G.R. No. 2805
September 27, 1905

FACTS:
Mariano Andres was tried and convicted for theft by a justice of the peace in Rizal, sentenced to two months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay an indemnity of 10 pesos. He appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal. In the CFI, the provincial fiscal filed a new complaint charging the same offense (the original complaint before the justice of the peace was filed by a private injured party). Andres objected, claiming double jeopardy, arguing that the fiscal’s complaint constituted a new proceeding. The CFI held that the complaint was not a new proceeding but a continuation of the appeal, substituted the original complaint, convicted Andres, and sentenced him to one month and one day of arresto mayor and return of the 10 pesos. Andres filed a petition for habeas corpus, contending that the CFI judgment was void because the fiscal had no authority to file a new complaint on appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether the provincial fiscal’s filing of a new complaint in the Court of First Instance, upon appeal from a justice of the peace, renders the judgment void such that habeas corpus relief is warranted.

RULING:
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for habeas corpus and ordered Andres remanded to custody.

The Court held:
1. Habeas corpus is not a remedy for correcting judicial errors. Relief via habeas corpus is only available when a judgment is absolutely void, not merely erroneous. The CFI acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person of Andres upon his appeal. The question of whether the fiscal could file a new or amended complaint was within the CFI’s jurisdiction to decide. Any potential error in that decision did not render the judgment void.
2. The fiscal was authorized to file the new complaint. Under General Orders No. 58, Section 54, appeals from a justice’s court are tried de novo. The complaint filed by the fiscal was a substitution of the original complaint and pertained to the same criminal act. Since anyone, including the fiscal, could have filed the original complaint before the justice of the peace, the fiscal’s filing in the CFI was permissible.
3. The proceeding was continuous. The CFI correctly treated the fiscal’s complaint as part of the same proceeding on appeal, not as a new case. Thus, no double jeopardy attached.

Separate Opinion (Dissenting):
Justice Johnson dissented, arguing that allowing the fiscal to file a new complaint on appeal was a dangerous practice that could expose the defendant to a different offense than the one tried below. He contended that a trial de novo should only allow the parties to present proofs anew on the same issue from the inferior court, not to raise new issues.

DOCTRINE:
Habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal and will only lie when the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction. In appeals from justices of the peace, the Court of First Instance may allow the substitution or amendment of the complaint by the fiscal for the same offense, as the trial is de novo and the proceeding is continuous.