People v. Alva
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The petitioner, Arnold Alva, was charged with estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that Alva defrauded Yumi Veranga of P120,000.00 by falsely representing that he could process her U.S. Visa application. He received the money but failed to deliver the visa, subsequently misappropriating the funds. Procedural History: The case was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 54. After posting bail, Alva pleaded not guilty. Following trial, the RTC considered the case submitted for decision. Alva and his counsel repeatedly sought to defer the promulgation of the decision. On May 19, 1999, despite notice, Alva failed to appear, presenting a medical certificate for hypertension. The RTC ordered the promulgation in absentia and issued a bench warrant. The RTC found Alva guilty of estafa and sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term and ordered restitution. Subsequently, a new bail bond was seemingly posted and approved, but the RTC also rendered judgment against the original bonding company for failure to produce Alva. The warrant of arrest remained unexecuted as Alva had moved from his registered address. Alva later terminated his counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration which was initially denied for lack of proper setting, then later granted and denied on its merits, with the RTC giving due course to his appeal. The Court of Appeals (CA) required Alva to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for failure to post a new bail bond. Despite a compliance stating a new bond was posted and an extension was secured, the CA dismissed the appeal. Alva's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Alva assails the CA's dismissal of his appeal, arguing that the CA erred in finding that he failed to post a new bail bond for his provisional liberty on appeal and that his original bail bond had expired. He contends that he did post a new bail bond and that its coverage was extended. Furthermore, he argues that he did not fail to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court or to the custody of the law, as evidenced by his continued filing of pleadings and the posting of a bail bond. The core of his petition is that the CA committed reversible error in dismissing his appeal based on the alleged invalidity or absence of a proper bail bond on appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the appeal due to petitioner's alleged failure to post a valid bail bond to secure his provisional liberty on appeal. Whether petitioner failed to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court or to the custody of the law despite the posting of a bail bond.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner's appeal are affirmed. Judge Manuel Muro is directed to issue a warrant of arrest for the apprehension of Petitioner Arnold Alva.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of failure to post a valid bail bond on appeal: The Court held that petitioner was not entitled to bail on appeal. Section 5 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides that upon conviction by the RTC with a penalty exceeding six years but not more than twenty years, bail is discretionary and can be denied or cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution of specific circumstances, such as the probability of flight. Petitioner was convicted to an indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years, making his admission to bail discretionary. Crucially, the Court found that petitioner had not surrendered, been arrested, or otherwise deprived of his liberty after his conviction, and the warrant of arrest issued on May 19, 1999, remained unserved. The posting of a bail bond presupposes that the accused is in custody or deprived of liberty, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution was not given notice or an opportunity to object to the application or approval of the bail bond, rendering its approval irregular and the bond invalid. The Court emphasized that the RTC's approval of the bail bond was not a product of sound judicial discretion but of impulse and arbitrariness, violating the People's right to procedural due process. On the issue of failure to submit to the jurisdiction of the court or custody of the law: The Court clarified that while jurisdiction over the person of the accused was acquired upon his arraignment, custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, which is accomplished by arrest or voluntary surrender. The Court found that petitioner had not placed himself under the custody of the law, as he remained a fugitive. His failure to appear on the promulgation of judgment despite due notice, coupled with his failure to inform the RTC of his change of address, constituted a clear breach of the conditions of his bail bond and demonstrated his contempt for the law. By jumping bail and eluding arrest, petitioner lost his standing in court and waived any right to seek relief from the court, effectively making the RTC's judgment final and executory. The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is not a fundamental right that cannot be waived and can be waived expressly or by implication, such as by fleeing after the case has been submitted for decision or by jumping bail during the pendency of the appeal.
Main Doctrine
An accused convicted by the Regional Trial Court with a penalty exceeding six years but not more than twenty years, who fails to appear on the promulgation of judgment despite due notice and subsequently jumps bail, forfeits his right to appeal and cannot be admitted to bail on appeal, as he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.