SC: Fugitives barred from seeking judicial relief

The Supreme Court (SC) clarified that individuals declared as fugitives automatically lose their standing in court and thus are barred from seeking judicial relief.

According to a recent SC ruling, jurisdiction over an accused person should be acquired through arrest or voluntary surrender and not through any pleading by counsel if the accused is a fugitive. 

The decision prevents fugitives who evade arrest from seeking court remedies while staying out of reach of the Philippine court system.

Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan penned a decision on behalf of the SC En Banc, defining a fugitive from justice as one who flees after conviction to avoid punishment or after being charged to avoid prosecution, with the intent to evade.

Thus, a fugitive is one who fails to appear in person in court or leaves the Philippines knowing a case has been filed and a corresponding arrest warrant issued, showing clear intent to evade. This categorizes him/her a fugitive and not entitled to judicial relief.

The SC noted that knowledge of case or warrant may come from actual notice (personal receipt) or constructive notice (documented law enforcement efforts to serve process).

The new guidelines for lower courts are thus: After finding probable cause, the court issues a warrant of arrest. The warrant, including an e-warrant, must be implemented within 10 calendar days.

If the warrant fails to be executed because the accused is outside Philippine jurisdiction, the court, either by motion or on its own initiative (motu proprio), may declare the accused a fugitive from justice after assessing the circumstances.

Once declared a fugitive, the person loses their standing, cannot participate in proceedings, and cannot seek judicial relief, only restoring standing through voluntary surrender.

A warrant not served due to the accused being outside the Philippines remains outstanding until implemented.

The criminal case will be archived only if the accused remains at large for six months from the warrant’s issuance, subject to revival upon successful implementation or the accused’s arrest under a different warrant.

The case arose from a petition filed by Vallacar Transit Inc. (VTI) and Nixon A. Banibane, who sought to set aside a Regional Trial Court (RTC) order placing on hold criminal proceedings for grave coercion against Ricardo V. Yanson, Jr.

After Yanson was charged, he filed a petition for review before the Department of Justice and an urgent motion to suspend proceedings through his counsel, Fortun Narvasa & Salazar (FNS).

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) subsequently ordered the immediate implementation of the arrest warrant, but service failed because Yanson had left the country, according to the Bureau of Immigration.

Yanson participated in the court proceedings through his counsel but failed to appear in person for his arraignment. The MTCC archived the case after six months without service of the warrant. The RTC later ruled in Yanson’s favor.

In reversing the RTC, the SC held that Yanson should not have been allowed to seek affirmative relief because he left the Philippines, showing intent to evade arrest and prosecution.