FRANCISCO EVARISTO, PEDRO CARDEÑO AND AGUSTIN MIANO,PETITIONERS VS. HON. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SAMAR, BRANCH IV, AND THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL …

This is a petition under Rule 67 for writs of certiorari and mandamus to
annul the respondent court’s order dated 7 August 1958 declining to act on the
petitioners’ amended motion for new trial in criminal case No. 1246 of the Court
of First Instance of Samar and to compel the respondent court to grant a new
trial to the petitioners, defendants in the respondent court.

In an amended information filed in the Court of First Instance of Samar, the
petitioners together with six others were charged with murder for the death of
Pastor Muyot (Annex C). After trial, on 29 March 1958 the Court rendered
judgment dated 11 March 1958, finding the petitioners guilty as charged in the
information and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, the accessories of the law, to indemnify jointly and severally
the heirs of the victim in the sum of P6,000, and to pay the proportionate
costs. Their six co-defendants were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence
(Annex D). Upon being notified of the judgment, on the same day, 29 March 1958,
the petitioners filed a notice of appeal and served a copy thereof upon the
Provincial Fiscal (Annex E). On 10 April 1958 the petitioners moved for new
trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence (Annex F). On 28 July 1958,
the petitioners asked leave to amend their motion previously filed, attaching
thereto an amended motion for new trial of even date (Annexes G and H). After
hearing, on 7 August 1958, the Court entered an order declining to take
“cognizance of defendants’ (petitioners’) motion for new trial for lack of
jurisdiction,” because the petitioners already had perfected their appeal from
the judgment of conviction theretofore rendered in the case (Annex I).

In criminal proceedings, an appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal with
the court in which the judgment or order was rendered, and by serving a copy
thereof upon the adverse party or his attorney, within fifteen days from the
rendition of the judgment or order appealed from.^[1] And within five days after the filing of
the notice of appeal, the clerk or judge of the court with whom it is filed must
transmit to the clerk of the court to which the appeal is taken, the complete
record of the case together with the notice of appeal.^[2] In Director of Prisons vs.
Teodoro, Sr., 97 Phil., 397; 51 Off. Gaz., 4038 and People vs. Aranda,
106 Phil., 1008; 57 Off. Gaz., (18) 3308, this Court held that after perfection
of an appeal, the trial court loses jurisdiction of the case, except to issue
orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do
not involve any matter litigated by the appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal
in the respondent court on 29 March 1958 (Annex E) and serving a copy thereof
upon the Provincial Fiscal, perfected the petitioners’ appeal. Upon perfection
of the appeal, the respondent court lost jurisdiction of the case to pass upon
their motion for new trial on 10 April 1958. Needless to say, however, the
petitioners have not lost their right to file their motion for new trial in this
Court where the record of the case was transmitted and received on 7 October
1958.^[3]

The rule laid down in the cases of People vs. Bocar, 97 Phil., 398;
51 Off. Gaz., 4043 and People vs. Agasang, 99 Phil., 11; 52 Off. Gaz.
3023, invoked by the petitioners, does not apply to the case. In the first case,
the respondent Castelo, who was convicted of murder and sentenced by the Court
of First Instance to death, filed a motion for new trial in the same Court
eleven days after promulgation of the judgment. This Court resolving in the
affirmative the question whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to
entertain a motion for new trial in a case where appeal to this Court is
automatic, in view of the penalty of death imposed, held:

The 20 days mentioned in Rule 118, section 9, within which the records of a
case involving a death sentence should be forwarded to the Supreme Court is not
rigid or absolute, much less jurisdictional. It may be shortened or it may be
extended. That period of 20 days was intended for a case wherein the accused
sentenced to death says nothing and does nothing within the period of 15 days
within which the case remains within the jurisdiction of the trial court, as for
instance, he does not waive his right to appeal. But should he say, on the same
day the death sentence is promulgated file his notice of appeal, then there
would be no need to wait for the 20 days to expire; the Clerk of Court will
immediately or at the latest within five days thereafter transmit the record to
the Supreme Court. Should the defendant sentenced to death penalty within the
period of 15 days file a motion for new trial, then the trial court may
entertain said motion, grant or deny it, and if the consideration of the motion
for new trial or the new trial itself take many days or even weeks, including
the rendering of the new decision, then the 20 days mentioned in the Rules of
Court must necessarily be extended.

So even in cases involving automatic review by this Court, if the defendant
perfects an appeal, although he is not in duty bound to do so, the Court of
First Instance loses jurisdiction of the case and can no longer pass upon or
resolve a motion for new trial after the taking of appeal by the defendant.

In the second case, the defendant who was convicted of serious physical
injuries with damage to property through reckless imprudence and sentenced to
suffer 1 year and 1 day of prision correccional, on the day iof the
promulgation of the judgment, announced in open court and in the presence of the
provincial Fiscal his intention to appeal from the judgment and right away filed
an appeal bond where he stated that he was appealing from the judgment. In due
course, the appeal bond was approved by the Couri. Thirty days thereafter, he
filed a motion for new trial. The Provincial Fiscal filed an opposition to the
motion for new trial claiming that the judgment of conviction already had become
final for failure to file a written notice of appeal within the reglementary
period of fifteen days. Resolving the issue, this Court said:

* * * we hold that in cases like the one at bar, when an accused manifests or
gives notice of his intention to appeal in open court and files a hond for his
provisional release, within 15 days from the promulgation of the decision
against him, he may be considered as having perfected his appeal notwithstanding
his failure to file a written notice and to serve a copy thereof to the adverse
party as required of section 3 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court.

Consequently, we hold that the disputed order denying the motion for new
trial filed by the appellant should be reversed in so far as it declared that
the decision in the case at bar has become final and therefore the motion for
new trial was filed out of time, for there has been substantial compliance of
the law by the appellant regarding the perfection of appeal and consequently the
decision in this case has not yet become final.

The writs prayed for are denied, with costs against the petitioners.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ.,
concur.

Writs denied.

---

^[1] Sections 3 and 6, Rule 118.

^[2] Section 8, Rule 118.

^[3] G.R. No. L-14520.