Case Digest (G.R. No. 8195)
Facts:
The United States v. The Court of First Instance of Manila, A. S. Crossfield, Judge, et al., G.R. No. 8195, February 14, 1913, the Supreme Court, per curiam.The petitioner, the United States, sought an original writ of certiorari to annul an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila (the respondent trial court and its judge, A. S. Crossfield) that purported to modify the sentence imposed on defendants Joseph M. Heery and Joseph J. Capurro. On or about June 24, 1912, a complaint charging violation of the Opium Law was filed against Heery and Capurro; they were arrested, tried, and, after hearing the evidence, the trial judge found them guilty on July 30, 1912 and pronounced a sentence (later read to the defendants) of six months' imprisonment and a fine of P800 plus one-half the costs.
The original sentence was read to the defendants on August 2, 1912. On August 5, 1912 the defendants filed a petition to modify the sentence; the motion was set for hearing, then suspended and continued, and after consideration the trial judge dictated an order purportedly modifying the sentence so that each defendant would pay a fine of P2,000 and one-half the costs. There is confusion in the record as to the date of that modification, but the modified sentence was not announced to the defendants and entered of record until August 19, 1912—seventeen days after the August 2 reading of the original sentence.
The United States petitioned this Court by original certiorari on the ground that under General Orders, No. 58, § 47 a defendant must appeal within fifteen days from rendition of judgment or order, and that after that nonextendable fifteen-day period the trial court loses jurisdiction to modify a sentence; therefore the modification announced August 19 was beyond the judge’s authorit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court have jurisdiction to modify a criminal sentence after the lapse of fifteen days from its rendition under General Orders, No. 58, § 47?
- If the modification was made after the lapse of that fifteen-day period, is the modified sentence void and does the original sentenc...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)