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 motions and postponements, the RTC later declared her a fugitive from justice. The trial continued in her absence, and she was convicted 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 due course to the appeal, 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 Court of Appeals 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 right to appeal her conviction.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that if an accused is convicted and her failure to appear at promulgation is without justifiable cause, she shall lose the remedies available under the Rules against the judgment. The Court emphasized the settled doctrine that an accused who escapes from confinement or jumps bail loses her standing in court and is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief, including the right to appeal, unless she surrenders or submits to the court’s jurisdiction.
In this case, the records indisputably show that petitioner was at large during the trial, was declared a fugitive, and remained at large even during the promulgation of the judgment and the subsequent appellate proceedings. Having voluntarily placed herself beyond the court’s reach, she forfeited her right to appeal. Consequently, the RTC correctly denied due course to her Notice of Appeal. Mandamus is a remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty only when the petitioner has a clear legal right to the act demanded. Since petitioner lost her right to appeal, she had no clear right to compel the RTC to accept her appeal. The petition for mandamus was therefore properly dismissed.