Promulgation of judgment in absentia
Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a court to promulgate a judgment in absentia and gives the accused the opportunity to file an appeal within a period of fifteen (15) days from notice to the latter or the latter's counsel; otherwise, the decision becomes final
when the respondent did not appear despite notice, and without offering any justification for his absence, the trial court should have immediately promulgated its Dccision. The promulgation of judgment in absentia is mandatory pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 6. Promulgation of judgment.
x x x x
In case the, accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation [shall] be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel[.] (Emphasis supplied)
If the accused has been notified of the date of promulgation but does not appear, the promulgation of judgment in absentia is warranted. This rule is intended to obviate a repetition of the situation in the past when the judicial process could be subverted by the accused by jumping bail to frustrate the promulgation of judgment.
The only essential elements for its validity are as follows:
(a) the judgment was recorded in the criminal docket; and
(b) a copy thereof was served upon the accused or counsel.
RELATED
In Almuete v. People,48petitioner's counsel informed the trial court that the accused were either ill or not notified of the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment. The RTC, however, found their absence inexcusable and proceeded to promulgate its Decision as scheduled. The accused went up to the CA, which acquitted them of the charge.
RULING:
This Court (Supreme Court), reversed the CA and upheld the validity of the promulgation.
CASE/RULING
In Estrada v. People,49 this Court also affirmed the validity of the promulgation of judgment in absentia, given the presence of the essential elements[.]
The respondent was not left without a remedy. The fifth paragraph of Section 6, Rule 120, states:
“If the judgment is for conviction and the failure or the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) clays from the promulgation of judgment, [however], the accused may surrender [and] file a “motion for leave of court” to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice[.]” (Emphasis supplied).
However, (in the case at bar), instead of surrendering and filing a motion for leave to explain his unjustified absence, respondent, through Atty. Benitez, filed an Omnibus Motion before the RTC praying that the promulgation be set aside.51 We cannot countenance this blatant circumvention of the Rules.
RULING:
Judge Soluren 's Decision acquitting
respondent is void and has no legal
effect.
The filing of a motion for reconsideration to question a decision of conviction can only be resorted to if the accused did not jump bail but appeared in court to face the promulgation of judgment. Respondent did not appear during the scheduled promulgation and was deemed by the judge to have jumped bail. The fifth paragraph of Section 6, Rule 120, states that if the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in the Rules against the judgment, and the court shall order his arrest.
Double jeopardy is not triggered
when the order of acquittal is void.
Grave abuse of discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction, and lack of jurisdiction prevents double jeopardy from attaching.53
In People v. Hernandez, this Court explained that "an acquittal rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction does not really 'acquit' and therefore does not terminate the case as there can be no double jeopardy based on a void indictment."
Read the full case HERE
Footnotes:
48 G.R. No. 179611, 12 March 2013. 693 SCRA 167.
49 505 Phil. 339 (2005).
53 Villareal v. People, 680 Phil. 527 (2012) citing People v. Hernandez, 531 Phil. 289 (2006).
Comments
Post a Comment