CA 6119 R; (October, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6119-R; October 29, 1952
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PABLO ISAAC alias JOSE DE JESUS, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Pablo Isaac, alias Jose de Jesus, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila for qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The facts, as stated in the trial court’s decision and not disputed by counsel de oficio in his brief, are: Licerio Velasquez owned a jeepney. On January 18, 1950, his chauffeur recommended the accused, who represented himself as Jose de Jesus, as a replacement. The next day, Velasquez gave him the jeepney for a “pasada” with the agreement that he return it that night and deliver P9 as hire. The accused did not return. Efforts to locate him failed, and the matter was reported to the secret service. The jeepney was later found in Tarlac on January 25, 1950, in an auto repair shop. Investigation revealed the accused had taken it to Tarlac on January 19, contacted a mechanic about painting it, and left it at the shop. The accused, in a declaration, admitted taking the jeepney, meeting a certain Mrs. Juana Lim, and proceeding to Plaridel, Bulacan, and later to Tarlac.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly certified the case to the Supreme Court on the ground that only a question of law is involved, based on counsel de oficio’s statement in his brief that he does not dispute the correctness of the trial court’s statement of facts.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal involves both questions of law and fact, and therefore, the Court of Appeals retains jurisdiction. The Court held that counsel de oficio, who was not chosen by the appellant but appointed by the Court, cannot bind the appellant to an admission of the trial court’s findings of fact, especially those that are material and decisive, so as to confine the appeal to only a question of law. Since the appellant gave a general notice of appeal, the presumption is that he raises both questions of fact and law. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for decision.