View full case

ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The petitioner, Rosvee Celestial, was previously employed by Glory Philippines as its Accounting-in-Charge. She was terminated after it was discovered that she made anomalous withdrawals from the company's dollar account. The president of Glory Philippines testified that petitioner would ask him to sign withdrawal slips, which she would then manipulate by inserting additional figures to withdraw a greater amount than intended. As a result, Glory Philippines filed a criminal complaint against petitioner, which led to her conviction for six counts of qualified theft through falsification of commercial documents by the trial court.

Petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA) but failed to file the required appellant's brief. Consequently, her appeal was considered abandoned and dismissed by the CA. Petitioner claimed that she did not receive a copy of the resolution from the CA, and further argued that her former counsel was negligent. She sought another opportunity to file her appellant's brief. However, the CA dismissed her omnibus motion, prompting petitioner to file a petition for review seeking the reversal of the CA's rulings.

The main issue in the case revolves around whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner's appeal due to her failure to file the required appellant's brief. The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that may be forfeited for non-compliance with the rules. It argued that the dismissal of petitioner's appeal had already become final.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute.

  2. Whether the petitioner's right to notice of the dismissal of the appeal was violated.

  3. Whether the penalty for the accused should be the maximum penalty imposable under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or the penalty for qualified theft under Article 310 of the RPC.

  4. Whether the penalty of death can be imposed on the accused.

  5. What penalty should be imposed on the accused in light of the foregoing circumstances.

  6. Whether the successive service of sentence rule should be applied to the accused.

  7. Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of rape.

  8. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

  1. The CA's dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute was in order.

  2. The petitioner's claim that she was not personally informed of the dismissal of the appeal deserves scant consideration as notice to counsel is considered notice to the client. The CA complied with the procedural requirement of serving notice to counsel, and there was no violation of the petitioner's right to notice.

  3. The penalty for qualified theft should be imposed on the accused, which is two degrees higher than the penalty for simple theft under Article 310 of the RPC.

  4. The penalty of death cannot be imposed on the accused because it was not specifically prescribed as the imposable penalty under Article 309(1) of the RPC.

  5. The proper penalty to be imposed on the accused is forty (40) years of reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of death, for each count of qualified theft.

  6. The successive service of sentence rule applies and the accused shall only suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding forty (40) years.

  7. The accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of rape.

  8. The prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Notice to counsel is notice to the client.

  • The negligence of counsel binds the client.

  • The court can relax procedural rules in certain situations, but such exceptions do not apply in this case.

  • The penalty for qualified theft is two degrees higher than that for simple theft (Art. 310, RPC).

  • When the penalty of death cannot be imposed, the next higher penalty is reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of death (Art. 74, RPC).

  • The maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him, and shall in no case exceed forty years (Art. 70, RPC).

  • The crime of rape is committed whenever a person has carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation.

  • In rape cases, the testimony of the victim is given great weight and credence, especially when it is categorical, consistent, and corroborated by evidence.

  • In order for an accused to be convicted of rape, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.