ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR NO. 16-93
TO:
ALL
JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS,
MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
RE:
PROCEDURE
AFTER AFFIRMANCE OR MODIFICATION BY SUPREME COURT OR COURT OF APPEALS
OF
JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES.
To ensure
uniformity
in the procedure to be observed by the trial courts in criminal cases
after
their judgments of conviction shall have been affirmed or modified by
the
Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, attention is invited to the
decisional
and statutory guidelines set out hereunder:
[1] The
procedure
for the promulgation of judgments in the trial courts in criminal cases,[1]
differs from that prescribed for the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals
where promulgation is effected by filing the signed copy of the
judgment
with the Clerk of Court who causes true copies thereof to be served
upon
the parties.[2]
The procedural consequence of this distinction was reiterated in Jesus
Alvarado, etc. vs. The Director of Prisons,[3],
to wit:
By
Sections 8 and
9 of Rule 53 (now Sections 10 and 11 of Rule 51) in relation to Section
17 of Rule 120 (now Section 17 of Rule 124), a judgment is entered 15
days
after its promulgation, and 10 days thereafter, the records are
remanded
to the court below including a certified copy of the judgment for
execution.
In the case of
People
vs. Sumilang (44 Off. Gaz., 881, 883; 77 Phil. 764), it was explained
that
"the certified copy of the judgment is sent by the clerk of the
appellate
court to the lower court under Section 9 of Rule 53, not for the
promulgation
or reading thereof to the defendant, but for the execution of the
judgment
against him," it "not being necessary to promulgate or read it to the
defendant,
because it is to be presumed that accused or his attorney had already
been
notified thereof in accordance with Sections 7 and 8, as amended, of
the
same Rule 53 (now Sections 9 and 10 of Rule 51)," and that the duty of
the Court of First Instance in respect to such judgment is merely to
see
that it is duly executed when in their nature, the intervention of the
Court of First Instance is necessary to that end. (Italized
words in parenthesis supplied).
[2] The
practice of
requiring the convict to appear before the trial court for
"promulgation"
of the judgment of the appellate court should, therefore, be
immediately
discontinued. It is not only an unauthorized suplusage entailing
unnecessary
expense, but it could also create security problems where the convict
was
already under detention during the pendency of the appeal, and the
place
of confinement is at some distance from the station of the Court. Upon
receipt of the certified copy of the judgment of the appellate court,
if
the convict is under detention, the trial court should issue forthwith
the corresponding mittimus or commitment order so that the
prisoner
may be considered remitted or may be transferred to the corresponding
prison
facility for confinement and service of sentence. When the convict is
out
on bail, the trial court shall imediately order the bondsman to
surrender
the convict to it within ten [10] days from notice and thereafter issue
the corresponding mittimus. In both cases, the trial court
shall
submit to this Court proof of the execution of judgment within fifteen
[15] days from date of such execution.
[3] In
determining
the prison facility to which the convict shall be remitted or
transferred
under the commitment order to be issued by the Court a quo
pursuant
to Articles 78, 86 and 88 of the Revised Penal Code, it should be noted
that the pertinent provisions of the Revised Administrative Code of
1917
have been amended by Presidential Decree No. 29, effective October 25,
1972. Under the amendment, considered municipal prisoners are:
(d)
Persons who
by reason of their sentence may be deprived of liberty for not more
than
six months. The imposition of subsidiary imprisonment shall not be
taken
into consideration in fixing the status of a prisoner hereunder except
when the sentence imposes a fine only. (Subparagraph [d] of Section
1739,
Revised Administrative Code, as amended).
and considered
provincial
prisoners are:
(b)
Persons who,
by reason of their sentence, may be deprived of liberty for not more
than
three (3) years or are subjected to a fine of not more than one
thousand
pesos, or are subjected to both penalties; but if a prisoner receives
two
or more sentences in the aggregate exceeding the period of three years,
he shall not be considered a provincial prisoner. The imposition of
subsidiary
imprisonment shall not be taken into consideration in fixing the status
of a prisoner hereunder except when the sentence imposes a fine only.
(Sub-paragraph
[b] of Section 1740, id., as amended).
Prisoners who
are neither
municipal nor provincial prisoners shall be considered national
prisoners.
(Section 1741, id.,). Under Section 26 of Executive Order No.
292
(Administartive Code of 1987), the Bureau of Corrections shall exercise
such powers and functions as are now provided for the Bureau of Prisons
or may hereafter be provided by law.
[4] This
Administrative
Circular shall take effect immediately.
Manila,
Philippines,
September 9, 1993.
[Sgd.]
ANDRES
R. NARVASA
Chief
Justice
______________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Section 6, Rule 120.1
[2]
Section 9, Rule 51.2
[3] 87
Phil. 157 [1950]
|
