PEOPLE VS.

MAPALAO

Facts:
Eleven (11) people rode in a Ford Fiera going to Baguio. Namely they are: Felizardo Galvez,
Jimmy Jetwani, Simeon Calama, Rene Salonga, Eduardo Lopez, Adolfo Quiambao, Aliman
Bara-akal, Anwar HadjiEdris, GumanakOmpa and defendant-appelants in this case, Omar
Magpalao and Rex Magumnang.
After an hour of driving, the car stopped so that one of the passengers could urinate. While
the car was stopped the Bara-akal, Edris, Ompa, Magpalao and Magumnang pointed guns
and knives at the other passengers and divested them of their properties.
On of the robbers then ordered Galvez to drive the car towards the precipice (bangin). When
the car was near the precipice, Galvez then stepped to the brakes. The other passengers
jumped out of the car and went to different directions to escape. Galvez however, was left in
side the car and was stabbed by one of the robbers. The robbers then escaped. Quiambao,
who owned the car helped Galvez to get to a hospital. Galvez died in the hospital. The
robbers were then apprehended with the exception of Edris who remain at large.
Mangumnang however escaped while being in detention and Bara-akal died inside the jail.
Since Mangumnang was not arrested, the trial in absentia continued as to him. Ompa,
Magpalao, and Magumnang were all held guilty as principal by direct participation of the
crime of Robbery with Homicide.
Issue:
Whether or Not the lower court erred in failing to applythe Constitutionalmandate on the
presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt when it allowed the trial in
absentia to push through on the part of defendant-appellant Magumnang.

Held:
The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The reason is that the lower court has
jurisdiction over Magumnang the moment the latter was in custody. Jurisdiction once
acquired is not lost upon the instance of parties but until the case is terminated. Since all
the requisites of trial in absentia are complete, the court has jurisdiction over Magumnang.
In addition, Magumnang was presumed innocent during his trial in absentia. The prosecution
had strong evidence against him as proof beyond reasonable doubt that he is a principal by
direct participation in the crime of Robbery with Homicide. Thus, the Constitutional mandate
was not violated.