G.R. No. 14756 - People vs Lagban y Castro

The case involves a charge under the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila for violations related to gambling, where forty-nine individuals were accused in seven separate informations.
The trial court in criminal cause No. 15934 found ten of the accused guilty and sentenced them to pay a fine of twenty-five pesos, with the judgment dated December 22, 1917.
Counsel appeared on behalf of all accused, and an appeal was filed on February 6, 1918, on behalf of these defendants.

Following the lower court decision, none of the accused (except one) filed a motion to withdraw their appeal.
The clerk of the Court of First Instance issued a certificate outlining:

The filing dates of the information and the hearing dates.
The entry of a plea of not guilty, the publication of the condemnatory judgment, and the submission of bonds by the majority of the accused for their provisional liberty during the appeal.
The appeal being presented in writing by counsel on February 7, 1918.

On January 27, 1919, one accused, Simeon Maturina y Santos, filed a motion to withdraw his appeal, which was granted by the Supreme Court.
Subsequently, on February 20, 1919, Attorney Lucas Paredes was appointed as attorney de officio for the remaining nine accused after Attorney Guevara retired from the case.

On May 12, 1919, the Acting Attorney-General submitted a brief opposing the appeal on behalf of the Government against the remaining nine accused.
The second division of the Court of First Instance, after due consideration, reversed the original judgment and revised the sentence for the nine accused (including Martin Lagban y Castro, Fernanda Nicdao y Mariano, Jose Torno y Santos, Vicente Santos y Cruz, German Villanueva y Gatchalian, Augusto Valdez y Tantoco, Fermin Lopez y de la Cruz, Jacinto Lumbad y Salazar, and Juan Escribir y Angeles) to:

A term of imprisonment for one month, or a fine of one hundred pesos (with subsidiary imprisonment if unable to pay).
Payment of one-tenth part of the costs of both instances, with the remaining tenth part declared de officio.

That three specific accused—Jose Torno, Juan Escribir, and Fernanda Nicdao—had not appealed from the judgment, as evidenced by their failure to present bonds and the subsequent payment of the fines and costs.
That these accused had expressly submitted themselves to comply with the judgment of the lower court.
Evidence such as receipts (though not certified by the clerk) was presented to support the claim that the fines had been paid prior to the record’s elevation to the Supreme Court.

Counsel for these accused did not file any motion to withdraw the appeal before or during the proceedings in the Supreme Court, unlike the singular withdrawal by Simeon Maturina.

Whether the voluntary payment of the fine by an accused defendant constitutes an effective withdrawal or waiver of the right to appeal.
Whether the alleged non-presentation of bonds by some accused (specifically Jose Torno and Juan Escribir) and the payment of their fines should result in the annulment or vacating of the judgment rendered by the appellate court.
How the procedural silence of the accused who did not expressly withdraw their appeal is to be interpreted in terms of maintaining or abandoning their appeal.
The extent to which the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is exercised when the decision is forwarded with completed procedural acts (i.e., the filing and maintenance of the appeal).