People v. Nazareno:: What Is Involved Is A Clerical Error, or Not A Correction of An

18. Villareal vs.
People CLARIFICATORY JDUGMENT
Rule 120 coupled with Sec. 7 of Rule 117 and Sec. 1 of Rule Clarification after final judgment is, however, allowed when
122, it can be culled from the foregoing provisions that only the what is involved is a clerical error, or not a correction of an
accused may appeal the criminal aspect of a criminal case, erroneous judgment, or dispositive portion of the Decision.
especially if the relief being sought is the correction or review of
the judgment therein. This rule was instituted in order to give life Where there is an ambiguity caused by an omission or mistake
to the constitutional edict against putting a person twice in in the dispositive portion, the court may clarify such ambiguity,
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. mistake, or omission by an amendment; and in so doing, it may
resort to the pleadings filed by the parties, the court’s findings of
Prosecution via an appeal from a judgment of acquittal is facts and conclusions of law as expressed in the body of the
likewise barred decision.
People v. Nazareno:
The reason is not only the defendant's already
established innocence at the first trial where he had
been placed in peril of conviction, but also the same
untoward and prejudicial consequences of a second trial
initiated by a government who has at its disposal all the
powers and resources of the State. Unfairness and
prejudice would necessarily result, as the government
would then be allowed another opportunity to persuade
a second trier of the defendant's guilt while
strengthening any weaknesses that had attended the
first trial.
There is no modification of judgment in a petition for certiorari

(rule 65), whose resolution does not call for a re-evaluation of
the merits of the case in order to determine the ultimate criminal
responsibility of the accused.
Sec. 7 of Rule 120 bars the modification of a criminal judgment

only if the appeal brought before the court is Rule 41, or Rule
45, and if that appeal would put the accused in double jeopardy.
Extra Notes:
(In the case the probation application was filed with the wrong
court)
 A void judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment at

all. By it no rights are divested. Through it, no rights
can be attained. Being worthless, all proceedings
founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds
nor bars anyone. All acts performed under it and all
claims flowing out of it are void.
 An order placing defendant on "probation" is not a

"sentence" but is rather in effect a suspension of the
imposition of sentence. It is not a final judgment but is
rather an "interlocutory judgment" in the nature of a
conditional order placing the convicted defendant
under the supervision of the court for his reformation,
to be followed by a final judgment of discharge, if the
conditions of the probation are complied with, or by a
final judgment of sentence if the conditions are
violated.
RULE 122 2. Celestial vs. People
“APPEALS” See Sec, 8, Rule 124 (Failure to file appellant’s brief

warrants dismissal of the case)
3. Ola vs. People

1. Sumbilla vs. Matrix Finance Corporation 4. Villamor vs. People
- Same ruling cited in Judgment It is axiomatic that the "Rules of Court, promulgated by
authority of law, have the force and effect of law. More
2. People vs. Evangelista importantly, rules prescribing the time within which
certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings
Probation may be granted whether the sentence taken, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention
imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An of needless delays and the orderly and speedy
application for probation shall be filed with the trial court. discharge of judicial business. Strict compliance with
The filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of such rules is mandatory and imperative. Only strong
the right to appeal. considerations of equity will lead us to allow an
exception to the procedural rule in the interest of
The “perfection of the appeal” referred in the law refers substantial justice
to the appeal taken from a judgment of conviction by the
trial court and not that of the appellate court, since under Under Section 3, Rule 124, the appellant must file his
the law an application for probation is filed with the trial brief within thirty (30) days from receipt by the appellant
court which can only grant the same after it shall have or his counsel of the notice from the clerk of court of
convicted and sentenced the defendant, and upon this Court that evidence, oral and documentary, is
application by said defendant within the period for already attached to the record.
perfecting an appeal.
5.
RULE 124
1. People vs. Mateo (2004)

While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review
by the SC of cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however,
has it proscribed an intermediate review. If only to ensure
utmost circumspection before the penalty of death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, the
Court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in
these cases a review by the CA before the case is
elevated to the SC.
Where life and liberty are at stake, all possible avenues to

determine his guilt or innocence must be accorded an
accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts can
ever be overdone. A prior determination by the CA on,
particularly, the factual issues, would minimize the
possibility of an error of judgment.
If the CA should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion

perpetua or life imprisonment, it could then render
judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the
circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering
judgment and elevate the entire records of the case to
the SC for its final disposition.
Extra Notes:
The rule allowing the intermediate review by the CA, falls
within rule-making prerogative of the SC

People v. Nazareno:: What Is Involved Is A Clerical Error, or Not A Correction of An

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Nazareno:: What Is Involved Is A Clerical Error, or Not A Correction of An

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Nazareno:: What Is Involved Is A Clerical Error, or Not A Correction of An

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

18. Villareal vs.

People CLARIFICATORY JDUGMENT

There is no modification of judgment in a petition for certiorari

Sec. 7 of Rule 120 bars the modification of a criminal judgment

 A void judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment at

 An order placing defendant on "probation" is not a

“APPEALS” See Sec, 8, Rule 124 (Failure to file appellant’s brief

3. Ola vs. People

1. People vs. Mateo (2004)

Where life and liberty are at stake, all possible avenues to

If the CA should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.