G.R. No. L-9529; August 30, 1958
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO T. VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Pedro T. Villanueva was sentenced to death by the Fifth Division of the defunct People’s Court for the complex crime of treason and murder. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court both by virtue of his appeal and for automatic review under Section 9, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court. It was discovered that the transcript of stenographic notes from October 8, 1947, was missing. Consequently, the Supreme Court, upon the Solicitor General’s recommendation, remanded the case to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on August 1, 1952, for the retaking of the testimonies of four witnesses: Gregorio Gaton, Ambrosio Tuble, Basilia Taborete, and the accused himself. While the case was in the lower court, appellant filed a petition on August 24, 1953, to withdraw his appeal to avail himself of executive clemency granted to prisoners convicted of treason, conditional upon the withdrawal of their appeals. The lower court returned the case to the Supreme Court. On September 21, 1953, the Supreme Court, acting on an agenda that only noted the motion for withdrawal and not the nature of the case requiring automatic review, granted the withdrawal. Later that same day, appellant filed another petition for withdrawal, attaching documents related to a conditional pardon. Upon considering this second petition, the Supreme Court realized its error, as the withdrawal of an appeal does not remove a death penalty case from its mandatory review jurisdiction. In a resolution dated October 19, 1953, it reconsidered the grant of withdrawal and remanded the case again to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for retaking the testimonies and rendering a new decision based on those and the existing evidence. The lower court subsequently rendered a new decision on March 31, 1955, again finding appellant guilty of treason with murder and imposing the death penalty, indemnities, and a fine. Appellant appealed this new decision.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Supreme Court can review the conviction and sentence despite the appellant’s attempt to withdraw his appeal to accept a conditional pardon, given the mandatory nature of automatic review in death penalty cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but commuted the death penalty to reclusion perpetua due to lack of sufficient votes for death. It held that the automatic review of a death penalty sentence by the Supreme Court is mandatory under Section 9, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court. This review is a jurisdiction that neither the court nor the accused can waive or evade. The withdrawal of an appeal by the accused does not render the lower court’s judgment final or executable; the Supreme Court must still review the case. The Court distinguished the case of Jesus Astrologo cited by the appellant, as the pardon in that case was granted more than two years after a final judgment of the Supreme Court, whereas here, no final judgment had been rendered due to the pending mandatory review. The Court also modified the decision by increasing the indemnity to the heirs of each victim from P2,000 to P6,000, as recommended by the Solicitor General and in line with its precedents.