View full case

HORACIO SALVADOR v. LISA CHUA

FACTS:

The petitioner and his wife were convicted of estafa by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and were sentenced to prison and ordered to pay damages. Despite filing a motion to defer the promulgation of the judgment due to his hypertension, the RTC proceeded with the judgment. The petitioner then filed a motion for leave to file a notice of appeal, supported by a medical certificate to prove his hypertension. Initially, the RTC denied the motion but later granted the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, allowing him to file a notice of appeal. The RTC also issued a warrant for his arrest.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration against the order for his arrest, which was granted by the RTC. However, the Prosecution opposed this order and filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner was false. In response, the petitioner submitted another medical certificate from a different doctor. The case was re-raffled to a different judge who denied the Prosecution's motion for reconsideration and permitted the petitioner to post bail.

The respondent, dissatisfied with the orders granting the petitioner's notice of appeal and allowing him to post bail, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking to nullify the orders. The CA granted the respondent's petition and declared the orders null and void. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondent lacked legal standing to file the petition and asserting that his hypertension served as a justifiable cause for him to appeal the judgment.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent had legal standing to assail the questioned orders through certiorari.

  2. Whether or not the petitioner has lost his right to appeal his conviction.

  3. Whether the petitioner may still avail himself of the remedies under the Rules of Court despite his failure to appear at the promulgation of the judgment.

RULING:

  1. The respondent had legal standing to assail the questioned orders through certiorari. The Court held that the respondent, being the offended party in the criminal case, had sufficient interest and personality to file a special civil action of certiorari. While the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is the usual representative of the State in criminal proceedings, there are exceptions for the offended party to bring the action. The Court recognized the respondent's continued interest in the case even after the granting of her Motion for Execution, as the questioned orders opened the possibility of reversing or modifying the conviction. The Court emphasized that denying the respondent's right to challenge the improperly resurrected appeal would violate her fundamental right to due process.

  2. The petitioner has lost his right to appeal his conviction. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that the petitioner had lost his right to appeal his conviction due to his failure to appear for the promulgation of judgment despite notice. Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the judgment should be promulgated in the presence of the accused. However, if the conviction is for a light offense, it may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. Since the petitioner did not appear for the promulgation, he forfeited his right to appeal.

  3. No, the petitioner may not avail himself of the remedies under the Rules of Court. Failure to appear at the promulgation of the judgment without justifiable cause results in the loss of remedies available against the judgment. The petitioner failed to establish that his absence was for a justifiable cause and did not surrender himself to the trial court. The Court of Appeals (CA) correctly declared the petitioner to have lost his standing in court, making his conviction final and immutable.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The promulgation of judgment in absentia is allowed, and the accused is given 15 days from notice to appeal, or else the decision becomes final.

  • Failure to appear at the promulgation of judgment without justifiable cause results in the loss of remedies against the judgment.

  • The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the law; otherwise, it is lost.