ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
 





 
 

G.R. No. 1896   December 23, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO TRINCIO<br /><br />004 Phil 90

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 1896. December 23, 1904. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO TRINCIO, Defendant-Appellant.

Eugenio de Lara for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; APPEAL; TIME FOR TAKING. — Appeals in criminal cases will not be allowed after the lapse of fifteen days from rendition of the judgment or order appealed from.

2. ID.; ID.; EXTENSION OF TIME. — Pendency of a motion for new trial does not extend the time for perfecting appeal.

3. ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO DECIDE IN TIME. — Motion for new trial fails ipso facto if the judge neglects or fails to decide the same within the said fifteen days.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This case came before the court on a motion by the Solicitor-General to dismiss the appeal for the reason that it had not been perfected within the time prescribed by section 47 of General Orders, No. 58.

Section 47 of General Orders, No. 58, provides: "An appeal must be taken within fifteen days from the rendition of the judgment or order appealed from."cralaw virtua1aw library

The judgment appealed from was rendered by the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila on the 17th day of August, 1903.

On the 19th day of August, 1903, the defendant and appellant presented a motion for a new trial.

On the 2nd day of October, 1903, the judge who rendered the sentence in said cause denied the motion for a new trial, for the reason that the motion had not complied with the requirements of section 42 of General Orders, No. 58.

On the 5th day of October, 1903, the defendant and appellant filed with the said Court of First Instance his notice of appeal. The judgment was rendered on the 17th day of August, 1903. The appeal was taken on the 5th day of October, 1903. More than fifteen days had elapsed from the rendition of the judgment appealed from and the time the appeal was taken.

This court has decided in two different cases (United States v. Flemister, 1 Phil. Rep., 317; United States v. Perez, 1 Phil. Rep., 322) that the pendency of a motion for a new trial does not extend the time for taking an appeal beyond the fifteen days after the judgment provided for in the above-quoted section 47.

By the said decisions in the causes of the United States v. Flemister and the United States v. Perez, the following rules are established:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) That appeals in criminal cases will not be allowed after the lapse of fifteen days from the rendition of the judgment or order appealed from.

(2) That the pendency of a motion for a new trial does not extend the time to perfect an appeal.

(3) That the motion for a new trial fails, ipso facto, if the judge neglects or fails to decide the same within the said fifteen days.

The motion to dismiss said appeal is hereby granted.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Carson, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 1896   December 23, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO TRINCIO<br /><br />004 Phil 90


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

   

cralaw



 
  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED