Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

Rule 125

Procedure in the Supreme Court

Section 1. Uniform procedure. - Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the
procedure in the Supreme Court in original and in appealed cases shall be the same as in the Court
of Appeals.

 The Supreme Court in reviewing the judgement of a lower court in a criminal case may
determine for itself the guilt or innocence of the defendant, upon proofs presented at the
trial, because in a criminal case, an appeal to the Supreme Court throws the whole case
open for review, and it becomes the its duty to correct such errors as may be found in the
judgement appealed from, whether assigned as errors or no.

The Supreme Court may examine the judgement as to:

 Qualification of the crime and degree of the penalty imposed

 Reclassify the crime

 Increase or decrease the penalty imposed

 Assess and award civil indemnity

A case may reach the supreme court by ways of the following:

Automatic review:

1. Where the judgement of the RTC imposed upon is death, the case goes up to the SC for
automatic review.

2. When a decision of the RTC is appealed to the CA, following a review, and the later court
is of the opinion that the penalty imposed should be death or life imprisonment, it shall
render judgement imposing the penalty of either death or reclusion perpetua as the
circumstances warrant, refrain from entering judgement and forthwith certify the case and
elevate the entire record thereof to the SC.
Note: both are a matter of law and not only a matter of right of the accused.

Ordinary Appeal:

 Cases where the penalty imposed is life imprisonment, or where a lesser penalty is imposed
but involving offences committed on the same occasion or arising out of the same
occurrence that gave rise to the serious offense for which the penalty of death or life
imprisonment is imposed.

Petition for review on certiorari:

 A constitutionality or validity of any treaty, executive agreement, law, ordinance or


executive order or regulation is in question.

 The jurisdiction of any inferior court is in issue.

 Only an error or question of law is involved, the appeal is taken from the decision of law
is involved, the appeal is taken from the decision of the lower court to the Supreme Court
by petition for review on certiorari.

Two other instances:

 Those decided by the Court of Appeals

 Those decided by the Sandiganbayan

Section 2. Review of Decisions of the Court of Appeals

General Rule: Findings of fact in the Court of Appeals is conclusive upon the Supreme
Court.

Exceptions:

1. Findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures;


2. Interference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

3. There is grave abuse of discretion;

4. Judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;

5. Findings of fact are conflicting;

6. CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of
both appellant and appellee;

7. Findings are contrary to the trial court;

8. Findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;

9. Facts set in the petition and petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondent;

10. Findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record;

11. CA overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties which would justify a
different conclusion if properly considered

• QUESTION OF LAW – doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state
of facts.

- does NOT involve an examination of the probable value of the evidence presented by the
litigants or any of them.

• QUESTION OF FACT – doubt arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts or
query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence; considering mainly the:

a) Credibility of witnesses

b) Existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances

c) Relation to one another and the whole


d) Probabilities of the situation

Section 3. Decision if opinion is equally divided

• Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices.

• It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of 3, 5, or 7 members (CONST. Art.


VIII, Sec. 4(1))

• A criminal case shall be reheard by the SC when the Court en banc is equally divided in
opinion or the necessary majority cannot be had;

• if no decision is reached the conviction of the lower court shall be reversed and the accused
acquitted.

• ONLY the SC en banc may modify or reverse a doctrine or principle of law or ruling laid
down by the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in division.

Cases:

Villareal

People

FACTS:

In February 1991, seven freshmen law students (including Leonardo "Lenny" Villa) of the Ateneo
de Manila University School of Law signified their intention to join the Aquila Legis Juris
Fraternity (Aquila Fraternity).

On the night of February 8, 1991, the neophytes were "briefed" and brought to the Almeda
Compound in Caloocan City for the commencement of their initiation. The rites were scheduled
to last for three days.
Lenny received several paddle blows. After their last session of physical beatings, Lenny could no
longer walk that he had to be carried to the carport. The initiation for the day was officially ended.
They then slept at the carport.

After an hour of sleep, the neophytes were suddenly roused by Lenny’s shivering and incoherent
mumblings. Initially, Villareal and Dizon dismissed these rumblings, as they thought he was just
overacting. When they realized, though, that Lenny was really feeling cold, some of the Aquilans
started helping him. They removed his clothes and helped him through a sleeping bag to keep him
warm. When his condition worsened, the Aquilans rushed him to the hospital. Lenny was
pronounced dead on arrival.

The trial court rendered judgment holding the 26 accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of homicide. The criminal case against the remaining nine accused commenced anew.

The CA set aside the finding of conspiracy by the trial court and modified the criminal liability of
each of the accused according to individual participation. One accused had by then passed away,
so the following Decision applied only to the remaining 25 accused:

1. Nineteen of the accused-appellants were acquitted, as their individual guilt was not established
by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Four of the accused-appellants were found guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries.
3. Two of the accused-appellants – Fidelito Dizon and Artemio Villareal – were found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction, when it set aside the finding of conspiracy by the trial court and adjudicated the
liability of each accused according to individual participation (NO)

HELD: NO. Grave abuse of discretion cannot be attributed to a court simply because it allegedly
misappreciated the facts and the evidence. Mere errors of judgment are correctible by an appeal or
a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, and not by an application for a writ of
certiorari. Pursuant to the rule on double jeopardy, the Court is constrained to deny the Petition
contra Victorino et al. – the 19 acquitted fraternity members.

A verdict of acquittal is immediately final and a re-examination of the merits of such acquittal,
even in the appellate courts, will put the accused in jeopardy for the same offense.

Colinares

People of the Philippines

Facts:

Arnel Colinares was charged and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide by
the RTC of Camarines Sur. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment from two years and four
months of prison correccional, as minimum, to six years and one day of prison mayor, as
maximum. Since the maximum probationable imprisonment under the law was only up to six
years, Arnel did not qualify for probation. On appeal by Colinares, the Court of Appeals sustained
the RTC’s decision. Unsatisfied with the Court of App eal’s decision, petitioner then appealed to
the Supreme Court and took the position that he should be entitled to apply for probation in case
the Court metes out a new penalty on him that makes his offense probationable, which was strongly
opposed by the Solicitor General reiterating that under the Probation Law, no application for
probation can be entertained once the accused has perfected his appeal from the judgment of
conviction. The Supreme Court, however, found that Colinares is guilty of attempted homicide
and not of frustrated homicide.

Issue:

Whether or not Arnel Colinares may still apply for probation on remand of the case to the trial
court
Ruling:

Yes, The Supreme Court ruled that Colinares may apply for probation upon remand of his case to
the RTC. Ordinarily, an accused would no longer be entitled to apply for probation, he having
appealed from the judgment of the RTC convicting him for frustrated homicide. But in this case
the Supreme Court ruled to set aside the judgment of the RTC and found him only liable for
attempted homicide, if the Supreme Court follows the established rule that no accused can apply
for probation on appeal, the accused would suffer from the erroneous judgment of the RTC with
no fault of his own, therefore defying fairness and equity.

Potrebbero piacerti anche