Icdang v Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 185960, January 25, 2012


Facts:

Icdang was charged with the crime of malversation of public funds and for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The Sandiganbayan convicted him of malversation and acquitted him from violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Icdang filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that he be given another chance to present his evidence but the same was denied for being filed out of time. Thus, he filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, claiming that his right to due process was violated when his counsel failed to assist him during the promulgation of the judgment. He faulted the Sandiganbayan for proceeding with the promulgation despite him not then being assisted by his counsel. 


Issue:

Was the right of the accused to due process violated when his counsel failed to assist him during the promulgation of the judgment?


Held:

Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides:

SEC. 6. Promulgation of judgment. -- The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered. However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or outside the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.

If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention upon request of the court which rendered the judgment. The court promulgating the judgment shall have authority to accept the notice of appeal and to approve the bail bond pending appeal; provided, that if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed and resolved by the appellate court.

The proper clerk of court shall give notice to the accused personally or through his bondsman or warden and counsel, requiring him to be present at the promulgation of the decision. If the accused was tried in absentia because he jumped bail or escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his last known address.

In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel.

There is nothing in the rules that requires the presence of counsel for the promulgation of the judgment of conviction to be valid. While notice must be served on both accused and his counsel, the latter’s absence during the promulgation of judgment would not affect the validity of the promulgation. Indeed, no substantial right of the accused on the merits was prejudiced by such absence of his counsel when the sentence was pronounced.