ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1950 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1720 March 4, 1950 - SIA SUAN, ET AL. v. RAMON ALCANTARA

    085 Phil 669

  • G.R. No. L-2038 March 4, 1950 - LUIS DEL CASTILLO v. METROPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY

    085 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2171 March, 4, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. IDE LAGON RAMOS

    085 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-2407 March 4, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATIAS ALUPAY

    085 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. L-2447 March 4, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO PULIDO, ET AL

    085 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-1296 March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PALICTE

    085 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. L-1546 March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. RUFINO SURALTA

    085 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-2462 March 6, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GO LEE

    085 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-2665 March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO PATERNO, ET AL

    085 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-2996 March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRECIANO MEJARES, ET AL.

    085 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-3463 March 6, 1950 - LEONCIO ROSARES v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    085 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-2335 March 7, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MORENO

    085 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. L-3643 March 7, 950

    CARLOS C. ASPRA v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    085 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. L-2269 March 14, 1950 - FABIAN B. S. ABELLERA v. NARCISO DE GUZMAN

    085 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-1990 March 15, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONILO GANAL, ET AL.

    085 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. L-2809 March 22, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRISCO HOLGADO

    085 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-3022 March 22, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO CABASA, ET AL

    085 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-3580 March 22, 1950 - CONRADO MELO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    085 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. L-2217 March 23, 1950 - MIGUEL R. CORNEJO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    085 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-2582 March 23, 1950 - TRINIDAD SEMIRA, ET AL v. JUAN ENRIQUEZ

    085 Phil 776

  • G.R. No. L-2981 March 23, 1950 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORP. v. VICTORIA PASCUAL, ET AL

    085 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. L-2434 March 25, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACABANTUG RANGON ET AL.

    085 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-2584 March 25, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO BARRAMEDA

    085 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-2636 March 25, 1950 - YU SIP v. COURT OF APPEALS

    085 Phil 795

  • G.R. No. L-2784 March 25, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO NARSOLIS ET AL.

    085 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-2856 March 27, 1950 - GO CAM v. Hon. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    085 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. L-2743 March 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CANDELARIA

    085 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-836 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANACLETO MAGDANG, ET AL

    085 Phil 807

  • G.R. No. L-1912 March 30, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANATOLIO LLENARIZAS

    085 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-2239 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO SANTIAGO

    085 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2275 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO MACASO, ET ALS.

    085 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-2288 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO MANOLONG

    085 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-2600 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MARAPAO

    085 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. L-2647 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO S. SERRANO

    085 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-2681 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARIO MARGEN, ET AL.

    085 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-2175 March 31, 1950 - NG GIOC LIU v. SECRETARY OF THE DFA

    085 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-2189 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CILDO, ET AL

    085 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-2318 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO PAAR

    085 Phil 864

  • G.R. No. L-2405 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN DE LOS SANTOS

    085 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-2801 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BELANDRES, ET AL.

    085 Phil 874

  • G.R. No. L-2880 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO MOSTOLES, ET AL.

    085 Phil 883

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. L-2996   March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRECIANO MEJARES, ET AL. <br /><br />085 Phil 727

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-2996. March 6, 1950.]

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PRECIANO MEJARES ET AL., Defendants. LUCIO LUANGCO, FEDERICO LUANGCO, ANTONIO JARIOL, BERNARDO GANALON and LUIS GANALON, Appellants.

    P.L. Meer for Appellants.

    Assistant Solicitor General Inocencio Rosal and Solicitor Juan T. Alano for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULES OF; RIGHT OF ACCUSED; TIME TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL. — Under section 7 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, after a plea of not guilty, except when the case is on appeal from the justice of the peace, the defendant is entitled to at least two days to prepare for trial unless the court for good cause shown shall allow further time. This requirement is mandatory and, by its terms, the defendant is entitled as of right to at least two days to prepare for trial, and denial of this right is a reversible error and a ground for new trial.


    D E C I S I O N


    PARAS, J.:


    This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, finding the herein appellants, Lucio Luangco, Federico Luangco, Antonio Jariol, Bernardo Ganalon and Luis Ganalon, guilty of sedition with murder and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of Eleuterio Ramos in the amount of P5,000. The same judgment convicted appellants’ seven co-accused, but the latter did not appeal.

    Under the first error assigned by appellants’ counsel de oficio, it is contended that the appellants were denied time to prepare for trial. The Solicitor General agrees to this contention. It appears that on January 31, 1948, fifty-nine persons were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Leyte for the offense of sedition with murder committed on May 4, 1947, in the municipality of Tanauan, Leyte. On February 4, 1949, the information was amended by reducing the number of the accused to twelve. In both informations, the herein appellants were included. On February 25, 1949, at nine o’clock in the morning, Atty. Fernando Sudario, then representing some of the accused, was appointed by the court to act as attorney de oficio for all the other accused. After arraignment on the same day, said attorney moved for the postponement of the trial on the ground that he was not prepared therefor, in view of the fact that he was appointed only on that day as attorney for some of the accused. This motion was denied by the court which ordered the parties to proceed with the trial. After said trial, the court rendered the judgment hereinabove indicated.

    In stating that he was not prepared for trial, Attorney Sudario argued that, as the affidavits of the witnesses for the prosecution were not attached to the record, he could not learn the basis of the information. In denying the motion for postponement, the trial court ruled that the names of the witnesses for the Government are listed in the original and amended informations. Regardless of the merit of the ground advanced by Attorney Sudario in support for his motion for postponement, or of the merit of the denial by the trial court, the fact is conspicuous that defense counsel was not ready for trial on the date the appellants were arraigned. Under section 7 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, after a plea of not guilty, except when the case is on appeal from the justice of the peace, the defendant is entitled to at least two days to prepare for trial unless the court for good cause shown shall allow further time. This requirement has been held to be mandatory and, by its terms, the defendant is entitled as of right to at least two days to prepare for trial, and a denial of this right is a reversible error and a ground for new trial. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 2d ed., Vol. II, page 688, citing the case of People v. Valte, 43 Phil., 907.)

    Wherefore, following the recommendation of the Solicitor General, the appealed judgment is hereby set aside and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, for the reception of such additional evidence as the interest of justice may require, and for the rendition thereafter of the corresponding judgment. So ordered, with costs de oficio.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-2996   March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRECIANO MEJARES, ET AL. <br /><br />085 Phil 727




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED