G.R. No. 179611 - Almuete vs. People

Three accused – Efren S. Almuete, Johnny Ila y Ramel, and Joel Lloren y dela Cruz – were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27.
They were charged with violating Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, as amended by Executive Order No. 277) for cutting, gathering, or collecting timber and forest products without the proper license or legal documents.
The evidence included circumstantial elements, such as the ownership of a truck containing the lumber, which formed the basis of the RTC’s conviction.

On the scheduled date for the promulgation of judgment, petitioner’s counsel notified the court that petitioner and one co-accused (Lloren) were ill, while Johnny Ila was not notified of the promulgation.
Despite the absence of petitioners, the RTC proceeded to promulgate its decision as scheduled, convicting all accused beyond reasonable doubt and imposing a sentence ranging from 18 years, 2 months and 21 days (minimum) to 40 years (maximum) of imprisonment.
In addition, the RTC cancelled the bail bonds and issued warrants of arrest against the accused.

The accused filed a motion for reconsideration questioning the validity of the promulgation, the factual and legal bases of the conviction, and the correctness of the penalty; the RTC denied this motion on October 12, 1998.
Instead of appealing within the 15-day period provided under Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 49953.
On May 19, 2000, the CA granted the petition and acquitted petitioner Almuete while remanding the case for re-promulgation in the presence of the remaining accused with proper notice.
The People of the Philippines then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, which, on June 10, 2004, reversed the CA’s acquittal and reinstated the RTC’s September 8, 1998 Decision along with its October 12, 1998 Order.
Subsequent motions for reconsideration and clarification by petitioner—including a Motion for Repromulgation filed on December 13, 2006—were denied by both the RTC and CA.

The promulgation of judgment in absentia was based on the provisions of Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
The denial of the Motion for Repromulgation was justified under Administrative Circular No. 16-93, which prescribes the procedure following the affirmance or modification of convictions by higher courts.
The petitioner raised issues regarding his absence during promulgation, the purported errors in the RTC’s findings and the subsequent penalty imposed, and whether his right to appeal had been prejudiced.

Whether the RTC’s conviction of petitioner Almuete for the violation of Section 68, P.D. No. 705, was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the promulgation of the RTC’s decision—despite the absence of petitioner and one co-accused—was valid under the rules governing absentia proceedings.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in acquitting petitioner Almuete via a Petition for Certiorari rather than through an appeal by writ of error.
Whether filing a Petition for Certiorari in lieu of a proper timely appeal resulted in forfeiting his right to challenge the RTC decision (i.e., issues of double jeopardy and prescription of appeal).

Whether the denial of the Motion for Repromulgation by the RTC was proper, considering it was based on Administrative Circular No. 16-93.

Whether the imposition of the penalty (ranging from a lengthy term of reclusion temporal/perpetua) was legally proper or if, as argued, it should be modified in conformity with the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Articles 309 and 310).