Criminal Procedure a2010 page 3 Prof.Rowena Daroy Morales
- The Tumangs prayed that Javier be ordered to file acopy of the complaint as translated in English, and acopy of the criminal complaint and Decision of acquittal in the unjust vexation case mentioned in Javier’s complaint.- TC ruled on Oct. 21 1982 that the complaint writtenin Pilipino, which is an official language, is proper andis admitted. TC also ruled that it is not absolutelynecessary that copies of the complaint and criminalcase be attached as annexes. Javier should have,however, at least stated the docket number as wellas name of the court and branch number.- The Tumangs failed to answer the
and weredeclared in default. They sought to reconsider, notonly the order of default but also the order admittingthe complaint in Pilipino.- TC set aside its order of default that refused toreconsider its order of October 21, 1982.- The Tumangs filed a motion to dismiss, allegingthat the complaint did not state a cause of action andthat the venue was improperly laid. TC denied themotion on both grounds.
should have been in English and not Tagalog
YES- In the ponente’s lecture, “Writing Decisions”, hesaid in part:“What language should the judge use? Theconstitution says that until otherwise providedby law, English and Pilipino shall be the officiallanguages! (Art. XV, Sec. 3, Par 3.) If we are tobe guided by this provision then either English of Pilipino can be used. But in fact English is almostexclusively used and with good reason. ForPilipino is still a gestating language. Theconstitution says so. It directs that “theBatasang Pambansa shall take steps towards thedevelopment and formal adoption of a commonnational language to be known as Pilipino.”- However, petitioner cannot now raise this questionbefore the Supreme Court, As they have tacitlysubmitted to the TC’s ruling that the
did nothave to be translated in English; they analyzed the
in arguing that it stated no cause of action.Such analysis demonstrated that they understood itscontents.
Denied for lack of merit.
POTOT v PEOPLE
383 SCRA 449SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; June 26, 2002
Review on certiorari on a decision of RTC of Catarman, Northern Samar
- Dec.12,1999: Potot was charged with homicidebefore the RTC for assaulting and stabbing a certainRodolfo Dapulag with a knife, thereby causing hisdeath.- Feb.1, 2000: Upon arraignment, Potot pleadedguilty and invoked the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender. He was laterconvicted of homicide w/ the above stated mitigatingcircumstances.- Feb.3, 2000: Potot filed a manifestation with motioninforming the TC that he is not appealing from theDecision and praying that a commitment order beissued so he could immediately serve his sentence.- Feb.11, 2000: Private complainant Rosalie Dapulag(wife of the victim), with the conformity of the publicprosecutor, filed a motion for reconsideration/retrialpraying that the decision be set aside and that thecase be heard again because of certain irregularitiescommitted before and during the trial. She allegedthat there were 2 other men involved in thecommission of the crime and that the eyewitnessdeliberately withheld the information uponsolicitation by a certain Mayor Dapulag and upon theeyewitnesses’ own belief that such inclusion wouldcomplicate the case and make it more difficult.- Petitioner opposed this motion, asserting that thedecision can no longer be modified or set asidebecause it became final when he formally waived hisright to appeal.- May 3, 2000: The trial court granted RosalieDapulag’s motion, set aside its previous Decision aswell as ordered that the records of the case beremanded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutorfor re-evaluation of the evidence and filing of thecorresponding charge.- Petitioner filed a MFR, contending that the trialcourt has no jurisdiction to issue the Feb.1 order asthe Decision had become final, and that the saidorder would place him in double jeopardy.- May 26, 2000: The trial court denied the MFR forthe reason that the State is not bound by the error ornegligence of its prosecuting officers, hence, jeopardy does not attach.- Petitioner now assails the May 3
and May 26orders with the Sol.Gen. agreeing that the challengedorders should be set aside and that the Feb. 1Decision should be reinstated.
1. WON the trial court, upon motion by a privatecomplainant, can set aside a previous judgment of conviction and remand the records of a case to theOffice of the Provincial Prosecutor for re-evaluation of the evidence and the filing of the correspondingcharge2. WON the manifestation by the accused that he isnot appealing from the trial court’s Decision renderthe judgment final3. WON the trial court err in granting privatecomplainant’s motion for reconsideration/retrial4. WON the assailed orders violate petitioner’sconstitutional right against double jeopardy
Only the accused may ask for a modification orsetting aside of a judgment of conviction which hemust do before the said judgment becomes final orbefore he perfects his appeal.
Sec. 7 Rule 120 of the Revised Rules on CriminalProcedure, as amended, provides:Sec. 7. Modification of judgment - A judgment of
upon motion of the accused
modified or set aside before it becomes final
before appeal is perfected. Except where thedeath penalty is imposed,
a judgment becomesfinal
after the lapse of the period for perfectingan appeal, or when the sentence has beenpartially or totally satisfied or served, or
whenthe accused has waived in writing his right toappeal
, or has applied for probation.- It is thus clear that only the accused may ask for amodification or setting aside of a judgment of conviction. And this he must do before the said judgment becomes final or before he perfects hisappeal. Such judgment becomes final in any of thefollowing ways: (a) when no appeal is seasonablyfiled by the accused, except in case of automaticreview of the decision imposing the capital penalty;(b) when he has partially or totally served hissentence; (c) when he expressly waives his right toappeal the judgment, except when the death penaltyis imposed; or (d) when he applies for probation.When a judgment becomes final, the trial court whichrendered the judgment of conviction loses jurisdiction to alter, modify, or revoke it.2. YES