DIGEST/ FLORES MAY L. OROSA/ TAN VS PEOPLE

 

G.R. No. 148194            April 12, 2002

WILLY TAN y CHUA, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

 

FACTS:

On 12 December 1996, petitioner Willy Tan was found guilty of bigamy by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75, of San Mateo, Rizal. He was sentenced to suffer a prison term of prision correccional in its medium period ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day, to four (4) years and two (2) months.

On 23 December 1996, petitioner applied for probation. On 8 January 1997, the application was granted by the trial court but the release order was withheld in view of the filing by the prosecution, on 21 January 1997, of a motion for modification of the penalty. The prosecution pointed out that the penalty for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code was prision mayor and the imposable penalty, absent any mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, should be the medium period of prision mayor, or from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Thus, the prosecution argued, petitioner was not eligible for probation.

The trial court denied the motion of the prosecution for having been filed out of time since the decision sought to be modified had already attained finality. Indeed, petitioner had meanwhile applied for probation. Upon motion of the prosecution, however, the trial court reconsidered its order and rendered an amended decision, promulgated on 10 July 1998.

On13 July 1998, petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the trial court and elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on the ground that the issue raised was purely a question of law. Petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration, but it was subsequently denied by the appellate court on May 18, 2001.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA erred in holding that Rule 65 is the proper remedy to raise the issue of jurisdiction and if so in not treating the appeal as special civil action for certiorari

RULING:

Anent the argument that petitioner should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, it might be pointed out that this remedy can only be resorted to when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Appeal, being a remedy still available to petitioner, a petition for certiorari would have been premature.

In fine, petitioner had taken an appropriate legal step in filing a notice of appeal with the trial court. Ordinarily, the Court should have the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. The clear impingement upon petitioner's basic right against double jeopardy, however, should here warrant the exercise of the prerogative by this Court to relax the stringent application of the rules on the matter. When the trial court increased the penalty on petitioner for his crime of bigamy after it had already pronounced judgment and on which basis he then, in fact, applied for probation, the previous verdict could only be deemed to have lapsed into finality.