Case Summary (G.R. No. 209047)
Parties and Setting
In Criminal Case No. 08-259156, the RTC rendered a Decision dated February 23, 2012 finding Usares guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and sentencing her to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day as minimum and twelve (12) years and one (1) day as maximum. The RTC also ordered her to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus costs of suit. The RTC additionally cancelled the bond posted for her provisional liberty. The RTC Decision was promulgated on March 21, 2012.
RTC Conviction and Post-Decision Bail Matters
After promulgation, Atty. Jojo Soriano Vijiga—representing Usares—manifested in open court that they intended to file a Notice of Appeal within fifteen (15) days from March 21, 2012, and moved that Usares be “released under the same bond.” The RTC granted this request in an Order issued on the same date, March 21, 2012. Usares then filed a Notice of Appeal on April 12, 2012, which the RTC granted in a May 10, 2012 Order.
Motion for Warrant of Arrest and CA Dismissal
On November 28, 2012, Deodoro A. Edillo filed a Motion for the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest, praying that a warrant be issued to enforce the RTC Decision. In its Resolution dated February 14, 2013, the CA dismissed Usares’s appeal and referred the motion for issuance of a warrant to the RTC for appropriate action. The CA’s core basis was that, although Usares had a judgment of conviction against her and her bail bond had been cancelled, she allegedly continued to enjoy liberty during appeal without a valid bail bond approved by the court. The CA thus treated her as having “jumped bail” and concluded that the dismissal was warranted under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and prevailing jurisprudence.
Finality and CA Entry of Judgment
The CA treated the February 14, 2013 Resolution as becoming final and executory on March 11, 2013, and the CA’s records showed that the resolution was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments.
Motion for Reconsideration and CA Denial
Usares, through Atty. Bernardo Q. Cuaresma, filed a motion for reconsideration on July 15, 2013. She argued, among others, that at the time of promulgation of the RTC Decision, her counsel Atty. Vijiga had moved for her release under the same bond, and the RTC had granted that motion. In a Resolution dated September 6, 2013, the CA denied reconsideration. The CA reiterated the earlier bail cancellation reasoning and further observed that an entry of judgment had already been issued, such that the motion for reconsideration was deemed filed out of time.
Issue Presented to the Court
The central issue for the Court’s resolution was whether the CA was correct in dismissing Usares’s appeal.
Governing Rule on Dismissal for Jumping Bail
The Court held that the CA is authorized to dismiss an appeal, upon motion or motu proprio, if it is determined that the appellant jumps bail during the pendency of the appeal under Section 8, Rule 124. The Court explained the rationale: once an accused escapes confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, the accused is treated as having evaded judicial processes and is deemed to have forfeited the right to pursue an appeal. The Court drew support from People v. Mapalao, where the Court explained that such conduct results in loss of standing in court unless the accused surrenders or submits to the court’s jurisdiction. The Court also reiterated that the right to appeal is merely a statutory remedy and is subject to strict compliance with the rules governing its exercise.
The Court further cited People v. Taruc, stating that the right of appeal is not among those fundamental rights that cannot be waived, and that a fleeing appellant effectively waives the right by putting oneself beyond the reach of legal processes. The Court emphasized that conduct keeping the accused out of reach of justice and speculation on reversal is intolerable.
Correction of the CA’s Factual Premise on Jumping Bail
Applying these principles, the Court found that the CA’s conclusion was not supported by the record. The Court stressed that during the promulgation of the RTC Decision on March 21, 2012, Usares, through Atty. Vijiga, had manifested an intention to appeal within the prescribed period and had moved that she be released under the same cash bail bond. The RTC granted the motion, as shown by the March 21, 2012 RTC Order. The Court thus reasoned that Usares was not in fact placed outside the safeguards of provisional liberty while appeal was pending, given that the bail arrangement had been judicially allowed.
Validity of Provisional Liberty Under Same Cash Bail Bond
The Court anchored its analysis on Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, which allows, upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the grant of discretionary bail, including the possibility that the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail, subject to the consent of the bondsman. The Court further noted an important distinction: what Usares posted was a cash bail bond. The Court treated this as materially different from securities that require the participation of a third party surety whose qualification must first be ascertained by the court.
To demonstrate that the cash bond actually remained available, the Court relied on certifications issued by the clerks of court. The certification dated October 22, 2013 by the RTC Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, signed by Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-Buendia, confirmed that the cash bond had not yet been withdrawn as of that date. The CA Clerk of Court’s certifications, including those dated October 24, 2013 and July 9, 2013, corroborated that the relevant waiver/undertaking and the RTC March 21, 2012 order were found in the CA’s docketed records. From these records, the Court held that the cash bond and the written undertaking approved by the RTC stood as sufficient security for provisional release during the appeal.
Because the deposited cash remained in government coffers, the Court concluded that it sufficiently secured Usares’s continued provisional liberty throughout the appeal proceedings, consistent with the RTC’s approval of the bail application under Section 5, Rule 114. Accordingly, the Court held that the CA should not have considered Usares to have jumped bail, and thus the dismissal of the appeal on that ground was erroneous.
Relaxation of Procedural Technicalities and Counsel Abandonment
The Court also addressed procedural issues concerning Usares’s motion for reconsideration before the CA. While it appeared that the motion for reconsideration was belated and resulted in the issuance of an entry of judgment, the Court found it proper to relax the technicalities in the interest of substantial justice, given that the underlying dismissal of the appeal lacked cogent basis.
The Court further recognized that Usares explained in her petition th
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 209047)
- The case arose from a petition for review on certiorari assailing Resolutions dated February 14, 2013 and September 6, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35317.
- The CA had dismissed petitioner Angela Usares y Sibay’s appeal and referred a Motion for the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 21 (RTC) for appropriate action.
- The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA resolutions, and remanded the case to the CA for resolution of the appeal on the merits with reasonable dispatch.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner Angela Usares y Sibay sought review of the CA’s dismissal of her appeal.
- Respondent was the People of the Philippines.
- The RTC convicted Usares and sentenced her for Homicide in Criminal Case No. 08-259156.
- After the RTC promulgation and subsequent filing of a Notice of Appeal, a later motion was filed in the appellate court for issuance of a warrant of arrest to enforce the RTC judgment.
- The CA dismissed the appeal for alleged jumping bail and denied reconsideration, reasoning that an entry of judgment had already issued.
- The Supreme Court treated the sole controlling question as whether the CA correctly dismissed the appeal.
Key Factual Allegations
- The RTC rendered a Decision dated February 23, 2012 finding Usares guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide.
- The RTC imposed an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day as maximum.
- The RTC ordered Usares to pay the victim’s heirs P50,000.00 each for actual and compensatory damages, moral damages, and exemplary damages, plus the costs of suit.
- The RTC cancelled the bond posted for Usares’s provisional liberty.
- The RTC Decision was promulgated on March 21, 2012, and Usares’s counsel manifested in open court that they intended to file a Notice of Appeal within fifteen (15) days from promulgation.
- Usares’s counsel also moved for release under the same bond, and the RTC granted the motion through an Order issued on March 21, 2012.
- Usares filed her Notice of Appeal on April 12, 2012, and the RTC granted it in an Order dated May 10, 2012.
- On November 28, 2012, Deodoro A. Edillo filed a Motion for the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest praying for enforcement of the RTC Decision.
- The CA dismissed the appeal on February 14, 2013 and, on March 11, 2013, the resolution became final and executory and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments.
- Usares later moved for reconsideration on July 15, 2013, and the CA denied it in a Resolution dated September 6, 2013 on both substantive and timeliness grounds.
- Usares explained that her previous lawyer, Atty. Jojo Soriano Vijiga, received the CA resolution but abandoned her cause without explanation, and that she only discovered the dismissal after checking with new counsel.
Statutory Framework
- The Supreme Court anchored its analysis on Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, which authorizes dismissal of an appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail, or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.
- The Court treated the dismissal authority under Rule 124 as a consequence for evasion of established judicial processes.
- The Court also applied Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court on discretionary bail, recognizing that upon RTC discretion after conviction, the accused may continue provisional liberty during the appeal under the same bail, subject to the consent of the bondsman.
- The Supreme Court described the right to appeal as a statutory remedy and reiterated doctrinal limits on waiver and the consequences of conduct that places the accused beyond the legal processes.
Issues Presented
- The central issue was whether the CA was correct in dismissing Usares’s appeal.
- The specific dismissal rationale invoked by the CA was that Usares jumped bail because she supposedly remained at liberty pending appeal without a valid bail bond posted and approved by the court.
Arguments of the Parties
- The CA’s position, as reflected in its resolutions, was that despite conviction and cancellation of bail bond, Usares remained at liberty without a valid bond, warranting dismissal under Section 8, Rule 124.
- Usares’s position, as accepted by the Supreme Court, was that she was released pursuant to an RTC order all