People vs. Mapalao

An accused who escapes from confinement after arraignment, is tried in absentia, and remains at large waives the right to appeal the judgment of conviction unless he voluntarily surrenders or is arrested within the fifteen-day appeal period.

Adolfo Quiambao was a textile businessman who maintained a stall at the Hilltop Market in Baguio City and periodically sold goods in towns along the Halsema Road in Benguet, including Abatan, Buguias, and Mankayan. On September 20, 1987, he traveled through these mountain trail communities with his driver Felizardo Galvez and several passengers, among them Muslim individuals who had previously ridden with him or were known to him. The crime of highway robbery with homicide is defined and penalized under Presidential Decree No. 532, also known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974.

Adolfo Quiambao was a textile businessman who sold goods at the Hilltop Market in Baguio City and periodically traveled to towns along the Halsema Road in Benguet to vend his wares. On September 19, 1987, at around 3:00 to 4:00 A.M., he set out for Abatan, Buguias, Benguet, in his Ford Fiera driven by Felizardo Galvez, accompanied by a certain Jimmy Jetwani. He sold goods through the afternoon and evening and stayed overnight in Abatan.

The following morning, September 20, 1987, at about 7:00 A.M., Quiambao, Galvez, and Jetwani proceeded to Mankayan, Benguet. Four Muslims rode with them: Omar Mapalao, Rex Magumnang, Aliman Bara-akal, and Anwar Hadji Edris (alias Randy). Mapalao and Magumnang had previously ridden with Quiambao on September 13, 1987, while Edris was already known to Quiambao. They arrived in Mankayan at about 8:00 A.M. and stayed four hours selling goods and collecting from customers. At noon, the same group — now with an additional passenger, Simeon Calama — departed Mankayan for Abatan, where Quiambao collected from customers for about an hour.

At approximately 1:00 to 2:00 P.M., Quiambao began the return trip to Baguio. Ten persons rode in the Ford Fiera: Galvez (driver), Jetwani, Calama, Rene Salonga, Eduardo Lopez, Mapalao, Magumnang, Bara-akal, Edris, and Quiambao himself. They stopped at Natubleng, Buguias, at about 3:00 P.M. for Quiambao and Jetwani to collect credits, then proceeded to Sayangan, Atok, arriving at about 5:00 P.M. for further collections and a meal. When they left Sayangan at about 6:00 P.M., Quiambao noticed a fifth Muslim, Gumanak Ompa, had joined them, making eleven passengers in all.

After about an hour of driving, one passenger asked to stop to urinate, and all alighted. Quiambao took over the driving, telling Galvez to rest. About thirty minutes later, at Km. 24, Caliking, Atok, Benguet, one of the Muslims again stopped the vehicle to urinate, and the Muslims alighted. As Quiambao was about to start the vehicle, Mapalao went to the left side near the driver's seat, pointed a gun at Quiambao, and announced "This is a holdup." Another Muslim went to the other side of the front seat, while another guarded the back door. Gumanak Ompa and Rex Magumnang, each armed with a knife, entered the back of the Ford Fiera and pointed their knives at the passengers. Mapalao ordered all front-seat passengers to go to the back; Quiambao and Jetwani complied. As Quiambao moved to the back, he heard a commotion outside involving Galvez and the Muslims, and Galvez was injured. Quiambao pleaded that they would surrender their money and valuables if their lives were spared. Magumnang and Ompa, while poking knives at the passengers, divested Quiambao of ₱40,000.00, Jetwani of ₱14,000.00, and Calama of ₱3,700.00 in cash, a watch, and clothes.

After the robbery, Magumnang attempted to start the vehicle but failed, and called Quiambao, who also could not start it. Angered, Mapalao began counting one to three, threatening to shoot Quiambao if the vehicle did not start. Quiambao called the injured Galvez, who managed to start the engine. Magumnang then seized the steering wheel beside Galvez and directed the vehicle toward the precipice. Galvez struggled with Magumnang for control, managed to step on the brakes in time to prevent the vehicle from falling into the ravine, and was stabbed by Magumnang. The passengers panicked and jumped out in different directions. Quiambao jumped into the precipice to avoid being shot and injured himself. Galvez fell into the ravine upon being stabbed. Jetwani fled to the mountains. Calama, Lopez, and Salonga sought safety on the road. Meanwhile, Bara-akal boarded a passing vegetable truck on the front seat; Lopez boarded the same truck at the back. A second vegetable truck arrived, and Calama tried to board it, but Mapalao, gun in hand, prevented him. When Mapalao's attention was diverted, Calama seized the chance to board the second truck.

Both trucks stopped at the toll gate at Acop, Tublay, Benguet. Calama and Lopez reported the holdup to the police station near the toll gate, identifying Bara-akal as one of the perpetrators in the first truck. Bara-akal was arrested, and ₱4,015.00 was recovered from him. At the crime scene, Mapalao, Magumnang, and Ompa fled to the mountains, avoiding the road. Edris's whereabouts after the holdup were unclear, and he eluded arrest. After the Muslims left, Quiambao climbed back to the road and saw Galvez wounded in the precipice. A passing vegetable truck driver helped bring Galvez up and place him in the Ford Fiera, and they rushed him first to Benguet Hospital at La Trinidad, then to Baguio General Hospital, where efforts to save him proved futile — he died the next morning of his stab wounds.

An autopsy report by Dr. Wi documented multiple stab and incised wounds on Galvez's body, including penetrating wounds to the right lung. The cause of death was hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple stab wounds. On September 21, 1987, the Tublay Police apprehended Mapalao, Magumnang, and Ompa at Sto. Niño, Tublay. On September 22, 1987, Quiambao, Jetwani, and Calama positively identified the four Muslims in custody — Mapalao, Magumnang, Ompa, and Bara-akal — as among those who held them up. A caliber .38 paltik firearm with five live ammunitions and a knife were recovered from Ompa. An amended information was filed charging the five accused with highway robbery with homicide under PD 532. Upon arraignment, Mapalao, Ompa, Magumnang, and Bara-akal pleaded not guilty; Edris remained at large. Bara-akal died in jail on March 17, 1988, and the case was dismissed as to him. After being positively identified by witnesses during trial, Magumnang escaped from detention on September 25, 1988 while receiving medical treatment at Baguio General Hospital, and trial in absentia proceeded as to him.

• Exculpatory Facts: Petitioners maintained that the trial court erred in failing to consider significant exculpatory facts and circumstances.
• Presumption of Innocence: Petitioners argued that the trial court failed to apply the constitutional mandate on the presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Conviction as Principals: Petitioners argued that the trial court erred in finding them guilty as principals and sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty of reclusion temporal.
• Denial of Participation (Mapalao): Mapalao admitted being a passenger and being present during the holdup but alleged he did not participate in the commission of the crime and knew nothing about it, claiming he left with Magumnang after the alleged holdup.
• Identification in Darkness (Mapalao): Mapalao asserted that the prosecution witnesses could not have identified him given the darkness of the night.
• No Incriminating Evidence (Mapalao): Mapalao noted that when apprehended by the police, no firearm or money was found in his possession.

• Right to Appeal of Escapee: Whether an accused who escapes from confinement after arraignment, is tried in absentia, and remains at large may appeal the judgment of conviction.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Omar Mapalao beyond reasonable doubt for highway robbery with homicide.
• Propriety of Penalty: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court was proper, or whether the death penalty should instead be imposed.

• Right to Appeal of Escapee: No. Magumnang's appeal was dismissed, an escapee who remains at large waiving the right to appeal unless he voluntarily surrenders or is arrested within the fifteen-day appeal period.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The guilt of Mapalao was established beyond reasonable doubt through the positive identification by three eyewitnesses who were with him in the same vehicle throughout the day and who were the victims of the holdup.
• Propriety of Penalty: The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, the Court observing that the death penalty would be the appropriate punishment but could not be imposed under the 1987 Constitution.

• Right to Appeal of Escapee: Under Section 8, Rule 122 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court may dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from confinement during the pendency of the appeal. The rationale is that once an accused escapes from prison or confinement, he loses standing in court and is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court. Magumnang escaped from detention during trial after arraignment, trial in absentia proceeded in accordance with Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, and judgment was promulgated against him. As he remained at large even during the pendency of his appeal, he should not be afforded the right to appeal unless he voluntarily submits to the court's jurisdiction or is arrested within fifteen days from notice of the judgment. The Court cited Gimenez vs. Nazareno for the principle that jurisdiction once acquired at arraignment is not lost by escape, and for the three requisites of trial in absentia: (1) arraignment, (2) notification, and (3) unjustified failure to appear — all of which were present. The Court further held that an escapee tried in absentia waives the right to present evidence and to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and suggested a modification of Section 6, Rule 120 to provide that failure to appear at promulgation without justifiable cause waives the right to appeal, subject to revival if the accused surrenders or is arrested within the appeal period.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Mapalao was positively identified by three eyewitnesses — Quiambao, Jetwani, and Calama — who were together with him in the Ford Fiera from 7:00 A.M. until the holdup at approximately 6:00 P.M. on September 20, 1987. Quiambao categorically testified that Mapalao held a gun with both hands and ordered them to surrender their cash and belongings. Jetwani corroborated this, testifying that he saw Mapalao's face and the gun by the side of the door, and remained firm on cross-examination. Calama identified Mapalao as the one who pointed a gun at them in front, stating he was familiar with Mapalao's voice from joking together during the journey. Although it was already dark, there was light inside the vehicle, and no other persons were in the vicinity except the accused and the victims. Mapalao's claim of innocence was further belied by his flight to the mountains with co-accused Magumnang and Ompa after the holdup, which constituted evidence of guilt. His defense of denial was unpersuasive against the positive identification by credible eyewitnesses.

• Propriety of Penalty: The Court characterized highway robbery with homicide as a heinous and detestable offense, noting that the circumstances of the commission — armed perpetrators against unarmed, compliant victims who surrendered all valuables and pleaded only for their lives — warranted the supreme penalty of death. The killing of Galvez was senseless, as none of the victims attempted to resist. However, the 1987 Constitution prohibited the imposition of the death penalty, and absent congressional action defining heinous offenses and restoring the death penalty, the Court was constrained to affirm the trial court's imposition of reclusion perpetua. The Court called for legislative action to enact a law defining heinous offenses punishable by death, citing the volatile peace and order situation and the need to contain the proliferation of such crimes.

• Waiver of Right to Appeal by Escapee — An accused who escapes from confinement after arraignment, is tried in absentia, and remains at large is deemed to have waived the right to appeal the judgment of conviction. The escapee loses standing in court and cannot seek relief unless he voluntarily surrenders or is arrested within the fifteen-day appeal period. The Court applied this doctrine by dismissing Magumnang's appeal, he having escaped from detention during trial and remaining at large throughout the pendency of his appeal.

• Jurisdiction Not Lost by Escape — Jurisdiction over the person of the accused, once acquired through voluntary appearance at arraignment and entry of a plea, is not lost by the accused's subsequent escape from custody. The court retains jurisdiction until termination of the case and may proceed with trial in absentia. This principle, drawn from Gimenez vs. Nazareno, was applied to sustain the validity of the trial in absentia and judgment against Magumnang.

• Requisites of Trial in Absentia — Trial in absentia is proper when the following conditions concur: (1) there has been an arraignment; (2) the accused has been notified of the trial dates; and (3) he fails to appear and his failure is unjustified. All three requisites were present in Magumnang's case, as he was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, was notified of scheduled hearings, and escaped from detention without justification.

• Flight as Evidence of Guilt — The flight of an accused from the scene of the crime and his escape to avoid arrest are circumstantial evidence of guilt. Mapalao's flight to the mountains with co-accused after the holdup was cited by the Court as corroborative of his culpability.

• "where the accused appears at the arraignment and pleads not guilty to the crime charged, jurisdiction is acquired by the court over his person and this continues until the termination of the case, notwithstanding his escape from the custody of the law." — This passage, quoted from Gimenez vs. Nazareno and adopted by the Court, establishes the enduring nature of jurisdiction once acquired and underpins the validity of trial in absentia and judgment against an escapee.

• "an escapee who has been duly tried in absentia waives his right to present evidence on his own behalf and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who testified against him." — This is the Court's explicit holding on the consequences of escape for an accused's procedural rights, articulating the ratio decidendi for the dismissal of Magumnang's appeal.

• "if upon promulgation of the judgment, the accused fails to appear without justifiable cause, despite due notice to him, his bondsmen or counsel, he is thereby considered to have waived his right to appeal. However, if within the fifteen (15) day period of appeal he voluntarily surrenders to the court or is otherwise arrested, then he may avail of the right to appeal within said period of appeal." — This passage sets forth the Court's suggested modification of Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, clarifying the conditions under which an escapee may or may not appeal.

• "The appellant and his confederates deserve the supreme penalty of death and no less. But as the Court said, this is not possible under the Constitution." — This reflects the Court's view that the circumstances of the crime warranted the death penalty, tempered by the constitutional prohibition then in force, and signals the Court's call for legislative action.

• Gimenez vs. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1 (1988) — Followed. Cited for the principle that jurisdiction over the person of the accused, once acquired at arraignment, is not lost by escape, and for the three requisites of trial in absentia under the 1973 Constitution (carried into the 1987 Constitution). The Court adopted its reasoning to sustain the validity of trial in absentia and judgment against Magumnang.
• People vs. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1987) — Cited in relation to the constitutional provisions on trial in absentia.

• Section 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Authorizes trial in absentia provided the accused has been duly notified and his absence is unjustified. Applied to sustain the trial in absentia of Magumnang.
• Section 8, Rule 122, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure — Authorizes the Court to dismiss an appeal if the appellant escapes from confinement during the pendency of the appeal. Applied by analogy to dismiss Magumnang's appeal.
• Section 6, Rule 120, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure — Governs promulgation of judgment and the accused's right to appeal upon failure to appear. The Court suggested a modification to provide that failure to appear at promulgation without justifiable cause waives the right to appeal, subject to revival if the accused surrenders or is arrested within the appeal period.
• Section 1(c), Rule 115, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that unjustified absence of the accused at trial constitutes waiver of the right to be present. Cited to support the Court's holding on waiver of rights by an escapee.
• Presidential Decree No. 532 — Defines and penalizes highway robbery with homicide. The accused were charged and convicted under this decree.
• Article 29, Revised Penal Code — Provides for credit for preventive imprisonment. Applied to grant Mapalao and Ompa credit for 4/5 of their preventive imprisonment.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide Jr., JJ., concur. Sarmiento, J., concurred in the result, expressing opposition to the death penalty.