Escudero v. Lucero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, Celedonio Escudero y Escorpeso, was convicted of estafa by the Municipal Court of Manila and sentenced accordingly. He appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance of Manila. Procedural History: During the continuation of the trial in the Court of First Instance, Escudero failed to appear on August 2, 1956, despite being notified and signing the notice for his appearance. His bonding company repeatedly sought extensions to arrest and produce him. On October 11, 1956, the bonding company was still unable to present him, leading his counsel to move for withdrawal of appearance due to inability to contact his client. The bonding company eventually turned him over to the police on November 6, 1956. The Petition: On November 14, 1956, the respondent Judge issued an order declaring that Escudero had abandoned his appeal due to his conduct and unwillingness to appear, and directed the remand of the case to the Municipal Court for promulgation of the original decision. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to set aside this order and reinstate his appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order declaring the abandonment of the appeal. Whether the provisions of the Rules of Court regarding withdrawal of appeal preclude the Court of First Instance from declaring an appeal abandoned due to the accused's conduct.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the writ of preliminary injunction is dissolved. The respondent Judge did not act without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order complained of.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abandonment of appeal: The Court held that the petitioner's conduct demonstrated an abandonment of his appeal. The facts clearly showed his failure to appear for trial on multiple occasions, despite being notified and signing for the notice of hearing. The repeated requests for extensions by his bonding company to produce him, and the eventual surrender of the petitioner to the police after considerable effort, all indicated an unwillingness to pursue the appeal. The Court cited the principle that waiver of an appeal may be implied from flight, as held in People vs. Ang Giok. On the authority of the Court of First Instance to declare an appeal abandoned: The Court clarified that Sections 9 of Rule 119 and 12 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court regulate the right of the accused to withdraw his appeal. These provisions do not limit the authority of the Court to dismiss an appeal or declare it abandoned, irrespective of the accused's will. The Court emphasized that the vacating effect of an appeal on the lower court's decision is not final or permanent and is subject to the Court's authority. The Rules of Court, being procedural, should not be construed to affect the jurisdiction of courts as determined by the Constitution and statutes. The respondent Judge, therefore, had the authority to declare the appeal abandoned based on the petitioner's conduct.
Main Doctrine
An accused's conduct, such as persistent failure to appear for trial despite notice and the bonding company's efforts to produce him, may be deemed an abandonment of his appeal, justifying the dismissal thereof and the revival of the lower court's decision.