[G.R. No. 120034. August 20, 1996.

] After arraignment, the accused escaped from jail and

was tried in absentia. On March 13, 1995, the trial
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, court found her guilty as charged and imposed on her
v. JOSEFINA A. ESPARAS and RODRIGO O. the death penalty.
LIBED, Accused-Appellant.
As the accused remains at large up to the present
time, the issue that confronts the Court is whether or
SYLLABUS not it will proceed to automatically review her death
sentence. The issue need not befuddle us. In the 1910
ground-breaking case of U.S. v. Laguna, Et Al., 1 we
1. REMEDIAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; POWER TO already held thru Mr. Justice Moreland, that the power
REVIEW DECISION IMPOSING DEATH PENALTY, NOT of this Court to review a decision imposing the death
SUBJECT TO WAIVER. — As the accused remains at penalty cannot be waived either by the accused or by
large up to the present time, the Issue that confronts the courts, viz.:
the Court is whether or not it will proceed to "x       x       x
automatically review her death sentence. The issue
need not befuddle us. In the 1910 ground-breaking "It is apparent from these provisions that the judgment
case of U.S. v. Laguna, Et Al., we already held thru Mr. of conviction and sentence thereunder by the trial
Justice Moreland, that the power of this Court to court does not, in reality, conclude the trial of the
review a decision imposing the death penalty cannot accused. Such trial is not terminated until the Supreme
be waived either by the accused or by the courts. Our Court has reviewed the facts and the law as applied
case law under the 1935 Constitution reiterated thereto by the court below. The judgment of conviction
Laguna ruling. Thus, in the 1953 case of People v. entered on the trial is not final, can not be executed,
Villanueva, we held that the withdrawal of an appeal and is wholly without force or effect until the case has
by a death convict does not deprive this Court of its been passed upon by the Supreme Court. In a sense
jurisdiction to review his conviction. The 1971 case of the trial court acts as a commissioner who takes the
People v. Cornelio, Et Al., involves the escape of a testimony and reports thereon to the Supreme Court
death convict. In no uncertain terms, we held that the with his recommendation. While in practice he enters a
escape of a death convict does not relieve this Court of judgment of conviction and sentences the prisoner
its duty of reviewing his conviction. Then came the thereunder, in reality, until passed upon by the
1973 Constitution which likewise did not prohibit the Supreme Court, it has none of the attributes of a final
death penalty. Section 9, Role 122 continued to judgment and sentence. It is a mere recommendation
provide the procedure for review of death penalty to the Supreme Court, based upon the facts on the
cases by this Court. Finally, we have the 1978 record which are presented with it. This is meant in no
Constitution which prohibits the imposition of the death sense to detract from the dignity and power of Courts
penalty unless for compelling reasons involving of First Instance. It means simply that the portion of
heinous crimes Congress so provides. On December Spanish procedure which related to cases where capital
13, 1993, Congress reimposed the death penalty in punishment was imposed still survives.
cases involving the commission of heinous crimes. This
revived the procedure by which this Court reviews "x       x       x
death penalty cases pursuant to the Rules of Court. It
remains automatic and does not depend on the whims "The requirement that the Supreme Court pass on a
of the death convict. It continues to be mandatory, and case in which capital punishment has been imposed by
leaves this Court without any option. the sentence of the trial court is one having for its
object simply and solely the protection of the accused.
2. ID.; ACTIONS; APPEALS; RULE AUTHORIZING Having received the highest penalty which the law
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL WHEN APPELLANT JUMPS BAIL, imposes, he is entitled under the law to have the
NO APPLICATION WHERE DEATH PENALTY WAS sentence and all the facts and circumstances upon
IMPOSED. — With due respect to the dissenting which it is founded placed before the highest tribunal
opinions of our esteemed colleagues, Section 8 of Rule of the land to the end that its justice and legality may
124 of the Rules of Court which, inter alia, authorizes be clearly and conclusively determined. Such
the dismissal of an appeal when the appellant jumps procedure is merciful. It gives a second chance for life.
bail, has no application to cases where the death Neither the courts nor the accused can waive it. It is a
penalty has been imposed. In death penalty cases, provision of the law that crooks no interference and
automatic review is mandatory. This is the text and tolerates no evasions." (Emphasis supplied)
tone of section 12, Rule 122, which is the more
applicable rule. No litigant can repudiate this power The Laguna case interpreted section 50 of General
which is bestowed by the Constitution. The power is Orders No. 58 as amended, which provides:
more of a sacred duty which we have to discharge to
assure the People that the innocence of a citizen is our "x       x       x
concern not only in crimes that slight but even more,
in crimes that shock the conscience. This concern "It shall not be necessary to forward to the Supreme
cannot be diluted. Court the record, or any part thereof, of any case in
which there shall have been an acquittal, or in which
the sentence imposed is not death, unless such case
shall have been duly appealed; but such sentence shall
RESOLUTION be executed upon the order of the court in which the
trial was had. The records of all cases in which the
death penalty shall have been imposed by any Court of
PUNO, J.: First Instance, whether the defendant shall have
appealed or not, and of all cases in which appeals shall
have been taken shall be forwarded to the Supreme
Court for investigation and judgment as law and justice
Accused Josefina A. Esparas was charged, with shall dictate. The records of such cases shall be
violation of R.A. No. 6425 as amended by R.A. No. 759 forwarded to the clerk of the Supreme Court within
for importing into the country twenty (20) kilograms of twenty days, but not earlier than fifteen days after the
"shabu" in Criminal Case No. 94-5897 before the RTC rendition of sentence."cralaw virtua1aw library
of Pasay City, Br. 114.
The 1935 Constitution did not prohibit the imposition of of conviction imposing the death penalty entered in the
the death penalty. Its section 2(4) of Article VIII trial court, is not final, and cannot be executed and is
provided for review by this Court of death penalty wholly without force or effect until the case has been
cases. Both our Rules of Court of 1940 2 and 1964 3 passed upon by the Supreme Court en consulta; that
require the transmission to this Court of the records of although a judgment of conviction is entered by the
all cases in which the death penalty shall have been trial court, said decision has none of the attributes of a
imposed by the trial court, whether the defendant shall final judgment and sentence; and that until is has been
have appealed or not, for review and judgment as the reviewed by the Supreme Court which finally passes
law and justice shall dictate. It will be noted that these upon it, the same is not final and conclusive; and this
rules were taken from the second part of General automatic review by the Supreme Court is something
Orders were taken from the second part of General which neither the court nor the accused could waive or
Orders No. 58, as amended by Section 4 Act No. 194. evade.’ The mere fact of escape of appellant,
4 therefore, could not be relied upon by respondent
Demaisip as sufficient cause for his failure to file
Necessarily, our case law under the 1935 Constitution appellant’s brief." virtua1aw library
reiterated the Laguna ruling. Thus, in the 1953 case of
People v. Villanueva, 5 we held that the withdrawal of Then came the 1973 Constitution which likewise did
an appeal by a death convict does not deprive this not prohibit the death penalty. 8 Section 9, Rule 122
Court of its jurisdiction to review his conviction, viz.: continued to provide the procedure for review of death
penalty cases by this Court. Section 10, Rule 122 of
"An accused appealing from a decision sentencing him the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure even reenacted
to death may be allowed to withdraw his appeal like this procedure of review. Significantly, it expressly
any other appellant, in an ordinary criminal case before used the term "automatic review and judgment" by
the briefs are filed, but his withdrawal of the appeal this Court. Our case law continued its fealty to the
does not remove the case from the jurisdiction of this Laguna rule. Thus, in the 1976 case of People v.
court which under the law is authorized and called Saliling, Et Al., 9 we held, thru former Chief Justice
upon to review the decision though unappealed. Aquino, that this Court is not precluded from reviewing
Consequently, the withdrawal of the appeal in this case the death sentence of an accused who is at large. In
could not serve to render the decision of the People’s the 1984 case of People v. Buynay, Et Al., 10 we
Court final. In fact, as was said by this court through reiterated the rule that the escape of a death convict
Justice Moreland in the case of U.S. v. Laguna, 17 Phil. will not automatically result in the dismissal of his
532, speaking on the matter of review by this court of appeal.
a decision imposing the death penalty, the judgment of
conviction entered in the trial court is not final, and Finally, we have the 1987 Constitution which prohibits
cannot be executed and is wholly without force or the imposition of the death penalty unless for
effect until the case has been passed upon by the compelling reasons involving heinous crimes Congress
Supreme Court en consulta; that although a judgment so provides. 11 On December 13, 1993, Congress
of conviction is entered by the trial court, said decision reimposed the death penalty in cases involving the
has none of the attributes of a final judgment and commission of heinous crimes. This revived the
sentence; that until it has been reviewed by the procedure by which this Court reviews death penalty
Supreme Court which finally passes upon it, the same cases pursuant to the Rules of Court. It remains
is not final and conclusive; and that this automatic automatic and does not depend on the whims of the
review by the Supreme Court of decisions imposing the death convict. It continues to be mandatory, and
death penalty is something which neither the court nor leaves this Court without any option. 12
the accused could waive or evade." virtua1aw library
With due respect to the dissenting opinions of our
The 1971 case of People v. Cornelio, Et Al., 6 involves esteemed colleagues, section 8 of Rule 124 of the
the escape of a death convict. In no uncertain terms, Rules of Court which, inter alia, authorizes the
we held that the escape of a death convict does not dismissal of an appeal when the appellant jumps bail,
relieve this Court of its duty of reviewing his has no application to cases where the death penalty
conviction. In the 1972 case of People v. Daban, Et Al., has been imposed. In death penalty cases, automatic
7 the ponencia of former Chief Justice Fernando further review is mandatory. This is the text and tone of
stressed, to wit: section 10, Rule 122, which is the more applicable rule,
viz.:
"x       x       x"
"Section 10. Transmission of Records in Case of Death
"Now, as to the law. It would appear that respondent Penalty. — In all cases where the death penalty is
Demaisip is unaware of Section 9 of Rule 122. Thus: imposed by he trial court, the records shall be
‘The records of all cases in which the death penalty forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review
shall been imposed by any Court of First Instance, and judgment, within twenty (20) days but not earlier
whether the defendant shall have appealed or not, than (15) days after promulgation of the judgment or
shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court fore review notice of denial of any motion for new trial or
and judgment as law and justice shall dictate. The reconsideration. The transcript shall also be forwarded
records of such cases shall be forwarded to the clerk of within ten (10) days after the filing thereof by the
the Supreme Court within twenty (20) days but not stenographic reporter." virtua1aw library
earlier than fifteen (15) days, after rendition or
promulgation of the sentence in the form prescribed by Similarly, the reliance in People v. Codilla, 13 by our
section 11 of Rule 41. The transcript shall also be dissenting colleagues is misplaced. Codilla is not a
forwarded as provided in section 12 of Rule 41 within death penalty case. Only the penalty of reclusion
five (5) days after the filing thereof by the perpetua was imposed on appellant. Consequently, we
stenographer.’ The penalty imposed on appellant ruled that the escape of the appellant or his refusal to
Daban y Ganzon in the judgment of November 21, surrender to the proper authorities justifies dismissal
1969 being one of death, the case was properly of his appeal.
elevated to this Court. Moreover, until after this Court
has spoken, no finality could be attached to the lower Our dissenting brethren also make a distinct cut
court decision. As explained in former Chief Justice between." . . a death convict, i. e. one convicted to
Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court: ‘In this death by a trial court who remains in the custody of
connection, it must be emphasized that the judgment the law, and who voluntarily withdraws his appeal and
a death convict, i.e., one convicted to death by the right to be wrong.
trial court but who escapes from the custody of the law
during the pendency of the appeal." They rationalize IN VIEW WHEREOF, the counsel for the accused is
the distinction by holding: given a new period of thirty (30) days from notice
hereof within which to file the Brief of the accused
"It should be clear in the first case, that even if the Josefina A. Esparas.
death convict withdraws his appeal from the trial
court’s judgment convicting him to death, the appellate SO ORDERED.
court may still and nonetheless review the judgment of
conviction for the convict-appellant has at least Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Kapunan and
remained in the custody of the law to await final Hermosisima, JJ., concur.
verdict in his case. In the second case, however, the
accused no longer recognizes and respects the Vitug, J., concurs in the result.
authority of law and the duly-constituted authorities in
general and this Court in particular. Such supercilious Separate Opinions
conduct of an escapee cannot and should not be taken
lightly by the Court. Respect for and recognition of the
authority of the Court is an essential and implicit PANGANIBAN, J., concurring:ob1es virtual 1aw library
element in an effective and credible judicial system.
This normally run-off-the-mill matter of granting an
"No, one, it should be stressed, should be allowed to extension of time to file brief for the accused has
make a mockery of the justice system by, in one merited vigorous and in-depth discussion in the Court
breath, seeking its protection and even vindication via because two monumental and hallowed doctrines
an automatic review of a death sentence and, in appear to collide in its disposition.
another breath, continuing to be a fugitive from justice
and repudiating the very authority of the system On the one hand, there is historically entrenched
whose protection he seeks and invokes." library principle that impels this Court to review a decision
imposing the death penalty. 1 Such historicity is
We hold, however, that there is more wisdom in our reinforced by the pro-life provisions of our 1987
existing jurisprudence mandating our review of all Constitution, one of which 2 had in fact prohibited the
death penalty cases, regardless of the wish of the imposition of the death penalty, "unless, for compelling
convict and regardless of the will of the court. Nothing reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
less than life is at stake and any court decision hereafter provides for it." virtua1aw library
authorizing the State to take life must be as error-free
as possible. We must strive to realize this objective, Upon the other, there is the legal, equitable and logical
however, elusive it may be, and our efforts must not tenet that a person convicted by the lower courts must
depend on whether appellant has withdrawn his appeal first submit himself to the jurisdiction of the appellate
or has escaped. Indeed, an appellant may withdraw his court before he/she can plead for the exercise of the
appeal not because he is guilty but because of his said tribunal’s power of review. 3 An escapee mocks
wrong perception of the law. Or because he may want the law and puts himself outside the protection of the
to avail of the more speedy remedy of pardon. Or judiciary.
because of his frustration and misapprehension that he
will not get justice from the authorities. Nor should the Without repeating the legal arguments pro and con, as
Court be influenced by the seeming repudiation of its these were already eloquently presented by Mr. Justice
jurisdiction when a convict escapes. Ours is not only Puno, Mr. Justice Padilla and Mr. Justice Francisco, I
the power but the duty to review all death penalty hold that the judicial taking of life cannot be left to
cases. No litigant can repudiate this power which is mere legal logic. Life is too precious to be settled by
bestowed by the Constitution. The power is more of a legalisms, however exalted. I believe that this Court
sacred duty which we have to discharge to assure the cannot abandon its sacred duty to God and country to
People that the innocence of a citizen is our concern see to it that a lower court judgment that takes away
not only in crimes that slight but even more, in crimes life is ERROR FREE and can stand THE MOST
that shock the conscience. This concern cannot be SEARCHING SCRUTINY . 4 And at the same time, this
diluted. Court must not enable an escaped convict to make a
mockery of the foundations of human justice.
The Court is not espousing a "soft, bended, approach" Consequently, I believe we must combine the sacred
to heinous crimes for as discussed above, we have with the human.
always reviewed the imposition of the death penalty
regardless of the will of the convict. Our unyielding After prayer, study, reflection and discernment, I am
stance is dictated by the policy that the State should thoroughly convinced that this Court has the
not be given the license to kill without the final inescapable duty to review this and similar life-taking
determination of this Highest Tribunal whose collective decisions, but only after the accused is re-arrested and
wisdom is the last; effective hedge against an taken back into the custody of the law.
erroneous judgment of a one-judge trial court. This
enlightened policy ought to continue as our beacon IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, I vote to grant the
light for the taking of life ends all rights, a matter of accused’s motion for extension to file brief and in view
societal concern that transcends the personal interest of the delay in the disposition of such motion due to
of a convict. The importance of this societal value the lengthy court deliberation thereon, to give her a
should not be blurred by the escape of a convict which new period of thirty (30) days from notice within which
is a problem of law enforcement. Neither should this to file her Brief.
Court be moved alone by the outrage of the public in
the multiplication of heinous crimes for our decisions PADILLA, J., dissenting:b1es virtual 1aw library
should not be directed by the changing winds of the
social weather. Let us not for a moment forget that an After a careful study of the issue submitted for
accused does not cease to have rights just because of resolution, I am constrained, based on considerations
his conviction. This principle is implicit in our of justice and fairness not only for the accused but for
Constitution which recognizes that an accused, even if society in general as well, to register my dissent from
he belongs to a minority of one has the right to be the majority opinion.
right, while the majority, even if overwhelming, has no
The factual antecedents upon which this Court is called
to decide whether or not to dismiss the appeal of the In People v. Codilla (G.R. Nos. 100720-23, 30 June
accused in this case, are as follows:es virtual 1aw 1993, 224 SCRA 104), the Court reiterated the sound
library doctrine that the escape of the accused-appellant or
his refusal to surrender to the proper authorities
Accused Josefina A. Esparas was convicted on 13 justifies dismissal of his appeal.
March 1995 by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City,
Branch 114 in Criminal Case No. 94-5897, for violation We are not unaware of the ruling of the Court in People
of Rep. Act No. 6425 as amended by Rep. Act No. v. Cornelio (G.R. No. L-1289, 10 June 1971 SCRA 435)
7659, more specifically, for importing into the country stating that:
twenty (20) kilograms of methamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu." She was "The escape of the accused does not relieve the Court
sentenced to death. Prior to conviction by the trial of the burden of automatically reviewing the case, in
court, but after arraignment, Accused escaped from the same manner that a withdrawal of appeal by a
confinement. The records of the case (Criminal Case death convict would not remove the case from
No. 94-5897) were nonetheless elevated to this Court jurisdiction of the Court. Hence, the court will no
for automatic review, involving as it does the longer permit the case to remain further in its docket
imposition of the death penalty. and will proceed to discharge its task of passing upon
the case en consulta and reviewing the facts and the
On 14 November 1955, the Court required counsel for law as applied thereto by the trial court, and
accused to show cause why the appeal should not be determining the propriety of its imposition of the death
dismissed given the fact that she had escaped from penalty." (reference to footnotes omitted)
confinement even prior to judgment by the trial court
and remains at-large since her escape from detention. It is my considered view however that a distinction
should be made between a death convict, i.e. one
Counsel for accused has failed to show cause, as sentenced to death by a trial court, who remains in the
required. Instead, he has filed motions for extension of custody of the law, but who voluntarily withdraws his
time to file appellant’s brief, which the Court has not appeal and a death convict, i.e. one sentenced to
acted upon, as there has been failure to show cause death by the trial court but who escapes from the
why the appeal should not be dismissed. custody of the law during the pendency of the appeal.
It should be clear in the first case, that even if the
The Solicitor General was required by this Court to death convict withdraws his appeal from the trial
comment on the effect of accused’s escape from court’s judgment sentencing him to death, the
confinement on the present appeal. The Solicitor appellate court may still and nonetheless review the
General, in his comment dated 9 January 1996, judgment of conviction for the convict-appellant has at
recommends that the Court proceed with the appeal least remained in the custody of the law to await final
and review the judgment of conviction despite the verdict in his case. In the second case, however, the
accused’s escape, as the penalty involved is the death accused no longer recognizes and respects the
penalty. authority of law and the duly-constituted authorities in
general and this Court in particular. Such supercilious
It is basic in procedural law that one who seeks conduct of an escapee cannot and should not be taken
positive relief from a court of law should submit to its lightly by the Court. Respect for and recognition of the
jurisdiction. In criminal law and procedure, it is authority of the Court are essential and implicit
likewise settled that the trial court has to acquire elements in an effective and credible judicial system.
jurisdiction over the person of the accused before it
can proceed to try the case and render judgment No one, it should be stressed, should be allowed to
against him. Thus, in the present case, trial proceeded make a mockery of the justice system by, in one
only as to accused Josefina A. Esparas, who earlier breath, seeking its protection and even vindication via
entered a plea of not guilty, while her co-accused an automatic review of a death sentence and, in
Rodrigo O. Libed has remained at large and has not another breath, continuing to be a fugitive from justice
been arraigned or tried. and repudiating the very authority of the system
whose protection he seeks and invokes.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is also
required by the Rules of Court during the pendency of A soft, bended approach whereby an sentenced to
an appeal from a judgment of conviction in the trial death by a trial court for a heinous crime may escape
court so that, in the event of an accused’s escape from from confinement and, still require the Supreme Court
detention during his appeal, the appeal may be just the same to review his conviction, will shatter to
dismissed outright by the appellate court. pieces the present drive against heinous crimes
punishable with death. All that the accused in such
Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court gives the cases has to do — after being sentenced to death by
appellate court the authority to dismiss an appeal the trial court — is to arrange for an escape since, in
when the appellant escapes from prison or any case, such escape will not be taken as admission
confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country of guilt and the Supreme Court will have, in any event,
during the pendency of the appeal. It provides: to review his conviction.

"Sec. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment for If the accused, upon review by the Supreme Court, is
failure to prosecute. — The appellate court may, upon acquitted or meted out a penalty lower than death,
motion of the appellee or on its own motion and notice then he can re-surface. If his death sentence is
to the appellant, dismiss the appeal if the appellant affirmed by the Supreme Court, then he will most
fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this likely remain a fugitive from justice.
Rule, except in case the appellant is represented by a
counsel de oficio. I do not believe that this is the wish or intention of the
general public now outraged by the still-rising
The court may also, upon motion of the appellee or on incidence of heinous crimes punishable with death. To
its own motion, dismiss the appeal if the appellant infuse sense, nay, sanity into the system, I submit that
escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or "mandatory jurisdiction" of the Supreme Court to
flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the review death penalty cases and "automatic review" of
appeal." virtua1aw library death penalty cases have to assume implicitly that the
accused in his person is subject to the processes and then who is to be favored by the automatic review — a
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court if it is to review his fugitive from justice? Hence, if the escape of the
conviction to death by the trial court. accused may be deemed waiver of the right to appeal
in any other mode of appeal, then the same must
It is therefore my considered opinion that accused apply to an appeal by way of automatic review. I fail to
Josefina A. Esparas should be given a non-extendible see, in this connection, any cogent reason why an
period of thirty (30) days from receipt by her counsel automatic review should be given a status different
of record of the Court’s resolution. to surrender to the from the other modes of appeal. I thus find, and with
proper authorities and remain in the custody of the due respect to my esteemed colleague Mr. Justice
law, failing in which, this appeal should be deemed and Puno, unacceptable the proposition that an appeal by
stand dismissed and, thereupon, the judgment of the way of automatic review is not subject to waiver. If the
trial court convicting and sentencing her to death constitutional rights of the accused enshrined under
should be final ordered remanded to the court of origin Article III of the 1987 Constitution, such as right
for appropriate execution, after re-arrest of the against unreasonable searches and seizures, right
accused. against self-incrimination, right to remain silent,
among others, can be waived, then with more reason
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Melo and Mendoza, JJ., with the right to appeal which is merely statutory
dissent. origin.

FRANCISCO, J., dissenting: virtual 1aw library I am not unaware of the cases cited by my esteemed
colleague Mr. Justice Puno establishing the rule that
I fully agree with Mr. Justice Padilla’s opinion that if the the Court is not precluded from reviewing the death
accused fails to surrender to the proper authorities and sentence of an accused who is at large. But in the
remain in the custody of the law then her right to words of a known author," [e]ven those Justices most
appeal is deemed waived and forfeited. I wish to opposed to overruling constitutional decisions have
express, nonetheless, my observations on this issue. acknowledged that the ‘law may grow to meet
changing conditions’ and that the doctrine of stare
An appeal is a statutory remedy for the correction of decisis should not required a ‘slavish adherence to
errors which might have been committed. With the authority where new conditions require new rules of
accused lies the power and option to avail of the "conduct." 3 Considering the manifest intent of the
remedy, and with the appellate court belongs the legislature in enacting the death penalty law to
power to affirm or reverse the accused’s conviction. rationalize and harmonize the penal sanctions for
Appeal, however, presupposes jurisdiction over the heinous crimes and to serve as effective deterrence, it
person of the accused. And since appeal is a mere is high time for the Court to depart from the old
statutory privilege and is not a natural right nor part of doctrine which, to my mind, promotes nothing except
the due process, it may only be exercised in the disobedience to and repudiation of our judicial system.
manner and in accordance with the provisions of the
law (Bello v. Fernando, 4 SCRA 135, citing Aguila v.
Navarro, 55 Phil. 898, and Santiago v. Valenzuela, 78
Phil. 397; Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA
537; Borre v. Court of Appeals, 158 SCRA 560; Ravelo
v. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 254; U.S. v. Yu Ten, 33
Phil. 122). Thus, an accused who escapes from prison
or confinement 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 (People v. Agbulos, 222 SCRA
196; People v. Mapalao, 197 SCRA 79). A contrary
view would encourage the accused to trifle with the
administration of justice, and provide means for guilty
parties to escape punishment (People v. Ang Gioc, 73
Phil. 366). In this case, the accused escaped from
confinement and heretofore refuses to surrender to the
proper authorities, thus she must be deemed to have
abandoned the appeal (See People v. Quiritan, 197
SCRA 32; People v. Acol, 232 SCRA 406; People v.
Codilla, 224 SCRA 104).

In criminal cases, appeal may be taken to the Supreme

Court via the following steps: by filing a notice of
appeal in those cases where the penalty of reclusion
perpetua was imposed, by filing a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 where the penalty imposed
is not reclusion perpetua and the appeal would involve
only questions of law (People v. Pagsanjan, 221 SCRA
735), and by automatic review where the penalty
imposed is death (R.A. No. 7659, Sec. 22; Rule 122,
Sec. 10, Revised Rules of Court). An appeal has "for its
object simply and solely the protection of the accused."
1 Appeal by way of automatic review is plainly another
mode of appeal and has an objective similar to any
other modes of appeal, i.e., the protection of the
accused. If the accused has escaped, then he refuses
to avail of the protection of the Court. Why then should
the Court insist in protecting him. In the same vein,
"the law providing for automatic review of a death
sentence seeks to favor the [accused]." 2 If the
accused has absconded or escaped from confinement