People vs. Tamayo
2
PEOPLE VS. TAMAYO April 25, 1950 | Tuason, J. | Judgment PETITIONER: People of the Philippines RESPONDENT: Timoteo Tamayo SUMMARY: Timoteo Tamayo was convicted of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The present petition questions the validity of modifying the judgment, taking into consideration that a subsequent legislation was passed increasing the penalty for the said crime. SC granted Tamayo’s petition to reinstate the original judgment because the prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the 15-day period allotted for an appeal or before the decision becomes final. DOCTRINE: A judgment in a criminal case may be revised or modified only within the period to appeal or fifteen days from the date of promulgation. FACTS: 1. Timoteo Tamayo was convicted illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. 2. July 24, 1947: The provincial fiscal moved that the court reconsider its decision on the ground that the imposable penalty was increased by a new legislation. The Court granted the motion and amended its decision. 3. February 14, 1948: The Court granted the motion and amended its decision. ISSUE: W/N the Court had jurisdiction to modify its decision after the lapse of nearly 7 months from the date of its promulgation, notwithstanding that the fiscal’s motion for reconsideration was filed within 15 days — NO. HELD: RTC’s modified judgment is set aside, and the original judgment is declared final. RATIO: 1. In US vs. Vayson, the Court that it had plenary power to alter or revise judgment before a judgment becomes final. 2. Judgment in a criminal case may be revised or modified only within the period to appeal, or fifteen days from the date of its promulgation. The Government may file a motion for reconsideration, as distinct from a motion for new trial, but such motion cannot operate to suspend or extend the above period; the court must act before that period terminates if the revision, alteration, or modification are to be valid. Only
-
Upload
ruth-genevieve-austria-lumibao -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
4
description
Digest
Transcript of People vs. Tamayo
PEOPLE VS. TAMAYOApril 25, 1950 | Tuason, J. | Judgment
PETITIONER: People of the PhilippinesRESPONDENT: Timoteo Tamayo
SUMMARY: Timoteo Tamayo was convicted of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The present petition questions the validity of modifying the judgment, taking into consideration that a subsequent legislation was passed increasing the penalty for the said crime. SC granted Tamayo’s petition to reinstate the original judgment because the prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the 15-day period allotted for an appeal or before the decision becomes final.
DOCTRINE: A judgment in a criminal case may be revised or modified only within the period to appeal or fifteen days from the date of promulgation.
FACTS:
1. Timoteo Tamayo was convicted illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
2. July 24, 1947: The provincial fiscal moved that the court reconsider its decision on the ground that the imposable penalty was increased by a new legislation. The Court granted the motion and amended its decision.
3. February 14, 1948: The Court granted the motion and amended its decision.
ISSUE: W/N the Court had jurisdiction to modify its decision after the lapse of nearly 7 months from the date of its promulgation, notwithstanding that the fiscal’s motion for reconsideration was filed within 15 days — NO.
HELD: RTC’s modified judgment is set aside, and the original judgment is declared final.
RATIO:
1. In US vs. Vayson, the Court that it had plenary power to alter or revise judgment before a judgment becomes final.
2. Judgment in a criminal case may be revised or modified only within the period to appeal, or fifteen days from the date of its promulgation. The Government may file a motion for reconsideration, as distinct from a motion for new trial, but such motion cannot operate to suspend or extend the above period; the court must act before that period
terminates if the revision, alteration, or modification are to be valid. Only a motion by the defendant can interrupt the running of the period at the expiration of which the judgment becomes final.
3. Nonetheless, such modification of judgment does not result in double jeopardy because double jeopardy attaches only when there is already a final judgment (which can happen only when the 15-day period has already expired).
