I. Controlling Supreme Court Framework
The Supreme Court’s En Banc has clarified that “fugitive from justice” status requires (a) the filing of an Information, (b) issuance of a warrant of arrest, (c) proof that the accused is outside Philippine jurisdiction, and most critically (d) evidence of the intent to evade prosecution or punishment. The Court held that the keystone element is deliberate avoidance, not mere absence.
The Court emphasized that knowledge—actual or constructive—of the Information and warrant is indispensable. Without a showing that the accused knew of the criminal charge and purposely evaded service of the warrant, fugitive status cannot attach.
This complements the Miranda jurisprudence: ordinarily, a party who invokes affirmative relief submits to jurisdiction. While a fugitive may be disentitled from relief, the doctrine applies only where fugitive status is first validly established. People v. Sarcia reiterated that disentitlement is premised on purposeful evasion.
II. Litigation Strategy: How to Rebut Fugitive Allegations
1. Argue the absence of “knowledge” of the Information or warrant
Stress that fugitive status requires proof that the accused knew of the charge and still absconded. Mere existence of an Information or warrant is insufficient; the prosecution must prove awareness.
Use the following evidentiary points:
No personal or substituted service of subpoenas, notices, or resolutions.
No evidence of receipt of DOJ resolutions, Ombudsman orders, or court processes.
Travel abroad predates the filing of the case or issuance of the warrant.
Communications, employment records, immigration entries, or medical travel documents showing the accused’s absence was lawful and not clandestine.
Absent knowledge, jurisprudence disallows a fugitive finding.
2. Characterize the accused’s location abroad as lawful, declared, and non-evasive
Show that the accused’s presence abroad is:
Documented (employment contract, medical treatment, study program, corporate travel).
Publicly known (public posts, government filings, consular registrations).
Without secrecy or concealment (stable address, use of Philippine passport, immigration records showing regular exits and entries).
These demonstrate the absence of the mens rea of evasion.
3. Demonstrate regular, traceable interactions with Philippine authorities
A fugitive avoids jurisdiction. A law-abiding traveller does not.
Present evidence that the accused:
Maintained an active Philippine passport with full disclosures.
Regularly transacted with government agencies (BIR, SSS, SEC filings).
Appeared before the consulate or embassy for authentication or renewal matters.
Remained reachable at a permanent residence or employment address.
These objectively negate evasion.
4. Negate the prosecution’s burden to prove “intent to evade”
Intent is never presumed. Under the 2025 En Banc decision, lack of intent defeats fugitive classification even if the accused is physically outside the country.
Argue:
Travel was for legitimate purposes.
There was no contemporaneous government request for the accused’s return.
No attempt to obscure whereabouts or falsify identity.
No pattern of avoiding enforcement actions.
The functional test: Is the accused doing something to defeat the court’s capacity to compel appearance? If not, fugitive status cannot attach.
5. Invoke the rule that physical absence alone does not equal flight
The Supreme Court has consistently held that:
Absence abroad does not prove flight.
Failure of the police to serve a warrant because the accused is abroad does not alone establish evasion.
Courts require affirmative conduct showing the accused is taking advantage of being abroad to defeat the criminal process.
The burden to establish this lies squarely with the prosecution.
6. Emphasize readiness to submit to jurisdiction
Offer, as appropriate:
A formal undertaking to appear upon receipt of valid notice.
Willingness to appear online for initial compliance stages.
Consent to appoint a Philippine lawyer with authority to receive orders.
Proof of ongoing communication with counsel.
Willingness to submit to jurisdiction is legally incompatible with fugitive conduct.
III. Procedural Counter-Moves
1. Challenge any motion to declare fugitive status for lack of factual foundation and for failure to meet the Supreme Court’s four-part test.
2. Move to strike prosecution allegations unsupported by authenticated records.
3. Seek a protective judicial finding that the accused is not a fugitive, thereby preventing passport cancellation and avoiding disentitlement.
4. Apply for reasonable relief (e.g., deposition, clarificatory hearing) to establish the facts of lawful absence.
5. If necessary, seek provisional access to an emergency travel document to secure voluntary appearance, citing the New Philippine Passport Act (RA 11983) safeguards.
IV. Conclusion
Under the present controlling jurisprudence, a person becomes a fugitive only upon proof of deliberate evasion, not by mere overseas presence or inability of law enforcement to serve a warrant. The prosecution carries the burden of establishing knowledge, avoidance, and intent. Where the accused’s absence is lawful, documented, non-clandestine, and coupled with readiness to submit to jurisdiction, courts should categorically decline any motion to declare the accused a fugitive.
###
Draft Motions
(1)
MOTION TO DECLARE THE ACCUSED NOT A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE
(For Filing Before the Sandiganbayan or a Trial Court)
THE ACCUSED, through counsel, respectfully states:
I. Prefatory Statement
The prosecution seeks to classify the accused as a “fugitive from justice.” This characterization is unfounded in fact and unsustainable in law. Under controlling constitutional provisions, statutory rules, and Supreme Court jurisprudence, fugitive status requires proof of intentional, knowing evasion of lawful arrest or prosecution. No such proof exists here.
II. Governing Legal Doctrine
1. A finding of fugitive status requires: (a) the filing of an Information; (b) the issuance of a warrant; (c) the accused’s physical presence outside Philippine jurisdiction; and (d) clear proof of the intent to evade arrest or prosecution.
This is the controlling standard reiterated in the Supreme Court’s most recent guidance on fugitive status (En Banc Administrative Clarification, 2025), harmonizing earlier rulings in Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763 (31 March 2006), and People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641 (12 August 2009). The core element is deliberate avoidance.
2. Mere presence abroad does not constitute flight.
Philippine jurisprudence has consistently held that a person outside the country cannot be deemed a fugitive unless there is proof of knowledge of the charges and purposeful concealment (Miranda; Sarcia).
3. Absence of actual or constructive notice defeats any allegation of evasion.
Without proof that the accused knew of the Information or warrant, “intent to evade” cannot be presumed.
III. Factual Grounds for the Motion
1. No personal or substituted service of any subpoena, notice, DOJ resolution, Ombudsman directive, or court order has ever been made upon the accused.
2. The accused’s departure from the Philippines was lawful, documented, and for legitimate purposes. Immigration records, employment/medical documents, and travel history will show full transparency and no secrecy.
3. The accused’s current address abroad is stable, publicly known, and easily reachable.
4. The accused has never concealed his/her location, continues to use his/her Philippine passport openly, and has maintained communication with counsel.
5. The accused has manifested readiness to submit to the Court’s jurisdiction, including voluntary appearance upon receipt of proper notice and authorization.
These facts are incompatible with deliberate evasion or concealment.
IV. Application of the Law to the Facts
The prosecution offers no competent evidence that the accused:
knew of the Information;
deliberately avoided service of the warrant;
concealed his/her whereabouts; or
took affirmative steps to defeat the court’s authority.
Under Miranda, Sarcia, and the 2025 En Banc standard, none of these indispensable elements has been established. Mere inability of law enforcement to serve the warrant does not meet the threshold for fugitive status.
V. Prayer
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court:
1. DECLARE that the accused is NOT a fugitive from justice;
2. RECOGNIZE the accused’s ongoing willingness to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court; and
3. DENY any prosecution motion or request seeking to invoke the “fugitive disentitlement doctrine.”
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
---
(2)
OPPOSITION TO PROSECUTION MOTION TO CANCEL PASSPORT
(Re: Alleged Fugitive Status)
THE ACCUSED, through counsel, respectfully submits this Opposition:
I. The Prosecution’s Motion Has No Legal Basis
The cancellation of a Philippine passport is a severe restriction on constitutional rights (right to travel; right to due process). Under the New Philippine Passport Act (RA 11983), a passport may be cancelled only upon:
1. final conviction of a criminal offense;
2. lawful court order issued after due hearing; or
3. findings of fraud, misrepresentation, or grave public-safety concerns expressly defined by statute.
None of these statutory grounds exist here.
Most critically, a passport may be cancelled on fugitive grounds only if fugitive status has been validly established according to Supreme Court standards. As shown in the accompanying Motion, no such finding is possible.
II. Current Jurisprudence on Passport Cancellation of Alleged Fugitives
The Supreme Court has held that:
1. The right to travel cannot be curtailed absent a valid court order properly grounded in law.
(Salonga v. Hermoso, G.R. No. L-24329, 18 April 1966; Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, 27 October 1989)
2. The government must prove that the person is legally a fugitive from justice before any restriction may be imposed. The threshold is intentional evasion (Miranda; Sarcia; 2025 En Banc clarification).
3. The mere pendency of a criminal case does not justify cancellation of a passport.
The Court has repeatedly characterized passport cancellation as an extraordinary limitation on liberty that requires a clear statutory foundation and respect for due process.
Thus, absent a lawful finding of fugitive status supported by evidence, the prosecution’s request is constitutionally infirm.
III. No Fugitive Status Exists
As argued in the Motion to Declare the Accused Not a Fugitive:
The accused’s absence is lawful and non-clandestine.
The accused never received notice of the Information, warrant, or proceedings.
Intent to evade has not been proven and cannot be presumed.
The accused’s conduct is consistent with transparency, not concealment.
The accused has expressly undertaken to submit to the Court’s authority.
Without fugitive status, the prosecution’s prayer for passport cancellation collapses.
IV. Denial Is Required by Due Process and the Constitution
A passport is not a privilege loosely withdrawn; it is the essence of the constitutional right to travel. Cancellation is permissible only upon strict statutory compliance and strict observance of jurisprudence. Neither is present.
To cancel the accused’s passport based on an unproven, legally defective allegation of fugitive status would violate Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution (right to travel) and the due process clause.
V. Prayer
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the prosecution’s Motion to Cancel Passport be DENIED for lack of factual and legal basis.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
(3)
AFFIDAVIT OF THE ACCUSED
I, [FULL NAME OF ACCUSED], Filipino, of legal age, [marital status], presently residing at [Complete Address Abroad], after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
1. Personal Circumstances
1.1 I am the accused in Criminal Case No. ______ pending before the [Sandiganbayan Division / Regional Trial Court Branch ___].
1.2 I execute this Affidavit to attest to facts within my personal knowledge relevant to the prosecution’s allegation that I am a “fugitive from justice,” and to support my Motion to Declare Accused Not a Fugitive from Justice and Opposition to the Motion to Cancel Passport.
2. My Departure and Stay Abroad Were Lawful, Transparent, and for Legitimate Purposes
2.1 I departed from the Philippines on [Date] through [Airport], under my real name and using my valid Philippine passport.
2.2 My departure was lawful, pre-planned, and unrelated to any criminal complaint, investigation, or case.
2.3 My purpose for traveling abroad was [employment/medical treatment/studies/family reasons/business engagement], and I attach supporting documents such as [employment contract/hospital appointment letter/enrollment papers/official travel documents].
2.4 Since my arrival abroad, I have lived at a stable, publicly known, and accessible address, and have never attempted to hide, conceal, or change my location to avoid any Philippine authority.
3. I Had No Knowledge of the Filing of the Information, the Issuance of the Warrant, or Any Order Requiring My Presence
3.1 Prior to my departure and even after my arrival abroad, I did not receive any subpoena, notice, DOJ resolution, Ombudsman order, or communication informing me of the filing of an Information.
3.2 At no time did law enforcement, the prosecution, or any authorized officer attempt personal or substituted service at my known residential address in the Philippines [state address].
3.3 I likewise did not receive any notice from the Court or from the prosecution informing me that a warrant of arrest had been issued.
3.4 I categorically state that I was unaware of the criminal proceedings at the time the prosecution now claims I “fled.”
4. I Never Intended to Evade Arrest, Prosecution, or the Jurisdiction of the Court
4.1 I firmly state, under oath, that I did not and do not intend to evade any criminal process.
4.2 I have not concealed my identity, altered my documents, used an alias, changed my residence to avoid detection, or taken any action that may be construed as evasion.
4.3 My travel and stay abroad remain fully documented, traceable, and consistent with lawful conduct.
4.4 I have maintained communication with my Philippine counsel and with family members in the Philippines, and I have never refused any lawful directive from authorities.
5. I Am Ready and Willing to Submit to the Jurisdiction of the Court
5.1 Upon receipt of proper notice, and upon arrangements to ensure safe, orderly travel consistent with my obligations abroad, I am ready to appear before this Honorable Court.
5.2 I am willing to coordinate with the Court through counsel for the scheduling of my voluntary appearance.
5.3 I undertake to comply faithfully with all lawful directives of the Court.
6. I Am Not a Fugitive under Philippine Law and Supreme Court Jurisprudence
6.1 I understand that under Philippine jurisprudence—including Miranda v. Tuliao (G.R. No. 158763), People v. Sarcia (G.R. No. 169641), and the Supreme Court’s 2025 En Banc guidance—a person becomes a fugitive only upon proof of deliberate, knowing, intentional evasion of lawful arrest or prosecution.
6.2 I repeat under oath: I never knew of the Information or warrant, never evaded any officer, and never concealed myself to avoid prosecution.
6.3 My conduct is entirely inconsistent with the legal definition of a fugitive.
7. Certification
I execute this Affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing, to refute the prosecution’s allegations, and to support my prayer that no adverse finding or passport cancellation be issued against me.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
I have hereunto affixed my signature on this ___ day of __________ 2025 at ________.
[NAME OF ACCUSED]
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of __________ 2025 at ____________________, affiant exhibiting to me his/her [Passport No./Government ID] issued on __________ at __________________.
###
Assisted by ChatGPT, December 11, 2025.
