Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1941 > October 1941 Decisions > G.R. No. 48547 October 31, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANG GIOC, ET AL.

073 Phil 366:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 48547. October 31, 1941.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ANG GIOC (alias ANG GIOC KO, alias TOMAS) and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Solicitor-General De la Costa and First Assistant Solicitor- General B. L. Reyes, for Petitioner.

Pascual Santos and Benjamin C. Alonso, for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED; STATUTORY RIGHT OF APPEAL; WAIVER. — In all criminal prosecutions the accused has the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf. These are among the rights secured to him by the Constitution. He has also the right of appeal; but this is a purely statutory, not a constitutional, right. All these rights have been recognized and established in order to make sure that justice is done to the accused, and no more. They were not intended to enable the accused to defeat the very ends of justice. When, therefore, through cunning or malice, he succeeds in thwarting the course of the law, he should not be heard to complain if, as a result of his own misconduct, he is deemed to have waived rights which he would otherwise have enjoyed. An accused person must suffer the legitimate consequences of his own wrongful acts.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be waived even by the accused himself, but the right of appeal is not one of them. This right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused. He may avail of it or not, as he pleases. He may waive it either expressly or by implication. When the accused flees after the case has been submitted to the court for decision, he will be deemed to have waived his right to appeal from the judgment rendered against him. Such was the situation with reference to the respondent A. G. He was duly notified to appear before the trial court for the reading of the sentence, but failed to do so; and when an order was issued for his arrest, the warrant could not be served on him because he could not be found. Whether or not he escaped to China is immaterial for our present purpose. The fact remains that he succeeded in evading arrest for nearly thirteen years. The record shows that upon his failure to appear for the reading of the sentence, the trial court declared the confiscation of the bond filed by A. G., and later issued the corresponding order of execution. This action of the court amounted to a judicial declaration that A. G. was a fugitive from justice, and such declaration cannot after the lapse of nearly thirteen years be controverted by proof aliunde. A contrary view would encourage accused persons to trifle with the administration of justice, and provide means for guilty parties to escape punishment. We reject it without the least hesitation by declaring that A. G. had waived his right to appeal from the judgment rendered against him. The law will not allow a person to take advantage of his own wrong.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


The purpose of this petition for a writ of certiorari is to secure a review by this court of certain proceedings had in the Court of Appeals in Criminal Case No. 33757 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled "People of the Philippine Islands v. Sio Go, Ang Gioc, Gang Kan, Kee Ya and Chua Chui."cralaw virtua1aw library

Briefly stated, the pertinent facts which gave rise to this case are as follows: About fifteen years ago, that is, on October 30, 1926, the respondent Ang Gioc, together with Sio Go, Gang Kan, Kee Ya and Chua Chui, was charged with the crime of frustrated murder in the Court of First Instance of Manila. On November 5, 1926, he was released on bail. After a protracted trial, which lasted several months, Ang Gioc and one of his co-accused, Sio Go, were found guilty and sentenced to twelve years and one day of cadena temporal, with the accessories of the law, and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P1,100. Ang Gioc and his sureties were duly notified to appear before the court on March 28, 1928, for the reading of the sentence, but the former failed to appear and thereupon the trial judge ordered his arrest and the confiscation of the bond furnished for his temporary release.

The order of arrest could not be served on Ang Gioc because, according to the police authorities, he had escaped to China. The record shows that his bondsmen were given more than the usual period of time (four months) to locate Ang Gioc, but they failed to find him. The record also shows that between the years 1928 and 1941 several warrants were issued for the arrest of Ang Gioc, but all attempts to arrest him proved futile because he could not be found. He was, however, finally arrested on February 18, 1941, nearly thirteen years from the date fixed for the reading of the sentence. He was subsequently brought before the court and the sentence was read to him, from which he appealed to the Court of Appeals where, against the objection of the Solicitor General, he was allowed to file a bond for his temporary release.

In perfecting the record on appeal it was found that the stenographic notes taken during the trial were not transcribed and that the two stenographers who took the notes were already dead. The matter was referred to several stenographers who stated that they could not transcribe the notes because the deceased had used systems known only to themselves. In this situation, Ang Gioc petitioned the Court of Appeals to remand the cause to the court below for a new trial, while the Solicitor General moved for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that "the present impasse is solely due to accused-appellant having jumped the bail, before the sentence of the court could be read to him and evaded arrest for thirteen years." The Court of Appeals decided to remand the cause to the court below for a new trial, stating that from the affidavits and other documents submitted by Ang Gioc in support of the petition for bail pending the appeal, it appeared that Ang Gioc was not a fugitive from justice.

The question presented is whether, upon the facts stated, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to remand the cause to the court of origin for a new trial.

In all criminal prosecutions the accused has the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf. These are among the rights secured to him by the Constitution. (Constitution, Article III, sec. 1, par. 17.) He has also the right of appeal; but this is a purely statutory, not a constitutional, right. (Old Code of Crim. Proc., sec. 15, par. 8; Rules of Court, Rule 111, sec. 1, par. h.) All these rights have been recognized and established in order to make sure that justice is done to the accused, and no more. They were not intended to enable the accused to defeat the very ends of justice. When, therefore, through cunning or malice, he succeeds in thwarting the course of the law, he should not be heard to complain if, as a result of his own misconduct, he is deemed to have waived rights which he would otherwise have enjoyed. An accused person must suffer the legitimate consequences of his own wrongful acts.

There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be waived even by the accused himself, but the right of appeal is not one of them. This right is granted solely for the benefit of the accused. He may avail of it or not, as he pleases. He may waive it either expressly or by implication. When the accused flees after the case has been submitted to the court for decision, he will be deemed to have waived his right to appeal from the judgment rendered against him. Such was the situation with reference to the the respondent Ang Gioc. He was duly notified to appear before the trial court for the reading of the sentence, but failed to do so; and when an order was issued for his arrest, the warrant could not be served on him because he could not be found. Whether or not he escaped to China is immaterial for our present purpose. The fact remains that he succeeded in evading arrest for nearly thirteen years. The record shows that upon his failure to appear for the reading of the sentence, the trial court declared the confiscation of the bond filed by Ang Gioc, and later issued the corresponding order of execution. This action of the court amounted to a judicial declaration that Ang Gioc was a fugitive from justice, and such declaration cannot after the lapse of nearly thirteen years be controverted by proof aliunde. A contrary view would encourage accused persons to trifle with the administration of justice, and provide means for guilty parties to escape punishment. We reject it without the least hesitation by declaring that Ang Gioc had waived his right to appeal from the judgment rendered against him. The law will not allow a person to take advantage of his own wrong.

Having arrived at the conclusion that Ang Gioc had waived his right of appeal, the Court of Appeals acquired no jurisdiction of the appeal filed by him, except to dismiss it; and that court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it ordered the cause to be remanded to the court of origin for a new trial. It follows that the remanding order must be set aside, and the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila declared final and executory. So ordered.

Diaz, Laurel, Moran and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 48596 October 1, 1941 - WENCESLAO Q. VINZONS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. 48603 October 1, 1941 - ANTONIO RIMANDO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 48607 October 1, 1941 - HILARIO CAMINO MONCADO, ET AL. v. LA COMISION DE ELECCIONES

    073 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 47829 October 8, 1941 - SANTIAGO RAMOS v. PEDRO POBLETE, ET AL.

    073 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 48595 October 8, 1941 - WENCESLAO Q. VINZONS v. LA COMISION DE ELECCIONES, ET AL.

    073 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. 48634 October 8, 1941 - JUAN SUMULONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    073 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 47453 October 9, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PONCIANO TAROK

    073 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 48170 October 10, 1941 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY, ET AL.

    073 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 48204 October 10, 1941 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 48208 October 10, 1941 - PACIFICO M. SOBRECAREY v. ROMUALDO C. QUIMPO

    073 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 48609 October 10, 1941 - JUAN SUMULONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    073 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. 47018 October 11, 1941 - PIO PESTAÑO v. ALEJO LABRADOR

    073 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 48121 October 11, 1941 - JACINTO PRESBITERO, ET AL. v. SOTERO RODAS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. 47897 October 11, 1941 - PURIFICACION PASCUA v. PASTOR ENDENCIA, ETC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 47616 October 15, 1941 - JOSE TAN CHONG v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

    073 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 47623 October 15, 1941 - LAM SWEE SANG v. COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES

    073 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 48322 October 16, 1941 - EUGENIO SAWIT v. SOTERO RODAS, ETC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 48367 October 22, 1941 - AGAPITO CESAR v. MODESTO ABAYA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 48414 October 22, 1941 - JUAN MAGBANUA v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    073 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 48442 October 22, 1941 - VENANCIO TOLEDO v. SILANG TRAFFIC CO., INC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 47004 October 23, 1941 - INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY v. EL ADMINISTRADOR DE RENTAS INTERNAS DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS

    073 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 48468 October 24, 1941 - ILOILO TRADING CENTER AND EXCHANGE v. SOTERO RODAS, ETC., ET AL.

    073 Phil 327

  • G.R. Nos. 47447-47449 October 29, 1941 - TEODORO R. YANGCO, ETC. v. MANUEL LASERNA, ET AL.

    073 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 47953 October 29, 1941 - ILDEFONSO QUIMZON v. ALAMINOS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION

    073 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 48248 October 29, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SIXTO DOMENDEN

    073 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. 47928 October 30, 1941 - ANTERO TANEGA v. MAXIMINO NAZARENO

    073 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. 47978 October 31, 1941 - MARCIANO MADUEÑO v. CABANATUAN LUMBER COMPANY

    073 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. 48128 October 31, 1941 - THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. A. Q. VER

    073 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 48547 October 31, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANG GIOC, ET AL.

    073 Phil 366