G.R. No. 212865 , July 15, 2015
Horacio Salvador, Petitioner, vs. Lisa Chua, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Horacio Salvador and his wife were charged with estafa. On March 30, 2011, the scheduled date for the promulgation of the judgment of conviction, their counsel moved for deferment, claiming Salvador was suffering from hypertension. The RTC proceeded with the promulgation, finding them guilty and sentencing them to imprisonment. A warrant for Salvador’s arrest was issued, and he was apprehended on April 7, 2011. Salvador filed a Motion for Leave to file Notice of Appeal, attaching a medical certificate dated March 30, 2011, purportedly from Dr. Paulo Miguel A. David of Rizal Medical Center. The RTC initially denied the motion. Respondent Lisa Chua, the complainant, filed a Motion for Execution. The RTC later granted Salvador’s motion for reconsideration, giving due course to his notice of appeal, and also granted Chua’s Motion for Execution. The prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration against the order allowing the appeal, attaching an affidavit from Dr. Paolo Miguel A. David denying he examined Salvador on March 30, 2011, issuing any medical certificate, or that the signature on the submitted certificate was his. Salvador opposed, submitting another medical certificate from an OB-Gynecologist. The case was re-raffled to another judge, who denied the prosecution’s motion and allowed Salvador to post bail. Chua filed a petition for certiorari in the CA, which granted it, nullifying the RTC orders giving due course to the appeal and allowing bail, and reinstating the order denying the appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the respondent, as the complainant in the criminal case, had the legal personality to file the petition for certiorari in the CA to assail the orders of the RTC despite the lack of consent of the OSG.
2. Whether the petitioner had lost his standing in court for his failure to appear at the promulgation of his conviction.

RULING

1. Yes, the respondent had legal standing to assail the questioned orders through certiorari. While the OSG is the appellate counsel of the State in criminal proceedings, an exception exists where an aggrieved party, including the private offended party or complainant, may file a special civil action for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. The complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case and may file such an action in her own name. The CA correctly held that Chua continued to have an interest as the appeal would open the entire case for review, including the civil aspect.
2. Yes, the petitioner lost his standing in court. Under Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, an accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of judgment without justifiable cause loses the remedies available against the judgment, and the court shall order his arrest. The medical certificate submitted by Salvador was discredited by the affidavit of the doctor whose name was used, who denied its issuance and authenticity. The other certificate from an OB-Gynecologist was also insufficient and not from the appropriate specialist. Even assuming hypertension was a justifiable cause, Salvador did not fulfill the requirement of surrendering himself to the court. His failure to comply with the rule rendered the conviction final and immutable, and he lost his right to appeal. The CA correctly nullified the RTC orders for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision.