Case Digest (G.R. No. 1189)
Facts:
The case of Alejandro Bautista vs. Hon. Elias F. Johnson, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, was decided on May 14, 1903. The petitioner, Alejandro Bautista, sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Johnson, requesting that he be allowed to withdraw an appeal he had filed against a judgment from a municipal court in Manila. Bautista had been convicted of an offense and sentenced to imprisonment by the municipal court. After perfecting his appeal, which had been duly entered in the Court of First Instance, Bautista applied to Judge Johnson for permission to withdraw the appeal. However, this request was denied. Subsequently, the case was tried in the Court of First Instance, where Bautista was convicted again and received a longer sentence than the original one imposed by the municipal court. The legal framework governing this case included Section 42 of the Act to incorporate the city of Manila (No. 183), as amended by Section 11 of Act No. 267, which stated ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 1189)
Facts:
Petitioner and Respondent:
- Petitioner: Alejandro Bautista
- Respondent: Hon. Elias F. Johnson, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila
Nature of the Case:
- The petitioner filed a petition for mandamus to compel the respondent judge to allow him to withdraw an appeal he had taken from a judgment of a municipal court in Manila.
Judgment of the Municipal Court:
- The municipal court convicted the petitioner of an offense and imposed a penalty of imprisonment.
Appeal to the Court of First Instance:
- The petitioner perfected his appeal, and the case was entered in the Court of First Instance for trial de novo.
- The petitioner applied to the judge to withdraw the appeal, but the application was denied.
Outcome in the Court of First Instance:
- The case was tried in the Court of First Instance, and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to a longer term of imprisonment than that imposed by the municipal court.
Relevant Law:
- Section 42 of Act No. 183 (as amended by Section 11 of Act No. 267) provides that a perfected appeal from a municipal court vacates the judgment of the municipal court, and the case is tried de novo in the Court of First Instance as if it had never been tried before.
Issue:
- Whether the petitioner has the right to withdraw his appeal after it has been perfected and the case has been entered in the Court of First Instance.
- Whether the withdrawal of the appeal would nullify the judgment of the municipal court, leaving no judgment in effect.
- Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the judge to allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. The Court held that once an appeal is perfected and the case is entered in the Court of First Instance, the judgment of the municipal court is vacated, and the case proceeds as if it had never been tried before. The petitioner has no right to withdraw the appeal at this stage, as doing so would allow defendants to escape the consequences of a conviction by appealing and then withdrawing the appeal.
Ratio:
Effect of a Perfected Appeal:
- A perfected appeal vacates the judgment of the municipal court, rendering it void. The case is then tried de novo in the Court of First Instance as if it had never been tried before.
No Right to Withdraw Appeal:
- The petitioner cannot withdraw the appeal after it has been perfected and the case has been entered in the Court of First Instance. Allowing such a withdrawal would enable defendants to evade the consequences of a conviction by appealing and then withdrawing the appeal, leaving no judgment in effect.
Mandamus Not Proper:
- Mandamus is not the proper remedy to compel the judge to allow the withdrawal of the appeal. The question of whether the appeal can be withdrawn involves the exercise of judgment and discretion by the Court of First Instance, and mandamus cannot be used to control such discretion.
Dissenting Opinion:
- Justice Torres dissented, arguing that the petitioner had the right to withdraw the appeal before the trial or hearing in the Court of First Instance. He believed that the judgment of the municipal court should subsist and be executed if the appeal is withdrawn before the trial de novo begins.