A fugitive’svanishing refuge
From that moment he loses standing: he cannot participate, cannot seek relief, and regains his footing only by surrendering.
Text size
Share
From that moment he loses standing: he cannot participate, cannot seek relief, and regains his footing only by surrendering.
Share
For years, leaving the country was a workable defense strategy. An accused facing a warrant would fly out, retain counsel, and let his lawyers litigate on his behalf while his body stayed safely beyond the reach of Philippine law enforcement. The courts tolerated it. That era is closing.
Our law has never carried a single, tidy statutory definition of “fugitive.” The closest doctrinal anchor came from election law: in Marquez v. Comelec and Rodriguez v. Comelec, the Supreme Court held that a fugitive from justice is one who flees to avoid prosecution or punishment, with intent to evade as the animating element — an intent that presupposes knowledge of a pending charge or conviction at the time of flight.
The decisive shift came in November 2025. In Vallacar Transit v. Yanson Jr., the Court formally adopted the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, borrowed from American jurisprudence: one who evades the court’s authority cannot invoke it. The Court set a clean test. Once an Information is filed and a warrant issued, and the accused, knowing this, stays abroad, a trial court may declare him a fugitive, motu proprio or on motion.
From that moment he loses standing: he cannot participate, cannot seek relief, and regains his footing only by surrendering. Crucially, appearance through counsel no longer confers jurisdiction over a fugitive’s person. That guts the old wait-it-out tactic.
But the doctrine is not self-executing, and here is where prosecutors still do the hard work.
Jurisdiction over the person is acquired only by arrest or voluntary appearance, and trial in absentia requires a prior arraignment. Flight before arraignment leaves the case frozen — archived after six months of an unserved warrant, as happened to Zaldy Co in the flood control prosecutions.
The prosecutorial toolkit has therefore moved upstream and outward. After Genuino v. De Lima struck down the DoJ’s power to issue hold departure orders, the Precautionary Hold Departure Order under A.M. 18-07-05-SC gave prosecutors a court-sanctioned means to ground a respondent before flight.
Once someone is already gone, the levers are passport cancellation under the Passport Act, Interpol notices, and either extradition or, absent a treaty as with several countries, deportation.
The lesson is unglamorous but real. Doctrine disciplines the fugitive who litigates from afar, but only diligence, a timely PHDO, a coordinated manhunt, actually produces the body in court. For those of us who prosecute corruption, the takeaway is plain: prevention beats pursuit.
