Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > November 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-61997 November 15, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ELFREN PARTISALA, ET AL.

203 Phil. 750:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-61997. November 15, 1982.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES & TRADERS ROYAL BANK, Petitioners, v. ELFREN PARTISALA and HON. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the 2nd Branch of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Respondents.

The Solicitor General, for Petitioners.

Antonio C. Singson private prosecutor and counsel for Traders Royal Bank.

Enrique Arguelles and Eugenio Original for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Charged by petitioner bank with estafa, private respondent pleaded guilty and was forth with "sentenced to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of from Four (4) Years, Two (2) Months and One (1) Day, minimum to Six (6)Years of prision correctional, maximum, together with all the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the cost." Private respondent promptly filed an application for probation which the prosecution opposed. After a series of pleadings, and before the trial judge could act on the application, the Acting Provincial Fiscal intervened by filing a "Motion to Correct Error in Computation of Penalty and to Hold in Abeyance Petition for Probation," wherein he advanced the proposition that private respondent should have been sentenced to a penalty higher than six years which would make him ineligible for probation. The trial judge denied the motion for being filed out of time, since the motion to correct was brought after the accused’s conviction had become final by reason of the filing of the application for probation, and that the motion, if granted, will place the accused in double jeopardy. When respondent judge granted the application for probation, this petition was filed with the Court of Appeals which certified the same to the Supreme Court, the issues raised being purely legal.

The Supreme Court held that the sentence imposed by respondent judge, whether correct or not, is valid because he had jurisdiction to impose it; that since the motion to correct error in computation of penalty was filed after the accused’s conviction had become final, the sentence was already beyond the trial court’s reach, including the Supreme Court; and that only the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, henceforth, actions filed in the name of the Republic if not initiated by the Solicitor General will be summarily dismissed.

Petition dismissed.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; JUDICIARY; SUPREME COURT; JURISDICTION OVER QUESTIONS OF LAW IS EXCLUSIVE; PETITIONS ERRONEOUSLY FILED WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE CERTIFIED TO THE SUPREME COURT. — True the Court of Appeals has "original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus, and all other auxiliary writs and process in aid of its appellate jurisdiction" (Sec. 30, Judiciary Act, as amended) but true also is that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction on final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in "cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved." (Sec. 17, idem.) In the instant case, the issues raised in the petition for certiorari were purely legal, hence, the Court of Appeals where said petition was erroneously filed, had to certify it to the Supreme Court.

2. CRIMINAL LAW; PROBATION; PROBATION LAW (P.D. NO. 968); APPLICATION FOR PROBATION; FILING THEREOF CONSTITUTES WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RENDERS CONVICTION FINAL; CASE AT BAR. — Under P.D. No. 968, the Probation Law, a convict who files a petition for probation automatically waives his right to appeal and therefore his conviction becomes final. Hence, a motion (to correct) brought after an application for probation has been filed is filed out of time. Moreover, the motion, if granted, will place the accused in double jeopardy.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; PARTIES; REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES CAN BE REPRESENTED ONLY BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AS A RULE; NON-OBSERVANCE THEREOF WARRANTS SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS. — Only the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. Henceforth, actions filed in the name of the Republic of the Philippines will be summarily dismissed.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


This is a special civil action for certiorari. Off-hand it can be said that the petition is frivolous. It was also filed in the wrong court — the Court of Appeals. True the Court of Appeals has "original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas corpus, and all other auxiliary writs and process in aid of its appellate jurisdiction" (Sec. 30, Judiciary Act, as amended) but true also is that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction on final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in "cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved." (Sec. 17, idem.) This is such a case so that the Court of Appeals had to certify it to Us.

In Criminal Case No. 10997 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Elfren Partisala was accused of estafa upon complaint of his employer The Traders Royal Bank. He pleaded guilty and was forthwith "sentenced to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of from Four (4) Years, two (2) Months and One (1) Day, minimum, to Six (6) Years of prision correccional, maximum, together with all the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the costs." He was also ordered to reimburse to the bank the amount malversed. Immediately after he was sentence, Partisala filed an application for probation. Three weeks later, an assistant provincial fiscal and the private prosecutor opposed the application for probation. They argued that Partisala can best be rehabilitated in prison and if he is set free he might commit other crimes. There followed a reply to the opposition; a supplement to the opposition; a memorandum to support the application; and a rejoinder to the reply. So far, so good.chanrobles law library

But before the trial judge could act on the application which appears to have attracted attention because the Sangguniang Bayan of Calinog, Iloilo, in special session passed a resolution wherein it "RESOLVED to manifest, as this Body do hereby manifest, the alarm and vehement sentiment of the people of this Municipality over the reprehensible conduct of Elfren Partisala for his abstraction and misappropriation of the peoples’ savings and deposits and other funds of the Calinog Branch of the Traders Royal Bank," the Acting Provincial Fiscal no less intervened. He sought to educate the trial judge by filing a "MOTION TO CORRECT ERROR IN COMPUTATION OF PENALTY AND TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE PETITION FOR PROBATION." He advanced the proposition that Partisala should have been sentenced to a penalty higher than six years which would then make him ineligible for probation. (Sec. 9, par. a, Probation Law, as amended.) But even the learned fiscal was not absolutely certain as to the correct penalty. Firstly, he said the penalty "is between 6 years, 8 months, 21 days to 8 years." But alternatively he said that the imposable penalty can also "be in the medium period of prision mayor, which has a range of from 8 years 1 day to 10 years." He asked that the sentenced imposed on Partisala be "corrected."cralaw virtua1aw library

Predictably, the trial judge denied the motion. He gave two reasons for the denial, namely:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The motion is in the nature of a motion for reconsideration. As such it should have been filed before the sentence of the accused became final. It is elementary that a motion for reconsideration should be based on the same grounds as those for a new trial for the two remedies are the same. Under Rule 121, Section 1, a motion for new trial should be filed before the finality of a conviction.

"Under P.D. No. 968, the Probation Law, a convict who files a petition for probation automatically waives his right to appeal and therefore his conviction becomes final. Therefore, the instant motion is filed out of time.

"2. The motion, if granted will place the accused in double jeopardy. (People v. Taruc, G.R. No. L-8229, Nov. 28, 1955; People v. Ang Cho Kio, L-6687-6688)."cralaw virtua1aw library

A motion for reconsideration was filed but denied. In the meantime, the trial judge granted Partisala’s application for probation.

The instant petition prays that the orders of the trial judge denying the motion to correct, denying the motion to reconsider the denial, and granting the application for probation be annulled; that the correct penalty be imposed on Partisala; and that his application for probation be denied.

We do not have to decide whether or not the penalty which the trial judge imposed on Partisala is correct. For correct or not, it is a valid sentence because the trial judge had jurisdiction to impose it. So for the reasons given by him when he denied the motion to correct, the sentence was already beyond his reach, including this Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

It is to be noted the Republic of the Philippines is one of the petitioners herein. The one who signed the petition for the Republic is a mere second assistant provincial fiscal, albeit he is the Officer-in-Charge of the Iloilo Provincial Fiscal’s Office. We make it known that only the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. Henceforth actions filed in the name of the Republic of the Philippines if not initiated by the Solicitor General will be summarily dismissed.

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The preliminary injunction which was issued by the Court of Appeals is hereby dissolved. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Escolin, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana and Vasquez, JJ., concur in the result.

Teehankee, J., took no part.

Aquino, J., the People of the Philippines not the Republic, should be the petitioner.




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-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-2221 November 2, 1982 - CIPRIANO ABENOJAR v. DOMINGO LOPEZ

    203 Phil. 385

  • A.M. No. 2739-CFI November 2, 1982 - TERESITA DE CASTRO v. IGNACIO CAPULONG

    203 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-27152 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS E. TORIO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 398

  • G.R. No. L-34079 November 2, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-34517 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SlMEON GANUT

    203 Phil. 421

  • G.R. No. L-39518 November 2, 1982 - AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 436

  • G.R. No. L-44039 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO A. DATUIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 442

  • G.R. No. L-47460 November 2, 1982 - AMELIA DELEGENTE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 447

  • G.R. No. L-48196 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO BAUTISTA v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 469

  • G.R. No. L-50298 November 2, 1982 - JOSEPH Y. PUNAY v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 475

  • G.R. No. L-50358 November 2, 1982 - SHIPSIDE, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 481

  • G.R. No. L-52823 November 2, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MIDPANTAO ADIL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 492

  • G.R. No. L-53465 November 2, 1982 - ANTONIO NITURA v. JOSE C. COLAYCO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-54439 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE Of THE PHIL. v. JESUS N. MONTEZ

    203 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-55645 November 2, 1982 - RICARDO CENIZA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-56909 November 2, 1982 - FLORENCIA B. SAN VALENTIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 534

  • G.R. No. L-58578 November 2, 1982 - JOSE GEROMO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 539

  • G.R. No. L-59054 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MUSTAPA ALIBASA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 559

  • G.R. No. L-34597 November 5, 1982 - ROSITO Z. BACARRO, ET AL. v. GERUNDIO B. CASTAÑO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 563

  • G.R. No. L-36033 November 5, 1982 - IN RE: APOLONIO TABOADA v. AVELINO S. ROSAL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 572

  • G.R. No. L-61870 November 5, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTINO D. PERALTA

    203 Phil. 580

  • G.R. No. L-49004 November 10, 1982 - NG LIT v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 592

  • A.M. No. 702-CTJ November 15, 1982 - ELISA VDA. DE OCHOA, ET AL. v. GERINO M. TOLENTINO

    203 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-26325 November 15, 1982 - PACWELD STEEL CORPORATION v. ASIA STEEL CORPORATION

    203 Phil. 606

  • G.R. No. L-31366 November 15, 1982 - ASIAN SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ISLAND STEEL, INC., ET AL.

    203 Phil. 611

  • G.R. No. L-34834 November 15, 1982 - ARTURO H. TROCIO v. LUIS D. MANTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39258 November 15, 1982 - RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT, ET AL. v. AMANTE P. PURISIMA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 625

  • G.R. No. L-42540 November 15, 1982 - VICTOR NEPOMUCENO, ET AL. v. JUAN B. MONTECILLO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 632

  • G.R. No. L-52325 November 15, 1982 - CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-53060 November 15, 1982 - ROSARIO T. MAMERTO, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 644

  • G.R. No. 55771 November 15, 1982 - TAHANAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 652

  • G.R. No. L-56479 November 15, 1982 - SOCORRO L. VDA. DE STA. ROMANA v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 708

  • G.R. Nos. L-56695-98 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIBSON A. ARAULA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 719

  • G.R. No. L-61663 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO L. REGLOS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 724

  • G.R. No. L-61997 November 15, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ELFREN PARTISALA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 750

  • A.C. No. 641 November 19, 1982 - FRANCISCO RADOMES v. FERNANDO FABRIGARAS

    204 Phil. 1

  • A.C. No. 1675 November 19, 1982 - BELEN A. RIVERA v. ORLANDO LATONERO

    204 Phil. 4

  • A.M. No. P-1935 November 19, 1982 - BENJAMIN DAAG v. HONORIO SERRANO

    204 Phil. 9

  • G.R. No. L-30690 November 19, 1982 - BF HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 15

  • G.R. No. L-30854 November 19, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 21

  • G.R. No. L-34362 November 19, 1982 - MODESTA CALIMLIM, ET AL. v. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, ET AL.

    204 Phil.25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-35718 November 19, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 38

  • G.R. No. L-37712 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SYQUIOCO

    204 Phil. 42

  • G.R. No. L-38258 November 19, 1982 - LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN v. MARCELO ENTERPRISES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 50

  • G.R. No. L-39503 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCRESIO CARDENAS

    204 Phil. 88

  • G.R. No. L-39528 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY MONAGA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 98

  • G.R. No. L-44686 November 19, 1982 - MACARIO MANUEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 110

  • G.R. No. L-44817 November 19, 1982 - LEA PAZ TUAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 117

  • G.R. No. L-46729 November 19, 1982 - LAUSAN AYOG, ET AL. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49140 November 19, 1982 - QUASHA ASPERILLA ANCHETA VALMONTE PEÑA & MARCOS v. CELESTINO P. JUAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 141

  • G.R. No. L-54158 November 19, 1982 - PAGASA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 162

  • G.R. No. L-55079 November 19, 1982 - METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY v. FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 172

  • G.R. No. L-55539 November 19, 1982 - DIOSA DE LEON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 180

  • G.R. No. L-55624 November 19, 1982 - BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 194

  • G.R. No. L-56761 November 19, 1982 - MARIANO TOLEDO, ET AL. v. BERNARDO P. PARDO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 203

  • G.R. No. L-57170 November 19, 1982 - KO BU LIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 211

  • G.R. No. L-57440 November 19, 1982 - D. D. COMENDADOR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MARCELINO N. SAYO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 227

  • G.R. Nos. L-57477-78 November 19, 1982 - HEIRS OF WILLIAM SEVILLA, ET AL. v. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 237

  • G.R. No. L-57707 November 19, 1982 - PHILEX MINING CORPORATION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 241

  • G.R. No. L-58506 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 247

  • G.R. No. L-59463 November 19, 1982 - PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA v. IMPERIAL MINING COMPANY, INC.

    204 Phil. 262

  • G.R. No. L-59596 November 19, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 268

  • G.R. No. L-60950 November 19, 1982 - J.D. MAGPAYO CUSTOMS BROKERAGE CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 276

  • A.M. No. P-292 November 25, 1982 - ISIDRO G. ARENAS v. MANUEL RESULTAN, SR.

    204 Phil. 279

  • A.C. No. 2662-CFI November 26, 1982 - FLAVIANO A. PELMOKA v. FELIX T. DIAZ, JR.

    204 Phil. 283

  • G.R. No. L-30391 November 25, 1982 - ASSOCIATED SUGAR, INC., ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 289

  • G.R. No. L-35630 November 25, 1982 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. GALAURAN & PILARES CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL.

    204 Phil. 296

  • G.R. No. L-35757 November 25, 1982 - LUCIA LUSUNG v. SUSANA VDA. DE SANTOS

    204 Phil. 302

  • G.R. No. L-36364 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO DASCIL, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 309

  • G.R. No. L-38423 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL PIMENTEL

    204 Phil. 327

  • G.R. No. L-38449 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR MANZANO

    204 Phil. 339

  • G.R. No. L-50548 November 25, 1982 - CONCHING ALVARO, ET AL. v. HOSPICIO ZAPATA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 356

  • G.R. No. L-56025 November 25, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO M. GONONG, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 364

  • G.R. Nos. L-56224-26 November 25, 1982 - PURISIMA GESTOSO CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 372

  • G.R. Nos. L-61067-68 November 25, 1982 - MITSUI & CO., LTD. v. MANUEL G. ABELLO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 384

  • G.R. No. L-33724 November 29, 1982 - ELIGIA BATBATAN. v. OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PAGADIAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 379