ChanRobles Virtual law Library

G.R. No. 135025. N0vember 11, 2002

PEOPLE vs. ANCHETA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated 11 NOVEMBER 2002 :

G.R. No. 135025. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARCE ANCHETA and ANICETO CHETA).

This refers to the appeal of accused- appellants Aniceto Ancheta and Marce Ancheta from the judgment of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 28.

The records disclose that the trial court set the promulgation of its judgment convicting the accused-appellants of robbery with homicide on February 26, 1998 . However, both appellants failed to appear before the court despite due notice, but their counsel de parte did. The trial court promulgated its decision, in absentia, finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of robbery with homicide. They were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay the heirs of the victim the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as loss of income of the victim, P10,000.00 as exemplary damages and the costs of the suit (Rollo, p. 25). On motion of the prosecutor, the trial court cancelled the bail bonds posted by the said appellants for their provisional liberty and issued warrants for their arrest.

Appellants' counsel de parte, however, filed a Notice of Appeal on march 11, 1998. The records were erroneously forwarded to the Court of Appeals which, in turn, forwarded the records to the Court.

On April 21, 1999 , the Court issued a resolution, to wit:

"Considering that the records of this case were forwarded to this Court by the Court of Appeals to which they were erroneously forwarded by the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, the Court Resolved:

(a)������ to ACCEPT the appeal;

(b)������ to require the Presiding Judge of the said court to order the COMMITMENT of the accused-appellant to the Bureau of Corrections or to the nearest national penal institution within seventy-two (72) hours from notice hereof and to SUBMIT to this Court a report of his compliance immediately thereafter; and

(c)������� to require the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to REPORT the commitment of accused-appellants within five (5) days from their commitment" (Rollo, p. 28)

On June 29, 1999 , Fortunato D. Ursudan, Chief of the Administrative Division of the Bureau of Corrections, MuntinlupaCity indeed confirmed that no prisoners with the names Marce Ancheta and Aniceto Ancheta were admitted for confinement (Rollo, p. 33).

On December 15, 1999 , the Court Noted both letters.

Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly provides that the presence of the accused is necessary during the promulgation of judgment of conviction as in the case at bar. It reads:

"SEC 6. Promulgation of judgment. - The judgment is promulgated by reading It in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered. However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or outside the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.

xxxxxx

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.

If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, lie 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." (Idem, supra)

Considering the foregoing antecedents, the Court hereby declares the notice of appeal inefficacious; and orders the dismissal of their appeal. By the failure of the appellants to appear for the promulgation of the judgment of conviction of the trial court and for remaining at large despite the warrants for their arrest, they waived any relief from the Court on their appeal.

PREMISES CONSIDERED , the Court hereby SETS ASIDE its Resolution dated April 21, 1999 and hereby DISMISSES the appeal of the appellants from the decision of the trial court.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE