Brua v. Inting
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Virgilio Brua and two co-accused were charged with serious physical injuries. Upon arraignment, Brua pleaded guilty. Following a trial concerning the other defendants, the Municipal Court of Davao City acquitted them but found Brua guilty based on his plea. He was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term and ordered to indemnify the offended party. Procedural History: After the promulgation of the decision and his return to jail, Brua attempted to appeal and posted a bail bond. However, the respondent Municipal Court refused to grant due course to the appeal, asserting the decision had become final and executory because Brua had begun serving his sentence. This led to the filing of the instant petition. The Petition: The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, certiorari, and mandamus, requesting immediate approval of his bail bond for provisional release and the nullification of the Municipal Court's decision. The petition argued that the lower court erred in refusing to give due course to his appeal and in not applying Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code concerning minors, though the Supreme Court noted this latter point was rendered academic by the petitioner's current age.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to give due course to the petitioner's appeal after he had begun serving his sentence. Whether the provisions of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, should have been applied to the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court found that the respondent court was correct in assuming that the petitioner had submitted himself to the execution of the judgment by returning to confinement without announcing any intention to appeal. Consequently, the petitioner must be deemed to have waived his right to appeal. The issue regarding the applicability of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code was rendered academic by the petitioner's age at the time of the decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent court did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to give due course to the petitioner's appeal. The Court emphasized that after the promulgation of the decision, the petitioner returned to confinement without making any announcement, either written or oral, of his intention to appeal. This action led the respondent court to reasonably assume that the petitioner had submitted himself to the execution of the judgment. Such submission, according to established jurisprudence, constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal. Therefore, the judgment had become final and executory, precluding any further appeal. On Issue 2: While acknowledging that a significant procedural question was involved concerning the applicability of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the Supreme Court noted that this issue had been rendered virtually academic. The petitioner's age at the time of the decision (19 years and 5 months) made the provisions of Article 80, which pertains to the suspension of sentences for minors, inapplicable to him. Thus, even if the respondent court had erred in not considering Article 80, the outcome would not have changed due to the petitioner's age.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that once a convicted person begins to serve their sentence, the judgment becomes final and executory, and the right to appeal is deemed waived. This is particularly true when the convicted person returns to confinement without any overt act indicating an intention to appeal, leading the court to reasonably assume submission to the judgment.