G.R. No. 30076
EN BANC

FAUSTA LANESTOSA and BERNABE LAMES, petitioners, vs. FRANCISCO SANTAMARIA, Judge of First Instance of Iloilo, respondent.
Ponente: VILLA-REAL, J.

FACTS

Petitioners Fausta Lanestosa and Bernabe Lames were convicted of resistance to authority and sentenced to imprisonment. On July 7, 1928, they were informed of the judgment. On July 16, 1928, they voluntarily signed a written petition waiving their right to appeal and requested to be sent to Bilibid Prison at the earliest opportunity. The respondent judge personally heard them on July 17, 1928, where they confirmed their waiver. The court then issued an order declaring their waiver valid and ordering their immediate commitment to Bilibid. The next day, July 18, 1928, the petitioners filed a motion to reconsider the order, withdraw their waiver, and admit their appeal, citing family circumstances and despair over their inability to post a bond. The respondent judge denied the motion on July 21, 1928, ruling that he had lost jurisdiction after the waiver and order of commitment. Petitioners then filed this mandamus proceeding to compel the judge to admit their appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted correctly in denying the petitioners’ motion to withdraw their waiver of appeal and admit their appeal, on the ground that he had lost jurisdiction over the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for mandamus. The waiver of the right to appeal, made voluntarily nine days after being informed of the judgment, coupled with a request for immediate commitment and the court’s order granting that request, constituted a voluntary compliance with the judgment. This terminated the trial court’s jurisdiction over the case. The Court distinguished this case from *Macali vs. Revilla*, where the waiver was made hastily and without full understanding. Here, the petitioners had ample time to ponder their decision, confirmed their waiver in open court, and voluntarily sought immediate execution of the sentence. Once the execution of the sentence began (with the order of commitment), the court could no longer set it aside without placing the petitioners in double jeopardy. Therefore, the respondent judge correctly ruled that he lacked jurisdiction to admit the appeal.