on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls.

check for errors>

Rule 120 JUDGMENT Q: What is the definition of judgment in criminal cases? A: Section 1:

Rule 120 Judgment

SECTION 1. Judgment; definition and form. Judgment is the ad udi!ati"n #$ the !"u%t that the a!!used is guilt$ "% n"t guilt$ "& the "&&ense !ha%ged and the im'"siti"n "n him "& the '%"'e% 'enalt$ and !i(il lia#ilit$) i& an$. It must #e *%itten in the "&&i!ial language) 'e%s"nall$ and di%e!tl$ '%e'a%ed #$ the udge and signed #$ him and shall !"ntain !lea%l$ and distin!tl$ a statement "& the &a!ts and the la* u'"n *hi!h it is #ased. +1a, Q: What does it contain? A: Section 2: SEC. 2. Contents of the judgment. I& the udgment is "& !"n(i!ti"n) it shall state +1, the legal -uali&i!ati"n "& the "&&ense !"nstituted #$ the a!ts !"mmitted #$ the a!!used and the agg%a(ating "% mitigating !i%!umstan!es *hi!h attended its !"mmissi"n. +2, the 'a%ti!i'ati"n "& the a!!used in the "&&ense) *hethe% as '%in!i'al) a!!"m'li!e) "% a!!ess"%$ a&te% the &a!t. +/, the 'enalt$ im'"sed u'"n the a!!used. and +0, the !i(il lia#ilit$ "% damages !aused #$ his *%"ng&ul a!t "% "missi"n t" #e %e!"(e%ed &%"m the a!!used #$ the "&&ended 'a%t$) i& the%e is an$) unless the en&"%!ement "& the !i(il lia#ilit$ #$ a se'a%ate !i(il a!ti"n has #een %ese%(ed "% *ai(ed. In !ase the udgment is "& a!-uittal) it shall state *hethe% the e(iden!e "& the '%"se!uti"n a#s"lutel$ &ailed t" '%"(e the guilt "& the a!!used "% me%el$ &ailed t" '%"(e his guilt #e$"nd %eas"na#le d"u#t. In eithe% !ase) the udgment shall dete%mine i& the a!t "% "missi"n &%"m *hi!h the !i(il lia#ilit$ might a%ise did n"t e1ist. +2a, There is something wrong in convicting somebody without even a clear statement of why he is guilty. According to the S ! why is it that the law re"uires! es#ecially in criminal cases! the $udge should be careful in rendering a $udgment? Why must it be clearly stated why you are guilty under Section 1 % 2. Why is it that under Sections 1 and 2! the $udgment must clearly state why you are guilty? &n the following cases of 2EO23E vs. C454GO /12 SCR4 62/ 718889 :E3D: 'A strict com#liance with the mandate of the said #rovision is im#erative in the writing of every decision. (therwise! the rule would sim#ly a tool for s#eculations! which this ourt will not countenance s#ecifically in criminal cases involving the #ossible de#rivation of human life.) 2EO23E vs. ;UG4RIN 2*+ S ,A +-. /100*1 J. 2endo3a :E3D: 'The re"uirement that the decisions of courts must be in writing and that they must set forth clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which they are based serves many functions. &t is intended! among other things! to inform the #arties of the reason or reasons for the decision so that if any of them a##eals! he can #oint out to the a##ellate court the findings of facts or the rulings on #oints of law with which he disagrees. 2ore than that! the re"uirement is an assurance to the #arties that! in reaching $udgment! the $udge did so through the #rocesses of legal reasoning. &t is! thus! a safeguard against the im#etuosity of the $udge! #reventing him from deciding by ipse dixit /by instinct1. 4ouchsafed neither the sword nor the #urse by the onstitution but nonetheless vested with the sovereign #rerogative of #assing $udgment on the life! liberty or #ro#erty of his fellowmen! the $udge must ultimately de#end on the #ower of reason for sustained #ublic confidence in the $ustness of his decision. The decision of the trial court in this case disres#ects the $udicial function.)

175

on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 120 Judgment

&n other words! among the three branches of government! the $udiciary is the wea5est. &t has no #ower of the #urse or the sword. Purse 6 congress holds the budget. Sword 6 the $udiciary has no army to enforce decisions unli5e the e7ecutive where the e7ecutive is already the commander8in8chief of the A9:. So how can the $udiciary command the res#ect of the #eo#le? There is only one way 6 the force of its decisions 6 that its decisions are well argued and logical. This is the only way to have the #eo#le believe in the $udiciary. &f it cannot co#e with this! it is an insult! an attac5 to $udges who do not 5now how to write decisions! because this is how the $udiciary earns the res#ect of the #eo#le. (therwise! ba5a wala ng maniwala sa 5orte. That is how the S e7#lained that idea in the case of Bugarin. (ne interesting case in relation to Section 2 which dealt with the double $eo#ardy rule was the case of 4;45) SR. vs. G4RCI4 162 SCR4 66< =4CTS: (n the day of trial! the accused was there with his lawyer. The offended #arty was not in court. The $udge as5ed the fiscal what action he wanted to #roceed with. The fiscal said! We will look at the re ords! whether the offended part" were properl" informed.# 9inding that the offended #arty was #ro#erly informed! the fiscal said /oral motion1! $n that ase "our honor! we are moving for the dismissal of the riminal ase for la k of eviden e now upon us % wala ang offended part" eh.# The $udge dictated in o#en court! &lright! the ase is dismissed for failure to prose ute.# With that! the accused went home ha##y. After the accused left and shortly thereafter! the offended #arty arrived with his lawyer. After they learned of the dismissal they e7#lained that they had to travel far! had a flat tire and got caught in traffic. The $udge found their earlier non8a##earance as $ustified and ordered the revocation or reconsidered the earlier decision of dismissal! conse"uently resetting the trial. The accused learned of the succeeding events and #rotested that this was a case of double $eo#ardy. ;e contends that all the necessary elements of double $eo#ardy are #resent: valid com#laint! valid information filed in a com#etent court< had an arraignment< and the case was dismissed without his e7#ress consent. :E3D: The order of dismissal was e"uivalent to an ac"uittal 'ut a $udgment of ac"uittal under ,ule 12= must be in writing. The order dismissing the case was not in writing but was dictated in o#en court. &t was never reduced into writing. What was reduced to writing was the second order which revo5ed the first order. Since it was never in writing! there was no $udgment of ac"uittal. Therefore! there is no double $eo#ardy. ';owever! this order of dismissal must be written in the official language! #ersonally and directly #re#ared by the $udge and signed by him conformably with the #rovisions of ,ule 12=! section 2 of the ,ules of ourt. &n the instant case! it is very clear that the order was merely dictated in o#en court by the trial $udge. There is now showing that this verbal order of dismissal was ever reduced to writing and duly signed by him. Thus! it did not yet attain the effect of a $udgment of ac"uittal! so that it was still within the #owers of the $udge to set it aside and enter another order! now in writing and duly signed by him! reinstating the case.) This is how the Su#reme ourt s5irted the double $eo#ardy rule by a##lying ,ule 12=! Sections 1 and 2.

The 2nd #aragra#h of Section 2 is new and it radically changed the language of the #revious rule. Section 2! second #aragra#h: In !ase the udgment is "& a!-uittal) it shall state *hethe% the e(iden!e "& the '%"se!uti"n a#s"lutel$ &ailed t" '%"(e the guilt "& the a!!used "% me%el$ &ailed t" '%"(e his guilt #e$"nd %eas"na#le d"u#t. In eithe% !ase) the udgment shall dete%mine i& the a!t "% "missi"n &%"m *hi!h the !i(il lia#ilit$ might a%ise did n"t e1ist. +2a, This is $ust a re#etition of ,ule 111! Section 2 /last #aragra#h1 when the $udgment ac"uits the accused! the $udgment should state whether the evidence of the #rosecution absolutely failed to #rove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to #rove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. &n either case! the $udgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise does not e7ist. >ecause generally if you are ac"uitted on

176

on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 120 Judgment

reasonable doubt! it will not bar the filing of a se#arate civil action. >ut if the fact from which the civil liability might arise does not e7ist! then the ac"uittal is already a bar to a future civil liability. om#are this with the language of the 10-? ,ules! ,ule 12=! Section 2! last #aragra#h: In !ase "& a!-uittal) unless the%e is a !lea% sh"*ing that the a!t &%"m *hi!h the !i(il lia#ilit$ might a%ise did n"t e1ist) the udgment shall ma>e a &inding "n the !i(il lia#ilit$ "& the a!!used in &a("% "& the "&&ended 'a%t$. According to the 10-? ,ules! if the accused is ac"uitted based on reasonable doubt! the court may order the accused to satisfy civil liability because the cause of action in the civil case is already #roven although the accused is ac"uitted. &t is #ossible for the accused to be ac"uitted and yet is found to be civilly liable based on the -? ,ules. The rule under the 10-? ,ules was ta5en from decided cases such as the case of 2@T,(>AAB 4S. A C1-S ,A 2?0D. &n this case! the accused was charged with estafa. After trial! the court said that there was no estafa. &t is only a sim#le loan 6 so there is no crime. Aormally! the ne7t ste# is to let the offended #arty file a civil case to demand #ayment of the loan. >ut in the case of (etro'ank! the S said that it is a double effort. The Su#reme ourt said! 'While it is true that #etitioner 2etroban5 can no longer collect #rivate res#ondentEs civil liability on the basis of the criminal case filed! it could nonetheless collect the said civil liability #rayed for on the basis of the non8 #ayment of the loan contracted by res#ondent s#ouses from the ban5. There a##ear to be no sound reasons to re"uire a se#arate civil action to still be filed considering that the facts to be #roved in the civil case have already been established in the criminal #roceedings where the accused was ac"uitted. To re"uire a se#arate civil action sim#ly because the accused was ac"uitted would mean needless clogging of court doc5ets and unnecessary du#lication of litigation with all its attendant loss of time! effort! and money on the #art of all concerned.) This was the 10-? ,ules. Q: Aow! is that rule still valid under the 2=== ,ules? A: The new rule is silent. There is nothing here that says that the accused may be ac"uitted but found civilly liable unli5e the 10-? ,ules. &t only says that in case of ac"uittal! the $udgment should state whether the ac"uittal is based merely on reasonable doubt or the #rosecution absolutely failed to #rove the guilt of the accused. &n either case! the $udgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise does not e7ist. >ut as it is worded now! it would seem! you should file a se#arate civil case. And the #ractice of holding the accused liable civilly in a criminal case where he is ac"uitted! seems to be no longer #ossible. Fnder the new rules! $ust ac"uit 6 let him file a se#arate civil case. The old rule is sim#lier: Ao needG Hun na mismo sa criminal case 6 ac"uit him but ma5e him civilly liable. >ut now! the language is different. &t is a radical de#arture from the 10-? rules. SEC. /. Judgment for two or more offenses . ?hen t*" "% m"%e "&&enses a%e !ha%ged in a single !"m'laint "% in&"%mati"n #ut the a!!used &ails t" "# e!t t" it #e&"%e t%ial) the !"u%t ma$ !"n(i!t him "& as man$ "&&enses as a%e !ha%ged and '%"(ed) and im'"se "n him the 'enalt$ &"% ea!h "&&ense) setting "ut se'a%atel$ the &indings "& &a!t and la* in ea!h "&&ense. +/a, IetJs go bac5 to ,ule 11= on du#licitous com#laint or information. Fnder Section + of ,ule 11=! this is defined as a com#laint or information which charges more than one offense. This is not allowed. And the remedy here is you file a 2otion to Quash under Section + /f1! ,ule 11*. >ut the defect is waivable because if you do not file a 2otion to Quash! the trial can #roceed and if you are found guilty for committing 2 or more crimes! then there will be 2 or more #enalties. Fnder Section +! the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and #roved and im#ose on him the #enalty for each offense if the accused fails to ob$ect the du#licitous com#laint before the trial.

177

on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 120 Judgment

SEC. 0. Judgment in ase of varian e 'etween allegation and proof. ?hen the%e is (a%ian!e #et*een the "&&ense !ha%ged in the !"m'laint "% in&"%mati"n and that '%"(ed) and the "&&ense as !ha%ged is in!luded in "% ne!essa%il$ in!ludes the "&&ense '%"(ed) the a!!used shall #e !"n(i!ted "& the "&&ense '%"(ed *hi!h is in!luded in the "&&ense !ha%ged) "% "& the "&&ense !ha%ged *hi!h is in!luded in the "&&ense '%"(ed. +0a, We will go to this basic #rinci#le: 2r. ali3o is charged in an information of committing one crime. ;owever! during the trial! what was #roven is another crime. What will ha##en now? Well! we will have to as5 this "uestion 6 Q: &s the offense #roven included in the offense charged or does the offense #roven includes the offense charged? A: &f K@S! then a##ly Section .. Kou convict the accused of the offense #roved which is included in the offense charged! or of the offense charged which is included in the offense #roved. Q: What if 5ung malayong8malayo? The crime #roved is different from the crime charged li5e for e7am#le: The crime charged is homicide and what is #roved is robbery. What will ha##en? Will you a##ly Section 1. of ,ule 11= on substitution of information? A: Ao! you will not a##ly ,ule 11= Section 1. because we are already through with that stage. We are now in the trial stage where the crime #roved is different from the crime charged. Therefore! the #ro#er remedy here is Section 10 of ,ule 110! last #aragra#h: RU3E 118) SEC. 18. When mistake has 'een made in harging the proper offense . ?hen it #e!"mes mani&est at an$ time #e&"%e udgment that a mista>e has #een made in !ha%ging the '%"'e% "&&ense and the a!!used !ann"t #e !"n(i!ted "& the "&&ense !ha%ged "% an$ "the% "&&ense ne!essa%il$ in!luded the%ein) the a!!used shall n"t #e dis!ha%ged i& the%e a''ea%s g""d !ause t" detain him. In su!h !ase) the !"u%t shall !"mmit the a!!used t" ans*e% &"% the '%"'e% "&&ense and dismiss the "%iginal !ase u'"n the &iling "& the '%"'e% in&"%mati"n. +11a, /@ditor: Try to correlate this with Section 1.! ,ule 11=. They are similar. >ut for clearer understanding! #lease go bac5 to Section 10! ,ule 110 in the case of )&*+,- on the distinctions between these two #rovisions. Than5sG1 SEC. <. When an offense in ludes or is in luded in another. 4n "&&ense !ha%ged ne!essa%il$ in!ludes the "&&ense '%"(ed *hen s"me "& the essential elements "% ing%edients "& the &"%me%) as alleged in the !"m'laint "% in&"%mati"n) !"nstitute the latte%. 4nd an "&&ense !ha%ged is ne!essa%il$ in!luded in the "&&ense '%"(ed) *hen the essential ing%edients "& the &"%me% !"nstitute "% &"%m 'a%t "& th"se !"nstituting the latte%. +<a, Q: When does an offense include another! or when is it included in the other? A: Section ?! ,ule 12=. 9or example! 2r. Tiam3on is charged with 2F,H@, and what is established is ;(2& &H@. ;omicide is included in the crime of murder. The elements are identical. The only difference is that there are no "ualifying circumstances in homicide. (r! T;@9T is included in ,(>>@,K. The only missing element in theft is violence or intimidation. (r! I@SS :;KS& AI &ALF,K is included in S@,&(FS :;KS& AI &ALF,K. &n that case! the case will not be dismissed. Lust convict the accused of the crime #roven which is included in the crime charged. Such that if you are charged with murder! you can be convicted for homicide. Q: Su##ose the accused is charged with homicide and what was #roven is murder. So it is the other way around. What is the correct #rocedure?

178

on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 120 Judgment

A: onvict him for the crime charged. Ho not dismiss the case. Although the crime #roved CmurderD includes that which is charged ChomicideD! a #erson cannot be convicted of a more serious offense than that charged. The accused can only be convicted for homicide and the "ualifying circumstances of murder should be treated only as an ordinary aggravating circumstances. The same is true with theft and robbery. . .f. dis ussions on Se tion /! 0ule 1123 We will now go to some im#ortant cases. @INO vs. 2EO23E O= T:E 2:I3I22INES 1AB SCR4 626 =4CTS: 2r. Acelar is accused of murder as #rinci#al by direct #artici#ation. After trial! it was established that 2r. Acelar is only an accessory. ISSUE: an a #erson accused of murder as a #rinci#al may be convicted as an accessory?

:E3D: K@S! a #erson charged with an offense as #rinci#al maybe convicted as an accessory because the greater res#onsibility includes the lesser res#onsibility. Accessory is a lesser degree of #artici#ation. This is not a case of a variance between the offense charged and the offense #roved. ;ere! the accused was charged with murder and what was established by evidence was also murder. There is here no mista5e in charging the #ro#er offense. The variance is in the #artici#ation of the accused in the commission of the crime which is not covered by any s#ecific #rovision. What is covered by the rules is when there is a mista5e in charging the #ro#er offense! or when there is a total mista5e because the crime was never committed. Q: What is the difference between malversation and technical malversation? A: Although both crimes are committed by #ublic officers! malversation is #unishable under Article 21* of the ,: ! whereas! technical malversation is not referred as such in the ,: . Technical malversation is denominated as &llegal Fse of :ublic 9unds under Article 22= of the ,: . EC4M23E: Technical malversationM&llegal Fse of :ublic 9und is when a #ublic officer uses funds a##ro#riated for a certain #ublic #ur#ose CletJs say! for the construction of a school buildingD for another #ublic #ur#ose Cli5e widening or cementing of roads.D 24RUNG4O vs. S4NDIG4N;454N 18A SCR4 1A/ =4CTS: A #ublic officer was charged with technical malversation of #ublic funds or #ro#erty. The trial court found that the crime committed is not technical malversation. &t is more of malversation. ISSUE: 2ay a #erson! charged with technical malversation under Article 22= of the ,: ! be found guilty of malversation under Article 21*? :E3D: A(. ;e cannot be convicted of malversation because there is no similarity between these two crimes. '&n malversation of #ublic funds! the offender misa##ro#riates #ublic funds for his own personal use or allows any other #erson to ta5e such #ublic funds for the latterEs #ersonal use. &n technical malversation! the #ublic officer a##lies #ublic funds under his administration not for his or anotherJs #ersonal use! but to a pu'li use other than that for which the fund was a##ro#riated by law or ordinance.) 'Technical malversation is! therefore! not included in nor does it necessarily include the crime of malversation of #ublic funds charged in the information.) 'The Sandiganbayan therefore erred in not ordering the filing of the #ro#er information against the #etitioner! and in convicting him of technical malversation in the original case for malversation of #ublic funds. (rdinarily! the courtJs recourse would be to ac"uit the #etitioner of the crime of illegal

179

on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 120 Judgment

use of #ublic funds without #re$udice! but sub$ect to the laws on #rescri#tion! to the filing of a new information for such offense.) ' onsidering however that all the evidence given during the trial in the malversation case is the same evidence that will be #resented and evaluated to determine his guilt or innocence in the technical malversation case in the event that one is filed and in order to s#are the #etitioner from the rigors and harshness com#ounded by another trial! not to mention the unnecessary burden on our overloaded $udicial system! the ourt is ac"uitted the accused of the crime of illegal use of #ublic funds.) >ut Justi e 9eliciano dissented! 'Why "uestion the #rocedure used for violation the law?) Anong 5laseng decision ito? @ven before filing the correct information! the S already ruled that you are innocent? According to him! the correct #rocedure is not to dismiss both cases but to ac"uit the accused of the original com#laint of technical malversation and re"uire the filing of a new information charging the #ro#er offense CmalversationD. So this is one of the rare cases where the S decided not to be very technical and went straight to the decision. Siguro the S would li5e to save time. Q: &f a #erson is charged with ra#e! can he be convicted of "ualified seduction? &s "ualified seduction included in ra#e? A: &t seems that the elements are different. &n ra#e! there is no consent in the se7ual intercourse. >ut in seduction! there is consent although there is abuse of authority! relationshi# or there is deceit. >ut in the 100+ case of 2EO23E vs. SU;INGDSU;ING 22B SCR4 16B :E3DE 'A #erson charged with ra#e can be convicted of "ualified seduction if the latter though not alleged in the com#laint! a##ears in the victimJs affidavit.) &t seems that there is something wrong here< the com#laint says ra#e! but the victimJs affidavit says "ualified seduction. ;owever the S says it is fine. &t is tantamount to the same thing: not found in the com#laint but found in the victimJs affidavit. This is another 4ueer decision of the S . 2EC:O vs. S4NDIG4N;454N 2/B SCR4 116 =4CTS: There was somebody who im#orted highly ta7able items. (bviously! he had some connections with the >ureau of ustoms. ;e declared his items different form which he brought! so the ta7es are less. The obvious intention it to cheat the government of the correct amount of ta7es. ;e #re#ared the im#ort entry declaring false information or entries. ;owever! the ollector of ustoms ordered a s#ot ins#ection. So the attem#t did not succeed. The im#orter! together with the ustoms #eo#le were charged with attem#ted violation of the Anti8 Nraft Act. So! there was an attem#t to cause undue in$ury to the government by de#riving it of its #ro#er ta7es. ISSUE: an a #erson charged with a crime #unishable under a s#ecial law be found guilty instead of a felony in the ,: ? an a crime under the ,: be considered as included in the crime under a s#ecial law? :E3D: There is no such thing as attem#ted violation of the Anti8Nraft Act. The attem#ted! frustrated and consummated stages only a##ly to felonies in the ,: . Fnder crimes #unishable by a s#ecial law! you only #unish the consummated stage. Kou do not #unish the attem#ted and frustrated stages unless the s#ecial law says so. Since there was no in$ury caused to the government due to the time discovery! there was no violation of the Anti8Nraft Act. ;owever! they made false entries! thereby committing falsification. Therefore! they can be convicted of falsification of #ublic or commercial documents.

180

on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 120 Judgment

So in this case! it started as attem#ted violation of the Anti8Nraft Act Cs#ecial lawD and ended u# as a conviction for falsification under the ,: . A crime under the ,: was considered as included in the crime malum prohi'itum 2EO23E vs. @ERFOS4 280 SCR4 066 7188B9 =4CTS: A##ellants were charged for violating :H ?+2 6 Anti8:iracy And Anti8;ighway ,obbery Iaw (f 10*.. ISSUE: an a #erson charged for violating a s#ecial law be found guilty for a crime of robbery with homicide under the ,: ? :E3D: K@S. What a##ellants committed is the crime of robbery with homicide! which is distinct from the offense covered by :.H. ?+2 which #unishes! among others! indiscriminate highway robbery. 'Aonetheless! the designation of the crime in the information as 'highway robbery with homicide C4iolation of :H ?+2D) does not #reclude conviction of the a##ellants of the crime of robbery with homicide CArticle 20. /11 of the ,: D. &n the inter#retation of an information! what controls is not the designation but the descri#tion of the offense charged. The crime of robbery with homicide is clearly alleged in the information notwithstanding its erroneous ca#tion. &t is an offense necessarily included in that with which they were charged.) SEC. 6. Promulgation of judgment. The udgment is '%"mulgated #$ %eading it in the '%esen!e "& the a!!used and an$ udge "& the !"u%t in *hi!h it *as %ende%ed. :"*e(e%) i& the !"n(i!ti"n is &"% a light "&&ense) the udgment ma$ #e '%"n"un!ed in the '%esen!e "& his !"unsel "% %e'%esentati(e. ?hen the udge is a#sent "% "utside the '%"(in!e "% !it$) the udgment ma$ #e '%"mulgated #$ the !le%> "& !"u%t. I& the a!!used is !"n&ined "% detained in an"the% '%"(in!e "% !it$) the udgment ma$ #e '%"mulgated #$ the e1e!uti(e udge "& the Regi"nal T%ial C"u%t ha(ing u%isdi!ti"n "(e% the 'la!e "& !"n&inement "% detenti"n u'"n %e-uest "& the !"u%t *hi!h %ende%ed the udgment. The !"u%t '%"mulgating the udgment shall ha(e auth"%it$ t" a!!e't the n"ti!e "& a''eal and t" a''%"(e the #ail #"nd 'ending a''eal. '%"(ided) that i& the de!isi"n "& the t%ial !"u%t !"n(i!ting the a!!used !hanged the natu%e "& the "&&ense &%"m n"nD#aila#le t" #aila#le) the a''li!ati"n &"% #ail !an "nl$ #e &iled and %es"l(ed #$ the a''ellate !"u%t. The '%"'e% !le%> "& !"u%t shall gi(e n"ti!e t" the a!!used 'e%s"nall$ "% th%"ugh his #"ndsman "% *a%den and !"unsel) %e-ui%ing him t" #e '%esent at the '%"mulgati"n "& the de!isi"n. I& the a!!used *as t%ied in a#sentia #e!ause he um'ed #ail "% es!a'ed &%"m '%is"n) the n"ti!e t" him shall #e se%(ed at his last >n"*n add%ess. In !ase the a!!used &ails t" a''ea% at the s!heduled date "& '%"mulgati"n "& udgment des'ite n"ti!e) the '%"mulgati"n shall #e made #$ %e!"%ding the udgment in the !%iminal d"!>et and se%(ing him a !"'$ the%e"& at his last >n"*n add%ess "% th%u his !"unsel. I& the udgment is &"% !"n(i!ti"n and the &ailu%e "& the a!!used t" a''ea% *as *ith"ut usti&ia#le !ause) he shall l"se the %emedies a(aila#le in these %ules against the udgment and the !"u%t shall "%de% his a%%est. ?ithin &i&teen +1<, da$s &%"m '%"mulgati"n "& udgment) h"*e(e%) the a!!used ma$ su%%ende% and &ile a m"ti"n &"% lea(e "& !"u%t t" a(ail "& these %emedies. :e shall state the %eas"ns &"% his a#sen!e at the s!heduled '%"mulgati"n and i& he '%"(es that his a#sen!e *as &"% a usti&ia#le !ause) he shall #e all"*ed t" a(ail "& said %emedies *ithin &i&teen +1<, da$s &%"m n"ti!e. +6a, Alright. :romulgation is where the accused is #arusahan na or ac"uitted. &t consists of the reading of the decision in the #resence of the accused. This is one stage of the criminal #roceeding where the #resence of the accused is generally re"uired. The other instance is during the arraignment.

181

on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 120 Judgment

&t is not necessary that the #romulgation be made before the very same $udge who rendered the decision. @7am#le: The ,T of Havao has many branches. Su##ose the #romulgation will be made in the ,T >ranch -! but on the date of #romulgation! the $udge thereof got sic5. Q: an the decision of ,T >ranch - be #romulgated before the $udge of ,T >ranch 0? A: K@S! a decision rendered by one branch of a court may be #romulgated before another branch of the same court #recisely because it is the same court although of different branches. Section O! reads: ' 5he judgment is promulgated xxx in the presen e of xxx &67 J89), of the ourt in whi h it was rendered.# Ho not confuse this on what ha##ened in the 100+ case of 2EO23E vs. C=I O= GUEFON ;R4NC: 10 22A SCR4 0<A =4CTS: Accused was charged criminally in the ,T >ranch 1= #resided by Ludge A who tried the case but retired without deciding the case. 2eanwhile! Ludge >! #residing $udge of >ranch + was designated tem#orarily to ta5e over >ranch 1= and among the cases submitted to him for decision was the undecided case of the accused. So! he read the records and he wrote the decision on 2ay 22. (n Lune 0! Ludge was a##ointed #residing $udge of >ranch 1=. ;e too5 his oath of office the following day! Lune 1=! terminating automatically the designation of Ludge >. With the a##ointment of Ludge ! Ludge > was only left with his original sala 6 >ranch +. (n Lune 2=! the de#uty cler5 of court #romulgated the decision of Ludge > made on 2ay 22. ISSUEE Was the $udgment #enned by Ludge >! detailed to the vacant branch of the court! but #romulgated after the #ermanent $udge has been duly a##ointed to the vacancy! valid? :E3D: K@S. &t is valid. Ludge > did not retire. ;e is still in the SA2@ court although in another branch. '&t is not necessary that Ludge > be the #residing $udge of >ranch 1= at the time his decision was #romulgated since even after the e7#iration of his tem#orary designation at >ranch 1= he continued to be an incumbent of >ranch +. After all! the ,T is divided into several branches! each of the branches is not a court distinct and se#arate from the others. Lurisdiction is vested in the court! not in the $udges! so that when a com#laint or information is filed before one branch or $udge! $urisdiction does not attach to said branch of the $udge alone! to the e7clusion of the others.) '&ndeed! it would have been different altogether if the $udge whose decision was #romulgated had! #rior to its #romulgation! died! resigned! retired! been dismissed! #romoted to a higher court! or a##ointed to another office with inconsistent functions. Then! he would no longer be an incumbent member of a court of e"ual $urisdiction! and his decisions written thereafter would be invalid.) Q: &n #laces where there is only one branch of the ,T ! no other sala! who #romulgates the decision in case of the absence of the $udge? A: The cler5 of court. Fnder Section O! When the judge is a'sent or outside the provin e or it"! the judgment ma" 'e promulgated '" the C*,0: ;< C;805.# Q: Su##ose the accused has several cases in different #laces. Ii5e for e7am#le he has a case in Havao and another in ebu. After the trial in Havao! he was sent to ebu for another trial. &n the meantime! ta#os na yung sa Havao! #romulgation na lang! but the accused is in ebu. What will ha##en if there will be a #romulgation in the Havao case? A: Fnder Section O! the Havao court will send the decision to the ,T @7ecutive Ludge of ebu and let it be #romulgated there in the #resence of the accused. Aow! a new clause is inserted in Section O which #rovides that if the de ision of the trial ourt onvi ting the a used hanged the nature of the offense from non='aila'le to 'aila'le! the appli ation for 'ail an onl" 'e filed and resolved '" the appellate ourt.# So in the #revious e7am#le! if the accused is charged Cin HavaoD of murder but later convicted for homicide! the ,T @7ecutive Ludge of ebu has no #ower to entertain any a##lication for

182

on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 120 Judgment

bail if the accused wanted to a##eal the conviction. Such a##lication can only be filed and resolved by the a##ellate court. This is similar to Section ? of ,ule 11. on >ail 6 1 1 1 1 :"*e(e%) i& the de!isi"n "& the t%ial !"u%t !"n(i!ting the a!!used !hanged the natu%e "& the "&&ense &%"m n"nD#aila#le t" #aila#le) the a''li!ati"n &"% #ail !an "nl$ #e &iled *ith and %es"l(ed #$ the a''ellate !"u%t. The above #rovision was ta5en and modified in the case of (2(SA vs. A C2OO S ,A 2-1 /100*1D

Q: &s there such a thing as #romulgation by #ro7y? A: K@S. A decision may be #romulgated even without the #resence of the accused but (AIK if the conviction is for a light offense. Nenerally! #romulgation is by #ersonal a##earance. ;owever under the Section O! if the onvi tion is for a light offense! the judgment ma" 'e pronoun ed in the presen e of his C;86S,* or 0,P0,S,65&5$+,.# 2EO23E vs. 2R4DES Jul$ /0) 188B :E3D: '&n the Su#reme ourt and the ourt of A##eals! the $udgment is #romulgated by merely filing the signed co#y thereof with the ler5 of ourt who causes true co#ies of the same to be served u#on the #arties! hence the a##earance of the accused is not even re"uired there as his #resence is necessary only in the #romulgation of the $udgments of trial courts.) Q: &s the #resence of the com#lainant re"uired during the #romulgation? A: A(. There is no rule re"uiring a $udge to notify the com#lainant of the date of #romulgation of $udgment in criminal cases. What the ,ules of ourt #articularly Section O! ,ule 12= re"uires is that the #romulgation be made in the #resence of the accused. C,amire3 vs. 2acandog! 1.. S ,A .O2D Q: &s the #resence of the counsel of the accused re"uired during the #romulgation? A: A(. The ,ules of ourt does not re"uire the #resence of counsel for the validity of the #romulgation. The accused is not re"uired to be #resent at the #romulgation if the conviction is for light offense! in which case! his counsel or re#resentative may a##ear in his behalf. >ut definitely! in any case! the #romulgation is valid even the counsel does not a##ear thereat. C:angilano vs. Auevas! 1?2 S ,A 1?-D Q: What ha##ens if the accused was tried in absentia? (r before the #romulgation he esca#ed or $um#ed bail? A: Fnder Section O! the #ro#er cler5 of court shall give notice to the accused #ersonally or through his bondsman or warden and counsel! re"uiring him to be #resent at the #romulgation of the decision. &f the accused was tried in a'sentia because he $um#ed bail or esca#ed from #rison! the notice to him shall be served at his last 5nown address. &n case the accused fails to a##ear at the scheduled date of #romulgation of $udgment des#ite notice! the #romulgation shall be made by recording the $udgment in the criminal doc5et and s erving him a op" thereof at his last known address or through his ounsel. &f the $udgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to a##ear was without $ustifiable cause! he shall lose the remedies available in these rules against the $udgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen C1?D days from #romulgation of $udgment! however! the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. ;e shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled #romulgation and if he #roves that his absence was for a $ustifiable cause! he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen C1?D days from notice. So there are si7 COD ty#es of #romulgation of $udgment under Section O:

183

on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 120 Judgment

1.D ;rdinar" judgment 8 #romulgated by reading it in the #resence of the accused and any $udge of the court in which it was rendered. This a##lies only to trial courts C:eo#le vs. :rades! supraD< 2.D Promulgation '" the Clerk of Court 8 when the $udge is absent or outside the #rovince or city< +.D Promulgation '" the ,xe utive Judge 8 &f the accused is confined or detained in another #rovince or city! the $udgment may be #romulgated by the e7ecutive $udge of the ,egional Trial ourt having $urisdiction over the #lace of confinement or detention u#on re"uest of the court which rendered the $udgment< ..D Promulgation in a'sentia 8 &f the accused was tried in absentia because he $um#ed bail or esca#ed from #rison! the notice to him shall be served at his last 5nown address< ?.D Promulgation '" re ording the judgment 6 in case the accused fails to a##ear at the scheduled date of #romulgation of $udgment des#ite notice. SEC. A. (odifi ation of judgment. 4 udgment "& !"n(i!ti"n ma$) u'"n m"ti"n "& the a!!used) #e m"di&ied "% set aside #e&"%e it #e!"mes &inal "% #e&"%e a''eal is 'e%&e!ted. E1!e't *he%e the death 'enalt$ is im'"sed) a udgment #e!"mes &inal a&te% the la'se "& the 'e%i"d &"% 'e%&e!ting an a''eal) "% *hen the senten!e has #een 'a%tiall$ "% t"tall$ satis&ied "% se%(ed) "% *hen the a!!used has *ai(ed in *%iting his %ight t" a''eal) "% has a''lied &"% '%"#ati"n. +Aa, >? 2ay $udgement of conviction be modified or set aside? &? K@S! for as long as: a. the $udgement has not yet become final! or b. a##eal has not been #erfected Ta5e note that only a $udgment of conviction can be modified. A $udgment of ac"uittal cannot be modified. &t is only u#on motion of the accused. Q: ;ow about u#on motion of the #rosecution? A: &t would seem under the rules! that it is only the accused who is given that #rivilege of moving to modify the $udgement and set it aside. There is an identical #rovision here that we have already ta5en u# before 6 about the $udgment of conviction which may be set aside before it becomes final. ,ead Section ?! ,ule 11O on Arraignment and :lea: Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilt". 4t an$ time #e&"%e the udgment "& !"n(i!ti"n #e!"mes &inal) the !"u%t ma$ 'e%mit an im'%"(ident 'lea "& guilt$ t" #e *ithd%a*n and #e su#stituted #$ a 'lea "& n"t guilt$. +<, So even if you #lead guilty! and it is not a ca#ital offense and there is now a $udgment sentencing you because of your #lea! you can still change your mind by changing your #lea from guilty to not guilty. >ut you have to file a motion to set aside before the $udgment of conviction becomes final. Q: When does the $udgement in a criminal case become final? A: &t 9,P,69S: a. &f it is a $udgement of A QF&TTAI 6 immediately e7ecutory after #romulgation of $udgment because it cannot be changed anymore. b. &f it is a $udgment for (A4& T&(A: 1. &fter the lapse of the period for perfe ting an appeal C2nd #art of Section *D. So 1? days generally. @P @:T when the H@AT; #enalty is im#osed. That is now inserted in the new ,ules because even if the accused will not a##eal! there is an automatic review. So the rule that when the #eriod to a##eal has e7#ired! the $udgment will become final! will A(T a##ly in death #enalty cases. ;owever! the la#se of the #eriod to a##eal and no a##eal is #erfected! is not the only instance where the $udgment of conviction becomes final<

184

on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls. check for errors>

Rule 120 Judgment

2. @ven within the #eriod to a##eal! that is when the senten e has 'een partiall" or totall" satisfied or served. 9or e7am#le harles has been sentenced to 1= days of &rresto (enor and he has already served it. (r harles has been sentenced to #ay a fine of :1== and he #ays it. Wala naG 9inal na iyanG >ecause he has decided to serve his sentence! it has become final. We do not have to wait for 1? days< +. When the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal; .. When after conviction! the accused applies for pro'ation Cthis is based on the #robation lawD. When harles a##lies for #robation! he is waiving his right to a##eal and he is acce#ting the $udgement of conviction. Ta5e note! however! that in these instances! when the $udgment of conviction becomes final! even before the la#se of 1? days! what the law means is that what has become final is the criminal as#ect. The civil as#ect of the case does A(T become final after the la#se of 1? days. And these instances do not a##ly when the #enalty im#osed is death because of the automatic review of the Su#reme ourt. & met this #roblem before where the $udgment convicted the accused and the trouble is that $udgment forgot to im#ose civil liability. Aalimutan talagaG And there was no reservation or waiver so that the court should have im#osed the civil as#ect. The trouble is! after the #romulgation! the accused started to serve his sentence the following day. >ut within the #eriod of 1? days! we filed a motion for reconsideration to com#lete the $udgment because under Section 1 of this ,ule! the im#osition of the #ro#er civil liability must be included. And Section 2 also #rovides that the civil liability should be enforced unless the enforcement of civil liability in a se#arate civil action has been reserved or waived. The $udge ac5nowledged and admitted that he overloo5ed the civil liability. ;e said that he is ready to modify the $udgment to include the civil liability which he forgot. >ut the $udge said! the trouble is that he can no longer do it because the accused has already started serving his sentence after #romulgation! and from that moment! the $udgment has become final. So he said! 'how can & amend my $udgment 5ung final na?) & told him! what became final was the criminal as#ect! the civil as#ect cannot become final until after the la#se of 1? days. Sabi ng $udge! 'Are you sure? an you sight a case which says so? >ecause my researcher said na hindi #wede.) Kes! according to the S in one case! 'Qas long as the #eriod for a##eal has not yet e7#ired! even if the $udgment has become final by service of sentence or waiver of a##eal! the trial court may still modify its $udgment as to its civil as#ect.) So what is final is the criminal as#ect and A(T the civil as#ect. >ecause if the offended #arty cannot claim civil liability 5asi inunahan ng accused ng #ag8serve ng sentence! there is something unfair there no. SEC. B. ,ntr" of judgment. 4&te% a udgment has #e!"me &inal) it shall #e ente%ed in a!!"%dan!e *ith Rule /6. +B, ,ule +O is entitled! 'Ludgments! 9inal (rders and @ntry Thereof.) While ,ule +O falls under the sub$ect of :rocedure! some of its #rovisions may be a##lied in criminal #rocedure. SEC. 8. ,xisting provisions governing suspension of senten e! pro'ation and parole not affe ted '" this 0ule. N"thing in this %ule shall a&&e!t an$ e1isting '%"(isi"ns in the la*s g"(e%ning sus'ensi"n "& senten!e) '%"#ati"n "% 'a%"le. +8a, The sus#ension of sentence! #robation or #arole are governed by substantive law such as the &ndeterminate Sentence Iaw and the :robation law. These laws have never been modified or affected by the ,ules of ourt. ivil

185