Case Digest (G.R. No. 120034)
Facts:
Accused Josefina A. Esparas was charged before the RTC of Pasay City, Br. 114 with violation of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 759, for importing twenty (20) kilograms of “shabu,” and was convicted on March 13, 1995, with the trial court imposing the death penalty in Criminal Case No. 94-5897. After arraignment, Esparas escaped from confinement and was tried in absentia; she remained at large, while the record was elevated to the Court for automatic review due to the penalty imposed.The issue was whether the Court should proceed with automatic review of the death sentence despite the accused’s escape, in which regard the Court required counsel to show cause on dismissal but, after proceedings, granted a new period to file the brief.
Issues:
- Whether the Court should automatically review a death sentence despite the accused’s escape and continued at-large status.
Ruling:
The Court held that it must proceed with the automatic review of the death sentence notwithstanding Case Digest (G.R. No. 120034)
Facts:
- Accusation and prosecution before the trial court
- Accused Josefina A. Esparas was charged with violation of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 759, for importing into the country twenty (20) kilograms of “shabu,” in Criminal Case No. 94-5897 before the RTC of Pasay City, Br. 114.
- After arraignment, Accused Josefina A. Esparas escaped from jail and was tried in absentia.
- The records were nonetheless elevated to the Court for automatic review because the case involved the imposition of the death penalty.
- Conviction, escape, and post-conviction status
- On March 13, 1995, the trial court found Accused Esparas guilty as charged and imposed the death penalty.
- Accused Esparas remained at large at the time of resolution and continued to be beyond the custody of the law.
- Accused Rodrigo O. Libed remained at large and did not appear to have been arraigned or tried, as stated in the dissenting opinion.
- Court proceedings on the effect of escape
- As of November 14, 1995, the Court required counsel for the accused to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, in light of the accused’s escape prior to judgment by the trial court and her continued at-large status.
- Counsel for the accused failed to show cause as required.
- Instead of showing cause, counsel filed motions for extension of time to file appellant’s brief, and the Court did not act on these motions because of the failure to show cause.
- Positions taken by the parties and separate opinions
- The Solicitor General was required to comment on the effect of the accused’s escape on the appeal.
- In the comment dated January 9, 1996, the Solicitor General recommended that the Court proceed with the appeal and review the judgment of conviction despite the escape because the penalty involved was death.
- Separate opinions were filed:
- Francisco, J. (Separate Opinion): Agreed that failure to surrender to proper authorities and remaining in the custody of the law should be treated as waiver and forfeiture of the right to appeal.
- Padilla, J. (Dissenting Opinion): Concluded that a distinction must be drawn between withdrawal of appeal by a death convict while in custody and escape during pendency, and proposed dismissal absent surrender, with remand for execution after re-arrest.
- Panganiban, J. (Separate Opinion): Voted to grant the extension but reasoned that review must occur only after the accused is re-arrested and taken back into custody.
- ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Effect of escape of the death convict on automatic review
- Whether the Court should proceed with the automatic review of a death sentence despite the accused’s escape and continued at-large status.
- Whether the Court’s mandatory authority and duty to review death p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)