G.R. Nos. 183152-54
January 21, 2015
CASE PRINCIPLE
Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides that an accused who failed to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction shall lose the remedies available against the said judgment.
Moreover, the convicted accused are the ones who should show that their reason for being absent at the promulgation of judgment was justifiable, not the Courts.
FACTS
Petitioners were three police officers who were convicted by the Sandiganbayan for Homicide for the killing of Estella, Franco, and Rolando in a drug buy-bust operation. During the promulgation of the decision on April 17, 2007, none of the three accused appeared despite due notice. Thus, the decision was promulgated in absentia and the judgment entered in the criminal dockets. Their bail bonds were cancelled and warrant of arrest were issued.
Thereafter, the accused thru counsel filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Decision on April 30, 2007. However, the Sandiganbayan took no action of the motion and ordered the implementation of the warrant of arrest on November 29, 2007. The Sandiganbayan contended that the 15-day period from the promulgation of the judgment had long passed without the accused giving no reason for their non-appearance during the promulgation. Under Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, the accused have lost the remedies available under the Rules against the Sandiganbayan’s judgment of conviction, including the filing of Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, this petition.
Petitioners contended that Section 6, Rule 120 cannot diminish, modify, or increase substantive rights such as the filing of motion for reconsideration under PD 1606. Moreover, they contended that the conditions set by Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court were lacking in this case. They alleged that it was incumbent upon the Sandiganbayan to take pains to find out whether their absence at the promulgation was without justifiable cause, and only then could the court conclude that petitioners have lost the remedies available in the Rules of Court against the judgment of conviction.
ISSUES
- Whether or not an accused who failed to appear during the promulgation of the judgment will lose the remedies available against the said judgment.
- Whether or not the Sandiganbayan should be the one to find out whether or not the absence of the accused was without justifiable cause.
- Whether or not Section 6 of Rule 120 diminish, modify, or increase their substantive rights.
RULING
First Issue
Yes. Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides that an accused who failed to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction shall lose the remedies available against the said judgment. Hence, the accused is required to be present in the scheduled date of promulgation of the said judgment, except when the conviction is for a light offense, in which case the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of the counsel for the accused or the latter’s representative.
The promulgation of judgment shall proceed even in the absence of the accused despite notice. The promulgation in absentia shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving a copy thereof to the accused at their last known address or through counsel. The court shall also order the arrest of the accused if the judgment is for conviction and the failure to appear was without justifiable cause.
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure to appear was without justifiable cause, the accused shall lose the remedies available in the Rules of Court against the judgment. Thus, it is incumbent upon the accused to appear on the scheduled date of promulgation, because it determines the availability of their possible remedies against the judgment of conviction. When the accused fail to present themselves at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction, they lose the remedies of filing a motion for a new trial or reconsideration (Rule 121) and an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule 122).
In this case, petitioners have just shown their lack of faith in the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by not appearing before it for the promulgation of the judgment on their cases. Surely they cannot later on expect to be allowed to invoke the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction to grant them relief from its judgment of conviction.
Second Issue
No. Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court also provides the remedy by which the accused who were absent during the promulgation may reverse the forfeiture of the remedies available to them against the judgment of conviction. In order to regain their standing in court, the accused must do as follows: 1) surrender and 2) file a motion for leave of court to avail of the remedies, stating the reasons for their absence, within 15 days from the date of the promulgation of judgment
Upon surrender, the accused must request permission of the court to avail of the remedies by making clear the reasons for their failure to attend the promulgation of the judgment of conviction (Villena v. People). Clearly, the convicted accused are the ones who should show that their reason for being absent at the promulgation of judgment was justifiable. If the court finds that the reasons proffered justify their nonappearance during the promulgation of judgment, it shall allow them to avail of the remedies. Thus, unless they surrender and prove their justifiable reason to the satisfaction of the court, their absence is presumed to be unjustified.
In this case, petitioners did not surrender within 15 days from the promulgation of the judgment of conviction. Neither did they ask for leave of court to avail themselves of the remedies, and state the reasons for their absence. Even if we were to assume that the failure of Jaylo to appear at the promulgation was due to failure to receive notice thereof, it is not a justifiable reason. He should have filed a notice of change of address before the Sandiganbayan.
Third Issue
No. Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court does not diminishes or modifies the substantive rights of petitioners. It only works in pursuance of the power of the Supreme Court to “provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases.” This provision protects the courts from delay in the speedy disposition of criminal cases — delay arising from the simple expediency of nonappearance of the accused on the scheduled promulgation of the judgment of conviction.
Ruling
For the failure of petitioners to regain their standing in court and avail themselves of the remedies against the judgment of conviction, the Decision of the Sandiganbayan attained finality 15 days reckoned from 17 April 2007.