The Supreme Court ruled that a judgment of conviction can be validly promulgated even if the accused is absent, provided they were duly notified of the hearing. This decision emphasizes that an accused person cannot escape justice by simply failing to appear in court. When a trial court, following proper procedure, convicts an accused in absentia, a subsequent court cannot overturn that conviction lightly, as doing so undermines the judicial process and disregards established legal principles. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of adhering to the rules of criminal procedure to ensure the efficient and fair administration of justice, preventing accused individuals from manipulating the system to their advantage.

When Absence Doesn’t Make the Heart Grow Fonder: Can a Conviction Stand Without the Accused?

This case arose from a criminal charge against Pepito Gonzales for murder with frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder. Gonzales was accused of throwing a grenade into a house, resulting in death and injuries. The initial trial court in Baler granted Gonzales bail, a decision that was contested. Eventually, the case was transferred to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palayan City. After a series of legal maneuvers, including a denied demurrer to evidence, the RTC scheduled the promulgation of the case. This set the stage for a series of events that tested the boundaries of criminal procedure, particularly concerning the promulgation of judgments in the absence of the accused.

The central legal question revolved around whether a judgment of conviction could be validly promulgated when the accused, Gonzales, failed to appear despite proper notice. The Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Section 6, Rule 120, address this scenario, allowing for promulgation in absentia. This provision aims to prevent accused individuals from frustrating the judicial process by absconding or simply refusing to attend the judgment reading. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the RTC followed the correct procedure and whether a subsequent judge could overturn a prior conviction under these circumstances. The validity of the second RTC decision hinged on the interpretation and application of these procedural rules.

The RTC initially scheduled the promulgation for December 15, 2005, and Gonzales was duly notified. However, on that day, Gonzales did not appear, and his lawyer withdrew from the case. The court rescheduled the promulgation for December 22, 2005, and issued a warrant for Gonzales’s arrest. On the rescheduled date, Gonzales still failed to appear, and the court appointed a counsel de oficio. Judge Buted then proceeded to promulgate the decision, convicting Gonzales of murder with frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder, sentencing him to death. Subsequently, Gonzales, through his former counsel, filed an Omnibus Motion, arguing that he was not properly notified and that the proceedings were rushed. Judge Soluren, the new presiding judge, granted this motion, set aside the conviction, and eventually acquitted Gonzales.

The Supreme Court found that Judge Buted’s original decision convicting Gonzales was validly promulgated. According to Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court can promulgate a judgment in absentia if the accused fails to appear despite notice. The rule states:

SEC. 6. Promulgation of judgment.

x x x 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.

The Court emphasized that the essential elements for a valid promulgation in absentia are: (a) the judgment was recorded in the criminal docket; and (b) a copy thereof was served upon the accused or counsel. The records showed that Gonzales was properly informed of the initial promulgation date, and his counsel’s presence during the hearing served as notice to him. Judge Buted’s order dated December 22, 2005, fulfilled these requirements, directing the Clerk of Court to enter the judgment of conviction into the criminal docket and ensuring that copies were furnished to the Public Prosecutor, the counsel de oficio, and Gonzales at his last known address. Therefore, the initial promulgation was deemed valid.

Building on this, the Supreme Court determined that Judge Soluren acted with grave abuse of discretion when she overturned the prior conviction. Gonzales’s proper course of action, if he had a justifiable reason for his absence, was to surrender within fifteen days and file a motion for leave of court to avail of the remedies against the judgment. He needed to explain his absence and prove that it was justifiable. Instead, Gonzales filed an Omnibus Motion, circumventing the established rules. Furthermore, Judge Soluren disregarded Supreme Court Administrative Circular 20-2005, which mandates the direct forwarding of records to the Court of Appeals (CA) for automatic review in cases involving the death penalty. By taking cognizance of the Omnibus Motion and rendering a decision of acquittal, Judge Soluren overstepped her authority and contravened the directives of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stated:

In utter disregard of this Court’s circulars, Judge Soluren capriciously, whimsically, and arbitrarily took cognizance of private respondent’s Omnibus Motion, granted it, and rendered a totally opposite Decision of acquittal. What she should have done was dismiss the Omnibus Motion outright, since Judge Buted’s Decision of conviction was already subject to automatic review by the CA.

The principle of double jeopardy, which protects an accused from being tried twice for the same offense, does not apply when the order of acquittal is void due to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that an acquittal rendered in grave abuse of discretion does not truly acquit and does not terminate the case. In this instance, since Judge Soluren’s order of acquittal was deemed void from the beginning, it followed that the CA’s ruling dismissing the Petition for Certiorari must be reversed and set aside. The Supreme Court’s decision served to correct a judgment that was considered capricious, patent, and abusive.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules and respecting the authority of higher courts. Judge Soluren’s actions undermined the integrity of the judicial process and had to be rectified. The Court reiterated that grave abuse of discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction, preventing double jeopardy from attaching. This ruling reinforces the principle that an accused cannot manipulate the judicial system by avoiding court appearances and then challenging the judgment on procedural grounds when the established process was correctly followed.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a judgment of conviction could be validly promulgated in absentia, and whether a subsequent judge could overturn that conviction.
What does “promulgation in absentia” mean?	“Promulgation in absentia” refers to the process of officially announcing a court’s judgment even when the accused is not present. This is allowed under certain conditions as per the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
What are the requirements for a valid promulgation in absentia?	The essential elements are: (a) the judgment was recorded in the criminal docket; and (b) a copy thereof was served upon the accused or their counsel.
What should the accused have done if they had a valid reason for missing the promulgation?	The accused should have surrendered within fifteen days and filed a motion for leave of court, explaining the reason for their absence and proving it was justifiable.
Why was the second judge’s decision of acquittal considered invalid?	The second judge acted with grave abuse of discretion by overturning a validly promulgated conviction and disregarding Supreme Court directives on automatic review in death penalty cases.
Does the principle of double jeopardy apply in this case?	No, the principle of double jeopardy does not apply because the order of acquittal was void due to the judge’s grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
What administrative circular did the second judge disregard?	The second judge disregarded Supreme Court Administrative Circular 20-2005, which mandates the direct forwarding of records to the CA for automatic review in death penalty cases.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court reinstated the original judgment of conviction and ordered the Court of Appeals to conduct the mandatory and automatic review of the decision.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules and respecting the authority of the courts. It clarifies that an accused person cannot evade justice by simply failing to appear in court, and that a validly promulgated judgment must be respected unless properly challenged through the appropriate legal channels.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: LOIDA M. JAVIER VS. PEPITO GONZALES, G.R. No. 193150, January 23, 2017