G.R. No. 193150, January 23, 2017
Loida M. Javier, Petitioner, vs. Pepito Gonzales, Respondent.

FACTS

This case involves a criminal prosecution for murder with frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder against respondent Pepito Gonzales. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palayan City, presided by Judge Erlinda Buted, convicted Gonzales and sentenced him to death. The promulgation of this judgment occurred on December 22, 2005. Gonzales failed to appear on the scheduled dates despite notices. His counsel had earlier filed a withdrawal of appearance with his client’s conformity. The court thus proceeded with promulgation in absentia, appointing a counsel de oficio, reading the dispositive portion, and recording the judgment in the criminal docket as per Rule 120, Section 6 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Subsequently, Judge Corazon Soluren assumed presiding duties over the branch. Gonzales, through his original counsel, filed an Omnibus Motion to set aside the conviction, arguing improper notice and lack of representation. Judge Soluren granted the motion, set aside the conviction, reinstated bail, and later, on October 31, 2006, rendered a new Decision acquitting Gonzales. Petitioner Loida Javier, representing the victim’s heirs, challenged these acts via certiorari. The Court of Appeals upheld Judge Soluren’s orders, prompting this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the promulgation of the judgment of conviction in absentia on December 22, 2005, was valid, thereby rendering Judge Soluren’s subsequent orders setting it aside and acquitting Gonzales void for lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the original conviction. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory procedure for promulgation in absentia under Rule 120, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. The rule explicitly provides that if an accused fails to appear despite notice, promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving a copy at his last known address or through his counsel. The RTC under Judge Buted meticulously complied with this procedure: it issued notices received by Gonzales’s sister, forfeited his bail, appointed counsel de oficio, read the dispositive portion in open court, and recorded the judgment. This valid promulgation perfected the court’s jurisdiction over the case, and the judgment became final for purposes of automatic review (the death penalty having been imposed). Consequently, Judge Buted’s court lost jurisdiction over the case except to correct clerical errors. Judge Soluren therefore acted without jurisdiction when she entertained and granted the Omnibus Motion, set aside the final judgment, and proceeded to acquit the accused. A judgment that has attained finality cannot be amended, modified, or vacated by the rendering court. The acquitting decision was a nullity.