CRIMPRO SEC. 6, RULE 120.

Promulgation of Judgment
Title: A.M. No. MTJ-05-1575
REYES V MANGINO Date: January 31, 2005
Ponente: CALLEJO, Sr. J
YOLANDA S. REYES, complainant. JUDGE MARVIN B. MANGINO, Municipal Trial Court, Tarlac,
Branch 1, respondent.
FACTS
The instant administrative case arose when Yolanda S. Reyes filed a verified Affidavit-Complaint dated January 16, 1998 charging
Judge Marvin B. Mangino with gross ignorance of the law, extortion, graft and corruption, fraud and deception, relative to Criminal
Case No. 200-97 entitled People of the Philippines v. Spouses Felix and Yolanda Reyes, for other deceits punishable under Article
318 of the Revised Penal Code.

The complainant averred that she was one of the accused in the said case. Upon receipt of the criminal complaint and after the
filing of an ex-parte motion for the conduct of preliminary investigation, the respondent Judge issued a warrant of arrest and a writ
of preliminary attachment. No preliminary investigation was, however, conducted. This prompted the complainant to post a cash
bond, to file an ex-partemotion for the lifting of the preliminary attachment and to request the court to conduct a preliminary
investigation. The respondent Judge merely directed the private prosecutor to oppose or comment on the motion, instead of setting
the case for preliminary investigation as required under Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. The complainant also alleged
that the respondent Judge convinced her and her husband not to pursue the issue of the absence of preliminary investigation and the
lack of jurisdiction of the court, on the assurance that he would dismiss the case after their arraignment; double jeopardy would
then set in, to their advantage.

The complainant further narrated that respondent Judge met with him at the Manila Hotel on Sept. 18, 1997. The latter assured
them of his commitment to dismiss the case in their favor; advised their counsel Atty. Wilfredo Garcia to file a Demurrer to
Evidence which will serve as his legal basis for dismissing the case. According to respondent Judge, in order not to detect his bias,
the Demurrer will be dismissed first, and they need not present their evidence and defense and let the case be submitted for early
decision on the basis of the demurrer. Reyes further averred that her Liaison Officer Nida Diokno witnessed all these, including
Judge Manginos asking of 20k iin exchange of the favorable decision.
The court issued an order noting the absence of the accused and the manifestation filed by counsel of not filing any defense
evidence other than the Demurrer to Evidence, Motion to Dismiss and the respective Counter-Affidavits as the defense evidences.
There is an earlier order of the court dated October 27, 1997, stating that both accused and counsel failed to appear. Whereupon,
the prosecution moved that this case be deemed submitted for decision based on the evidence obtained. Accused were made to
believe that Judge Marvin Mangino is following the plan that accused need not appear and have the case submitted for decision
without any presentation of defense evidence.

The Judge sent the accuseds counsel a Notice of Promulgation of Judgment on Nov 24 1997. The Judge called to say that the
accused need not appear for the promulgation, and demanded an additional 40k. On Dec 23 1997 the accused received a copy of
the decision through mail, only to find out that they were adjudged as guilty of the crime of Other Deceits and were made to pay
more that 7M.
ISSUE/S
w/n the promulgation of judgment was a direct violation of Section 6, Rule 120 which requires that the promulgation of judgment
be read in the presence of the accused YES
RATIO
The Court finds that the respondent Judge is liable for gross ignorance of the law in not requiring the presence of the accused
during the promulgation of the decision in Criminal Case No. 200-97, as admitted by him in his Comment on the complaint.
There are two instances when judgment may be promulgated even without the personal presence of the accused: (1) when the
judgment is for a light offense, in which case, the counsel for the accused or a representative may stand for him; and (2) in cases
where despite due notice to the accused or his bondsman or warden and counsel, the accused failed to appear at the promulgation of
the decision. The evident purpose of this latter exception is to afford the offended party the opportunity to enforce the award of
civil indemnity which could not otherwise be effected if the decision cannot be pronounced on account of the absence of the
accused. Criminal Case No. 200-97 does not fall under any of the exceptions, since the accused therein were charged and convicted
of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, which is a less grave felony, the imposable penalty being arresto
mayor.
It bears stressing the importance of the promulgation of decisions in criminal cases, considering that a judgment or sentence does
not become a judgment or sentence in law until the same has been read or announced to the defendant or has become part of the
record of the court. Parenthetically, when there is no valid promulgation of judgment, no right to appeal accrues.
RULING
WHEREFORE, for gross ignorance of the law, respondent Judge Marvin B. Mangino is FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000.00), and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.