Facts:

The case involves Carlos Amar as the petitioner against the Honorable Segundo C. Moscoso, the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, along with the Provincial Fiscal for the Province of Davao as respondents. The events commenced when Amar, previously convicted of frustrated homicide and sentenced to imprisonment by the Court of First Instance of Leyte in February 1951, appealed his conviction. While his appeal was pending, he was transferred to the Davao Penal Colony. On December 15, 1952, Amar escaped from prison; however, he was recaptured six days later. The Court of First Instance of Davao subsequently charged him with evasion of service of sentence under criminal case No. 1999, resulting in a conviction where the court imposed a penalty of 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional. Amar contended that his conviction was void since he had not received a final judgment of conviction in the related case of frustrated murder before his escape. He petitioned f

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Carlos Amar, the petitioner, was charged and later convicted in criminal case No. 1999 of the Court of First Instance of Davao for the crime of evasion of service of sentence.
• Prior to the events in Davao, Amar had been implicated in a separate criminal case (No. 4355) in the Court of First Instance of Leyte for frustrated murder.
• The conviction in the Leyte case for frustrated murder was rendered in February 1951 and was still under appeal before the Court of Appeals when subsequent events occurred.

The Prison Escape and Transfer

• On 30 October 1951, while his appeal was pending in the Leyte case, Amar was transferred to the Davao Penal Colony.
• He then escaped from prison on 15 December 1952 from the Davao Penal Colony.
• Amar was recaptured six days later following his escape.

Plea and Trial Proceedings in Davao

• Upon arraignment in criminal case No. 1999, Amar entered a plea of guilty to the charge of evasion of service of sentence.
• The trial court’s records indicate that Amar was treated as a detention prisoner—not a convict—at the time he escaped from prison.
• Amar contended that at the time of his escape he had not been convicted by final judgment in the Leyte criminal case (No. 4355), an issue which formed the basis of his argument that the charge in Davao should not have been properly imposed.

Contentions and Allegations

• Amar argued that the conviction and penalty imposed in Davao were void because he had not been finally convicted in the Leyte case at the time of his escape, as required by legal provisions under art. 157 of the Revised Penal Code.
• He further claimed that his guilty plea had been entered without the assistance of counsel and without full knowledge of its legal consequences.
• The petitioner maintained that the Court of First Instance of Davao exceeded its jurisdiction and committed grave abuse of discretion in convicting him for the crime charged.

The Respondents’ Position

• The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, asserted that Amar was not convicted of frustrated murder but rather of frustrated homicide, and that his conviction in the Leyte case eventually became final on 9 March 1954 upon the dismissal of his appeal.
• The respondents argued that since Amar had entered a plea of guilty in the Davao case, the record was complete, regular, and in accordance with the Rules of Court, including the provision that he was informed of his right to counsel.
• It was emphasized that the trial court was not aware that at the time of his escape Amar was merely a detention prisoner, and accordingly, the proceedings and subsequent judgment were proper and valid.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner’s conviction for evasion of service of sentence in criminal case No. 1999 is void due to his escape from prison occurring before a final judgment in the separate Leyte case (No. 4355).

• The issue revolves around the interpretation of art. 157 of the Revised Penal Code and its applicability regarding the status of the prisoner at the time of escape.
• Whether the probationary status in the Leyte case could invalidate the subsequent conviction in Davao.

Whether the trial court in Davao committed grave abuse of discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction in convicting the petitioner given the circumstances of his escape and his status as a detention prisoner.

• This includes an inquiry as to whether the court was aware of and properly considered the petitioner’s detention status at the time of the escape.

Whether the petitioner’s claim of having entered his plea without the aid of counsel, and without sufficient understanding of its legal implications, merits the annulment of the judgment rendered against him.

• Determining if procedural irregularities occurred during arraignment and if his rights to counsel were adequately observed.
• Evaluating if the lack of counsel could have influenced the validity of the plea and the consequent judgment.

• The appropriateness of using the extraordinary remedy of certiorari to challenge a judgment already rendered by a competent court upon a valid guilty plea.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)