Guevarra v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Renato Guevarra y Robles (Guevarra), a candidate for councilor in Butuan City during the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections, was charged with violating Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049, in relation to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9006 and Section 264 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881. The Information alleged that Guevarra, taking advantage of his profession as a radio commentator, uttered and broadcast partisan political statements on his radio program "Batang Butuan: Oras Na! Raon na" on Radyo Trumpeta FM on April 12 and April 23, 2016, attacking the candidacy of incumbent Congressman Laurence Lemuel "Law" A. Fortun. Guevarra pleaded not guilty. Procedural History: The prosecution presented evidence that Guevarra was a radio commentator who promoted his candidacy and maligned other candidates. Guevarra denied the charge, claiming he resigned as a commentator in 2012 and was merely a guest on the program on the dates in question. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), after listening to broadcast recordings, found Guevarra guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to one year imprisonment. The RTC ruled that Guevarra was the anchorman and commentator, not a guest, and that even as a talent or block-timer, he was prohibited from using his media work to favor any candidate. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. Guevarra moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied. Guevarra claimed he informed the CA of his severed ties with his counsel and his new address, but the CA's Resolution was sent to his old address and his former counsel. Consequently, the CA judgment was entered, and the period to file a petition for review on certiorari lapsed. The Petition: Guevarra filed a Petition for Certiorari, assailing the CA's grave abuse of discretion in not sending its Resolution to his proper address, which led to the entry of judgment. He also argued that the courts a quo erred in finding him guilty, claiming his evidence of resignation should have been considered and that his actions did not violate Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in affirming Guevarra's conviction and issuing an Entry of Judgment despite not sending its Resolution to Guevarra's proper address. Whether Guevarra is guilty of violating Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the CA did not err in sending its Resolution to Guevarra's counsel of record, as the client has the duty to inform the court of the termination of the attorney-client relationship through proper notice from counsel. Therefore, service to the counsel of record is considered proper notice to the client. Consequently, the lapse of the period to file a pleading resulted in the finality of the CA's decision. Furthermore, even if the rule on finality were relaxed, the Court found no reversible error in the CA's affirmation of Guevarra's conviction, upholding the factual findings of the RTC and CA that Guevarra was actively practicing his profession as a radio commentator during the campaign period, thereby violating Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged grave abuse of discretion regarding service of resolution and entry of judgment: The Court reiterated the rule on the immutability of final judgments, acknowledging exceptions to prevent miscarriage of justice. However, it found that while the CA was remiss in not acknowledging Guevarra's new address, it did not err in sending its Resolution to Atty. Cyril Francis S. Casiño, who remained Guevarra's counsel of record. The Court emphasized that the client has the duty to ensure proper withdrawal of counsel, and without such notice, the CA could not fault for considering Atty. Casiño as Guevarra's counsel. Therefore, service to Atty. Casiño constituted proper notice to Guevarra, making the CA's judgment final upon the lapse of the period to appeal. The Court found that Guevarra's claim of severed ties with his counsel, without proper notice to the court, did not warrant relaxing the rules on finality. On the alleged error in finding Guevarra guilty of violating Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049: The Court found no reversible error in the assailed CA Decision and Resolution. Both the RTC and CA, after listening to the broadcast recordings, concluded that Guevarra was the program's anchorman and commentator, actively directing the program, introducing guests, and engaging in partisan political activity. This contradicted Guevarra's claim of merely being a guest or having resigned. The Court stressed that in criminal cases, the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded great respect, if not conclusive effect. The trial court's opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and calibrate the evidence was recognized as a unique advantage. The Court concluded that Guevarra's active role in the radio program during the campaign period constituted a violation of the prohibition against media practitioners engaging in partisan political activity.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction of a candidate for violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049 for engaging in partisan political activity through a radio program during the campaign period, holding that proper service of resolutions to the counsel of record binds the client, and that the factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, regarding the accused's active role as a commentator are given great weight.