[G.R. No. 134760. January 26, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. BETTY TIKAN

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 26 2000.

G.R. No. 134760 (People of the Philippines vs. Betty Tikan.)

For resolution is a motion to withdraw appeal filed by accused-appellant in this case.

In an information, dated November 18, 1992, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Bontoc, Mountain Province, accused-appellant Betty Tikan, together with Eduardo Cusipag, alias "Bong," were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as follows:

That on or about the 17th day of November, 1992, at Bontoc, Mountain Province, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, conspiring, confederating and helping one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously transport 104 kilograms of dried marijuana leaves which are prohibited drugs for the purpose of selling the same from Tinglayan, Kalinga, Apayao to Baguio City.

Upon arraignment on July 7, 1993, both accused pleaded not guilty whereupon trial ensued.

The prosecution’s evidence established that accused-appellant brought the subject marijuana leaves from Tinglayan, Kalinga Apayoa to Tocucan, Bondoc, Mountain Province for re-packing. In the early morning of November 17, 1992, she loaded the marijuana leaves, which were packed in four sacks and placed among palay grains and sweet potatoes, on board a tricycle and then proceeded to the Dangwa Bus Terminal. AT the rotunda near the bus terminal, she saw Cusipag and sought his help in unloading the sacks. Cusipag did as requested and rode on the tricycle with accused-appellant to the bus terminal. At the terminal, unknown to the two, police officers, acting in a tip from an informant, were waiting for them. The sacks were unloaded from the tricycle by Cusipag and the tricycle driver and placed inside the back cargo compartment of the bus bound for Baguio City. Only accused-appellant boarded the bus. As the bus prepared to leave, SPO1 Barnabas Lafasni told the bus driver to stop and the two were arrested and brought to the police station.

Cusipag claimed that he merely lent a helping hand to accused-appellant and that he had no knowledge of the contents of the sacks until he was informed by the police that the same were marijuana leaves. For her part, accused-appellant claimed that the marijuana was owned by one Victoria Changasen who, in the morning of November 17, 1992, asked her to take the cargo to the Dangwa Bus Terminal. Since she was in a rush to go to the city to buy medicine for her ailing child, she acceded. As they reached the rotunda, she saw Cusipag and asked or his help in unloading the cargo since she was in a hurry. When they reached the terminal, they loaded the sacks unto the bus as instructed. Thereafter, they were arrested by the police.

The trial court, on January 19, 1998, found accused-appellant guilty of the charge, but acquitted Cusipag. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered and the accused, Betty Tikan having been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for Violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended, it leaves the court with no alternative but to CONVICT the accused Betty Tikan and imposed on her the penalty prescribed by law of reclusion perpetua and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos pursuant to Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended: The seized, confiscated marijuana dried leaves ordered forfeited in favor of the government which shall be turned over to the board for proper disposal without delay, pursuant to Section 20, R.A. No. 6425, as amended; and to pay the costs of this suit.

The accused Eduardo Cusipag alias "Bong" is hereby ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence against him.

Accused-appellant, through her counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal dated February 4, 1998. The records were then transmitted to this Court. On March 2, 1999, however, a Notice to Withdraw Appeal was filed in this Court by accused-appellant, but said notice was signed only by her counsel, Atty. Louis F. Claver, Jr. Thus, on March 22, 1999, Atty. Claver was required to submit accused-appellant’s written conformity to the motion. On June 23, 1999, accused-appellant wrote by hand that she had "been duly advised by Atty. Luis Claver and [that she] voluntarily agreed to the withdrawal of [her] appeal." On June 25, 1999, Atty. Claver confirmed this with the Court in a letter which states in part:

[O]n March of 1998, I received a letter of my client (Ms. Betty Tikan) who is already confined at the CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN at Mandaluyong City, informing me that after a soul-searching process, she finally decided not to anymore pursue her appeal. In fact, she also informed that she is well off inside the penitentiary. Attached please find the original copy of Ms. Tikan’s letter contained in a yellow pad paper.

Immediately, I called for the relatives of my said client, (It so happen that accused Ms. Tikan is a relative of mine) and I explained to them the letter of their kin of her decision not to pursue anymore her appeal re her said conviction. Satisfied of the same, I prepared my MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL dated March 19, 1998 and instructed the accused’ auntie (Ms. Rosita Cobsilen) to bring personally my said MOTION for signature of Ms. Tikan at Mandaluyong City and thereafter, have the same be filed before the Court of Appeals, Manila.

With the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that the attached letter (original) dated March 13, 1998 will serve as a confirmatory act of Ms. Tikan of the withdrawal of her appeal. Praying further for such other reliefs and measures.

Required to comment, the Office of the Solicitor General said that it has no objection to accused-appellant’s motion to withdraw appeal.

Considering the foregoing, the Court resolved to grant the motion to withdraw appeal. In People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785, 798-799 (1997), the rule on withdrawal of appeals was stated thus:

. . . . In the Supreme Court, the discontinuance of appeals before the filing of the appellee’s brief is generally permitted. Where the death penalty is imposed, the review shall proceed notwithstanding withdrawal of the appeal as the review is automatic and this the Court can do without the benefit of briefs or arguments filed by the appellant.

In the case at bar, we see no reason to deny accused-appellant’s motion.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to GRANT accused-appellant Betty Tikan’s motion and to DISMISS her appeal.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court