G.R. No. L-42010 August 31, 1976
ODELON RAMOS, petitioner, vs. HON. ARSENIO M. GONONG, Judge, Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte Branch IV, and MARIANO NALUPTA, SR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Odelon Ramos was convicted of Damage to Property with Multiple Slight Physical Injuries Through Reckless Imprudence. After the decision was promulgated on October 20, 1975, he initially manifested an intention to appeal. However, the very next day, October 21, he filed a written manifestation expressly withdrawing his appeal and praying for the execution of the judgment. The trial court approved this withdrawal on the same date. Two days later, on October 23, the trial fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking to amend the dispositive portion of the judgment to specify that the monetary award was a “fine” and to impose subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The respondent judge granted the motion, amending the judgment despite petitioner’s opposition, asserting his power to amend before finality.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in amending the judgment of conviction after the accused had withdrawn his appeal and the court had approved such withdrawal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. The ruling is anchored on Section 7, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court, which states that a judgment of conviction may be modified before it becomes final or before an appeal is perfected. A judgment becomes final in three instances: (1) lapse of the appeal period; (2) partial or total satisfaction of the sentence; or (3) when the defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal. In this case, the petitioner’s written manifestation withdrawing his appeal and praying for execution constituted an express written waiver of his right to appeal. The court’s approval of this withdrawal on October 21 rendered the judgment final and executory from that moment. Consequently, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to amend or alter its judgment, except for clerical errors. The fiscal’s motion filed two days later was therefore filed after finality. The respondent judge’s reliance on Rule 122 regarding withdrawal of appeal was misplaced, as that rule applies when an appeal has already been perfected and the records may not yet have been transmitted. Here, no appeal was ever perfected; instead, the right was waived before perfection, triggering finality under Rule 120. Thus, the amendment was issued without jurisdiction. The Court directed the respondent judge to modify his order in accordance with this ruling, also noting that the actual damages awarded should be reduced to the proven amount of P7,425.90, not doubled.