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
 

   
August-1950 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2200 August 2, 1950 - RAMON N. BILBAO v. DALMACIO BILBAO, ET AL.

    087 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-2837 August 4, 1950 - ROSARIO S. VDA. DE LACSON, ET AL. v. ABELARDO G. DIAZ

    087 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-3951 August 7, 1950 - JESUS ALVARADO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    087 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-2397 August 9, 1950 - TOMASA QUIMSON, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ROSETE

    087 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-3236 August 11, 1950 - ALFREDO CASTRO v. JOSE T. SURTIDA, ET AL.

    087 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. L-3395 August 11, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO MERCADO

    087 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-3734 August 14, 1950 - JOSE L. TALENS v. FELIPE GARCIA, ET AL.

    087 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-3224 August 15, 1950 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. EULOGIO F. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

    087 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-3994 August 16, 1950 - JUANITO B. LLOBRERA v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    087 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. L-3887 August 21, 1950 - FELIPE R. HIPOLITO v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    087 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. L-2724 August 24, 1950 - JOSE DE LEON, ET AL. v. ASUNCION SORIANO

    087 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-3251 August 24, 1950 - FELICIANO JOVER LEDESMA v. BUEN MORALES, ET AL.

    087 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2939 August 29, 1950 - PLACIDO NOCEDA v. MARCOS ESCOBAR

    087 Phil 204

  • G.R. Nos. L-3274, L-3292 & L-3295 August 29, 1950 - HARRY LYONS, ET AL. v. CONRADO V. SANCHEZ

    087 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-3661 August 29, 1950 - SANTIAGO ICE PLANT & CO., INC. v. RAFAEL LAHOZ

    087 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 49180 August 29, 1950 - RUFINO BUENO v. DOMINADOR B. AMBROSIO, ET AL.

    087 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-2671 August 30, 1950 - ANICETA IBURAN v. MAGDALENO LABES

    087 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. L-3280 August 30, 1950 - FRANCISCO LLENADO, ET AL. v. MARIA HILVANO

    087 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-3942 August 30, 1950 - VICTOR B. SESE v. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL.

    087 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. L-1669 August 31, 1950 - PAZ LOPEZ DE CONSTANTINO v. ASIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    087 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. L-1931 August 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHUA HUY, ET AL.

    087 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. L-2042 August 31, 1950 - AURORA PANER v. NICASIO YATCO

    087 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. L-2202 August 31, 1950 - SIMEON MANDAC v. EUSTAQUIO GUMARAD, ET AL.

    087 Phil 278

  • G.R. Nos. L-3045 & L-3046 August 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO PAZ

    087 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-3881 August 31, 1950 - EDUARDO DE LOS SANTOS v. GIL R. MALLARE

    087 Phil 288

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-3942   August 30, 1950 - VICTOR B. SESE v. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL. <br /><br />087 Phil 245

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-3942. August 30, 1950.]

    VICTOR SESE Y BUNO, Petitioner, v. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, and AUGUSTO LEONARDO, Respondents.

    The petitioner, in his own behalf.

    Alberto M. Meer, for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. criminal law AND PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT, HOW PROMULGATED. — In a criminal cases the judgment is promulgated in open court.

    2. ID.; OFFENDED PART, RIGHT TO APPEAR PERSONALLY OR THROUGH PRIVATE PROSECUTOR; CONTROL OF FISCAL; NOTICE TO PRIVATE PROSECUTOR UNNECESSARY. — The offended party in a criminal case who has not waived the civil action or expressly reserved the right to institute it separately, is entitled to intervene, personally or by attorney, subject to the direction and control of the fiscal. In such a case, as the private prosecutor and the fiscal represent a common cause and party, with the fiscal having direction and control of the case, notice to the fiscal is notice to the private prosecutor.


    D E C I S I O N


    PARAS, J.:


    In criminal case No. 9763 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, t pe petitioner was convicted in a judgment promulgated on February 16, 1950, of the crime of damage to property through reckless imprudence, and sentenced to pay a fine of P856.80, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The petitioner waived his right to appeal, and in an order forthwith issued by the respondent Judge he was committed to the New Bilibid Prisons at Muntinlupa the period of imprisonment commencing to run from February 16. The respondent Augusto Leonardo, the offended party in the criminal case, filed through his attorney a motion for reconsideration dated May 5, 1950, alleging that in the decision of February 16 the court failed to sentence the petitioner to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P856.80, and praying that said decision be modified accordingly. In an order dated May 16, 1950, the respondent Judge amended the dispositive part of the decision of February 16, so as to read as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "For all the foregoing, the Court finds that the guilt of the accused has been established, beyond reasonable doubt, as defined and punished under article 365 of the Rev. Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to pay a fine of P856.80, or suffer the subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P856.80, without further subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

    A new commitment order was thereafter issued, under which petitioner’s term of imprisonment commenced to run from June 2, 1950. The petitioner instituted the present special civil action for certiorari to annul the order of May 16, 1950, amending the decision of February 16. The theory of the petitioner is that this decision became final when he waived his right to appeal and immediately served his sentence, and the respondent Judge accordingly had no power to modify the same on May 16.

    Counsel for respondents admits that while the decision of February 16 became final with respect to the criminal liability of the petitioner, it was not yet final with respect to his civil liability when the motion for reconsideration of May 5 was filed, because neither respondent Augusto Leonardo nor his counsel (the private prosecutor) received notice of said decision. Specifically, it is alleged that the private prosecutor acquired notice of the decision only after examining, on his own initiative, the court docket in the latter part of April.

    There can be no doubt that respondent Augusto Leonardo was entitled to intervene, personally or by attorney, in criminal case No. 9763, as he did not waive the civil action or expressly reserve the right to institute it separately, subject of course to the direction and control of the fiscal. (Rule 106, sec. 15). In criminal cases the judgment is promulgated in open court (Rule 116, sec. 9); and it is not pretended that the fiscal was not notified of the decision of February 16 or its promulgation. While it may be desireable to give notice of all proceedings in a criminal case to the private prosecutor, there is no legal requirement to that effect. Practically speaking, the employment of a private prosecutor is a mere gesture of assistance on the part of the offended party, and when one actually appears, he and the fiscal represent a common cause and party, with the fiscal having direction and control of the case. Hence notice to the fiscal is notice to the private prosecutor. (Rule 27, sec. 2.) Indeed, the fiscal could have filed the necessary motion for reconsideration.

    Wherefore, the order of the respondent Judge dated May 5, 1950, and the corresponding order of commitment dated June 2, 1950, are hereby set aside. So ordered.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-3942   August 30, 1950 - VICTOR B. SESE v. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL. <br /><br />087 Phil 245


    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