Pascua vs. Court of Appeals

A valid promulgation of judgment in absentia requires the concurrence of two essential elements: (a) the recording of the judgment in the criminal docket, and (b) the service of a copy thereof upon the accused or counsel; absent either, there is no valid promulgation, the decision cannot attain finality, and the period to appeal does not begin to run.

Petitioner Marilyn C. Pascua was charged under 26 Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 for issuing 26 Philippine National Bank checks to Lucita Lopez in 1989, which were dishonored upon presentment for insufficient funds and a closed account. The case was tried before Branch 153 of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region in Pasig City. The resolution of the dispute turned on the proper interpretation of Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure governing promulgation of judgment, particularly the requisites for a valid promulgation in absentia.

Petitioner Marilyn C. Pascua was charged under 26 Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, alleging that in 1989 she issued 26 Philippine National Bank checks to Lucita Lopez with knowledge that she did not have sufficient funds, and that the checks were dishonored upon presentment for being drawn against insufficient funds and against a closed account. After trial, the RTC rendered a judgment of conviction on February 17, 1998, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt on all 26 counts, sentencing her to one year imprisonment per case, and ordering her to pay Lucita Lopez ₱605,000.00.

The judgment was initially scheduled for promulgation on March 31, 1998, but was reset to May 5, 1998 because the presiding judge was on leave. On May 5, 1998, the case was called, and both the public prosecutor and defense counsel Atty. Marcelino Arias appeared and manifested readiness for promulgation, with counsel intimating that petitioner would be late. After a two-hour wait, petitioner had still not appeared. The dispositive portion of the decision was read in open court, and the prosecutor, defense counsel, and private complainant acknowledged receipt of their copies by signing at the back of the original decision. The trial court forthwith ordered the forfeiture of petitioner's cash bond and the issuance of a warrant for her arrest. No motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal was filed within 15 days from May 5, 1998.

On June 8, 1998, petitioner filed a notice of change of address, explaining that she had transferred residence to Olongapo City in February 1998 due to an ejectment case, and had overlooked filing the notice of change of address with the trial court. On the same date, assisted by new counsel Atty. Rolando Bernardo but without terminating the services of Atty. Arias, she filed an urgent omnibus motion to lift the warrant of arrest, lift the confiscation of bail bond, and set anew the promulgation. The motion was set for hearing on June 11, 1998, but neither petitioner nor her assisting counsel appeared. On June 22, 1998, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied both the omnibus motion and the notice of appeal, ruling that the decision had already become final and executory.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration through yet another counsel, Atty. Romulo San Juan, but failed to appear at the July 8, 1998 hearing; only collaborating counsel Atty. Porfirio Bautista appeared. On July 17, 1998, a motion for inhibition of the presiding judge was filed, but petitioner again failed to appear at the July 28, 1998 hearing. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration and inhibition on October 8, 1998. Crucially, attached to the petition filed with the Court of Appeals was a certification dated October 26, 1998, signed by the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Pasig, certifying that the Office had not yet been furnished copies of the decisions in the subject criminal cases as of that date — indicating that the judgment had not been recorded in the criminal docket.

• Notice of Promulgation: Petitioner argued that she was not properly notified of the date of promulgation because she had transferred residence to Olongapo City in February 1998 and had failed to receive notices sent to her former address; thus, there was no valid promulgation and her period to appeal had not commenced.
• Recording Requirement: Petitioner maintained that the promulgation in absentia was not made in the manner prescribed by the last paragraph of Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which required that promulgation in absentia consist in the recording of the judgment in the criminal docket and service of a copy upon the accused or counsel.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that the trial court's decision was contrary to applicable laws, disregarded factual evidence, and was based on conjectures, presumptions, and misapprehension of facts.

• Finality of Judgment: The Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig argued that the promulgation was validly made on May 5, 1998 in the presence of petitioner's counsel; that the decision was already final and executory because no appeal was interposed within the reglementary period; and that there is no such thing as repromulgation of a decision.
• Need to Surrender: The prosecution argued that before the accused could ask for relief from the trial court, she, being a convict, should first submit herself to the lawful order of the court by surrendering to the police authorities.
• Scope of Review: The Solicitor General argued that matters of sufficiency of evidence may not be passed upon in the proceedings, as the petition was directed against the Court of Appeals' ruling on the timeliness of the notice of appeal, not against the February 17, 1998 decision on the merits.

• Validity of Promulgation in Absentia: Whether the promulgation of judgment in absentia on May 5, 1998 was valid despite the judgment not having been recorded in the criminal docket.
• Effect of Invalid Promulgation on Appeal Period: Whether the 15-day period to appeal commenced upon service of a copy of the decision on petitioner's counsel, or upon petitioner's later receipt of the decision on June 17, 1998, notwithstanding the absence of a valid promulgation.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conviction may be passed upon in the instant petition.

• Validity of Promulgation in Absentia: No. The promulgation in absentia was invalid because the judgment was not recorded in the criminal docket, as certified by the Clerk of Court. Both requisites — recording in the criminal docket and service of a copy upon the accused or counsel — must concur for a valid promulgation in absentia under Section 6, Rule 120.
• Effect of Invalid Promulgation on Appeal Period: No. The 15-day period to appeal did not begin to run. Without a valid promulgation, the decision could not attain finality, and the period to appeal never commenced. Petitioner's later receipt of a copy of the decision did not cure the invalid promulgation, nor would piecemeal compliance with the Rules validate it.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: No. The sufficiency of evidence may not be passed upon in the instant proceedings, the petition being directed against the Court of Appeals' ruling on the timeliness of the notice of appeal rather than the merits of the conviction. The case was remanded for proper promulgation, after which the remedies against the judgment would become available.

• Validity of Promulgation in Absentia: Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that when the accused fails to appear at the promulgation despite due notice, the promulgation shall consist in the recording of the judgment in the criminal docket and the service of a copy thereof upon the accused or counsel. These two requisites are essential and must concur. While the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty generally serves as substantial compliance with the recording requirement, petitioner presented a certification from the Clerk of Court dated October 26, 1998 stating that the Office had not yet been furnished copies of the decisions. This certification sufficiently controverted the presumption of regularity. Without the recording, the solemn and operative act that gives notice to the absent accused — wherever he may be — was not performed. Although service of a copy on defense counsel was satisfied on May 5, 1998, the failure to record the judgment in the criminal docket rendered the promulgation invalid. By analogy to civil law principles on registration, recording serves the purpose of notification; it is the means by which the absent accused is notified of the judgment rendered against him, especially when his whereabouts are unknown.

• Effect of Invalid Promulgation on Appeal Period: Because the promulgation was invalid, the February 17, 1998 decision could not attain finality or become executory. The 15-day period within which to appeal did not even commence. Petitioner's later receipt of a copy of the decision on June 17, 1998 did not cure the invalid promulgation, as piecemeal compliance with the Rules would not validate a promulgation that was invalid at the time it was conducted. The express mention in the provision of both requirements clearly means they must concur. Without a valid promulgation, the right to appeal does not accrue, following the principle that where there is no promulgation of the judgment, the right to appeal does not accrue.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The petition assailed the Court of Appeals' decision and order, which in turn concerned the trial court's orders denying the notice of appeal as filed out of time. The petition was not directed against the February 17, 1998 decision on the merits. Accordingly, it was not the proper time to rule on the sufficiency of evidence. The case was remanded for proper promulgation, and the requisites of the remedy of appeal would then apply from that point. Notably, the remand was not a "repromulgation," since the original promulgation was invalid and thus as if not conducted.

• Requisites of Valid Promulgation in Absentia — Under Section 6, Rule 120, a valid promulgation of judgment in absentia requires two essential elements that must concur: (a) the recording of the judgment in the criminal docket of the court, and (b) the service of a copy thereof upon the accused at his last known address or through his counsel. The absence of either requisite renders the promulgation invalid, the decision cannot attain finality, and the period to appeal does not commence. The recording requirement serves the purpose of notification to the absent accused wherever he may be, analogous to the function of registration in civil law, which is to give notice to all persons.

• Presumption of Regularity Controverted by Clerk of Court Certification — While the presumption that official duties are regularly performed generally serves as substantial compliance with the recording requirement, this presumption may be rebutted by competent evidence such as a certification from the Clerk of Court stating that the judgment has not been recorded in the criminal docket. Where such evidence is presented, the Court cannot presume substantial compliance.

• Piecemeal Compliance Does Not Cure Invalid Promulgation — A later service of a copy of the decision on the accused, or a later recording of the judgment in the criminal docket, does not cure an invalid promulgation. Both requisites must concur at the time promulgation is conducted; piecemeal compliance will not validate a promulgation that was invalid ab initio.

• Right to Appeal Does Not Accrue Without Valid Promulgation — Where there is no valid promulgation of the judgment, the right to appeal does not accrue. The decision cannot attain finality or become executory until promulgation is validly made.

• "The only essential elements for its validity are: (a) that the judgment be recorded in the criminal docket; and (b) that a copy thereof shall be served upon the accused or counsel." — This passage states the controlling two-pronged test for a valid promulgation in absentia, which is the ratio decidendi of the case.

• "Without the same, the February 17, 1998 decision could not attain finality and become executory. This means that the 15-day period within which to interpose an appeal did not even commence." — This passage articulates the consequence of an invalid promulgation: the decision does not become final and the appeal period never begins to run.

• "Petitioner's later receipt of the copy of the decision does not in any way cure an invalid promulgation. And even if said decision be recorded in the criminal docket later, such piece-meal compliance with the Rules will still not validate the May 5, 1998 promulgation which was invalid at the time it was conducted." — This passage establishes that both requisites must concur simultaneously and that piecemeal compliance cannot cure an initially invalid promulgation.

• Florendo vs. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 325 (1994) — Followed. The facts were parallel to the instant case: a copy of the judgment was served on counsel, but the notice of appeal was filed out of time. The Court held that the presumption of regularity of official duty serves as substantial compliance with the recording requirement. In the instant case, however, the presumption was rebutted by the Clerk of Court's certification.

• Cea, etc., et al. vs. Cinco, et al., 96 Phil. 31 (1954) — Cited for the proposition that where the judgment is for acquittal, the presence of the accused is not necessary for promulgation, and for the historical and common-law reasons requiring the accused's personal attendance at promulgation of a judgment of conviction for a grave or less grave offense.

• Dimson vs. Elepaño, 99 Phil. 733 (1956) — Cited for the rule that the judgment in a criminal case must be promulgated in the presence of the accused, except where it is for a light offense, in which case it may be pronounced in the presence of counsel or representative.

• People vs. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 565 (1974) — Cited for the principle that where there is no promulgation of the judgment, the right to appeal does not accrue.

• Gonzales vs. Judge, 186 SCRA 101 (1990) — Cited for the rule that the absence of counsel during promulgation will not result in a violation of any substantial right of the accused and will not affect the validity of the promulgation.

• Section 6, Rule 120, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Governed promulgation of judgment at the time of the proceedings. Provided that when the accused fails to appear at promulgation despite notice, promulgation shall consist in the recording of the judgment in the criminal docket and service of a copy upon the accused or counsel. If the judgment is for conviction and the failure to appear was without justifiable cause, the court shall order the arrest of the accused, who may appeal within 15 days from notice of the decision to him or his counsel.

• Section 6, Rule 120, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (effective Dec. 1, 2000) — The updated version, which took effect shortly before the decision. Retained the essence of the former Section 6 but added requirements: if the accused was tried in absentia for jumping bail or escaping prison, notice shall be served at his last known address; the accused who fails to appear without justifiable cause loses remedies against the judgment but may, within 15 days from promulgation, surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of remedies, stating reasons for absence.

• Section 2(d), Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Cited for the condition of bail that the accused shall surrender himself for execution of the final judgment, underscoring the responsibility of the accused to make himself available to the court upon promulgation of a judgment of conviction.

Vitug, Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concurred.