This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-10-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| These circumstances are not altered when the CA granted a new trial.[47] As already discussed, the CA retained appellate jurisdiction over the case even as it ordered the remand of the original records thereof to the RTC for reception of evidence. In retaining appellate jurisdiction, it set aside only its own September 27, 1999 Decision but left unaltered the May 7, 1996 RTC Decision. In fact, in its August 31, 2001 Resolution, the CA emphasized: As we have pointed out earlier, the propriety of appellant's conviction of the offense charged as well as the penalty imposed thereto should be resolved during the appreciation of the new trial after considering the new evidence which appellant insist would prove his innocence.[48] The May 7, 1996 RTC Decision, therefore, remained operative. And under said Decision, respondent stood sentenced to an imprisonment term exceeding six years. | |||||