RENATO C. ROBLES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JUDGE NESTOR V. GAPUZAN, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT BRANCH 75, MARIKINA CITY, AND JCINSP. GREGORIO C. ACACIO, RN, OFFICER-I…

Robles versus Gapuzan

The Case

This is the case of Robles versus Gapuzan, a petition for habeas corpus and certiorari brought by Renato Robles against the presiding judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 75, and the officer who detained him. Robles had been convicted of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the Bouncing Checks Law, for issuing an unfunded check, and after he failed to appear at the promulgation of judgment, the trial court ordered his arrest and later denied his motion for bail. He went to the Supreme Court seeking release. The case matters because it gathers in one place the rules a bar candidate must know on the writ of habeas corpus, on the effect of a convict's absence at promulgation, on bail after conviction, and on the strict requirements of the extraordinary writ of certiorari.

Procedural History

Robles was indicted before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 75, for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. After trial, the trial court convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine with subsidiary imprisonment and to indemnify the private complainant. He and his counsel failed to appear at the promulgation, so the trial court issued a warrant of arrest; he was arrested and detained at the Marikina City Jail. Through counsel, he filed an Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to Avail of Remedies, with an urgent motion for immediate release and a motion for bail. The trial court denied the entire motion in its order dated 9 March 2015. Robles then filed with the Supreme Court this original petition for habeas corpus and certiorari, seeking to set aside that order and to secure his immediate release.

Facts

Robles was charged with issuing an unfunded check in the amount of 1,428,000 pesos. After trial, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Marikina City convicted him on 29 January 2012. The court sentenced him to pay a fine of 200,000 pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of 900,000 pesos, representing a loan, with interest at twelve percent per annum from the filing of the complaint until 30 June 2013, and at six percent per annum thereafter until fully paid.

At the scheduled promulgation, Robles and his counsel did not appear. The trial court accordingly issued a warrant of arrest. Robles was arrested and detained in the Marikina City Jail. Through counsel, he filed an Omnibus Motion asking for leave to avail of remedies, for immediate release pending a bail application, and for bail. He claimed that a mild heart attack had prevented him from attending the promulgation.

At the hearing of the motion, however, the doctor who issued the medical certification contradicted him. The doctor refuted having examined Robles on the date stated in the certification, and testified that his last check-up on Robles had been in 2014. The trial court thus denied the motion for leave to avail of remedies. It also denied bail, explaining that bail relieves an accused of the rigors of imprisonment during trial but is not available after conviction. Robles then filed this petition for habeas corpus and certiorari.

Issues

• Whether or not there was illegal and unlawful deprivation of liberty of the petitioner, in violation of his constitutional right to due process, under an illegal warrant of arrest and the order dated 9 March 2015.
• Whether or not the petitioner should be immediately released from detention.
• Whether or not the public respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the petitioner's motion for bail or immediate release.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. — If it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.

This provision bars the writ where the detention rests on a judgment or order of a court that had jurisdiction, which is exactly the situation of Robles.

Section 6 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 6. Promulgation of judgment. — In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel. 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.

This provision is the source of the trial court's authority to order the arrest of Robles and to withhold his remedies after he failed to justify his absence.

Section 24 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 24. No bail after final judgment; exception. — An accused shall not be allowed bail after the judgment has become final, unless he has applied for probation before commencing to serve sentence, the penalty and the offense being within the purview of the Probation Law. In case the accused has applied for probation, he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail, but if no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one, the court may allow his release on recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the community. In no case shall bail be allowed after the accused has commenced to serve sentence.

This provision supports the denial of bail, since Robles stood convicted and had lost his remedies against the judgment.

Section 5 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain cases. — When the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the petitioner shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as public respondent or respondents.

Robles failed to implead the private complainant, which is an independent ground to dismiss his certiorari petition.

Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4. When and where petition filed. — The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in the aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.

This provision embodies the hierarchy of courts, which Robles disregarded by filing directly with the Supreme Court a petition against a first level court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no illegal deprivation of liberty. The writ of habeas corpus inquires into the legality of detention, but it will not issue where the person is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court with jurisdiction, or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record. A habeas corpus petition to secure release from detention under a judgment is a collateral attack on that judgment, and the writ lies only where the judgment is absolutely void for want of jurisdiction, not where it is merely voidable for errors or irregularities. Here, Robles was validly arrested because he failed to attend the promulgation, and the trial court issued the warrant pursuant to Section 6 of Rule 120. The Court stressed that the rule does not distinguish whether the penalty involves imprisonment or not, invoking the maxim that where the law does not distinguish, neither should the court. Robles could not therefore claim exemption from arrest simply because his penalty consisted only of a fine and indemnification. The Court also noted that Robles never raised before the trial court the argument that the lightness of his penalty entitled him to immediate release; his motion rested solely on his failing health. Points of law and arguments not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on review, and he is deemed to have waived the issue.

On the second issue, the Court held that Robles was not entitled to immediate release. His detention rested on a valid judgment and a valid warrant, so the writ of habeas corpus was unavailable to him.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion. Bail is intended to afford an accused temporary liberty until the main case is resolved, but Robles had already been convicted. Having failed to prove that his absence at promulgation was justifiable, he had lost all remedies against the judgment, including a motion for new trial or reconsideration and an appeal. Even bail pending appeal was therefore unavailable to him under Section 24 of Rule 114. The Court added that the certiorari petition suffered from several defects: Robles failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order, which is indispensable before resort to certiorari; he failed to implead the private complainant as a private respondent under Section 5 of Rule 65; and he violated the hierarchy of courts by filing directly with the Supreme Court a petition against a first level court, when the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue the writ. The Court closed by observing that he who comes to court must come with clean hands, and that only the truth shall set him free.

Doctrine

A bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the person is detained under process issued by a court with jurisdiction, or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, as Section 4 of Rule 102 states. Second, a habeas corpus petition to secure release under a judgment is a collateral attack on that judgment, and the writ lies only where the judgment is absolutely void for lack of jurisdiction, not where it is merely voidable. Third, under Section 6 of Rule 120, an accused who fails to appear at promulgation without justifiable cause loses the remedies against the judgment and may be arrested, and the rule does not distinguish between penalties of imprisonment and penalties of fine. Fourth, under Section 24 of Rule 114, bail is not available after conviction and final judgment, save for the probation exception. Fifth, a certiorari petition under Rule 65 must be preceded by a motion for reconsideration, must implead the interested private respondents under Section 5, and must respect the hierarchy of courts under Section 4.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied both the petition for habeas corpus and the petition for certiorari for lack of merit, and Robles remained in detention under the valid judgment and warrant of arrest.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the detention is under a judgment or order of a court that had jurisdiction, because the writ lies only against a judgment that is absolutely void. Examiners use this case to test the interplay of Section 6 of Rule 120 on absence at promulgation, Section 24 of Rule 114 on no bail after conviction, and the procedural strictness of certiorari under Rule 65.