PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FEANCISCO COLMENARES AND CELSO LLORICO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

People versus Colmenares

The Case

This is People versus Colmenares, a criminal appeal that reached the Supreme Court on a pure question of law. Two accused, Francisco Colmenares and Celso Llorico, were convicted of theft by a justice of the peace court and tried to appeal to the Court of First Instance. The prosecution moved to dismiss their appeal, arguing that their motion for reconsideration was merely pro forma and therefore did not interrupt the period to perfect an appeal, so that the judgment had already become final. The case matters because the Supreme Court draws a sharp line: the pro forma rule governing motions for new trial belongs to civil procedure, and it cannot be used to cut off a criminal appeal.

Procedural History

The two accused were charged with theft in the justice of the peace court of La Castellana, in Negros Occidental. After trial, the justice of the peace found them guilty and sentenced each to pay a fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The accused, through counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration and later a supplemental motion. When the record was forwarded, the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, presided over by Judge Jose Teodoro, granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the judgment of the justice of the peace had already become final. The accused appealed that order to the Court of Appeals, which endorsed the case to the Supreme Court because it involved exclusively questions of law.

Facts

The accused were charged with stealing fifteen cavans of palay belonging to the complainant, Pedro Monsale. On April 18, 1955, the justice of the peace found them guilty of theft and sentenced each to pay a fine of 200 pesos, and in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment. Llorico received a copy of the decision on April 27, 1955, and Colmenares on April 29, 1955.

On May 2, 1955, counsel for the accused filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion argued that the documentary evidence showed the real question was the ownership of the land from which the palay was raised. The records showed that a certain J. L. Vda. de Colmenares was in possession of a parcel of land she had applied to register, that a portion of it was claimed by the District Forester to be part of a national park, and that Colmenares had been informed of the government's claim. The accused also submitted tax receipts and applications to purchase fertilizers, accompanied by promissory notes signed by the complainant and another, and guaranteed by Modesto Colmenares. A supplemental motion followed on May 16, arguing that the palay appeared to be owned jointly by the accused and the complainant and so could not be the subject of theft.

The private prosecutor opposed the motion and asked that it be stricken as pro forma. The justice of the peace court apparently never acted on the motion, or denied it. Appeal bonds were filed on May 28, 1955, and the record reached the Court of First Instance on June 1, 1955. The assistant provincial fiscal then moved to dismiss the appeal, and the Court of First Instance granted that motion.

Issues

• Whether or not the motion for reconsideration filed in the justice of the peace court was pro forma and therefore failed to interrupt the period to perfect an appeal.
• Whether or not the pro forma rule governing motions for new trial, found in the Rules of Court on civil procedure, applies to a criminal case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, on new trial in criminal cases, provides:

Section 2. Grounds for a new trial. The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds: (a) That errors of law or irregularities have been committed during the trial prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant.

The Court uses this provision to test the motion, holding that a motion raising an error of law prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused satisfies it and cannot be called pro forma.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the motion for reconsideration and the supplemental motion were not pro forma. They raised valid questions of law and fact, pointing to an error of law in the judgment prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused. The Court noted that if Colmenares was owner or possessor of the land, the complainant must have been his tenant, and the claim that the motion was filed only for delay was unfounded. The motions therefore satisfied the ground just quoted.

On the second issue, the Court held that the pro forma rule was incorrectly applied, because this was a criminal case. The rule originated in the old Code of Civil Procedure, which required a motion for new trial as an antecedent to appeal, and it was carried into Rule 37 of the present Rules. But Rule 37 governs new trial in civil cases only. The Court explained that the rule on new trial in criminal cases is contained in Rule 117, and concluded that the pro forma rule is not applicable in criminal cases. The Court below therefore erred in applying it.

Doctrine

First, a motion for reconsideration or new trial in a criminal case that raises valid questions of law or fact, and points to an error of law prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused, is not pro forma and does interrupt the period to perfect an appeal. Second, the pro forma rule, which treats a motion that fails to specify the findings or conclusions challenged as a mere delaying device that does not suspend the appeal period, is a rule of civil procedure under Rule 37 and has no application to criminal cases governed by Rule 117. A bar candidate should tie both rules to the quoted ground in Section 2 of Rule 117.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the order dismissing the appeal and remanded the case to the Court of First Instance of origin for trial on the merits, without costs. The accused won.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the pro forma rule on motions for new trial is civil, not criminal, and cannot be used to make a criminal judgment final. Examiners use this case to test whether you know that Rule 37 governs civil cases while Rule 117 governs new trial in criminal cases.