G.R. No. 141796 - Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

Petitioners Reynaldo H. Jaylo, William Valenzona, Antonio G. Habalo, and Edgardo Castro were Philippine National Police officers seconded to the NBI for a joint buy‐bust operation with the US DEA.
Respondents include the Sandiganbayan (First Division), the People of the Philippines, and the heirs of Col. Rolando De Guzman, Major Franco Calanog, and Avelino Manguera.

From July 3–8, 1990, US DEA agent Philip Needham negotiated the purchase of 10 kg of heroin from suspects Estella Arrastia, Franco Calanog, and Rolando De Guzman, with delivery set on July 10, 1990 at Magallanes Commercial Center, Makati.
At the rendezvous, Needham signaled the arrest.

Prosecution version: Jaylo, Castro, Valenzona, Habalo, and other operatives cordoned the area, waited for Needham’s taxi to drive off, then shot the three suspects execution‐style, waited 15 minutes, and loaded their bodies into vehicles under the pretense of hospital transport.
Defense version: The three suspects allegedly drew firearms when operatives moved in; Jaylo shot De Guzman in self‐defense, Castro shot Calanog after resisting arrest, and Valenzona and Habalo shot Manguera as he reached for a weapon. The victims were then brought to a hospital.

President Aquino’s Administrative Order No. 182 (July 13, 1990) created the Elma Committee to investigate. It recommended prosecution of Jaylo, Castro, Valenzona, and Habalo.
In September 1992, the Sandiganbayan received three Amended Informations charging petitioners with conspiracy to commit murder (Crim. Case Nos. 17984–17986).
On April 17, 2007, the Sandiganbayan convicted Jaylo, Castro, Valenzona, and Habalo of homicide, sentencing each to prision mayor to reclusion temporal, perpetual disqualification from public office, P50,000 civil indemnity to each victim’s heirs, and costs.

On April 17, 2007, only counsel appeared at promulgation; the accused were absent despite notice (Jaylo had changed address; Valenzona and Habalo were served; Castro had died). The court promulgated the decision in absentia, canceled bail, and issued arrest warrants.
On April 30, 2007, counsel filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, which the Sandiganbayan took no action on in its November 29, 2007 Resolution, ordering implementation of warrants.
On January 25, 2008, an ad cautelam Motion for Reconsideration was filed; on May 26, 2008, the Sandiganbayan denied it for finality of judgment due to failure to surrender and file for leave within 15 days.

What are the legal consequences when an accused fails to appear, without justifiable cause, at the promulgation of a judgment of conviction?

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in (a) not inferring a justifying circumstance from its negative finding on conspiracy, (b) discounting inconsistent testimonies on the alleged speeding car and gunfire distraction, and (c) rejecting admissions before the Elma Committee as hearsay.
Whether Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court impermissibly diminishes the substantive right under P.D. 1606, Section 7 to file a motion for reconsideration.