CRIMPRO - BACKLOG DOCTRINES 12/1/17, 5:19 AM

People v Degrano
1. Whether or not the despite absence of the accused in the promulgation of judgment remedies may
still be availed of.
- Yes, since within 15 days from promulgation, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of
court to avail of such remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled
promulgation and if he proves his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of the
remedies within 15 days from notice

2. Whether or not the accused will be placed in DJ if the MR is granted.

No. (see requisites) Although the SC did not absolutely preclude certiorari as a remedy, the petitioner
must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the lower court blatantly abused its authority to a point
so grave and so severe as to deprive it of its every power to dispense justice. Any judgment from a court
that has no JD would not trigger the attachment of DJ. Since the accused were at large, no JD was
conferred over their persons. Once an accused jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, or escapes
confinement, he loses his standing in Court. — NO DJ since NO JD.

Daan v SB
An offense may be said to necessarily include another when some of the essential elements or
ingredients of the former as alleged in the complaint or information constitute the latter. And vice versa,
an offense may be said to be necessarily included in another when the essential ingredients of the
former constitute the latter.

People v Noque
Sections 4 and 5 ofRule 120 can be applied by analogy in convicting the appellant of the offenses
charged which are included in the crimes proved. A minor variance between the information and the
evidence does not alter the nature of the offense, nor does it determine or qualify the crime or penalty,
so that even if a discrepancy exists, this cannot be pleaded as a ground for acquittal. In other words, his
right to be informed of the charges against him has not been violated because where an accused is
charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of the lesser
crimes or offenses included therein.

Villareal v People
RTC orders have no legal effect for having been issued without JD. Since petitioners filed their
applications for probation with the wrong court. RTC did not have competence to take cognizance of the
applications since it was not the court of origin of the criminal case, it was Branch 121 and not Branch
130. Hence, all orders, resolutions, and judgments of the RTC Branch 130 in relation to the probation
applications of Tecson et all were null and void since there was no JD.

Sec 7 of Rule 120 is inapplicable and irrelevant where the court’s JD is being assailed through a Rule 65
petition. Section 7 of Rule 120 bars the modification of a criminal judgment only if the appeal brought
before the court is in the nature of a regular appeal under Rule 41, or Rule 45 and if that appeal would
put the accused in DJ.

Sevilla v People
In case of variance between the allegation and proof, a defendant may be convicted of the offense
proved when the offense charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved (specifically
reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public document being necessarily included in the
intentional felony of falsification of public documents).

People v Monje
1. Whether or not the judgment was irregularly issued.
No. The verbal judgment promulgated by the judge was incomplete as it does not contain findings of
facts and was not signed. Section 2 of Rule 120 requires that judgment be written in the official
language, personally and directly prepared by the judge, and signed by him and shall contain clearly and

Page 1 of 11
CRIMPRO - BACKLOG DOCTRINES 12/1/17, 5:19 AM

distinctly a statement of the facts proved or admitted by the accused and the law upon which judgment
was based.

In this case, the infirmity was corrected by the TC itself when it subsequently issued a full-blown
judgment containing a summary of the evidence of the parties, findings of fact, and the judge’s
signature. However, records how that the same was not promulgated. —> However, since the notice of
appeal by appellant referred to such judgment, the same was considered promulgated by the SC.

2. Whether or not Palangoy was properly convicted.

Yes. The crime committed was erroneously designated as robbery with homicide, rape, and physical
injuries. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery, it i the first paragraph of Art 294
of the RPC applicable, rape being the AC. The PI should be merged with robbery with homicide.

People v Alfredo
The validity of conviction is not adversely affected by the fact that the judge who rendered judgment was
not the one who heard the witnesses. The fact that the trial judge who endered judgment was not the
one who had the occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial but merely relied on the
records of the case, does not render the judgment as erroneous especially if the evidence on record is
enough to support a conviction.

The circumstance that the judge who rendered the judgment was not the one who heard the witnesses
does not detract from the validity of the conviction since the decision in this particular case appeared to
be based from the evidence.

People v Valdez
A practical consequence of the non-allegation of a detail that aggravates his liability is to prohibit the
introduction or consideration against the accused of evidence that thends to establish such detail. Thus,
where there is a variance between the offense charged in the info and that proved, and the offense as
charged is included or is necessarily included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused
shall be convicted of the offense proved included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged
included in the offense proved. (See Daan case for definition)

Pascua v People

Regardless of the gravity of the offense, promulgation in absentia is allowed as long as 1) recorded; 2)
service of notice,

Petitioner’s non-receipt of the notice was due to her own failure to immediately file a notice of change of
address with the trial court. In the absence of such requirements, a decision could not attain finality,
signifying that the 15 day period did not even start. Later receipt of a copy does NOT cure the lack of a
valid promulgation since both requisites must concur (there can be no re-promulgation since there was
never a promulgation in the first place, it being invalid).

Adonis v Tesoro

The ultimate purpose of the Writ of Habeas corpus is to relieve a person from unlawful restraint. The writ
exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint and as an effective
defense of personal freedom. It is issued only for the lone purposes of obtaining relief for those illegally
confined or imprisoned without sufficient legal basis. It is not issued when the person is in custody
because of a judicial process or a valid judgment.

Since the detention was by virtue of FJ, he is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. Accused was
serving sentence when he was granted parole.

Page 2 of 11
CRIMPRO - BACKLOG DOCTRINES 12/1/17, 5:19 AM

While it is true that a convict may be released from prison on parole when he had served the minimum
period of his sentence, the pendency of another criminal case, however, is a ground for the
disqualification of such convict from being released on parole (such as the second pending libel case)

See Section 4, Rule 102.

In re: Cruz v CA
An application for the writ of HC is made upon a verified petition, setting forth:
1. That the person in whose behalf a application is made is imprisoned or is restrained of his liberty;
2. That the officer or name of the person by whom he is imprisoned or restrained.
3. Place
4. Copy of commitment/cause order

Detention Illegal. SC ordered release (PC penalty, served already 6 years).

—————

RULE 121

Senit v People
Context: RTC promulgated a decision in absentia and deemed that the accused had waived his right to
present evidence which allegedly resulted to his denial of DP

SC: Petitioner had already been arraigned and therefore, there had already been JD over him and that
there had been already an initial presentation of evidence for the defense when his wherabouts became
unknown.

Holding of trial in absentia is authorized undr rthe Constitution. Notices were sent. Due process is
satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their sides of the
controversy. Petitioner’s negligence in believing that the case was already terminated resulting to his
failure to attend the hearings is inexcusable. It is his duty, as a client, to be in touch with his counsel so
as to be constantly posted about the case. It is mandated to inquire from its counsel about the status
and progress of the case from time to time. Even if the SC assumed that he anchored his claim to Sec
2b of Rule 121, the argument still fails. New trial may not be had on the basis of evidence which was
available during the trial but was not presented due to his negligence.

De Villa v Director of New Bilibid Prisons

The remedy of a motion for new trieal is resorted solely to allow the presentation of what is alleged to be
newly discovered evidence. 1) determine the propriety of the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to
release an individual already convicted and serving sentence by virtue of a final and executory judgment;
2) the properiety of granting a new trial under the same factual scenario.

If an individual’s liberty is restraint via some legal process, the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing. The
WHC cannot be used to directly assail a judgment rendered by a comptent court or tribunal which,
having acquired jurisdiction, was not deprived or ousted of this jurisdiction through some anomaly in the
conduct of the proceedings.

Mere errors of fact or law, which did not have the effect of depriving the trial of its jurisdiction over the
case and the person of the defendant, are not correctible in a petition for the issuance of the writ of HC.

These errors must be corrected on certiorari or on appeal. The WHC is not to be used a substitute for
another more proper remedy. Resort to the writ is available only in the limited instances when a
judgment is rendered by a court or tribunal devoid of JD.

Page 3 of 11
CRIMPRO - BACKLOG DOCTRINES 12/1/17, 5:19 AM

A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the ff requisites are
present:
1) the evidence was discovered after trial
2) said evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of
reasonable diligence
3) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching
4) evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, it would probably change the jdugment

It is essential that the offering party exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate the evidence
before or during trial but nonetheless failed to secure it.

Although the DNA evidence was undoubtedly discovered after the trial, the SC found that it does not
meet the criteria for newly-discovered evidence that would merit a new trial. Such evidence disproving
paternity could have been discovered and produced at trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence.

People v Bongalon
See Section 14 of Rule 124 (old rules)

A motion for new trial must be based on newly-discovered evidence (see requisites). A new trial is
justifiably denied where only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the court had already
passed upon the issue of credibility at the trial and where only corroborative evidence is to be offered as
it would not change the result of the case.

People v Licayan
The affidavits cannot be considered newly discovered since the co-accused were already identified
during the trial. However, the SC voted to order the suspension of the Rules and remand the case to the
TC for further reception of evidence by virtue of the power of the SC to suspend its own rules.

See Sec 6b, Rule 121

However, the new evidence presented by Licayan and Lara not only failed to prove that either of them
was in another place during their alleged participation in teh kidnapping of Co and Manaysay but
likewise failed to discredit the positive identification made by both Co and Manaysay.

Posadas v SB
see case (application)

Salvador v Chua
The accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of judgment of conviction loses the remedies
available under the Rules against the judgment. Even assuming that he had suffered hypertension, a
justifiable excuse, the petitioner did not fulfill the other requirement — surrender.

Flores v People
A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary period for appeal. See
Section 4, Rule 121.

Sec 2 of Rule 37 and Sec 4 of Rule 121 should be read in conjunction with Sec 5 of Rule 14. Every
motion must be set for hearing by the movant except for those motions where the court may act upon
without prejudice to the rights of the adverse party. The notice of hearing must be addressed to all
parties and must specify time and date of hearing, with proof of service.

Section 4 and 5 of Rule 15 requirements are mandatory. Failure to comply with the requirement renders
the motion defective. A motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not affect
the period for appeal or filing of the requisite pleading.

Page 4 of 11
CRIMPRO - BACKLOG DOCTRINES 12/1/17, 5:19 AM

Paredes v Borja
Before a judgment of conviction upon of plea of guilty become final the Court may set aside such
judgment and allow a plea of not guilty to be entered by the defendant. Acts done by an inferior court in
the exercise of its discretion will not be interfered with by an appellate court in the absence of grave
abuse. After a judgment of conviction has been entered into a criminal case, the motion filed for the
purpose of substituting a plea of guilty by one of not guilty is equivalent to a petition for reopening the
case and must not only be verified but accompanied by an affidavit of merit —> no longer in the revised
rules.

Requirement of affidavits — defect of lack of it in the motions for recon or rehearsing had been cured by
the testimony under oath of the appellant at the hearing for the MR.

————

RULE 122

Sumbilla v Matrix Finance Corp

The decision of the MeTC us already final and executory after petitioner failed to file a notice of appeal.
Under the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgments, a decision that has acquired finality
becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification was meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, and whether it will be made by
the court that rendered it or the SC.

Exceptions
- SC’s power to suspend its rules whenever required to serve the ends of justice.
Considerations:
1. Matters of life, liberty, honor, or property
2. existence of special or compelling circumstances
3. merits of the case
4. a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of
the rules
5. lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory
6, other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.

People v Evangelista
Since private respondent filed his application for probation on Dec 28, 92 after PD 1990 took effect, it is
convered by the prohibition shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal
from the judgment of conviction and that the filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the
right to appeal. Having appealed from the judgment of the TC and not having applied for probation only
after the CA had affirmed his conviction, PR was clearly precluded from the benefits of probation. The
perfection of appeal referred to in PD1990 refers to the appeal taken from conviction by the TC and not
of the CA since the application is filed before the TC which can only grant it after judgment of conviction
has been rendered.

Almero v People
What petitioner filed with the RTC was a petition for certiorari which is a special civil action. it cannot be
considered on appeal in a criminal case over which only the State has an interest, but an appeal in a civil
action from which private persons can appeal in the event of an adverse outcome.

While the present petition originated from a criminal proceeding, what petitioner filed with the RTC was a
special civil action, impleading PR. He cannot now belatedly change his stance to the prejudice of of
PRs who would otherwise be deprived of recourse. Private parties may be clothed with sufficient
personality if the facts show that the ends of substantial justice would be better served, and if the issues

Page 5 of 11
CRIMPRO - BACKLOG DOCTRINES 12/1/17, 5:19 AM

in the action could be determined in a more just, speedy, and inexpensive manner. Only the OSG may
bring or defend actions on behalf of the State or represent the People.

Probation is not a right but a mere privilege, an act of grace and clemency conferred by the State, and
may be granted by the Court to a deserving defendant. Accordingly, the grant of probation rests solely
upon the discretion of the court exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society, and only
incidentally for the benefit of the accused.

Law requires that an accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail of this remedy
since he is deemed to have accepted his judgment. App for probation = admission of guilt.

Petitioner cannot make up his mind whether to question the judgment, or apply for probation, which is
necessarily deemed a waiver of his right to appeal While he did not file an appeal before applying for
probation, he assailed the validity of the conviction in the guise of assailing the validity of the denial of
probation. Moreover, petitioner applied for the same beyond the reglementary period yet the TC allowed
the filing before its denial

People v Mateo
SC used to assume the direct appellate review over all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is D/
RP/LI or lower but involving offenses committed on the same occasion or arising out of the same
occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which such penalty is imposed. Art VIII, Sec 5
of Consti is not preclusive and does not necessarily prevent the SC, in the exercise of its rule-making
power, from adding an intermediate appeal or review in favor of the accused. Hence, cases need to be
reviewed by the CA before being elevated to the SC to minimize the possibility of an error of judgment. If
the CA should affirm, it could then render judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the
circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering judgment, and elevate the entire records of the case to
the SC for final disposition.

People v Rocha
While the Consti requires a mandatory review by the SC…. (people v mateo)

The SC did not intend to pronounce in Mateo that cases where the penalty imposed is RP or LI is
subject to mandatory review. In that case, such type of cases were grouped together with DP cases
because prior to Mateo, it was the SC which had JD to directly review D/RP/LI cases. Mode of review,
however, is different.
D = automatic review
LI/RP - notice of appeal

Neither does the consti require a mandatory review by the SC of cases where the penalty is RP or LI.
Hence, the granting of a motion to withdraw an appeal is addressed to the SC’s discretion.m

Yu v Samson-Tatad
Purpose of fresh period rule is to standardize the appeal period provided in the Rules and do away with
the confusion on when the period should be counted. Such period is no longer interrupted by the filing
of a motion for new trial or MR but from the receipt of the order dismissing the motion or any final order
or resolution. This rule enunciated in Neypes is also applicable to criminal cases.

Macapagal v People
The disallowance of the notice of appeal signifies the disallowance of the appeal itself. A petrev under
Rule 45 is a mode of appeal by a lower court’s decision or final order direct tot the SC. However, the
questioned order denying the notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may
be taken —> Aggrieved party can elevate the case through a special civil action under Rule 65. (This
case: Rule 45 appeal was taken, hence the wrong mode warrants outright dismissal).

Page 6 of 11
CRIMPRO - BACKLOG DOCTRINES 12/1/17, 5:19 AM

Such was also a violation of the hierarchy of courts. Although the SC has conclusive concurrent JD with
the RTC and the CA to issue writs of certiorari, this should not be taken as granting parties the absolute
and unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which an application will be directed. Direct recourse
to the SC is allowed only if there are special, important, and compelling reasons clearly and specifically
spelled out in the petition, which are not present in the case.

A petrev on certiorari under Rule 45 must contain a verified true copy or duplicate original of the assailed
decision, final order of judgment, failure on this requirement shall be a sufficient ground for dismissal.

Sanico v People
RTC was guilty of a prejudicial error of misapplying the ROC in its dismissal of the appeal timely made
by petitioner for the reason that he did not file the memorandum on appeal. RTC wrongly relied on
Section 7 of Rule 40 authorizing the dismissal of the appeal…

RTC also ignored Sections 3, 8, and 9 of Rule 122 governing appeals in criminal cases.

The failure to file a memorandum of appeal is a ground for the RTC to dismiss the appeal only in civil
cases and inapplicable to criminal cases because of Section 9c which imposes upon the RTC the duty
to decide the appeal on the basis of the entire record of the case and of such memoranda or briefs as
may have been filed upon the submission thereof or upon the expiration of the period to submit the
same.

Pet perfected his appeal by filing the notice of appeal in the MCTC and hence expected that the RTC
would resolve the same in due course whether he filed his memorandum on appeal or not. Hence, what
the RTC did was an outdight denial of due process.

The parties have argued on whether or not the negligence of the petitioner’s counsel should be binding
on the petitioner. In our view, however, we do not need to belabor the point with a lengthy discussion.
Without doubt, the petitioner could reasonably expect that his counsel would afford to him competent
legal representation. The mere failure of the counsel to observe a modicum of care and vigilance in the
protection of the interests of the petitioner as the client – as manifested in the multiple defects and
shortcomings discovered in the petition for review – was gross negligence in any language because the
defects were plainly avoidable by the simple application of the relevant guidelines existing in the Rules of
Court. If the incompetence of counsel was so great and the error committed as a result was so serious
that the client was prejudiced by a denial of his day in court, the litigation ought to be re-opened to give
to the client another chance to present his case. The legitimate interests of the petitioner, particularly the
right to have his conviction reviewed by the RTC as the superior tribunal, should not be sacrificed in the
altar of technicalities.

Ramirez v People
Section 6, Rule 122 provides that an appeal must be taken WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM PROMULGATION OF THE
JUDGMENT OR FROM NOTICE OF THE FINAL ORDER APPEALED FROM.
In the case at bar, the judgment convicting Ramirez of the crime of Estafa was promulgated on March 25, 2009.
Instead of filing a notice of appeal within 15 days from the promulgation or notice of the judgment, the petitioner filed
with the RTC a motion to lift warrant of arrest and to reinstate bail bond three months later.

It was only in November 2010 or more than a year later since the RTC denied her motion that the petitioner filed with
the CA her motion to admit notice of appeal. At that point, her judgment of conviction has already attained finality and
cannot be modified or set aside anymore in accordance with Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Thus, the CA did not commit any reversible error in denying the petitioner’s motion inasmuch as by the time it was
filed, the appellate court was already bereft of any jurisdiction to entertain the motion. The right to appeal is merely a
statutory privilege. It is not a natural right and is not a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege,

Page 7 of 11
CRIMPRO - BACKLOG DOCTRINES 12/1/17, 5:19 AM

and maybe exercised only in accordance with the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply
with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.

The period of perfecting an appeal may be relaxed on the grounds of substantial justice or other special meritorious
circumstances and issues. In the case at bar, petitioner failed to present any exceptional, special, or meritorious
circumstance that will excuse the belated filing of her notice to appeal. Her assertion that her counsel failed to
communicate to her the statues of her case is an implausible excuse. The rule is that the omission or negligence of
counsel binds the client. Lastly, petitioner did not even inform the judge about the demise of her father. At the very
least, she should have filed a motion to reset the promulgation of judgment.

Olarte v People

The errors raised by the petitioners are all "appreciation of evidence" errors or factual errors which are
not within the province of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 122, and Section 9, Rule 45, of the Rules of Court, the review on appeal of a
decision in a criminal case, wherein the CA imposes a penalty other than death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment, is by petition for review on certiorari. A petition for review on certiorari raises only
questions of law as Sec. 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court, explicitly so provides.

Here, the assigned errors, requiring as they do a re-appreciation and reexamination of the trial evidence,
are evidentiary and factual in nature. The petition must therefore be denied on this basis because "one,
the petition for review thereby violates the limitation of the issues to only legal questions, and, two, the
Court, not being a trier of facts, will not disturb the factual findings of the CA, unless they were mistaken,
absurd, speculative, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings
reached by the court of origin," which was not shown to be the case here.

Jaylo v SB
Under Rule 120 there must be surrender and motion for leave to avail of the remedies against the
judgment. These were not complied with. Ultimately the judgment became final when none of these were
made before lapse of period for appeal.

For the failure of the petitioners to regain their standing in court and avail themselves of the remedies
against the judgment of conviction, the Decision of SB attained finality 15 days reckoned from the date
of promulgation.

In view thereof, this Court no longer has the power to conduct a review of the findings and conclusions
in the Decision of the Sandiganbayan. The Decision is no longer subject to change, revision,
amendment, or reversal.

People v Hipona
The appeal is bereft of merit. 
 
For circumstantial evidence to suffice to convict an accused, the following requisites must concur: (1)
there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.

People v Batistis
No. Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 122, and Section 9, Rule 45, of the Rules of Court, the review on appeal
of a decision in a criminal case, wherein the CA imposes a penalty other than death, reclusion perpetua,
or life imprisonment, is by petition for review on certiorari.

A petition for review on certiorari raises only questions of law. The petition for review replicates Batistis'

Page 8 of 11
CRIMPRO - BACKLOG DOCTRINES 12/1/17, 5:19 AM

appellant's brief filed in the CA, a true indication that the errors he submits for our review and reversal
are those he had attributed to the RTC. He thereby rests his appeal on his rehashed arguments that the
CA already discarded. His appeal is, therefore, improper, considering that his petition for review on
certiorari should raise only the errors committed by the CA as the appellate court, not the errors of the
RTC.

[There exists a question of law when there is doubt on what the law applicable to a certain set of facts is.
Questions of fact, on the other hand, arise when there is an issue regarding the truth or falsity of the
statement of facts. Such questions are not subject to review by this Court. As a general rule, we review
cases decided by the CA only if they involve questions of law raised and distinctly set forth in the
petition.

Villareal v Aliga
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should have been filed instead of herein petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45. The People may assail a judgment of acquittal only via petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. If the petition, regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an
ordinary review of the findings of the court a quo, the constitutional right of the accused against double
jeopardy would be violated.

A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court are two and separate remedies. A petition under Rule 45
brings up for review errors of judgment, while a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 covers errors
of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. Grave
abuse of discretion is not an allowable ground under Rule 45. A petition for review under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court is a mode of appeal.

Section 1 of Rule 45 (see notes) must be read in relation to Section 1, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of
Court, which provides that any party may appeal from a judgment or final order "unless the accused will
thereby be placed in double jeopardy."

The judgment that may be appealed by the aggrieved party envisaged in the Rule is a judgment
convicting the accused, and not a judgment of acquittal. The State is barred from appealing such
judgment of acquittal by a petition for review.

The rule is that a judgment acquitting the accused is final and immediately executory upon its
promulgation, and that accordingly, the State may not seek its review without placing the accused in
double jeopardy. Such acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy whether it
happens at the trial court or on appeal at the CA. Thus, the State is proscribed from appealing the
judgment of acquittal of the accused to this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

In certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the
parties and to weigh the probative value thereof. It does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of
the evaluation of evidence. x x x It is not for this Court to re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate
the credibility of the witnesses or substitute the findings of fact of the court a quo.

Certainly, what he questioned was the purported errors of judgment or those involving misappreciation
of evidence or errors of law, which, as aforesaid, cannot be raised and be reviewed in a Rule 65 petition.
To repeat, a writ of certiorari can only correct errors of jurisdiction or those involving the
commission of grave abuse of discretion, not those which call for the evaluation of evidence and
factual findings.

Malayan Insurance Co. v Piccio

The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Court and the CA is vested

Page 9 of 11
CRIMPRO - BACKLOG DOCTRINES 12/1/17, 5:19 AM

solely to the OSG, which is the law office of the government. This is sanctioned by the 1987
Administrative Code in Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV.

The People of the Philippines are the real party in interest in criminal cases, hence, the appeal can only
be made by them and not the private complainants. The latter can only file an appeal as regards the civil
liability of the case, even without the agreement of the OSG. This is because they have no legal
personality to bring the criminal case. The case must be dismissed. However, this is without prejudice to
the petitioners filing another appeal on the CIVIL ASPECT of the case.

Dimakuta v People

Section 4 of the Probation Law establishes a much narrower period during which an application for
probation may be filed with the trial court: "after [the trial court] shall have convicted and sentenced a
defendant and - within the period for perfecting an appeal -." As if to provide emphasis, a new proviso
was appended to the first paragraph of Section 4 that expressly prohibits the grant of an application for
probation "if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction." It is worthy of
note too that Section 4 in its present form has dropped the phrase which said that the filing of an
application for probation means "the automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal." The deletion is quite
logical since an application for probation can no longer be filed once an appeal is perfected; there can,
therefore, be no pending appeal that would have to be withdrawn.

Probation should not be granted to the accused in the following instances:

1. When the accused is convicted by the trial court of a crime where the penalty imposed is within the
probationable period or a fine, and the accused files a notice of appeal; and

2. When the accused files a notice of appeal which puts the merits of his conviction in issue, even
if there is an alternative prayer for the correction of the penalty imposed by the trial court or for a
conviction to a lesser crime, which is necessarily included in the crime in which he was convicted where
the penalty is within the probationable period.

People v Olivo
The well-entrenched rule is that findings of the trial court affirmed by the appellate court are accorded
high respect, if not conclusive effect, by this Court, absent clear and convincing evidence that the
tribunals ignored, misconstrued or misapplied facts and circumstances of substances such that, if
considered, the same will warrant the modification or reversal of the outcome of the case

The present rule is that an appeal taken by one or more several accused shall not affect those who did
not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.
Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court has justified the extension of our judgment of acquittal to
the co-accused who failed to appeal from the judgment of the trial court which we subsequently
reversed.

People v Dueno
Considering that the two accused had already withdrawn their appeals, this decision is binding only with
respect to Belonio who pursued his appeal.

In Re: Garcia
The high prerogative writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to
relieve persons from unlawful restraint. Its object is to inquire into the legality of one’s detention, and if
found illegal, to order the release of the detainee.

However, it is equally well-settled that the writ will not issue where the person in whose behalf the writ is
sought is out on bail, or is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by
virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the

Page 10 of 11
CRIMPRO - BACKLOG DOCTRINES 12/1/17, 5:19 AM

process, render the judgment, or make the order. In the case at bar, therefore, petitioner can no longer
seek relief via a petition for habeas corpus having been convicted by final judgment of the crime of
falsification of public document and use thereof. Said judgment is already final and executory.

The writ of habeas corpus is not a remedy for the correction of such errors. Court cannot, in habeas
corpus proceedings, review the record in a criminal case after judgment of conviction has been
rendered, and the defendants have entered on the execution of the sentence imposed, to ascertain
whether the facts found by the trial court were in accordance with the evidence disclosed by the record,
or to pass upon the correctness of conclusions of law by the trial court based on the facts thus found. A
commitment in due form based on a final judgment convicting and sentencing a defendant in a criminal
case is conclusive evidence of the legality of his detention under such commitment, unless it appears
that the court which pronounced the judgment was without jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in
imposing the penalty. Mere errors of fact or law, which did not have the effect of depriving the trial court
of its jurisdiction over the cause and the person of the defendant, if corrected at all, must be corrected
on appeal in the form and manner prescribed by law.

Page 11 of 11