G.R. No. 48530 ; November 18, 1942
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO AUSTERO and SILVANO AUSTERO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On January 30, 1940, in a case for slight physical injuries before the justice of the peace of Siaton, Negros Oriental, defendants Francisco Austero and Silvano Austero appeared, waived their right to be present at the trial and to present evidence, and manifested their intention to appeal if convicted. On the same date, the justice of the peace court promulgated its oral judgment of conviction. Immediately thereafter, the defendants filed their notice of appeal and furnished the required appeal bond. Consequently, the court issued an order setting them at provisional liberty and directed the records to be forwarded to the Court of First Instance. The written decision was made and signed on February 1, 1940. The provincial fiscal filed the corresponding information in the Court of First Instance. At the trial, the prosecution moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the judgment appeared of record to have been rendered on February 1, 1940, while the appeal was interposed on January 30, 1940, making it premature. The Court of First Instance sustained this ground and ordered the case remanded to the justice of the peace court for execution of the judgment. The defendants appealed from this order.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal filed by the defendants on January 30, 1940, immediately after the oral judgment of conviction was promulgated, was valid and timely, despite the written decision being signed on February 1, 1940.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the order dismissing the defendants’ appeal. The Court held that the appeal was timely and valid. The law provides a fifteen-day period to appeal, and an appeal filed within this period should not be dismissed. The appeal taken immediately after the oral judgment was promulgated on January 30, 1940, was within the prescribed period. The fact that the judgment was written and signed on February 1, 1940, did not invalidate the appeal. The Court analogized this situation to motions for review in land registration cases, where a motion filed before the decree is issued is considered timely because it is not beyond the statutory period. Requiring an accused to wait for the written judgment to perfect an appeal could lead to unnecessary detention if they are unable to file a bond for provisional release in the interim. The Court also rejected the Solicitor-General’s contention that the judgment was null and void due to the defendants’ absence, noting that the record did not affirmatively show their absence, and the regularity of judicial proceedings is presumed. The possibility that the defendants were present for the promulgation, given their immediate filing of the appeal, supports this presumption. The Court directed the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental to try and decide the case on the merits.