Garcia, Et Al. v. People - 318 SCRA 434

7/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 318
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. People
*
G.R. No. 106531. November 18, 1999.
FERNANDO GARCIA, JUANITO GARCIA, and WENCESLAO

TORRES, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and
HON. RICARDO P. GALVEZ, in his official capacity as the
Presiding Judge of Branch 29, Regional Trial Court of Iloilo,
respondents.
Criminal Procedure; Judgments; Appeals; Automatic Review; Death

Penalty; It is only in cases where the penalty actually imposed is death that
the trial court must forward the records of the case to the Supreme Court for
automatic review of the conviction.—At issue is whether the Supreme Court
must automatically review a trial court’s decision convicting an accused of a
capital offense and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. In other words, is
the accused not required to interpose an appeal from a trial court’s decision
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua to the Supreme Court because the
latter’s review of the sentence is automatic? The issue is not new. We have
consistently ruled that it is only in cases where the penalty actually imposed
is death that the trial court must forward the records of the case to the
Supreme Court for automatic review of the conviction.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Mandamus.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bbd7d056d674c9c73003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/5
* FIRST DIVISION.
435
VOL. 318, NOVEMBER 18, 1999 435

Garcia vs. People
Barrera Law Office for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for public respondent.
PARDO, J.:
The case before the Court is a special civil action for mandamus to
compel the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Iloilo, to forward the
records of Criminal Case No. 20774 to the Supreme Court for
automatic review of the decision finding petitioners guilty of murder
and sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua, to pay jointly
and severally, the heirs of Jose Estrella the sum of P30,000.00 as
civil indemnity, to suffer the accessory penalties of the law and to
pay the costs.
We deny the petition.
The facts are as follows:
On September 29, 1986, the Provincial Fiscal of Guimaras filed
with the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, an information1 charging
petitioners with murder for the killing of one Jose Estrella.
After due trial, on September 21, 1990, the trial court
promulgated its decision convicting petitioners of the crime charged
and sentencing each of them to the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
pay jointly and severally, the heirs of Jose Estrella the sum of
P30,000.00 as civil indemnity,2
to suffer the accessory penalties of
the law and to pay the costs.
On September 24, 1990, petitioners filed 3
with the trial court a
motion for reconsideration of the decision. 4 However, on September
2, 1991, the trial court denied the motion. On 5September 5, 1991
petitioner received 6notice of the order of denial. Petitioners did not
interpose an appeal from the
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 32.
2 Rollo, pp. 33-59.
3 Rollo, pp. 63-70.
4 Rollo, p. 59.
5 RTC Order, Rollo, p. 30.
6 Ibid.
436
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. People
decision by the filing of a notice of appeal. Thus, the decision

became final on September 17, 1991. Accordingly, the trial court
issued warrants for the arrest of petitioners.
On November 13, 1991, petitioners filed with the trial court a
motion to lift warrant of arrest and to allow accused to appeal,
arguing that there was no need for them to appeal the decision7
as the
same was subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court. 8
On January 17, 1992, the trial court denied the motion.
On February 14, 1992,9 the trial court also denied petitioners’
motion for reconsideration. 10
Hence, the present recourse.
On July 1115, 1992, we required respondents to file comment on
the petition, which the Solicitor General filed on August 25, 1992.
12
On January 18, 1995, we gave due course to the petition. At
issue is whether the Supreme Court must automatically review a trial
court’s decision convicting an accused of a capital offense and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. In other words, is the accused
not required to interpose an appeal from a trial court’s decision
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua to the Supreme Court because
the latter’s review of the sentence is automatic?
The issue is not new. We have consistently ruled that it is only in
cases where the penalty actually imposed is death that the trial court
must forward the records of the 13case to the Supreme Court for
automatic review of the conviction.
_______________
7 Rollo, pp. 60-62.

8 Rollo, p. 29.
9 Rollo, pp. 30-31.
10 Petition filed on April 27, 1992, Rollo, pp. 11-28.
11 Rollo, pp. 72-76.
12 Rollo, p. 151.
13 People vs. Lasanas, 152 SCRA 27 (1987); People vs. Lapaz, 171 SCRA 539,
548 (1989); People vs. Almenario, 172 SCRA 269 (1989); People vs. Petalcorin, 180
SCRA 685, 690 (1989); People vs.
437
VOL. 318, NOVEMBER 18, 1999 437

Garcia vs. People
As the petitioners did not file a notice of appeal or otherwise

indicate their desire to appeal from the decision convicting them of
murder and sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua, the
decision became final and unappealable.
Consequently, mandamus will not issue to compel the trial court
to elevate the records to the Supreme Court.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court hereby DISMISSES the petition
for mandamus to compel the trial court to elevate the records of
Criminal Case No. 20774 to the Supreme Court.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-

Santiago, JJ., concur.
Petition dismissed.
Notes.—A case brought to the Supreme Court for automatic

review as required by Rule 122, §9 of the Rules of Court, ceased to
be in said Court when the penalty was automatically reduced to
reclusion perpetua with the advent of the 1987 Constitution. (People
vs. Redulosa, 255 SCRA 279 [1996])
The power of the Supreme Court to review a decision imposing
the death penalty cannot be waived either by the accused or by the
courts. (People vs. Esparas, 260 SCRA 539 [1996])
——o0o——
_______________
Fernandez, 186 SCRA 830 (1990); People vs. Hernandez, 205 SCRA 212 (1992);
People vs. Redulosa, 255 SCRA 279 (1996).
438
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Garcia, Et Al. v. People - 318 SCRA 434

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garcia, Et Al. v. People - 318 SCRA 434

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garcia, Et Al. v. People - 318 SCRA 434

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 318

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

FERNANDO GARCIA, JUANITO GARCIA, and WENCESLAO

Criminal Procedure; Judgments; Appeals; Automatic Review; Death

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Mandamus.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

VOL. 318, NOVEMBER 18, 1999 435

Barrera Law Office for petitioners.

436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

decision by the filing of a notice of appeal. Thus, the decision

7 Rollo, pp. 60-62.

VOL. 318, NOVEMBER 18, 1999 437

As the petitioners did not file a notice of appeal or otherwise

Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-

Notes.—A case brought to the Supreme Court for automatic

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like