Promulgation of judgment

1. The accused was duly notified of the date set for the promulgation of the decision in the case filed against
him. The accused failed to appear but his counsel was present. The judge ordered the cancellation of the bailbond
posted by the accused and issued a warrant for his arrest. The judge further ordered that the promulgation of the
decision be held in abeyance until the accused in taken into custody. Was the action taken by the judge proper?
Explain fully. (1989, #15)

Answer:
The judge correctly ordered the cancellation of the bailbond posted by the accused and the
issuance of a warrant for his arrest upon his failure to appear for the promulgation of the decision in the
case filed against him.
However, the judge erred in holding in abeyance the promulgation of the decision until the
accused is taken into custody, because in such case the promulgation shall be made by recording the
judgment in the criminal docket and a copy shall be served upon the accused or counsel.

2 After the trial of the case involving damage to property through reckless imprudence, the judge rendered
judgment sentencing the accused “to pay a fine of P 9,000”. Two days after the promulgation of the decision and
before the accused could appeal, the judge, motu propio, modified the judgment to read as follows: “to pay a fine of P
9,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P
3,000 as actual damages.” The accused contends that this modification is improper. Decide (1989, #15)

Answer:
The modification of the judgment of conviction by imposing subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency is improper, inasmuch as the new Rules on Criminal Procedure provide that a judgment of
conviction may be modified only “on motion of the accused.”
However, the modification of the judgment for the indemnification of the offended party could
properly be made upon timely motion of the prosecution or the offended party.

3. a) If the accused is meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua by the RTC, what should he do to have his
case reviewed by the proper appellate court?

Answer:
If the accused is meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua by the RTC, he should file a notice of
appeal to the SC which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction.

b) If the penalty of reclusion temporal is increased on appeal by the CA to reclusion perpetua, what should
the accused to have his case reviewed by the SC?(1992, #8)

Answer:
The accused need not do anything because the CA should render judgment imposing the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, refrain from entering judgment and certify the case to the SC for review. If the CA
does not certify the case to the SC for review, the accused should invite the attention of the CA to its duty
to do so.

4. Supposing that Ty was convicted of the lesser offense of homicide and was sentenced to a penalty, the
maximum of which is within the range of reclusion temporal, and he appealed to the Court of Appeals, is he entitle
to bail during the pendency of such appeal?
In relation to (d) above, the Court of Appeals did not affirm or modify the judgment. Instead, it expressed
the opinion that the crime committed is murder and that the penalty should be reclusion perpetua, and accordingly
certified the case to the Supreme Court for final determination. Did it act properly? (1991, #2)

Answer:
No, the CA should have rendered judgment imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, refrained
from entering judgment, and certified the entire record to the SC for review.