Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    Jurisdiction - Chiok Vs People, GR No. 179814, 07 December 2015

    Uploaded by

    Apple Lavarez
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain Wilfred Chiok's appeal of his estafa conviction. Chiok was convicted by the Regional Trial Court but failed to appear at the promulgation of the judgment. Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, an accused does not automatically forfeit their right to appeal by failing to appear. When Chiok perfected his Notice of Appeal and the RTC denied the prosecution's motion to deny due course, jurisdiction over the appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeals. Even though Chiok jumped bail, the Court of Appeals reacquired jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal according to the rules allowing dismissal if the appellant flees during the pendency of the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Jurisdiction - Chiok Vs People, GR No. 179814, 07 December 2015

    Uploaded by

    Apple Lavarez
    59 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain Wilfred Chiok's appeal of his estafa conviction. Chiok was convicted by the Regional Trial Court but failed to appear at the promulgation of the judgment. Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, an accused does not automatically forfeit their right to appeal by failing to appear. When Chiok perfected his Notice of Appeal and the RTC denied the prosecution's motion to deny due course, jurisdiction over the appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeals. Even though Chiok jumped bail, the Court of Appeals reacquired jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal according to the rules allowing dismissal if the appellant flees during the pendency of the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Criminal Procedure Case digest

    Original Title

    Jurisdiction - Chiok vs People, GR No. 179814, 07 December 2015

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain Wilfred Chiok's appeal of his estafa conviction. Chiok was convicted by the Regional Trial Court but failed to appear at the promulgation of the judgment. Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, an accused does not automatically forfeit their right to appeal by failing to appear. When Chiok perfected his Notice of Appeal and the RTC denied the prosecution's motion to deny due course, jurisdiction over the appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeals. Even though Chiok jumped bail, the Court of Appeals reacquired jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal according to the rules allowing dismissal if the appellant flees during the pendency of the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Jurisdiction - Chiok Vs People, GR No. 179814, 07 December 2015

    Uploaded by

    Apple Lavarez
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain Wilfred Chiok's appeal of his estafa conviction. Chiok was convicted by the Regional Trial Court but failed to appear at the promulgation of the judgment. Under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, an accused does not automatically forfeit their right to appeal by failing to appear. When Chiok perfected his Notice of Appeal and the RTC denied the prosecution's motion to deny due course, jurisdiction over the appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeals. Even though Chiok jumped bail, the Court of Appeals reacquired jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal according to the rules allowing dismissal if the appellant flees during the pendency of the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    TCC_COL_CaseBrief_01 Criminal Procedure 1 - Case Briefs 4

    Chiok vs People, GR No. 179814, 07 December 2015


    Ponente: Jardeleza, J:

    FACTS:
    Wilfred N. Chiok was charged with Estafa and was penalized under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code after
    misappropriating and converting to his own personal use the amount he received from Rufina Chua for the former to buy complainant shares
    of stocks.
    Chua, convinced by Chiok's representations and the fact that he is Chinese, she agreed to invest and buy Meralco and PLDT shares.
    According to her, she had deposited to Chiok’s Far East Bank, Annapolis branch the amount of P7.1M and later delivered to him the rest of the
    amount in cash.
    As reassurance, Chiok gave Chua two (2) interbank checks but requested for the first check to be deposited only after 60-75 days
    which would allow him to generate funds from the sale of a property in Hong Kong. Both checks were dishonored upon presentment for
    payment due to garnishment and insufficiency of funds.
    The Regional Trial Court convicted Chiok of the crime of Estafa and later issued an order for his arrest however, the order of arrest
    was returned to the trial court by the Makati Police Station on the ground that Chiok could not be located at his last given address.
    The prosecution filed for Cancellation of Bail pursuant to Section 5, Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the same day
    the judgment was promulgated. Chiok filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC denied and granted the petition to cancel his bail.
    Chiok filed for Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals as well as a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with a prayer for
    Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Injunction against the RTC order. The CA issued a TRO on the implementation of the omnibus order
    until further orders and later issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the arrest of Chiok.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain and decide on Wilfred Chiok’s appeal

    HELD:
    Yes. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to entertain the Wilfred Chiok’s appeal.
    Section 6, Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which was still in effect at the time Chiok filed his Notice to Appeal,
    explicitly provides that the right to appeal is not automatically forfeited when an accused fails to appear during the promulgation of judgment.
    Upon perfection of Chiok's Notice of Appeal and the subsequent denial of the prosecution's Motion to Deny Due Course to the Notice of
    Appeal by the RTC, the CA completely acquired jurisdiction over Chiok's appeal.
    The fact remains that when the Makati Police Station served the warrant for Chiok’s arrest and was returned to the RTC, the CA took
    cognizance of the unserved order of arrest and dismissed Chiok’s appeal in accordance with Section 8, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
    Procedure which provides that the appellate court may also, upon motion of the appellee or on its own motion, dismiss the appeal if the
    appellant escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.
    Therefore, when Chiok jumped bailed, the CA reacquired jurisdiction over the case and his person.

    SY 2021 - 2022, TOMAS CLAUDIO COLLEGES, COLLEGE OF LAW; TAGHANGIN MORONG, RIZAL

    You might also like