Fugitive from justice. “A fugitive from justice is a person who attempts to evade law enforcement by fleeing the jurisdiction. Significantly, in Marquez, Jr. v. Commission in Election, the Court defined a fugitive from justice as one who not only flees after conviction to avoid punishment, but also to includes those who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution. Moreover, in Labao, Jr. v. Commission on Election, citing Rodriguez v. Commission on Elections, the Court explained what constitutes 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 Jr. v. Commission on Election, this Court held that:
The definition thus indicates that the intent to evade is the compelling factor that animates one’s flight from a particular jurisdiction. And obviously, there can only be an intent to evade prosecution or punishment when there is a knowledge by the fleeing subject of an already instituted indictment, or of a promulgated judgment of conviction. (emphasis, italics, and underscoring in the original)
While an analysis of jurisprudence reveals a variance of who could be considered a fugitive from justice, it is undeniable that the common and indispensable element is the intent to evade prosecution or punishment.”
Fugitive disentitlement doctrine. “The fugitive disentitlement doctrine originated in the United States in the 19th century. It was seen as an equitable principle of criminal appellate procedure, which contemplates the dismissal of an absconding criminal’s appeal. Absconding, therefore, was considered a betrayal of the very process the appellant invokes, and was seen to cause injury to the dignity of the judiciary. In particular, the doctrine provides that a fugitive from justice may not seek judicial relief and is “disentitled” from the judicial system whose authority such fugitive evades. In other words, because a fugitive from justice demonstrated such disrespect for the legal processes, he or she has no right to call upon the courts and the judicial system to adjudicate any of his or her claim.” (citations omitted)
Guidelines in declaring an accused as fugitive from justice..
- After finding probable cause the cause shall issue a warrant of arrest.
- The warrant of arrest, including an e-warrant, shall be implemented within 10 calendar days from its receipt by the executing officer.
- 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 cannot seek any judicial relief. They can only restore his or her standing before the court through voluntary surrender.
- A warrant of arrest which was not served personally to the accuse because they are outside the Philippine jurisdiction shall remain outstanding until its eventual implementation.
- 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 have been arrested or committed under a different warrant.
Vallacar Transit Inc., and Nixon Banebane vs. Ricardo Yanson, Jr. G.R. No. 259337, November 25, 2025