G.R. No. 183152-54 January 21, 2015
REYNALDO H. JAYLO, WILLIAM V ALENZONA and ANTONIO G. HABALO, Petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HEIRS OF COL. ROLANDO DE GUZMAN, FRANCO CALANOG and AVELINO MANGUERA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Reynaldo Jaylo, William Valenzona, and Antonio Habalo, together with Edgardo Castro, were PNP officers detailed with the NBI. In July 1990, they conducted a buy-bust operation targeting a heroin sale. During the operation at a parking lot, the three victims—Rolando De Guzman, Franco Calanog, and Avelino Manguera—were shot and killed. The prosecution alleged the accused surrounded and executed the victims after the buy-bust. The defense claimed the victims drew firearms first, prompting the accused to shoot in self-defense during the arrest. The Elma Committee, created by the President to investigate, recommended prosecution. Separate Informations for murder were filed before the Sandiganbayan. In its Decision dated April 17, 2007, the Sandiganbayan found petitioners and Castro guilty of homicide, not murder, due to lack of proven conspiracy or qualifying circumstances like treachery, and because the defense of lawful performance of duty was not established. During the promulgation of judgment, none of the accused appeared despite notice. The Sandiganbayan promulgated the decision in absentia, canceled their bail, and issued arrest warrants. Petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. In a Resolution dated November 29, 2007, the Sandiganbayan took no action on the motion, citing Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states that an accused who fails to appear at promulgation without justifiable cause loses available remedies, but may surrender within 15 days to file a motion explaining the absence. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of this Resolution, which was denied on May 26, 2008.

ISSUE

What are the repercussions of the failure of the accused to appear, without justifiable cause, at the promulgation of a judgment of conviction?

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan correctly applied Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Since petitioners failed to appear at the promulgation without justifiable cause, they lost the remedies available against the judgment. The provision allows an accused who surrenders within 15 days from promulgation to file a motion for leave to avail of remedies, provided the absence is justified. Petitioners did not surrender within the 15-day period. Their Motion for Partial Reconsideration, filed without prior surrender and leave of court, was thus a mere scrap of paper which the Sandiganbayan correctly refused to act upon. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are binding and essential for an orderly administration of justice. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Resolutions.