Celig Vs People of the Philippines, July 28, 2010, GR No.

173150

LYDIA C. GELIG, G.R. No. 173150

Petitioner,

Present:

CORONA, C. J., Chairperson

- versus - VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
DEL CASTILLO, and
PEREZ, JJ.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:

Respondent. July 28, 2010

An examination of the entire records of a case may be explored for the purpose of arriving at a
correct conclusion, as an appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review, it
being the duty of the court to correct such error as may be found in the judgment appealed
from.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When an accused appeals from the judgment of his conviction, he waives his constitutional
guarantee against double jeopardy and throws the entire case open for appellate review. We are
then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate in the exercise of our
concomitant authority to review and sift through the whole case to correct any error, even if
unassigned.

(Against the side of accused)

People of the Philippines VS Hon. Perfecto Laguio, Jr., GR No. 128587, March 16,
2007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 128587

Petitioner,
Present:

PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,

- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ.
HON. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR., in his
capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 18,
RTC, Manila, and LAWRENCE WANG Y Promulgated:
CHEN,
Respondents. March 16, 2007

First off, it must be emphasized that the present case is an appeal filed directly with this
Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 in relation to Rule 41, Section 2,
paragraph (c) of the Rules of Court raising only pure questions of law, ordinary appeal by
mere filing of a notice of appeal not being allowed as a mode of appeal directly to this Court.
Then, too, it bears stressing that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of
due process, it being merely a statutory privilege which may be exercised only in the
manner provided for by law (Velasco v. Court of Appeals[21]). Although Section 2, Rule 122
of the Rules on Criminal Procedure states that any party may appeal, the right of the People
to appeal is, in the very same provision, expressly made subject to the prohibition against
putting the accused in double jeopardy. It also basic that appeal in criminal cases
throws the whole records of the case wide open for review by the appellate court,
that is why any appeal from a judgment of acquittal necessarily puts the accused in
double jeopardy. In effect, the very same Section 2 of Rule 122 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure, disallows appeal by the People from judgments of acquittal.
WILLY TAN y CHUA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents., GR
No. 148194, April 12, 2002

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to appeal in the manner
prescribed by law.[4] While this right is statutory, once it is granted by law, however, its
suppression would be a violation of due process, itself a right guaranteed by the
Constitution.[5] Section 3(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure states:

Section 3. How appeal is taken.

(a) The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the Court of Appeals in cases
decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction,
shall be taken by filing a notice of appealwith the court which rendered the
judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon
the adverse party. (Emphasis supplied).

The above rule is plain and unambiguous the remedy of ordinary appeal by notice of
appeal, although not necessarily preclusive of other remedies provided for by the rules, is
open and available to petitioner.
The notice of appeal was timely filed by petitioner on 13 July 1998, three days after the
questioned decision was promulgated.[6] It was a remedy that the law allowed him to
avail himself of, and it threw the whole case effectively open for review on both
questions of law and of fact whether or not raised by the parties.
Neither the Constitution nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure exclusively vests in
the Supreme Court the power to hear cases on appeal in which only an error of law is
involved.[7] Indeed, the Court of Appeals, under Rule 42 and 44 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, is authorized to determine errors of fact, of law, or both. [8] These rules are
expressly adopted to apply to appeals in criminal cases,[9] and they do not thereby
divest the Supreme Court of its ultimate jurisdiction over such questions.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (ELEVENTH
DIVISION), EFREN S. ALMUETE, JOHNNY ILA y RAMEL and JOEL LLOREN y
DELA CRUZ, respondents, GR No. 144332, June 10, 2004

In this case, the RTC rendered judgment finding all the accused, respondents herein,
guilty of the crime charged based on the evidence on record and the law involved, and
sentenced them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment as provided for in P.D. No. 705, in
relation to Articles 304 and 305 of the Revised Penal Code. They had a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy at law to overturn the decision as, in fact, they even filed a motion for
reconsideration of the decision on its merits, and for the nullification of the promulgation of
the said decision. Upon the trial courts denial of their motion for reconsideration, the
petitioners had the right to appeal, by writ of error, from the decision on its merits on
questions of facts and of law. The appeal of the petitioners in due course was a plain,
speedy and adequate remedy. In such appeal, the petitioners could question the
findings of facts of the trial court, its conclusions based on the said findings, as well
as the penalty imposed by the court. It bears stressing that an appeal in a criminal
case throws the whole case open for review and that the appellate court can reverse
any errors of the trial court, whether assigned or unassigned, found in its
judgment.[21] However, instead of appealing the decision by writ of error, the respondents
filed their petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the decision of the trial court on its
merits. They questioned their conviction and the penalty imposed on them, alleging that the
prosecution failed to prove their guilt for the crime charged, the evidence against them being
merely hearsay and based on mere inferences. In fine, the respondents alleged mere errors
of judgment of the trial court in their petition. It behooved the appellate court to have
dismissed the petition, instead of giving it due course and granting it.
The CA reviewed the trial courts assessment of the evidence on record, its findings of
facts, and its conclusions based on the said findings. The CA forthwith concluded that the
said evidence was utterly insufficient on which to anchor a judgment of conviction, and
acquitted respondent Almuete of the crime charged.
The appellate court acted with grave abuse of its discretion when it ventured beyond
the sphere of its authority and arrogated unto itself, in the certiorari proceedings, the
authority to review perceived errors of the trial court in the exercise of its judgment and
discretion, which are correctible only by appeal by writ of error. Consequently, the decision
of the CA acquitting respondent Almuete of the crime charged is a nullity. If a court is
authorized by statute to entertain jurisdiction in a particular case only, and undertakes to
exercise the jurisdiction conferred in a case to which the statute has no application, the
judgment rendered is void. The lack of statutory authority to make a particular judgment is
akin to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.[22]In this case, the CA is authorized to entertain
and resolve only errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.
A void judgment has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In
contemplation of law, it is non-existent.[23] It cannot impair or create rights; nor can any right
be based on it. Thus, respondent Almuete cannot base his claim of double jeopardy on the
appellate courts decision.