FAUSTA LANESTOSA AND BERNABE LAMES, PETITIONERS, VS. FRANCISCO SANTAMARIA, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO, RESPONDENT.

This is a mandamus proceeding instituted by Fausta Lanestosa
and Bernabe Lames to have this court issue an order directed to the Honorable
Francisco Santamaria, Judge of First Instance of Iloilo, commanding him to admit
the appeal taken by them from his judgment finding them guilty of resistance to
authority and sentencing them to one year and eight months, and four years
imprisonment, respectively.

The pertinent and necessary facts for the solution of this
proceeding appear in the respondent judge’s answer and are as follows:

On July 7, 1928, the herein petitioners, defendants in criminal
case No. 8142 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the crime of
resistance to authority, were informed of the judgment rendered against them by
Judge Antonio M. Opisso, who presided over branch III of the said Court of First
Instance of Iloilo.

On July 16, 1928, the warden of the provincial jail of Iloilo
endorsed and forwarded to the Court of First Instance of the same province a
written petition, signed by the petitioners and two other prisoners, wherein
they voluntarily waived their right to appeal and prayed to be sent to Bilibid
Prison at the earliest opportunity with the other prisoners, that is, on the
21st of the said month.

The lower court ordered the petitioners to appear before it,
and after having personally heard them, issued the following order:

“ORDER

“The accused, named Fausta Lanestosa and Bernabe Lames,
convicted in this case, having appeared and stated to the court through the
interpreter Mr. Garcia, that it is true that in their statement dated the 16th
instant they waived their right to appeal and desired to be transferred to
Bilibid Prison in Manila next Saturday, the 21st instant;

“The court does hereby hold the defendants above named to have
withdrawn their appeal and waived their right thereto, and orders their
immediate commitment to Bilibid Prison in Manila.

“It is so ordered.

“Iloilo, July 17, 1928.

“F. SANTAMARIA
“Judge”

On July 18, 1928, the same petitioners filed the following
motion:

“MOTION

“Come now the undersigned accused and pray the court to
reconsider its order of the 17th instant and admit the appeal to be taken by the
undersigned on the following grounds:

“That the undersigned signed tfre waiver of their right to
appeal from the judgment in the above entitled case filed with this court,
inasmuch as ever since the judgment of the present case was rendered, Mariano
Lames, husband of Fausta Lanestosa and father of Bernabe Lames, did not put up
the bond required by this court for the appeal to be taken by the undersigned;
and because of this, they were desperate on account of the slight interest, or
inability of said Mariano Lames to obtain the bond.

“That later on the undersigned, remembering the members of the
family, especially Fausta Lanestosa who has at present a baby girl ten months
old, and who is ill, according to information from her husband Mariano Lames,
realized the gravity of the penalty imposed upon them, and are distressed at the
thought of being separated from their families for so many years, if they are to
be sent to Manila to suffer the imprisonment in the above entitled case without
giving a bond or appealing therefrom.

“That it is very painful for a mother, like the undersigned
Fausta Lanestosa, to leave a baby girl ten months old, if she is not allowed to
withdraw the waiver of appeal in the present case, and the appeal to be taken,
is not admitted due solely to her despair and, stated, she did not until later
realize its fatal consequences in leaving for many years the dearest beings on
earth.

“That this court has jurisdiction to reconsider the order dated
17th instant, and to admit the appeal to be taken in the present case, inasmuch
as the period fixed by the law has not yet expired; and the accused are hopeful
of being saved from the sentence imposed, or at least to have it reduced when
the case comes up before the Supreme Court, because thus they believe in the
facts presented during the hearing of the present cases and from the dictates of
their conscience that they are innocent of the accusation brought against them.

“Wherefore the undersigned pray the court to reconsider its
order dated the 17th instant, considering the waiver of their right to appeal
from the judgment as withdrawn, and admitting the appeal to be presented by the
undersigned, within the period fixed by the law.

“Iloilo, July 18, 1928.

“Respectfully submitted.

“BERNABE LAMES

“FAUSTA D. LAMES

“FAUSTA LANESTOSA”

The motion was called for hearing on July 21, 1928, and the
respondent judge, having heard the petitioners, entered the following order:

“ORDER

“After hearing the motion presented on the 18th instant and
signed by the defendants in this case, and having heard the said defendants, who
failed to give a satisfactory explanation to the court as to why, in appearing
before the court on the 17th of this month, they confirmed everything appearing
in their petition filed on the 16th instant, their confirmation having been made
in open court on the 17th instant, and the same having been the reason for
issuance of the order of said date of July 17th, declaring the judgment rendered
in this order final, the accused having waived their right of appeal, and in
which order the commitment of the accused to Bilibid Prison in Manila was
ordered, as the accused themselves had petitioned the court, and who orally
prayed for their commitment to Manila today which is the day on which the boat
leaves Iloilo for Manila.

“The court having issued the order dated the 17th instant
stating that the accused in this case in their personal appearance in court and
expressly waived their right to appeal, the court holds that it lacks
jurisdiction to admit the appeal taken by the accused in their motion presented
the 18th day of this month.

“Wherefore, the court denies the motion.

“It is so ordered.

“Iloilo, Iloilo, P. I., July 21, 1928.

“F. SANTAMARIA
“Judge of the
Twenty-third Judicial District, Branch I”

In the case of Macali vs. Revilla and Ocampo (48 Phil., 751),
this court laid down the following doctrine:

“1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PLEA OF GUILTY; WAIVER OF APPEAL; MANDAMUS.—While the court may legally render judgment convicting a defendant
when the latter pleads guilty, and commit him to prison before the lapse of the
fifteen days’ period for perfecting an appeal, if he waives his right thereto,
yet if the case is of a grave crime, such as homicide, it is the duty of the
court to ascertain first if the accused has understood the nature and
consequences of his plea of guilty and of his waiver of the appeal, and when it
appears from the record that the accused was not well aware of the extent and
meaning of his waiver, it is the duty of the court to admit the appeal that he
may file within the period fixed by the law.”

In that case, the petitioner was accused of the crime of murder
and at his attorney’s suggestion pleaded guilty; immediately thereafter he was
sentenced, and through ignorance stated that he waived his right to appeal, and
surrendered himself to the proper authorities, who thereupon proceeded to commit
him to Bilibid Prison pursuant to the proper order issued.

In the present case, nine days after having been informed of
the judgment against them, the herein petitioners voluntarily and in writing
waived their right to appeal and prayed to be sent to Bilibid Prison at the
earliest opportunity. The court wished to hear them personally before adjudging
their petition, and it was only after having heard them that the order was
issued admitting their waiver of their right to appeal and ordering their
immediate commitment to Bilibid Prison in Manila.

The petitioners, therefore, had all the time they needed to
ponder and consult upon the waiver they wished to make of their right to appeal
before presenting it; and in voluntarily asking to be sent to Bilibid Prison at
the earliest opportunity they were perfectly aware of the scope and meaning of
such a’waiver.

The petitioners being willing to comply with the judgment
imposed upon them, when the respondent judge granted their petition and ordered
their immediate commitment to Bilibid Prison, the execution of said judgment
began and said judge ceased to have jurisdiction over the same.

In the case of Gregorio vs. Director of Prisons (43 Phil.,
650), this court laid down the following doctrine:

“2. ID.; ID.; CRIMINAL LAW.—A sentence in a criminal case in
this jurisdiction may become final in two ways: First, by the lapse of fifteen
days after the same is rendered and pronounced, and second, by compliance with
the terms of the sentence.

“3. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXECUTION OF SENTENCE; DOUBLE JEOPARDY.—As a general rule, where the defendant has executed or entered upon
the execution of a valid sentence, the court cannot, even during the fifteen-day
period, set it aside and render a new sentence. To do so would be to put him in
jeopardy twice.”

In conclusion, we are of the opinion and so hold, that the
waiver of the right to appeal made by a defendant nine days after having been
informed of a judgment of conviction, accompanied by a voluntary petition to be
immediately committed to Bilibid Prison and the order of the lower court
admitting said waiver and ordering their immediate commitment to Bilibid Prison,
amount to a voluntary compliance with said judgment, and bring the trial judge’s
jurisdiction over the same to an end, “and this court cannot order said judge to
reinstate the defendant’s right to appeal.

Wherefore, the petition is denied, without special
pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand,
and Romualdez, JJ., concur.