The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified the standards and procedures for declaring individuals as fugitives from justice, ruling that those who flee to evade arrest or prosecution lose the right to seek any form of judicial relief.

The Court en banc outlined specific guidelines that trial courts must follow in determining fugitive status, stressing that a person becomes a fugitive not only by fleeing after conviction but also by leaving after being charged to avoid prosecution. 

According to the Court, an accused is generally deemed a fugitive from justice when they fail to physically appear before the court despite being required by law, rules, or judicial order. The key element is intent to evade prosecution or punishment — demonstrated, for instance, when a person leaves the country knowing that an Information has been filed and that a warrant of arrest has been issued.

The SC held that knowledge of the charges or warrant may come from actual notice or constructive notice, such as documented, public attempts to serve legal process even if personal service was unsuccessful.

The tribunal then laid down the following guidelines trial courts must observe:

  • After finding probable cause, courts must issue a warrant of arrest.
  • Warrants, including e-warrants, must be implemented within 10 days from receipt by the serving officer.
  • If the warrant cannot be served because the accused is outside Philippine jurisdiction, courts may declare the individual a fugitive from justice, motu proprio or upon motion. From that point on, the fugitive loses standingand cannot seek judicial relief, unless they voluntarily surrender.
  • An unserved warrant because the accused is abroad remains outstanding until implemented.
  • Criminal cases must be archived after six months of non-service of the warrant, without prejudice to revival once the arrest is successfully carried out or reported.

The rules stemmed from a grave coercion case against Ricardo V. Yanson Jr., who left the Philippines before a warrant of arrest could be served. 

Although his lawyers appeared in court and filed pleadings challenging probable cause and seeking to suspend proceedings, Yanson never personally attended any hearings, including his arraignment. 

After six months of an unserved warrant, the trial court archived the case, and the Regional Trial Court later ruled in his favor, prompting Vallacar Transit, Inc. and Nixon Banibane to elevate the matter to the SC.

In the ruling, the Court emphasized that individuals who evade arrest should not benefit from the judicial system while refusing to submit to its authority.

Applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, the Court held that accused persons abroad who intentionally avoid arrest are not entitled to participate in court proceedings or seek relief until they return and restore the court’s jurisdiction over their person.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.