59. REYNALDO H. JAYLO, et. al. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
(There is no issue involving the right of the accused to counsel. The issue involved pertains to promulgation of judgment in absentia) G.R. Nos. 183152-54 January 21, 2015
FACTS: Petitioners were officers of the PNP on special detail with the NBI. Petitioners were involved in a buy-bust operation, in the conduct of which the heroin sellers were killed. The Sandiganbayan found Jaylo, et. al. guilty of homicide.
The court promulgated the Decision in absentia, and the judgment was entered in the criminal docket. The bail bonds of the accused were cancelled, and warrants for their arrest issued.
Counsel for Jaylo, et. al. moved for reconsideration but the Sandiganbayan denied the same ruling that the accused lose the remedies available to them
for failure to appear, without justifiable cause, at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction.
ISSUE: What are the effects of the non-appearance of the accused, without justifiable cause, in the promulgation of the judgment of conviction?
RULING: Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court provides that an accused who failed to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction shall lose the remedies available against the said judgment.
Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court states:
SECTION 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.
x x x
The proper clerk of court shall givenotice to the accused personally or through his bondsman or warden and counsel, requiring him to be present at the promulgation of the decision. If the accused was tried in absentia because he jumped bail or escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his last known address.
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, 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
56 | P a g e
that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Thus, it is incumbent upon the accused to appear on the scheduled date of promulgation, because it determines the availability of their possible remedies against the judgment of conviction. When the accused fail to present themselves at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction, they lose the remedies of filing a motion for a new trial or reconsideration (Rule 121) and an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule 122).
The reason is simple. When the accused on bail fail to present themselves at the promulgation of a judgment of conviction, they are considered to have lost their standing in court. Without any standing in court, the accused cannot invoke its jurisdiction to seek relief.
In this case, petitioners have just shown their lack of faith in the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by not appearing before it for the promulgation of the judgment on their cases. Surely they cannot later on expect to be allowed to invoke the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction to grant them relief from its judgment of conviction.
It is well to note that Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court also provides the remedy by which the accused who were absent during the promulgation may reverse the forfeiture of the remedies available to them against the judgment of conviction. In order to regain their standing in court, the accused must do as follows: 1) surrender and 2) file a motion for leave of court to avail of the remedies, stating the reasons for their absence, within 15 days from the date of the promulgation of judgment.
Petitioners did not surrender within 15 days from the promulgation of the judgment of conviction. Neither did they ask for leave of court to avail themselves of the remedies, and state the reasons for their absence. Even if we were to assume that the failure of Jaylo to appear at the promulgation was due to failure to receive notice thereof, it is not a justifiable reason. He should have filed a notice of change of address before the Sandiganbayan.
For the failure of petitioners to regain their standing in court and avail themselves of the remedies against the judgment of conviction, the Decision of the Sandiganbayan attained finality 15 days reckoned from 17 April 2007. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED TO BE INFORMED OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM/HER
60. CLARITA ESTRELLADO-MAINAR vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 184320, JULY 29, 2015
FACTS: Sometime in February 2005, the petitioner offered for sale to Eric Naval (Naval) portions of land located in Matina Aplaya, Davao City.
During the negotiations for this sale, the petitioner told Naval that the title to the land she was selling had no problems. The petitioner also informed Naval that the area subject of the proposed sale would "still be segregated from the mother title.
On March 24, 2003, the parties executed an Agreement to Buy and Sell where the petitioner agreed to sell to Naval a 200-square meter portion of the land. Naval paid a down payment totaling P100,000.00, and then asked permission from the petitioner if he could construct his house on the land he bought. After the petitioner issued an Authorization dated March 24, 2003, Naval built his house on the subject land.
On June 3, 2005, representatives from JS Francisco & Sons, Inc. (JS Francisco) demolished Naval's house. It was only then that Naval discovered that the lot sold to him had been the subject of a dispute between the petitioner's family and JS Francisco. Naval demanded from the petitioner the return of the amount he paid for the land, as well as to pay the value of the house demolished, but the latter refused to heed these demands.
Petitioner was charged and convicted with the crime of other forms of swindling under Article 316, paragraphs 1 and 2, respectively, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Davao City.
57 | P a g e
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner's right to be informed of the charges against her was violated when the specific acts complained of as constituting the offense was not alleged in the Information.
RULING: Yes. The Information in the present case did not allege that the petitioner made an express representation that the property sold is free from any encumbrance. This Information was crafted in such a way that only one particular crime was charged (i.e., Article 316, paragraph 1), and the alleged manner through which such offense was committed (that is, by pretending to be the lawful owner x x x) did not constitute ground for conviction under paragraph 2, which may be committed even by the owner of the property. Significantly, the Agreement to Buy and Sell between the petitioner and Naval also did not contain any representation by the petitioner that the property being sold was free from any encumbrance.
The trial courts erroneously convicted the petitioner of other forms of swindling under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. To uphold the petitioner's conviction for an offense other than that charged in the Information would be a violation of her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her.
DOCTRINE:
Section 14(2) of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that an accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Indeed, Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be alleged in the Information. Section 8 of said rule provides that the Information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute and aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense. The real nature of the crime charged is determined by the facts alleged in the Information and not by the title or designation of the offense contained in the caption of the Information. It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is comprised must be alleged in the Information.