People v. Bitanga
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information for estafa was filed against Rafael M. Bitanga (Bitanga) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 153, Pasig City, based on a complaint by Traders Royal Bank (TRB). Bitanga pleaded not guilty and was allowed bail. During the trial, the prosecution presented TRB employees who testified on how Bitanga allegedly defrauded the bank. When it was the defense's turn to present evidence, Bitanga and his counsel failed to appear. Upon motion of the public prosecutor, a warrant of arrest was issued against Bitanga, and his right to adduce evidence was deemed waived. Procedural History: On February 29, 2000, the RTC rendered a decision in absentia, finding Bitanga guilty of estafa and sentencing him to imprisonment and to indemnify TRB. On January 28, 2002, Bitanga filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging extrinsic fraud perpetrated by his counsel, Atty. Benjamin Razon, and claiming he only received a copy of the RTC decision on December 13, 2001. The People opposed. The Petition: The CA granted the petition, setting aside the RTC decision and remanding the case for further proceedings. The People's motion for reconsideration was denied. The People then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that the counsels were not negligent, that their alleged negligence did not constitute extrinsic fraud, that the CA denied the counsels due process, and that Bitanga waived his right to present evidence by jumping bail.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a proper remedy in a criminal case. Whether the alleged negligence of respondent's counsel constituted extrinsic fraud that would warrant the annulment of the RTC judgment. Whether respondent Bitanga waived his right to present evidence due to his failure to appear in court and jumping bail.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and ordered that the RTC's decision dated February 29, 2000, be executed upon finality.
Ratio Decidendi
On the availability of Rule 47 in criminal cases: The Court held that Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, which governs annulment of judgments, is limited to civil actions. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure does not permit recourse to Rule 47, as it excluded Rule 47 from the enumeration of civil procedure rules that have suppletory application to criminal cases. Section 18, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure specifies which rules in civil procedure have suppletory application to criminal cases, and Rule 47 is not among them. Therefore, the CA erred in entertaining and granting the Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed in a criminal case, as there is no basis in law or rules for such recourse. On extrinsic fraud and counsel's negligence: The Court reiterated that a petition for annulment of judgment is an exceptional remedy available only when there is a lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud is trickery practiced by the prevailing party that prevents the unsuccessful party from fully proving their case, affecting the manner in which the judgment was obtained, not the judgment itself. While there is an exception where egregious negligence of counsel denies the client due process, this exception does not apply if the client's own negligence or malice contributed to the situation. In this case, the acts and omissions attributed to Bitanga's counsel amounted to mere negligence, not extrinsic fraud. The Court noted that Atty. Razon's absences were explained by his efforts to contact Bitanga, who had moved without leaving a forwarding address and made himself scarce. The RTC accepted this explanation and allowed withdrawal of appearance. The Court found that Bitanga's own act of jumping bail and making himself unavailable caused his counsel's inability to present his defense, thus negating the claim of extrinsic fraud. On waiver of the right to present evidence: The Court found that Bitanga's failure to appear in court, despite being on bail, led to the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and the forfeiture of his bail bond. The RTC correctly considered his right to present evidence as waived due to his continued non-appearance. The explanation provided by Atty. Razon indicated that Bitanga failed to show up to be picked up for court hearings and subsequently could not be located. This conduct on the part of Bitanga, including jumping bail and abandoning his legal representation without communication, directly led to the waiver of his right to present his defense. Therefore, he has only himself to blame for the adverse judgment rendered against him.
Main Doctrine
A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is not available in criminal cases. Furthermore, the negligence of counsel, even if gross, does not constitute extrinsic fraud unless it is shown that such negligence prevented the client from presenting his case and was not contributed to by the client's own negligence or malice.