Icao v. Apalisok
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Tarcisio Icao, a provincial guard tasked with guarding prisoners, was charged with infidelity in the custody of prisoners. He was convicted by the Court of First Instance and sentenced to four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, with temporary special disqualification. Procedural History: On the same day of his conviction, Icao filed a petition for probation and was released on his own recognizance. He did not appeal the judgment. Subsequently, the respondent Judge, upon learning that Icao was allowed to continue his duties as a provincial guard pending action on his probation, issued an order amending the judgment to specify the period of temporary special disqualification as eight (8) years and one (1) day. Icao's motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court had lost jurisdiction and that the amendment placed him in double jeopardy, was denied, as was a second motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Icao filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the orders of the respondent Judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge lost jurisdiction to modify the judgment of conviction after it had become final. Whether the amendment of the judgment of conviction placed the accused in double jeopardy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling and setting aside the challenged orders of the respondent Judge. The Court held that the respondent Judge had lost the authority to modify the judgment of conviction once it became final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the respondent Judge's loss of jurisdiction to modify the judgment: The Court held that under Section 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court of 1964, a judgment of conviction may only be modified or set aside by the court rendering it before the judgment has become final or an appeal has been perfected. A judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal. In this case, the judgment became final and executory because the fifteen-day period for appeal had lapsed without an appeal being taken. Therefore, the respondent Judge lost all power to amend the judgment, as a judgment that has become final and executory can no longer be amended or corrected except for clerical errors. The Court reiterated a long-standing rule that even the subsequent discovery of an erroneous imposition of a penalty will not justify correction of the judgment after it has become final. Furthermore, Article 44 of the Revised Penal Code states that the penalty of arresto carries with it the suspension of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence, implying that courts have no power to fix a longer term for the accessory penalty of disqualification than that imposed for the principal penalty. The respondent Judge's attempt to specify the period of disqualification after the judgment had become final was thus an act beyond his jurisdiction. There was no discussion of double jeopardy in the provided text.
Main Doctrine
A judgment that has become final and executory can no longer be amended or corrected by the court that rendered it, except for clerical errors. Any attempt to modify it after finality constitutes an encroachment upon the court's jurisdiction and may raise issues of double jeopardy.