This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-02-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The foregoing notwithstanding, the escape of the accused-appellant did not preclude the Court of Appeals from exercising its review jurisdiction, considering that what was involved was capital punishment. Automatic review being mandatory, it is not only a power of the court but a duty to review all death penalty cases.[17] | |||||
|
2006-01-31 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or death, all appeals to this Court are not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion. [3] Conversely, appeal in criminal cases where the penalty of reclusion perpetua or death is imposed, is a matter of right. This is specially true in death penalty cases where a review of the trial court's judgment of conviction is automatic and does not depend on the whims of the death convict. [4] It is mandatory and leaves the reviewing court without any option. [5] | |||||
|
2004-02-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Prefatorily, it must be stressed that although the appellant himself does not refute the factual findings of the trial court, the Court nonetheless must conduct a thorough examination of the entire records of the case, based on the settled principle that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including one not raised by the parties.[16] This rule applies especially to automatic review of death penalty cases before the Supreme Court such as the present. Having received the supreme penalty as imposed by the applicable law, appellant is entitled under that law to have the sentence and all the facts and circumstances upon which it is founded placed before the Highest Tribunal of the land to the end that its justice and legality may be clearly and conclusively determined.[17] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It has been over three (3) years since counsel for Silvano, Jr., last moved for an extension of time to file the required brief. We have granted every extension of time prayed for, but to no avail. Were this an ordinary appeal, we would not have hesitated to apply Section 8,[41] Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure in relation to Section 1,[42] Rule 125. However, it is settled that Section 8 of Rule 124 has no application to cases where the death penalty has been imposed.[43] In the leading case of US v. Laguna, 17 Phil. 533 (1910), we laid down the rule that the power of this Court to review a decision imposing the death penalty cannot be waived either by the accused or by the court. We are well aware that for several years now, the appellants herein have been languishing in death row, with the possibility of execution by lethal injection dangling over their heads like the sword of Damocles. This anguish has been prolonged by the delay in the filing of the appellant's brief for Silvano, Jr., which has caused this case to remain stagnant in the Court's docket. Without prejudice to the imposition of proper disciplinary action on counsel for the accused, we can no longer permit that this case suffer further delay. Hence, we shall proceed to discharge our task by carefully reviewing the judgment of the trial court, based on its findings of fact and application of the law thereon, and thereby determining the propriety of its imposition of the death penalty[44] which appellants now challenge. | |||||