SC: Fugitives cannotseek legal remedies
The Supreme Court (SC) has issued stricter rules to stop individuals who commit crimes and flee the country from obtaining judicial relief from the courts.
In an en banc decision on a corporate dispute authored by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan and promulgated on Nov. 25, the high court barred fugitives from seeking judicial relief if they are outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
The high tribunal emphasized that “it is time to apply this rule to those who commit or are suspected of committing crimes and then flee outside Philippine jurisdiction,” according to a press statement by the court on Friday.
“Applying this rule strengthens the justice system and protects due process rights, which both the accused and the State are equally entitled to,” it said.
Judicial relief includes requests for remedies from the courts with respect to contracts, extraordinary writs such as the writ of amparo, appeals of judgments by the courts, injunctions or temporary restraining orders and requests to maintain the status quo.
In the same ruling, the SC clarified the procedure in declaring fugitive status.
Avoiding prosecution
It classified a fugitive from justice as “someone who not only flees after conviction to avoid punishment, but one who also flees after being charged to avoid prosecution.”
An individual’s intent to evade prosecution or punishment is the “essential element” in declaring an individual as a fugitive, it said.
“An accused is generally considered a fugitive from justice when they fail to appear physically before the court when required by law, the rules, or an order from the judge,” the SC statement said.
“More specifically, a person who leaves the Philippines knowing that an Information has been filed in court and that a warrant of arrest has been issued shows a clear intent to evade arrest and prosecution, making that person a fugitive from justice and possibly disentitled to any judicial relief,” it added.
Fugitive defined
According to the SC, the “starting point” in determining whether an individual is a fugitive from justice is the filing of an Information in court and the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
The SC issued the following guidelines to be applied by the courts:
1. After finding probable cause, the court shall issue a warrant of arrest.
2. The warrant of arrest, including an e-warrant, shall be implemented within 10 calendar days after an executing officer receives it.
3. If there is a failure to execute the warrant of arrest because the accused is outside Philippine jurisdiction, the court may, either by motion or on its own, and after assessment of the circumstances of the case, declare the accused a fugitive from justice. From then, such person loses their standing in court, can no longer participate in the proceedings, and cannot seek any judicial relief. They can only restore their standing before the court through voluntary surrender.
4. A warrant of arrest which was not served personally to individuals because they are outside Philippine jurisdiction shall remain outstanding until its eventual implementation.
5. The criminal case shall be archived only if the accused remains at large for six months from the date of the issuance of the warrant or creation of the e-warrant, without prejudice to the revival of the case upon arrest or upon notice to the court that the person subject of the warrant has been arrested or committed under a different warrant.
Can’t just send lawyer
Under the guidelines, accused persons who have not been arrested and arraigned cannot seek or be granted any kind of judicial relief by just sending a lawyer to represent them in the courts.
The court ruling comes amid the unraveling corruption and kickback scandal involving the multi-billion-peso flood control projects where dozens of lawmakers, public works officials and private contractors have been implicated, and the banning of Philippine offshore gaming operators (Pogos).
The most prominent of them, include former Ako Bicol Rep. Elizalde Co, who is one of 16 accused in a substandard river protection project in Oriental Mindoro, and Harry Roque, a former spokesperson for ex-President Rodrigo Duterte who is charged with qualified human trafficking in connection with the operation of a Pogo hub.
There are six others who are Co’s co-accused who are at large.
Co, Roque and the others, however, were charged in court after they have left the country.
At least five others, including several Chinese nationals, facing the same charges as Roque are also at large.
Case ruling
The high court’s new guidelines arose from a Sept. 23, 2021, petition filed by Vallacar Transit, Inc. (VTI) and Nixon A. Banibane asking the SC to set aside an order by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) suspending the criminal proceedings in a case of grave coercion they filed against Ricardo V. Yanson, Jr.
After being charged with the case, Yanson, through his counsel, filed a petition for review before the Department of Justice (DOJ) questioning the finding of probable cause and later filing an urgent motion to suspend proceedings.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) initially granted Yanson’s motion but later issued a warrant for his arrest.
The arrest warrant could not be served as Yanson had left the country. Yanson did not appear at his arraignment in the MTCC.
He authorized his lawyer to represent him in court proceedings and questioned the order of the MTCC before the RTC.
VTI opposed it, arguing that Yanson and his counsel had no standing before the court because he was a fugitive from justice.
After the RTC ruled in favor of Yanson, VTI and Banibane brought the case to the SC.
RTC reversal
The high court reversed the RTC ruling, noting that Yanson should not be allowed to continue seeking affirmative relief from the courts because he “has never been physically present before the courts, including on the date of his arraignment for grave coercion.”
The court said Yanson “left the Philippines and showed an intent to evade arrest and criminal prosecution.”
“A person who has not submitted to the court’s jurisdiction has no right to invoke its processes. Jurisdiction is necessary to ensure that the court’s judgment can be enforced. This requirement is not met when an accused is a fugitive or is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine courts, as in [Yanson]’s case,” the SC said.
The court’s Nov. 25 decision clarified a 2006 ruling, which held that in criminal cases, “an accused waives objections to jurisdiction over his person when he files any pleading seeking affirmative relief, except when he challenges jurisdiction itself,” the court’s press statement said.
Once accused persons participate in a case and seek affirmative relief, they are “deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.”
The new rules require an accused to be physically present only in specific instances. These include applications for bail, court-ordered identification even while on bail, arraignment, and the promulgation of judgment, the SC statement said.
