CABS

RULE 120: JUDGMENT

BIGLER v. PEOPLE DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF JUDGMENT: Under the doctrine of
finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that
has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and
may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact
and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or
by the Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates this
principle must immediately be struck down.

EXCEPTIONS TO DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF JUDGMENT:

Nonetheless, the immutability of final judgments is not a hard
and fast rule as the Court has the power and prerogative to relax
the same in order to serve the demands of substantial justice
considering:
(a) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property;
(b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances;
(c) the merits of the case;
(d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of
the party favored by the suspension of the rules;
(e) the lack of any showing that the review sought is merely
frivolous and dilatory; and
(f) that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby

COBARRUBIAS v. PEOPLE RULE IN CASE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN FALLO AND BODY OF

DECISION: The general rule is that where there is a conflict
between the fallo, or the dispositive part, and the body of the
decision or order, the fallo prevails on the theory that the fallo is
the final order and becomes the subject of execution, while the
body of the decision merely contains the reasons or conclusions
of the court ordering nothing.18 However, where one can clearly
and unquestionably conclude from the body of the decision that
there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the
decision will prevail.
GARCES v. HERNANDEZ JUDGMENT MUST CONTAIN WHETHER CIVIL LIABILITY ARISE: In
case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the
evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of
the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or
omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.

Under the immediately-quoted rule, a trial court, in case of

1
 CABS

acquittal of an accused, is to state whether the prosecution

absolutely failed to prove his guilt or merely failed to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and in either case, it shall
determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability
might arise did not exist. From the earlier-quoted portion of the
decision of the trial court, however, particularly the following
portions:

In the case at bar, there is clearly no moral certainty that can be

arrived at by the Court in convicting the accused. Physical and
testimonial evidence presented by the Prosecution have failed to
elicit in the mind of the Court the conclusion that the herein
accused should and must be held criminally liable for the heinous
death of Rustico Garces. As a matter of fact, the physical
evidence in his case instead of strengthening only weakened its
case.

PEOPLE v. LABAO JUDGMENT MUST BE SIGNED BY AN INCUMBENT JUDGE: We

have consistently ruled that for a judgment to be valid, it must be
duly signed and promulgated during the incumbency of the judge
who signed it. Thus, a decision penned by a judge after his
retirement cannot be validly promulgated; it cannot acquire a
binding effect as it is null and void.
SOLIS v. CA JUDGMENT PROMULGATED WHILE THE JUDGE RENDERING TEHE
CASE IS PART OF THE COURT: The judgment is, therefore, void,
for it is now firmly established in our jurisprudence that a
decision is void if promulgated after the judge who rendered it
had permanently ceased to be a judge of the court where he sat
in judgment. Thus, a judgment is a nullity if it had been
promulgated after the judge had actually vacated the office and
accepted another office; or when the term of office of the judge
has ended; or when he has left the Bench; or after the judge had
vacated his post in view of the abolition of his position as Judge-
at-Large under Republic Act 1186; or after the cessation or
termination of his incumbency as such judge.

PROMULGATION MAY BE MADE BY ANY JUDGE OF THE COURT

IN WHICH IT WAS RENDERED (DECIDED): Section 6 of Rule 116 of
the old Rules of Court, allowing the dispensing with the presence
of the judge in the reading of a sentence, applies only to the
physical absence of the judge, being construed to mean that the
decision of the judge may be promulgated even without his
presence, as long as he is still a judge of that court.

2
 CABS

PEOPLE v. CFI, QUEZON Br.X JUDGE MAY STILL DECIDE CASES SUBMITTED TO HIM EVEN
AFTER TEMPORARY DETAIL ENDS: A trial judge whose temporary
detail to a vacant branch has expired remains to be the
incumbent judge of the branch of the court where he is
permanently assigned. Thus, he may still decide cases submitted
to him for decision during his temporary detail in the vacant
branch even after the vacancy has been filled.

JUDGE NEED NOT HEAR THE ALL THE WITNESSES TO DECIDE: it

was held that it was not unusual for a judge who did not try a
case to decide it on the basis of the record since the trial judge
who tried the case may have already died or retired. In fact, as
early as 1915, this Court already ruled that "[t]here is no law
which prohibits a judge from deciding a case because he did not
see some of the witnesses when they testified therein. In the
absence of any express prohibition of this kind, we cannot imply
one."

JURISDICTION IS VESTED IN THE COURT NOT JUDGE NOR

BRANCH: It is not necessary that he be the presiding judge of
Branch X at the time his decision was promulgated since even
after the expiration of his temporary designation at Branch X he
continued to be an incumbent of Branch III. After all, where a
Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) is divided into
several branches, each of the branches is not a court distinct and
separate from the others. Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in
the judges, so that when a complaint or information is filed
before one branch or judge, jurisdiction does not attach to said
branch of the judge alone, to the exclusion of the others.

PEOPLE v. LASCUNA THE BASIS OF THE PROMULGATION MUST BE A COMPLETE

JUDGMENT: It must, however, be stressed here that the "verbal"
judgment promulgated by the trial court was incomplete as it
does not contain findings of fact and is not signed by the Judge.
The Constitution provides that no decision shall be rendered by
any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based. 44 In criminal cases, Section
2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court requires that a "judgment must
be written in the official language, personally and directly
prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly
and distinctly a statement of the facts proved or admitted by the
accused and the law upon which the judgment is based." Be that
as it may, the infirmity was corrected by the trial court itself when

3
 CABS

it subsequently issued a full-blown Judgment — dated 21 August

1989 — which contains a summary of the evidence for the
parties, findings of fact and the signature of the Judge. The
records do not, however, yield any proof that this full-blown
Judgment was promulgated.

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO The validity of conviction is not adversely affected by the fact
that the judge who rendered judgment was not the one who
heard the witnesses: We do not agree. The fact that the trial
judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had the
occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial,
but merely relied on the records of the case, does not render the
judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is
sufficient to support its conclusion.51 As this Court held in People
v. Competente: The circumstance that the Judge who rendered
the judgment was not the one who heard the witnesses, does
not detract from the validity of the verdict of conviction.

ESTRADA v. PEOPLE REQUISITES OF PROMULGATION IN ABSENTIA: Promulgation in

absentia is valid provided the following essential elements are
present: (a) that the judgment be recorded in the criminal docket;
and (b) that a copy thereof be served upon the accused or
counsel.

NOTICE TO ACCUSED OR COUNSEL FOR PROMULGATION IN

ABSENTIA ARE ALTERNATIVE: Petitioner's first argument is
devoid of merit. In the first place, her non-receipt of the notice of
promulgation was due to her own failure to immediately file a
notice of change of address with the trial court, which she clearly
admitted. Besides, promulgation could be properly done even in
her absence, subject to the service of a copy of the decision upon
her or her counsel and the recording of the judgment in the
criminal docket.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RECORDING IN THE DOCKET: Its purpose is to

give notice thereof to all persons. The rules allow promulgation of
judgment in absentia to obviate the situation where juridical
process could be subverted by the accused jumping bail.

REYES v. MANGINO WHEN JUDGMENT NEED NOT BE PROMULGATED IN THE

PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED: There are two instances when

4
 CABS

judgment may be promulgated even without the personal

presence of the accused: (1) when the judgment is for a light
offense, in which case, the counsel for the accused or a
representative may stand for him; and (2) in cases where despite
due notice to the accused or his bondsman or warden and
counsel, the accused failed to appear at the promulgation of the
decision. The evident purpose of this latter exception is to afford
the offended party the opportunity to enforce the award of civil
indemnity which could not otherwise be effected if the decision
cannot be pronounced on account of the absence of the accused.

PROMULGATION MUST BE VALID FOR REMEDIES AGAINST

JUDGMENT TO BE AVAILED OF: It bears stressing the importance
of the promulgation of decisions in criminal cases, considering
that a judgment or sentence does not become a judgment or
sentence in law until the same has been read or announced to
the defendant or has become part of the record of the
court.21 Parenthetically, when there is no valid promulgation of
judgment, no right to appeal accrues.

VILLENA v. PEOPLE FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL NOT TANTAMOUNT TO

SURRENDER: mere filing of notices of appeal through their new
counsel, therein only explaining their absence during the
promulgation of judgment, cannot be considered an act of
surrender, despite the fact that said notices were filed within 15
days from September 28, 2007, the purported date when their
new counsel personally secured a copy of the judgment of
conviction from the RTC. The term "surrender" under Section 6,
Rule 120 of the Rules of Court contemplates an act whereby a
convicted accused physically and voluntarily submits himself to
the jurisdiction of the court to suffer the consequences of the
verdict against him. The filing of notices of appeal cannot suffice
as a physical and voluntary submission of petitioners to the RTC’s
jurisdiction. It is only upon petitioners’ valid surrender, and only
after proper motion, that they can avail of the remedy of appeal.
Absent compliance with these requirements, their notices of
appeal, the initiatory step to appeal from their conviction, were
properly denied due course.

5
 CABS

SALVADOR v. CHUA SURRENDER UNDER RULE 120, SEC. 6: Even assuming that he had
suffered hypertension, which could have validly excused his
absence from the promulgation, the petitioner did not fulfill the
other requirement of Section 6, supra, to surrender himself to the
trial court. The term surrender used in the rule visibly
necessitated his physical and voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court to suffer any consequences of the verdict
against him.
PEOPLE v. GRANO A MOTION TO AVAIL OF THE REMEDIES AGAINST JUDGMENT
DOES NOT INCLUDE CO ACCUSED WHO LOST THEIR STANDING
IN COURT: 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.

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.

DAAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN WHEN AN OFFENSE CHARGED NECESSARILY INCLUDES ANOTHER

OFFENSE: An offense may be said to necessarily include another
when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the
former as alleged in the complaint or information constitute the
latter. And vice versa, an offense may be said to be necessarily
included in another when the essential ingredients of the former
constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. 28

In this case, the allegations in the Informations filed against

petitioner are sufficient to hold petitioner liable for the lesser
offenses. Thus, in the charge for Falsification of Public
Documents, petitioner may plead guilty to the lesser offense of

6
 CABS

Falsification by Private Individuals inasmuch as it does not appear

that petitioner took advantage of his official position in allegedly
falsifying the timebook and payroll of the Municipality of Bato,
Leyte. In the same vein, with regard to the crime of Malversation
of Public Funds, while the Informations contain allegations which
make out a case for Malversation against petitioner,
nevertheless, absent the element of conversion, theoretically,
petitioner may still be held liable for Failure to Render Account by
an Accountable Officer if it is shown that the failure to render
account was in violation of a law or regulation that requires him
to render such an accounting within the prescribed period.

Given, therefore, that some of the essential elements of offenses

charged in this case likewise constitute the lesser offenses, then
petitioner may plead guilty to such lesser offenses.

PEOPLE v. NOQUE RULES ON VARIANCE MAY BE APPLIED BY ANALOGY TO

POSSESSION AND SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS: The CA
correctly ruled that Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of
Court,14 can be applied by analogy in convicting the appellant of the
offenses charged, which are included in the crimes proved. Under
these provisions, an offense charged is necessarily included in the
offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former
constitute or form part of those constituting the latter. At any rate, a
minor variance between the information and the evidence does
not alter the nature of the offense, nor does it determine or
qualify the crime or penalty, so that even if a discrepancy exists,
this cannot be pleaded as a ground for acquittal.15 In other words,
his right to be informed of the charges against him has not been
violated because where an accused is charged with a specific crime,
he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser
crimes or offenses included therein.

SEVILLA v. PEOPLE CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE IS INCLUDED IN THE CHARGE OF

INTENTIONAL FELONY: it may however be said that a conviction
for the criminal negligence can be had under an information
exclusively charging the commission of a wilful offense, upon the
theory that the greater includes the lesser offense. This is the
situation that obtains in the present case. Appellant was charged
with willful falsification but from the evidence submitted by the
parties, the Court of Appeals found that in effecting the
falsification which made possible the cashing of checks in
question, appellant did not act with criminal intent but merely
failed to take proper and adequate means to assure himself of
the identity of the real claimants as an ordinary prudent man

7
 CABS

would do. In other words, the information alleges acts which

charge willful falsification but which turned out to be not willful
but negligent. This is a case covered by the rule when there is a
variance between the allegation and proof, and is similar to
some of the cases decided by this Tribunal.

PEOPLE v. VALDEZ VARIANCE; MURDER TO HOMICIDE: A practical consequence of

the non-allegation of a detail that aggravates his liability is to
prohibit the introduction or consideration against the accused of
evidence that tends to establish that detail. The allegations in the
information are controlling in the ultimate analysis. Thus, when
there is a variance between the offense charged in the
information and that proved, and the offense as charged is
included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the
accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included in the
offense charged, or of the offense charged included in the
offense proved.31 In that regard, an offense charged necessarily
includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements
or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the information,
constitute the latter; an offense charged is necessarily included in
the offense proved when the essential ingredients of the former
constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.

PASCUA v. CA THE ABSENCE OF RECORDING IN THE CRIMINAL DOCKET

PROMULGATION IN ABSENTIA IS INVALID. JUDGMENT CAN NOT
BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY: Registration is made for the
purpose of notification. Thus, on May 5, 1998, although the
second kind of notification was satisfied when defense counsel
Atty. Arias received a copy of the February 17, 1998 decision, the
solemn and operative act of recording was not done, making the
promulgation in absentia invalid. This being so, the period to
appeal did not begin to run.

RECORDING AND SERVICE TO COUNSEL OR ACCUSED MUST

CONCUR: The next matter we have to consider is the effect of the
service of a copy of the judgment upon petitioner, who admits
having received a copy thereof on June 17, 1998. Did the 15-day
period to appeal begin to run on said date of receipt? We rule in
the negative. Petitioner's later receipt of the copy of the decision
does not in any way cure an invalid promulgation. And even if
said decision be recorded in the criminal docket later, such piece-
meal compliance with the Rules will still not validate the May 5,

8
 CABS

1998 promulgation which was invalid at the time it was

conducted. The express mention in the provision of both
requirements for a valid promulgation in absentia clearly means
that they indeed must concur.

VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE JUDGMENT DOES NOT BECOME FINAL WHEN CERTIORARI

UNDER RULE 65 IS FILED: we find that the proper interpretation
of Section 7 of Rule 120 must be that it is inapplicable and
irrelevant where the court’s jurisdiction is being assailed through
a Rule 65 petition. Section 7 of Rule 120 bars the modification of
a criminal judgment only if the appeal brought before the court is
in the nature of a regular appeal under Rule 41, or an appeal by
certiorari under Rule 45, and if that appeal would put the accused
in double jeopardy. As it is, we find no irregularity in the partial
annulment of the CA Decision in CA-G.R. No. 15520 in spite of its
finality, as the judgment therein was issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

APPLICATION FOR PROBATION MUST BE MADE WITH THE

COURT OF ORIGIN: It is obvious from the foregoing provision that
the law requires that an application for probation be filed withthe
trial court that convicted and sentenced the defendant, meaning
the court of origin. Here, the trial court that originally convicted
and sentenced Tecson et al.of the crime of homicide was Branch
121 – not Branch 130 – of the Caloocan City RTC.35 Neither the
judge of Branch 130 in his Orders nor Tecson et al.in their
pleadings have presented any explanation or shown any special
authority that would clarify why the Applications for Probation
had not been filed with or taken cognizance of by Caloocan City
RTC Branch 121.
RULE 102: HABEAS CORPUS REMEDY IN RELATION TO JUDGMENT
ADONIS v. TESORO HABEAS CORPUS NOT PROPER WHEN DETENTION IS BY VIRTUE
OF A FINAL JUDGMENT: Since detention was by virtue of a final
judgment, he is not entitled to the Writ of Habeas Corpus. He was
serving his sentence when the BPP granted him parole, along with
six (6) others, on December 11, 2007.19 While it is true that a
convict may be released from prison on parole when he had
served the minimum period of his sentence; the pendency of
another criminal case, however, is a ground for the
disqualification of such convict from being released on
parole.20 Notably, at the time he was granted the parole, the

9
 CABS

second libel case was pending before the RTC Branch 14. 21 In fact,
even when the instant petition was filed, Criminal Case No.
48719-01 was still pending. The issuance of the writ under such
circumstance was, therefore, proscribed. There was basis for the
respondent to deny his immediate release at that time.

RULE OF PREFERENCE IS NOT RETROACTIVE: A clear reading of

the Administration Circular No. 08-2008 and considering the
attendant circumstances of the case, the benefits of the
administrative circular can not be given retroactive effect in
Criminal Case No. 48679-2001. It is too late in the day for Adonis
to raise such argument considering that Criminal Case No. 48679-
2001 has already become final and executory; and he had, in fact,
already commenced serving his sentence. Eventually, he was
released from confinement on December 23, 2008 after
accepting the conditions of the parole granted to him.

CRUZ v. C.A. HABEAS CORPUS AVAILABLE TO DISCHARGE A CONVICTED

PERSON BY VIRTUE OF A AMENDED PENALTY IMPOSED BY LAW:
An application for the writ of habeas corpus is made upon verified
petition setting forth: (1) that the person in whose behalf the
application is made is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty; (2)
the officer or name of the person by whom he is imprisoned or
restrained; (3) the place where he is imprisoned or restrained of
his liberty; and (4) a copy of the commitment or cause of
detention of such person.14 The writ of habeas corpus extends to
all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person
is deprived of his liberty.

10