GR 149687; (April, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149687. April 14, 2004.
Florita Teope, petitioner, vs. The People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Florita Teope was charged with two counts of violating B.P. 22. After the prosecution rested, she filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which the RTC denied. The court then set hearings for her defense. Petitioner, however, failed to appear at a scheduled hearing, leading the RTC to forfeit her bail bonds. Despite subsequent orders and resettings, petitioner remained at large. The RTC eventually declared her a fugitive from justice. The trial proceeded in her absence, and she was found guilty in a Joint Judgment promulgated on January 18, 1999.
On January 20, 1999, petitioner, through counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal from the judgment. The RTC denied it due course, ruling that as a fugitive, she had lost her right to appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals to compel the RTC to give due course to her appeal. The CA dismissed the petition, prompting this review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for mandamus, thereby upholding the RTC’s denial of petitioner’s Notice of Appeal on the ground that she is a fugitive from justice.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. The ruling is anchored on Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states that if an accused sentenced in absentia fails to appear without justifiable cause, they shall lose the remedies available under the Rules against the judgment. The Court emphasized the settled doctrine that an accused who escapes from custody or jumps bail loses standing in court and is deemed to have waived the right to seek relief, including the right to appeal, unless they surrender or submit to the court’s jurisdiction.
Here, petitioner was unquestionably a fugitive at the time of the judgment’s promulgation and remained so throughout the appellate proceedings. Having lost her right to appeal by operation of law and judicial doctrine, she possessed no clear legal right to the performance of the ministerial act of approving her notice of appeal. A writ of mandamus requires a clear legal right to the performance of a ministerial duty. Since no such right existed, the CA correctly dismissed the petition. The Court upheld the principle that the state has the right to proceed with the prosecution while the accused, by her flight, relinquishes her right to demand judicial process.