View full case

REYNALDO H. JAYLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioners Reynaldo Jaylo, William Valenzona, and Antonio Habalo. They were officers of the Philippine National Police Western Police District placed on special detail with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). In June of 1990, the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (US DEA) approached the NBI with information on the sale of heroin in the Philippines. Jaylo was assigned to head the team that would conduct a buy-bust operation with the aid of US DEA undercover agent Philip Needham. On July 10, 1990, the exchange of the heroin was scheduled to take place in a parking lot. There were two different versions of events presented during the trial: the prosecution's version claimed that the accused shot and killed the victims while the defense's version claimed that the victims reached for their firearms and tried to shoot, prompting the accused to retaliate. The victims were later discovered to be soldiers. The Elma Committee was also created to conduct an investigation, and it recommended the prosecution of Jaylo, Castro, Valenzona, and Habalo. The accused were charged with conspiracy in the murder of the victims. The Sandiganbayan found them guilty of the crime of homicide.

In a Decision dated 17 April 2007, the Sandiganbayan found the accused, namely Jaylo, Castro, Valenzona, and Habalo, guilty of homicide. Each accused was convicted for the killing of a different victim under separate criminal cases. They were sentenced to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office. The accused were also ordered to pay damages to the heirs of the victims and a share in the costs of the suit.

The Sandiganbayan determined that the prosecution and defense both agreed that the accused shot and killed the victims. The court then analyzed whether the accused conspired to kill the victims, if the killing was attended by qualifying circumstances such as treachery or evident premeditation, and if the killing was justified by the fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office.

The Sandiganbayan found that there was no evidence showing conspiracy among the accused. The prosecution failed to prove the attendance of any qualifying circumstances such as treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, or evident premeditation. The accused's defense of fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office was also not proven.

The court also doubted the existence of a speeding car that reportedly distracted the operatives during the arrest of the drug dealers. Testimonies from different witnesses conflicted, and the recovered slugs or shells from the scene indicated that only short firearms were used, contrary to the accused's testimony about shots from a rifle.

Based on the failure to prove conspiracy and the attendance of any qualifying circumstances, as well as the failure to prove the defense of fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the crime committed was homicide.

During the promulgation of the judgment, none of the accused appeared, and the Decision was entered in absentia. The accused filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but the Sandiganbayan did not take any action and ordered the implementation of the warrants for their arrest.

The petitioners, Jaylo, Valenzona, and Habalo, were convicted by the Sandiganbayan for the crime of homicide. During the promulgation of the judgment, the accused did not appear without giving any justifiable cause for their absence. As a result, under Section 6 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, the accused lost their remedies against the judgment, including the filing of a motion for reconsideration.

The accused's counsel filed an Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration urging the Sandiganbayan to resolve the motion. However, the Sandiganbayan ruled that because the accused failed to surrender and move for leave to avail themselves of a motion for reconsideration within 15 days from the date of promulgation, the judgment became final and executory, and no action on the motion for reconsideration can be taken. The Sandiganbayan also ordered the implementation of the arrest warrants for the accused.

The petitioners filed a petition assailing the Sandiganbayan Decision and Resolutions. They argued that the Sandiganbayan erred in various aspects of its ruling. The central issue in the case is the effects of the nonappearance of the accused, without justifiable cause, during the promulgation of the judgment, which will determine the propriety of conducting a review of the Sandiganbayan Decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused must be present at the promulgation of judgment of conviction.

  2. Whether the failure of the accused to appear at the promulgation without justifiable cause will result in losing the remedies available against the judgment of conviction.

  3. Whether the right to file a motion for reconsideration is a statutory grant that cannot be modified by the Rules of Court.

  4. Whether or not the right to file a motion for reconsideration is a statutory grant or privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the Rules of Court.

  5. Whether or not Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court diminishes or modifies the substantive right to file a motion for reconsideration.

  6. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan is required to determine whether the absence of the accused at the promulgation of judgment was without justifiable cause before concluding that they have lost the remedies available in the Rules of Court.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the accused must be present at the promulgation of judgment of conviction, except when the conviction is for a light offense.

  2. If the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment without justifiable cause, they will lose the remedies available against the judgment of conviction and the court shall order their arrest.

  3. The right to file a motion for reconsideration is a remedy available in the Rules of Court and can be subject to rules and modifications by the Supreme Court.

  4. Yes, the right to file a motion for reconsideration is a statutory grant or privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. The filing of a motion for reconsideration must strictly comply with the conditions attached to the statutory right.

  5. No, Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court does not diminish or modify the substantive right to file a motion for reconsideration. It merely regulates the right to file a motion for reconsideration under the provisions of Presidential Decree (PD) 1606. The Supreme Court has the power to lay down rules on the promulgation of judgments of conviction done in absentia.

  6. No, it is incumbent upon the accused to show justifiable cause for their absence at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction. The court is not required to take pains to determine whether the absence was without justifiable cause before concluding that the accused have lost the remedies available in the Rules of Court against the judgment of conviction.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides that the accused must be present at the promulgation of judgment of conviction, except in certain cases.

  • If the accused fails to appear at the promulgation without justifiable cause, they will lose the remedies available against the judgment of conviction.

  • The right to file a motion for reconsideration is a remedy available in the Rules of Court and can be modified or limited by the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.

  • The right to file a motion for reconsideration is a statutory grant or privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court.

  • The Supreme Court has the power to lay down rules on the promulgation of judgments of conviction done in absentia.

  • Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court does not diminish or modify the substantive right to file a motion for reconsideration, but merely regulates the right under the provisions of PD 1606.

  • It is incumbent upon the accused to show justifiable cause for their absence at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction. The court is not required to determine whether the absence was without justifiable cause before concluding that the accused have lost the remedies available in the Rules of Court against the judgment of conviction.

  • The convicted accused should surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail themselves of remedies against the judgment of conviction.

  • The term "surrender" means physically and voluntarily submitting oneself to the jurisdiction of the court to suffer the consequences of the judgment.

  • The convicted accused has the burden of proving a justifiable reason for their absence at the promulgation of judgment.

  • Failure to receive notice of the promulgation of judgment is not a justifiable reason for not appearing.

  • The court will not take cognizance of a motion for reconsideration if it does not indicate a request for leave to avail of the remedies against the judgment of conviction or valid reasons for absence at the promulgation.