Amar v. Moscoso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Carlos Amar was convicted of frustrated homicide in Criminal Case No. 4355 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte. Subsequently, he was charged with evasion of service of sentence in Criminal Case No. 1999 of the Court of First Instance of Davao. Procedural History: Amar escaped from the Davao Penal Colony on December 15, 1952, while his appeal for frustrated homicide was pending. He was recaptured six days later. In Criminal Case No. 1999, he pleaded guilty to evasion of service of sentence and was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Davao. The judgment of conviction for frustrated homicide became final on March 9, 1954, when his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The Petition: Amar seeks a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, arguing that his conviction for evasion of service of sentence was void because he had not yet been convicted by final judgment for the underlying crime of frustrated murder at the time of his escape. He contends the Davao court exceeded its jurisdiction. The Solicitor General argues that certiorari is improper as an appeal is the correct remedy for an erroneous judgment, and the judgment of conviction for evasion of service of sentence is now final and executory, especially given Amar's plea of guilty.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Davao committed grave abuse of discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction in convicting the petitioner for evasion of service of sentence when he had not yet been convicted by final judgment in the frustrated murder case. Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to annul a judgment of conviction for evasion of service of sentence rendered upon a plea of guilty, which has become final and executory.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that a writ of certiorari cannot be used to review a judgment of conviction rendered by a competent court upon a plea of guilty, which has become final and executory. The proper remedy for correcting an erroneous judgment is an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's claim that he was not convicted by final judgment for frustrated murder at the time of his escape is a matter that should have been raised on appeal, not through a petition for certiorari. The respondent's answer clarified that the petitioner was found guilty of frustrated homicide, not frustrated murder, and that the appeal was dismissed, rendering the judgment final. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the charge of evasion of service of sentence, and the court was not aware that he was a detention prisoner at the time of his escape. The Court emphasized that a plea of guilty, when entered by a competent court, is generally binding and leads to a valid conviction, provided the elements of the offense are present and the plea is entered knowingly and voluntarily. However, the procedural vehicle chosen by the petitioner (certiorari) was deemed inappropriate for correcting potential errors in the judgment. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court reiterated that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when a lower court or tribunal has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. It is not a substitute for an appeal. In this case, the Court of First Instance of Davao had jurisdiction to try the petitioner for evasion of service of sentence. The petitioner's claim that he entered a plea of guilty without the aid of counsel and without understanding its consequences, and his failure to appeal, do not warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari, especially since the judgment had become final and executory. The Court also invoked the presumption of regularity in judicial proceedings, which presumes that the petitioner was afforded the assistance of counsel and informed of his rights before arraignment. Therefore, the petition for certiorari was dismissed.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary remedy that lies only when a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It cannot be used to correct an erroneous judgment rendered by a competent court, especially when the judgment has become final and executory, and the alleged error stems from a plea of guilty entered by the accused. The proper remedy for correcting an erroneous judgment is an appeal.