Almuete v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Efren S. Almuete, along with co-accused Johnny Ila and Joel Lloren, was charged with violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, the "Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines," as amended. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found all three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to a penalty of 18 years, 2 months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 40 years of reclusion perpetua, as maximum. The RTC proceeded with the promulgation of the judgment despite the absence of the accused, who claimed illness or lack of notification. Procedural History: Following the RTC's conviction and denial of their motion for reconsideration, the accused filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), instead of a direct appeal. The CA, in its May 19, 2000 decision, acquitted Almuete and ordered the repromulgation of the judgment for Ila and Lloren to allow them to appeal. The People of the Philippines appealed this acquittal to the Supreme Court (SC), which, in G.R. No. 144332, reversed the CA's decision and reinstated the RTC's conviction. Almuete's subsequent motions for reconsideration and clarification were denied, and an Entry of Judgment was issued. Undeterred, Almuete filed a Motion for Repromulgation with the RTC, which was denied. This denial led to a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, which also dismissed the petition. Almuete then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with the SC. The Petition: This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the CA's resolutions dismissing Almuete's petition. Almuete argues for his innocence, questions the validity of the promulgation of the RTC judgment in his absence, and asserts that his earlier acquittal by the CA should stand, barring further proceedings due to double jeopardy. He also contends that the RTC's denial of his Motion for Repromulgation was improper, preventing him from availing his right to appeal. The Solicitor General, however, argues that these issues have already been settled in G.R. No. 144332, that promulgation in absentia is permissible, and that Almuete's right to appeal has prescribed. The OSG also suggests modifying the penalty imposed by the RTC.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC Decision convicting petitioner Almuete passed the requisite conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the promulgation of the RTC Decision convicting the petitioner was valid despite his absence and regardless of his intention to be present. Whether the Honorable CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it acquitted petitioner Almuete in a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, and whether the judgment of acquittal by the Honorable CA bars further proceedings and constitutes a violation of petitioner's constitutional right against double jeopardy. Whether the denial of the RTC of petitioner's motion for re-promulgation is in order, the denial being based on an inappropriate Administrative Order. Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner and his co-accused should be modified, considering the erroneous application of Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code by the RTC.
Ruling
The petition lacks merit. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirmed the CA's resolutions dismissing petitioner's certiorari, and modified the penalty imposed by the RTC. The Court ruled that the denial of the Motion for Repromulgation was in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 16-93, the promulgation of judgment was valid, and petitioner's right to appeal had prescribed. However, the penalty was modified to conform to the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the proper application of P.D. No. 705, as amended, and the Revised Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of conviction beyond reasonable doubt: The Court addressed the validity of the promulgation and the right to appeal, reiterating that Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure allows promulgation of judgment in absentia, giving the accused fifteen (15) days from notice to appeal. The petitioner's absence was deemed unjustifiable, and thus, no abuse of discretion could be attributed to the RTC in proceeding with the promulgation. The Court emphasized that the June 10, 2004 Decision, which reinstated the RTC's conviction, had attained finality, with an Entry of Judgment issued. Consequently, the petitioner's right to appeal the RTC's September 8, 1998 Decision had long prescribed. The Court also clarified that filing a Petition for Certiorari instead of an appeal was availing of the wrong remedy, as errors of judgment are correctible by appeal, not certiorari, which is for errors of jurisdiction. On the validity of promulgation: The Court reiterated that Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure allows promulgation of judgment in absentia, giving the accused fifteen (15) days from notice to appeal. The petitioner's absence was deemed unjustifiable, and thus, no abuse of discretion could be attributed to the RTC in proceeding with the promulgation. On the CA's alleged grave abuse of discretion and double jeopardy: The Court found that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion when it acquitted the petitioner via a Petition for Certiorari. The CA reviewed the trial court's assessment of evidence and findings of fact, which is beyond the scope of certiorari. Such review is correctible only by appeal. Therefore, the CA's decision acquitting the petitioner was considered a nullity, and the petitioner could not base his claim of double jeopardy on a void judgment. On the denial of the Motion for Repromulgation: The Court held that the RTC's denial of the Motion for Repromulgation was in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 16-93. This circular explicitly discontinued the practice of requiring convicts to appear before the trial court for the promulgation of judgments affirmed or modified by appellate courts. Upon receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, the trial court should issue the corresponding mittimus or commitment order for execution, or order the bondsman to surrender the convict if out on bail. Therefore, the RTC correctly denied the motion as it was based on a practice that was no longer allowed. On the modification of the penalty and its application to co-accused: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General's suggestion to modify the penalty. It found that the RTC erroneously applied Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, which imposes a penalty two degrees higher than theft, when the circumstances did not warrant it. The proper penalty should have been based on Article 309, considering the value of the timber involved. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court determined the correct imposable penalty. The Court invoked its power to suspend its own rules in the interest of substantial justice when a grave miscarriage of justice would result from strict application, particularly when the penalty imposed is outside the range prescribed by law, as in this case. The Court cited several precedents where it modified penalties of final judgments to conform to the law. Pursuant to Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the Court ruled that the favorable modification of the penalty should also apply to the petitioner's co-accused who failed to appeal.
Main Doctrine
A motion for repromulgation of a judgment that has already become final and executory, especially after it has been reinstated by the Supreme Court, is properly denied. The right to appeal prescribes after the lapse of the reglementary period, and filing a petition for certiorari instead of an appeal constitutes availing of the wrong remedy. However, the penalty imposed may be modified if it is found to be outside the range prescribed by law, even if the judgment has become final, to serve the ends of justice.