29/11/2025
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DMRe3Dyhs/
Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.
The (SC) has set guidelines that the courts must follow before declaring an individual as a fugitive from justice, ruling that they are barred from seeking judicial reliefs as the courts do not acquire jurisdiction over them.
A fugitive from justice is someone who not only flees after conviction to avoid punishment, but one who also flees after being charged to avoid prosecution. The essential element is the intent to evade prosecution or punishment.
The SC ruled that it is vital that the person knows that an Information or criminal charge has been filed or that a warrant of arrest has been issued. Such knowledge may come from actual notice, such as personally receiving a copy of the Information, 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.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 laid down the following guidelines that the courts must apply before declaring an individual 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, and after assessment of the circumstances of the case, declare the accused a fugitive from justice. From then, such person loses their standing in court, can no longer participate in the proceedings, and 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 case stemmed from carnapping, violation of Public Service Act and grave coercion charges filed against Ricardo V. Yanson, Jr. (Yanson), who was Vice President for Maintenance of Vallacar Transit, Inc. (VTI).
Yanson left the country on March 7, 2020, after the Informations for carnapping had been filed in court on March 4, 2020 and before the other charges for grave coercion and violation of the Public Service Act were filed on June 9, 2020.
Yanson, through a petition filed by his counsel, secured a ruling from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City suspending the proceedings for grave coercion before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), because of a pending intra-corporate dispute. VTI questioned the RTC ruling before the SC.
The SC ruled that when the accused is declared a fugitive from justice, he is not entitled to any judicial reliefs, creating an exception to a prior ruling.
Previously, in 𝘔𝘪𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘷. 𝘛𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘰, the court is allowed to proceed to grant or deny the reliefs sought by an accused who is not physically under its custody but whose jurisdiction over his person was acquired when he or she participated in the case and asked for affirmative reliefs.
However, the SC noted that under this ruling, there is no assurance or guarantee that any decision would be enforceable on a fugitive from justice.
Thus, as an exception to the 𝘔𝘪𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨, it declared that jurisdiction over the person of an accused, who is a fugitive from justice, would not be acquired by the courts simply by the filing of any pleading or by participating in the case through his or her lawyers.
The SC applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, a doctrine which originated in the United States that disentitles fugitives from seeking relief from the judicial system whose authority they seek to evade.
It cited the totality of circumstances that indicate Yanson’s intent to evade law enforcement and judicial processes — his flight, and his failure to return and surrender despite knowledge of pending criminal proceedings against him, and particularly the existence of Informations filed against him prior to his departure from the Philippines.
The SC remanded the case to the MTCC to apply the guidelines and determine if the warrant of arrest could not be executed because Yanson is outside Philippine jurisdiction, and if so, to declare him a fugitive from justice not entitled to any judicial relief.
Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=156092
Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259337-vallacar-transit-inc-and-nixon-banibane-vs-ricard-v-yanson-jr/
Read the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259337-concurring-and-dissenting-opinion-senior-associate-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/
Read the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259337-concurring-and-dissenting-opinion-associate-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.
