[G.R. No. 145840.October 24, 2001]
PEOPLE vs. UY
Quoted hereunder, for your information,
is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 24 2001.
G.R. No. 145840 (People of the
Philippines vs. David Allen Uy (at large).)
Allen Uy appealed from the decision of 25 April 2000 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 215, Quezon City, finding him guilty of the crime of estafa and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify the offended party the sum of
P250,000 as actual damages and P62,500
as attorney's fees.
On 26 April 2000 the trial court issued a warrant for
the arrest of accused-appellant (Rollo, 28) and directed the PNP Station
Commander of Quezon City, the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation
and the Chief of the PNP to execute the warrant of arrest within ten (10) days
from receipt thereof.
has remained at large, this Court issued on 16 July 2001 a Resolution directing
counsel for accused-appellant, Atty. Bonifacio Alentajan, to inform the Court
within five (5) days from notice of the whereabouts of accused-appellant.
In its Compliance dated 16
August 2001, the Alentajan Law Office through Atty. Maria Rowena R. Dimson,
informed the Court that accused-appellant is presently staying at his residence
at No. 124-B V. Luna Road Extension Sikatuna Village, Quezon City." The
compliance was verified by accused-appellant.
On 5 September 2001 this
Court promulgated a Resolution noting the abovementioned Compliance and
requiring Attys. Alentajan and Dimson to inform the Court within a
non-extendible period of five (5) days from notice why accused-appellant is
still staying at his residence at the address given in the Compliance. The
Court further directed Judge Ma. Luisa Q. Padilla of the court of origin to inform
the Court whether the warrant she issued for the arrest of the
accused-appellant on 26 April 2001 has been served or returned.
On 11 September 2001 Atty.
Alentajan filed a Compliance with the Resolution of 5 September 2001. He stated
therein that he took over the case of the accused-appellant after the rendition
of the decision therein which, as he found out, was promulgated in the absence
of accused-appellant. Since he did not handle the case while it was being
tried, and the only action he did was to file on behalf of accused-appellant
the notice of appeal, "he could not give a personal account as to the reason
why the accused-appellant is still staying at his residence."
On 28 September 2001 the
Court received the letter dated 25 September 2001 of Judge Ma. Luisa
Quijano-Padilla, which she filed in compliance with the Resolution of 5
September 2001. She stated therein that copies of the warrant of arrest issued
against accused David Allen Uy were transmitted to the Director, Central Police
District, Camp Karingal, Quezon City; the National Bureau of Investigation; and
the Chief, PNP, in Camp Crame, Quezon City. Up to this date, not one of the
aforecited agencies has submitted a return on the warrant. Out of the three (3)
agencies, only the registry receipt of mail matter registered as DE-1613
addressed to the Director, Central Police District, Quezon City containing a
copy of the warrant of arrest aforementioned [was] returned to the Court.Verifications were already made with the
NBI, Camp Crame and even with the post office in Quezon City to trace the
whereabouts of the mails containing the warrants for the NBI and Camp Crame but
the Court has yet to receive their response.(Rollo, 47).
In the Resolution of 5
September 2001, both accused-appellant and his counsel were made aware that a
warrant for the former's arrest had been issued by the trial court on 26 April
2000.Counsel also knew that since the
penalty imposed on his client is reclusion perpetua bail for the
client's temporary liberty is no longer a matter of right.(Sec. 5, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure).Furthermore, having been
required in the said Resolution to inform the Court why his client was still
staying in his residence, it was incumbent upon Atty. Alentajan to inquire from
his client why he is not detained.He
could have easily done so since his client even verified the Compliance with
the Resolution of 5 September.We do
not, therefore, find satisfactory Atty. Alentajan's explanation for his failure
to give the reason why his client is still staying in his residence.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING the
Court hereby RESOLVED to
1. DISMISS the instant appeal of
accused-appellant for the reason that he has remained a fugitive from justice,
and REMAND the records of this case to the trial court for execution of
2. REQUIRE (a) the Director of Central
Police District of Quezon City at Camp Karingal, Quezon City; (b) the Director,
National Bureau of Investigation, Taft Avenue, Manila; and (c) the Chief,
Philippine National Police, Camp Crame, to show cause within a non-extendible
period of five (5) days from notice of this Resolution, why they should not be
held in contempt of court for failure to execute the warrant of arrest issued
by the trial court on 26 April 2000 and/or to make a return thereof.
Copies of this Resolution
should be personally served on counsel for the accused-appellant, the Director
of the Central Police District of Quezon City, the Director of the NBI, and the
Chief of the PNP.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court