SC clarifies procedure for declaring fugitives

The Supreme Court issued a clarification on how courts should determine whether an individual is a fugitive from justice, stating that those who flee to avoid prosecution or punishment cannot seek judicial relief until they voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan dated 25 November 2025 for the Court En Banc, the tribunal explained the meaning of fugitive status, the process trial courts must follow before making such a declaration, and the legal consequences that follow. The ruling affirmed that a person becomes a fugitive not only when they escape after conviction, but also when they leave or avoid returning to the country after being charged, with the clear intent of evading arrest or prosecution.

It stressed that a fugitive is generally someone who fails to appear physically when required by law or by court order. It added that a person who departs the Philippines knowing that a criminal Information and a corresponding arrest warrant have been issued demonstrates intent to evade prosecution, thereby forfeiting the right to participate in proceedings or seek court intervention.

The decision emphasized that courts must look first to the filing of an Information and the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Knowledge of these actions—gained through direct receipt of documents or established through law enforcement’s documented efforts at service—forms the basis for determining whether the accused has fled to avoid arrest. Once a court establishes that a warrant cannot be served because the accused is outside the country, and after examining the circumstances, it may declare the individual a fugitive. From that moment, the accused loses standing before the court unless they voluntarily surrender.

The Court also clarified that arrest warrants remain effective until served, and cases may be archived when an accused has remained unarrested for six months. The ruling stemmed from a petition filed by Vallacar Transit, Inc. (VTI) and Nixon A. Banibane, who sought to overturn orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that halted grave coercion proceedings against Ricardo V. Yanson Jr.

After charges were filed, Yanson questioned the finding of probable cause before the Department of Justice (DOJ) and later asked the court to suspend proceedings. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) initially granted his request but later directed the implementation of the arrest warrant.

The Bureau of Immigration (BI) said Yanson had already left the country when authorities attempted to serve the warrant. He continued to participate in the case through a Special Power of Attorney authorising his lawyers to represent him. VTI argued that because Yanson had fled, neither he nor his counsel retained standing before the courts.

Although his lawyers appeared at scheduled hearings, Yanson never did, and after six months without service of the warrant, the MTCC archived the case. The RTC nonetheless eventually ruled in his favor, prompting VTI and Banibane to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

In reversing the RTC, the Supreme Court held that Yanson’s departure and absence from the country showed an intent to evade arrest, preventing the courts from acquiring jurisdiction over his person.

The justices said courts cannot ensure the enforcement of any judgment against an accused who remains outside Philippine territory, which undermines the administration of criminal justice.

The Court found it necessary to strengthen the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, saying those who refuse to submit to the jurisdiction of Philippine courts should not be allowed to invoke their processes. It remanded the case to the MTCC to determine whether the warrant against Yanson remained unserved because he was outside the country, and, if so, to declare him a fugitive not entitled to any judicial relief.