Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Javier v. Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    Jolina Luna
    The respondent Gonzales was accused of murder and attempted murder charges. He was granted bail by the trial court. On the date of promulgation, Gonzales failed to appear despite receiving notice. The trial court proceeded with promulgating the decision in absentia, convicting Gonzales and sentencing him to death. Gonzales later filed a motion to reconsider, which was granted, acquitting him of all charges. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court validly promulgated the decision in absentia, as Gonzales received proper notice but did not appear or provide justification for his absence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Javier v. Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    Jolina Luna
    13 views2 pages
    The respondent Gonzales was accused of murder and attempted murder charges. He was granted bail by the trial court. On the date of promulgation, Gonzales failed to appear despite receiving notice. The trial court proceeded with promulgating the decision in absentia, convicting Gonzales and sentencing him to death. Gonzales later filed a motion to reconsider, which was granted, acquitting him of all charges. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court validly promulgated the decision in absentia, as Gonzales received proper notice but did not appear or provide justification for his absence.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    JAVIER V. GONZALES

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The respondent Gonzales was accused of murder and attempted murder charges. He was granted bail by the trial court. On the date of promulgation, Gonzales failed to appear despite receiving notice. The trial court proceeded with promulgating the decision in absentia, convicting Gonzales and sentencing him to death. Gonzales later filed a motion to reconsider, which was granted, acquitting him of all charges. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court validly promulgated the decision in absentia, as Gonzales received proper notice but did not appear or provide justification for his absence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    13 views2 pages

    Javier v. Gonzales

    Uploaded by

    Jolina Luna
    The respondent Gonzales was accused of murder and attempted murder charges. He was granted bail by the trial court. On the date of promulgation, Gonzales failed to appear despite receiving notice. The trial court proceeded with promulgating the decision in absentia, convicting Gonzales and sentencing him to death. Gonzales later filed a motion to reconsider, which was granted, acquitting him of all charges. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court validly promulgated the decision in absentia, as Gonzales received proper notice but did not appear or provide justification for his absence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    LOIDA M. JAVIER, Petitioner, v.

    PEPITO GONZALES
    G. R. No. 193150, January 23, 2017
    SERENO, C.J.:

    FACTS:

    The respondent Pepito Gonzales was accused of a criminal case for


    murder with frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder
    lodged in the Regional Trial Court. It was alleged that the
    respondent threw a grenade inside the house of Leonardo
    Hermenigildo that caused his death and of Rulino Concepcion; and
    the physical injuries of his companions, Julio Toledo, Ariel Cabasal
    and Jesus Macatiag.

    Gonzales filed a Motion for Bail with the RTC which was opposed by
    Private complainant Carmen Macatiag (Macatiag)—sister of the
    deceased victim, Rufino Concepcion. The RTC however granted
    Gonzales to bail.

    Trial on the merits proceeded and the Court admitted the


    prosecution's evidences.The promulgation of decision was set on
    December 15,2005 and notice was received by the sister of the
    accused Gonzales but refused to sign the Return.

    On the day of promulgation, the accused Gonzales failed to appear


    and his counsel filed a Withdrawal as counsel with the conformity of
    the accused. The promulgation was reset to December 22, 2005.

    The decision was promulgated in absentia when the accused again


    failed to appear and counsel de officio was appointed to assist him.
    The accused was convicted of the charges against him and was
    sentenced to a death penalty. Issuance for the warrant of arrest
    was ordered for his non appearance and forfeiture of his bail bond.
    The decision was entered in the docket book of the Court.

    The Judge ordered the immediate transmittal of the records to the


    Court of Appeals for automatic review. The accused filed an
    omnibus Motion thru counsel to reconsider the promulgated decision
    and be set aside. Gonzales argued that he had not been properly
    notified of the promulgation of judgment; that he had not been
    represented by counsel; and that the RTC had proceeded with
    deliberate haste in convicting him.

    The judge granted the said Motion and reinstated his bail. Gonzales
    was also acquitted from all the charges against him.
    A petition for certiorari was filed by Carmen Macatiag against Judge
    Soluren to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the said Petition.
    Hence, this review.

    ISSUE:
    Is the RTC Judge’s decision convicting respondent (in absentia)
    validly promulgated?

    RULING:
    Yes. The RTC judge ruled in accordance with the provision stated
    under Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
    Procedure which allows a court to promulgate a judgment in
    absentia and gives the accused the opportunity to file an appeal
    within a period of fifteen (15) days from notice to the latter or the
    latter's counsel; otherwise, the decision becomes final.

    The records also show that the respondent was properly informed of
    the promulgation scheduled on December 15, 2005, whereby the
    Return of Service states that the Order and Notice of Promulgation
    were personally delivered to respondent's address. During the
    promulgation of judgment on 15 December 2005, when respondent
    did not appear despite notice, and without offering any justification
    for his absence, the trial court should have immediately
    promulgated its Decision.

    The promulgation of judgment in absentia is mandatory pursuant to


    the fourth paragraph of Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court
    which states that, “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.” Moreover, if the accused has been
    notified of the date of promulgation, but does not appear, the
    promulgation of judgment in absentia is warranted. This rule is
    intended to obviate a repetition of the situation in the past when the
    judicial process could be subverted by the accused by jumping bail
    to frustrate the promulgation of judgment.

    The only essential elements for its validity are as follows: (a) the
    judgment was recorded in the criminal docket; and (b) a copy
    thereof was served upon the accused or counsel. Hence, the
    promulgation of respondent’s conviction is valid.

    You might also like