G.R. No. L-4934 November 28, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, Judge of the First Instance of Batangas, Second Branch, and FIDEL SALUD, Jr., respondents.

FACTS

On April 17, 1951, the respondent judge promulgated a decision in Criminal Case No. 158, sentencing the defendant, Fidel Salud, Jr., to an indeterminate penalty. On May 2, 1951, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court erred (1) in appreciating his age (between 17 and 18) only as an ordinary mitigating circumstance that lowered the penalty by one degree, and (2) in not appreciating his surrender as another mitigating circumstance. On June 18, 1951, the respondent judge granted the motion, amended the original decision, and imposed a lower indeterminate sentence. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration of this amended judgment was denied. The Provincial Fiscal then filed this petition for certiorari, contending that the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction by amending the judgment after the 15-day period to appeal had lapsed, citing the case of People vs. Tamayo. The petitioner argued that a judgment becomes final after 15 days and can only be revised within that period, except when a motion for new trial is filed.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction by granting the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and amending the original judgment after the 15-day period for perfecting an appeal had commenced.

RULING

No, the respondent judge did not act in excess of jurisdiction. The motion for reconsideration filed by the defendant, based on errors of law in the judgment, is equivalent to a motion for new trial on the ground of errors of law under Section 2(a) of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. A motion for new trial (or its equivalent, a motion for reconsideration on errors of law) interrupts the period for perfecting an appeal. Since the motion was filed within the 15-day period from the promulgation of the judgment (filed on May 2, 1951, for an April 17, 1951 decision), the period to appeal was suspended. Therefore, the court retained jurisdiction to decide upon and grant that motion at any time thereafter. The defendant, by filing such a motion, waived any right against double jeopardy. The ruling in People vs. Tamayo is correct but does not support the petitioner’s contention; it supports the principle that the period for finality is suspended by a motion for new trial, which includes a motion for reconsideration on errors of law. The phrase “errors of law committed during the trial” in the rules is used in its general sense, encompassing the period from arraignment to the rendition of judgment, not just the introduction of evidence. Thus, errors of law in the judgment itself are a proper ground for such a motion.