Salvador vs. Chua [G.R. No. 212865] Case Digest

 

Salvador vs. Chua

G.R. No. 212865

 

Facts:

The petitioner and his wife Marinel Salvador were charged in the RTC with estafa penalized under Article 315 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. On March 30, 2011, the date scheduled for the promulgation of the judgment, their counsel moved for the deferment of the promulgation inasmuch as the petitioner was then suffering from hypertension. Unconvinced of the reason, the RTC proceeded to promulgate its decision. RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the said crime.

The petitioner filed his Motion for Leave to file Notice of Appeal dated April 13, 2011, and attached thereto the medical certificate dated March 30, 2011 purportedly issued by Dr. David, certifying that the petitioner had submitted himself to a medical consultation at the Rizal Medical Center on March 30, 2011 and had been found to be suffering from hypertension.

RTC Judge Eugenio G. DelaCruz initially denied the petitioner's Motion for Leave to file Notice of Appeal on the ground of non-compliance with Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. The petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the July 1, 2011 order. Judge Dela Cruz granted the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on October 26, 2011, thereby giving due course to his notice of appeal.

The private prosecutor, filed its Motion for Reconsideration against the order issued on October 26, 2011, attaching to the motion the affidavit executed by Dr. Paolo Miguel A. David18 affirming that he had not examined the petitioner on March 30, 2011; that he had not issued any medical certificate in favor of the petitioner.

The respondent commenced a special civil action for certiorari in the CA to nullify the October 26, 2011 order. CA granted the respondent's certiorari petition.

 

Issue:

Whether or not Petitioner has lost his right to appeal his conviction.

 

Held:

Yes.

 

Ratio:

If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state 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 fifteen (15) days from notice. [Rule 120, Sec. 6]