CARLOS AMAR, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SEGUNDO C. MOSCOSO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO, AND THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL FOR THE PROVINCE OF DAVAO, RESPONDENTS.

Carlos Amar claims that his conviction and the penalty imposed upon him for
evasion of service of sentence in criminal case No. 1999 of the Court of
First Instance of Davao was void because when he escaped from prison on 15
December 1952 he was not yet convicted by final judgment for frustrated murder
in criminal case No. 4355 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, the judgment
of conviction for such crime having been rendered in February 1951 and appealed
to the Court of Appeals; that on 30 October 1951 while his appeal was pending he
was transferred to the Davao Penal Colony from where he escaped on 15 December
1952 but was captured six days later; and that the Court of First Instance of
Davao committed grave abuse of discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction in
convicting him for evasion of service of sentence in criminal case No. 1999
referred to, he not having been convicted by final judgment in criminal case No.
4355 also referred to, as provided for in art. 157 of the Revised Penal Code.
For that reason he prays that a writ of certiorari issue commanding the
respondent court to forward the record of criminal case. No. 1999 for review and
after hearing to declare void and annul the judgment rendered therein.

The Solicitor General in behalf of the respondents denies that the defendant,
now petitioner, was found guilty of frustrated murder in criminal’case No. 4355
of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, the truth being that he was charged
with frustrated murder and found guilty of frustrated homicide and,such verdict
and sentence became final on 9 March 1954 when the Court of Appeals upon motion
of the appellant, now petitioner, dismissed the appeal. He avers that the Court
of First Instance of Davao convicted the defendant, now petitioner, in criminal
case No. 1999, of evasion of service of sentence and imposed upon him the
penalty of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, the
accessories of the law, and to pay the costs, not knowing that the defendant,
now petitioner, was a detention prisoner and not a convict when he escaped from
prison, because upon arraignment he entered a plea of guilty to the crime of
evasion of service of sentence charged against him in the information, and the
Court was not aware of the fact that at the time of his. escape he was just a
detention prisoner; and that not having been apprised of the fact that the
defendant, now petitioner, was a detention prisoner and in view of his plea of
guilty, the respondent court properly and lawfully entered the judgment
complained of. He contends that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari
is not proper and available, because to correct an erroneous judgment rendered
by a competent court an appeal is the remedy; that the Court of First Instance
of Davao had jurisdiction to try the defendant, now petitioner, for the crime
charged in the information; and that the judgment of conviction rendered in
criminal case No. 1999 for evasion of service of sentence having become final
this Court has no jurisdiction to review, modify, reverse or set it aside. Upon
those averments he prays that the petition be dismissed, with costs.

The reply of the petitioner to the answer of the respondents does not deny
the fact that he entered a plea of guilty to the information filed against him
for evasion of service of sentence in criminal case No. 1999 of the Court of
First Instance of Davao. He, however, claims that he entered the plea without
the aid of counsel and not knowing the legal implications and consequences
thereof. He further claims that his failure to appeal from the judgment of
conviction was lack of sufficient knowledge and information of the step he was
to take.

As the reply of the petitioner in effect admits that he entered a plea of
guilty to the information filed against him for evasion of service of sentence,
this Court is powerless to review by a writ of certiorari the judgment
complained of rendered upon that plea, it having been rendered by a competent
court and being now final and executory. The petitioner’s claim that he did not
have the assistance of counsel cannot prevail, over the presumption that the
proceedings had been regular and in accordance (with the provisions of the Rules
of Court, to wit: that he was afforded the assistance of counsel and that he was
informed by the Court that it was his right to have an attorney before
arraignment and was asked if he desired the aid of one.^[1]

The petition is denied without costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angela,
Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Section 3, Rule 112.