Moll v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Salvador K. Moll, while serving as vice-mayor of Malinao, Albay, entered into a contract in April 1989 with Ysmael Zepeda to administer the catching and sale of bangus. The then-Mayor Misericordia Clavecilla opposed this agreement, asserting Moll lacked the authority to enter such a contract or appoint an administrator. Consequently, criminal charges were filed against Moll. Procedural History: Moll was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay, for violation of R.A. 3019, a case still under appeal at the Sandiganbayan. He was also convicted by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tiwi-Malinao for usurpation of authority under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code. Despite multiple postponements and Moll's motion to quash based on double jeopardy, the trial court denied the motion and proceeded with the promulgation of judgment on May 11, 1999, after Moll and his counsel left the courtroom. A motion for reconsideration was denied, as was a subsequent petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court and a petition for review before the Court of Appeals. This Court initially denied Moll's petition for review on certiorari for procedural deficiencies, and subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied, with an entry of judgment made on May 16, 2001. The Petition: Moll filed an Urgent Motion to Lift, Recall and/or Withdraw Warrant of Arrest, asserting the possibility of imminent arrest. This motion was filed after multiple denials of his petitions and motions by this Court, including a denial of his motion to elevate the case to the en banc. The Court noted that Moll's arguments were a rehash of previously decided issues and that he was making a mockery of justice. Consequently, the Court denied his motion to lift the warrant of arrest and ordered the execution of the final judgment, warning against further pleadings.
Issue(s)
Whether the promulgation of judgment in Criminal Case No. 4088 was valid despite the absence of the petitioner and his counsel, and whether the petitioner was denied due process. Whether the period to appeal commenced to run despite the alleged invalid promulgation. Whether the motion to quash was correctly denied on the ground of double jeopardy. Whether the Supreme Court should lift, recall, and/or withdraw the warrant of arrest, considering the petitioner's repeated filings and attempts to evade judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's urgent motion to lift, recall, and/or withdraw the warrant of arrest. It ordered the court a quo to execute, without further delay, the final judgment that had already been validly promulgated. Petitioner and his counsel were warned against filing any further pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the promulgation and denial of due process: The Court held that the promulgation of judgment in Criminal Case No. 4088 was valid. The petitioner and his counsel were afforded the opportunity to be heard. The repeated failure of the petitioner and his counsel to appear at scheduled promulgations led to the court's decision to proceed with the promulgation. The Court emphasized that the petitioner squandered several opportunities to be present and participate. The Court cited Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals for the principle that what is repugnant to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard. On the commencement of the period to appeal: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that his period to appeal never commenced to run due to the alleged improper promulgation. Given that the promulgation was deemed valid and the petitioner had repeatedly failed to appear, the period to appeal should have commenced in accordance with procedural rules. The Court reiterated the principle that cases must be prosecuted in accordance with prescribed procedures to ensure orderly and speedy administration of justice, citing Garbo v. Court of Appeals. On the denial of the motion to quash and double jeopardy: The MCTC correctly denied the motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy. The Court found that the petitioner could still be prosecuted under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code. The subsequent actions of the petitioner in leaving the courtroom after the denial of his motion further supported the MCTC's decision to proceed with the promulgation. On the repeated filings and the warrant of arrest: The Court noted the petitioner's "fierce determination to evade the execution of a judgment which has long become final." The Court found that the petitioner's subsequent motions raised no new matters or arguments but were merely a rehash of issues already passed upon. The Court concluded that the petitioner was making a mockery of justice and trifling with judicial processes. Consequently, the urgent motion to lift, recall, and/or withdraw the warrant of arrest was denied for lack of merit, and the court a quo was ordered to execute the final judgment.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy, after the promulgation of judgment has been scheduled but before it is carried out, does not suspend the period to appeal. The promulgation, consisting of the recording of the judgment in the criminal docket, may proceed even in the absence of the accused and counsel, especially when they have repeatedly failed to appear at prior scheduled promulgations.