Salvador vs. Chua

A private offended party in a criminal case possesses legal standing to file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 to question orders of the trial court that affect the civil aspect of the judgment, even without the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General. Further, an accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of a judgment of conviction without justifiable cause and who does not voluntarily surrender within 15 days from promulgation irrevocably loses the remedies of appeal and motion for new trial; the conviction thereupon becomes final and immutable.

Horacio Salvador and his wife Marinel were charged with estafa under Article 315(a) of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City set the promulgation of judgment on March 30, 2011. On that date, counsel moved to defer the promulgation, claiming that Salvador was suffering from hypertension. The RTC found the excuse unconvincing and proceeded to promulgate its decision, convicting both spouses and sentencing Horacio Salvador to an indeterminate prison term of four years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordering them jointly to indemnify the complainant Lisa Chua in the amount of ₱17,371,780.00 plus moral damages and attorney’s fees. A warrant of arrest issued, and Salvador was taken into custody eight days later.

The Criminal Case: Horacio Salvador and his wife Marinel were charged with estafa under Article 315(a) of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-08-04689-CR before the RTC of Pasay City. Lisa Chua was the complaining witness.

The Promulgation: The RTC scheduled the promulgation of its decision on March 30, 2011. On that date, the Salvadors’ counsel moved to defer the promulgation, alleging that Horacio Salvador was suffering from hypertension. The RTC proceeded with the promulgation in absentia, finding the reason unpersuasive. Salvador was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered jointly with his wife to indemnify Chua in the sum of ₱17,371,780.00 with eight percent interest per annum, plus ₱50,000.00 moral damages and ₱50,000.00 attorney’s fees. A warrant for Salvador’s arrest was issued, and he was apprehended on April 7, 2011—eight days after the promulgation.

The Motion for Leave to Appeal: On April 13, 2011, Salvador filed a Motion for Leave to File Notice of Appeal. Attached was a medical certificate dated March 30, 2011, purportedly issued by Dr. Paulo Miguel A. David of the Rizal Medical Center, stating that Salvador had consulted at the hospital on that date and had been found to be suffering from hypertension.

The Falsified Medical Certificate: Judge Dela Cruz initially denied the motion on July 1, 2011 for non-compliance with Section 6, Rule 120. After Salvador moved for reconsideration, Judge Dela Cruz granted the motion and gave due course to the notice of appeal on October 26, 2011. Meanwhile, Chua moved for execution of the civil aspect, which the RTC granted on October 27, 2011. The prosecution, through the private prosecutor, filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 26, 2011 order, attaching an affidavit executed by Dr. Paolo Miguel A. David. The physician denied having examined Salvador on March 30, 2011, denied issuing any medical certificate for him, pointed out that his first name had been misspelled as “Paulo,” disowned the signature on the certificate, and declared that the Rizal Medical Center had not officially issued the document.

The RTC Orders Reinstating the Appeal and Granting Bail: After the case was re-raffled to Branch 115, Judge Francisco G. Mendiola denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration and allowed Salvador to post bail of ₱80,000.00 for his provisional liberty on August 8, 2013. Salvador had opposed the prosecution’s motion and submitted another medical certificate, this time from Dr. Ma. Concepcion Santos-Enriquez, an obstetrician-gynecologist, who attested that she had seen Salvador on March 28, 2011 for headache and dizziness and had advised him to consult a cardiologist.

The CA Certiorari: Chua filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The CA nullified both RTC orders, reinstating the July 1, 2011 denial of the motion for leave to appeal. Salvador’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition.

• Lack of Legal Personality of Private Complainant: Petitioner argued that only the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) could appeal or challenge orders in a criminal case on behalf of the State; thus, the respondent lacked legal personality to file the certiorari petition in the CA without the OSG’s conformity.
• Loss of Interest After Execution: Petitioner maintained that the respondent had no standing to challenge the orders because her Motion for Execution on the civil aspect had already been granted by the RTC, thereby extinguishing her interest in the criminal proceedings.
• Justifiable Cause for Absence: Petitioner contended that his hypertension on the date of promulgation constituted a justifiable cause that entitled him to regain the remedies available under the Rules of Court against the judgment of conviction.

• Legal Standing as Aggrieved Party: Respondent countered that, as the private offended party, she possessed sufficient interest and personality to file a special civil action for certiorari to protect the civil aspect of the judgment, especially since the orders granting the appeal opened the entire case for review and could reverse the monetary award in her favor. She relied on the doctrine that the “aggrieved party” under Rule 65 includes the private complainant.
• Non-Compliance with Rule 120: Respondent contended that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 6, Rule 120 for regaining his standing to appeal: his absence was not justified because the medical certificate he submitted was falsified, and he did not voluntarily surrender to the court within the 15-day period but was instead arrested. The conviction had therefore become final and immutable.

• Legal Standing of Private Complainant: Whether the respondent, as the private complainant in the criminal case, had the legal personality to file a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals to assail the RTC’s orders giving due course to the petitioner’s appeal and allowing bail, despite the lack of participation of the Office of the Solicitor General.
• Loss of the Right to Appeal: Whether the petitioner lost his standing in court to avail himself of the remedies against the judgment of conviction because of his failure to appear at the promulgation and his subsequent non-compliance with the requirements of Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

• Legal Standing of Private Complainant: The private complainant in a criminal case is an “aggrieved party” with sufficient interest to file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 without the OSG’s intervention when the challenged orders affect the civil aspect of the judgment. Section 35(1), Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code mandates the OSG to represent the Government in criminal proceedings, but the rule admits of exceptions. Jurisprudence, beginning with Paredes v. Gopengco and reiterated in Rodriguez v. Gadiane, treats the private offended party as a person aggrieved who may independently institute certiorari to question orders on jurisdictional grounds. The complainant must, however, bring the action in her own name, not in the name of the People of the Philippines. The respondent’s interest was not extinguished by the prior grant of execution because the petitioner’s appeal threw the entire case open for review, including the civil aspect, thereby exposing the judgment in her favor to possible reversal or modification. Denying her recourse would violate her fundamental right to due process.

• Loss of the Right to Appeal: The petitioner lost his standing to avail himself of the remedies of a motion for new trial or appeal because he failed to comply with the twin requirements of Section 6, Rule 120. Under the rule, an accused sentenced for an offense that is not a light felony must be personally present at promulgation. If he fails to appear without justifiable cause, he loses the remedies available under the Rules; to regain them, he must (a) surrender voluntarily and (b) file a motion for leave of court within 15 days from the date of promulgation, stating the reasons for his absence. The petitioner’s conviction for estafa with an indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional to twenty years of reclusion temporal was manifestly not a light offense. He did not establish a justifiable cause because the medical certificate he tendered was directly repudiated by the purported issuing physician, who denied examining him, signing the certificate, or that the hospital officially issued it. The belated second certificate, issued by an OB-Gynecologist, was unauthenticated and uncorroborated. Even assuming arguendo that hypertension excused his absence, the petitioner never voluntarily surrendered himself; his arrest eight days later was not the voluntary submission contemplated by the rule. Consequently, the conviction became final and immutable. The right to appeal is a purely statutory privilege, not a natural right or an element of due process, and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law that creates it.

• Standing of the Private Offended Party to File Certiorari — A private complainant in a criminal case possesses legal personality as an “aggrieved party” under Rule 65 to file a special civil action for certiorari without the OSG’s consent when the order or decision assailed prejudices the civil aspect of the judgment. The action must be prosecuted in the complainant’s own name, not in the name of the People of the Philippines. (Reiterating Paredes v. Gopengco, De la Rosa v. Court of Appeals, and Rodriguez v. Gadiane.)

• Requisites for Regaining the Right to Appeal After Promulgation in Absentia — Under Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, an accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of a judgment of conviction for an offense that is not a light felony loses the remedies of motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration, and appeal. To regain standing, the accused must, within fifteen (15) days from the date of promulgation: (a) voluntarily surrender to the court; and
  (b) file a motion for leave of court to avail of the remedies, stating the reasons for the absence.
  If the trial court finds that the absence was for a justifiable cause, the accused is allowed to avail of the remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order. Non-compliance with either requirement renders the judgment final and immutable. “Surrender” requires physical and voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court; mere arrest does not satisfy the requirement. (Applying Villena v. People and Almuete v. People.)

• Nature of the Right to Appeal — The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a component of due process; it is a statutory privilege that must be exercised strictly in the manner and within the period prescribed by law, or it is lost. (Villena v. People)

• “The right to appeal, being neither a natural right nor a part of due process, is a merely statutory privilege that should be exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law establishing the right; otherwise, it is lost.” — This passage encapsulates the reason the petitioner’s non-compliance barred his appeal.

• “The term surrender used in the rule visibly necessitated his physical and voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court to suffer any consequences of the verdict against him.” — The Court emphasizes that arrest does not substitute for voluntary surrender under Section 6, Rule 120.

• “As ordained by the Supreme Court in Carmencita G. Carino vs. Merlin De Castro, there can be cases where a private offended party is allowed to prosecute as an aggrieved party in the interest of substantial justice for a party cannot be left without recourse to address a substantive issue in law.” — Quoted with approval from the CA decision, supporting the respondent’s standing to file certiorari.

• Rodriguez v. Gadiane, G.R. No. 152903, July 17, 2006, 495 SCRA 368 — Followed. Established that the “aggrieved party” in Rule 65 includes both the State and the private offended party, who may independently file a special civil action for certiorari to protect the civil aspect of a criminal case.
• Jimenez v. Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 151 — Cited. Reiterates that the People of the Philippines, as the real party in interest in criminal proceedings, can be represented only by the OSG on appeal in the CA or Supreme Court, but acknowledges exceptions for private complainants acting in their own interest.
• Villena v. People, G.R. No. 184091, January 31, 2011, 641 SCRA 127 — Applied. Clarified the procedure and requirements under Section 6, Rule 120 for an accused to regain the right to appeal after failing to appear at promulgation, including the definition of “surrender” as voluntary submission.
• Almuete v. People, G.R. No. 179611, March 12, 2013, 693 SCRA 167 — Applied. Affirmed that the 15-day period runs from notice of the judgment to the accused or counsel, and that the conviction becomes final if the accused fails to appeal within that period.

• Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure — The core procedural provision applied. It allows promulgation of judgment in absentia for felonies that are not light offenses when the accused fails to appear despite notice. Upon conviction, the accused who failed to appear without justifiable cause loses the remedies of motion for new trial, reconsideration, and appeal. To regain these remedies, the accused must surrender and file a motion for leave within 15 days from promulgation, stating the reasons for the absence, and prove a justifiable cause. The petitioner failed both the justifiable cause and surrender requirements, rendering his conviction final.
• Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code — Defines the OSG’s function to represent the Government in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings. The Court interpreted this as not exclusive when the private offended party seeks to protect the civil aspect through certiorari under Rule 65.
• Article 315(a) of the Revised Penal Code — Estafa provision under which the petitioner was charged and convicted. Relevant here only insofar as the penalty imposed exceeded the threshold for light felonies, triggering the mandatory personal appearance of the accused at promulgation.
• Rule 65 of the Rules of Court — The procedural vehicle used by the respondent. The Court construed the term “aggrieved party” to include the private complainant when orders affecting the civil aspect are challenged.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez, and Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe concurred.