Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > February 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13284 February 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO COLMENARES and CELSO LLORICO

107 Phil 220:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13284. February 29, 1960.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, v. FRANCISCO COLMENARES and CELSO LLORICO, defendants and appellants.

Assistant Solicitor General Florencio Villamor and Solicitor Dominador L. Quiroz for Appellee.

José Sicangco, Jr. and Mario D. Lachica for appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PLEADING AND PRACTICE; PRO FORMA RULE; COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (a), SECTION 2, RULE 117 OF THE RULES OF COURT. — Accused was convicted for theft of 15 cavans of palay. A motion for reconsideration was filed wherein it claimed that as the ownership of the land from which the palay was allegedly stolen is involved, the case should be suspended until after such ownership shall have been decided by the competent court. A supplemental motion was filed by the accused, arguing that the palay supposed to have been stolen appears to have been owned jointly by him and the complainant, and therefore could not be the subject of theft. Query: Are the motions in question pro forma? Held: They are not, because they raise valid questions of law and fact. Said motions point to errors of law in the judgment prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused. They satisfy paragraph (a), section 2 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.

2. ID.; ID.; REQUIREMENT IN RULE 37 OF THE RULES OF COURT; GENERAL STATEMENT NOT SUFFICIENT. — Under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court the movant must point out the findings or conclusions in the judgment which allegedly are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law. Hence, if a motion only makes a general statement that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment or that the same is contrary to law, it cannot be said to satisfy said rule.

3. ID.; ID.; RULE APPLICABLE ONLY IN CIVIL CASES, NOT IN CRIMINAL CASES. — Rule 37 on new trial as found in the Rules of Court is applicable only in civil cases. The rule regarding new trial in criminal cases is contained in Rule 117. The pro forma rule is not applicable in criminal cases.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Hon. Jose Teodoro, Sr., presiding, holding that the judgment of the Justice of the Peace court from which the appeal was made to the Court of First Instance in Criminal Case No. 4567 of said court, had already become final, by failure of the defendants to file their notice of appeal on time, and remanding the record to the Justice of the Peace for the execution of the latter’s judgment.

Defendants-appellants were charged in the Justice of the Peace court of La Castellana, for the crime of theft of 15 cavans of palay, belonging to the complainant Pedro Monsale. A trial was held in the Justice of the Peace Court, and on April 18, 1955, the Justice of the Peace found the accused guilty of theft and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of P200.00, and in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment. Accused Llorico received a copy of the decision on April 27, 1955, and accused Colmenares, on April 29, 1955. On May 2, 1955, the attorney for the accused filed a motion to reconsider the judgment, on the ground that in accordance with the documentary evidence presented during the trial it appears that the case involved the question of ownership of the land from which the palay allegedly stolen was raised. Some of the documents presented at the trial show that one J. L. Vda. de Colmenares is in possession of a parcel of land for which she had applied for registration; that a portion thereof, evidently the one from which the palay was harvested, was claimed by the District Forester to be part of the national park and as a matter of fact accused Colmenares had been informed by the District Forester of the Government claim to this portion of the land. The defendants also submitted tax receipts covering the property and two applications to purchase fertilizers, accompanied by promissory notes signed by complainant Pedro Monsale and Urbano Pamonel and guaranteed by one Modesto Colmenares.

The above motion for reconsideration was set for hearing on May 27. The private prosecutor filed an opposition thereto and a petition to strike the same, on the ground that it was pro forma. We have not been able to locate the order of the court on this motion for reconsideration, but it appears that on June 1, 1955, the record of the case was received by the clerk of Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. We presume that the Justice of the Peace court did not act on said motion for reconsideration, or denied the same. Whichever happened is immaterial in this case. Appeal bonds were filed by the accused on May 28, 1955.

Upon the docketing of the case in the Court of First Instance, and on April 10, 1956, the assistant provincial fiscal immediately presented a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the decision of the justice of the peace court sentencing the accused, having been received by the latter on April 29 and the motion for reconsideration having been denied on May 28, 1955, a period of more than 15 days had elapsed when the appeal was perfected, for the reason that the motion for reconsideration did not interrupt the period to perfect an appeal, it being a pro forma motion and, therefore, the decision of the Justice of the Peace court had become final when the appeal was entered. The Court of First Instance sustained this motion to dismiss the appeal. From this order an appeal was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals, which endorsed the case to Us as involving exclusively questions of law.

It is argued on behalf of appellants that the motion filed in the Justice of the Peace court was not a pro forma motion, and secondly, that said court had already ruled that the judgment had not become final when it forwarded the record to the Court of First Instance after appellants filed their notice of appeal. In reply, the Solicitor General supports the ruling of the court below that the motion was pro forma and that the same was apparently devoid of merit, and it was therefore presented only for delay.

If, as we find from the documentary evidence submitted at the trial, the accused Colmenares is owner or possessor of a parcel of land belonging perhaps to his mother, which parcel of land has been declared and taxes thereon paid for, the complainant must have been his tenant, and the claim that the motion was for purpose of delay is unfounded. In the motion for reconsideration in question it is claimed that as the ownership of the land is involved the case should be suspended until after such ownership shall have been decided by the competent court. In their supplemental motion dated May 16, counsel for the accused again argued that the palay supposed to have been stolen appears to have been owned jointly by the accused and the complainant and therefore could not be the subject of theft. Both the first motion for reconsideration and the subsequent one cannot be said to be pro forma; they raise valid questions of law and fact. Said motions point to an error of law in the judgment prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused. It can not therefore be said to be merely pro forma; it satisfied paragraph (a) of Section of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, which is as follows:ClubJuris

"SEC. 2. Grounds for a new trial. — The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds.

(a) That errors of law or irregularities have been committed during the trial prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant;"

We also find that the pro forma rule in motions for reconsiderations has been incorrectly applied in the case at bar, a criminal case. The pro forma motion for new trial was first established in Section 497 of the original Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows:clubjuris

x       x       x


(2) If the excepting party filed a motion in the Court of First Instance for a new trial, upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision, and the judge overruled said motion, and due exception was taken to his overruling the same, the Supreme Court may review the evidence and make such findings upon the facts by a preponderance of the evidence, and render such final judgment, as justice and equity may require. But, if the Supreme Court shall be of the opinion that this exception is frivolous and not made in good faith, it may impose double or treble additional costs upon the excepting party, and may order them to be paid by the counsel prosecuting the bill of exception, if in its opinion justice so requires." clubjuris

The pro forma motion alleged that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision and was a requirement in order that the Supreme Court may review the evidence submitted and unless such a motion for insufficiency of evidence is presented in the trial court, the Supreme Court could not review the evidence and make its own findings of fact.

When the present Rules of Court were promulgated the above mentioned provision of Section 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure was eliminated. Under the present rules, Rule 37, the movant must point out the findings or conclusions in the judgment which allegedly are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law. Hence if a motion only makes a general statement that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment or that the same is contrary to law, it can not be said to satisfy Rule 37, Sec. 2, of the Rules of Court. Motions under the old Code of Civil Procedure were not considered as motions pro forma or intended for delay, and were not considered as interrupting the period to perfect an appeal. This change has been explained by Chief Justice Moran, as follows:ClubJuris

"When the motion is made upon the caused mentioned in subdivision (c), that is, mistake of fact or of law, it was not necessary, under the old procedure, to set forth, in detail, the reasons in support of the grounds alleged in the motion. This ruling is repealed by the new provision, which requires the motion to point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment which allegedly are not supported by the evidence or are contrary to law, making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusion. The reason for the old rule was obvious, for a motion for new trial on the ground of mistake of fact was presented as a matter of form, as necessary antecedent to appeal. Under the new procedure, motions of that kind are no longer antecedents to appeal. For this reason, where a motion for a new trial filed under the third paragraph of this section and fails to "point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law, making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions," it shall be treated as a motion pro forma intended merely to delay the proceedings and it shall not interrupt or suspend the period of time for the perfection of an appeal." (1 Moran, 1957, pp. 515-516).

Rule 37 on mew trial as found in the new Rules is applicable only in civil cases. The rule regarding new trial in criminal cases is contained in Rule 117. The pro forma rule is, therefore, not applicable in criminal cases, and the Court below erred in applying said rule to the criminal case now under consideration.

Wherefore, the order of dismissal of the appeal must be reversed and the case remanded to the Court of First Instance of origin for trial on the merits. Without costs.

Paras, C.J. Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Endencia, Barrera and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



February-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12802 February 11, 1960 - DALMACIO CABAÑERO, ET AL., v. MARCELO TESORO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13125 February 13, 1960 - PEDRO C. CAMUS v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13134 February 13, 1960 - MARIA C. ROA v. SEGUNDA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-12322 February 19, 1960 - JOSE G. GENEROSO v. GSIS

    107 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-12525 February 19, 1960 - FRANCISCO A. TAN v. PEDRO M. GlMENEZ

    107 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. L-13573 February 20, 1960 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ET AL., v. ALHAMBRA EMPLOYEE’S ASSN.

    107 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. L-12791 February 23, 1960 - RAMON L. CHENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. L-13553 February 23, 1960 - JOSE DE OCAMPO v. SERAFINA FLORENCIANO

    107 Phil 35

  • G.R. No. L-15096 February 23, 1960 - ENGRACIA P. LUCHAYCO, ET AL., v. HON. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-12718 February 24, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OLIMPIO CORPUZ and JULIAN SERQUIÑA

    107 Phil 44

  • G.R. Nos. L-14284-14285 February 24, 1960 - WILLIAM POMEROY, ET AL., v. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-9759-61 February 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MOQUIADI, ET AL.

    107 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-12845 February 25, 1960 - ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO. v. JOSE ROBLES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-13161 February 25, 1960 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-13280 February 25, 1960 - LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. HONORABLE HIGINIO B. MACADAEG ETC., AND LIM

    107 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-13828 February 25, 1960 - ELADIA RAPATAN, ET AL., v. ELPIDIO CHICANO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-13964 February 25, 1960 - VICENTE ASPERILLA, ET AL., v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    107 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. L-14148 February 25, 1960 - ALFREDO PUA v. EULOGIO LAPITAN

    107 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. L-14322 February 25, 1960 - In re: TESTATE ESTATE of PETRONILA TAMPOY v. DIOSDADA ALBERASTINE

    107 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-11074 February 27, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFELINO ZAPATA and FERNANDICO TUBADEZA

    107 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. L-13048 February 27, 1960 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL CO., v. ANITA TAN and COURT OF APPEALS

    107 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-9920 February 29, 1960 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF NAUJAN, PROVINCE OF ORIENTAL MINDORO

    107 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-10184 February 29, 1960 - FELIX V. VALENCIA v. AUDITOR GENERAL, and GSIS

    107 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. L-11319-20; L-13504 & L-13507-8 February 29, 1960 - ANTONIO TUASON, JR., ETC. v. AUGUSTO DE ASIS

    107 Phil 131

  • G.R. Nos. L-11933-34 February 29, 1960 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. M. RUIZ HIGHWAY TRANSIT, INC.

    107 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-12493 February 29, 1960 - GREGORIO I. ALCANTARA, ET AL. v. NORBERTO S. AMORANTO

    107 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. L-12727 February 29, 1960 - MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC. v. GAMES AND AMUSEMENTS BOARD, ET AL.

    107 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-12827 February 29, 1960 - SMITH, BELL & CO., LTD., v. PHILIPPINE MILLING CO.

    107 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-12863 February 29, 1960 - BERNARDO BENEDICTO v. IGNACIO CHIONG OSMEÑA

    107 Phil 163

  • G.R. Nos. L-12911-12 & L-13073-74 February 29, 1960 - PAZ MARQUEZ BENITEZ v. AMADOR D. SANTOS

    107 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-12942 February 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICANOR MACATANGAY and DAVID CUNANAN

    107 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-12964 February 29, 1960 - SOL SAMONTE, ET AL. v. JUANA SAMBILON, ET AL.

    107 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-13006 February 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-13115 February 29, 1960 - TRINIDAD DE LOS REYES VDA. DE SANTIAGO v. ANGELA S. REYES and WCC

    107 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-13231 February 29, 1960 - ALBERTO INESIN, ET AL. v. HONORABLE MATEO CANONOY, ETC., AND BENODIN

    107 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-13284 February 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO COLMENARES and CELSO LLORICO

    107 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-13367 February 29, 1960 - DAVID INCO, ET AL., v. GODOFREDO ENRIQUEZ

    107 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-13453 February 29, 1960 - ALLISON J. GIBBS, ET AL., v. COLL. OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    107 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-13474 February 29, 1960 - APOLONIO NICDAO v. GSIS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-13722 February 29, 1960 - QUIRICO ALIMAJEN v. PASCUAL VALERA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. L-13804 February 29, 1960 - PONCIANO PUNZALAN v. NICOLAS PAPICA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-13884 February 29, 1960 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. PRINCE LINE, ET AL.

    107 Phil 253

  • G.R. No. L-13922 February 29, 1960 - SEVERINO PONCE v. Co KING LIAN

    107 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. L-13927 February 29, 1960 - TRINIDAD MANAOIS-SALONGA v. IMELDA V. NATIVIDAD

    107 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. L-14120 February 29, 1960 - ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION v. HON. JUDGES JUAN LANTING, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-14226 February 29, 1960 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC. v. JOSE M. LUNA

    107 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. L-14360 February 29, 1960 - JOSE BERNABE & CO., INC. v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC.

    107 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-14389 February 29, 1960 - AURORA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., v. CITY OF CABANATUAN

    107 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. L-14407 February 29, 1960 - ANACLETO ALZATE, ETC., v. BENIGNO ALDANA, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-14577 February 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES C. GALSIM

    107 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. L-14651 February 29, 1960 - HACIENDA SAPANG PALAY TENANTS’ LEAGUE, INC. and DOMINADOR GUEVAN v. NICASIO YATCO, ETC.

    107 Phil 306