G.R. No. 30076
EN BANC

Fausta Lanestosa and Bernabe Lames, petitioners, vs. Francisco Santamaria, Judge of First Instance of Iloilo, respondent.
Ponente: VILLA-REAL, J.

FACTS

Petitioners Fausta Lanestosa and Bernabe Lames were convicted of resistance to authority and sentenced to imprisonment. On July 7, 1928, they were informed of the judgment. On July 16, 1928, they voluntarily signed a written waiver of their right to appeal and requested to be sent to Bilibid Prison at the earliest opportunity. The respondent judge personally heard them on July 17, 1928, where they confirmed their waiver. The court then issued an order declaring the judgment final and ordering their immediate commitment to Bilibid. The next day, July 18, 1928, the petitioners filed a motion to reconsider the order and to admit their appeal, citing family circumstances and despair over their inability to post a bond. The respondent judge denied the motion on July 21, 1928, ruling that he had lost jurisdiction after the waiver and order of commitment. Petitioners then filed this mandamus proceeding to compel the judge to admit their appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in denying the petitioners’ motion to withdraw their waiver of appeal and to admit their appeal.

RULING

NO. The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. The Court held that the petitioners’ voluntary and written waiver of their right to appeal, coupled with their request for immediate commitment to Bilibid Prison, constituted a voluntary compliance with the judgment. This compliance terminated the trial court’s jurisdiction over the case. The Court distinguished this case from *Macali v. Revilla and Ocampo* (48 Phil. 751), where the waiver was made hastily and without full understanding of its consequences. Here, the petitioners had nine days to ponder their decision, personally confirmed their waiver in open court, and were fully aware of the waiver’s scope and meaning. Once the execution of the sentence began (with the order of commitment), the court lost jurisdiction, and the petitioners could no longer revive their right to appeal. The denial of the motion to reconsider was therefore proper.