Estrada vs. People

An accused who escapes or jumps bail after arraignment is deemed to have waived the right to be present at trial and to receive notices of subsequent court orders, validating trial and promulgation in absentia; however, a penalty not authorized by law is void and may be corrected by the court even after the judgment has become final and executory.

Petitioner Mary Helen Estrada was charged with estafa for collecting ₱68,700.00 from complainants Junimar and Rosalie Bermundo in exchange for processing employment in Japan. After the deployment failed and petitioner failed to return the money, a criminal complaint was filed. Petitioner was arraigned and signed an undertaking that her absence would constitute a waiver of her right to be present during trial and promulgation. During the pendency of the case, petitioner jumped bail; the address she furnished the court turned out to be a vacant lot.

• The Estafa Charge: Petitioner collected ₱68,700.00 from Junimar and Rosalie Bermundo for employment placement in Japan. The complainants obtained a loan using their land as collateral to pay the fees. Petitioner instructed them to proceed to the Japanese Embassy, but no documents had been filed initially. After a second attempt, petitioner advised them to use her daughter's name for faster processing. The Embassy later required additional documents, which petitioner failed to produce. The complainants abandoned their plans and demanded a refund, which petitioner failed to satisfy.
• Trial In Absentia: After arraignment, petitioner signed an undertaking allowing trial in absentia. She subsequently jumped bail. The address she provided the court was found to be a vacant lot. On May 14, 1997, the RTC declared petitioner to have waived her right to present evidence and submitted the case for decision based on prosecution evidence. A collaborating counsel filed a motion to present defense evidence, but the RTC promulgated its decision on July 2, 1997, convicting petitioner of estafa.
• Promulgation and Appeal: The judgment was recorded in the criminal docket on September 3, 1997. Petitioner was arrested on September 13, 1999. She filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial on December 1, 1999, alleging lack of notice and an excessive penalty. The motion was denied. Her notice of appeal filed on April 5, 2000, was denied due course for being filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period counted from the docket recording.
• The Erroneous Penalty: The RTC sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate prison term of 12 years of prision mayor maximum as minimum to 24 years as maximum. Under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, for fraud exceeding ₱22,000.00, the penalty is imposed in its maximum period, plus one year for each additional ₱10,000.00, not exceeding 20 years. The correct maximum penalty should have been anywhere between 10 years, 8 months, and 21 days to 12 years of prision mayor.

• Due Process Violation: Petitioner argued that the RTC deprived her of the constitutional right to be heard and to be assisted by counsel by failing to furnish her counsel copies of the order setting the reception of defense evidence and the order considering her to have waived such right.
• Excessive Penalty: Petitioner maintained that the RTC decision was null and void for imposing a penalty not authorized by law.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Denying New Trial: Petitioner contended that because the decision was void due to the excessive penalty, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying her motion for reconsideration and/or new trial on the ground that the decision had become final.
• Denial of Appeal: Petitioner asserted that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying due course to her notice of appeal, claiming she filed it within the 15-day period because she never officially received a copy of the decision.

• Validity of Trial In Absentia: Respondent countered that the RTC judge acted within jurisdiction pursuant to Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution and Section 1(c), Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, as petitioner's absence was unjustifiable.
• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence: Respondent argued that the deprivation of the opportunity to present evidence due to unreasonable absences safeguards the orderly administration of justice, thereby including the non-admission of testimonies of witnesses other than the petitioner.
• Duly Served Notices: Respondent manifested that the OSG submitted proof of service demonstrating that the RTC orders and decision were sent to the addresses petitioner and her counsel provided, satisfying notification requirements.

• Trial In Absentia and Due Process: Whether the trial and promulgation of judgment in absentia violated petitioner's right to due process given her alleged lack of notice of the hearings and the decision.
• Timeliness of Appeal: Whether the RTC correctly denied due course to petitioner's notice of appeal for being filed beyond the reglementary period.
• Correction of Erroneous Penalty: Whether the Supreme Court can modify an erroneous penalty not authorized by law after the judgment of conviction has become final and executory.

• Trial In Absentia and Due Process: The trial and promulgation were valid, and due process was not violated. An accused who jumps bail after arraignment is deemed to have waived the right to be present and is considered to have received notice of subsequent hearings. Furthermore, the CA's factual finding that notices were duly served to the addresses on record is conclusive. Petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to be heard but forfeited it through her own fault.
• Timeliness of Appeal: The appeal was correctly denied for being filed out of time. Under Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, promulgation in absentia is valid if the judgment is recorded in the criminal docket and a copy is served upon the accused or counsel. Recording in the docket serves as constructive notification. Because the judgment was recorded on September 3, 1997, the 15-day period to appeal commenced therefrom, rendering the April 5, 2000 notice of appeal untimely.
• Correction of Erroneous Penalty: The penalty was modified to conform to law notwithstanding the finality of the judgment. A penalty that is never authorized by law is a nullity and can never become final and executory. It is within the Court's duty and inherent power to correct a void penalty at any time to ensure it aligns with the penalties prescribed by the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Trial in absentia — After arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. Jumping bail constitutes unjustifiable failure and operates as a waiver of the right to be present, to confront witnesses, and to present evidence on one's own behalf. The fugitive is deemed to have received notice of subsequent hearings.
• Promulgation in absentia — Valid if two essential elements are present: (1) the judgment is recorded in the criminal docket; and (2) a copy thereof is served upon the accused or counsel. Recording the judgment in the criminal docket serves as notification to the absent accused whose whereabouts are unknown, thereby starting the period to appeal.
• Correction of void penalties — A penalty imposed by a trial court that is not authorized by law is a nullity and can never become final and executory. Courts possess the inherent power and duty to correct such penalties to make them conform to the law, even if the judgment has already become final and executory due to the accused's failure to appeal.

• "once 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."
• "where the penalty imposed on the co-accused who did not appeal was a nullity because it was never authorized by law, that penalty imposed on the accused who did not appeal can be corrected to make it conform to the penalty prescribed by law, the reason being that, said penalty can never become final and executory and it is within the duty and inherent power of the Court to have it conformable with law."

• People vs. Tabag, G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997 — Followed. Established that an accused who escapes after arraignment waives the right to be present, and the trial court must proceed with trial and render judgment notwithstanding their absence. Inability to notify the fugitive does not prevent continuation of the trial.
• People vs. Magpalao, G.R. No. 92415, May 14, 1991 — Followed. Held that an accused who escapes confinement or jumps bail loses standing in court and is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief unless they surrender.
• Pascua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140243, December 14, 2000 — Followed. Enumerated the essential elements for a valid promulgation in absentia: recording of the judgment in the criminal docket and service of a copy upon the accused or counsel. Explained that recording in the docket serves as constructive notification.
• Rigor vs. The Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison, G.R. No. 156983, September 23, 2003 — Followed. Ruled that it is in the interest of justice to correct an erroneous penalty imposed by the trial court to conform to the penalty prescribed by law, even if the judgment has become final and executory due to failure to appeal.
• People vs. Barro, Sr. — Followed. Established the principle that a penalty never authorized by law is a nullity and can be corrected to conform to the penalty prescribed by law because it can never become final and executory.

• Section 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Provides that after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. Applied to validate the trial of petitioner who jumped bail.
• Section 1(c), Rule 115, Rules of Court — States that the absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. Applied to support the waiver of petitioner's right to present evidence.
• Section 6, Rule 120, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Governs promulgation of judgment, allowing promulgation in absentia by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving a copy on the accused or counsel. Applied to determine that the promulgation was valid and the appeal period commenced from the docket recording.
• Article 315, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for estafa based on the amount defrauded. For amounts over ₱22,000.00, the penalty is imposed in its maximum period, plus one year for each additional ₱10,000.00, not exceeding 20 years. Applied to correct the erroneous penalty imposed by the RTC.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Requires the imposition of an indeterminate penalty where the minimum is within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by the code, and the maximum is within the range of the penalty properly imposable. Applied to compute the correct indeterminate sentence.

Puno (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and Chico-Nazario.