Title
Alama vs. Abbas
Case
G.R. No. L-19616
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1966
Petitioner, convicted of malversation, appealed but the trial judge disallowed it post-perfection. Supreme Court ruled mandamus proper, ordering appeal's due course.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19616)

Facts:

  1. Criminal Cases and Plea of Guilty:

    • Petitioner Nemesia U. Alama was the accused in five criminal cases (Nos. 5364, 5365, 5366, 5443, and 6112) before the Court of First Instance of Davao.
    • The charges involved malversation of public funds through falsification of official documents.
    • Petitioner pleaded guilty in all five cases, and a judgment was rendered by respondent Judge Macapanton Abbas on December 19, 1961.
  2. Notice of Appeal:

    • On January 3, 1962, within the reglementary period, petitioner filed a notice of appeal in all five cases.
    • The appeal bond of P20,000.00 was filed and approved.
  3. Respondent Judge’s Order:

    • On January 11, 1962, respondent Judge ordered petitioner’s counsel to file a manifestation specifying the questions of law to be raised on appeal.
    • On January 26, 1962, petitioner’s counsel complied, enumerating the following issues:
      1. The plea of guilty was secured through misrepresentation.
      2. The penalties imposed were not as promised.
      3. The penalty in Criminal Case No. 6112 was excessive.
      4. The decisions were based on defective informations.
  4. Disallowance of Appeal:

    • On February 8, 1962, respondent Judge disallowed the appeal, stating:
      • Defects in the information, except for lack of jurisdiction or failure to allege an offense, were waived by the plea of guilty.
      • The claims of misrepresentation and promises regarding penalties were questions of fact not supported by the record.
      • The penalty in Criminal Case No. 6112 was the minimum and not excessive.
  5. Petition for Mandamus:

    • On April 3, 1962, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction, arguing that:
      • The appeal was already perfected, and the trial court lost jurisdiction.
      • The respondent Judge had no authority to pass upon the issues to be raised on appeal.
    • The Provincial Fiscal of Davao was included as a respondent.
    • On April 6, 1962, the Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Perfection of Appeal and Loss of Jurisdiction:

    • Once an appeal is perfected, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case, both over the record and the subject matter.
    • In criminal cases, an appeal is perfected by filing a notice of appeal and serving a copy to the adverse party within 15 days from the judgment.
    • Petitioner complied with these requirements, and her appeal was perfected.
  2. Authority of Trial Court Over Appeal:

    • The trial court has no authority to pass upon the merits of the issues to be raised on appeal, whether factual or frivolous.
    • The appellate court is the proper forum to determine the validity of the appeal.
  3. Mandamus as a Remedy:

    • Mandamus is the proper remedy when a trial court unlawfully excludes a party from the enjoyment of a right, such as the right to appeal.
    • Petitioner had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
  4. Specification of Questions of Law:

    • The requirement to specify questions of law in the notice of appeal applies only to civil cases, not criminal cases.
    • The respondent Judge erred in requiring petitioner to specify the questions of law to be raised on appeal.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.