Florendo v. Court of Appeals
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rosalio L. Florendo, along with co-accused, was found guilty of falsification of commercial documents by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, Capas, Tarlac. Promulgation of judgment was set for June 15, 1992. While all co-accused were present, petitioner's counsel moved for a resetting, which was denied. Petitioner's counsel received a copy of the decision on June 15, 1992. Procedural History: On June 16, 1992, the RTC issued an order modifying the decision by deleting the name of co-accused Alejandro Dizon, who had not been arraigned. On June 17, 1992, warrants of arrest were issued against all accused for failure to renew their bail bonds. A notice of appeal filed by petitioner on July 6, 1992, was denied by the RTC for being filed out of time. Subsequent motions to set promulgation and for reconsideration were also denied. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari and mandamus, which was dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner questioned the validity of the RTC orders, specifically raising issues regarding the promulgation of judgment in absentia, the need for re-promulgation of the amended decision, and the timeliness of his appeal.
Issue(s)
WHETHER OR NOT PROMULGATION OF A DECISION CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ON FOUR COUNTS, EACH A LESS GRAVE FELONY, MAY BE MADE IN ABSENTIA; WHETHER OR NOT THE AMENDED DECISION SHOULD BE PROMULGATED ANEW; WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER'S APPEAL SHOULD BE GIVEN DUE COURSE
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The Court denied the petition and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of promulgation of judgment in absentia: The Court reiterated the provisions of Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. It clarified that while the presence of the accused is mandatory for promulgation, this rule has an exception for light offenses. However, the third paragraph of the same rule mandates the presence of all accused, regardless of the offense's gravity, for the promulgation of judgment. Crucially, if the accused fails to appear without justifiable cause, the promulgation shall consist of the recording of the judgment in the criminal docket, and a copy shall be served upon the accused or counsel. In such cases, the court shall order the arrest of the accused, who may appeal within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision. The amendment introducing promulgation in absentia was intended to prevent accused from frustrating the judicial process by jumping bail. In this case, the petitioner's counsel was furnished a copy of the decision on June 15, 1992, making the period to appeal commence from that date. On the issue of re-promulgation of the amended decision: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the petitioner could not claim the need for re-promulgation. The amendment made on June 16, 1992, pertained solely to the deletion of co-accused Alejandro Dizon's name because he was never arraigned. This modification did not affect the petitioner or his other co-accused whose conviction had already been validly promulgated on June 15, 1992. Therefore, no re-promulgation was necessary as the original promulgation on June 15, 1992, was valid for the petitioner and the other arraigned accused. On the issue of whether the petitioner's appeal should be given due course: The Court found that the notice of appeal filed by the petitioner on July 6, 1992, was clearly out of time. As established, the petitioner's counsel received a copy of the decision on June 15, 1992. Under the rules, the period to appeal is fifteen (15) days from notice. Therefore, the appeal period expired on June 30, 1992. The filing of the appeal on July 6, 1992, was beyond the reglementary period, thus warranting its denial. The Court also noted the presumption that official duties are regularly performed and that proceedings are made of record, which served as substantial compliance with the procedural requirement of recording the judgment in the criminal docket, a point not questioned by the petitioner.
Main Doctrine
The promulgation of judgment in absentia is permissible under Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure when the accused fails to appear without justifiable cause, and the notice of appeal must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision.