You cannot avail post judgment remedies if you were not present during promulgation or when you did

not surrender
on time after judgment.

158. PEOPLE v. DE GRANO

Doctrine:
Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in absentia, allows the accused to be absent at the trial but
not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit:

1. At arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt;

At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived. Thus, the accused who failed to appear at
promulgation of sentence without justifiable cause shall lose the remedies available in the Rules against the judgment. However,
within 15 days from promulgation of judgment, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these
remedies. He shall state in his motion 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 15 days from notice.
FACTS:
1. On November 28, 1991, an Information for murder committed against Emmanuel Mendoza was filed with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Tanauan, Batangas, against Joven de Grano (Joven), Armando de Grano
(Armando), and Estanislao Lacaba (Estanislao), together with their co-accused Leonides Landicho (Leonides),
Domingo Landicho (Domingo), and Leonardo Genil (Leonardo), who were at-large.
2. Duly arraigned, Joven, Armando, and Estanislao pleaded "not guilty" to the crime as charged; while their co-accused
Leonides, Leonardo, and Domingo remained at-large. Thereafter, the respondents filed a motion for bail contending
that the prosecution's evidence was not strong.
3. The trial court deferred the resolution of respondents' motion for bail and allowed the prosecution to present evidence.
Thereafter, the hearing of the application for bail ensued, wherein the prosecution presented Teresita and Dr. Leonardo
Salvador. After finding that the prosecution's evidence to prove treachery and evident premeditation was not
strong, the RTC granted respondents' motion for bail. A motion for reconsideration was filed, but it was denied.
4. The prosecution then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which was denied. Aggrieved, they sought recourse
before the SC. In a Resolution dated July 12, 1999, this Court granted the petition and set aside the decision of the CA
together with the Order of the RTC granting bail to the respondents. The RTC was also ordered to immediately issue a
warrant of arrest against the accused. As a result, Estanislao was re-arrested, but Joven and Armando were not.
5. After the presentation of the parties' respective sets of evidence, the RTC rendered a Decision dated April 25, 2002,
finding several accused guilty of the offense as charged. Only Estanislao was present at the promulgation despite
due notice to the other respondents.
6. Respondents Accused, thru counsel, then filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration dated May 8, 2002, praying that
the Decision dated April 25, 2002 be reconsidered and set aside and a new one be entered acquitting them
7. Acting on respondents' motion for reconsideration, the RTC issued an Order dated April 15, 2004 modifying its earlier
decision by acquitting Joven and Armando, and downgrading the conviction of Domingo and Estanislao from murder
to homicide.
8. Estanislao filed a Notice of Appeal, while the prosecution sought reconsideration of the Order. On September 28,
2004, the RTC issued an Order denying the motion and giving due course to Estanislao's notice of appeal.
9. Petitioner People filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In denying the motion, the CA opined that the rule on double
jeopardy prohibits the state from appealing or filing a petition for review of a judgment of acquittal that was based on
 the merits of the case. If there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom, if it will not put the accused in double jeopardy, on
the criminal aspect, may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General.

ISSUE/S:
Whether RTC correctly entertained the motion for reconsideration with respect to Estanislao. (YES)

HELD:
1. Section 14 (2), Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in absentia, allows the accused to be absent at the trial
but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt; (b)
during trial, whenever necessary for identification purposes; and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a
light offense, in which case, the accused may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of the proceedings,
his presence is required and cannot be waived.
2. Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rules applicable at the time the Decision was
promulgated provides
xxxx
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 that his
absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.
3. Thus, the accused who failed to appear without justifiable cause shall lose the remedies available in the Rules against
the judgment. However, within 15 days from promulgation of judgment, the accused may surrender and file a motion
for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state in his motion 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 15 days from notice.
4. When the Decision dated April 25, 2002 was promulgated, only Estanislao Lacaba was present. Subsequently
thereafter, without surrendering and explaining the reasons for their absence, Joven, Armando, and Domingo joined
Estanislao in their Joint Motion for Reconsideration. In blatant disregard of the Rules, the RTC not only failed to
cause the arrest of the respondents who were at large, it also took cognizance of the joint motion.
5. The RTC clearly exceeded its jurisdiction when it entertained the joint Motion for Reconsideration with respect to
the respondents who were at large. It should have considered the joint motion as a motion for reconsideration that
was solely filed by Estanislao. Being at large, Joven and Domingo have not regained their standing in court. Once an
accused jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, or escapes from prison or confinement, he 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.
6. Thus, Joven, Armando, and Domingo, were not placed in double jeopardy because, from the very beginning, the lower
tribunal had acted without jurisdiction. Verily, any ruling issued without jurisdiction is, in legal contemplation,
necessarily null and void and does not exist. In criminal cases, it cannot be the source of an acquittal.
7. However, with respect to Estanislao, the RTC committed no reversible error when it entertained the Motion for
Reconsideration. He was in custody and was present at the promulgation of the judgment. Hence, the RTC never lost
jurisdiction over his person. Consequently, the RTC's ruling downgrading his conviction from murder to homicide
stands. For Estanislao, and for him alone, the proscription against double jeopardy applies.