CA affirms doctor’s conviction for rape

MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed celebrity doctor Joel Mendez’s conviction in January 2020 for attempted rape and two counts of rape through sexual assault.

In a 21-page decision dated Jan. 18, the CA’s Eighth Division rejected Mendez’s plea for another opportunity to present evidence before  Mandaluyong Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 214 Judge Imelda Portes-Saulog, who convicted him in absentia in 2016.

The case stemmed from the complaint of a woman whom Mendez raped in 2015 in his clinic when she was 17 years old.

The decision, written by Associate Justice Jaime Fortunato Caringa, stated that the CA found that the lower courtdid not commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied Mendez’s motion for leave of court to avail of remedies under the Rules of Court.

The CA also upheld the trial court’s resolution in January 2021 denying Mendez’s motion for reconsideration of its order.

The RTC convicted Mendez in absentia due to his repeated failure to appear during the trial of the case, saying that the doctor had lost his legal standing and was deemed to have waived any right to seek relief due to his non-appearance.

It also pointed out Mendez’s attempt to evade justice by giving a false address and failing to surrender within 15 days from the promulgation of judgment in the case.

In his appeal before the CA, Mendez argued that his lawyer failed to inform him of the setting of the case for presentation of his defense.

Mendez claimed that on Oct. 31, 2019, he was at the Mandaluyong hall of justice to present himself before the court but mixed messages from his lawyer prompted him to leave.

He was allowed to post bail following his arrest in July 2018, two years after the judge issued a warrant in 2016. He was arrested again in September 2020 after another warrant was issued in February 2020.

Mendez also said he was not furnished a copy of the RTC’s November 2020 order that denied his motion to avail of the remedies under the Rules of Court.

In denying Mendez’s appeal, the CA dismissed the doctor’s claim that he was denied due process because of his lawyer’s negligence, saying that he was given ample opportunity to air his side during the trial.

“Considering that what is at stake is his liberty, the petitioner should have exercised the standard of care which an ordinary prudent man devotes to his business. He cannot simply leave the fate of his case entirely to his counsel and later on pass the blame to the latter,” the CA said.

The appellate court stated that Mendez should have exerted effort to verify the status of his case upon learning that he would be arrested.

It added that Mendez “kept the lower court in the dark as to his whereabouts and did not express the slightest intention to participate further in its proceedings.”