Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 44934 September 30, 1936
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FILEMON FRESCO, defendant-appellant.
Eufrasio Ocampo for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
This case originated in the Court of First Instance of Manila wherein an information was filed against the appellant for the crime of rape with serious physical injuries. Upon being arraigned, he entered a plea of not guilty. After due trial he was convicted of the crime charged in the information and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of not less than fourteen years, eight months and one day and not more than seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal; to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P100, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs. From the judgment thus rendered this appeal was taken.
Due to the appellant's inability to employ a lawyer, he was provided with an attorney de oficio. In the brief filed by the latter, the guilt of the appellant is admitted, and the only question raised relates to the correctness of the penalty imposed by the court below. In view of the fact that the brief thus filed by the attorney de oficio raised a question of law only, the case was submitted to this court for decision. In the meantime, however, the attention of the court was called to a letter written by the appellant to one of the members thereof, wherein the former claims that he is innocent of the crime of which he was found guilty by the lower court. We have thus a situation in which a client disagrees with his lawyer as to the questions which should be raised in a case on appeal. While there is no provision of law exactly applicable in the premises, we believe that the ends of justice require that, under the circumstances obtaining in this case, a review of the evidence should be had in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
It results that this case involves both questions of law and fact, and therefore, comes within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
Wherefore, it is ordered that the clerk of this court certify the case to the clerk of the Court of Appeals in accordance with section 145-O of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 3.
Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, and Laurel, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
