief failed to reach the appellate court due to a failed courier delivery. The Court nullified the CA's resolutions and ordered the case remanded for further proceedings, to be prioritized and expedited given that Licup is a detainee.
The Case
On November 11, 2019, Licup was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City for Violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Dangerous Drugs Act. He filed his Notice of Appeal on November 21, 2019. On January 7, 2022, Licup received through counsel a Notice to File Brief, giving him until February 18, 2022 to submit his Appellant's Brief.
On January 13, 2022, Licup filed his Appellant's Brief and transmitted copies to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) through LBC courier. The OSG's copy was duly received, but the copy intended for the CA was not delivered. LBC had attempted to deliver the brief on several occasions, but the office was closed, and subsequent deliveries likewise failed. Licup's counsel only discovered this when he checked the LBC Track and Trace portal after receiving the CA's May 26, 2022 Resolution, which declared the appeal abandoned and dismissed it for failure to file the Appellant's Brief.
Licup filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit his Appellant's Brief. The CA denied the motion, finding that LBC was not yet an accredited courier at the time of the alleged mailing, so the pleading was deemed filed only upon actual receipt. The CA also noted that Licup had 30 days to file and could have used other couriers, and that a Supreme Court announcement on January 12, 2022 had extended deadlines for courts in the National Capital Region to February 1, 2022 — information the CA said was readily available to the public.
The Issue
The Court framed the issue as: Did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Licup's Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit attached Appellant's Brief?
The Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in Licup's favor. It held that the CA gravely abused its discretion in outrightly dismissing the appeal purely because of the procedural lapses. The Court declared that the interest of substantial justice justified the admission of the belated Appellant's Brief.
The Court's dispositive order reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The Resolutions, dated May 26, 2022 and May 30, 2023, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 14595 are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings, to be prioritized and expedited considering that petitioner Roberto Licup y Villalon is a detainee."
By the Numbers
- November 11, 2019 — Date of RTC conviction
- November 21, 2019 — Date Licup filed his Notice of Appeal
- January 7, 2022 — Date Licup received the Notice to File Brief
- February 18, 2022 — Deadline to file Appellant's Brief
- January 13, 2022 — Date Licup transmitted his brief via LBC courier
- May 26, 2022 — Date CA issued its Resolution dismissing the appeal
- May 30, 2023 — Date CA denied Licup's Motion for Reconsideration
The Court's Reasoning
The Court acknowledged that filing through a non-accredited private courier is treated like filing via ordinary mail, meaning the date of actual receipt — not the date of posting — is deemed the date of filing. It also acknowledged that failure to file an Appellant's Brief may be a ground for dismissal under Rule 124, Section 8 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
However, the Court cited its own jurisprudence holding that the CA's power to dismiss an appeal for failure to file a brief is discretionary, not mandatory, and that procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice. The Court cited Government of the Kingdom of Belgium v. Court of Appeals (2008) and Nolasco v. Purence Reality Corporation (2022), which set out guidelines allowing appellate courts to admit belated briefs where, among other circumstances, the application of the rule would result in the outright deprivation of the client's liberty, or where the interests of justice so require.
The Court found that the dismissal of the appeal would result in the permanent deprivation of Licup's liberty, and that the OSG was not prejudiced by the delay — it had received a copy of the Appellant's Brief and had even filed a Motion to Suspend Period to file its Appellee's Brief. The Court also considered that the brief was filed during the COVID-19 pandemic, when courts and post offices were forced to close for extended periods, calling these "unique circumstances" that added to the extraordinary nature of Licup's case. The Court further stated that "in the hierarchy of rights, a person's right to life and liberty enjoys primacy."
The Court defined grave abuse of discretion as arising "when a court acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a legal obligation," and found that the CA's failure to consider the circumstances surrounding Licup's case constituted such abuse.
Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 268658, Resolution penned by Associate Justice Alfomena D. Singh, concurred in by Associate Justices of the Third Division.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.