In a unanimous full-court decision written by Justice Renato C. Corona, the High Court said the "review by the Court of Appeals of the trial court’s judgment imposing the death penalty is now automatic and mandatory."

It said that the review of a death penalty decision "cannot be waived either by the accused or by the courts, since the fundamental law makes the review of all death-penalty cases mandatory regardless of the wish of the accused or the will of the court."

The decision also said that under the Rules of Court, a notice of appeal is not necessary on a death penalty decision handed down by the trial court and the Court of Appeals "shall automatically review the judgment."

"It was thus completely erroneous for the Court of Appeals to consider the accused’s appeal as abandoned for his failure to file his appellant’s brief, more so to dismiss it on that ground," the Supreme Court said.

With the ruling, the High Court remanded the case of Isidro L. Flores of Makati City to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.

Flores was charged with and convicted of 181 counts of rape and sentenced to death by the regional trial court (RTC) on Aug. 27, 2004.

He filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration that was denied by the trial court. The records of his case were transmitted to the Court of Appeals for review.

Despite notice to Flores’ counsel, no appellant’s brief was filed, prompting the appellate court to declare the appeal abandoned and to dismiss the appeal on Aug. 23, 2005. The government, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), elevated the issue before the High Court.

Resolving the issue, the High Court said that an appeal to the Supreme Court is not a matter or right except in cases where the penalty imposed is life imprisonment or death.

It said that the automatic appeal of a death penalty case was conceived "in recognition of the value of human life and as a way of ensuring utmost circumspection before imposing death or life imprisonment."

To achieve this goal, it pointed out that the Supreme Court "provided an intermediate appeal or review in favor of the accused."

"The court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court. Where life and liberty are at stake, all possible avenues to determine his guilt or innocence must be accorded an accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts can ever be overdone. A prior determination by the Court of Appeals on, particularly, the factual issues, would minimize the possibility of an error of judgment," it said.

It also said that "if the Court of Appeals should affirm the penalty of death or life imprisonment, it could then render judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering judgment and elevate the entire records of the case to the Supreme Court for its final disposition."