Edward Garrick Doroja and Percival Doroja v. People, Degeron, et. al.

| GR 184091 | January 31,

2011

The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege,
and, as such, may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The
party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the
right to appeal is lost.

FACTS:

Petitioners were among those charged for robbery extortion before the RTC which they all plead guilty.
Petitioners failed to appear before the trial court to adduce evidence in their defense. It was only PO3
Macalinao who appeared before the court to present his evidence. During the promulgation of judgment
petitioners again failed to appear despite proper notice to them at their addresses.

Petitioners filed their notices of appeal through their new counsel and explained therein that they failed to
attend the promulgation of judgment because they did not receive any notice thereof because they were
transferred to another police station. The RTC denied due course their notice of appeal. They sought for
its reconsideration but the same was also denied except for Macalino who have shown sufficient interest
in defending his case.

Petitioners ratiocinated that they could not be faulted because their former counsel of record did not
inform them of the need to notify the RTC thereof, much less properly advise them of the current status of
the proceedings.

Whether Petitioners has the right to appeal.

Petitioners have lost this right to appeal for their failure to comply with the procedural requirements.
Section 6, Rule 120 provides that “If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to
appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules against the
judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment,
however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He
shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence
was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from
notice.” Thus, accused who failed to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction shall lose
the remedies available under the Rules of Court against the judgment.

However, the Rules allow the accused to regain his standing in court in order to avail of these remedies
by:
a. His surrender; and
b. His filing of a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies, stating therein the reasons for
his absence, within 15 days from the date of promulgation of judgment.
If the trial court finds that his absence was for justifiable cause, the accused shall be allowed to avail
of the said remedies within 15 days from notice or order finding his absence justified and allowing
him to avail remedies against the judgment of conviction.

Thus, petitioners' mere filing of notices of appeal, only explaining their absence during the promulgation
of judgment, cannot be considered an act of surrender. The term "surrender" under Section 6, Rule 120 of
the Rules of Court contemplates an act whereby a convicted accused physically and voluntarily submits
himself to the jurisdiction of the court to suffer the consequences of the verdict against him. The filing of
notices of appeal cannot suffice as a physical and voluntary submission of petitioners to the RTC’s
jurisdiction.

Even if petitioners' notices of appeal were given due course, the CA would only be constrained to dismiss
their appeal. This is because petitioners, who had standing warrants of arrest but did not move to have
them lifted, are considered fugitives from justice. Since it is safe to assume that they were out on bail
during trial, petitioners were deemed to have jumped bail when they failed to appear at the
promulgation of their sentence.

Once an accused:
a. Escapes from prison or confinement;
b. Jumps bail (as in the case of petitioners; or
c. Flees to a foreign country
He loses his standing in court. Unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is
deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court. Thus he loses his right to appeal.

Consulta v. People | GR No. 179462 | February 12, 2009

FACTS:

Appellant Consulta was charged of the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.
Appellant denied the charge and branded it as fabricated to spite him and his family in light of pre-
existing sour relations between Nelia, the private complainant, and her family on one hand, and appellant
and family on the other.

Whether Consulta should be held guilty of the crime of robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons

The elements of robbery are: 1) there is a taking of personal property; 2) the personal property belongs to
another; 3) the taking is with animus lucrandi; and 4) the taking is with violence against or intimidation of
persons or with force upon things.

Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the
offender. It may be presumed from the furtive taking of useful property pertaining to another, unless
special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator.

Based on the circumstances attendant in this case, appellant’s taking of Nelia’s necklace could not have
been animated with animus lucrandi or intent to gain. Appellant is, however, just the same, criminally
liable.

When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and
the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be
convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged
which is included in the offense proved.

Grave coercion, like robbery, has violence for one of its elements. The difference in robbery and grave
coercion lies in the intent in the commission of the act. The Court finds that by appellant's employment of
threats, intimidation and violence consisting of, inter alia, uttering of invectives, driving away of the
tricycle driver, and kicking of the tricycle, Nelia was prevented from proceeding to her destination. Thus
appellant is guilty of the crime of grave coercion.
PEOPE V. LARRANAGA |GR 138874-75 | January 31, 2007

FACTS:

This is a reconsideration of the decision of the Supreme Court convicting the accused for the crime of
special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape and simple
kidnapping and serious illegal detention. James Andrew Uy filed a motion for reconsideration praying for
the reduction of his penalty considering that he is yet a minor when the crime was committed.

Whether the penalty imposed against James Andrew S. Uy may be reduced.

Yes. James Andrew was still 17 years and 262 days old when the crime were committed on July 16, 1997.

The imposable penalty on James Andrew, by reason of his minority, is one degree lower than the
statutory penalty. The penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
with homicide and rape, being death, one degree lower therefrom is reclusion perpetua. On the other
hand, the penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention is reclusion perpetua to death. One
degree lower therefrom is reclusion temporal. There being no aggravating and mitigating circumstance,
the penalty to be imposed on James Andrew is reclusion temporal in its medium period. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years of prision
mayor in its maximum period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium
period, as maximum

People v. Robelyn Cabanada | GR 221424 | July 19, 2017

.FACTS:
Robelyn Cabanada was charged before the court of the crime of Qualified Theft for taking away several
belongings from Victoria’s residence. In an interview in Victoria’s residence, Cabanada admitted to PO2
Cotoner that she took the money and admitted that she still had some of the missing jewelry in her house.
The RTC convicted Cabanada for the crime of Qualified Theft. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision
of the RTC convicting Cabanada.

On her appeal before the Supreme Court she argued that her alleged admissions cannot be considered as
done in an ordinary manner, spontaneously, full and voluntarily as it was elicited through the questions of
PO2 Cotoner. She was patently treated as a suspect when she was being interviewed at the Victoria’s
residence. Thus, her uncounselled admissions are inadmissible in evidence for having been obtained
without a valid waiver on her part. On the other hand, the OSG argues that although Cabanada's
confession may have been obtained through PO2 Cotoner's interview, the same was given freely and
spontaneously during a routine inquiry and not while she was under custodial investigation. She made the
said admission in her employer's residence wherein she was neither deprived of her liberty nor considered
a suspect.

Whether Cabanada’s admission in Victoria’s house in admissible.

Yes. Cabanada’s admission while in Victoria’s residence is admissible.

The bill of rights of the Constitution provide that:

‘Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
 services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

Xxx

Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof be

inadmissible in evidence against him’

Miranda doctrine requires that:

a. Any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent;
b. Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
c. He has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present
when being questioned; and
d. If he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so desires.

Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in
the commission of a crime under investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions on the
suspect's participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission. In RA 7438 “custodial investigation”
shall include the practice of issuing an “invitation” to a person who is investigation in connection with an
offense he is suspected to have committed.

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers:

1. After a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way.
2. The suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends
itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate.

This means that even those who voluntarily surrendered before a police officer must be apprised of their
Miranda rights.