People v. Trincio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a criminal case where Pedro Trincio was the defendant. The specifics of the crime or the initial charges are not detailed in the provided text, as the focus is on the procedural aspects of the appeal. Procedural History: The judgment in this case was rendered by the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila on August 17, 1903. The defendant, Pedro Trincio, filed a motion for a new trial on August 19, 1903. This motion was denied on October 2, 1903, due to non-compliance with procedural requirements. Subsequently, on October 5, 1903, the defendant filed his notice of appeal. The Petition: This matter came before the Supreme Court on a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the Solicitor-General. The grounds for dismissal were that the appeal was not perfected within the fifteen-day period prescribed by section 47 of General Orders, No. 58. The appellant argued for the appeal, but the court, referencing prior decisions, held that the pendency of a motion for a new trial does not extend the time for taking an appeal beyond the statutory fifteen days from the rendition of the judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period. Whether the pendency of a motion for a new trial extends the time for taking an appeal.
Ruling
The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period: The judgment was rendered on August 17, 1903. The appeal was taken on October 5, 1903. Section 47 of General Orders, No. 58, provides that an appeal must be taken within fifteen days from the rendition of the judgment or order appealed from. In this case, more than fifteen days had elapsed from the rendition of the judgment to the time the appeal was taken. Therefore, the appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period. On Whether the pendency of a motion for a new trial extends the time for taking an appeal: This Court has previously held in United States vs. Flemister and United States vs. Perez that the pendency of a motion for a new trial does not extend the time for taking an appeal beyond the fifteen days after the judgment provided for in section 47 of General Orders, No. 58. The rules established by these decisions are that appeals in criminal cases will not be allowed after the lapse of fifteen days from the rendition of the judgment, that the pendency of a motion for a new trial does not extend the time to perfect an appeal, and that a motion for a new trial fails ipso facto if the judge neglects or fails to decide the same within the said fifteen days.
Main Doctrine
The pendency of a motion for a new trial does not extend the time for taking an appeal beyond the fifteen days prescribed by law from the rendition of the judgment.