Flores v. Dalisay
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Lustiano Flores was convicted of attempted rape in Criminal Case No. V163. The decision was promulgated on October 14, 1976. 2. Procedural History: Following his conviction, Flores filed a notice of appeal on October 21, 1976, intending to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The fiscal moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was untimely and that the accused had begun serving his sentence. The trial judge granted this motion and dismissed the appeal on November 2, 1976, subsequently denying a motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Flores filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the respondent judge to give due course to his appeal. He argued that his appeal was filed within the reglementary period of fifteen days and that his return to jail after promulgation did not constitute the commencement of his sentence, especially as he was a detention prisoner without means to post bail and his counsel de oficio was absent at the promulgation. The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the appeal and failed in its ministerial duty to allow the appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the return of a detention prisoner to jail immediately after the promulgation of a sentence constitutes the commencement of service of sentence, thereby making the judgment final and extinguishing the right to appeal. Whether Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the trial court to give due course to a timely filed appeal.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is meritorious. The trial court erred in dismissing the appeal. The petitioner is entitled to the writ of mandamus because the trial court failed to perform its ministerial duty of giving due course to petitioner's appeal and excluded him from the exercise and enjoyment of his right to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge erred in assuming the appeal was filed out of time. Under Section 6, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, an accused has fifteen days from the promulgation of the judgment to take an appeal. Since Flores filed his notice of appeal only seven days after promulgation, it was seasonably taken. The Court clarified that for a detention prisoner who cannot afford bail, returning to jail is an administrative necessity, not a conclusive indication that they have started serving the sentence imposed in the new judgment. Pursuant to Section 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, a judgment only becomes final after the lapse of the appeal period, when the sentence is served, or when the defendant waives the right to appeal in writing. As Flores never executed a written waiver and filed his notice within the 15-day window, his right to appeal remained intact. On Issue 2: The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the writ of Mandamus because the trial court failed to perform its ministerial duty. Giving due course to a timely filed appeal is not a discretionary act of the trial court but a duty required by law. By dismissing the appeal based on an unwarranted assumption, the trial court excluded the petitioner from the exercise and enjoyment of a legal right. The Court emphasized that the assumptions made by the fiscal and the judge were unfounded, especially since Flores' counsel de oficio was not present during the promulgation to advise him. Therefore, Mandamus is the appropriate vehicle to correct the trial court's refusal to recognize a validly perfected appeal.
Main Doctrine
A trial court commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing an appeal solely on the ground that the accused, a detention prisoner, returned to jail after promulgation of judgment, without affording him the full reglementary period to file a notice of appeal, especially when his counsel de oficio was absent during promulgation.