G.R. No. L-2061

FACTS:
The defendant-appellant, Marcos Zafra, was charged in two separate criminal cases arising from an altercation in San Carlos. Case No. 601 charged Zafra and three others with inflicting injuries upon Faustino Balunes. Case No. 603 charged Zafra alone with inflicting injuries upon Fortunato Uacay. During the trial of Case No. 601, after the prosecution rested, the fiscal moved to consolidate it with Case No. 603. Zafra expressly consented to the consolidation. The cases were then tried jointly, resulting in a single judgment convicting Zafra and sentencing him to four months of imprisonment. Zafra appealed, arguing that the order of consolidation was illegal and rendered the judgment void.

ISSUE:
Whether the consolidation of the two criminal cases, to which the appellant consented, constitutes a reversible error that voids the judgment of conviction.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The appellant cannot allege as error an order of the court to which he expressly gave his consent. The principle of estoppel applies; a party who voluntarily acquiesces to a procedural step cannot later challenge it on appeal. Moreover, the consolidation ultimately benefited the appellant, as he received a single four-month sentence instead of potentially consecutive sentences totaling eight months had the cases been tried separately. The Court found the evidence sufficient to prove Zafra’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rejecting his defense of alibi due to conflicting testimonies.