G.R. Nos. 119987-88 October 12, 1995
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 47, Manila, HENRY LAGARTO y PETILLA and ERNESTO CORDERO, respondents.

FACTS

The accused, Henry Lagarto and Ernesto Cordero, were charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide for the brutal death of a seven-year-old girl. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In its decision, the trial court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The City Prosecutor filed a Motion for Reconsideration, praying for the modification of the penalty to death, arguing it was the mandatory penalty for the crime. The respondent judge denied the motion, stating he had lost jurisdiction over the case because the accused had already perfected their appeal. The prosecution thus filed the instant petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to act on the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration which sought the imposition of the death penalty, on the ground that he had lost jurisdiction due to the perfection of the accused’s appeal.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that the filing of a notice of appeal by the accused does not automatically divest the trial court of jurisdiction to correct errors in its judgment, including the imposition of an incorrect penalty. Jurisdiction is lost only upon the transmittal of the records to the appellate court. At the time the motion for reconsideration was filed, the records were still with the trial court; thus, it retained jurisdiction to rectify its decision.
The legal logic is anchored on procedural rules and the nature of the penalty involved. The crime of Rape with Homicide, as defined under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, carries the mandatory penalty of death. The trial court has no discretion to impose reclusion perpetua when the evidence warrants a conviction for this special complex crime. By imposing a lesser penalty, the trial court committed a patent error in the application of the law. Its duty to correct this error was ministerial. Its refusal to act on a motion aimed at correcting this legal error, under a mistaken notion of lost jurisdiction, constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of power equivalent to grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and directed the respondent judge to resolve the motion for reconsideration on its merits.