Javier v. Gonzales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a criminal charge against respondent Pepito Gonzales for murder with frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder. The Information alleged that on December 25, 1997, Gonzales threw a grenade into the house of Leonardo Hermenigildo, causing mortal wounds to Rufino Concepcion, fatal injuries to Leonardo Hermenigildo, and injuries to Julio Toledo and Ariel Cabasal, who did not die due to causes other than the accused's spontaneous desistance. Procedural History: The case was initially lodged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baler, Aurora. After the RTC granted Gonzales bail, a petition for transfer of venue was filed, and the case was eventually reassigned to the RTC of Palayan City. Presided over by Judge Erlinda Buted, the RTC admitted the prosecution's evidence, denied Gonzales's demurrer to evidence, and proceeded to trial. On November 30, 2005, the RTC set the promulgation of judgment for December 15, 2005. Gonzales failed to appear, and his counsel withdrew. The promulgation was rescheduled for December 22, 2005, with a warrant of arrest issued and bail forfeited. Despite notice, Gonzales again failed to appear. Judge Buted appointed a counsel de oficio and proceeded with the promulgation in absentia, convicting Gonzales of murder with frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder, and sentencing him to death. The records were ordered forwarded to the Court of Appeals (CA) for automatic review. Subsequently, through a new presiding judge, Judge Corazon Soluren, the RTC granted Gonzales's Omnibus Motion, set aside the conviction, and reinstated his bail. On November 20, 2006, petitioner Loida Javier discovered a subsequent Decision dated October 31, 2006, acquitting Gonzales. Javier then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. The Petition: Petitioner Loida M. Javier filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's Decision and Resolution that affirmed the RTC's acquittal of respondent Pepito Gonzales. The core of the petition argues that the CA erred in affirming Judge Soluren's decision, contending that Judge Soluren acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in setting aside the valid promulgation of conviction by Judge Buted and issuing an acquittal. Petitioner asserts that Judge Buted's promulgation in absentia was valid, and that Judge Soluren's subsequent acquittal was void, thus preventing double jeopardy from attaching. The petition also questions the CA's ruling that a motion for reconsideration was a prerequisite to filing a certiorari petition.
Issue(s)
Whether there was a valid promulgation of judgment by Judge Buted in her prior Decision of conviction. Whether Judge Soluren's subsequent judgment of acquittal is valid. Whether a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question a decision of acquittal, and whether double jeopardy applies in light of the void acquittal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversed and set aside the assailed CA Decision and Resolution, and the RTC Decision and Order of acquittal by Judge Soluren. The Decision dated December 22, 2005, rendered by Judge Erlinda P. Buted, was reinstated. The CA was ordered to conduct the mandatory and automatic review of Judge Buted's Decision. The bail granted to respondent was cancelled, and he was ordered arrested and detained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Judge Buted's promulgation of judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Buted's Decision convicting the respondent was validly promulgated. Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows promulgation in absentia if the accused was duly notified and failed to appear without justifiable cause. The records showed that respondent was properly informed of the promulgation scheduled for December 15, 2005, and notice to counsel is notice to the client. Despite his failure to appear and the withdrawal of his counsel, the promulgation was rescheduled, and a warrant of arrest was issued. On the rescheduled date, December 22, 2005, respondent again failed to appear without justification. The trial court appointed a counsel de oficio, and the dispositive portion of the decision was read in public, fulfilling the requirements of promulgation in absentia: the judgment was recorded in the criminal docket, and a copy was directed to be furnished to the accused at his last known address and through his counsel. The Court emphasized that this rule prevents subversion of the judicial process by accused jumping bail. On the validity of Judge Soluren's subsequent judgment of acquittal: The Supreme Court held that Judge Soluren's Decision acquitting the respondent is void and has no legal effect. Judge Soluren acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she gave due course to respondent's Omnibus Motion. The motion was the wrong remedy, as respondent had already been deemed to have jumped bail and lost his remedies under the Rules. Furthermore, Judge Buted's Decision of conviction was already subject to automatic review by the CA pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular 20-2005 and OCA Circular No. 57-2005. Judge Soluren's act of taking cognizance of the motion and rendering an acquittal contravened express orders of the Court, constituting a blatant abuse of authority that deprived the court of its power to dispense justice. On whether a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question a decision of acquittal, and whether double jeopardy is triggered by a void order of acquittal: The Supreme Court clarified that double jeopardy is not triggered when the order of acquittal is void. Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction prevents double jeopardy from attaching. Citing Villareal v. People and People v. Hernandez, the Court explained that an acquittal rendered in grave abuse of discretion does not truly acquit and therefore does not terminate the case, as there can be no double jeopardy based on a void judgment. Since Judge Soluren's order of acquittal was void from the beginning, it necessarily follows that the CA ruling dismissing the Petition for Certiorari must also be reversed and set aside.
Main Doctrine
A promulgation of judgment in absentia is valid if the accused was duly notified and failed to appear without justifiable cause, and the judgment was recorded in the criminal docket and a copy served upon the accused or counsel. An acquittal rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is void and does not trigger double jeopardy.