Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 21

Right to Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial

Title of the Case Facts Issue Held Ruling

 Appellant-accused Tee is WoN Tee was prejudiced No. The RTC did  Tee insisted that the prosecution’s unjustified and wilfull delay in presenting
People vs. Tee a Chinese national in his on the right to a speedy everything on its part to witness Abratique unduly delayed the resolution of his case; he points out that 8
(2003) forties, a businessman trial due to the reopening convince Abratique (and scheduled hearings had to be reset due to the failure or wilful refusal of Abratique
and a resident of Baguio of the case and absences even tried to imprison to testify against him
City of the prosecution him) to appear as a  Speedy trial: a trial conducted according to the law of criminal procedure and the
 A raid conducted by witness witness to the court. In rules and regulations, free from vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays
operatives of the NBI and addition, Tee did not  The concept of speedy trial is necessarily relative; a determination as to whether
PNP Narcotics Command show evidence to support the right has been violated involves the weighing of several factors such as the
(NARCOM) at premises his claim that his length of delay, the reason for the delay, the conduct of prosecution and the
allegedly leased by constitutional right to a accused, and the efforts exerted by the defendant to assert his right, as well as
appellant and at his speedy trial was violated. the prejudice and damage caused to the accused
residence yielded huge  The right to a speedy trial is ONLY violated when: 1.) the proceedings are attended
quantities of marijuana by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; 2.) when unjustified
 July 20, 1998: Tee moved postponements are asked for and secured; 3.) when without cause or justifiable
to quash the search motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his
warrant on the ground case tried
that it was too general  In the present case, there is NO SHOWING whatsoever that prosecution
and that the NBI had not capriciously caused Abratiques absences so as to vex or oppress Tee and deny him
complied with the his rights; after Abratique repeatedly failed to show up for the taking of his
requirements for the testimony, the prosecution wen to the extent of praying that the RTC order the
issuance of a valid search arrest of Abratique to compel his attendance at trial; the prosecution likewise
warrant tried to get the NBI to produce Abratique but to no avail
 The pendency of the said  Delay of 20 days = not unreasonable length of time
motion did not stop the  Nothing on the record also shows that Tee objected to the inability of the
filing of the appropriate prosecution to produce its witnesses; and no persuasive reports supports Tee’s
charges against appellant claim that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated
 1998: the City Prosecutor  About the reopening of the case: there was no specific provision at the time
of Baguio City charged governing motions to reopen; motion to reopen was the paramount interest of
Tee (aka Estoy Tee) with justice
illegal possession of  However, there was no reopening of cses in the proceedings in the case at bar
marijuana  Motion to reopen may properly be presented only after either or both parties
 On August 7, 2008: the have formally offered and closd their evidence, but before judgment
prosecution moved to
amend the foregoing
charge sheet considering
that subject marijuana
were seized in two (2)
different places
 As a result, the
information in one of the
criminal cases was
amended
 On September 4, 1998:
the RTC denied the
motion to quash the
search warrant and
ordered Tee’s
arraignment

Facts of the case:


 Prosecution witness
Danilo Abratique, a
Baguio-based taxi driver,
and the appellant
Modesto Tee are well
acquainted with each
other, since Abratique’s
wife is the sister of Tee’s
sister in law
 June 1998: Tee asked
Abratique to find him a
place for the storage of
smuggled cigarettes;
Abratique brought
appellant to his friend,
Albert Ballesteros, who
had a house for rent in
Bakakeng, Baguio City
 After negotiating the
terms and conditions,
Ballesteros agreed to rent
out his place to appellant;
appellant then brought
several boxes of
purported blue seal
cigarettes to the leased
premises
 Shortly thereafter,
however, Ballesteros
learned that the boxes
stored in his place were
not blue seal cigarettes
but marijuana; fearful of
being involved,
Ballesteros informed
Abratique; both later
prevailed upon Tee to
remove them from the
premises
 Appellant then hired
Abratique’s taxi and
transported the boxes of
cannabis from the
Ballesteros place to
appellant’s residence at
Km. 6, Dontogan, Green
Valley, Sto. Tomas
Baguio City
 June 30, 1998: appellant
hired Abratique to drive
him to La Trinidad on the
pretext of buyin and
transporting
strawberries; upon
reaching La Trinidad,
appellant directed
Abratique to proceed to
Sablan, Benguet where
appellant proceeded to
load several sacks of
marijuana in Abratique’s
taxi
 Abratique brought Tee to
his grandmother’s house
at QM Subdivision,
Baguio City which was
being managed by
Abratique’s aunt,
Nazarea Abreau; they
stored the drugs in one
room in the house
 Eventually, Abratique and
Nazarea were bothered
by the storage of
marijuana, so Nazarea
confided to her daughter,
Alice about their
predicament; Alice’s
brother in law Fianza, was
an NBI agent, and Alice
and Abratique phoned
him and disclosed what
had transpired
 On the morning of July 1,
1998: Fianza and other
NBI operatives
conducted a steak out at
Cario Street; during their
surveillance, they
noticed that several PNP
NARCOM personnel
were also watching te
place; the NBI then
learned that the PNP
NARCOM had received a
tip from one of the
informers regarding the
presence of a huge
amount of drugs in that
place (NBI and PNP
NARCOM agreed to have
a joiont operation)
 Tee did not show up and
this made the NBI agents
become apprehensive
that the whole operation
could be jeopardized;
they sought the
permission of Abreau to
enter the room rented by
appellant; the NBI team
then searched the rented
premises and found 4
boxes and 13 sacks of
marijuana, totalling
336.93 kilograms
 Later that evening, NBI
Special Agent Darwin
Lising, with Abratique as
his witness, applied for a
search warrant from RTC
Judge Antonio Reyes at
his residence; Judge
Reyes ordered the NBI
agents to fetch the
Branch Clerk of Court
(Atty. Muoz), so that the
proceedings could be
properly recorded
 After Atty. Muoz arrived,
Judge Reyes questioned
Lising and Abratique;
thereafter, the judge
issued a warrant
directing the NBI to
search appellants
residence at Green Valley
for marijuana
 The NBI operatives,
proceeded to appellant’s
residence where they
served the warrant upon
Tee himself; the search
was witnessed by the
members of his family,
barangay officials, and
members of the media;
photographs were also
taken during the actual
search
 Tee’s defense: physical
evidence of the
prosecution was illegally
obtained, being the
products of an unlawful
search, hence
inadmissible; Tee said
that the search warrant
was too general and it did
not satisfy the
constitutional
requirements for the
issuance of a valid search
warrant; he also
mentioned that the
testimonies was hearsay
 RTC agreed with Tee that
the taking of the 336.93
kilograms of marijuana
was the result of an
illegal search and seizure
and therefore, it is
inadmissible in evidence
against Tee
 Although the RTC found
that the prosecution’s
evidence was more than
ample to prove
appellant’s guilt in the
other criminal case; he
was therefore convicted
of illegal possession of
marijuana and sentenced
him to death

Flores vs. People  Petitioners Francisco WoN the constitutional Yes. Petition for certiorari YES. Petition for certiorari was granted. Orders denying Motion to dismiss as Motion to
(1974) Flores and Francisco right to a speedy trial was was granted. Orders Reconsideration are set aside and nullified. Criminal Case against petitioners was
Angel, were accused for violated denying motion to dismiss dismissed.
robbery; such as MR are set aside and
information was filed on nullified. Criminal case Constitutional right to a speedy trial means one free from vexatious, capricious and
December of 1951 against petitioners was oppressive delays. An accused is entitled to a trial at the earliest opportunity. He cannot be
 They were found guilty of dismissed. oppressed by delaying the commencement of the trial for an unreasonable length of time.
the crime charged in The Constitution does not say that such right may be availed only where the prosecution of
November of 1955; the a crime is commenced and undertaken by the fiscal. It does not exclude from its operation
notice of appeal was cases commenced by private individuals. “Where a person is prosecuted criminally, he is
filed in December 1955 entitled to a speedy trial, irrespective of the nature of the offense or the manner in which it
 It was until February 1958 is authorized to be commenced”.
that the action was taken
by CA – a resolution Technicalities should give way to the realities of the situation. There should not be too
remanding the records of much significance attached to the procedural defect (refer to CA’s defense). CA failed to
the case to the RTC for a accord respect to this particular constitutional right amounting at the very least to a grave
rehearing of the abuse of discretion.
testimony of a certain
witness deemed material
for the disposition of the
case
 Such resolution was
amended on August 1959
which granted the
petitioners to set aside
the decision so that
evidence for the defense
of new facts may be
received and a new
decision in lieu of the old
one may be rendered
 The case was returned to
the RTC but nothing was
done for about a year
since the offended party
failed to appear despite
the 6 out of 7 dates set
for such hearing
 When the offended party
took the witness stand,
his testimony was
characterized as a mere
fiasco as he could no
longer remember the
details of the alleged
crime and even failed to
identify the 2 accused
 RTC then sent back the
records to the appellate
tribunal (CA)
 5 more years elapsed
without anything being
done and petitioners
sought for the dismissal
of the case against them
due to the inordinate
delay in the disposition
(December 1955 to May
1965)
 CA was unresponsive
regardless of the vigorous
plea of the petitioners

Conde vs. Rivera  Aurelia Conde, formerly a WoN petitioner has been Yes. Philippine organic and statutory law expressly guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused
(1924) municipal midwife in denied her right to a shall enjoy the right to have a speedy trial. Aurelia Conde, like all other accused persons, has a right
Lucena, Tayabas, has speedy and impartial trial The prosecuting officer to a speedy trial in order that if innocent she may go free, and she has been deprived of that right
without good cause, in defiance of law. We lay down the legal proposition that, where a prosecuting officer, without
been forced to respond
good cause, secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a
to no less the five (5) postpones the trial
reasonable period of time, as in this instance for more than a year, the accused is entitled to relief
information for various beyond a reasonable by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of his
crimes and period of time (in the case liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.
misdemeanors, has at bar, for more than a
appeared with her year), the accused is
witnesses and counsel entitled to relief by a
and hearings no less than proceeding in mandamus
on 8 different occasions to compel a dismissal of
only to see the cause the information, or if he
postponed be restrained of his
 She has also been twice liberty, by habeas corpus
required to come to the to obtain his freedom.
SC for protection, and
now, after the passage of
more than one year from
the time when the first
information was filed,
seems as far away from a
definite resolution of her
troubles as she was when
originally charged

Mateo, Jr. vs.  On or about June 4 of WoN the petitioners were Yes.  It is now beyond dispute that due process cannot be satisfied in the absence of that
Villaluz 1971, the American deprived of their right to degree of objectivity on the part of a judge sufficient to reassure litigants of his
(1973) Express Bank at Sangley an impartial trial being fair and being just
Point, Cavite, was  Cold neutrality of an impartial judge: a cerebral man, who deliberately holds in
robbed, and an American check the tug and pull of purely personal preferences and prejudices which he
Summary: serviceman was killed shares with the rest of his fellow mortals
The novel issue  In connection with the  Petitioners can assert then, and rightly so, that we have the power to set aside
presented in this robbery and the death of the order denying the motion for disqualification. While the discretion in the first
prohibition the serviceman, 4 instance belongs to respondent Judge, its exercise is subject to our corrective
proceeding arose criminal actions were authority. Certainly, there can be no question its being considered abused if it can
from the gnawing filed against petitioners be shown that to refuse inhibition is to cast valid doubts as to a court’s
fear that the prized  The information fell in impartiality. The specific issue then that must be resolved is whether the
ideal of "the cold the sala of of Judge circumstance of a party having subscribed before respondent Judge an extra-
neutrality of an Villaluz (respondent) judicial statement purporting to describe the manner in which an offense was
impartial judge" 1 bcause the complaints committed, later on repudiated by him as the product of intimidation in the
implicit in the due were filed there, and in course of his having been asked to testify against petitioners, would suffice to
process guarantee fact, it was Judge Villaluz negate that degree of objectivity the Constitution requires? The answer must be
may be set at who ordered District in the affirmative. Petitioners are thus entitled to the relief sought. Respondent
naught. Petitioners Sate Prosecutor Judge could not be totally immune to what apparently was asserted before him in
are among being Melendres and Fiscal such extrajudicial statement. Moreover, it is unlikely that he was not in the
tried by respondent Cube to conduct the slightest bit offended by the affiant’s turnabout with his later declaration that
Judge for the preliminary investigation there was intimidation by a government agent exerted on him. That was hardly
offense of robbery
in band with  Petitioners Mateo Jr. and flattering to respondent Judge. It is not only that. His sense of fairness under the
homicide. Cruz were arraigned on circumstances could easily be blunted. The absence of the requisite due process
Thereafter, an June 24, 1971 while the element is thus noticeable. There is this circumstance even more telling. It was he
extrajudicial two other petitioners who attested to its due execution on October 1, 1971 wherein Rolando Reyes
statement by one filed a Motion to Dismiss admitted his participation in the crime and in addition implicated petitioners. At
Rolando Reyes, on the ground of that time, their motion for dismissal of the charges against them was pending; its
who was later on insufficiency of evidence, resolution was deferred by respondent Judge until after the prosecution had
likewise indicted since the prosecution presented and rested its evidence against affiant, who was himself indicted and
for the same failed to prove the tried for the same offense, but in a separate proceeding. It cannot be doubted
offense, implicating existence of conspiracy then that respondent Judge in effect ruled that such extra-judicial statement was
petitioners, was and to identify the executed freely. With its repudiation on the ground that it was not so at all,
subscribed before accused by competent coercion having come into the picture there is apparent the situation of a judge
respondent Judge. evidence having to pass on a question that by implication had already been answered by
That was the  September 25, 1971: him. Such a fact became rather obvious. For respondent Judge was called upon to
background of a petitioner Roberto review a matter on which he had previously given his opinion. It is this inroad in
motion for his Martinez and Ruben one’s, objectivity that is sought to be avoided by the law on disqualification. The
disqualification, as Martinez amplified his misgivings then as to the requirement of due process for "the cold neutrality of an
the aforesaid motion to dismiss with a impartial judge" not being met are more than justified. Hence the conclusion
Rolando Reyes, supplemental motion reached by us.
when called upon based on the claim that
to testify as an ‘the pre-trial
additional witness identification by
for the prosecution prosecution witness Elliot
impugned his Grey of your accused
written declaration Roberto Martinez in a
stating that it was police line-up in the
executed as a result absence of defendant’s
of a threat by a counsel is
government agent. unconstitutional; and the
It is now contended in-court Martinez is
that such a inadmissible in evidence
repudiation would and should be stricken
not sit well with out from the records’
respondent Judge,  The prosecution opposed
who had thus the motion to dismiss
placed himself in a  To date, the motions to
position of being dismiss have not been
unable to pass on decided by Judge Villaluz
such question with  On October 5, 1971,
that degree of
objectivity required when petitioner’s motion
by due process, to dismiss together with
although the opposition thereto
admittedly, such a were submitted for
move did not fall resolution, Judge Villaluz
squarely within one in an order ruled that
of the specific pursuant to Section 6,
grounds to inhibit Rule 135 of the New
judges. 2 Rules of Court, let the
Respondent Judge motion to dismiss be
turned down this resolved until after the
plea for prosecution has
disqualification. presented and rested its
Hence this petition, evidence as against
based on the Rolando Reyes
asserted violation  Rolando Reyes was tried
of a constitutional separately from and in
right not to be absence of petitioners
convicted of an  While petitioner Martinez
offense without motion for supplemental
due process of law. motion to dismiss
This Court, after t remained unsolved, the
careful prosecution filed a
consideration of motion to present
the matter and in additional evidence
the light of past  December 4, 1971:
decisions to be Mateo filed an opposition
hereafter noted, to the prosecution’s
looks upon such motion to present
failure of additional evidence on
respondent Judge the ground that “to allow
to disqualify the prosecution to
himself as a grave present additional
abuse of discretion evidence in favour of the
correctible by state after the
prohibition. The prosecution has rested,
petition is while the accused has a
meritorious. pending motion to
dismiss under
consideration would be
prejudicial to the
substantial rights of
herein accused because
it would effectively
deprive him of a fair
trial”
 December 24, 1971:
Judge Villaluz granted the
prosecution’s motion to
present additional
evidence, ruling that it is
well settled jurisprudence
that it is within the sound
discretion of the court
whether or not to allow
the presentation of
additional evidence after
the parties have rested
their case
 February 3, 1972: the
prosecution called
Rolando Reyes as an
additional witness, and in
the course of his
testimony, marked an
extrajudicial statement
purportedly executed by
him on October 1, 1971
 February 5, 1971:
petitioners filed a joint
motion for
disqualification of
respondent judge,
contending that
respondent judge should
disqualify himself from
sitting in this case under
the second paragraph of
Rule 137 Rules of Court
because Rolando Reyes
had repudiated (refused
to accept) the statement
that he, Reyes, had
sworn to before Judge
Villaluz and the latter
perforce would have to
pass upon the
repudiation
 February 11, 1972: the
prosecution filed an
Opposition to petitioner’s
joint motion for
disqualification
 February 12, 1972:
respondent judge denied
petitioner’s joint motion
for disqualification

Garcia vs. Domingo  It was alleged and WoN respondent Judge No.  There is no showing that the public was thereby excluded
(1973) admitted in the petition commit a grave abuse of  It is to be admitted that the size of the room allotted the Judge would reduce the
that in Branch I of the discretion in stigmatizing number of those who could be present; such a fact though is NOT indicative of any
City Court of Manila as violative of such a transgression of the constitutional right
presided over by Judge guarantee the holding of a  Courtrooms are not uniform dimensions; some are smaller than others
Garcia, there were trial of the other  Justice Black: it suffices to satisfy the requirement of a trial being public if the
commenced (all dated respondents inside the accused could have his friends, relatives and counsel present, no matter with
January 16, 1968) 8 chambers of city court what the offense he may be charged
criminal actions against Judge Gregorio Garcia  It must also be noted that at least 14 hearings had been held in chambers of the
respondents named as petitioner city court judge, without objection on the part of respondent policemen
 All of the 14 trial dates (WoN there was a
fell on a Saturday; this deprivation of a public
was arranged by the trial)
parties and the Court
upon the insistence of
respondents Calo and
Carbonnel, who desired
the same to be
terminated as soon as
possible and as there
were many cases
scheduled for trial on the
usual criminal trial days
(MWF schedule);
Saturday was agreed
upon as the invariable
trial day for the said 8
criminal cases
 The trial of the 8 casees
was held in the chambers
of Judge Garcia
 During the 14 days of
trial, the accused were at
all times represented by
their respective counsel,
who acted not only in
defense of their clients,
but as prosecutors of the
accusations filed at their
client’s instance
 It is worth to note that
said respondents Calo
and Carbonnel had not
objected to or pointed
out any supposed
irregularity in the
proceedings thus far
 A petition for certiorari
was filed with respondent
Judge: Edgardo Calo and
Carbonnel, through their
counsel, filed with the CFI
a petition for certiorari
and prohibition, with
application for
preliminary prohibitory
and mandatory injunction
(alleging jurisdictional
defects)
 Respondent Judge issued
a restraining order thus
causing the deferment of
the promulgation of the
judgment
 After proceedings duly
had, there was an order
from him ‘declaring that
the constitutional and
statutory rights of the
accused, had been
violated, which affected
their right to a free and
impartial trial, noting that
the trial of these cases
lasting several weeks
were held exclusively in
chambers and NOT in the
court room open to the
public’
 An MR proving unvailing,
petitioners elevated the
matter to the Tribunal by
means of the present suit
for certiorari and
prohibition
 The answer filed by the
Judge did attempt to
justify the validity of the
finding that there was a
failure to respect the
right to a public trial of
accused persons; neither
in such pleadings nor in
the memorandum filed,
although the diligence
displayed by counsel was
quite evident, was there
any persuasive showing
of a violation of the
constitutional guarantee
of a public trial, the basic
issue to be resolved

In re: request for  On March 13, 2001: the WoN the live coverage of Yes. Request denied. Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence until the contrary is
Live Radio and TV Kapisanan ng mga the trial would deprive proved in a trial that is not lifted above its individual settings nor made an object of public's
Coverage of the Brodkaster ng Pilipinas Joseph Estrada of his *According to an attention and where the conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or
Trial in the (KBP) sent a letter constitutional right to an American Jurisprudence: influence but only by evidence and argument given in open court, where fitting dignity and
Sandiganbayan of requesting to the SC to impartial trial when there are cameras calm ambiance is demanded."Television can work profound changes in the behavior of the
the Plunder Cases allow live media around the courtroom, the people it focuses on."The conscious or unconscious effect that such coverage may have on
against Former coverage of the behavior of the people the testimony of witnesses and the decision of judges cannot be evaluated but, it can
President Joseph anticipated trial of the changes likewise be said, it is not at all unlikely for a vote of guilt or innocence to yield to it.
Estrada plunder case and other
(September 13, criminal charges filed Although an accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him, more
2001) against former President than anyone else, where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. A public trial
Joseph Estrada before aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his
the Sandiganbayan rights are not compromised. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial; it only
 The petitioners invoked implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit in the available
the freedom of the press, seats, conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process. In the constitutional
as well as the sense, a courtroom should have enough facilities for a reasonable number of the public to
constitutional right of the observe the proceedings, not too small as to render the openness negligible and not too
people to be informed of large as to distract the trial participants from their proper functions, who shall then be
matters of public concern totally free to report what they have observed during the proceedings.
which can only be
satisfied through a live
radio and television of
the court proceedings

People vs.  Adolfo Quiambao is a WoN the RTC erred in No. Parenthetically, the appeal of appellant Rex Magumnang should be struck down. After
Mapalao businessman selling failing to apply arraignment and during the trial, he escaped from confinement and had not been
(1991) textile materials; he has a constitutional mandate apprehended since then. Accordingly, as to him the trial in absentia proceeded and
stall in the Hilltop Market on the presumption of thereafter the judgment of conviction was promulgated.
in Baguio where he sells innocence and proof
his goods; but he also beyond reasonable doubt Nevertheless, through counsel, he appealed to this Court. Under Section 8, Rule 122 of the
goes to other places 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court, may "upon motion of the appellee or on its
within Baguio to sell his own motion, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement or
goods jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal." In this case,
 September 19, 1987: appellant Magumnang remained at large even as his appeal was pending. Hence, by
Quiambao went to analogy his appeal must be dismissed.
Abatan, Buguias, Benguet
using his Ford Fiera with The reason for this rule is because once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or
his driver Felizardo Galvez jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court and unless he
and a certain Jimmy surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived any right
Jetwani (a Bombay), to seek relief from the court.
where he sold his goods
in the afternoon until at Thus when as in this case he escaped from confinement during the trial on the merits and
night and so, stayed after his arraignment, and so the trial in absentia proceeded and the judgment against him
overnight thereat was promulgated in accordance with Section 14(2) Article III of the 1987 Constitution,
 The next day, after nonetheless, as he remained at large, he should not be afforded the right to appeal
breakfast, Quiambao, therefrom unless he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court or is otherwise
with his driver, and arrested, within fifteen (15) days from the notice of the judgment against him. While at
Jetwani proceeded to large as above stated he cannot seek relief from the Court as he is deemed to have waived
Mankayan, Benguet the same and he has no standing in court.
 Later that day, Quiambao
was about the start the To this effect a modification is in order of the provision of the last sentence of Section 6,
vehicle (coming from a CR Rule 120 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides:
break) to proceed to "If the judgment is for conviction, and the accused's failure to appear was without justifiable
Baguio, and while waiting cause, the court shall further order the arrest of the accused, who may appeal within fifteen
for the Musliims to board, (15) days from notice of the decision to him or his counsel."
Omar Mapalao went to It should provide instead that if upon promulgation of the judgment, the accused fails to
the left side of the appear without justifiable cause, despite due notice to him, his bondsmen or counsel, he is
vehicle near the driver’s thereby considered to have waived his right to appeal. However, if within the fifteen (15)
seat, and pointed a gun day period of appeal he voluntarily surrenders to the court or is otherwise arrested, then he
at Quiambao and may avail of the right to appeal within said period of appeal.
announced that it is a
holdup; the other By the same token, an accused who, after the filing of an information, is at large and has not
Muslims that were part been apprehended or otherwise has not submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court,
of the setup held knives cannot apply for bail or be granted any other relief by the courts until he submits himself to
and threatened the other its jurisdiction or is arrested.
passengers
 A huge commotion In Gimenez vs. Nazareno,[4] this Court had occasion to rule on a similar case in this wise -
happened; the end result "First of all, it is not disputed that the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the person of
was that Galvez died of the accused-private respondent when he appeared during the arraignment on August 22,
stabwounds and 1973 and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the
Quiambao was able to person of the accused is acquired either by his arrest for voluntary appearance in court.
escape (he jumped out of Such voluntary appearance is accomplished by appearing for arraignment as what accused-
the car) private respondent did in this case.
 In due course, an But the question is this - was that jurisdiction lost when the accused escaped from the
information was filed in custody of the law and failed to appear during the trial? We answer this question in the
the RTC of Baguio City negative. As We have consistently ruled in several earlier cases, jurisdiction once acquired
charging Mapalao et al. of is not lost upon the instance of parties but continues until the case is terminated.
the crime of highway
robbery with homicide To capsulize the foregoing discussion, suffice it to say that where the accused appears at the
 Upon arraignment: arraignment and pleads not guilty to the crime charged jurisdiction is acquired by the court
Mapalao pleaded not over his person and this continues until termination of the case, notwithstanding his escape
guilty from the custody of the law.
 After the trial on the
merits, a decision was Going to the second part of Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution aforecited a 'trial
rendered by the trial in absentia' may be had when the following requisites are present: (1) that there has been
court on 1990 convicting an arraignment; (2) that the accused has been notified; and (3) that he fails to appear and
the accused of the his failure to do so is unjustified.
offense charged
 Not satisfied therewith In this case, all the above conditions were attendant calling for a trial in absentia. As the
the accused Omar facts show, the private respondent was arraigned on August 22, 1973 and in the said
Mapalao and Rex arraignment he pleaded not guilty. He was also informed of the scheduled hearings set on
Mangumnang appealed September 18 and 19, 1973 and this is evidenced by his signature on the notice issued by
the decision to the court the lower court. It was also proved by a certified copy of the Police Blotter that private
alleging the following respondent escaped from his detention center. No explanation for his failure to appear in
error: court in any of the scheduled hearings was given. Even the trial court considered his
1.) The RTC erred in absence unjustified.
failing to consider
significant exculpatory The lower court in accordance with the aforestated provisions of the 1973 Constitution,
facts and circumstances correctly proceeded with the reception of the evidence of the prosecution and the other
2.) The RTC erred in accused in the absence of private respondent, but it erred when it suspended the
failing to apply proceedings as to the private respondent and rendered a decision as to the other accused
constitutional mandate only.
on the presumption of
innonce and proof Upon the termination of a trial in absentia, the court has the duty to rule upon the evidence
beyond reasonable presented in court. The court need not wait for the time until the accused who escaped
doubt from custody finally decides to appear in court to present his evidence and cross-examine
the witnesses against him. To allow the delay of proceedings for this purpose is to render
ineffective the constitutional provision on trial in absentia. As it has been aptly explained:
'x x x The Constitutional Convention felt the need for such a provision as there were quite a
number of reported instances where the proceedings against a defendant had to be stayed
indefinitely because of his non-appearance. What the Constitution guarantees him is a fair
trial, not continued enjoyment of his freedom even if his guilt could be proved. With the
categorical statement in the fundamental law that his absence cannot justify a delay
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified, such an
abuse could be remedied. That is the way it should be, for both society and the offended
party have a legitimate interest in seeing to it that crime should not go unpunished.'
The contention of the respondent judge that the right of the accused to be presumed
innocent will be violated if a judgment is rendered as to him is untenable. He is still
presumed innocent. A judgment of conviction must still be based upon the evidence
presented in court. Such evidence must prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Also,
there can be no violation of due process since the accused was given the opportunity to be
heard.

Nor can it be said that an escapee who has been tried in absentia retains his rights to cross-
examine and to present evidence on his behalf. By his failure to appear during the trial of
which he had notice, he virtually waived these rights. This Court has consistently held that
the right of the accused to confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses is a personal
right and may be waived. In the same vein, his right to present evidence on his behalf, a
right given to him for his own benefit and protection, may be waived by him.

Finally, at this point, We note that Our pronouncement in this case is buttressed by the
provisions of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 1(c) of Rule 115
which clearly reflects the intention of the framers of our Constitution, to wit:
'. . . The absence of the accused without any justifiable cause at the trial on a particular date
of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present during that
trial. When an accused under custody had been notified of the date of the trial and
escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on said date and on all
subsequent trial dates until custody is regained. . . .'
Accordingly, it is Our considered opinion, and We so hold, that an escapee who has been
duly tried in absentia waives his right to present evidence on his own behalf and to confront
and cross-examine witnesses who testified against him."

People vs.  Antonio Silvano, then the WoN the RTC gravely Yes. The accused men are Antonio categorically declared that Engracio Valeriano, Juanito Rismundo and Macario
Valeriano barangay captain of erred in not acquitting all acquitted. Acabal each hacked her once hitting her on the forehead, right leg and left arm,
(1993) Barangay Nagbinlud, Sta. the accused for respectively, while Abundio Nahid hacked her four times, hitting her at the forehead, left
Catalina, Negros Oriental, insufficiency of evidence arm, right leg and stomach.[58] In other words, from his testimony, his wife sustained seven
testified that around the and/or at least on the wounds. Yet, the medical evidence belies this. Per the findings of Dr. Avelino Torres,[59]
evening of January 28, hypothesis of reasonable there were only three "evidence" of hacking, viz.: at the right leg, left leg and abdomen.
1980, or two nights doubt
before the 30th of January 5. Nowhere in his sworn statement did Antonio mention the name of accused-appellant
local election, three men Abundio Nahid. If in fact he saw the latter who he claimed in his direct testimony hacked his
entered his yard wife four times, Nahid's name would have occupied a prominent place in his sworn
 The three men called him statement.
but his wife, Rizalina
answered them and she The testimony of the other witnesses for the prosecution likewise do not provide sufficient
told them that he was proof of the accused‑appellants' guilt. Visitacion Silvano's testimony that she saw and
attending a meeting in identified the accused-appellants at the scene of the crime taxes the imagination. It was
the town humanly impossible for her to see the accused-appellants even if she were aided by the
 The guys did not believe light from the truck as she herself said that she was then in her house, three kilometers
Rizalina and Juanito asked away from the house of her parents-in-law. Wilson Silvano did not testify at all that he saw
whether she and her the persons who hacked and killed his mother.
husband were saelling
their votes because they In conclusion, because of reasonable doubt as to their guilt, the accused-appellants must be
will buy them, but acquitted. Every accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved; that
Rizalina answered in the presumption is solemnly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The contrary requires proof
negative beyond reasonable doubt, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
 Upon Rizalina’s reply, she unprejudiced mind. Short of this, it is not only the right of the accused to be freed; it is even
was threatened by the constitutional duty of the court to acquit him.[60]Accordingly, unless the prosecution
Juanito discharges its burden of proving the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable
 Fire was set to their store doubt, they need not even offer evidence in their behalf.[61] The weakness of their defense
located at the right side of alibi thus becomes irrelevant.
of their house; he and his
wife escapted to the roof
of the kitchen while the
other members escaped
towards the sugar field
 Rizalina fell from the roof
to the floor, she was
hacked
 On cross-examination,
Silvano admitted that he
supported Mrs. Carballo
as the official candidate
of the KBL for mayor of
Sta. Catalina, as well as
the other candidates of
her party for the local
election; on the other
hand, the accused
supported and
campaigned for Mrs.
Carballo’s opponent who
eventually won the
election
 Rizalina’s body was
burned and charred
beyond recognition but
the parts still remained
intact; it was still warm
and smelt of freshly burnt
flesh (According to Dr.
Torres)
 After a series of hearings,
the decision of the RTC
contained no specific
dispositive portion
 The RTC rejected the
defense of alibi since it
was not shown by
plausible and convincing
evidence that it was
physically impossible for
them to go to the scene
of the crime and to return
to the place of residence
 After the promulgation of
the decision, counsel for
the accused manifested
in open court their
intention to appeal the
decision
 December 31, 1991: all
convicted accused filed
for an MR of the denial
of the motion for
immediate release; it
was denied

Вам также может понравиться