Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SEGUNDO S. LIM v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 175602 2013-02-13	PEOPLE v. P02 EDUARDO VALDEZ BERSAMIN, J.
In this connection, the Court has pronounced in Lim v. Court of Appeals[6] that the benefits of this provision extended to all the accused, regardless of whether they appealed or not, to wit: As earlier stated, both petitioner and the OSG laterally argue that in the event of Guingguing's acquittal, petitioner should likewise be acquitted, based on Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, which states:
	GR No. 177276 2008-08-20	GRACIANO SANTOS OLALIA v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
One last note. Records reveal that the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision convicting Graciano Santos Olalia, Jr., Pedro Poquiz and Jeffrey Poquiz of frustrated murder. However, only petitioner Graciano Santos Olalia, Jr. appealed the judgment of conviction. Accused Pedro Poquiz and Jeffrey Poquiz, for unknown reasons, did not seek to assail their conviction before the Court. Since the Court downgraded the crime committed by petitioner from frustrated murder to attempted murder, and considering that the same set of facts were used to convict Pedro Poquiz and Jeffrey Poquiz, the Court holds, that the favorable verdict on petitioner's appeal should likewise be extended to Pedro Poquiz and Jeffrey Poquiz, since under Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the present Rules on criminal procedure, an "appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter."[27]
	GR No. 140656 & 154482 2007-09-13	MAYOR FELIPE K. CONSTANTINO v. SANDIGANBAYAN TINGA, J.
Although the rule states that a favorable judgment shall benefit those who did not appeal, we have held that a literal interpretation of the phrase "did not appeal" will not give justice to the purpose of the provision. It should be read in its entirety and should not be myopically construed so as to defeat its reason, i.e., to benefit an accused who did not join in the appeal of his co-accused in case where the appellate judgment is favorable.[58]