Fugitives from justice are persons who evade criminal prosecution before the courts and those who flee after conviction to avoid the punishment imposed on them.

The Supreme Court (SC) said that fugitives from justice are barred from seeking judicial relief unless they voluntarily surrender.

The issue was tackled in a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan. It set the guidelines the courts must apply before declaring a person a fugitive from justice.

In a summary of the decision issued last Friday night, Nov. 28, the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson said an accused is generally considered a fugitive from justice when they fail to appear physically before the court when required by law, the rules, or an order from the judge.

More specifically, a person who leaves the Philippines knowing that a criminal case has been filed in court and that a warrant of arrest has been issued shows a clear intent to evade arrest and prosecution, making that person a fugitive from justice and possibly disentitled to any judicial relief.

The starting points to determine whether a person is a fugitive from justice are the filing of a criminal case before the court and the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and the person knows the charge and the order of arrest.

Knowledge of the charge and the arrest order may come from actual notice, such as personally receiving a copy of the criminal charge sheet, or from constructive notice, such as clear, public, and documented efforts by law enforcement to serve legal process even if personal service was evaded or unsuccessful, the SC said.

The guidelines the courts must apply to determine a person is a fugitive from justice:

1. After finding probable cause, the court shall issue a warrant of arrest.

2. The warrant of arrest, including an e-warrant, shall be implemented within 10 calendar days from its receipt by the executing officer.

3. If there is a failure to execute the warrant of arrest by reason that the accused is outside the Philippine jurisdiction, as stated in the executing officer’s return, the court may, either by motion or motu proprio (on its own), and after assessment of the circumstances of the case, declare the accused a fugitive from justice.

From then, such a person loses his or her standing in court, can no longer participate in the proceedings, and cannot seek any judicial relief. They can only restore their standing before the court through voluntary surrender.

4. A warrant of arrest which was not served personally to the accused because they are outside the Philippine jurisdiction shall remain outstanding until its eventual implementation.

5. The criminal case shall be archived only if the accused remains at large for six months from the date of the issuance of the warrant of arrest or creation of the e-warrant, without prejudice to the revival of the case upon successful implementation of the warrant of arrest or upon notice to the court that the person subject of the warrant of arrest has been arrested or committed under a different warrant.

The SC decision was issued in the petition filed by Vallacar Transit, Inc. (VTI) and Nixon A. Banibane. They asked the SC to set aside the orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that placed on hold the criminal proceedings for grave coercion against Ricardo V. Yanson Jr.

Yanson, through counsel Fortun Narvasa & Salazar (FNS), filed a petition for review before the Department of Justice questioning the finding of probable cause. He later filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings.

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) initially granted Yanson’s motion to suspend proceedings but later issued an order directing the release and immediate implementation of the arrest warrant against him.

The arrest order could not be implemented because Yanson had left the Philippines as certified by the Bureau of Immigration.

Through a special power of attorney, Yanson authorized lawyer Philip Sigfrid A. Fortun and/or Sheila C. Sison and FNS to represent him in any court proceeding in the Philippines. He challenged the MTCC’s order before the RTC.

VTI opposed the plea before the RTC as it pointed out that Yanson is a fugitive from justice and has no standing in court.

Yanson did not appear during the arraignment of his grave coercion case. After six months, the MTCC archived the case against him.

When the RTC ruled in Yanson’s favor, VTI and Banibane elevated the issue before the SC.

The SC reversed the RTC’s ruling. It ruled that Yanson should not be allowed to continue seeking affirmative relief from the courts because he left the Philippines and he showed an intent to evade arrest and criminal prosecution.

It pointed out that a person who has not submitted to the court’s jurisdiction has no right to invoke its processes.

It stressed that the court’s jurisdiction is necessary to ensure that the court’s judgment can be enforced. In the case of Yanson, the requirement was not met because he is a fugitive or is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine courts.

Citing an earlier ruling, the SC said an accused waives objections to jurisdiction over his person when he files any pleading seeking affirmative relief, except when he challenges jurisdiction itself.

It said that once an accused participates in the case and asks for affirmative relief, they are deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.

Thus, even without physical custody of the accused, the court may adjudicate and rule on the reliefs sought.

It pointed out that the rules require an accused to be physically present only in specific instances such as applications for bail, court-ordered identification even while on bail, arraignment, and the promulgation of judgment.

But in the case of Yanson, the SC said he has never been physically present before the courts, including on the date of his arraignment for grave coercion.

Thus, it said, the courts have never acquired custody over him since he left the Philippines and participated only through his counsel.

The SC said that custody over the person of the accused, whether through arrest or voluntary surrender, must first be obtained before the case may proceed.

It emphasized that those who refuse to surrender and submit to the court’s jurisdiction should not be entitled to seek relief under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, a legal principle that prevents a person who flees from the jurisdiction of a court to evade legal proceedings from seeking relief from that same court.

The SC said it is time to apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to those who commit or are suspected of committing crimes and then flee outside Philippine jurisdiction to strengthen the justice system and protect due process rights, which both the accused and the State are equally entitled to.