Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1986 > July 1986 Decisions > G.R. No. L-66469 July 29, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. BERNARDO SALAS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-66469. July 29, 1986.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ALFREDO QUIJANO, Petitioners, v. HON. BERNARDO SALAS (In his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Cebu, Branch VIII), MARIO ABONG, ALFREDO DE LEON, ERIWADWIN MONTEBON, ROMEO DE GUZMAN, & EDUARDO MABUHAY, Respondents.

Basilio E. Duaban for accused.


D E C I S I O N


CRUZ, J.:


Mario Abong was originally charged with homicide in the Court of First Instance of Cebu but before he could be arraigned the case was reinvestigated on motion of the prosecution. 1 As a result of the reinvestigation, an amended information was filed, with no bail recommended, to which he pleaded not guilty. 2 Trial commenced, but while it was in progress, the prisoner, taking advantage of the first information for homicide, succeeded in deceiving the city court of Cebu into granting him bail and ordering his release; and so he escaped. 3 The respondent judge, learning later of the trickery, cancelled the illegal bail bond and ordered Abong’s re-arrest. 4 But he was gone. Nonetheless, the prosecution moved that the hearing continue in accordance with the constitutional provision authorizing trial in absentia under certain circumstances. 5 The respondent judge denied the motion, however, and suspended all proceedings until the return of the accused. 6 The order of the trial court is now before us on certiorari and mandamus. 7

The judge erred. He did not see the woods for the trees. He mistakenly allowed himself to be tethered by the literal reading of the rule when he should have viewed it from the broader perspective of its intendment.

The rule is found in the last sentence of Article IV, Section 19, of the 1973 Constitution, reading in full as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 19. In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and shall enjoy 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, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified."cralaw virtua1aw library

The purpose of this rule is to speed up the disposition of criminal cases, trial of which could in the past be indefinitely deferred, and many times completely abandoned, because of the defendant’s escape. The old case of People v. Avanceña 8 required his presence at certain stages of the trial which as a result, had to be discontinued as long as the defendant had not reappeared or remained at large. As his right to be present at these stages was then held not waivable even by his escape, such escape thus operated to the fugitive’s advantage, and in mockery of the authorities, insofar as the trial could not proceed as long as he had not been recaptured.

The doctrine laid down in that case has been modified by Section 19, which now allows trial in absentia, Now, the prisoner cannot by simply escaping thwart his continued prosecution and possibly eventual conviction provided only that: a) he has been arraigned; b) he has been duly notified of the trial; and c) his failure to appear is unjustified.

The respondent judge was probably still thinking of the old doctrine when he ruled that trial in absentia of the escapee could not be held because he could not be duly notified under Section 19. He forgets that the fugitive is now deemed to have waived such notice precisely because he has escaped, and it is also this escape that makes his failure to appear at his trial unjustified. Escape can never be a legal justification. In the past, his escape "rewarded" him by postponing all further proceedings against him and in effect ultimately absolving him of the charge he was facing. Under the present rule, his escape will, legally speaking, operate to his disadvantage by preventing him from attending his trial, which will continue even in his absence and most likely result in his conviction.

The right to be present at one’s trial may now be waived except only at that stage where the prosecution intends to present witnesses who will identify the accused. 9 Under Section 19, the defendant’s escape will be considered a waiver of this right and the inability of the court to notify him of the subsequent hearings will not prevent it from continuing with his trial. He will be deemed to have received due notice. The same fact of his escape will make his failure to appear unjustified because he has, by escaping, placed himself beyond the pale, and protection, of the law.

Trial in absentia was not allowed in Borja v. Mendoza 10 because it was held notwithstanding that the accused had not been previously arraigned. His subsequent conviction was properly set aside. But in the instant case, since all the requisites are present, there is absolutely no reason why the respondent judge should refuse to try the accused, who had already been arraigned at the time he was released on the illegal bail bond. Abong should be prepared to bear the consequences of his escape, including forfeiture of the right to be notified of the subsequent proceedings and of the right to adduce evidence on his behalf and refute the evidence of the prosecution, not to mention a possible or even probable conviction.

We admonish against a too-literal reading of the law as this is apt to constrict rather than fulfill its purpose and defeat the intention of its authors. That intention is usually found not in "the letter that killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth," which is not really that evanescent or elusive. As judges, we must look beyond and not be bound by the language of the law, seeking to discover, by our own lights, the reason and the rhyme for its enactment. That we may properly apply it according to its ends, we need and must use not only learning but also vision.

The trial judge is directed to investigate the lawyer who assisted Mario Abong in securing bail from the city court of Cebu on the basis of the withdrawn information for homicide and to report to us the result of his investigation within sixty days.

WHEREFORE, the order of the trial court dated December 22, 1983, denying the motion for the trial in absentia of the accused is set aside. The respondent judge is directed to continue hearing the case against the respondent Mario Abong in absentia as long as he has not reappeared, until it is terminated. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Yap (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera and Paras, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 5-6.

2. Ibid., p. 6.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., pp. 6-7; 1973 Constitution, Art. IV, Sec 19.

6. Ibid., pp. 30-31.

7. Ibid., p. 66.

8. 32 O.G. 713.

9. Aquino v. Mil. Commission No. 2, 63 SCRA 546; People v. The Presiding Judge, 125 SCRA 269.

10. 77 SCRA 422.




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






July-1986 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-49385-87 July 2, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO BANAAN

  • G.R. No. L-28526 July 7, 1986 - REMIGIO V. TAN, ET AL. v. GREGORIO T. LANTIN

  • G.R. Nos. L-44444-45 July 7, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO PACADA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60074 July 7, 1986 - TEOFILO I. MARCELO v. FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-60087 July 7, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN L. NABALUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64548 July 7, 1986 - ROLANDO P. BARTOLOME v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67496 July 7, 1986 - TOP RATE INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68574 July 7, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOROTEO BAAO

  • G.R. No. 71370 July 7, 1986 - SLOBODAN BOBANOVIC, ET AL. v. SYLVIA P. MONTES

  • G.R. No. 71989 July 7, 1986 - AVELINA CONDE v. FELIX MAMENTA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 74077 July 7, 1986 - FOSTER PARENTS PLAN INTERNATIONAL/BICOL, ET AL. v. HARRIET DEMETRIOU

  • A.M. No. 84-3-886-0 July 7, 1986 - SOLICITOR GENERAL v. PERPETUA D. COLOMA

  • G.R. No. L-70054 July 8, 1986 - BANCO FILIPINO v. MONETARY BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70054 July 8, 1986 - BANCO FILIPINO v. MONETARY BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46638 July 9, 1986 - AQUILINA R. ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65545 July 9, 1986 - FIRST ASIAN TRANSPORT & SHIPPING AGENCY, INC. v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65594 July 9, 1986 - MAHARLIKA PUBLISHING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. LUZ R. TAGLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66945 July 9, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO BANDOJO

  • G.R. No. L-68805 July 9, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-36958 July 10, 1986 - MARIANO ZABAT, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-66497-98 July 10, 1986 - VIRGILIO V. SACAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 71117 July 10, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO D. NG

  • G.R. No. 73680 July 10, 1986 - DANILO O. ALMOITE v. PACIFIC ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS, INC., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 2278-MJ July 11, 1986 - SERGIO V. BAUTISTA v. LORETO GUEVARRA

  • G.R. No. L-40294 July 11, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOBIAS RIBADAJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48606 July 11, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROCIO S. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-58674-77 July 11, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO PANIS

  • G.R. No. L-60962 July 11, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO C. MONTEVERDE

  • G.R. No. L-64699 July 11, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO MASILANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65153 July 11, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANSUETO LAMBERTE

  • G.R. No. L-67715 July 11, 1986 - WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE, ET AL. v. ELIANE M. DE LENCQUESAING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68288 July 11, 1986 - DIOSDADO GUZMAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68633 July 11, 1986 - JESUS A. SALVACION v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-68922 July 11, 1986 - IN RE: FIDEL AGCAOILI, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. No. 73155 July 11, 1986 - PATRICIO TAN, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28498 July 14, 1986 - SALVADOR DE LA RAMA v. RAFAEL LEDESMA

  • G.R. No. L-34539 July 14, 1986 - EULALIO PRUDENCIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62943 July 14, 1986 - METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66696 July 14, 1986 - FRANCISCA ARSENAL, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-63709-10 July 16, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN PERANTE, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71360 July 16, 1986 - DEVELOPMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-51612-13 July 22, 1986 - GLOBAL INCORPORATED v. DIEGO D. ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62642 July 22, 1986 - TRINIDAD DE LEON VDA. DE ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63053 July 22, 1986 - DESTILERIA LIMTUACO & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-66174 July 22, 1986 - ANGELES BRAVO v. EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68620 July 22, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE TULAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68661 July 22, 1986 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72248 July 22, 1986 - METRO DRUG CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65913 July 28, 1986 - RENATO B. TORRES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69334 July 28, 1986 - SERVILLANO ALINSUGAY v. PERFECTO M. CAGAMPANG, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-69572 July 28, 1986 - JOSEFINA MILLORA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71017 July 28, 1986 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINE, INC. v. LEONARDO I. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-66469 July 29, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. BERNARDO SALAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2734 July 30, 1986 - ROSA SANTIAGO ARCADIO, ET AL. v. CESAR ZOOK YLAGAN

  • G.R. No. L-55935 July 30, 1986 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. MIGUEL GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 70306-07 July 30, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO GALO

  • G.R. No. 71459 July 30, 1986 - D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39844 July 31, 1986 - TALISAY EMPLOYEES’ & LABORERS’ ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41395 July 31, 1986 - ALMARIO T. SALTA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48010 July 31, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANCHO A. BUDOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53196 July 31, 1986 - PACIFICO DE SAGUN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-58889 July 31, 1986 - NATHANIEL S. MANIPON, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-60066 July 31, 1986 - FELISA RIVERA, ET AL. v. ALFREDO C. FLORENDO

  • G.R. No. L-61523 July 31, 1986 - ANTAM CONSOLIDATED, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-62831-32 July 31, 1986 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65439 (UDK-7316) July 31, 1986 - PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-66010-12 July 31, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO Y. IBAL