Title
People vs. Taruc
Case
G.R. No. 185202
Decision Date
Feb 18, 2009
Accused escaped during trial, waived appeal rights; CA affirmed murder conviction, modified penalty to reclusion perpetua per RA 9346. SC dismissed appeal.
murder
escape from prison
right to appeal

Case Summary (G.R. No. 185202)

Factual Background

On or about November 8, 1998, at Brgy. Puting Buhangin, Orion, Bataan, the accused was charged in an Information with murder in connection with the death of Emelito Sualog; the Information alleged that the accused shot the victim with a .45 caliber firearm and inflicted mortal wounds. The Information specified treachery and evident premeditation as attending circumstances.

Trial Court Proceedings

Francisco Taruc @ Taruc, Accused-Appellant was arraigned on April 25, 2005, pleaded not guilty, and was represented by the Public Attorney’s Office. After trial the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision dated June 29, 2005, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the aggravating circumstance of treachery and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. The RTC ordered payment of P49,225.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P30,000.00 as moral damages, and issued a warrant of arrest.

Escape from Custody and Its Immediate Effects

Before the cross-examination of prosecution witness Randy Espina, Francisco Taruc @ Taruc escaped from the Bataan Provincial Jail at about 11:00 p.m. on August 23, 2002. The trial court treated his escape and absence at the trial as constituting a waiver of his right to cross-examine that witness and proceeded to promulgate judgment while the accused remained at large.

Rules on Absence and Loss of Remedies

The RTC invoked the provisions of Rule 120, Section 6 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure providing that if the accused fails to appear at promulgation of judgment without justifiable cause he shall lose the remedies available in the Rules against the judgment unless he surrenders and files a motion within fifteen days and proves justifiable absence. The Court further recognized that Rule 124, Section 8 permits the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal where the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, and that Rule 125, Section 1 extends appellate procedural norms to the Supreme Court.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Pursuant to A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC and the mandatory automatic review of death penalty cases, the case was forwarded to the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. CR No. 01638. The Public Attorney’s Office sought an extension to file the appellant’s brief on January 13, 2006. The Court of Appeals noted that notices were returned with the postal notation “moved out” and directed the PAO to provide the accused’s address. The PAO informed the court of the accused’s escape and sought a certification from the warden. The warden confirmed the accused’s commitment on November 10, 2000 and escape on August 23, 2002. Notwithstanding the escape, the Court of Appeals granted an extension in view of People v. Flores, and later accepted briefs, considered the appeal submitted, and rendered a Decision dated February 27, 2008.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua in view of R.A. No. 9346. The appellate court ordered Francisco Taruc @ Taruc to pay the heirs of the victim Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity; Forty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Five (P49,255.00) as actual damages; Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages; and Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as exemplary damages, and imposed costs against the accused.

Appeal to the Supreme Court and Procedural Posture

Francisco Taruc @ Taruc, through the PAO, filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court on March 13, 2008, asserting appeal on questions of law and fact; the Court of Appeals forwarded the records on April 29, 2008. The matter reached the Supreme Court by petition for review under Rule 45, Rules of Court, raising the threshold question whether the accused’s escape from custody divested him of the right to appeal and of judicial relief.

Legal Issue Presented

The central legal issue was whether the accused-appellant, having escaped from confinement and remained at large beyond the statutory period for surrender, had thereby lost standing and waived his right to appeal, and whether appellate review could nevertheless proceed in a capital case where automatic review is mandatory.

Parties’ Procedural Positions

The record shows that Francisco Taruc @ Taruc remained represented by the PAO, which sought extensions and informed the courts of the escape; the PAO relied upon mandatory automatic review in People v. Flores to justify appellate action despite the accused’s absence. The trial court and the Court of Appeals relied upon the Rules and pertinent jurisprudence to treat the escape as a waiver of remedies but nonetheless exercised mandatory review because a death sentence had been imposed.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court applied Rule 120, Section 6 and Rule 124, Section 8, and relied on controlling precedents including People v. Mapalao, People v. Ang Gioc, and People v. Esparas. The Court found indisputable that Francisco Taruc @ Taruc escape

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms