ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 162767.� February 28, 2005]
PEOPLE vs. ZARATE
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 28 2005.
G.R. No. 162767 (People of the Philippines vs. Mae Zarate.)
R E S O L U T I O N
Pending before the Court is a Motion for New Trial, with prayer to suspend period for filing the brief and to use the property bond as her bailbond during the pendency of this appeal, filed by Mae Zarate, the accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 01-101627.
Appellant was charged [1] cralaw in Criminal Case No. 01-101627 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 89, with the crime of Failure to Return a Minor, for allegedly failing to restore minor Jason Demogena to her mother Merly Demogena.
On 30 October 2003, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 89, rendered a decision [2] cralaw convicting the accused-appellant, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Mae Zarate is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Failure to Return a Minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of TWENTY (20) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO FORTY (40) YEARS OF RECLUSION PERPETUA.
Likewise, Mae Zarate is ordered to pay spouses Demogena the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 100,000.00) PESOS as and by way of moral damages.
Accordingly, said accused is ordered immediately committed to the Correctional Institute for Women and the Property Bond posted for her provisional liberty is canceled.
On 19 November 2003, accused-appellant, thru counsel, filed a notice of appeal [3] cralaw of the decision of the trial court, thereby giving notice that she is appealing the case to the Court of Appeals.
On 31 March 2004, the Court of Appeals transmitted [4] cralaw the records of the case to this Court, considering that the penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua. [5] cralaw
On 08 November 2004, this Court resolved [6] cralaw to accept the appeal and required the Presiding Judge of the said RTC to inform us of the whereabouts of accused-appellant within ten (10) days from notice and the Chief of the Judicial Records Office to send notices to file brief.
On 20 December 2004, the Presiding Judge of said court submitted her explanation [7] cralaw dated 30 November 2004, stating, among other things, that accused-appellant failed to appear during the promulgation of judgment despite due notice, thus, the property bail was confiscated and forfeited by the Court and a warrant of arrest was issued. To date, she has no information as to the whereabouts of the accused.
On 06 January 2005, accused-appellant, thru counsel, filed the aforementioned motion for new trial with prayer to suspend the period for filing appellant's brief and to use the property bond as her bailbond during the pendency of this appeal. Accused-appellant stated that while the appeal is pending, a supervening event transpired wherein the missing child, Jason Demogena, was found and was returned to the private complainant Merly Demogena. Thus, thru counsel, she filed a motion to take deposition of complainant Merly Demogena and one Nita Mamaril in the trial court which was subsequently granted. The taking of said depositions was scheduled on 13 December 2004. Accused-appellant claimed that the depositions of Merly Demogena and Nita Mamaril, if duly taken, will prove her innocence of the crime charged.
We deny the motion and dismiss the appeal.
Records disclose that accused-appellant failed to appear at the promulgation of judgment (as disclosed by the judge's explanation dated 30 November 2004). The trial court, despite accused-appellant's absence, promulgated the judgment of conviction. She remains at large even while her counsel continues to file various pleadings before the RTC, i.e., the notice of appeal [8] cralaw and motion to take the depositions [9] cralaw of Merly Demogena and Nita Mamaril, and the motion for new trial with this Court, with prayer to suspend period for filing brief and to use her property bond as her bailbond during the pendency of this appeal.
Section 6, par. 5, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
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. (Emphasis supplied)
Corollary to this rule is the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 124 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which says:
The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or on its own motion, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.
Section 1 of Rule 125 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure extends the scope of the applicability of the above-cited rules:
Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or the law, the procedure in the Supreme Court in original as well as in appealed cases shall be the same as in the Court of Appeals.
The rationale for Section 8, Rule 124, is that once an accused escapes from imprisonment, 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. [10] cralaw This doctrine applies not only to the accused who jumps bail during the appeal, but also to one who does so during the trial. [11] cralaw As illuminated by Justice Florenz D. Regalado:
. . . When, as in this case, the accused escaped after his arraignment and during the trial, but the trial in absentia proceeded resulting in the promulgation of a judgment against him and his counsel appealed, since he nonetheless remained at large his appeal must be dismissed by analogy with the aforesaid provision of this Rule (Rule 124, �8 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure). [12] cralaw (Emphasis supplied)
The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless they voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the court or are otherwise arrested within 15 days from notice of the judgment against them. [13] cralaw While at large, they cannot seek relief from the court, as they are deemed to have waived the appeal. [14] cralaw
Taking our cue 'from the above-cited laws and jurisprudence, as accused-appellant remains at large and refused to surrender, she is denied any right to seek relief from this Court, including her right to appeal which is deemed to have been abandoned. Consequently, the judgment against her has become final and executory. [15] cralaw By fleeing, the herein accused exhibited contempt of the authority of the court and placed herself in a position to speculate on her chances for a reversal. In the process, she kept herself out of the reach of justice, but hoped to render the judgment nugatory at her option. [16] cralaw Such conduct is intolerable and does not invite leniency on the part of the appellate court. [17] cralaw
Considering the foregoing, the appeal is accordingly DISMISSED and accused's Motion for New Trial dated 05 June 2005 and accompanying prayer to suspend the period for filing appellant's brief and to use the property bond as her bailbond during the pendency of this appeal are correspondingly DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 12.
[2] cralaw Rollo, p. 38, penned by Judge Elsa I. De Guzman
[3] cralaw Rollo, p. 40.
[4] cralaw Rollo, p. 2.
[5] cralaw Ibid.
[6] cralaw Rollo, p. 42.
[7] cralaw Rollo, p. 44.
[8] cralaw Rollo, p. 40.
[9] cralaw Rollo, pp. 52-54.
[10] cralaw People v. Del Rosario, 348 SCRA 603.
[11] cralaw Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People, G.R. No. 147703, 14 April 2004.
[12] cralaw Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, p. 540.
[13] cralaw Ibid.
[14] cralaw Ibid., citing People v. Mapalao, 274 Phil. 354(1991).
[15] cralaw People v. Enoja, G.R. No. 102596, 17 December 1999, 321 SCRA 7.
[16] cralaw Francisco, Criminal Procedure (1996, 3rd ed.), p. 520.
[17] cralaw Ibid.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
