The Supreme Court (SC) has made it clear that fugitives – or precisely fugitives from justice – should not have the privilege of getting aid from the judiciary.

From the missing sabungeros (cockfighting enthusiasts) case, to the flood control corruption, this concept on fugitives matters because there’s an ongoing list of high-profile individuals who are running away from prosecution and have yet to face their alleged crimes.

Case in point, former Ako Bicol representative Zaldy Co, who has pending warrants of arrest from the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan, has yet to be deported home. Co is among the accused in the flood control-related graft and malversation cases filed by the Office of the Ombudsman in November last year.

Another big name, gaming tycoon Charlie “Atong” Ang, has yet to be arrested despite the warrants against him due to the disappearance of sabungeros. The Philippine courts issued warrants against Ang in connection with non-bailable kidnapping charges, but he has yet to be arrested as of this posting.

So how can the SC ruling on fugitives help in the cases against Co and Ang?

Fugitives from justice, defined

Citing a definition from Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the High Court, in the Vallacar Transit Inc. v. Yanson, defined a fugitive from justice as a person who attempts to evade law enforcement by fleeing.

The SC also said in Marquez Jr. v. Commission on Elections that a fugitive from justice is a person who not only flees after conviction to avoid punishment, but also an individual who hides after being charged to avoid prosecution.

In other words, a fugitive from justice is a person who flees after being charged to avoid prosecution (facing trial) or after conviction (to avoid punishment). The SC clarified this in the Vallacar Transit Inc. v. Yanson case promulgated on November 25, 2025.

“For all these reasons, an accused is generally considered a fugitive from justice when the accused fails to appear physically before the court when required by law, our rules, or by order from the judge,” the SC said.

“More specifically, the person who flees from the Philippines with knowledge that an Information was filed against them in court and a warrant of arrest is issued, demonstrates a clear intent to evade arrest and prosecution, and renders such person a fugitive from justice. They may then be disentitled to any judicial relief,” it added.

The disentitlement doctrine

“The [ruling’s] intent is to force fugitives to surrender themselves to the jurisdiction of the court,” National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers president Ephraim Cortez told Rappler.

Generally, all individuals are entitled to assistance from several government institutions as part of due process and their rights.

Among these aids are judicial reliefs that may be sought by parties from the courts. Judicial reliefs include legal remedies like writs (that may be invoked for different uses like protection, data, and freedom), among others.

“[The rule] will deprive the so-called ‘fugitive from justice’ of the opportunity to seek judicial relief. Specifically to seek quashing of the warrant of arrest, quashing of information, and even a review of the resolution indicting them of the crime,” Cortez said. “The problem with this doctrine is that it will deprive those who are innocent of the chance to seek judicial relief.”

In its decision on the Vallacar Transit Inc. v. Yanson case, the High Court ruled that fugitives from justice may be barred from seeking judicial reliefs from the courts.

The SC explained that this practice called the fugitive disentitlement doctrine originated from the United States in the 19th Century.

Although this doctrine was not categorically applied by the SC in the Philippines before, the High Court noted that it has actually been adopted and practiced in the country. In addition, there’s also explicit basis to apply this doctrine under the country’s Rules of Court and jurisprudence (legal doctrines).

“Thus, the Court finds it high time to also apply such mandate to those who have committed a crime or are suspected of committing a crime, and fled outside the Philippines’ jurisdiction. Adopting such mandate strengthens the justice system and due process rights, which both the accused and the State are equally entitled to,” the SC explained.

“In addition, the application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine will also promote the equal protection of the laws,” the High Court added.

What’s the process of declaring a fugitive?

It is the court that handles the case against a party that holds the power to declare a person a fugitive. But it’s not that simple – the High Court said the following procedure must be observed in declaring a person a fugitive:

• After finding probable cause, the court will issue a warrant of arrest.
• The warrant shall be implemented within 10 calendar days from the receipt of the executing officer.
• If the officers failed to execute the warrants because the accused is outside the country, the court – either by motion or motu proprio (by itself) – declare the accused a fugitive from justice. Once declared a fugitive, the accuse loses their court standing, can no longer participate in the proceeding, and cannot avail of any judicial relief. They can only restore their standing through voluntary surrender.
• The warrant not served because the accused is outside the country shall remain outstanding or in effect until its eventual execution.
• The case shall only be archived if the accused remains at large for six months from the date of the warrant’s issuance, “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.”

Play Video

What now?

Law enforcers failed to arrest Ang at his properties in Pasig City and Zambales. The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), on February 12, even doubled the bounty for Ang’s arrest from P10 million to P20 million.

The Department of Justice, through Prosecutor General Richard Fadullon, called Ang last month a “fugitive from justice.” The DILG also referred to the gaming tycoon in hiding as a “fugitive” in its official communications.

Co, meanwhile, is currently overseas. He was out of the country when his name got dragged in the flood control mess as the former House appropriations chairperson in 2025, and did not return home since then.

He was, in fact, out of the country when the warrants were issued against him. In January, the Sandiganbayan declared him a fugitive from justice and upheld the cancellation of Co’s Philippine passport.

Senate blue ribbon committee chairperson Ping Lacson – who leads the upper chamber’s probe into the flood control mess – believes that the government should use the doctrine in going after Co and Ang.

“Paging SolGen (Solicitor General): It may be wise to ask the Court to revisit the ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ in GR 259337 dated November 25, 2025 that refined Miranda vs Tuliao in relation to the cases of Zaldy Co and Atong Ang,” the senator said. – Rappler.com