Loida M.
Javier
Vs.
Pepito Gonzales
G.R. No. 193150
January 23, 2017
Ponente: Sereno, CJ:
Case Details:
There were two decisions made by the trial court in this case. The first one
was for conviction and the second one was for acquittal. Thus the procedural
question of whether the decision made in absentia of the earlier judgement of
conviction was valid.
Facts:
On December 25, 1997 at around 11:30 pm in the Province of Aurora,
Pepito Gonzales (Gonzales) with intent to kill and with the use of treachery and
evident premeditation threw a grenade inside the house of Leonardo Hermenigildo.
The explosion led to the Rufino Conception and Leonardo Hermenigildo to sustain
mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of their death.
Furthermore, Julio Toledo, Ariel Cabasal and Jesus Macatiag were also hit and
sustained physical injuries. However, Gonzales did not perform all the acts of
execution which should have produced the crime of multiple murder as a
consequence, by reason of causes other than his own spontaneous desistance, that
is, the injuries sustained by said Julio Toledo, Ariel Cabasal and Jesus Macatiag
were not necessarily mortal.
Gonzales filed a Motion for Bail with the RTC of Baler, which after
opposition by the deceased’s sister, was granted. Thereafter, Macatiag filed an
Urgent Petition for Transfer of Venue in which was granted in August 17, 1999.
The case was reassigned to the RTC of Palayan City.
On November 30, 2005, the RTC issued an Order setting the promulgation
of the case on December 15 2005. However, on the said date Gonzales failed to
appear. His lawyer, Atty. Mario Benitez (Atty. Benitez), personally filed a
“Withdrawal of Counsel” with his Gonzales’s conformity. The promulgation was
rescheduled to December 22, 2005. On the same date, a warrant of arrest was
issued and the bond forfeited in view of the nonappearance of Gonzales, who was
deemed to have jumped bail. Notices of Hearing/Subpoena and Promulgation of
Judgement was issued on December 15, 2005 commanding the parties to appear
before the Court on December 22, 2005.
On December 22, 2005, Gonzales still failed to appear without any
justification. Judge Buted, the presiding Judge, then appointed a counsel de officio
in lieu of Atty. Benitez. The Branch Clerk of the Court thereafter read the
dispositive portion of the RTC’s decision in presence of the public prosecutor,
counsel de officio and the heirs of Macatiag. Macatiag had been killed on
December 14, 2005 to which Gonzales was also an accused to her killing.
The RTC found Gonzales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex
crime of murder with frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder and is
sentenced to a single indivisible penalty of death. The records of the case were
immediately forwarded to the CA for automatic review.
On January 6, 2006, Gonzales filed, through Atty. Benitez, an Omnibus
Motion, asking the judgement by the RTC be reconsidered and set aside. He
argued that: 1) he had not been properly notified of the promulgation of the
judgement; 2) he had not been represented by counsel and; 3) that the RTC had
proceeded with deliberate haste in convicting him. The Trial Court, now presided
by a Judge Soluren, granted it through an Order on April 18, 2006. The Order set
aside the judgement of conviction and reinstated his bail.
After learning of Gonzales’s acquittal, Macatiag’s daughter, Javier, filed a
petition for Certiorari citing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess
of jurisdiction on the part of the Judge Soluren. Her petition was denied by the
OSG for lack of merit. Later on, it was also dismissed by the Court of appeals.
They ruled out grave abuse of discretion on the part of the presiding Judge in
granting Gonzales’ Omnibus Motion and rendering a new judgement of acquittal.
They agreed with the OSG that the promulgation was void because Gonzales had
not been validly notified of the rescheduled promulgation of judgment on
December 22, 2005 since Atty. Benitez, had already withdrawn his representation
on the first scheduled date of promulgation, hence, he was relieved of the duty to
inform his client of court notices and processes. Thus, Gonzales was not personally
notified of the rescheduled promulgation, Judge Buted’s in absentia was invalid.
Issue:
Whether or not there was judgement in absentia
Ruling:
Judge Buted’s Decision convicting Gonzales was validly promulgated.
Records show that Gonzales was properly informed of the promulgation scheduled
December 15, 2005. The RTC Order dated November 30, 2005 documents the
presence of his counsel during the hearing. It is an established doctrine that notice
to counsel is notice to client. Furthermore, the Return of Service that the Order and
Notice of Promulgation were personally delivered to Gonzales’ address.
During the promulgation of judgement on December 15, 2005, when
Gonzales did not appear despite notice and without any justification for his
absence, the trial court should have immediately promulgated its Decision. The
promulgation of judgement in absentia is mandatory according to paragraph 4 of
Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of the Court. If the accused has been notified of
the date of promulgation, but does not appear, the promulgation of judgement in
absentia is warranted. Hence, Judge Buted’s Decision is valid.
Furthermore, Gonzales was not left without remedy. Section 6, Rule 120,
states that within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgement, the accused
may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail the remedies he lost due
to his nonappearance. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled
promulgation and if her proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall
be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.
However, Gonzales, through Atty. Benitez, filed an Omnibus Motion before
the RTC praying the promulgation be set aside. The Courts cannot countenance
this blatant circumvention of the Rules.
