THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 185202. February 18, 2009.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

FRANCISCO TARUC @ TARUC, accused-appellant.

RESOLUTION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J : p

Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules

of Court, as amended, assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals dated 27
February 2008 in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 01638 entitled, People of the Philippines
v. Francisco Taruc @ Taruc, which affirmed with modification the Decision dated
29 June 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bataan, Branch 3, in Criminal
Case No. 8010 for murder.

Accused-appellant Francisco Taruc was charged in Criminal Case No.

8010 before the RTC of Bataan, Branch 3, with the crime of murder in
connection with the death of Emelito Sualog.

The Information reads:

That on or about November 8, 1998 at Brgy. Puting Buhangin,
Orion, Bataan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and
evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon Emelito
Sualog @ Elmer, by then and there shooting him with a Celiber (sic) 45
on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him mortal
wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death,
thereafter, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said victim.
2

Upon arraignment on 25 April 2005, accused, duly assisted by a lawyer

from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), 3 pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged.
After trial on the merits, the RTC on 29 June 2005 rendered a Decision 4
convicting the accused, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, accused FRANCISCO TARUC is found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct participation of the
crime of MURDER, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, and with the attending aggravating circumstance
of treachery, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH.

Accused Francisco Taruc is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of

the victim Emelito Saulog the amounts of P49,225.00 in actual
damages, P50,000.00 in civil indemnity and P30,000.00 in moral
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 damages.

Issue warrant of arrest against accused Francisco Taruc that he

may serve the sentence imposed against him. 5

The case was brought to the Court of Appeals for automatic review
pursuant to A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC 6 where it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No.
01638.

On 13 January 2006, accused-appellant, through the PAO, filed a Motion

for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Brief. 7
Considering that the Notice to File Brief addressed to accused-appellant
was returned to the appellate court with postal notation "moved out", the Court
of Appeals directed accused-appellant's counsel to furnish it with the present
and complete address of his client within five days from notice. HESIcT

In compliance, the PAO lawyer concerned informed 8 the Court of Appeals

that accused-appellant escaped from prison on 23 August 2002. Said PAO
lawyer claimed that he had no means of knowing the current whereabouts of
the accused-appellant. Thereupon, the PAO lawyer asked the Court of Appeals
to direct the Warden of the Provincial Jail in Balanga, Bataan, to file a
certification as to the accused-appellant's escape.
On 20 February 2006, the Court of Appeals required 9 the Warden of the
Bataan Provincial Jail to comment on the afore-stated information relayed by
the PAO lawyer.

On 6 March 2006, Ropadolfo Fabros Torcuato, Sr., Officer-in-Charge (OIC),

Warden of the Bataan Provincial Jail, conveyed 10 to the appellate court that
accused-appellant was indeed committed to said jail on 10 November 2000 but
escaped at about 11:00 p.m. on 23 August 2002.
On 23 March 2006, notwithstanding the escape of accused-appellant from
prison, the Court of Appeals granted PAO's Motion for Extension of Time to File
Appellant's Brief, in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in People v. Flores,
11 making the review of death penalty cases mandatory. The period of

extension granted had lapsed without the accused-appellant filing his brief;
thus, the Court of Appeals required the PAO to show cause why the latter
should not be held in contempt for failing to file the same. 12

The Court of Appeals found the explanation valid, and accepted the briefs
of both the appellant and the appellee, and considered the case submitted for
decision.
On 27 February 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision affirming
with modification the Decision of the RTC, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3,
City of Balanga, Bataan in Criminal Case No. 8010 is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATIONS. The accused-appellant Francisco Taruc, is found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, defined in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659. In view of R.A. No. 9346, the modification of the penalty imposed
by the trial court from death to reclusion perpetua is ordered.

The accused-appellant Francisco Taruc is likewise ordered to pay

the heirs of the victim, Emelito Sualog, Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as civil indemnity ex delicto; Forty-Nine Thousand Two
Hundred Fifty Five (P49,255.00) as actual damages; Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and Twenty-Five Thousand
Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages. Costs against the accused-
appellant.

On 13 March 2008, accused-appellant, still represented by the PAO, filed a

Notice of Appeal 13 stating that he was appealing the Decision of the Court of
Appeals to the Supreme Court on questions of law and fact. And on 29 April
2008, the Court of Appeals gave due course to accused-appellant's appeal and
directed its Records Division to forward the rollo and records of the case to the
Supreme Court. 14
Hence, this Petition.
As may be gleaned from the records, before the prosecution witness
Randy Espina could be cross-examined, 15 accused-appellant escaped from the
Bataan Provincial Jail on 23 August 2002. Thus, the RTC considered the act of
the accused as a waiver to cross-examine said witness. Thereafter, the trial
court promulgated a judgment of conviction while accused-appellant was at
large. He remains at large even while his counsel continues to file various
pleadings on his behalf before the RTC, the Court of Appeals, and this Court.
Given that the accused-appellant escaped from jail and eluded arrest until
the present, the issue of whether he has lost his right to appeal his conviction
inexorably ensues.
An accused is required to be present before the trial court at the
promulgation of the judgment in a criminal case. If the accused fails to appear
before the trial court, promulgation of judgment shall be made in accordance
with Rule 120, Section 6, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to wit:
In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of
promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be
made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving
him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel.

If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to

appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies
available in these Rules against the judgment and the court
shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of
judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for
leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for
his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his
absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said
remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice. (Emphasis supplied.)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Consistently, Rule 124, Section 8, paragraph 2 of the same Rules allows
the Court of Appeals, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, to dismiss
the appeal of the accused-appellant who eludes the jurisdiction of the courts
over his person, viz.:
SEC. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to
prosecute. — The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or
motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss
the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time
prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a
counsel de oficio.
The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or
motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from
prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country
during the pendency of the appeal. (Emphasis supplied.)

In allowing the dismissal of the appeal of the accused-appellant under the

circumstances identified by the foregoing rule, the Court, in People v. Mapalao,
16 explained that:

[O]nce an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps

bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court and
unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court he is
deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.

Although Rule 124, Section 8 particularly applies to the Court of Appeals,

it has been extended to the Supreme Court by Rule 125, Section 1 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reads:
SEC. 1. Uniform procedure. — Unless otherwise provided by
the Constitution or by law, the procedure in the Supreme Court in
original and in appealed cases shall be the same as in the Court of
Appeals.

It is indisputable that accused-appellant herein, by escaping from jail, was

not present at the promulgation by the RTC of its Decision dated 29 June 2005
in Criminal Case No. 8010, finding him guilty of the crime of murder. Accused-
appellant failed to surrender and file the required motion within 15 days from
the promulgation of the RTC Decision. This alone already deprived him of any
remedy against said judgment of conviction available under the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, including the right to appeal the same. ICcDaA

The foregoing notwithstanding, the escape of the accused-appellant did

not preclude the Court of Appeals from exercising its review jurisdiction,
considering that what was involved was capital punishment. Automatic review
being mandatory, it is not only a power of the court but a duty to review all
death penalty cases. 17

In this case, considering that the penalty imposed by the trial court was
death, the Court of Appeals rightly took cognizance of the case. Upon review by
the appellate court, however, it modified the penalty from death to reclusion
perpetua.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 We now come to the resolution of the case.
By escaping prison, accused-appellant impliedly waived his right to
appeal. In People v. Ang Gioc, 18 the Court enunciated that:
There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be waived
even by the accused himself, but the right of appeal is not one of them.
This right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused. He may avail
of it or not, as he pleases. He may waive it either expressly or by
implication. When the accused flees after the case has been submitted
to the court for decision, he will be deemed to have waived his right to
appeal from the judgment rendered against him . . . .

The accused cannot be accorded the right to appeal unless he voluntarily

submits to the jurisdiction of the court or is otherwise arrested within 15 days
from notice of the judgment against him. 19 While at large, he cannot seek
relief from the court, as he is deemed to have waived the appeal. 20 Thus,
having escaped from prison or confinement, he loses his standing in court; and
unless he surrenders or submits to its jurisdiction, he is deemed to have waived
any right to seek relief from the court. ESITcH

By putting himself beyond the reach and application of the legal

processes of the land, accused-appellant revealed his contempt of the law and
placed himself in a position to speculate, at his pleasure on his chances for a
reversal. In the process, he kept himself out of the reach of justice, but hoped
to render the judgment nugatory at his option. 21 Such conduct is intolerable
and does not invite leniency on the part of the appellate court. 22
Accused-appellant, in the case at bar, has remained at large for most of
the proceedings before the RTC, as well as for the entirety of the pendency of
his appeal before the Court of Appeals, and even until now when his appeal is
pending before this Court. He cannot so audaciously hope that his appeal
before this Court would succeed. He only hopes in vain. cSATDC

WHEREFORE, the appeal is dismissed. Let the records of this case be

remanded to the trial court for the issuance of the mittimus.
SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing, * Carpio, ** Austria-Martinez and Peralta, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing was designated to sit as additional
member replacing Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle
dated 11 February 2009.
** Per Special Order No. 575, Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio was
designated as an additional member in place of Associate Justice Consuelo
Ynares-Santiago who is on official leave under the Court's Wellness Program.

1. Penned by Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong with Associate Justices

Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-20.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 2. Records, p. 1.

3. Id. at 16.
4. CA rollo, pp. 11-14.
5. Id. at 14. SCHcaT

6. Sec. 3. How appeal taken. — . . .

(d) No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the Regional Trial Court
imposed the death penalty. The Court of Appeals shall automatically review
the judgment as provided in Section 10 of this Rule.
xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 10. Transmission of records in case of death penalty. — In all cases

where the death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be
forwarded to the Court of Appeals for automatic review and judgment
within twenty days but not earlier than fifteen days from the promulgation of
the judgment or notice of denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration.
The transcript shall also be forwarded within ten days after the filing thereof
by the stenographic reporter.
7. CA rollo, p. 18.
8. Id. at 21.
9. Id. at 26.
10. Id. at 27. DaIACS

11. G.R. No. 170565, 31 January 2006, 481 SCRA 451, 454.
12. CA rollo, pp. 41-42.
13. Rollo, p. 107.
14. Id. at 110.
15. CA Decision, p. 6; rollo, p. 7.
16. 274 Phil. 354, 363 (1991).
17. People v. Esparas, 329 Phil. 339, 345-346 (1996).
18. 73 Phil 366, 369.

19. Id.
20. Id., citing People v. Mapalao, supra note 16. EAIaHD

21. Francisco, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (1996, 3rd ed.), p. 520.

22. Id.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com