G.R. No. L-19616 November 29, 1966
NEMESIA V. ALAMA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE MACAPANTON ABBAS, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO, and the PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF DAVAO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nemesia V. Alama was the accused in five criminal cases for malversation of public funds thru falsification of official documents before the Court of First Instance of Davao. Upon her plea of guilty, judgment was rendered and promulgated on December 19, 1961. Within the reglementary period, on January 3, 1962, petitioner filed a notice of appeal in all five cases. After her appeal bond was filed and approved, respondent Judge, on January 11, 1962, ordered petitioner’s counsel to file a manifestation stating the questions of law to be raised on appeal. Counsel complied on January 26, 1962, enumerating the following: (1) that the accused’s pleas of guilty were secured by misrepresentation; (2) that the penalties imposed were not what had been promised; (3) that the penalty in Criminal Case No. 6112 was excessive; and (4) that the decisions were rendered upon defective informations. On February 8, 1962, respondent Judge issued an order disallowing the appeal, reasoning that the defects in the informations were waived by the plea of guilty, the accused was intelligent and assisted by counsel, and the contentions regarding misrepresentation and promises about penalties were questions of fact not reviewable on appeal as the record did not show them. Petitioner filed the instant petition for mandamus, claiming the respondent Judge acted without legal basis either because the appeal was already perfected, thus divesting the trial court of jurisdiction, or because the trial judge had no power to pass upon the issues to be raised on appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the petitioner’s appeal after it had been perfected.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus. The Court held that once an appeal in a criminal case is perfected by filing a notice of appeal and serving a copy upon the adverse party within the reglementary period, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case. Here, petitioner perfected her appeal by filing the notice on January 3, 1962, within the 15-day period from the December 19, 1961 judgment. The respondent Judge therefore had no authority to require a manifestation of the questions of law or to disallow the appeal based on his assessment of its merits. Whether the issues to be raised are factual or the appeal is frivolous is for the appellate court, not the court a quo, to pass upon. The Court also rejected the contention that the notice of appeal failed to comply with a rule requiring a statement that the appeal is based on pure questions of law, clarifying that such provision (Section 2, Rule 42) refers to civil cases, and the rules on criminal appeals (Rule 122) contain no such requirement. The writ of mandamus was issued, the order of February 8, 1962 was set aside, and the respondent Judge (or his successor) was ordered to give due course to the appeal.