Estrada Vs People

10. Estrada v. People, G.R. No. 162371.
August violation of her constitutional right to due process are

25, 2005 doomed to fail. The holding of trial in absentia is
authorized under Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987
FACTS: Constitution which provides that after arraignment,
An Information charging Mary Helen Estrada with trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
estafa was filed with the RTC of Las Pias City. accused provided that he has been duly notified and
Estrada signed an undertaking that in case of her his failure to appear is unjustifiable. The Court
failure to appear during the trial despite due notice, likewise upholds the validity of the promulgation in
her absence would constitute as an express waiver of absentia of the RTC judgment and the RTCs Order
her right to be present during trial and promulgation of dated April 5, 2000, denying due course to petitioners
judgment and the lower court would then proceed notice of appeal for being filed beyond the
with the hearing in absentia. When the schedule for reglementary period. Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985
hearing and presentation for evidence came, counsel Rules on Criminal Procedure, the Rule applicable in
for petitioner failed to appear. Estrada jumped bail this case since promulgation was held before the
and was considered to have waived her right to effectivity of The Revised Rules of Criminal
present evidence. The RTC thus rendered judgment Procedure, provides:
based only on prosecution evidence: Junimar The judgment is promulgated by reading the same in
Bermundo (complainant) applied for employment in the presence of the accused and any judge of the
Japan with Estrada and paid P68,700.00 for it. court in which it was rendered. However, if the
Estrada then told Junimar to proceed to the Japanese conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be
Embassy to claim the plane tickets, however, he pronounced in the presence of his counsel or
learned that nothing was filed with the Embassy. representative. When the judge is absent or outside
Junimar decided to abandon his plan of going to of the province or city, the judgment may be
Japan and just get the money from Estrada which promulgated by the clerk of court. If the accused is
she failed to return despite receipt of a demand letter. confined or detained in another province or city, the
She was convicted of Estafa by means of false judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge
pretenses and fraudulent misrepresentations by the of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the
RTC. The CA denied her Petition for Certiorari, thus place of confinement or detention upon request of the
Estrada filed the present petition for review on court that rendered the judgment. The court
certiorari before the Supreme Court. promulgating the judgment shall have authority to
accept the notice of appeal and to approve the bail
ISSUE: bond pending appeal. The proper clerk of court shall
Whether or not the trial court denied Estrada of her give notice to the accused personally or through his
constitutional right to be heard and to be assisted by bondsman or warden and counsel, requiring him to be
counsel present at the promulgation of the decision. In case
the accused fails to appear thereat the promulgation
HELD/ RATIO: shall consist in the recording of the judgment in the
NO. At the outset, the undisputed fact that petitioner criminal docket and a copy thereof shall be served
jumped bail while trial was pending should be upon the accused or counsel. If the judgment is for
emphasized. In fact, it appears that from the conviction and the accuseds failure to appear was
beginning, the address she furnished the trial court without justifiable cause, the court shall further order
was incorrect. From such facts alone, petitioners the arrest of the accused, who may appeal within
arguments regarding the validity of the proceedings fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision to him or
and promulgation of judgment in absentia for being in his counsel.
Clearly, promulgation of judgment in absentia is
allowed under the Rules. In Pascua vs. Court of
Appeals, it was held that such promulgation is valid
provided the following essential elements are present:
(a) that the judgment be recorded in the criminal
docket; and (b) that a copy thereof be served upon
the accused or counsel. In the present case, the
records bear out the fact that copies of the decision
were sent by registered mail to the given addresses
of petitioner and her counsel, Atty. Herenio Martinez,
and there is no question that the judgment was
indeed recorded in the criminal docket of the court.
From the foregoing, petitioner is deemed notified of
the decision upon its recording in the criminal docket
on September 3, 1997 and she only had fifteen (15)
days therefrom within which to file an appeal.
Evidently, the notice of appeal filed only on April 5,
2000 was filed out of time.

Estrada Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estrada Vs People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estrada Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10. Estrada v. People, G.R. No. 162371.

August violation of her constitutional right to due process are

You might also like