G.R. No. 209047 . January 07, 2019.
ANGELA USARES Y SIBAY, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Angela Usares was convicted of Homicide by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and sentenced to imprisonment. During the promulgation of the RTC Decision on March 21, 2012, her counsel manifested the intent to appeal and moved that she be allowed to remain free under the same bond previously posted. The RTC granted this motion in an Order dated March 21, 2012. Usares subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal. However, a private party later filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest against her.
The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Usares’s appeal via a Resolution dated February 14, 2013. The CA ruled that, following her conviction and the cancellation of her bail bond as stated in the RTC Decision, Usares continued to enjoy liberty without a validly approved bond during the appeal. She was thus considered to have jumped bail, warranting dismissal of her appeal under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The CA denied her motion for reconsideration, noting an entry of judgment had already been issued.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Usares’s appeal on the ground that she jumped bail.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the appeal. The legal logic hinges on the proper application of Section 8, Rule 124, which allows dismissal if an appellant “jumps bail.” Jumping bail implies a deliberate evasion of judicial processes by failing to surrender after a conviction becomes final or by violating bail conditions. The Court found this did not apply to Usares.
Critically, the RTC’s conviction order, while stating the bail bond was “cancelled,” was a standard dispositive clause for cases where the accused was already under custody. Here, Usares was on provisional liberty. More importantly, the RTC’s subsequent March 21, 2012 Order expressly granted her counsel’s motion to be “released under the same bond” pending appeal. This constituted a judicial approval for her continued release on the existing bond. The CA erred in ignoring this subsequent order, which modified the application of the dispositive portion regarding bail. Since she was released by court order, she cannot be deemed to have jumped bail or evaded the law. The right to appeal, while statutory, was not waived. The dismissal was therefore improper, and the case was remanded to the CA for resolution on the merits.