SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SEPARATE OPINION

Appellant Senen Prades absconded before the prosecution finished presenting its evidence in the trial court. But trial proceeded and judgment was rendered in his absence.

In People v. Esparas,* the accused after her arraignment escaped from jail. Like the present appellant, she was tried in absentia, found guilty as charged and sentenced to the death penalty. Before requiring appellant to file an appeal brief, this Court was confronted with the issue of whether or not it will proceed to automatically review her death sentence.

Affirmative votes were cast by six (6) justices; namely, JJ. Davide Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Kapunan, Hermosisima, and J. Puno who wrote that existing jurisprudence mandates a review of all death penalty cases regardless of the escape of the accused from confinement. Two (2) other justices, JJ. Vitug and Panganiban, joined only in the result, explaining that while the Court should not dismiss an appeal from a decision imposing the death penalty due to the escape of the accused, it cannot at the same time render judgment on him until after he is rearrested and thus becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. Six (6) other justices CJ. Narvasa and JJ. Padilla, Regalado, Melo, Mendoza and Torres dissented, with J. Padilla stressing in his written dissent that when an appellant escapes from confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal, the dismissal of such appeal is authorized under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court.

While an escapee mocks the law and puts himself outside the protection of the judiciary, and while his appeal should not be automatically dismissed merely for that reason, still I believe that the Supreme Court should not deliberate on the appeal of the accused, much less render judgment thereon, until after he or she is rearrested or voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the Court.

In the present case, I therefore vote that the Court should not deliberate nor render judgment on the appeal until after the appellant is within the Courts jurisdiction.

Endnotes:

---

* 260 SCRA 539, August 20, 1996.