JOSE CRISOSTOMO, PETITIONER, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, RESPONDENT.

The petitioner has prosecuted a writ of
habeas corpus in this court in order to have an inquiry made as to
whether or not he is unlawfully restrained of his liberty by the
Director of Prisons.

The petitioner is serving sentences in Bilibid Prison by virtue of
judgments rendered by the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila
in criminal cases Nos. 17096, 17108, and 17756. He alleges as the
principal ground of his complaint that the Court of First Instance of
the city of Manila had no jurisdiction to try these cases or to render
judgments therein inasmuch as no new informations were filed in the
court at the time the cases were tried on appeal from the municipal
court. It is, however, admitted that the informations filed by the city
fiscal in the municipal court were read to the defendant in the Court
of First Instance upon arraignment and no objection to their
sufficiency was there raised.

The single question presented is, consequently, purely legal, and
is this—When in a criminal case the defendant appeals from a judgment
of the municipal court of the city of Manila to the Court of First
Instance of the city of Manila, is it necessary to present in the
latter court a new information in order that it may acquire
jurisdiction to try and decide the case?

The procedure on appeal from the municipal court of the city of
Manila to the Court of First Instance is provided for in a section of
the Manila Charter. This portion of the law found in the Administrative
Code, section 2473, reads as follows:

“An appeal shall lie to the Court of First Instance
next to be held within the city, in all cases where fine or
imprisonment, or both, is imposed by the municipal court. The party
desiring to appeal shall, before six o’clock postmeridian of the day
after the rendition and entry of the judgment by the municipal court,
file with the clerk of the court a written statement that he appeals to
the Court of First Instance. The filing of such statement shall perfect
the appeal. The judge of the court from whose decision appeal is taken
shall within five days after the appeal is taken, transmit to the clerk
of the Court of First Instance a certified copy of the record of
proceedings and all the original papers and process in the case, and
the clerk of the Court of First Instance shall docket the appeal in
that court. A perfected appeal shall operate to vacate the judgment of
the municipal court, and the action, when duly entered in the Court of
First Instance, shall stand for trial de novo upon its merits
in accordance with the regular procedure in that court, as though the
same had never been tried and had been originally there commenced.
Pending an appeal, the defendant shall remain in custody unless
released in the discretion of the judge of the municipal court or of
the judge of the Court of First Instance, upon sufficient bail, in
accordance with the rules and regulations now or hereafter in force, to
await the judgment of the appellate court.”

It will be noted that the law provides that “A perfected appeal
shall operate to vacate the judgment of the municipal court, and the
action, when duly entered in the Court of First Instance, shall stand
for trial de novo upon its merits in accordance with the
regular procedure in that court, as though the same had never been
tried and had been originally there commenced.” A trial de novo, it has been said, means a new trial
in the same manner, with the same effect, and upon the same issues as
the case was tried in the lower court, in accordance with the rules of
practice in the appellate court. (Sandlin vs. State [1910], 3 Okla. Cr., 578; State vs.
Fort [1909], 164 Ala., 578.) The word “trial” means proceedings in open
court after the pleadings are finished and the case is otherwise ready,
down to and including the rendition of the judgment. The prior
existence of an information would accordingly seem to be implied.

The Code of Civil Procedure contains a section (75) with the
caption, Effect of Appeals, which is almost literally the same as the
pertinent part of section 2473 of the Administrative Code. But in
addition the Code of Civil Procedure contains another section (112)
explicitly providing for the filing of new pleadings in the action in
the Court of First Instance. This difference between the Manila Charter
and the Code of Civil Procedure is eloquent proof of the legislative
intent.

The Code of Criminal Procedure in its section 54, while making use
of different words than are found in section 2473 of the Administrative
Code, reaches much the same result. It says that “All cases appealed
from a justice’s court shall be tried in all respects anew in the court
to which the same are appealed.” In construing this provision, the
Supreme Court has held in effect that upon appeal by a defendant in a
criminal case from a judgment of the justice of the peace, the Court of
First Instance may permit a new complaint to be filed if it relates to
the criminal act for which the defendant was tried by the justice of
the peace. (Andres vs. Wolfe [1905], 5 Phil., 60.) The
dissenting Justice in the cited case even went so far as to state that
“To allow the fiscal to file a new complaint in a criminal cause
appealed from the court of a justice of the peace is a dangerous
practice and should not be allowed. To permit this would be to create
the possibility of placing the defendant upon trial for a different
offense than that for which he was tried in the court below.” In the
later decision of this court in Carroll and Ballesteros vs.
Paredes ([1910], 17 Phil., 94 it was said: “The nature of the action
cannot be changed in the Court of First Instance but must be tried de novo
upon its merits on the same process and pleadings ; that is, the
process and pleadings must be of the same nature as those in the
justice of the peace court. The prosecuting officer, however, can
substitute his own complaint for that filed in the justice of the peace
court, provided the nature of the action is not changed.”

The foregoing is reenforced by the general rule of criminal law
extant in the United States. The American courts recognize that a new
complaint or information need not be filed on an appeal from a
conviction before a magistrate, where the statute provides that the
accused shall be tried de novo in the appellate court, but the original complaint or affidavit filed before the justice may be used. (16 C. J., 383.)

It must be observed also that upon the arraignment of the defendant
in the criminal cases under consideration in the Court of First
Instance, the informations filed in the municipal court were read to
him and he pleaded not guilty. This was in effect the filing of new
informations by the prosecution. It was an election to stand upon the
informations presented in the municipal court. The defendant was,
therefore, fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

We are persuaded that the prosecution was under no obligation to
file new informations in the Court of First Instance on appeals by the
defendant from the municipal court of the city of Manila. Accordingly
the petitioner makes out no case and the application must be denied
with costs. So ordered.

Mapa, C. J., Araullo, Street, and Villamor, JJ., concur.