Almuete vs. People

A judgment of conviction affirmed or modified by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals need not be re-promulgated by the trial court, which must instead forthwith issue a commitment order or order the bondsman to surrender the accused pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 16-93; furthermore, a final judgment of conviction may be modified to correct a penalty that is void for being outside the range prescribed by law, as such a penalty is a nullity that cannot become final and executory, and the Court may suspend its rules to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Petitioner Efren S. Almuete and co-accused Johnny Ila and Joel Lloren were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nueva Vizcaya with violating Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code), as amended by Executive Order No. 277, for possessing timber without legal documents. On the scheduled date of promulgation, the RTC proceeded to promulgate its judgment in absentia on September 8, 1998, finding their absence inexcusable and convicting them.

• The Charge: Petitioner Almuete, together with Johnny Ila and Joel Lloren, was charged with violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended by Executive Order No. 277, for allegedly possessing timber without the legal documents required by forest laws.
• Promulgation in Absentia: On September 8, 1998, the RTC promulgated its decision in the absence of the accused. Petitioner's counsel had informed the court that Almuete and Lloren were ill and Ila was not notified, but the RTC found their absence inexcusable and proceeded with the promulgation. The RTC convicted the accused and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of 18 years, 2 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal as minimum to 40 years of reclusion perpetua as maximum.
• Post-Judgment Proceedings: The RTC cancelled the bail bonds and issued warrants of arrest. The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration questioning the validity of the promulgation, the factual basis of the conviction, and the correctness of the penalty; the RTC denied this on October 12, 1998.
• Certiorari to the Court of Appeals: Instead of filing a notice of appeal within the 15-day reglementary period, the accused filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA. On May 19, 2000, the CA granted the petition and acquitted Almuete, finding the evidence insufficient to support conviction.
• Review by the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 144332): The People elevated the CA's acquittal to the Supreme Court. On June 10, 2004, the Supreme Court reversed the CA's decision, holding that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by reviewing errors of judgment via certiorari. The Court reinstated the RTC's September 8, 1998 Decision and October 12, 1998 Order. An Entry of Judgment was issued on February 15, 2005.
• Subsequent Motions: Petitioner filed Motions for Reconsideration which were denied. He also filed a Motion for Clarification regarding his right to appeal, which the Court noted without action.
• Motion for Repromulgation: On December 13, 2006, petitioner filed a Motion for Repromulgation of the September 8, 1998 Decision with the RTC, seeking to revive his right to appeal. The RTC denied the motion on January 17, 2007 and February 20, 2007, citing Administrative Circular No. 16-93.
• Present Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA challenging the RTC's denial; the CA dismissed the petition on May 4, 2007. His Motion for Reconsideration was denied on September 4, 2007, prompting the instant recourse.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner maintained that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction was based solely on circumstantial and hearsay evidence, arguing that mere ownership of the truck containing the lumber was insufficient to establish guilt.
• Validity of Promulgation: He assailed the validity of the in absentia promulgation, contending that his absence was justified due to stress, anxiety, and physiological disturbance requiring rest, and that he had intended to be present.
• Double Jeopardy: Petitioner argued that the CA's earlier acquittal barred further proceedings and that its reversal by the Supreme Court violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy.
• Right to Appeal: He insisted that the RTC improperly relied on Administrative Circular No. 16-93 in denying his Motion for Repromulgation, asserting that a re-promulgation was necessary to allow him to exercise his right to appeal the merits of the conviction.

• Law of the Case: The Solicitor General contended that the issues raised were already settled in People v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 144332) and constituted the law of the case.
• Promulgation in Absentia: Respondent argued that Section 6 of Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure expressly allows promulgation in absentia where the accused fails to appear without justifiable cause, and that the Supreme Court had previously determined petitioner's absence was unjustifiable.
• Prescription of Appeal: The right to appeal had prescribed because petitioner failed to file a notice of appeal within 15 days from notice of the decision, resorting instead to the improper remedy of certiorari.
• Administrative Circular No. 16-93: The denial of the Motion for Repromulgation was proper under Administrative Circular No. 16-93, which prohibits the practice of requiring convicts to appear for re-promulgation of judgments affirmed by higher courts; the trial court should instead issue a commitment order.
• Modification of Penalty: Notwithstanding the finality of conviction, respondent recommended modifying the penalty to six years and one day to ten years pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as the original penalty was erroneous.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the RTC's decision convicting petitioner was supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Validity of In Absentia Promulgation: Whether the promulgation of judgment was valid despite petitioner's absence and his claimed intent to be present.
• Grave Abuse in Certiorari: Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it acquitted petitioner via Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
• Double Jeopardy: Whether the CA's judgment of acquittal barred further proceedings such that its reversal violated the right against double jeopardy.
• Re-promulgation: Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's Motion for Repromulgation based on Administrative Circular No. 16-93.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The conviction was affirmed because the issue regarding the sufficiency of evidence was already conclusively resolved in People v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 144332), which reinstated the trial court's finding of guilt based on the prosecution's evidence.
• Validity of In Absentia Promulgation: The promulgation was valid pursuant to Section 6 of Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, petitioner's absence having been previously found unjustifiable by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 144332.
• Grave Abuse in Certiorari: The CA's acquittal was a nullity because the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion by reviewing errors of judgment—specifically the trial court's assessment of evidence and findings of fact—via certiorari under Rule 65, a remedy limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction.
• Double Jeopardy: No violation of the right against double jeopardy attached because a void judgment, such as the CA's acquittal rendered without jurisdiction via the improper remedy of certiorari, has no legal effect and cannot support a claim of double jeopardy.
• Re-promulgation: The RTC properly denied the Motion for Repromulgation. Administrative Circular No. 16-93 explicitly directs that after affirmance or modification by the Supreme Court or CA, the practice of requiring convicts to appear for "promulgation" before the trial court must be discontinued as an unauthorized surplusage; the trial court must instead forthwith issue a mittimus or commitment order.
• Prescription of Appeal: The right to appeal had prescribed. The 15-day period to appeal from the September 8, 1998 Decision was not availed of; instead, petitioner improperly filed a Petition for Certiorari, which is not a substitute for an appeal.
• Modification of Penalty: Notwithstanding the finality of the judgment, the penalty was modified to correct a void sentence. The RTC erroneously applied Article 310 (Qualified Theft) which imposes a penalty two degrees higher, when none of the qualifying circumstances existed. The proper penalty under Article 309 for theft of property valued at ₱57,012 (exceeding ₱22,000) is prision mayor in its maximum period (8 years, 8 months and 1 day to 10 years) plus one year for each additional ₱10,000 (3 years), resulting in a maximum of 11 years, 8 months and 1 day to 13 years of reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum is one degree lower: prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years). The indeterminate penalty imposed was thus 6 years of prision correccional (minimum) to 13 years of reclusion temporal (maximum).

• Administrative Circular No. 16-93 — Upon receipt of a certified copy of a judgment of conviction affirmed or modified by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, the trial court must immediately issue a commitment order (if the convict is detained) or order the bondsman to surrender the convict within ten days (if on bail). The practice of requiring convicts to appear before the trial court for "promulgation" of the appellate court's judgment is discontinued as an unauthorized surplusage that entails unnecessary expense and potential security problems.
• Certiorari vs. Appeal in Criminal Cases — Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It cannot be used to review errors of judgment, such as the trial court's evaluation of evidence or findings of fact, which are correctible only by appeal. An acquittal rendered via certiorari when an appeal was the proper remedy is void and does not bar further prosecution on double jeopardy grounds.
• Modification of Final Judgments — A final judgment of conviction may be modified to correct a penalty that is void because it is outside the range prescribed by law, even after the judgment has become final and executory. This is distinct from a merely erroneous judgment; a void penalty is a nullity that cannot create rights or become final. The Court may suspend its rules to prevent a miscarriage of justice where life and liberty are at stake and the penalty imposed is patently illegal.
• Effect of Appeal by Several Accused — Pursuant to Section 11(a) of Rule 122, a favorable modification of the penalty on appeal by one accused applies to co-accused who did not appeal, provided the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to them.

• "The practice of requiring convicts to appear before the trial courts for promulgation of the affirmance or modification by this Court or the CA of judgments of conviction in criminal cases is no longer allowed." — On the directive of Administrative Circular No. 16-93 to trial courts to issue commitment orders instead.
• "A void judgment has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent. It cannot impair or create rights; nor can any right be based on it. Thus, respondent Almuete cannot base his claim of double jeopardy on the appellate court's decision." — On the effect of a void judgment rendered via improper certiorari.
• "This was not a case of a court rendering an erroneous judgment by inflicting a penalty higher or lower than the one imposable under the law but with both penalties being legally recognized and authorized as valid punishments. An erroneous judgment, as thus understood, is a valid judgment. But a judgment which ordains a penalty which does not exist in the catalogue of penalties or which is an impossible version of that in the roster of lawful penalties is necessarily void..." — Distinguishing erroneous judgments from void penalties, citing People v. Gatward.
• "It is always within the power of the court to suspend its own Rules or except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require... Indeed, when there is a strong showing that a grave miscarriage of justice would result from the strict application of the Rules, this Court will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of substantial justice." — On the Court's power to suspend rules to correct void penalties.

• People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144332, June 10, 2004 — Controlling precedent establishing the validity of the in absentia promulgation, the impropriety of using certiorari to review errors of judgment, and the reinstatement of the RTC decision. The law of the case.
• People v. Barro, 392 Phil. 857 (2000) — Cited for the doctrine that a penalty outside the range prescribed by law is a nullity that may be corrected even after finality of judgment.
• Estrada v. People, 505 Phil. 339 (2005) — Cited for the propriety of modifying a final judgment to correct an erroneous penalty imposed by the trial court.
• Rigor v. The Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison, 458 Phil. 561 (2003) — Cited for the inherent power of the Court to correct a void penalty to make it conformable to law.
• People v. Gatward, 335 Phil. 441 (1997) — Cited for the distinction between an erroneous judgment (valid) and a void penalty (non-existent in law), and the authority to correct the latter.
• Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, 452 Phil. 665 (2003) — Cited for the exceptions allowing suspension of the rules in the interest of substantial justice.

• Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Governs promulgation of judgment in absentia; allows the accused 15 days from notice to appeal if the judgment is for conviction and failure to appear was without justifiable cause.
• Section 68, Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code), as amended by Executive Order No. 277 — Penalizes cutting, gathering, or possessing timber or other forest products without authority, subjecting offenders to penalties under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Articles 309 and 310, Revised Penal Code — Define the penalties for theft and qualified theft; Article 310 increases the penalty by two degrees under specific qualifying circumstances (domestic servant, grave abuse of confidence, motor vehicle, etc.).
• Administrative Circular No. 16-93 — Directs trial courts to issue commitment orders upon receipt of affirmed or modified judgments from higher courts, discontinuing the practice of re-promulgation.
• Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Provides that an appeal by one of several accused does not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the appellate court's judgment is favorable and applicable to the latter.

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (on official leave), Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen.