G.R. No. L-3339; May 28, 1951
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff and appellee, vs. CRISPIN RODILLAS, MAXIMO BERGANIO Y PEDRO CORPUZ, defendants and appellants.

FACTS

The accused Crispin Rodillas, Maximo Berganio, and Pedro Corpuz were charged with robbery with homicide in the Justice of the Peace Court of San Quintin, Pangasinan, where they initially pleaded guilty. In the Court of First Instance, they initially pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution presented its evidence and accused Crispin closed his evidence presentation, Maximo requested to withdraw his not guilty plea and substitute it with a guilty plea. The session was adjourned. Upon resumption on July 20, Pedro made the same request. The court granted both requests, and both accused testified in their favor to prove the mitigating circumstances of intoxication and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. Subsequently, Crispin also requested to withdraw his not guilty plea and substitute it with a guilty plea, which was granted. He then testified to prove the same mitigating circumstances. The court declared the case submitted and announced it would promulgate its decision on the morning of July 22. On that day, in open court, the court verbally announced the dispositive part of its decision, sentencing the accused to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years of reclusion temporal, with indemnities. On August 3, the accused, with their lawyers, were informed in open court by the judge that, as the previously announced sentence was not in accordance with law, it would be modified and the penalty increased. The accused’s lawyers objected to the amendment, arguing the sentence had become final because the accused had begun serving it since July 22. On August 5, 1949, they were notified in open court of the second decision (dated August 4) imposing upon them the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The accused appealed this second sentence. The proven facts established that the accused assaulted and killed Casiano Francisco, a bread vendor, and stole bread worth P160.31 from him.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction to modify its sentence of July 22, 1949, on the ground that said sentence had already become final and executory because the accused had begun serving it and had not manifested an intention to appeal.

RULING

The trial court did not lose jurisdiction and the modification was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed the modified sentence (August 4 decision). The Court held that the accused did not expressly manifest conformity with the first sentence. Their silence after hearing it could not be interpreted as assent or waiver of their right to appeal. No mittimus had been issued, which constitutes the notification to the jail warden that the convicts should begin serving their sentence. The judge’s announcement on August 3 that he would amend the July 22 decision revoked said decision. The defense counsel’s objection could not revive a decision already revoked by the judge. A court has the power to revise its sentence and increase the penalty imposed on a defendant before that sentence becomes final and before any part of the original penalty has been served. The written decision of August 4, read to the accused on August 5, was decreed within the 15-day period from July 22. Even assuming the first sentence was rendered with all legal formalities, it could still be annulled or amended by the Judge under the Rules. The conformity of an accused to the sentence imposed must be express for the court to issue the corresponding mittimus. The mittimus is issued only after the 15-day period to appeal has lapsed, unless the accused clearly and expressly requests it earlier, or unless the accused has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal. The decision of July 22 was legally amended by that of August 4. The latter must prevail.