ODELON RAMOS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ARSENIO M. GONONG, JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOCOS NORTE BRANCH IV, AND MARIANO NALUPTA, SR., RESPONDENTS.

Ramos versus Gonong

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Odelon Ramos against Judge Arsenio M. Gonong of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, Branch Four, and against the private respondent Mariano Nalupta, Senior. Ramos had been convicted of damage to property with multiple slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence. After his conviction was promulgated, he withdrew in writing his intention to appeal and asked that the judgment be executed. Two days later, the trial fiscal moved to amend the dispositive portion of the judgment, and the judge granted the amendment. Ramos asks the Supreme Court to strike down that amendment. The case matters because it fixes the precise moment when a judgment of conviction becomes final, and it teaches that once finality attaches, the trial court may no longer touch the penalty, though it may still act on the civil liability.

Procedural History

Ramos was charged before Branch Four of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, with the respondent judge presiding. After trial, the court rendered a decision of conviction, and the decision was promulgated in open court. Through counsel, Ramos then manifested in open court his intention to appeal and asked that his bail bond be fixed. The next day, however, he filed a written manifestation withdrawing his intention to appeal and praying that the decision be executed. The trial court granted this by order on the same date, withdrawing the notice of appeal and directing that the decision as promulgated be executed.

Two days after the withdrawal, the trial fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration, asking that the dispositive portion be amended to add the words "fine of" before the amount, to name Mariano Nalupta, Senior, as payee of the damages, and to impose subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Over Ramos's opposition, the trial court granted the motion, asserting its power to amend and control its processes before judgment becomes final and executory. Ramos's motion for reconsideration was denied for want of merit. Ramos then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction.

Facts

On September 27, 1972, Odelon Ramos was charged with the crime of damage to property with multiple physical injuries through reckless imprudence before Branch Four of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. After trial, on October 3, 1975, the court rendered a decision convicting him of damages with multiple slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence, sentencing him to pay double the amount of 7,425.95 pesos, or a total of 14,851.95 pesos, to pay 2,000 pesos as moral damages, and to pay the statutory costs.

The decision was promulgated on October 20, 1975. After the reading, the accused, through counsel, manifested in open court his intention to appeal and asked that his bail bond be fixed, which the court set at 16,500 pesos. The very next day, October 21, 1975, Ramos filed a written manifestation withdrawing his intention to appeal and praying that the decision be executed. The court granted this on the same date, ordering that the notice of appeal be withdrawn and that the decision as promulgated be executed.

Two days later, on October 23, 1975, the trial fiscal moved for reconsideration, asking that the dispositive portion be amended to impose a fine, to name the offended party as payee, and to add subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. On October 27, 1975, the trial court granted the motion, invoking its power to amend its orders before judgment becomes final. Ramos's motion for reconsideration was denied on November 19, 1975, and he brought this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the judgment of conviction became final and executory upon the accused's written withdrawal of his appeal, with prayer for execution, and the court's approval of that withdrawal.
• Whether or not the trial court could still amend the penalty by adding subsidiary imprisonment after the judgment had become final.
• Whether or not the trial court could still order the accused to indemnify the offended party notwithstanding the finality of the judgment in its criminal aspect.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Section 7. Modification of judgment. A judgment of conviction may be modified or set aside by the court rendering it before the judgment has become final or appeal has been perfected. A judgment in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served or the defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal.

This is the provision the Court applies, and it is the express written waiver of the right to appeal that made the judgment final in this case.

Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 5465, is also invoked, because it defines when subsidiary imprisonment may be imposed. The Court notes that under this article no subsidiary penalty is imposed for non-payment of the reparation of the damage caused, the indemnification of consequential damages, and the costs of the proceedings. This bears on the case because the subsidiary imprisonment added by the amendment was a substantial change to a final penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the judgment became final and executory upon the filing of the written manifestation withdrawing the appeal, with prayer that the judgment be executed, coupled with the court's approval of that withdrawal. The full import of the prayer for execution, together with the clear and express withdrawal of the intention to appeal, demonstrated the accused's conformity to the sentence of conviction. The Court rejected the trial court's reliance on the rule allowing withdrawal of an appeal after perfection, because that rule covers a different situation, and it held that the accused need not go through the whole process of perfecting an appeal before he may expressly waive in writing his right to appeal.

On the second issue, the Court held that it was beyond the authority of the trial court to amend the penalty after the judgment had become final. The inclusion of subsidiary imprisonment was a substantial amendment of the previous penalty, and an accused cannot be made to undergo subsidiary imprisonment when it was not imposed in the judgment of conviction.

On the third issue, the Court held that the finality of the criminal aspect did not prevent the trial court from ordering the accused to indemnify the offended party, because civil liability is not part of the penalty for the crime committed. An offense causes two classes of injuries: the social injury repaired through the penalty, and the personal injury compensated through indemnity, which is civil in nature. The Court nevertheless reduced the damages to the actual amount proven, 7,425.90 pesos, since the offended party is entitled only to actual or compensatory damages proven at trial.

Doctrine

A judgment of conviction becomes final in any of three ways: when the period for perfecting an appeal has lapsed; when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served; or when the defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal. Before finality, the trial court has plenary power to amend or alter its judgment to promote the ends of justice; after finality, it is divested of all authority to amend or alter the judgment, except to correct clerical errors. The express written waiver of the right to appeal, approved by the court, renders the judgment final even before the period to appeal expires. Finality in the criminal aspect, however, does not bar the trial court from acting on the civil liability, because civil liability is not part of the penalty.

Disposition

The writ of certiorari was granted, and the respondent judge was directed to issue an order modifying his questioned order of October 27, 1975, in accordance with the observations of the Court, with costs against the private respondent.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that an express written waiver of the right to appeal, approved by the court, makes the judgment of conviction final at once, and after finality the trial court may no longer amend the penalty, only the civil liability. Examiners like to use this case on the modes of attaining finality of a judgment and on the distinction between the criminal and civil aspects of a judgment of conviction.