G.R. No. L-14967; April 27, 1960
ORLANDO DE LEON, petitioner, vs. THE HON. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ETC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On June 2, 1958, a complaint for murder was filed against Orlando de Leon before the justice of the peace court of Cauayan, Negros Occidental. After preliminary investigation, the case was forwarded to the court of first instance, where the provincial fiscal filed an information for homicide on July 28, 1958. On August 6, 1958, during arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty. His counsel asserted the presence of three mitigating circumstances: voluntary surrender, plea of guilty, and the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, offering to present evidence on the accused’s age if the prosecution did not admit it. The Assistant Fiscal agreed to the existence of all three circumstances and recommended a penalty of one year. Based on this admission, the court rendered a decision on the same day, convicting the accused and sentencing him to one year of prision correccional, with accessory penalties, indemnity to the heirs, and costs. The accused began serving his sentence immediately on August 6, 1958.
On August 15, 1958, the provincial fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging possession of documentary evidence showing the accused was over 18 years old at arraignment, and prayed for an increased penalty. The private prosecution also moved to set aside the decision as null and void and to authorize a new information for murder, alleging fraud regarding the accused’s age. After hearings and memoranda, the court issued an order on October 6, 1958, granting the motion for reconsideration but denying the motion for a new murder information. Without setting aside its August 6 decision, the court authorized the prosecution to present evidence on the accused’s age on October 18, 1958, with the defense allowed rebuttal. The accused’s counsel moved for reconsideration, arguing the court lost jurisdiction as the accused had already begun serving his sentence, making the judgment final. This motion was denied, prompting the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to reopen the case and modify its judgment after the accused had already begun serving his sentence.

RULING

No. The trial court lost jurisdiction to modify its judgment. Under Section 7, Rule 116 of the 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 partially or totally satisfied or served, or the defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal. Since the accused began serving his sentence on August 6, 1958, the very day of the judgment’s promulgation, the sentence had been satisfied, rendering the judgment final. Thus, the case could no longer be reopened to modify the sentence. While the Court sympathized with the prosecution’s move due to the apparent fraud regarding the accused’s age, it could not be entertained as it would place the accused in double jeopardy. The petition was granted, and the trial court’s order dated October 6, 1958, was set aside. No costs.