Jamilano v. Cuevas
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Meynardo Jamilano y Quizon was charged with parricide for allegedly stabbing his father to death. The incident occurred on October 13, 1968, at their residence in Tondo, Manila. Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment and subsequently underwent trial. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IV, convicted the petitioner of parricide in a decision promulgated on October 5, 1970, and received by his counsel on October 13, 1970. Petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial on October 28, 1970, alleging errors of law and irregularities, specifically the failure to consider insanity and irregularities in the promulgation of the decision. A Supplemental Motion was filed on November 13, 1970, emphasizing the alleged irregular promulgation in the absence of counsel. The Motion for New Trial was denied on November 18, 1970. Petitioner's counsel received this denial on November 30, 1970. A motion for reconsideration was filed on December 1, 1970, reiterating the same grounds, and was subsequently denied. Petitioner's counsel received this second denial on December 16, 1970, on which date a notice of appeal was filed. The trial court dismissed the appeal as having been filed out of time. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the respondent judge to approve and give due course to his appeal. The petition raises two main issues: the validity of the promulgation of the judgment in the absence of counsel and whether the notice of appeal filed on December 16, 1970, was seasonably interposed. Petitioner argues that the promulgation was irregular and that his appeal was timely filed within the prescribed period, considering the interruption caused by his motions.
Issue(s)
Whether the promulgation of the judgment on October 5, 1970, in the absence of petitioner's counsel was valid. Whether the notice of appeal filed on December 16, 1970, was seasonably interposed.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The promulgation of the judgment was valid, and the notice of appeal was filed out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the promulgation: The Court ruled that the promulgation of the judgment was valid and legal. Rule 120, Section 6 of the Rules of Court provides that judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the defendant and any judge of the court. The rule does not require the presence of counsel for the validity of the promulgation, especially when the conviction is for a grave offense. The Court cited U.S. vs. Pantaleon Gimeno which held that the absence of the defendant's counsel at the reading of the sentence does not affect the validity of the promulgation. Therefore, the petitioner's claim of an irregular promulgation due to his counsel's absence was without merit. On the timeliness of the appeal: The Court held that the notice of appeal was filed out of time. Rule 122, Section 6 of the Rules of Court states that an appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or notice of the judgment. This period is interrupted by the filing of a motion for new trial until notice of the order overruling it is served. In this case, the decision was promulgated on October 5, 1970. The 15-day period to appeal expired on October 20, 1970. Even if counted from the receipt of the decision by counsel on October 13, 1970, the period would have expired on October 28, 1970. The filing of the Motion for New Trial on October 28, 1970, suspended the running of the appeal period. Upon receipt of the order denying the motion on November 30, 1970, petitioner's counsel had only one day left to perfect the appeal, which was December 1, 1970. The motion for reconsideration filed on December 1, 1970, was considered pro forma and did not suspend the period. Thus, the notice of appeal filed on December 16, 1970, was clearly out of time.
Main Doctrine
The promulgation of a judgment is valid even if the counsel for the accused is absent, as long as the defendant is personally present and the judgment is read in the presence of a judge. The period to appeal is interrupted by the filing of a motion for new trial until notice of the order overruling it is served.