People vs. Go

An accused who jumps bail during trial and remains at large loses his standing in court and is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief therefrom; consequently, his appeal must be dismissed under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, which authorizes the dismissal of an appeal when the appellant jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.

On December 22, 1994, Imelda B. Brutas went to the house of accused Donel Go in San Roque, Tabaco, Albay to deliver pictures requested by her sister. There she met Go and Val De Los Reyes. When it rained, the three took shelter inside Go's house where they allegedly forced her to drink two bottles of beer, causing her to feel dizzy and almost unconscious. Under this condition, both men successively raped her with each acting as accomplice to the other by covering her mouth and holding her hands to restrain her.

• On December 22, 1994, at around 4:00 p.m., complainant Imelda B. Brutas went to the house of accused Donel Go at San Roque, Tabaco, Albay upon the request of her sister Clara to bring some pictures.
• Upon arrival, Imelda saw Go talking to Val De Los Reyes outside the house.
• Because it suddenly rained, the three took shelter inside Go's house.
• Inside the house, Go and Val forced Imelda to drink two bottles of beer, causing her to feel dizzy and almost unconscious.
• Under this condition, Val succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Imelda against her will.
• Thereafter, Go took his turn with Imelda, aided by Val who covered her mouth and held her hands.
• Apparently not satisfied, Val once again ravished Imelda, with the assistance of Go who likewise covered her mouth and held her hands.
• Imelda filed criminal complaints for rape against both men, resulting in two Informations for Criminal Case Nos. T-2640 and T-2641.
• Only Go was arrested while Val remained at large initially.
• Go was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, but jumped bail before the prosecution could conclude presenting its evidence.
• Go was tried in absentia and convicted by the RTC on June 25, 1997.
• Go has not surrendered to the court's jurisdiction since jumping bail.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the appeal should be dismissed because the appellant jumped bail and remains a fugitive from justice.
  • Whether the case should be remanded to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review under the doctrine in People v. Mateo despite the appellant being a fugitive.
  • Substantive Issues: N/A

• Procedural:
  • The Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that Go, having jumped bail during the proceedings before the RTC and having been tried and convicted in absentia, has not surrendered to the court's jurisdiction and remains a fugitive from justice.
  • The Court held that once an accused escapes from prison or confinement, 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 therefrom.
  • The Court cited Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, which allows the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail, or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.
  • The Court ruled that even if the case were remanded to the CA for intermediate review (as required by People v. Mateo for death penalty cases), the CA would only be constrained to dismiss the appeal because Go is a fugitive from justice.
  • The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the law, and failure to comply with procedural requirements results in the loss of such right.
  • Substantive: N/A

• Fugitive from Justice Doctrine — An accused who jumps bail, escapes from prison, or flees to a foreign country loses his standing in court and is deemed to have waived any right to seek affirmative relief unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court.
• Right to Appeal as Statutory Privilege — The right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law; non-compliance with procedural requirements results in the loss of such right.
• Intermediate Review in Death Penalty Cases — Under People v. Mateo, cases involving the death penalty, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment must undergo intermediate review by the Court of Appeals before final review by the Supreme Court.

• "Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail as in appellant's case, 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 therefrom."
• "It bears to stress that the right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege, and, as such, may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules, failing which, the right to appeal is lost."

• People v. Mateo — Cited for the rule that intermediate review by the Court of Appeals is mandatory for cases involving the death penalty, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
• Villena v. People — Cited for the principle that an accused who jumps bail loses his standing in court and is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief therefrom.

• Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court — Provides that the Court of Appeals may dismiss an appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail, or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.
• Sections 1 and 2, Rule 132 and Section 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court — Cited in the context of the procedural irregularities in Val De Los Reyes' initial trial regarding the requirement that testimonies of witnesses be given orally.