Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    6.) Salvador Vs Chua

    Uploaded by

    Areeya Manalastas
    This case involved a petitioner who was convicted of estafa but failed to appear at the promulgation of judgment. The petitioner's counsel claimed he had hypertension, but the trial court proceeded anyway and issued a warrant for his arrest. The petitioner was later apprehended and filed a motion for leave to appeal, which was initially denied but later granted. However, the prosecution challenged the medical certificate, and a second judge then denied the motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals annulled this order, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the order granting the appeal was improper because the petitioner failed to surrender himself after failing to appear at the promulgation, as required by the Rules

    Copyright:

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

    6.) Salvador Vs Chua

    Uploaded by

    Areeya Manalastas
    91 views1 page
    This case involved a petitioner who was convicted of estafa but failed to appear at the promulgation of judgment. The petitioner's counsel claimed he had hypertension, but the trial court proceeded anyway and issued a warrant for his arrest. The petitioner was later apprehended and filed a motion for leave to appeal, which was initially denied but later granted. However, the prosecution challenged the medical certificate, and a second judge then denied the motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals annulled this order, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the order granting the appeal was improper because the petitioner failed to surrender himself after failing to appear at the promulgation, as required by the Rules

    Original Title

    6.) Salvador vs Chua.docx

    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 involved a petitioner who was convicted of estafa but failed to appear at the promulgation of judgment. The petitioner's counsel claimed he had hypertension, but the trial court proceeded anyway and issued a warrant for his arrest. The petitioner was later apprehended and filed a motion for leave to appeal, which was initially denied but later granted. However, the prosecution challenged the medical certificate, and a second judge then denied the motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals annulled this order, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the order granting the appeal was improper because the petitioner failed to surrender himself after failing to appear at the promulgation, as required by the Rules

    Copyright:

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

    6.) Salvador Vs Chua

    Uploaded by

    Areeya Manalastas
    This case involved a petitioner who was convicted of estafa but failed to appear at the promulgation of judgment. The petitioner's counsel claimed he had hypertension, but the trial court proceeded anyway and issued a warrant for his arrest. The petitioner was later apprehended and filed a motion for leave to appeal, which was initially denied but later granted. However, the prosecution challenged the medical certificate, and a second judge then denied the motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals annulled this order, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the order granting the appeal was improper because the petitioner failed to surrender himself after failing to appear at the promulgation, as required by the Rules

    Copyright:

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

    Salvador vs Chua

    GR No. 212865
    July 15, 2015
    (Failed to appear)

    Facts:
    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 signed by a new doctor.
    6. The case was re raffled to another JUDGE. SECOND JUDGE denied the MR filed by
    prosecutor.
    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:
    Whether the order granting the appeal was proper

    Ruling:
    No. The accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction loses the
    remedies available under the Rules 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.

    You might also like