Case Digest (G.R. No. 30076)
Facts:
Fausta Lanestosa and Bernabe Lames v. Francisco Santamaria, G.R. No. 30076, September 13, 1928, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villa-Real, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners Fausta Lanestosa and Bernabe Lames were defendants in Criminal Case No. 8142 before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo charged with resistance to authority. On July 7, 1928 Judge Antonio M. Opisso (presiding over Branch III) rendered judgment convicting them; they were informed of that judgment on the same day.
On July 16, 1928 the warden of the provincial jail of Iloilo forwarded to the Court a written petition, signed by the petitioners and two other prisoners, in which the petitioners voluntarily waived their right to appeal and requested immediate transfer to Bilibid Prison in Manila, preferably on July 21. The trial court ordered the accused to appear personally; after hearing them the respondent, Judge Francisco Santamaria, on July 17, 1928, issued an order holding that the defendants had withdrawn their appeal and waived their right thereto and ordered their immediate commitment to Bilibid.
On July 18, 1928 the petitioners filed a motion to reconsider the July 17 order and to have their intended appeal admitted. They explained that they had signed the waiver because they despaired at the inability of Mariano Lames (husband/father) to post the appeal bond, and later realized the grave consequences of separation from family (noting Fausta’s ten‑month old infant and ill condition). They asked the court to withdraw the waiver and admit their appeal within the statutory period.
The motion was heard July 21, 1928. After personally hearing the defendants and finding their explanations unsatisfactory because they had confirmed the waiver in open court on July 17, Judge Santamaria denied the motion on the ground that, having voluntarily petitioned for commitment and been personally heard, the court lacked jurisdiction to admit the appeal.
Petitioners then sought mandamus from the Supreme Court, praying that Judge Santamaria be commanded to admit their appeal. The respondent judge answered, setting for...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the petition for mandamus proper to compel the trial judge to admit the appeal?
- Did the defendants’ written waiver followed by the trial court’s order of commitment amount to voluntary compliance with the sentence that terminated the trial court’s jurisdiction and precludes adm...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)