Facts:

The case involves the appellant, Jose Lopez y Guieb, who is also known by multiple aliases, including Emilio Yangco and Marcelo Magno. The case originated from the Court of First Instance of Manila, which adjudicated the matter on or around May 15, 1932. Jose Lopez was charged with the crime of estafa, as defined under Article 315, case 3 of the Revised Penal Code, in connection with subsection 2, paragraph (d) thereof. The court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to four months and one day of arresto mayor (a term of imprisonment). Additionally, he was ordered to indemnify Kinkwa Meriyasu & Co. the sum of three hundred seventy-seven pesos and eighty centavos (₱377.80), with provisions for subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs of the suit. The attorney de oficio appointed to represent Lopez filed a petition acknowledging that there were no errors in the lower court's dec

...

Facts:

Parties and Procedural History

• The case is styled as THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, vs. JOSE LOPEZ Y GUIEB (ALIAS EMILIO YANGCO, MARCELO MAGNO, ETC.), DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
• The accused, Jose Lopez y Guieb (alias Emilio Yangco, Marcelo Magno, etc.), faced criminal charges for the crime of estafa as defined under Article 315, case 3 of the Revised Penal Code in connection with subsection 2, paragraph (d) thereof.
• The judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced the accused to:
• Four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor.
• Payment of indemnity amounting to Three Hundred Seventy-Seven Pesos and Eighty Centavos (P377.80) to Kinkwa Meriyasu & Co.
• Subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
• Payment of the costs of the suit.

Plea and Submission of Attorney’s Petition

• The accused had pleaded ‘guilty’ in the lower court, thereby accepting the minimal penalty provided by law for the crime charged.
• The attorney de oficio (appointed by the court) filed a petition on May 15, 1932, which contained the following representations:
• Affirmation that the accused had pleaded guilty and that the trial court had imposed the minimum penalty available by law.
• Assertion that no error was committed by the trial court that prejudiced the appellant.
• A contention that the appeal presented by the accused had no merit, thereby justifying the confirmation of the lower court’s decision without the preparation of an elaborate brief.

Motion for Probation and Application of Act No. 4221

• On June 18, 1936, a motion was received by the clerk of the appellate court.
• The motion filed by the accused-appellant sought:
• The grant of the benefits of Act No. 4221.
• A suspension of the execution of the judgment rendered against him.
• His placement on probation.
• It was noted that this motion, regarding probation under Act No. 4221, should properly be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which has jurisdiction to process requests for probation after the required proceedings.

Issue:

Whether the petition filed by the attorney de oficio sufficiently demonstrated any error on the part of the trial court that would warrant reversal of the judgment.

• Did the representation that no error had been committed and that the minimal penalty was appropriately imposed eliminate any grounds for appeal?

Whether the accused's subsequent motion, seeking the benefits of Act No. 4221, including suspension of judgment execution and placement on probation, was procedurally correct and appropriately filed.

• Is the appellate forum the proper venue for such a motion, or should it have been directed to the Court of First Instance of Manila as prescribed by law?
• Whether the cumulative proceedings and representations justify modifying or reversing the trial court’s judgment in any way.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)