View full case

LOIDA M. JAVIER v. PEPITO GONZALES

FACTS:

The case involves conflicting decisions by the trial court, with the first one convicting the respondent Gonzales and the second one acquitting him. The case originated from a criminal case for murder, frustrated murder, and multiple attempted murder filed against Gonzales. After the grant of bail and transfer of venue, the case was assigned to Judge Buted. Despite Gonzales' failure to appear during the promulgation scheduled on December 22, 2005, a counsel de oficio was appointed, and the decision of Judge Buted was read in the presence of the public prosecutor, counsel de oficio, and heirs of the complainant, resulting in a guilty verdict and death sentence for Gonzales. Les filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing lack of proper notice, absence of legal representation, and hasty conviction. Judge Soluren granted the motion, setting aside the judgment and reinstating Gonzales' bail. Petitioner, Macatiag's daughter, challenged Judge Soluren's decision through a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, which was dismissed for failure to file a motion for reconsideration first. The main issue is whether the CA erred in affirming Judge Soluren's decision of acquittal.

ISSUES:

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

  2. Whether Judge Soluren's subsequent judgment of acquittal is valid.

  3. Whether a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to question a decision of acquittal.

  4. Whether or not the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the Omnibus Motion and acquitting the respondent.

  5. Whether or not double jeopardy is applicable in this case.

  6. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in its decision to reverse and set aside the decision of the trial court, which acquitted the respondent.

  7. Whether or not the trial court judge committed grave abuse of discretion in acquitting the respondent.

RULING:

  1. The Petition is impressed with merit. The Court rules that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming Judge Soluren's Decision of acquittal. The validity of the second RTC Decision is at the heart of this Petition. Upon review, it was found that the first RTC Decision convicting the respondent was validly promulgated. The promulgation was done in absentia after the respondent was properly notified of the scheduled promulgation. The promulgation of judgment in absentia is valid as long as it is recorded in the criminal docket and a copy is served on the accused or counsel. The requirements for a valid promulgation were fulfilled by Judge Buted's Order.

  2. Yes, the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the Omnibus Motion and acquitting the respondent. The filing of a motion for reconsideration to question a decision of conviction can only be resorted to if the accused did not jump bail but appeared in court for the promulgation of judgment. In this case, the respondent did not appear during the scheduled promulgation and was deemed by the judge to have jumped bail. The motion lacked merit and was filed as a blatant circumvention of the rules.

  3. No, double jeopardy is not applicable in this case because the order of acquittal rendered by the trial court was void. When an acquittal is rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, it does not terminate the case and cannot invoke double jeopardy.

  4. The Court of Appeals erred in reversing and setting aside the decision of the trial court.

  5. The trial court judge committed grave abuse of discretion in acquitting the respondent.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Notice to counsel is notice to the client.

  • The promulgation of judgment in absentia is mandatory if the accused has been notified of the scheduled date of promulgation, but fails to appear without offering any justification for his absence.

  • The essential elements for a valid promulgation of judgment in absentia are: (a) the judgment was recorded in the criminal docket, and (b) a copy was served upon the accused or counsel.

  • A motion for reconsideration to question a decision of conviction can only be filed if the accused did not jump bail and appeared in court for the promulgation of judgment.

  • Double jeopardy does not apply when the order of acquittal is void.

  • Grave abuse of discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction, which prevents double jeopardy from attaching.

  • The Court of Appeals is required to conduct a mandatory and automatic review of decisions in criminal cases.

  • The trial court judge must exercise proper discretion and jurisdiction in rendering decisions.