THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. TOMAS LACANDAZO, ET AL., ACCUSED, FELIZARDA SANDOVAL, MOTHER OF THE OFFENDED PARTY AND APPELLANT.

In Criminal Case No. 3115 of the Court of First Instance of
Palawan, Tomas Lacandazo was found guilty of homicide through simple negligence
and sentenced accord­ingly “to an imprisonment of six (6) months of
arresto mayor, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased (Matilde Sandoval) in the
amount of P6,000, with subsidiary impri­sonment in case of insolvency, and to
pay the costs”. After the promulgation of the sentence the record of the
case was elevated to us because of an appeal “made x x x by the mother of
the offended party and approved by the court” (Record, p. 1).

On September 10, 1968, a notice to file brief and to submit proof
of service thereof on the adverse party was sent by us to Mrs. Felizarda
Sandoval, mother of the deceased Matilde Sandoval, which, according to the
record, was received by her on the 20th of the same month and year. In answer
thereto, on November 8, 1968, the Clerk of this Court received from Mrs.
Sandoval a letter of the following tenor:

“I have the honor to inform your High Office that have already
received your kind letter dated September, 1968, in connection with my APPEAL
to that Honorable Court.

“With respect to your request to furnish you all pertinent
papers regarding this Case, same have already been forwarded to the Solicitor
General by the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance, Branch I,
Province of Palawan, Philippines.

“Thanking you in advance for the kind and prompt attention
being extended to my humble-self in the premises.”

On November 19, 1968 Tomas Lacandazo filed a motion to dismiss
the appeal upon the ground that appellant has no personality to prosecute the
same; that the appeal was taken contrary to the provisions of Sections 2 and 3,
Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court; that at the time of the filing of the
notice of appeal Lacandazo had long been serving sentence and that, having
already served the penalty imposed upon him, he has been actually released from
custody.

Criminal Case No. 3115 mentioned above involved also the civil
action for indemnity. As the decision rendered against Lacandazo finding him
guilty of homicide through simple negligence can not be the subject of appeal
because he would thereby be placed in jeopardy, Mrs. Sandoval’s appeal could be only from that portion of said
decision sentencing Lacandazo to pay civil indemnity in the amount of P6,000.
It appears in this connection that while the decision aforesaid was dated
February 10, 1967, Mrs. Sandoval received notice thereof only on March 9 of the
same year and she filed the
required notice of appeal on March 17, well within the period of appeal. To
this must be added the circumstance that in his order of April 19, 1967, His
Honor, the judge of the lower court, gave due course to Mrs. Sandoval’s appeal.
It is reasonable to presume, therefore, that appellant had complied with all
the legal requirements in connection therewith. Consequently, her appeal can
not be dismissed upon any of the grounds relied upon in the motion under
consideration.

On the other hand, the record shows that appellant
Felizarda Sandoval has not filed any brief up to this time, probably relying
upon the Solicitor General to do it for her. In the interest of justice it is
resolved to require her to file her brief as
appellant, as far as the civil aspect of the case is concerned, within thirty (30) days
from notice.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and
Barredo, JJ., concur.

Sanchez, J., did not take part.