SC bars fugitives from seeking judicial relief, explains rules

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified the procedure in declaring fugitive status, and said that fugitives are barred from seeking judicial relief.

Based on a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the Court En Banc noted that a fugitive from justice is “someone who not only flees after conviction to avoid punishment, but one who also flees after being charged to avoid prosecution.”

The SC said the essential element in declaring an individual as a fugitive is their intent to evade prosecution or punishment.

READ: SC to petitioners: Rome Statute obligation after ICC withdrawal?

“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 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.

‘Starting point’

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.”

READ: BI arrests Taiwanese fugitive on PH cruise ship

“It is vital that the person knows that an Information has been filed or that a warrant of arrest has been issued. Such knowledge may come from actual notice, such as personally receiving a copy of the Information, or from constructive notice, such as clear, public, and documented efforts by law enforcement to serve legal process

even if personal service was evaded or unsuccessful,” the SC explained.

The following are the guidelines the courts must apply, according to SC:

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 from its receipt by the executing officer.

3. If there is a failure to execute the warrant of arrest by reason that the accused is outside the Philippine jurisdiction, as stated in the executing officer’s return, the court may, either by motion or motu proprio, 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 the accused because they are outside the 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 of arrest or creation of the e-warrant, without prejudice to the revival of the case upon successful implementation of the warrant of arrest or upon notice to the court that the person subject of the warrant of arrest has been arrested or committed under a different warrant.

The court’s ruling arose following a petition filed by petitioners Vallacar Transit, Inc. (VTI) and Nixon A. Banibane, asking the SC to set aside the orders of the Regional Trial Court that placed on hold the criminal proceedings for grave coercion 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 to suspend the proceedings but later issued an order directing the release and immediate implementation of the arrest warrant against him,” the SC said.

Meanwhile, the warrant could not be served, as Yanson had already left the Philippines. He then authorized his counsel to represent him in court proceedings in the country.

Yanson questioned the order of the MTCC before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), in which VTI opposed. VTI argued that Yanson and his counsel have no standing before the court because he is a fugitive from justice.

Meanwhile, Yanson did not appear for his arraignment before the MTCC—and only his counsel was present. 

The MTCC then archived the case after Yanson’s absence and after six months had passed from the police’s receipt of his arrest warrant without service.

The RTC ruled in favor of Yanson, which prompted VTI and Banibane to bring the case to the SC.

Meanwhile, the SC reversed the RTC and noted 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. /jpv