“This Court has held time and again that a final and

executory judgment, no matter how erroneous, cannot be

changed even by this Court:

Nothing is more settled in law than that once a

judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable
and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is
perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and
regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be
made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the
land.” ( Heirs of MAXIMINO DERLA Vs. Heirs of CATALINA
DERLA Vda. de HIPOLITO, ET AL., G.R. No. 157717, April 13,
2011; Citing: Dapar Vs. Biascan, 482 Phil. 385, 405 [2004]).

“It bears stressing that a decision that has acquired

finality, as in this case, becomes immutable and
unalterable. A final judgment may no longer be modified in
any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
erroneous conclusions of fact or law. In short, once a
judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer be
disturbed no matter how erroneous it may be and nothing
further can be done therewith except to execute it.”
(VICENTE FLORENTINO Vs. MARIANO, CYNTHIA, ADELFA,
all surnamed RIVERA, ET AL., G.R. No.167968, January 23,
2006)

That Section 6, last paragraph, Rule 120 of the Revised

Rules of Criminal Procedure, pertinently provides:

If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused

to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available
in these rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest.
Within fifteen
(15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the
accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these
remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled
promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause,
he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from
notice.
 As the rule expressly indicates, the promulgation of the judgment
of conviction may be done in absentia. The accused in such case is
allowed a period of 15 days from notice of the judgment to him or his
counsel within which to appeal; otherwise, the decision becomes
final. The accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of
the judgment of conviction loses the remedies available
under the Rules of Court against the judgment, specifically:
(a) the filing of a motion for new trial or for reconsideration
(Rule 121), and (b) an appeal from the judgment of conviction
(Rule 122). (HORACIO SALVADOR Vs. LISA CHUA, G.R. No. 212865,
July 15, 2015);

The the Ruling laid down in the case of EDWARD GARRICK VILLENA and PERCIVAL
DOROJA Vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. (G.R. No.
184091, January 31, 2011) is quite clear and explicit, thus:

“petitioners have lost their standing in court by their

unjustified failure to appear during the trial and, more importantly,
during the promulgation of judgment of conviction, and to surrender to the
jurisdiction of the RTC.”