A.C. No. 12115 - Alag vs. Senupe, Jr.

On October 24, 1994, an Information for estafa (Crim. Case No. 94-6230) was filed against petitioner Mary Helen Estrada before RTC Las Piñas City, Branch 275.
Petitioner signed an undertaking on January 23, 1995, waiving her right to be present at trial if she failed to appear after due notice. Her counsel likewise undertook to attend.
Petitioner’s counsel failed to appear on May 30, 1996; was cited for contempt and sentenced to one day’s imprisonment. On May 14, 1997, petitioner jumped bail and failed to appear; the RTC deemed she waived her right to present evidence and submitted the case for decision.
On July 2, 1997, the RTC convicted Estrada of estafa under RPC Art. 315(2)(a) and, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposed an indeterminate term of 12 years prision mayor (min.) to 24 years (max.), plus restitution of ₱68,700.00 and costs.

On December 1, 1999, petitioner moved for reconsideration/new trial, alleging lack of notice to counsel of crucial orders (contempt citation, waiver-of-rights order, denial of reception of evidence) and excessive penalty; the motion was denied on March 6, 2000.
Petitioner’s notice of appeal filed April 5, 2000 was denied due course as filed beyond the reglementary period.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari/mandamus with the CA, raising due process violations, grave abuse of discretion, lack of service of RTC decision, and penalty excessiveness.
The CA, in a decision dated October 28, 2003, denied relief, finding no grave abuse of discretion and that absence of petitioner amounted to waiver under Const. Art. III, § 14(2) and Rule 115, § 1(c), Rules of Court. A motion for reconsideration was denied on February 23, 2004.

Petitioner earlier filed an administrative case (A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-1002-RTJ) against RTC Judge Maceda for gross ignorance of the law; dismissed with a stern reminder on August 13, 2001.
On January 18, 2005, while detained, petitioner wrote a letter alleging erroneous and excessive penalty; the Court treated it as a petition for habeas corpus and, by resolution of March 9, 2005, ordered the OSG to comment.
On July 5, 2005, the Supreme Court consolidated the habeas corpus letter with the pending petition for review on certiorari.

Petitioner contended the CA erred in upholding RTC proceedings as notice was never furnished, right to counsel was violated, and imposed penalty was unauthorized by law.
She urged reversal of the CA decision and modification of the RTC sentence.

Whether the holding of trial and promulgation of judgment in absentia, after petitioner jumped bail, violated her constitutional rights to due process and to counsel.
Whether RTC orders setting hearing for defense evidence and declaring waiver were duly served upon petitioner and her counsel.
Whether the promulgation of the RTC judgment in absentia and the denial of petitioner’s appeal for being filed out of time were valid.
Whether the penalty of 12 years to 24 years prision mayor was excessive and not authorized by law, requiring correction.