People v. Villena
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Police Inspector Edward Garrick Villena and Police Officer 1 Percival Doroja, along with other police officers, were indicted for robbery (extortion). During the trial, petitioners failed to appear to adduce evidence in their defense. On August 29, 2007, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted them. During the promulgation of judgment on September 3, 2007, petitioners again failed to appear despite proper notices, leading the RTC to issue warrants of arrest. Procedural History: Petitioners filed notices of appeal, explaining their absence from the promulgation was due to not receiving notice as they were transferred to another police station. The RTC denied due course to their notices of appeal, citing their failure to inform the court of address changes and their lost standing due to non-appearance and outstanding warrants of arrest. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied for petitioners, while granted for a co-accused, PO3 Macalinao, who had shown diligence in attending hearings and presenting evidence. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed their petition, first for formal defects and subsequently on the merits, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. The Petition: Petitioners assailed the CA's dismissal of their petition, arguing that their notices of appeal substantially complied with the requirements and that their motion for reconsideration should have been considered, as their failure to appear was due to a change of address and lack of notice from their former counsel. They also contended that the Rules of Court do not require a motion to lift the bench warrants before availing of remedies.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the Regional Trial Court's denial of the petitioners' notices of appeal, considering their failure to appear during trial and promulgation, and whether their claim of lack of notice was substantiated. Whether the petitioners lost their standing in court and the remedies available against the judgment of conviction due to their failure to appear during the promulgation of judgment without justifiable cause, and the consequences thereof, including being considered fugitives from justice and the finality of the judgment.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the notices of appeal and loss of standing in court: The Court reiterated that while an appeal is perfected by the mere filing of a notice of appeal, this presupposes that the party could validly avail of the remedy and had not lost standing in court. Petitioners lost their standing by their unjustified failure to appear during the trial and, more importantly, during the promulgation of judgment of conviction, and by failing to surrender to the jurisdiction of the RTC. Their claim of lack of notice due to transfer to another police station was unsubstantiated by any documentary proof, unlike their co-accused who presented a certification of transfer. The duty to inform the court of address changes rests with the accused. Therefore, their notices of appeal were properly denied due course. On the interpretation of Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, the consequence of being a fugitive from justice, and the finality of judgment and prescriptive period: The Court clarified that an accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of a judgment of conviction without justifiable cause loses the remedies available against the judgment, including appeal. To regain these remedies, the accused must surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of them within 15 days from promulgation, stating the reasons for absence. If the absence is justified, the accused is allowed to avail of the remedies within 15 days from notice of the order allowing it. Petitioners' mere filing of notices of appeal did not constitute the required physical and voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction, which is the essence of 'surrender' under the rule. Absent compliance with these mandatory requirements, their notices of appeal were correctly denied. Even if the appeals were given due course, they would be dismissed. Petitioners, with outstanding warrants of arrest and having failed to appear at promulgation, were considered fugitives from justice. This is a ground for dismissal of an appeal under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, as it signifies abandonment or failure to prosecute. Jumping bail or escaping from prison leads to the loss of standing in court, and unless the accused surrenders, they are deemed to have waived any right to seek relief. The Court emphasized that the judgment of conviction had already acquired finality. Petitioners had only 15 days from the promulgation on September 3, 2007, to surrender and file the required motion for leave of court, meaning they had until September 18, 2007. Their failure to comply with these mandatory requirements meant they lost their right to appeal. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with law; failure to comply with the rules results in the loss of this right.
Main Doctrine
Failure to appear during the promulgation of judgment of conviction without justifiable cause results in the loss of remedies against the judgment, including the right to appeal, unless the accused surrenders and files a motion for leave to avail of remedies within 15 days from promulgation.