Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 625 views

    Salvador V Chua

    Uploaded by

    quasideliks
    This case involves a petitioner who was convicted of estafa but was not present at the promulgation of the judgment due to claimed hypertension. The petitioner later filed a motion for leave to file a notice of appeal. The RTC initially denied the motion but later granted it upon presentation of a medical certificate. However, the prosecution challenged the medical certificate. The SC affirmed the CA decision to nullify the RTC order granting the appeal. While hypertension could justify absence, the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement to surrender himself to the court's jurisdiction after promulgation as required by the Rules to avail remedies after failing to appear.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Salvador V Chua

    Uploaded by

    quasideliks
    625 views1 page
    This case involves a petitioner who was convicted of estafa but was not present at the promulgation of the judgment due to claimed hypertension. The petitioner later filed a motion for leave to file a notice of appeal. The RTC initially denied the motion but later granted it upon presentation of a medical certificate. However, the prosecution challenged the medical certificate. The SC affirmed the CA decision to nullify the RTC order granting the appeal. While hypertension could justify absence, the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement to surrender himself to the court's jurisdiction after promulgation as required by the Rules to avail remedies after failing to appear.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Salvador v Chua

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petitioner who was convicted of estafa but was not present at the promulgation of the judgment due to claimed hypertension. The petitioner later filed a motion for leave to file a notice of appeal. The RTC initially denied the motion but later granted it upon presentation of a medical certificate. However, the prosecution challenged the medical certificate. The SC affirmed the CA decision to nullify the RTC order granting the appeal. While hypertension could justify absence, the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement to surrender himself to the court's jurisdiction after promulgation as required by the Rules to avail remedies after failing to appear.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    625 views1 page

    Salvador V Chua

    Uploaded by

    quasideliks
    This case involves a petitioner who was convicted of estafa but was not present at the promulgation of the judgment due to claimed hypertension. The petitioner later filed a motion for leave to file a notice of appeal. The RTC initially denied the motion but later granted it upon presentation of a medical certificate. However, the prosecution challenged the medical certificate. The SC affirmed the CA decision to nullify the RTC order granting the appeal. While hypertension could justify absence, the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement to surrender himself to the court's jurisdiction after promulgation as required by the Rules to avail remedies after failing to appear.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CRIMPRO SURRENDER, RULE 120

    Title GR No. 212865


    SALVADOR v. CHUA Date: 15 July 2015
    Ponente: Bersamin, J.
    Horacio Salvador, petitioner Lisa Chua, respondent
    Appeal to undo the decision granted by CA in a petition for certiorari on the orders of RTC giving due course to the
    petitioner’s notice of appeal and application for bail.
    FACTS
    Case timeline:
    1. Petitioner and his wife were charged with estafa.
    2. On the scheduled day of promulgation of judgment of CONVICTION, the counsel of petitioner moved for
    deferment on the ground that his client is suffering hypertension. RTC unconvinced of the reason proceeded to
    promulgate the judgment.
    3. RTC issued a warrant of arrest. Thereafter the petitioner was APPREHENDED 8 DAYS after the promulgation of the
    judgment.
    4. Petitioner filed a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL. RTC initially denied the motion but was
    subsequently granted upon the petitioner’s MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION upon the showing a medical
    certificate to prove the hypertension suffered by the accused during promulgation.
    5. Prosecution moved for reconsideration and presented an affidavit by the alleged doctor who signed the Medical
    Certificate denying his signature affixed. The Petitioner opposed the motion by filing another Med Cert signedby
    a new doctor. (lol)
    6. The case was re raffled to another JUDGE. SECOND JUDGE denied the MR filed by prosec.
    7. Private respondent commenced a special civil action for certiorari with CA. CA granted the petition and nullified
    the assailed order of the SECOND JUDGE. MR by petitioner was also denied.
    8. Hence SC.

    ISSUE/S
    I. WON the order granting the notice of appeal was proper.
    RATIO
    NO. The accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction loses the remedies
    available under theRules of Court against the judgment, specifically: (a) the filing of a motion for new trial or for
    reconsideration (Rule 121 ), and (b) an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule 122). However, the Rules of
    Court permits him to regain his standing in court in order to avail himself of these remedies within 15 days from
    the date of promulgation of the judgment conditioned upon: (a) his surrender; and (b) his filing of a motion for
    leave of court to avail himself of the remedies, stating therein the reason for his absence. Should the trial court
    find that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he should be allowed to avail himself of the remedies within 15
    days from notice of the order finding his absence justified and allowing him the available remedies from the
    judgment of conviction.

    Even assuming that he had suffered hypertension, which could have validly excused his absence from the
    promulgation, the petitioner did not fulfil the other requirement of Section 6, supra, to surrender himself to the
    trial court. The term surrender used in the rule visibly necessitated his physical and voluntary submission to the
    jurisdiction of the court to suffer any consequences of the verdict against him.

    RULING
    DECISION PROMULGATED IS AFFIRMED.
    CABRITO

    You might also like