Scribd
Upload
547 views1 page

Salvador v. Chua

1) The petitioner and his wife were charged with estafa and convicted by the RTC. 2) On the day of promulgation of judgment, petitioner's counsel requested deferment due to petitioner's alleged hypertension, but the RTC proceeded and promulgated the judgment, issuing a warrant for petitioner's arrest. 3) Petitioner was apprehended 8 days later and filed a motion for leave to appeal, which was denied for failure to comply with Section 6, Rule 120 requiring surrender after promulgation.

Uploaded by

Man2x Salomon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
547 views1 page

Salvador v. Chua

1) The petitioner and his wife were charged with estafa and convicted by the RTC. 2) On the day of promulgation of judgment, petitioner's counsel requested deferment due to petitioner's alleged hypertension, but the RTC proceeded and promulgated the judgment, issuing a warrant for petitioner's arrest. 3) Petitioner was apprehended 8 days later and filed a motion for leave to appeal, which was denied for failure to comply with Section 6, Rule 120 requiring surrender after promulgation.

Uploaded by

Man2x Salomon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

RULE 120: JUDGMENT

G.R. No. 212865, July 15, 2015

HORACIO SALVADOR, Petitioner, vs.


LISA CHUA, Respondent.

FACTS:
The Petitioner, Horacio Salvador, and his wife were charged with estafa. On
the scheduled day of promulgation of judgment of conviction, the counsel of
petitioner moved for deferment on the ground that his client is suffering
hypertension. The RTC was unconvinced of the reason and proceeded to
promulgate the judgment. The RTC then issued a warrant of arrest. Thereafter the
petitioner was apprehended 8 days after the promulgation of the judgment.
Petitioner filed a motion for leave to file notice of appeal.  RTC denied the
petitioner's Motion for Leave to file Notice of Appeal on the ground of non-
compliance with Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. The CA
granted the petition and nullified the assailed order of the second judge. The
Motion for Reconsideration by petitioner was also denied.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner has lost his right to appeal his conviction.

RATIO DECIDENDI:
Yes. The petitioner has lost his right to appeal his conviction.
Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure pertinently states:
Section 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.
Even assuming that he had suffered hypertension, which could have validly
excused his absence from the promulgation, the petitioner did not fulfill the other
requirement of Section 6, supra, to surrender himself to the trial court. The term
surrender used in the rule visibly necessitated his physical and voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court to suffer any consequences of the verdict
against him. His failure to fulfill the requirements rendered the conviction final and
immutable.

You might also like