Case Digest: People vs De Los Reyes

People of the Philippines vs. De Los Reyes, et. al.

G.R. Nos. 130714 and 139634, October 16, 2012

Ponente: Leonardo- De Castro

Facts:

Go was convicted of two counts of rape. It was stated that Imelda the complainant upon request of her sister Carla went to the house of Go to bring some pictures. Upon arrival Imelda saw Go at the road outside his house talking to another man, introduced later to her as Val De Los Reyes. It rained and so suddenly, the 3 of them took shelter inside Go’s house. Imelda was forced to drink 2 bottles of beers causing her to feel dizzy, until Val succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her against her will, thereafter Go took his turn, aided by al by covering the mouth of Imelda and holding her hands. Imelda then filed two separate informations. The RTC convicted the appellants of two counts of rape. Through counsel, Val appealed and the court en banc rendered a decision vacating the conviction of Val, upon finding that RTC violated sec. 1, 2, Rule 132 and Sec.1 Rule 133 of then Revised Rules of Court requiring that the testimonies of the witnesses be given orally.

Issue:

Whether there is a necessity of transferring these cases to the CA for immediate review.

Ruling:

No. Since the records reveal that the appellant jumped bail during the proceedings before the RTC and was in fact tried and convicted in absencia. There is already dearth of evidence showing that he has since surrendered to the court’s jurisdiction. Thus he has no right to pray for affirmative relief before the courts. Once an accused escapes from prison/ confinement, jumps bail as in appellants case or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief there from. Thus even if the court were to remand these cases to CA for immediate review the CA would only be constrained to dismiss appellants appeal as he is considered a fugitive from justice. Sec 8 Rule 124 of the Rules of Court is relevant which provides for Dismissal of Appeal for Abandonment or Failure to Prosecute.