PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. SUSAN MEDINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Medina

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Susan Medina, a criminal appeal brought by the accused from a conviction for child abuse under Republic Act Number 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse and Discrimination Act. The People prosecuted; Susan Medina was the accused-appellant. The case matters not for the crime itself but for what happened to the appeal: the accused, who was out on bail during trial, failed to appear at the promulgation of her sentence and could not be located. The Supreme Court therefore had to decide whether an appeal may proceed when the appellant has jumped bail. It is a procedural case about the consequences of flight, and it teaches the rule that a fugitive from justice loses standing to seek relief from the courts.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 102, tried Susan Medina and, in a decision dated November 26, 2012, convicted her for violation of Sections (a) and (b) of Republic Act Number 7610. It sentenced her to imprisonment of four years, nine months and eleven days of prision correccional as minimum, to six years, eight months and one day of prision mayor as maximum. She did not appear at the promulgation of judgment that day, so the trial court issued a warrant of arrest against her.

On March 4, 2013, the trial court nonetheless gave due course to her notice of appeal and elevated the records to the Supreme Court. The Judicial Record Division reported a pending warrant of arrest with no return on record. The Supreme Court directed counsel for the accused to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed under Section 8 of Rule 124, considering that the accused had jumped bail. Counsel complied, saying the firm had lost communication with the accused and was pursuing the appeal on its own. The trial court's branch clerk later submitted the return on the warrant, showing that the arresting officer had tried several times to effect the arrest but could not locate the accused or her given address. The Supreme Court required counsel anew to show cause, granted an extension to file the appellant's brief, and received a compliance in which counsel admitted they could not state the whereabouts of the accused or whether she had jumped bail, since she had not communicated with them after arraignment. The appeal then reached the Supreme Court for resolution.

Facts

Susan Medina was charged with child abuse under Republic Act Number 7610 and was out on bail during the trial. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City convicted her and set the promulgation of judgment for November 26, 2012.

Despite notice, the accused did not appear at the promulgation. The trial court issued a warrant of arrest. When the arresting officer attempted to serve it, he tried several times but could not find the accused or her given address.

Counsel for the accused, who had lost contact with her after arraignment, still filed a notice of appeal and later sought extensions to file the appellant's brief. The Supreme Court repeatedly asked counsel to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed, and counsel could only say that the firm did not know the accused's whereabouts.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal of an accused who jumped bail may be dismissed under Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not an accused who escapes, jumps bail, or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal loses standing in court and waives the right to seek relief.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio. The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.

This is the very ground the Court invoked: the accused jumped bail during the pendency of her appeal, which authorizes dismissal of that appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal must be dismissed. The accused, who was out on bail during trial, is deemed to have jumped bail when she failed to appear at the promulgation of her sentence despite notice. That is a ground for dismissal of an appeal under Section 8 of Rule 124. The Court quoted the second paragraph of that provision, which allows dismissal, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail, or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.

On the second issue, the Court laid down the consequence of flight. Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail, or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court. Unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court. Because the accused never surrendered and could not be located, her appeal could not proceed.

Doctrine

An accused who escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail, or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal loses standing in court. Unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court. This rule is embodied in Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, which authorizes the dismissal of an appeal, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, when the appellant jumps bail during the pendency of the appeal. A bar candidate should state it as a rule: flight during appeal forfeits the right to be heard, and the appeal may be dismissed outright.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal pursuant to Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court and declared the case closed and terminated, so the conviction of Susan Medina stands.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an accused who jumps bail during the pendency of the appeal loses standing in court and waives any right to seek relief unless he surrenders. Examiners use this case to test Section 8 of Rule 124 and the doctrine that a fugitive from justice cannot ask the courts for relief while evading their jurisdiction.