LOIDA M. JAVIER v.

PEPITO GONZALES
G.R. No. 193150
January 23, 2017
(in absentia)

Facts:

A criminal case was filed against Pepito Gonzales aand was charged of Murder with frustrated murder and multiple attempted
murder lodged in Branch 96 of the Regional Trial Court of Baler, Aurora.

That on December 25, 1997 at around 11:30 o'clock in the evening, Pepito Gonzales with intent to kill with treachery and evident
premeditation throw a grenade inside the house of Leonardo Hermenigildo which resulted to the death of Rufino Concepcion.
Hermenigildo sustained fatal wounds which the latter also died. As a consequence of the explosives, Julius Toledo, Ariel Cabusal and
Jesus Macatiag sustained not necessary mortal wwounds.

Accused filed a Motion for Bail. An opposition to the Motion for Bail was filed by Carmen Macatiag, sister of the victim Rufino
Concepcion. Gonzales filed a comment on the said Motion and a reply was likewise filed. Gonzales granted to post bail and a Motion
for Reconsideration on the grant of bail was filed by Macatiag and was denied. Macatiag filed again an Urgent Motion for transfer
venue. Motion to Suspend hearing was filed by Macatiag pending the resolution of the Urgent Motion to transfer venue. The Motion
to transfer venue was granted and the case was reassigned to RTC, Palayunan City.

Trial on the merits proceeded and the Court admitted the prosecution’s pieces of evidence. The accused filed a Motion for Leave of
Court for Demurer to Evidence and the Demurrer was attached to the Motion and subsequently was denied.

The promulgation of decision was set on December 15, 2005 and notice was received by the sister of the accused Gonzales but
refused to sign the Return.

On the day of promulgation, the accused failed to appear and his counsel filed a Withdrawal as counsel with the conformity of the
accused. The promulgation was reset to December 22, 2005. The decision was promulgated in absentia when the accused again
failed to appear and counsel de officio was appointed to assist him. The accused was convicted of the charges against him and was
sentenced to a death penalty. Issuance for the arrest was ordered for his non-appearance and forfeiture of his bail bond as ordered.
The decision was entered in the docket book of the Court.

Judge Buted ordered the immediate transmittal of the records of the Court of Appeals for automatic review. In less than a month,
the accused filed an Omnibus Motion through counsel to reconsider the promulgated decision be reconsidered and set aside. Judge
Soluren, new Judge, gave due course on the Motion filed by the accused.

Granting the said Motion and reinstated his bail. Gonzales was acquitted frim all the charges against him.

A petion for certiorari was filed by Carmen Macatiag againt Judge Soluren to the Court of Appeals. CA dismissed said Petition.

Issue:

1. Whether there was a valid promulgation of judgment by Judge Buted in her prior Decision of conviction

Ruling:

Judge Buted's Decision convicting respondent was validly promulgated.

Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a court to promulgate a judgment in absentia and gives the
accused the opportunity to file an appeal within a period of fifteen (15) days from notice to the latter or the latter's counsel;
otherwise, the decision becomes final.

Records show that respondent was properly informed of the promulgation scheduled on 15 December 2005. The RTC Order dated
30 November 200544 documents the presence of his counsel during the hearing. It is an established doctrine that notice to counsel is
notice to client.45 In addition, the Return of Service states that the Order and Notice of Promulgation were personally delivered to
respondent's address.
During the promulgation of judgment on 15 December 2005, when respondent did not appear despite notice, and without offering
any justification for his absence, the trial court should have immediately promulgated its Dccision. 46The promulgation of judgment in
absentia is mandatory pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 6. Promulgation of judgment.

xxxx

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.
(Emphasis supplied)

If the accused has been notified of the date of promulgation, but does not appear, the promulgation of judgment in absentia is
warranted. This rule is intended to obviate a repetition of the situation in the past when the judicial process could be subverted by
the accused by jumping bail to frustrate the promulgation of judgment. 47 The only essential elements for its validity are as follows:
(a) the judgment was recorded in the criminal docket; and (b) a copy thereof was served upon the accused or counsel.

In Almuete v. People,48petitioner's counsel informed the trial court that the accused were either ill or not notified of the scheduled
date of promulgation of judgment. The RTC, however, found their absence inexcusable and proceeded to promulgate its Decision as
scheduled. The accused went up to the CA, which acquitted them of the charge. This Court reversed the CA and upheld the validity
of the promulgation.

In Estrada v. People,49this Court also affirmed the validity of the promulgation of judgment in absentia, given the presence of the
essential elements.