G.R. No. 184091; January 31, 2011
EDWARD GARRICK VILLENA and PERCIVAL DOROJA, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, NOMAR B. DEGERON, CHRISTIAN DANDAN, and ELIZABETH BORCELIS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Police Inspector Edward Garrick Villena and Police Officer 1 Percival Doroja, along with other co-accused, were indicted for robbery (extortion) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City. After arraignment and pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. Petitioners failed to appear to adduce evidence in their defense. On August 29, 2007, the RTC rendered a decision convicting petitioners and others of the crime charged. During the promulgation of judgment on September 3, 2007, petitioners again failed to appear despite proper notices sent to their addresses of record. The promulgation proceeded in their absence pursuant to the Rules, and the RTC issued warrants for their arrest.
On October 11, 2007, petitioners, through new counsel, filed separate notices of appeal. They explained their failure to attend the promulgation was due to not receiving notice because they had been transferred to another police station. In an Order dated November 20, 2007, the RTC denied due course to petitioners’ notices of appeal. The court ruled that petitioners had an obligation to inform the court of address changes to ensure receipt of court processes, and that their counsels of record had been duly notified. Furthermore, by failing to appear during trial and promulgation, and with warrants issued, petitioners had lost their standing in court.
Petitioners filed a joint Motion for Reconsideration. In an Order dated February 8, 2008, the RTC granted the motion for reconsideration of a co-accused (PO3 Macalinao) but denied petitioners’. The RTC distinguished the co-accused, who had attended hearings and presented evidence, and who provided documentary proof of his transfer. In contrast, the RTC found petitioners had repeatedly failed to appear at numerous hearings and the promulgation, failed to inform the court of their whereabouts, failed to seek to lift the bench warrants, and failed to provide any valid excuse or documentary proof for their non-appearance.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Resolution dated April 30, 2008, initially dismissed the petition for procedural deficiencies. Upon motion for reconsideration, the CA, in a Resolution dated August 1, 2008, denied the same, finding no prima facie evidence of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when it denied due course to petitioners’ notices of appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the rulings of the lower courts. The Court held that while an appeal is generally perfected by the mere filing of a notice of appeal, this presupposes the party has not lost standing in court. Petitioners lost their standing in court due to their unjustified failure to appear during trial and the promulgation of judgment, and their failure to surrender to the court’s jurisdiction.
The Court found petitioners’ excuse of lack of notice due to a transfer unsubstantiated, as they offered no documentary proof. Their claim that their former counsel did not advise them to notify the court of address changes or case status did not excuse their obligation to do so. The Court emphasized that an accused has the duty to inform the court of their current address. By their repeated and unjustified absences, and by remaining at large despite warrants, petitioners were deemed to have waived their right to appeal. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying their notices of appeal, and the CA correctly dismissed their petition. The petition was without merit.