THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PABLO SANTIAGO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Santiago

The Case

This is People versus Santiago, a criminal appeal decided in July 1934. The People of the Philippine Islands prosecuted Pablo Santiago, and he was convicted below and appealed. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it shows the Supreme Court correcting a trial court that had fixed a single, definite penalty instead of the range the law prescribes. Second, it illustrates the Court's power on appeal to modify a judgment of conviction and to remand the cause to the court of origin for the carrying out of the modified sentence.

Procedural History

The case began in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. That court rendered an order dated the fifteenth of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, convicting the accused and imposing sentence. Pablo Santiago, the defendant and appellant, appealed from that order. The appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, which regularly acquired jurisdiction over the cause after both parties submitted it for decision. On the thirteenth of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the Court filed its decision and order for judgment. The Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance, but with a modification of the penalty, and it ordered the cause remanded to the Court of First Instance.

Facts

The record before the Supreme Court is spare. The defendant, Pablo Santiago, was tried and convicted in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. That court issued its order on the fifteenth of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, and from that order the defendant appealed.

The appeal was submitted by both parties for decision, and the Supreme Court, having regularly acquired jurisdiction, considered the cause upon the record. The Court found no ground to disturb the judgment of conviction. What it did disturb was the penalty as fixed by the trial court.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the order appealed from, but modified the sentence so that the appellant would suffer imprisonment of not less than six months and not more than four years and two months. It further ordered that the cause be remanded to the Court of First Instance.

Issues

• Whether or not the order of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan convicting the appellant should be affirmed on appeal.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the trial court should be modified to conform to the range of imprisonment fixed by the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not the cause should be remanded to the Court of First Instance after the modification of the sentence.

Applicable Provisions

The decision text before us does not quote or discuss any specific statutory provision, so no verbatim quotation of a provision can be supplied here. The governing rule the Court applied is the settled rule on appeal in criminal cases: the appellate court may affirm a judgment of conviction while modifying the penalty, and may remand the cause to the court of origin for the execution of the modified judgment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. The judgment of conviction stood.

On the second issue, the Court modified the sentence. Instead of the penalty as fixed below, the appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of not less than six months and not more than four years and two months. The modification is stated in the Court's own words:

By virtue thereof it is hereby adjudged and decreed that the order of the Court of the First Instance of Bulacan, dated the 15th day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, and from which the above-entitled appeal was taken, be, and the same is hereby, affirmed with the modification that the appellant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of not less than 6 months and not more than 4 years and 2 months, with cost de oficio in this instance.

On the third issue, the Court ordered the remand of the cause:

It is further ordered that the said cause be remanded to the Court of First Instance.

The reasons are those implicit in the decree. The Court found the conviction correct, and so affirmed it. It found the penalty as imposed below incorrect, and so substituted the range of imprisonment it fixed. And because the sentence was to be served under the modified judgment, it returned the record to the court of origin.

Doctrine

First, an appellate court may affirm a judgment of conviction and at the same time modify the penalty, so that the affirmance carries with it a correction of the sentence. Second, where the penalty is modified, the sentence is served as a range of imprisonment, here not less than six months and not more than four years and two months, and the cause is remanded to the court of origin for that purpose. Third, costs may be assessed de oficio, that is, without charge against either party, in the appellate instance.

Disposition

The appeal failed as to the conviction, which was affirmed, but the appellant obtained a modification of his sentence to imprisonment of not less than six months and not more than four years and two months, with costs de oficio in the appellate instance, and the cause was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that the Court affirmed the order appealed from with the modification that the appellant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of not less than six months and not more than four years and two months, with cost de oficio in this instance. Examiners use this case to test the rule that an appellate court may affirm a conviction while modifying the penalty and remanding the cause to the court of origin.