Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! I hope this letter finds you well. I am Mario Rivera, and I am writing to you today with a heavy heart and a great deal of confusion regarding my older brother, Pedro. About a year ago, Pedro was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, for Estafa involving a sum of PHP 500,000. He maintained his innocence and, through his lawyer, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. He was granted bail pending his appeal, which was a huge relief for our family.

However, things took a turn for the worse. Pedro became increasingly despondent and fearful of the possibility of his conviction being upheld and having to return to prison. Compounded by financial difficulties, he made a terrible decision. About three months ago, he stopped attending to notices related to his appeal and left our hometown without informing anyone. We only recently heard through a mutual friend that he might be somewhere in Mindanao, essentially in hiding. We haven’t been able to contact him directly.

My family and I are extremely worried. We don’t know what this means for his appeal. Will it be automatically dismissed because he is no longer appearing? Does he lose his right to appeal entirely by absconding? We are very confused about his legal rights and what, if anything, can be done. Could his appeal still proceed, or are his actions an automatic forfeiture of any chance he had? Any guidance you could offer on this matter would be immensely appreciated. We are at a loss and desperately need to understand the legal ramifications of his actions.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
Mario Rivera

Dear Mario,

Musta Atty! Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns about your brother, Pedro. I understand this is a very distressing and confusing time for you and your family. The situation you’ve described, where an appellant absconds while their case is pending appeal, has significant legal consequences under Philippine law.

In essence, when an individual who has appealed their conviction jumps bail and ceases to submit to the jurisdiction of the court, they risk losing their standing to seek relief from the courts. This often leads to the dismissal of their appeal. The right to appeal, while a crucial part of due process, is not absolute and is contingent upon adherence to court rules and procedures. Your brother’s decision to go into hiding places his appeal in serious jeopardy.

The Implications of an Appellant’s Flight on Their Right to Appeal

The right to appeal a criminal conviction is a cornerstone of our justice system, providing a mechanism to review and correct potential errors made by lower courts. However, this right is not without limitations and conditions. It is considered a statutory privilege, meaning it is granted by law and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the procedures laid out by that law, primarily the Rules of Court.

A fundamental principle in our jurisdiction is that an appellant must remain within the court’s jurisdiction and subject to its processes. When an accused person, like your brother Pedro, is granted bail pending appeal, it is with the understanding that they will make themselves available to the court whenever required. Jumping bail, or absconding, is a direct defiance of the court’s authority and undermines the very system from which the appellant seeks relief.

Philippine jurisprudence consistently holds that an accused who escapes from confinement, jumps bail, or flees to avoid the court’s jurisdiction effectively waives their right to pursue an appeal. As stated in numerous court decisions, this principle is well-settled:

“Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail as in appellant’s 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 therefrom.”

This loss of standing means that the appellant is no longer entitled to invoke the court’s authority to review their case. The rationale is that it would be a mockery of justice to allow someone who has shown contempt for the legal processes to simultaneously seek benefits from those same processes. The act of becoming a fugitive from justice is seen as an abandonment of the appeal.

Furthermore, the right to appeal is circumscribed by rules that ensure the orderly administration of justice. Compliance with these rules is mandatory for those who wish to avail themselves of this privilege.

“The right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege, and, as such, may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules, failing which, the right to appeal is lost.”

This underscores that Pedro’s actions of non-appearance and going into hiding are direct violations that can lead to the forfeiture of his right to have his conviction reviewed.

The Rules of Court specifically provide for the dismissal of an appeal under such circumstances. Section 8, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is particularly relevant:

“SEC. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. – The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio.

The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.” (Emphasis supplied)

This rule empowers the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal on its own initiative (motu proprio) or upon the request of the prosecution (appellee) if the appellant, like Pedro, has jumped bail. The court is not obligated to continue hearing an appeal from someone who is no longer under its control and has evaded the legal system. While the trial court may have convicted him in absentia if he jumped bail during the trial itself, his actions during the appeal stage have similar, if not more direct, consequences for the appeal itself.

It is important to understand that the dismissal is generally discretionary upon the appellate court, but it is a very common and highly probable outcome when an appellant becomes a fugitive. The primary purpose of bail is to ensure the accused’s presence during legal proceedings. By absconding, Pedro has breached this fundamental condition, leading to severe repercussions for his appeal.

Practical Advice for Your Brother’s Situation

• Urge Surrender: The most critical first step for Pedro is to surrender to the authorities or the court that has jurisdiction over his case. Remaining a fugitive will almost certainly result in the dismissal of his appeal and will complicate any future legal remedies.
• Consult His Lawyer Immediately: Pedro (or you on his behalf, to get general advice) should immediately contact the lawyer who handled his appeal. The lawyer can explain the current status of the appeal and the precise consequences of his actions, and advise on the best course of action upon surrender.
• Understand Appeal Dismissal: Be prepared for the high likelihood that the Court of Appeals may dismiss Pedro’s appeal due to his flight. As per the Rules of Court, this is a recognized ground for dismissal.
• Consequences of Being a Fugitive: Aside from appeal dismissal, Pedro will likely have a warrant issued for his arrest. His bail bond will also be forfeited. This means law enforcement agencies will actively look for him.
• Limited Options While in Hiding: While Pedro remains a fugitive, he has virtually no legal standing to pursue any affirmative relief from the courts concerning his case. His absence effectively silences his ability to defend his appeal.
• Potential for Reinstatement is Slim (but dependent on specific rules and circumstances): While exceptionally rare and difficult, the only theoretical path to potentially revive any appellate review would begin with surrender and a compelling explanation for his flight, which courts are generally very reluctant to accept. This should not be relied upon as a likely outcome.
• Family Support vs. Legal Action: While you can provide emotional support and encourage him to do the right thing, Pedro himself must take the step to surrender and face the legal system.

Mario, the situation is serious, but the first step towards addressing it is for Pedro to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Hiding will only exacerbate the problem. I sincerely hope he reconsiders his actions and seeks proper legal counsel to navigate this difficult path.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.