PEOPLE v. TAMAYO Ponente: Tuason, J.

Date: March 5, 1950 Petition for review on certiorari and prohibition RATIO DECIDENDI: Before a judgment becomes final, the trial court has plenary power to alter or revise the same as law and justice require. No motion can suspend the 15-day period in which judgment becomes final, except for a motion for new trial. QUICK FACTS: Timoteo Tamayo, the appellant, was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. Tamayo plead guilty and was sentenced to a fine, but the Provincial Fiscal moved to reconsider the sentence, given the new penalty enacted prior to the crime itself. The motion was filed in a timely manner, but the lower court granted the motion and modified the sentence 7 months after the decision was issued. Hence the appeal. FACTS: Name of Accused: Timoteo Tamayo, plaintiff-appellant Name of Offended party: People of the Philippines, complainant-appellee Facts

Timoteo Tamayo, the appellant, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The crime was alleged to have occurred on August 17, 1946. Tamayo plead guilty on July 16, 1947, and was sentenced to pay a fine of P100 plus costs. Provincial Fiscal filed a motion for reconsideration in July 24, 1947, on the ground that the imposable penalty was that provided in Republic Act No. 4, which became effective on July 19, 1946. Counsel for Tamayo objected, but the trial court modified its judgment on February 14, 1948 and sentenced the accused to five years of imprisonment, accessories of the law, and costs.

ISSUE: 1. WON Trial Court has the power to modify its judgment DECISION: Petition is GRANTED, modified judgment SET ASIDE. Original judgment with sentence of fine REINSTATED HELD The SC cited Sec. 7 of Rule 1201 (then Rule 116) as controlling in this case. The SC interpreted Sec. 7 to mean that the trial court cannot modify its own judgment once it becomes final, or 15 days after the issue of the judgment. Government may make any motion it sees proper within the 15-day period, but such motion cannot operate to suspend the 15-day period and prevent the judgment from becoming final. The Court mentions other opinions that claim that Sec. 1 of Rule 121 (then Rule 117; New Trial) on granting a motion for reconsideration, but says that Sec. 1 is not controlling here, as it pertains to proceedings whereby errors of law or irregularities are expunged from the record, or new evidence is introduced, or both steps are taken. In the instant case, the motion for
1

Sec. 7. Modification of judgment. A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation.

reconsideration is only for the modification of the sentence, and not any other purpose. This clearly places it within the scope of Sec. 7, Rule 120. *As a matter of obiter, the Court also pointed out that RA 4 was enacted on July 19, 1946, but the President had fixed its effectivity on Aug. 31 by virtue of a Presidential Decree, thus it still did not apply at the time of the crime.