Cacho, Julian Paul S.

2013-0623

Promulgation of Judgment (Sec. 6)

How is the judgment promulgated? Rules on promulgation of judgment As general rule, the judgment is promulgated by reading it in its entirety in the presence of the accused by any judge of the court in which it was rendered. When the judge is absent or outside the province or city, the clerk of court may promulgate the judgment. The presence of counsel during promulgation is not necessary.

As stated by the Court in Jamilano v. Cuevas, et al., G.R. No. L-33654, July 23, 1987: Insofar as the case of petitioner is concerned, a valid promulgation would be a reading of the sentence or judgment in the presence of the defendant (accused) and any Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, The aforecited provision does not require the presence of counsel for the validity of the promulgation. This Court in the early case of U.S. vs. Pantaleon Gimeno (3 Phil. 233-234) categorically held that the absence of defendant's counsel at the reading of the sentence would not affect the validity of the promulgation. No substantial right of the defendant on the merits was prejudiced by the failure to state these details in the complaint. Even if the complaint was defective in this respect we cannot reverse the judgment. The same thing can be said of the claim that the defendant's lawyer was not present when the sentence was pronounced. (Emphasis supplied) If only a dispositive portion was read to the accused, the first jeopardy will not validly terminate. The judgment must be read in its entirety for double jeopardy to attach. Moreover, reading only a dispositive portion of the judgment is considered a valid promulgation.

Can there be a promulgation of judgment in the absence of the accused? (Exception to the general rule)

Promulgation in absentia If the conviction is merely for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. Accused fails to attend the promulgation despite due notice or if he jumped bail or escaped from prison; judgment may be validly promulgated in absentia.

How accused is to be notified of the promulgation? The clerk of court shall give the notice personally to the accused or through his bondsman or warden and counsel. If the accused was tried in absentia because he jumped bail or escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his last know address.

Where should judgment be promulgated if the accused is confined in a province outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the court? If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the RTC with jurisdiction over the place of confinement upon request of the court that rendered the decision. The court promulgating the judgment can also accept notices of appeal and applications for bail, unless the court that rendered the decision changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, in which case, the application for bail can only be filed with the appellate court.

What happens if the accused fails to appear on the date of promulgation of judgment despite notice? The promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving the accused a copy thereof at his last known address or through his counsel. If the judgment is of conviction, the accused that fails to appear at the promulgation shall lose the remedies available to him against the judgment, and the court shall order his arrest. Within 15 days from promulgation, the accused can surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reason for his failure to attend the promulgation, and if he is able to justify his absence, he shall be allowed to avail of these remedies within 15 days from notice.

The remedies in the Rules of Court that the accused cannot avail of when judgment is promulgated in absentia:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Appeal Probation Parole Motion for new trial or reconsideration Suspension of sentence

In the case of People vs. Joven de Grano, et al., G.R. No. 167710, June 5, 2009, the Court stated thus: Thus, the accused who failed to appear without justifiable cause shall lose the remedies available in the Rules against the judgment. However, within 15 days from promulgation of judgment, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state in his motion the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation, and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within 15 days from notice. When the Decision dated April 25, 2002 was promulgated, only Estanislao Lacaba was present. Subsequently thereafter, without surrendering and explaining the reasons for their absence, Joven, Armando, and Domingo joined Estanislao in their Joint Motion for Reconsideration. In blatant disregard of the Rules, the RTC not only failed to cause the arrest of the respondents who were at large, it also took cognizance of the joint motion. The RTC clearly exceeded its jurisdiction when it entertained the joint Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the respondents who were at large. It should have considered the joint motion as a motion for reconsideration that was solely filed by Estanislao. Being at large, Joven and Domingo have not regained their standing in court. Once an accused jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, or escapes from prison or confinement, he loses his standing in court; and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.