Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1933 > November 1933 Decisions > G.R. No. 38178 November 15, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO BUYSON LAMPA

058 Phil 757:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 38178. November 15, 1933.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. MARIANO BUYSON LAMPA, Judge of First Instance of Tarlac, ARTEMIO CASTAÑEDA and PEDRO FERNANDEZ (alias PIRO), Respondents.

Provincial Fiscal Bautista, for Petitioner.

The Respondent Judge in his own behalf.

Marcelino Lontok, for respondents Castañeda and Fernandez.

SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; EFFECT OF AN APPEAL. — Once an appeal has been perfected, the trial judge loses his power to set aside the judgment appealed from, or to grant a new trial.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — C and F were convicted of theft and sentenced accordingly. One day after pronouncement of judgment, they filed a written notice of appeal, which was allowed on the same day. Seven days thereafter, they moved for and were granted a new trial. Held, the granting of such trial is in excess of jurisdiction.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


This is a petition for a writ of certiorari praying that, after proper proceedings, a judgment be rendered declaring null and void and without effect the order of the respondent judge granting a new trial in criminal case No. 4378 of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac.

The only question presented here is one of law. Respondents Artemio Castañeda and Pedro Fernandez were charged in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac with the crime of theft. After due trial, they were found guilty and sentenced accordingly. One day after the pronouncement of the judgment they filed a written notice of appeal, which was allowed on the same day. Seven days thereafter, they filed a motion for a new trial, which was granted by the court. The provincial fiscal of Tarlac contends that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in granting a new trial, because the motion therefor was filed and decided after an appeal had been perfected.

This case is governed by the decisions of this court in United States v. De Iro (33 Phil., 475), and United States v. Ballad and Tamaray (35 Phil., 14). In the first case, the defendant was convicted of the crime of injurias graves. On the same day that judgment was pronounced, he filed a written notice of his intention to appeal from said judgment. Eleven days later, the trial judge, on motion of the defendant, reconsidered his decision, dismissed the complaint, and discharged the defendant from custody. The case having been brought here, this court, in disposing of it, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The moment the appeal is perfected, the court a quo loses jurisdiction over it, except for the purpose of correcting clerical errors.

"In the present case the appeal has been perfected eleven days before the order was made revoking the sentence in which the appellee was found guilty. If the perfection of the appeal deprives the court a quo of its jurisdiction, it must follow that in the present case the court had lost jurisdiction to alter, amend, modify, or revoke its sentence. The order revoking the sentence was, therefore, null and void."cralaw virtua1aw library

In United States v. Ballad and Tamaray, supra, the defendants were convicted of the crime of theft by the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, and sentenced accordingly. One day after the pronouncement of the judgment, they filed a written notice of appeal. Twelve days thereafter they presented a motion for a new trial, and two days after this motion was presented, they filed a written request for withdrawal of their appeal. Upon this state of facts, the trial court held that, the appeal of the defendants having been perfected, he had lost jurisdiction to grant a new trial. In sustaining the ruling of the lower court on this point, this court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We have in numerous cases held that, after an appeal has been perfected, a court has no power to set aside its judgment or to grant a new trial. A different determination would lead to great uncertainty and possibly to gross abuse. There must be a time when the rights of the parties are to be considered determined and for litigation to cease; and for that purpose the law has wisely fixed the rule here indicated. (Baldwin v. Kramer, 2 Cal., 582; Casement v. Ringgold, 28 Cal., 335; U. S. v. Samio, 3 Phil., 691.)

"It seems to be clear, therefore, from the foregoing rule, that the lower court committed no error in refusing to grant a new trial or to permit the withdrawal of the appeal already perfected. It was the duty of the appellant to present said motions in the Supreme Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case now before us, the appeal had been perfected seven days before the motion for a new trial was filed, and fourteen days before said motion was granted by the trial court. In the light of the authorities above cited, it seems clear that the respondent judge had no power to set aside the judgment in question or to grant a new trial.

It is, therefore, adjudged and decreed that the order of the respondent judge granting a new trial in criminal case No. 4378 of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, was null and void and of no effect.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Vickers and Butte, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1933 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 38384 November 3, 1933 - CORAZON CH. R. VELOSO v. LA URBANA

    058 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. 38816 November 3, 1933 - INSULAR DRUG CO. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

    058 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. 38076 November 4, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUVIGIO MENDOZA

    058 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. 40624 November 4, 1933 - SAN NICOLAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    058 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 38810 November 6, 1933 - TAN SENGUAN & CO., INC. v. PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY

    058 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. 38925 November 7, 1933 - YAP ANTON v. ADELAIDA CABULONG

    058 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 37281 November 10, 1933 - W. S. PRICE, ET AL. v. H. MARTIN

    058 Phil 707

  • G.R. No. 37565 November 13, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS J. PEGARUM

    058 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 37736 November 13, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE MATELA

    058 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. 38085 November 13, 1933 - ANGELA MONTENEGRO v. CONSUELO ROXAS DE GOMEZ, ET AL.

    058 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 39033 November 13, 1933 - MONS. SANTIAGO SANCHO v. MARCIANA ABELLA

    058 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 39630 November 13, 1933 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. LEONCIO ROXAS

    058 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 37730 November 14, 1933 - GREGORIO ARANETA v. LYRIC FILM EXCHANGE

    058 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. 38942 November 14, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIGINO LAUAS

    058 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 38178 November 15, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO BUYSON LAMPA

    058 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. 39706 November 15, 1933 - CEBU TRANSIT CO. v. AGUSTIN JEREZA

    058 Phil 760

  • G.R. No. 40368 November 16, 1933 - ANACLETO PIIT v. VICENTE B. DE LARA

    058 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. 37854 November 17, 1933 - ALEIDA SAAVEDRA v. RAFAEL MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    058 Phil 767

  • G.R. No. 38226 November 17, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.vs. LUIS LAPITAN, ET AL.

    058 Phil 774

  • G.R. Nos. 38527 & 38528 November 18, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.vs. BASILIO BACCAY, ET AL.

    058 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. 38544 November 18, 1933 - PAZ DE SANTOS v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

    058 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. 38741 November 18, 1933 - CEBU MUTUAL BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. JUAN POSADAS

    058 Phil 792

  • G.R. No. 38948 November 18, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MANANSALA, ET AL.

    058 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. 37708 November 20, 1933 - ASUNCION NUEVA-ESPAÑA v. VICENTE MONTELIBANO, ET AL.

    058 Phil 807

  • G.R. No. 38479 November 20, 1933 - QUINTIN DE BORJA v. FRANCISCO DE BORJA

    058 Phil 811

  • G.R. No. 36906 November 21, 1933 - IN N RE: FRANK H. GOULETTE

    058 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. 38230 November 21, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BITDU

    058 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. 36923 November 24, 1933 - EMILIO GASTON v. JOSE HERNAEZ and ELEUTERIA CHONG VELOSO

    058 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. 37913 November 24, 1933 - ROSALIA ROSADO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    058 Phil 833

  • G.R. No. 39309 November 24, 1933 - LE KIM v. PHILIPPINE AERIAL TAXI CO., INC.

    058 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. 39552 November 24, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO DE LA CRUZ

    058 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. 40373 November 24, 1933 - JOAQUIN S. TORRES v. SUPERINTENDENT OF SAN RAMON PRISON AND PENAL FARM

    058 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. 38443 November 25, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEA YLAGAN

    058 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. 39593 November 27, 1933 - WESTMINSTER BANK, LIMITED v. K. NASSOOR

    058 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. 40140 November 27, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMO IGNACIO, ET AL.

    058 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. 39110 November 28, 1933 - ANTONIA L. DE JESUS, ET AL. v. CESAR SYQUIA

    058 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. 37694 November 28, 1933 - ANA VERENA VAZQUEZ ARIAS, ET AL. v. ANTONIO VAZQUEZ ARIAS, ET AL.

    058 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. 37756 November 28, 1933 - SINSFORO v. SERAPIA DE GALA

    058 Phil 881

  • G.R. Nos. 399902 & 39903 November 29, 1933 - DOMINADOR RAYMUNDO v. LUNETA MOTOR CO.

    058 Phil 889