Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19616)
Facts:
The case involves a petition for mandamus filed by Nemesia U. Alama against Judge Macapanton Abbas of the Court of First Instance of Davao and the Provincial Fiscal of Davao. The events leading to this petition began when Alama was accused in five criminal cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 5364, 5365, 5366, 5443, and 6112) for malversation of public funds through falsification of official documents. On December 19, 1961, Alama pleaded guilty to the charges, and the judgment was promulgated. Within the reglementary period to appeal, on January 3, 1962, she filed a notice of appeal for all five cases. After the appeal bond of P20,000.00 was approved, Judge Abbas ordered Alama's counsel to file a manifestation detailing the questions of law to be raised in the appeal. On January 26, 1962, the counsel complied, listing four questions regarding the plea of guilty, the penalties imposed, and the alleged defects in the informations. However, on February 8, 1962, Judge Abbas issued an o...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-19616)
Facts:
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.
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.
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:
- The plea of guilty was secured through misrepresentation.
- The penalties imposed were not as promised.
- The penalty in Criminal Case No. 6112 was excessive.
- The decisions were based on defective informations.
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.
- On February 8, 1962, respondent Judge disallowed the appeal, stating:
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.
- On April 3, 1962, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction, arguing that:
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
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.
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.
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.
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.