TAN v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 148194, April 12, 2002

FACTS: Willy Tan was found guilty of bigamy by the Regional Trial Court and was sentenced to
suffer a prison term of prision correccional. Thereafter, he applied for probation. The application
was granted but the release order was withheld in view of the filing by the prosecution of a motion
for modification of the penalty. The prosecution argued that the penalty is prision mayor and that
the Tan is not eligible for probation. On 10 July 1998, the trial court rendered an amended decision.
Three days thereafter, or on 13 July 1998, petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the trial court and
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal on the
ground that petitioner raised a pure question of law. Thus, the appeal should have been brought up
by way of a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court and not by merely filing a
notice of appeal before the trial court.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner had taken an appropriate legal step in filing a notice of appeal
with the trial court

RULING: YES. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to appeal in the manner
prescribed by law. 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 appeal with the court which rendered the
judgment or final order appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse
party.

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. 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." These rules are expressly adopted to apply to appeals in criminal cases. In fine,
petitioner had taken an appropriate legal step in filing a notice of appeal with the trial court.
Ordinarily, the Court should have the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for further
proceedings.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LEONES
G.R. No. 128514 & G.R. Nos. 143856-61. October 3, 2001

FACTS: Nilo Leones was charged and convicted for 3 counts of rape and 3 counts of acts of
lasciviousness. The trial court sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
accused did not appeal to the decision, but the prosecution filed a notice of appeal arguing that the
penalties for each offense should be increased to death.

ISSUE: Whether the appeal of the prosecution should be sustained

RULING: NO. Section 1, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 1. Who may appeal.- Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order, unless
the accused will be placed in double jeopardy.

Thus, the Court repeatedly ruled that where the accused, after conviction by the trial court, did not
appeal his conviction, an appeal by the government seeking to increase the penalty places the
accused in double jeopardy and should therefore be dismissed. Even assuming that the penalties
imposed by the trial court were erroneous, these cannot be corrected by on appeal by the
prosecution. Although an appeal in a criminal proceeding opens the whole case for review,
including the review of the penalty, such is only be possible if it is the accused that brought the case
on appeal, and not the prosecution.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROM
G. R. No. 137585. April 28, 2004

FACTS: Joey Corsales and Antonio Rom were charged with the Murder and were sentenced to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Only Corsales appealed. He argued that the testimony of
the eyewitness and the medico-legal officer is not enough to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

ISSUE: Whether the filing of appeal in a criminal case opens the entire decision for review
including the amount of damages to be awarded

RULING: YES. As such, the Court examined the damages awarded by the trial court to the heirs of
the victim and finds it necessary to amend the same to conform to current jurisprudence. The Court
then increased the amount of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and civil indemnity in
the amount of P50,000.00. Appellant Corsales is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim in the
amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the actual damages and P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages. However, appellant together with accused Antonio Rom is ordered to pay
jointly and severally, said heirs, the amount of P75,900.00 for loss of earning capacity in lieu of the
compensatory damages in the amount of P1,247,400.00 awarded by the trial court.