GR 140285; (September, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140285 September 27, 2006
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and WILFRED N. CHIOK, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Wilfred Chiok was convicted of estafa by the Regional Trial Court. He failed to appear during the scheduled promulgation of the judgment of conviction despite notice. Consequently, the trial court, acting under Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest for having jumped bail. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the cancellation order.
The Court of Appeals issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of the arrest order. The appellate court reasoned that the offense was non-capital and that the probability of respondent’s flight was merely conjectural. The People of the Philippines filed the instant petition, arguing that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction that enjoined the arrest of respondent after his bail was cancelled for failure to appear at the promulgation of judgment.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The trial court’s cancellation of bail and order of arrest were correct and in strict accordance with procedural law. Under Section 6, Rule 120, if an accused fails to appear at the promulgation of a judgment of conviction without justifiable cause, he shall lose the available remedies against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. The rule on promulgation in absentia is precisely designed to prevent an accused from subverting the judicial process by jumping bail to avoid judgment.
Respondent’s failure to appear at the promulgation constituted a violation of the condition of his bail bond and demonstrated that he was a fugitive from justice. The Court of Appeals’ characterization of the risk of flight as “conjectural” was a grave error, as respondent had already concretely manifested his propensity to flee by his unexplained absence. Therefore, the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in enjoining a lawful arrest order issued as a direct consequence of respondent’s own contumacious conduct. The petition is granted and the assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals is reversed.