In this era, where evading arrest and fleeing to avoid prosecution had become a trend for suspected malefactors, the Honorable Supreme Court in a relatively recent case, laid down the Doctrine of Fugitive Disentitlement. Under this doctrine, an accused who is deemed as a “fugitive from justice” shall not be entitled to any judicial relief unless he or she first submits himself/herself to the jurisdiction of our courts, either thru valid service of a warrant of arrest or voluntary surrender.
At the outset, an accused is generally considered a “fugitive from justice” when the accused fails to appear physically before the court when required by law, rules, or by order of the judge. More specifically, the person who flees from the Philippines with knowledge that an Information was filed against them in court and a warrant of arrest is issued demonstrates a clear intent to evade arrest and prosecution, thereby rendering such person a fugitive from justice. Based on settled jurisprudence, the term “fugitive from justice’ includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment, but likewise those who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution.
In Rodriguez vs. Comission on Elections, the Court emphasized that there can only be an intent to evade prosecution or punishment when there is knowledge by the fleeing subject of an already instituted indictment, or of a promulgated judgment of conviction. Thus, it is of vital importance that such person has knowledge that an Information against him has already been filed, or that a warrant of arrest has been issued. This knowledge may be established through: (1) actual notice, such as personal receipt of a copy of the Information; or (2) constructive notice, such as when there are clear, public, and documented efforts by law enforcement to serve legal process, even if personal service was evaded or unsuccessful.
As suggested by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa during the deliberations in the case of Vallacar Transit Inc vs Yanson, before declaring an individual as a fugitive from justice, the following procedure should be observed by the court where the Information is filed: (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, and after assessment of the circumstances of the case, declare the accused a fugitive from justice. From then on, such person loses their standing in court, can no longer participate in the proceedings, and cannot seek any judicial relief. They can only restore his or her 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.
At present, the application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine is determined by examining four (4) key factors, namely: (1) assuring the enforceability of a decision against the fugitive; (2) not allowing a fugitive to utilize the resources of the court when he or she has flouted the judicial system; (3) discouraging escape and encouraging voluntary surrender; and (4) avoiding prejudice to the other side or the Government caused by the fugitive’s escape or extended absence.
In Vallacar, the Highest Court lengthily explained the rationale and motivation in finally adopting the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement in our jurisdiction, to wit:
“For an accused, due process rights include, among others, the right to a fair and impartial trial and to present evidence in his or her defense. On the other hand, for the State, due process rights pertain to a fair opportunity to prosecute and convict. Indubitably, this right of the State is curtailed if an accused can flout the law and mock it by becoming a fugitive from justice because by fleeing and evading arrest, fugitives from justice choose to live and operate outside the jurisdiction of Philippine law. This amounts to a self- repudiation and renunciation of the court’s jurisdiction over one’s person. xxx
In fact, the practical considerations of adopting the fugitive disentitlement doctrine become more apparent because of the current landscape in the Philippines. In particular, it is well known that several personalities suspected of being engaged in illegal activities related to offshore gambling and human trafficking have fled the Philippines while investigations were being conducted against them. While anticipating possible criminal and administrative charges, these personalities left the Philippines, obviously, to be out of the Philippine authorities. Significantly, to ensure their return, the Government of the Philippines even relied on the aid of international organizations and foreign law enforcement officials so that these personalities could face the charges against them. Securing their return is imperative because while these people remain outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines, the State cannot exercise its right to prosecute and convict.