Salvador vs Chua

GR No. 212865
July 15, 2015
(Failed to appear)

Facts:
1. Petitioner and his wife were charged with estafa.
2. On the scheduled day of promulgation of judgment of CONVICTION, the counsel of
petitioner moved for deferment on the ground that his client is suffering hypertension. RTC
unconvinced of the reason proceeded to promulgate the judgment.
3. RTC issued a warrant of arrest. Thereafter the petitioner was APPREHENDED 8 DAYS after
the promulgation of the judgment.
4. Petitioner filed a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL. RTC initially denied the
motion but was subsequently granted upon the petitioner’s MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
upon the showing a medical certificate to prove the hypertension suffered by the accused during
promulgation.
5. Prosecution moved for reconsideration and presented an affidavit by the alleged doctor
who signed the Medical Certificate denying his signature affixed. The Petitioner opposed the
motion by filing another Med Cert signed by a new doctor.
6. The case was re raffled to another JUDGE. SECOND JUDGE denied the MR filed by
prosecutor.
7. Private respondent commenced a special civil action for certiorari with CA. CA granted
the petition and nullified the assailed order of the SECOND JUDGE. MR by petitioner was also
denied.
8. Hence SC.

Issue:
Whether the order granting the appeal was proper

Ruling:
No. The accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction loses the
remedies available under the Rules of Court against the judgment, specifically: (a) the filing of a motion
for new trial or for reconsideration (Rule 121 ), and (b) an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule
122). However, the Rules of Court permits him to regain his standing in court in order to avail himself of
these remedies within 15 days from the date of promulgation of the judgment conditioned upon: (a) his
surrender; and (b) his filing of a motion for leave of court to avail himself of the remedies, stating therein
the reason for his absence. Should the trial court find that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he should
be allowed to avail himself of the remedies within 15 days from notice of the order finding his absence
justified and allowing him the available remedies from the judgment of conviction.

Even assuming that he had suffered hypertension, which could have validly excused his absence
from the promulgation, the petitioner did not fulfil 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.