Almuete vs People

GR 179611
Doctrine:
Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure allows the promulgation of judgment in
absentia and gives the accused a period of 15 days from notice to him or his counsel within which to
appeal, otherwise, the decision becomes final.
Facts:
Almuete, Ila and Lloren were charged before the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya with violation of PD 705 (Revised
Forestry Code of PHils). On the date of the promulgation of judgment the counsel of Almuete informed
the trial court that Almuete and Lloren were sick and Ila was not notified of the scheduled promulgation.
The RTC found their absence inexcusable and proceeded with the promulgation. The RTC also cancelled
the bail bonds of the accused and issued warrants of arrest against them.
The accused moved for a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the RTC.
Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner and his co-accused filed a petition for Certiorari with the Court
of Appeals
The CA granted the certiorari and acquitted Almuete of the charges against him.
The acquittal of petitioner prompted the People of the Philippines to raise the case to the Supreme
Court via Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The SC reversed the acquittal and reinstated the RTCs September 8, 1998 decision. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration but was denied by the SC.
The petitioner still filed for a second and third motion for reconsideration which were both denied by
the SC.
The petitioner filed with the RTC a motion for repromulgation of the Sept 8 decision. However, the RTC
denied this motion. The RTC also denied the motion for reconsideration filed thereafter.
The petitioner then filed a Petitioner for Certiorari with the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the RTC but the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Same goes for the motion for
reconsideration filed thereafter.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the RTC acted with grave abuse in denying the motion for repromulgation
2. Whether or not the promulgation of judgment is valid
3. Whether or not petitioners right to appeal has prescribed
4. Whether or not penalty imposed must be modified (I dont think this is needed, but)

Held:
1. NO
It is in accordance with Admin Circular 16-93
1
:
Promulgation of judgment in CA and SC is effected by filing a signed copy of the
judgment with the Clerk of Cour . This is not for promulgation or reading thereof to the
defendant but for the execution of the judgment against him. The duty of the RTC
(court of first instance) in respect to such judgment is merely to see that it is duly
executed when in their nature the intervention of the court of first instance is necessary
to that end.
The practice of requiring the convict to appear before the trial court for promulgation
of judgment is therefore immediately discontinued.

1
TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS,
AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
RE: PROCEDURE AFTER AFFIRMANCE OR MODIFICATION BY SUPREME COURT OR COURT OF APPEALS OF
JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES
To ensure uniformity in the procedure to be observed by the trial courts in criminal cases after their judgments of
conviction shall have been affirmed or modified by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, attention is invited
to the decisional and statutory guidelines set out hereunder.

1. The procedure for the promulgation of judgments in the trial courts in criminal cases, differs from that
prescribed for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals where promulgation is effected by filing the
signed copy of the judgment with the Clerk of Court who causes true copies thereof to be served upon the
parties. The procedural consequence of this distinction was reiterated in Jesus Alvarado, etc. vs. The Director
of Prisons, to wit: By sections 8 and 9 of Rule 53 (now Sections 10 and 11 of Rule 51) in relation to section 17
of Rule 120 (now Section 17 of Rule 124), a judgment is entered 15 days after its promulgation, and 10 days
thereafter, the records are remanded to the court below including a certified copy of the judgment for
execution. In the case of People vs. Sumilang (44 Off. Gaz., 881, 883; 77 Phil. 764), it was explained that the
certified copy of the judgment is sent by the clerk of the appellate court to the lower court under section 9
of rule 53, not for the promulgation or reading thereof to the defendant, but for the execution of the
judgment against him, it not being necessary to promulgate or read it to the defendant, because it is to be
presumed that accused or his attorney had already been notified thereof in accordance with sections 7 and
8, as amended, of the same Rules 53 (now sections 9 and 10 of Rule 51), and that the duty of the court of
first instance in respect to such judgment is merely to see that it is duly executed when in their nature the
intervention of the court of first instance is necessary to that end.

2. The practice of requiring the convict to appear before the trial court for promulgation of the judgment of
the appellate court should, therefore, be immediately discontinued. It is not only an unauthorized surplusage
entailing unnecessary expense, but it could also create security problems where the convict was already under
detention during the pendency of the appeal, and the place of confinement is at some distance from the station of
the court. Upon receipt of the certified copy of the judgment of the appellate court if the convict is under
detention, the trial court should issue forthwith the corresponding mittimus or commitment order so that the
prisoner may be considered remitted or may be transferred to the corresponding prison facility for confinement
and service of sentence. When the convict is out on bail, the trial court shall immediately order the bondsman to
surrender the convict to it within ten (10) days from notice and thereafter issue the corresponding mittimus. In
both cases, the trial court shall submit to this Court proof of the execution of judgment within fifteen (15) days
from date of such execution.
It is clear that the practice of requiring convicts to appear before the trial courts for
promulgation of the affirmance or modification by the SC or CA of judgments of conviction in
criminal cases is no longer allowed.
2. YES
There was no reason to postpone the promulgation of the RTCs decision because petitioners
absence was unjustifiable. (he was suffering from stress, anxiety, physiological disturbance etc)
There was no grave abuse of discretion.

3. YES, prescribed already
An acquittal via a petition for Certiorari is not allowed because the authority to review errors
of the trial court in the exercise of its judgment and discretion (they questioned their conviction
and their penalty as well as the evidence against them as mere hearsay) are correctible only by
appeal by writ of error. Petitioner availed of the wrong remedy when it applied for certiorari
instead of appeal.
Note: no double jeopardy because acquittal by the CA is void. In this case, CA is only authorized
to entertain and resolve errors of jurisdiction not errors of judgment. No valid judgment, no
double jeopardy.
4. YES
This isnt qualified theft so the penalty imposed should be the one under Article 309 and not
Article 310 of the RPC.
The court can modify the penalty imposed even when the assailed decision has reached finality
when there is a strong showing that a grave miscarriage of justice would result from a strict
application of the rules.
The modification of judgment was also made to apply to the petitioners co-accused who failed
to appeal.