Evaristo v. Lastrilla
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioners, Francisco Evaristo, Pedro Cardeño, and Agustin Miano, along with six other individuals, were charged with murder for the death of Pastor Muyot. Following a trial, the petitioners were found guilty as charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with their six co-defendants being acquitted due to insufficient evidence. 2. Procedural History: After being convicted and sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Samar on March 29, 1958, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal on the same day. Subsequently, on April 10, 1958, they filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which they later amended on July 28, 1958. The respondent court, on August 7, 1958, issued an order declining to take cognizance of the motion for new trial, asserting it lacked jurisdiction because the appeal had already been perfected. 3. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court via a petition for writs of certiorari and mandamus under Rule 67. The petitioners seek to annul the respondent court's order of August 7, 1958, and compel the court to grant their motion for a new trial. They argue that the trial court erred in losing jurisdiction to consider their motion for new trial after the perfection of their appeal, citing relevant jurisprudence and rules of procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court lost jurisdiction to act on the motion for new trial after the perfection of the appeal. Whether the petitioners have lost their right to file a motion for new trial.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The respondent court correctly declined to act on the motion for new trial for lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of loss of jurisdiction after perfection of appeal: The Court reiterated the established rule that in criminal proceedings, an appeal is perfected by filing a notice of appeal with the court where the judgment was rendered and serving a copy upon the adverse party within the reglementary period. Upon the perfection of an appeal, the trial court loses jurisdiction of the case, except for orders necessary for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties that do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal. In this case, the petitioners perfected their appeal on March 29, 1958, by filing the notice of appeal and serving a copy on the Provincial Fiscal. Therefore, the respondent court lost jurisdiction to pass upon their motion for new trial filed on April 10, 1958. The Court cited Director of Prisons vs. Teodoro, Sr. and People vs. Aranda in support of this principle. On the issue of losing the right to file a motion for new trial: While the trial court lost jurisdiction to act on the motion for new trial, the petitioners have not lost their right to file such a motion. The Court clarified that the record of the case was transmitted to and received by the Supreme Court on October 7, 1958. Therefore, the petitioners have the right to file their motion for new trial before the Supreme Court, where the case record is now lodged. This preserves their right to seek a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, even though the trial court can no longer entertain it.
Main Doctrine
Once an appeal is perfected by the filing of a notice of appeal and service thereof upon the adverse party, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case, except for orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties not involving any matter litigated by the appeal. Consequently, the trial court cannot validly act on a motion for new trial filed after the perfection of the appeal.