Almuete vs People Gr 179611 Facts: Almuete, Ila and Lloren were charged before the RTC of Nueva Vizcaya

with violation of PD 705 (Revised Forestry Code of PHils). On the date of the promulgation of judgment the counsel of Almuete informed the trial court that Almuete and Lloren were sick and Ila was not notified of the scheduled promulgation. The RTC found their absence inexcusable and proceeded with the promulgation. The RTC also cancelled the bail bonds of the accused and issued warrants of arrest against them. The accused moved for a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the RTC. Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner and his co-accused filed a petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals The CA granted the certiorari and acquitted Almuete of the charges against him. The acquittal of petitioner prompted the People of the Philippines to raise the case to the Supreme Court via Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The SC reversed the acquittal and reinstated the RTCs September 8, 1998 decision. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied by the SC. The petitioner still filed for a second and third motion for reconsideration which were both denied by the SC. The petitioner filed with the RTC a motion for repromulgation of the Sept 8 decision. However, the RTC denied this motion. The RTC also denied the motion for reconsideration filed thereafter. The petitioner then filed a Petitioner for Certiorari with the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC but the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Same goes for the motion for reconsideration filed thereafter. Issues: 1. 2. 3. 4. Whether or not the RTC acted with grave abuse in denying the motion for repromulgation Whether or not the promulgation of judgment is valid Whether or not petitioners right to appeal has prescribed Whether or not penalty imposed must be modified (I dont think this is needed, but)

Held: 1. NO

It is in accordance with Admin Circular 16-93: Promulgation of judgment in CA and SC is effected by filing a signed copy of the judgment with the Clerk of Court . This is not for promulgation or reading thereof to the defendant but for the execution of the judgment against him. The duty of the RTC (court of first instance) in respect to such judgment is merely to see that it is duly executed when in their nature the intervention of the court of first instance is necessary to that end. The practice of requiring the convict to appear before the trial court for promulgation of judgment is therefore immediately discontinued. It is clear that the practice of requiring convicts to appear before the trial courts for promulgation of the affirmance or modification by the SC or CA of judgments of conviction in criminal cases is no longer allowed. 2. YES There was no reason to postpone the promulgation of the RTCs decision because petitioners absence was unjustifiable. There was no grave abuse of discretion. 3. YES, prescribed already An acquittal via a petition for Certiorari is not allowed because the authority to review errors of the trial court in the exercise of its judgment and discretion are correctible only by appeal by writ of error. Petitioner availed of the wrong remedy when it applied for certiorari instead of appeal. 4. YES This isnt qualified theft so the penalty imposed should be the one under Article 309 and not Article 310 of the RPC. The court can modify the penalty imposed even when the assailed decision has reached finality when there is a strong showing that a grave miscarriage of justice would result from a strict application of the rules. The modification of judgment was also made to apply to the petitioners co-accused who failed to appeal.