G.R. No. L-2073 October 19, 1953
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO T. VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The Fifth Division of the defunct People’s Court, by a decision dated November 19, 1947, found appellant Pedro T. Villanueva guilty of the complex crime of treason and murder and sentenced him to death, indemnities, a fine, and costs. Villanueva duly appealed to the Supreme Court. The records were elevated both by virtue of the appeal and under the mandatory review provision for death penalty cases (Rule 118, Section 9). Due to missing stenographic notes from the October 8, 1947, testimonies, the Supreme Court, on August 1, 1952, remanded the case to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the retaking of that testimony. Subsequently, Villanueva filed a petition to withdraw his appeal, citing that the Chief Executive had granted executive clemency to all prisoners convicted of treason, including those with pending appeals, on condition that such appeals be withdrawn. The lower court forwarded this petition to the Supreme Court. On September 21, 1953, the Supreme Court initially granted the petition for withdrawal of appeal, following its practice for cases where briefs have not been filed. Later that same day, Villanueva filed another petition directly with the Supreme Court, attaching exhibits (Exhibits A and B) purportedly showing a conditional pardon. Upon reviewing these, the Court realized the case involved a death sentence and that its earlier resolution granting the withdrawal was issued.

ISSUE

Whether the withdrawal of the appeal by the accused removes the case from the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction for mandatory review, and whether the conditional pardon cited by the appellant is applicable to his death sentence.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside its resolution granting the withdrawal of the appeal. The withdrawal does not render the lower court’s decision final or remove the case from the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Under the law, the Supreme Court is authorized and called upon to automatically review all decisions imposing the death penalty, whether appealed or not. This review is mandatory and cannot be waived or evaded by the court or the accused. The judgment of conviction by the trial court is not final and cannot be executed until reviewed by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the conditional pardon (Exhibit A) referred to the remission of the “unexpired portions of the prison sentence terms and the fines” of listed prisoners. The Court expressed doubt that this pardon contemplated the appellant, as his death sentence does not involve an expiring prison term but is an execution. Also, the pardon’s condition for withdrawing appeals implied it sought a final conviction, but in a death penalty case, there is no final conviction until the Supreme Court reviews it. Since the case had been remanded for a new trial (to retake missing testimony), the Supreme Court ordered the record remanded again to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for that new trial and thereafter, for a new decision.