immediately promulgated its Decision.

[46] The promulgation of

judgment in absentia is mandatory pursuant to the fourth
paragraph of Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 6. Promulgation of judgment.
xxx xxx xxx
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. (Emphasis supplied)
If the accused has been notified of the date of promulgation,
but does not appear, the promulgation of judgment in
absentia is warranted. This rule is intended to obviate a
repetition of the situation in the past when the judicial process
could be subverted by the accused by jumping bail to frustrate
the promulgation of judgment.[47] The only essential elements
for its validity are as follows: (a) the judgment was recorded in
the criminal docket; and (b) a copy thereof was served upon the
accused or counsel.
In Almuete v. People,[48] petitioner's counsel informed the trial
court that the accused were either ill or not notified of the
scheduled date of promulgation of judgment. The RTC,
however, found their absence inexcusable and proceeded to
promulgate its Decision as scheduled. The accused went up to
the CA, which acquitted them of the charge. This Court reversed
the CA and upheld the validity of the promulgation.
In Estrada v. People,[49] this Court also affirmed the validity of
the promulgation of judgment in absentia, given the presence
of the essential elements.
Judge Buted's Order dated 22 December 2005[50] fulfilled the
requirements set forth by the Rules and prevailing
jurisprudence. Pertinent portions of the Order read:
The judgment of conviction which carries the death penalty was
pronounced in the presence of the Public Prosecutor, the
counsel de oficio of accused and the heirs of complainant
Carmen Macatiag, the dispositive portion of which, the OIC
Clerk of Court is directed to enter into the Criminal Docket.
xxx xxx xxx
Let copy of the Decision furnished each the Public Prosecutor,
the counsel de oficio of the accused, Atty. Bembol Castillo, and
the accused at his last known address.
Respondent was not left without remedy. The fifth paragraph of
Section 6, Rule 120, states:
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused
to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the
remedies available in these rules against the judgment and the
court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from
promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may
surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these
remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the
scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was
for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said
remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.
However, instead of surrendering and filing a motion for leave
to explain his unjustified absence, respondent, through Atty.
Benitez, filed an Omnibus Motion before the RTC praying that
the promulgation be set aside.[51] We cannot countenance this
blatant circumvention of the Rules.
Judge Soluren's Decision acquitting
respondent is void and has no legal
effect.
Judge Soluren acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she gave due course to
respondent's Omnibus Motion. Aside from being the wrong
remedy, the motion lacked merit.
The filing of a motion for reconsideration to question a decision
of conviction can only be resorted to if the accused did not
jump bail, but appeared in court to face the promulgation of
judgment. Respondent did not appear during the scheduled
promulgation and was deemed by the judge to have jumped
bail. The fifth paragraph of Section 6, Rule 120, states that if the
judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to
appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies
available in the Rules against the judgment, and the court shall
order his arrest.
The Court underscores the fact that following Gonzales's waiver
of the remedies under the Rules, Judge Buted issued an Order
dated 22 December 2005. According to the Order, the case
records shall be immediately forwarded to the CA for its
automatic review of convictions meting out the death penalty.
[52]
This automatic review was pursuant to Supreme Court
Administrative Circular 20-2005 (dated 15 April 2005) as
implemented by OCA Circular No. 57-2005 (dated 12 May
2005).
Supreme Court Administrative Circular 20-2005 mandates as
follows:
[A]ll Regional Trial Courts concerned, through the Presiding
Judges and Clerks of Court, are hereby DIRECTED to henceforth
DIRECTLY forward to the COURT OF APPEALS (Manila for Luzon
cases, Cebu Station for Visayas cases, and Cagayan de Oro
Station for Mindanao cases) the records of criminal cases whose
decisions are subject to (a) automatic review because the
penalty imposed is death or (b) ordinary appeals (by notices of
appeal) because the penalty imposed is either reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, notwithstanding a statement in
the notice of appeal that the appeal is to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, OCA Circular No. 57-2005 gives the following
directive:
[A]ll Judges and Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial Courts are
hereby reminded that failure to comply with the above-cited
Administrative Circular shall warrant appropriate disciplinary
action pursuant to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended
by A.M. 01-8-10-SC, which took effect on 11 September 2001,
as well as the pertinent rules and regulations of the Civil Service
Commission.
This Administrative Circular took effect on 19 April 2005, strict
compliance herewith is hereby enjoined.
In utter disregard of this Court's circulars, Judge Soluren
capriciously, whimsically, and arbitrarily took cognizance of
private respondent's Omnibus Motion, granted it, and rendered
a totally opposite Decision of acquittal. What she should have
done was dismiss the Omnibus Motion outright, since Judge
Buted's Decision of conviction was already subject to automatic
review by the CA. By acting on the wrong remedy, which led to
the reversal of the conviction, Judge Soluren contravened the
express orders of this Court. Her blatant abuse of authority was
so grave and so severe that it deprived the court of its very
power to dispense justice.