G.R. No. 205998 - Siy vs. Tomlin

The People of the Philippines, represented by the prosecution, charged accused-appellant Joselito Agbulos (alias Lito) with the offense of forcible abduction with rape, based on a complaint filed by Angelita P. Bangit.
The case involved subsequent procedural lapses by the accused, resulting in his nonappearance at critical stages of the trial.

Joselito Agbulos was arraigned on January 23, 1981, where he pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The prosecution presented its case and rested on April 25, 1984, establishing the factual basis of the complaint.

On August 13, 1984, a warrant for the arrest of Agbulos was issued due to his failure to appear at a scheduled hearing.
The order for arrest was recalled on September 24, 1984, after it was discovered that notice had been sent to an incorrect bonding company.
A reset hearing was scheduled on November 5, 1984, with proper notice sent to Agbulos at his home address.

During the reset on November 5, 1984, Agbulos failed to appear, prompting another arrest order.
The bonding company was given 30 days to produce the accused and to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against its undertaking.
On December 18, 1984, the trial court issued an order that:

Forfeited the full amount of the bond due to the bonding company’s failure to produce Agbulos.
Rescheduled the trial for January 30, 1985, and ordered an arrest against the accused at his residential address.

On January 30, 1985, Agbulos still failed to appear in court.
His counsel indicated in court that he would adopt the testimony of the prosecution witness Ernesto Tamayo as evidence.
Following this, the defense rested its case, which led to:

A judgment against the bonding company on July 11, 1985, for its inability to produce Agbulos.
The final decision rendered on June 15, 1985, where Agbulos was found guilty of forcible abduction with rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
An order directing him to indemnify the victim, Angelita Bangit, in the amount of ₱20,000.00 and to pay court costs.

On August 16, 1985, counsel for the accused filed a notice of appeal.
The trial conducted in his absence was justified under Article IV, Section 19 of the 1973 Constitution (and its equivalent provision in the 1987 Constitution) which permits trial in absentia if the accused has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified.
The record revealed that Agbulos had effectively jumped bail after April 25, 1984, and remained at large, thus negating his opportunity to participate in later trial proceedings.

The trial's validity in the absence of the accused is supported by constitutional provisions and relevant case law, specifically highlighting the shift from the old doctrine (as seen in People v. Avancena) to the current rule where:

The accused’s right to be present may be waived once he is properly notified and yet fails to appear.
His escape renders any subsequent notification moot and his absence unjustified.

Rule 124, Section 8 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly allows for the dismissal of an appeal if the accused escapes, jumps bail, or flees during the pendency of the appeal.

Whether the trial held in the absence of the accused—after his escape and failure to appear—was constitutionally valid, given that the accused was duly notified and his nonappearance was unjustified.

Whether the accused’s escape from custody (jumping bail) automatically constitutes a waiver of his right to be present during the trial and later to appeal the judgment rendered against him.
Whether his continued absence should result in the forfeiture of his right to seek relief on appeal under Rule 124, Section 8 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure.