JUDGMENT (RULE 120)

What is a “judgment”?

A judgment is the adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the
offense charged and the imposition on him of the proper penalty and civil liability, if any (Sec. 1,
Rule 120, Rules of Court)

What are the requisites of a judgment?

1.) Under Sec. 1, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, the following are the formal requisites of a
judgment:
a.) The judgment must be written in the official language.
b.) It must be personally and directly prepared and signed by the judge, and
c.) It must contain clearly and distinctly a statement of (i) the facts, and (ii) the law
upon which it is based.

2.) The jurisdictional requirements before a judgment may be validly rendered in a criminal
cases are:
a.) jurisdiction over the subject matter;
b.) jurisdiction over the territory; and
c.) juridiction over the person of the accused.

Note: The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one who conducted the
trial and heard the testimnies of witnesses, but merely relied on the records of the case, does not
render the judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support
its conclusion. (People vs Alfredo, G.R. No. 188560, December 15, 2010)

CONTENTS OF A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION

Under Sec. 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, a judgment of conviction shall state:
a.) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the
accused;
b.) the aggravating and mitigating circumstances which attended the commission of
the offense;
c.) the participation of the accused in the offense whether as (i) principal, (ii)
accomplice, or (iii) accessory;
d.) the penalty imposed upon the accused;
e.) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be
recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement
of the civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved or waived.

CONTENTS OF A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL

Under Sec. 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, a judgment of acquittal shall:
a.) state whether or not the evidence of the prosecution (i) absolutely failed to prove
 the guilt of the accused, or (ii) merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt;
b.) determine if the act or omission from which the civil liablilty might arise did not
exist.

PEOPLE vs ALEJANDRO (G.R. No. 223099, January 11, 2018)

“A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable.”

FACTS: Accused-appellant Lino Alejandro was charged with two counts of rape, defined and
penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic
Act No. 83693 , of a 12-year old minor, AAA. The RTC promulgated a Decision acquitting the
accused-appellant. On the same day, however, the RTC recalled the said decision, and issued an
order stating that upon manifestation of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor that there were
Orders that were inadvertently placed in the record of a diffrenet criminal case involving the
same accused but different private complainant-victim which if considered will result in a
different verdict. The court admitted that it erroneously declared in its Decision that private
complainant AAA did not testify in Court. When in truth and in fact said private complainant
took the witness stand. In its second decision, the court found the accused guilty of two counts of
rape.

SC RULING: In this case, the acquittal was not even questioned on the basis of grave abuse of
discretion. It was only through a supposed mere manifestation of the prosecutor, a copy of which
was not in the records, that the RTC was apprised of the supposed mistake it committed. the RTC
was reminded of the fact that private complainant AAA testified during the trial, only after it had
already rendered and promulgated the judgment of acquittal. The R TC then realized that had
AAA's testimony been taken into account, the case would have had a different outcome.
Consequently, the RTC issued an Order recalling the judgment of acquittal for the purpose of
rectifying its error, and thereafter, rendered a Decision convicting the accused-appellant for two
counts of rape. This, however, cannot be countenanced for a contrary ruling would transgress the
accused-appellant's constitutionally-enshrined right against double jeopardy.

DOCTRINE:
 A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable.
 The only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the
prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham.
However, while certiorari may be availed of to correct an erroneous acquittal, the petitioner
in such an extraordinary proceeding must clearly demonstrate that the trial court blatantly
abused its authority to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.
 Too elementary is the rule that a decision once final is no longer susceptible to amendment
or alteration except to correct errors which are clerical in· nature, to clarify any ambiguity
caused by an omission or mistake in the dispositive portion or to rectify a travesty of justice
brought about by a moro-moro or mock trial. A final decision is the law of the case and is
immutable and unalterable regardless of any claim of error or incorrectness. In criminal
cases, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final upon its promulgation. It cannot be
recalled for correction or amendment except in the cases already mentioned nor withdrawn
by another order reconsidering the dismissal of the case since the inherent power of a court
to modify its order or decision does not extend to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case.
RULE ON DUPLICITOUS COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

As a rule, a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law
prescribes a single punishment for various offenses (Sec. 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court).

Remedy:
When two or more offenses are charged in a single information or complaint, the accused
can file a motion to quash (Sec. 3(f), Rule 117, Rules of Court).

Effect of failure to object to a duplicitous complaint or information:

If the accused fails to object before trial for the violation of Sec. 13, Rule 110, the accused is
deemed to have waived the defect and the court may convict him for as many offenses as are
charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the
findings of fact and law in each offense (Sec. 3, Rule 120, Rules of Court).

VARIANCE DOCTRINE

The variance referred to in Sec. 4 of Rule 120 is a situation where:

a.) the offense proved is different from the offense as charged in the complaint or
information, and
b.) the offense as charged is either included in the offense proved or necessarily includes
the offense proved.

MALABANAN vs SANDIGANBAYAN (G.R. No. 186329, August 2, 2017)

“Variance between the allegation contained in the Information and the conviction resulting from
trial cannot justify a conviction.”

FACTS: Abusama Alid obtained a cash advance of Pl 0,496 to defray his expenses for official
travel. Alid instructed his secretary to prepare the necessary papers to liquidate the cash advance.
After finding discrepancies in the supporting documents during post-audit, the Office of the
Special Prosecutor charged Alid and Malabanan before the Sandiganbayan with falsification of
public documents. In one of the cases filed before the Sandiganbayan agaisnt Alid, the Acting
Deputy Special Prosecutor charged Alid with falsifying the PAL Ticket. In the information filed,
the plane ticket was considered as a public document. Sandiganbayan proceeded with the
criminal cases and eventually rendered a Decision convicting Alid of falsification of a private
document for altering the PAL Ticket.

SC RULING: A conviction for falsification of a private document under paragraph 2 of Article

172 violates the right of Alid to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him given that his Information charged him only with falsification of documents committed by a
public officer under Article 171. Comparing the two provisions and the elements of falsification,
it is readily apparent that the two felonies are different. Falsification under paragraph 2 of Article
172 goes beyond the elements of falsification enumerated under Article 171. The former requires
additional independent evidence of damage or intention to cause the same to a third person.42
Simply put, in Article 171, damage is not an element of the crime; but in paragraph 2 of Article
172, or falsification of a private document, damage is an element necessary for conviction.
Therefore, not all the elements of the crime punished by paragraph 2, Article 172 are included
under Article 171. Specifically, the former offense requires the element of damage, which is not a
requisite in the latter. Indeed, the Information charging Alid of a felony did not inform him that
his alleged falsification caused damage or was committed with intent to cause damage to a third
party. Since Alid was not specifically informed of the complete nature and cause of the
accusation against him, he cannot be convicted of falsification of a private document under
paragraph 2 of Article 172. To convict him therefor, as the Sandiganbayan did, violates the very
proscription found in the Constitution and our Rules of Criminal Procedure.

DOCTRINE:
 One of the fundamental rights of an accused person is the right to be "informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him."35 This means that the accused may not be
convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the Information. 36 Even if the
prosecution successfully proves the elements of a crime, the accused may not be convicted
thereof, unless that crime is alleged or necessarily included in the Information filed against
the latter .

 The accused can only be convicted of an offense when it is both charged and proved. If it is
not charged, although proved, or if it is proved, although not charged, the accused cannot be
convicted thereof. In other words, variance between the allegation contained in the
Information and the conviction resulting from trial cannot justify a conviction for either the
offense charged or the offense proved unless either is included in the other.

PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT

Who promulgates judgement?

As a rule, a judgment is promulgated by any judge of the court in which it was rendered
(Sec. 6, Rule 120, Rules of Court)

Exceptions:
a.) If the judge is abent or outside the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by
the clerk of court (Sec. 6, Rule 120, Rules of Court).
b.) If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, the judgment may be
promulgated by the executive judge of the RTC having jurisdiction over the place of confinement
or detention upon request of the court which rendered the judgment (Sec. 6, Rule 120, Rules of
Court)

How judgment be promulgated?

A judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused (Sec. 6, Rule 120,
Rules of Court).

Exceptions:
a.) If the conviction is merely for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the
presence of his counsel or representative (Sec.6, Rule 120, Rules of Court).
 b.) Promulgation of judgment in absentia

JAVIER vs GONZALES (G.R. No. 193150, January 23, 2017)

“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.”

FACTS: Pepito Gonzales was charged with murder with frustrated murder and multiple
attempted murder. Gonzales filed a Motion for Bail which was granted. On the scheduled date of
promulgation, Gonzales failed to appear. The promulgation was rescheduled. On the same date, a
warrant of arrest was issued and the bond forfeited in view of the non-appearance of the accused,
who was deemed to have jumped bail. A Notice of Hearing/Subpoena and Notice of
Promulgation of Judgment was issued commanding the parties to appear before the Court on a
given date. Notices were sent to Gonzales but he still failed to appear without any justification.
The Branch Clerk of Court thereafter read the dispositive portion of Judge Buted's Decision,
convicting Gonzales of complex crime of murder with frustrated murder and multiple attempted
murder. the Clerk of Court was directed to enter the judgment of conviction in the RTC's
criminal docket pursuant to paragraph 4, Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Since the death penalty was still in force at the time the judgment was promulgated,
Judge Buted also ordered that the records of the case be immediately forwarded to the CA for
automatic review. In less than a month after the judgment of conviction was rendered, Gonzales
filed, through Atty. Benitez, an Omnibus Motion asking that the judgment promulgated be
reconsidered and set aside. Gonzales argued that he had not been properly notified of the
promulgation of judgment; that he had not been represented by counsel; and that the RTC had
proceeded with deliberate haste in convicting him.

SC RULING: Records show that Gonzales was properly informed of the promulgation. The RTC
Order documents the presence of his counsel during the hearing. It is an established doctrine that
notice to counsel is notice to client. n addition, the Return of Service states that the Order and
Notice of Promulgation were personally delivered to respondent's address. During the
promulgation of judgment on 15 December 2005, when respondent did not appear despite notice,
and without offering any justification for his absence, the trial court should have immediately
promulgated its Decision pursuant to Sec. 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court. Although the
judgment was promulgated in absentia, Gonzales was not left without remedy. 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.

DOCTRINE:
 Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a court to
promulgate a judgment in absentia and gives the accused the opportunity to file an appeal
within a period of fifteen (15) days from notice to the latter or the latter's counsel; otherwise,
the decision becomes final.

 If the accused has been notified of the date of promulgation, but does not appear, the
promulgation of judgment in absentia is warranted.
 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.

 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.

 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.

 Remedy after the accused lose all the remedies available in the Rules against the judgment
because of non-appearance without justifiable cause: The fifth paragraph of Section 6, Rule
120, states: “If the judgment is for conviction and the failure or 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) clays 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.”

Note: The promulgation in absentia shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal
docket and serving a copy thereof to the accused at their known address or through counsel. The
court shall also order the arrest of the accused if the judgment is for conviction and the failure to
appear was without justifiable cause (Jaylo vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 18152-54, January 21,
2015).

Note: When the accused fails to present himself at the promulgation of the judgment of
conviction, he loses the remedies against such judgment (such as a motion for a new trial or
reconsideration under Rule 121 and an appeal from the judgment of conviction under Rule 122)
(Jaylo vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 18152-54, January 21, 2015).

Note: Sec. 6 of Rule 120 does not diminish or modify the substantive rights of the person
convicted. It only works in pursuance of the rule-making power of the Supreme Court to provide
a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases (Estipona vs Lobrigo,
G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017)

MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT

A judgment of conviction may be modified or set aside, upon motion of the accused, before
the judgment becomes final or before appeal is perfected (Sec. 7, Rule 120, Rules of Court).
Thus, modification of the judgment must be upon motion of the accused. It cannot be done on
the court’s own motion.

When judgment becomes final?

 Under Sec. 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, a judgment becomes final:
a.) after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal
b.) when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served
c.) when the accused has waived in wiriting his right to appeal, or
d.) when the accused has applied for probation.

Note: Applying for probation is necessarily deemed a waiver of one’s right to appeal. Appeal and
probation are mutually exclusive remedies. Implicit in an application for probation is an
admission of guilt (Enrique Almero vs People, G.R. No. 188191, March 12, 2014).
NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION (RULE 121)

The accused may file a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration of the judgment
adverser to him. He should file the motion at any time before the judgment of conviction
becomes final (Sec. 1, Rule 121, Rules of Court). Once the judgment becomes final, pleas for a
new trial or reconsideration can no longer be entertained.

The court, however, need not wait for a motion from the accused because it may, at its own
instance, grant a new trial or a reconsideration of the judgment but with the consent of the
accused (Sec. 1, Rule 121, Rules of Court).

GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL

Under Sec. 2, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court, a new trial shall be granted on any of the
following grounds:
a.) That errors of law have been committed during the trial;
b.) That irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused have been
committed druing the trial; or
c.) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not
with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced
and admitted would probably change the judgment

Note: Newly discovered evidence refers to which (a) is discovered after trial; (b) could not have
been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) is
material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) is of such weight that it
would probably change the judgment if admitted (Tadeja vs People, G.R. No. 145336, February
20, 2013)

GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT

Under Sec. 3, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court, a reconsideration of the judgment shall be
granted on any of the following grounds:
 a.) Errors of law in the judgment which requires no further proceedings; and
b.) Errors of fact in the judgment which also requires no further proceedings.

Form of the motions

The motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be in writing and shall state the grounds on
which it is based (Sec. 4, Rule 121, Rules of Court).

If based on newly-discovered evidence, the motion must be supported by affidavits of

witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given or by duly authenticated copies of
documents which are proposed to be introduced in evidence (Sec. 4, Rule 121, Rules of Court).

When hearing of the motion is required

A hearing shall be conducted when the motion for new trial calls for a resolution of a
question of fact. The court may hear evidence on the motion by affidavits or otherwise (Sec. 5,
Rule 121, Rules of Court).

EFFECTS OF GRANTING A NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

1.) In all cases, when a new trial or reconsideration is granted, the original judgment shall be
set aside or vacated and a new judgment shall be rendered accordingly (Sec. 6, Rule 121, Rules
of Court).

2.) The other effects would depend upon the ground availed of in granting the new trial or
reconsideration, thus:

a.) When the new trial was granted on the grounds of errors of law or irregularities
during the trial -all the proceedings and evidence affected thereby shall be (i) set aside, and
(ii) taken anew; and the court, in the interest of justice, may allow the introduction of
additional evidence.
b.) When the new trial is granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence -the
evidence already adduced shall stand. The newly-discovered evidence, together with other
evidence which the court may allow in the interest of justice, shall be taken and considered
together with the evidence already in the record (Sec. 6, Rule 121, Rules of Court)..