G.R. No. L-59581 December 29, 1989
TARCISIO ICAO, petitioner, vs. HON. SIMPLICIO M. APALISOK, Judge, Court of First Instance, Zamboanga del Norte, and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Tarcisio Icao, a provincial guard, was convicted of Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to four months and one day of arresto mayor, maximum, with temporary special disqualification. The judgment was promulgated on October 12, 1981. On the same day, Icao filed a petition for probation and was released on his own recognizance. He did not appeal the conviction. Subsequently, the trial judge, respondent Simplicio M. Apalisok, issued an order on November 12, 1981, amending the judgment to specify the period of temporary special disqualification as eight years and one day, citing that allowing Icao to continue as a guard would flout the law. The judge scheduled the promulgation of this amended decision.
Icao moved for reconsideration, arguing that the court had lost jurisdiction over the case as the judgment had become final, and the amendment would place him in double jeopardy. The trial court denied his motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. Icao then filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the trial court’s orders.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in amending the judgment of conviction after it had become final and executory.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the challenged orders. The Court ruled that the respondent judge had clearly lost jurisdiction to modify the judgment. Under Section 7, Rule 120 of the 1964 Rules of Court, a judgment of conviction may only be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before an appeal is perfected. A judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been served, or the right to appeal is waived.
Here, the judgment became final on October 28, 1981, after the 15-day period to appeal from the October 12 promulgation lapsed without an appeal being taken by Icao. The filing of the petition for probation did not alter this finality. Consequently, the trial court was divested of all authority to amend the judgment. A final and executory judgment can no longer be amended or corrected, except for clerical errors. This rule is of long standing and undeviating observance. The subsequent discovery of an alleged erroneous penalty imposition does not justify a correction after finality.
Furthermore, the Court noted that under Article 44 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of arresto carries with it the accessory penalty of suspension from public office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence. The implication is that courts lack the power to fix a longer term for this accessory disqualification. Therefore, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the amendment orders after losing jurisdiction.