The Supreme Court has clarified that fugitives from justice are barred from seeking judicial relief, a SC press release said on Friday, Nov. 28.
The SC issued the clarification in an en banc decision dated November 25 penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, which granted the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Vallacar Transit Inc. (VTI) and Nixon Banibane against Ricardo Yanson Jr. over a grave coercion case.
VTI and Banibane has asked the SC to set aside the orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that placed on hold the criminal proceedings for grave coercion against Yanson.
The SC remanded the case to the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 7, of Bacolod City.
The lower court was directed to revive and reinstate Criminal Case No. 20-07-34724 from the archives and order the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Yanson.
“If there is a failure to execute the warrant of arrest by reason that Ricardo V. Yanson Jr. is outside the Philippine jurisdiction as stated in the executing officer’s return, the MTCC may, if the circumstances warrant, make a declaration that Ricardo V. Yanson, Jr. is a fugitive from justice, and therefore, cannot seek any judicial relief from the court,” the SC said.
The SC decision said after Yanson was charged, he filed, through his counsel, Fortun Narvasa & Salazar (FNS), a petition for review before the Department of Justice questioning the finding of probable cause. He later filed an urgent motion to suspend proceedings.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) initially granted Yanson’s motion to suspend proceedings but later issued an order directing the release and immediate implementation of the arrest warrant against him.
The warrant, however, could not be served because Yanson had already left the Philippines, according to the Bureau of Immigration, the SC said.
Through a Special Power of Attorney, Yanson authorized lawyers Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun and/or Sheila C. Sison and FNS to represent him in any court proceeding in the Philippines.
Yanson questioned the MTCC’s order before the RTC. VTI opposed this, arguing that because he is a fugitive from justice, he and his counsel have no standing before the court, the SC said.
In the meantime, Yanson did not appear for his arraignment before the MTCC, although his counsel was present. Since Yanson was absent and six months had already passed from the police’s receipt of his arrest warrant without service, the MTCC archived the case.
The RTC later ruled in Yanson’s favor, prompting VTI and Banibane to bring the case to the SC.
In reversing the RTC decision, the SC held that Yanson should not be allowed to continue seeking affirmative relief from the courts because he left the Philippines and showed an intent to evade arrest and criminal prosecution, the SC said.
The SC explained that 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.
Gaerlan, in the SC En Banc decision on the Yanson case, clarified 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 essential element is the intent to evade prosecution or punishment”.
“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 ruling 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.
CONCURRING, DISSENTING OPINION
Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, agreed with the application of the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement, but argued that the criminal proceedings for grave coercion should have been suspended because pending intra-corporate cases between VTI and Ricardo Yanson Jr. and his siblings, which involve an element of the crime, create a prejudicial question.
In Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa’s Dissenting and Concurring Opinion, he agreed with the clarified definition of a fugitive, but maintained that the petition should be denied, as the ongoing intra-corporate disputes between VTI and Ricardo and his siblings likewise present a prejudicial question to the grave coercion case.*