ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-2004 Jurisprudence                 

  • Boy v. CA: 125088 : April 14, 2004 : J. Azcuna : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Buntag : 123070 : April 14, 2004 : J. Callejo, Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Culaba v. CA: 125862 : April 15, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Ramos : 125898 : April 14, 2004 : J. Azcuna : First Division : Decision

  • Quizon v. CA: 127819 : April 27, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • The Insular Life Assurance Co Ltd v. CA: 126850 : April 28, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • Venzon v. Spa Santos : 128308 : April 24, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • Nunez v. People : 127962 : April 14, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Ayuman : 133436 : April 14, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : En Banc : Decision

  • People v. Kimura : 130805 : April 25, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Ramos : 135204 : April 14, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision

  • People v. Quimzon : 133541 : April 14, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Rom : 137585 : April 28, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Ambrosio : 135378 : April 14, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • [G.R. NO. 140385. April 14, 2004]PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MARIO MARCELO y DELA CRUZ,appellant.

  • Texon Mnfg v. Millena : 141380 : April 14, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision

  • Philips Semiconductors (Phils) Inc v. Fadriquela : 141717 : April 14, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Balag-ey : 141532 : April 14, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Ayangao : 142356 : April 14, 2004 : J. Corona : Third Division : Decision

  • Villanueva v. CA: 143286 : April 14, 2004 : J. Carpio : First Division : Decision

  • Oderon Vda de Cardona v. Amansec : 147216 : April 15, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Resolution

  • Phil Employ Services & Resources Inc v. Paramio : 144786 : April 15, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Litonjua v. Fernandez : 148116 : April 14, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Phil Rabbit Bus Line Inc v. People : 147703 : April 14, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • Emco Plywood Corp v. Abelgas : 148532 : April 14, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Saldaa : 148518 : April 15, 2004 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision

  • Imperial v. Jaucian : 149004 : April 14, 2004 : J. Pangaban : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Ibaez : 148627 : April 28, 2004 : J. Puno : Second Division : Decision

  • Sps Chan v. RTC of Zamboanga : 149253 : April 15, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Dacillo : 149368 : April 28, 2004 : J. Corona : En Banc : Decision

  • Teope v. People : 149687 : April 14, 2004 : J. Azcuna : First Division : Decision

  • Sidro v. People : 149685 : April 28, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Sia v. People : 149695 : April 28, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • BPI v. ALs Mgmt Dev't Corp : 151821 : April 14, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • Sevilla Trading Co v. Semana : 152456 : April 28, 2004 : J. Puno : Second Division : Decision

  • Batangas Power Corp v. Batangas City : 152675 : April 28, 2004 : J. Puno : Second Division : Decision

  • Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corp v. United Coconut pLanters Bank : 154187 : April 14, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Reyes : 153119 : April 13, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

  • Agilent Technologies Singapore Ltd v. Integrated Silicon Tech Phils Corp : 154618 : April 14, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Odilao Jr : 155451 : April 14, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • Vallejo v. CA: 156413 : April 14, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Capital Credit Dimension Inc. v. Chua : 157213 : April 28, 2004 : J. Puno : Second Division : Decision

  • Kare v. Comelec : 157526 : April 28, 2004 : J. Panganiban : En Banc : Decision

  • People v. Alcantara : 157669 : April 14, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • Aradais v. Comelec : 157863 : April 28, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : En Banc : Resolution

  • Premiere Dev't Bank v. CA: 159352 : April 14, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • Honansan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ : 159747 : April 13, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : En Banc : Dissenting Opinion

  • Velarde v. Social Justice Society : 159357 : April 28, 2004 : J. Panganiban : En Banc : Decision

  • Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ : 159747 : April 13, 2004 : J. Vitug : En Banc : Separate Opinion

  • Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ : 159747 : April 13, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc : Dissenting Opinion

  • Idulza v. Comelec : 160130 : April 14, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Resolution

  • Estrella v. Comelec : 160465 : April 28, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : En Banc : Resolution

  • Repol v. Comelec : 161418 : April 28, 2004 : J. Carpio : En Banc : Decision

  • Aklat-Asosasyon para sa kaunlaran ng Lipunan at Adhikain para sa Tao, Inc v. Comelec : 162203 : April 14, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Resolution

  • Ting-Dumali v. Torres : AC 5161 : Arpil 14, 2004 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Resolution

  • Sitaca v. Palomares : AC 5285 : April 14, 2004 : J. Vitug : Third Division : Decision

  • Fajardo v. Dela Torre : AC 6295 : April 14, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Resolution

  • Paredes v. Padua : AM CA-91-3-P : April 14, 2004 : J. Panganiban : En Banc : Resolution

  • Navarro v. Tormis : AM MTJ-00-1337 : April 27, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

  • Alcaraz v. Lindo : AM MTJ-04-1539 : April 14, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • Muyco v. Saratan : AM P-03-1761 : April 2, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Resolution

  • Gonzales v. Familara III : AM P-04-1794 : April 14, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

  • Mendoza v. Buo-RIvera : AM P-04-1784 : April 28, 2004 : J. Puno : Second Division : Resolution

  • Reyes Jr v. Cristi : AM P-04-1801 : April 2, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Decena v. Malanyaon : Am RTJ-02-1669 : April 14, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Resolution

  •  





     
     

    Teope v. People : 149687 : April 14, 2004 : J.  Azcuna : First Division :
Decision

      Teope v. People : 149687 : April 14, 2004 : J. Azcuna : First Division : Decision

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. NO. 149687 : April 14, 2004]

    FLORITA TEOPE, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N

    AZCUNA, J.:

    This is a Petition for Review of certiorari assailing the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No. 52906 dismissing the petition for mandamus filed by Florita Teope.

    Petitioner alleged that on January 19, 1994, she was charged with 2 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B. P. 22) before the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City (RTC). 3 After the prosecution rested its case, petitioner filed a Demurrer to the Evidence on December 9, 1995. The RTC denied said demurrer on January 9, 1995 and a Notice of Appeal from the denial was filed on January 21, 1999. The RTC denied due course to the Notice of Appeal on February 5, 1999. Petitioner timely filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the RTC on March 16, 1999.

    Petitioner then filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals on May 24, 1999. On October 19, 2000 and August 6, 2001, respectively, the Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed Decision and Resolution dismissing the petition and denying the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Thus, the present petition was instituted.

    To start with, the RTC decision4 and the Comment5 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General bring to light some very relevant antecedent facts that occurred between January 9, 1995 and January 21, 1999, which the petitioner did not state in her petition.

    Upon verification from the records of the case, it appears that after the Demurrer to the Evidence was denied on January 9, 1995, the RTC ordered that hearings for the reception of petitioners evidence be set. Petitioners counsel himself suggested that the hearings be held on April 17, 19, 21, 24, 25 and 26, 1995.

    On April 17, 1995, however, petitioner filed a MOTION ENTREATING HON. ENRIQUE C. GARROVILLO TO CONSIDER WHETHER TO CONTINUE PRESIDING OVER THE CASES AND TO INHIBIT FISCAL DIOSDADO D. HERMOSA FROM APPEARING AS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE CASES. On April 21, 1995, said motion to inhibit was denied by the RTC and petitioner was ordered to present her evidence on April 24 and 26, 1995 and on May 9 and 12, 1995.

    Petitioner failed to appear at the April 24, 1995 hearing. Thus, the RTC declared her bail bonds forfeited and ordered the bondsman to produce petitioner within 30 days and show cause why no judgment should be rendered against her for the amount of the bonds.

    On April 27, 1995, the RTC received an urgent motion for postponement from petitioners counsel, asking for the resetting of the May 9 and 12, 1995 hearings. The reasons given were that on May 9, 1995 petitioners counsel was scheduled to attend to some urgent family engagement, while on May 12, 1995 her counsel already had prior engagements with other courts. The RTC acceded to the motion and reset the hearings to June 6,7,8,9 and 13, 1995, but declared these hearings to be intransferable considering the fact that the termination of these cases has been much delayed by the frequent absence and/or postponements made by the Accused.

    On June 2, 1995, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the April 21, 1995 order. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration on July 5, 1995. On July 6, 1995, the RTC rendered judgment against the bonds for failure of the bondsman to produce petitioner and submit an explanation for the latters failure to appear at the April 24, 1996 hearing.

    On January 30, 1997, as prayed for by petitioners counsel, the RTC issued an order again resetting the hearing to April 7, 1997. On February 4, 1997, the RTC issued another order declaring petitioner as a fugitive from justice and a warrant of arrest was issued against her.

    Petitioners counsel then filed an Omnibus Motion dated May 19, 1997, asserting that petitioner cannot be tried in absentia because she was not notified of the subsequent trials after the forfeiture of her bail bonds. Consequently, petitioners counsel prayed that the two criminal cases against her be archived and that an alias warrant of arrest be issued. The RTC denied the Omnibus Motion for lack of merit on October 30, 1998. In the same order, the criminal cases were deemed submitted for decision and an alias warrant of arrest was issued.

    On January 18, 1999, the RTC rendered a Joint Judgment finding petitioner guilty on both counts of violation of B. P. 22, with the following dispositive portion:6 cralawred

    WHEREFORE, finding the accused Florita Teope guilty beyond a scintilla of doubt of violation of Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, she is hereby imprisoned for one (1) year to be served successively plus a fine of P25,000. 00 in Criminal Case No. 11357 and P20,000. 00 in Criminal Case No. 11358 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

    Florita Teope is also ordered to pay by way of civil liability the sum ofP45,000. 00 to Hermogena Beltran.

    Costs against the accused.

    Let a copy of this judgment be furnished to the NBI and the ICS for them to locate and arrest Florita L. Teope who jumped bail and is presently a fugitive from justice.

    Furnish Florita L. Teope with a copy of this judgment by registered mail at her last known address as well as Atty. Marcelo Flores, her counsel of record.

    On January 20, 1999, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, to which the RTC denied due course on the ground that, being a fugitive from justice, petitioner has lost her right to appeal. Unable to convince the RTC to give due course to her appeal, petitioners counsel sought redress with the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for mandamus.

    The dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the petition for mandamus and the subsequent denial of the motion for reconsideration thereof are what are now before this Court for review.

    The Court finds no error committed by the Court of Appeals in dismissing the case for mandamus.

    Section 6 of Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure7 clearly provides that:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

    SEC. 6. Promulgation of judgments. x x x

    xxx

    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 these Rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from 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. (underscoring supplied)cralawlibrary

    There is no question that petitioner escaped after her arraignment. Subsequently, the trial was ordered to continue but after the accused failed to appear, the RTC terminated the trial and, thereafter, promulgated the Joint Judgment of conviction. During that time petitioner was at large. She remains at large even while her counsel continues to file various pleadings on her behalf before the RTC, the Court of Appeals and this Court.

    Under the Rules of Court, petitioner is barred from availing of the remedies allowed by the rules against the judgment of the RTC, one of which is the right to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The reason for this rule is because once an accused escapes from prison or confinement, or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.8 cralawred

    Thus, having no right to appeal the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals, the petition for mandamus cannot prosper. Mandamus will only lie to compel the performance of a ministerial duty and the petitioner must show a well-defined, clear and certain right to warrant the grant thereof.9 cralawred

    WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED and the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No. 52906 are AFFIRMED. No costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1 Rollo, pp. 55-60.
    2 Id., p. 68.
    3 Branch 30.
    4 Rollo, pp. 23-34.
    5 Id., pp. 82-90.
    6 Id., pp. 33-34.
    7 As amended by A. M. No. 00-5-03-SC on December 1, 2000.
    8 People v. Mapalao, 197 SCRA 79 (1991).
    9 Pacheco v. Court of Appeals, 333 SCRA 680 (2000).

    Teope v. People : 149687 : April 14, 2004 : J.  Azcuna : First Division :
Decision


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED