BAIL; Art. III, s.

14March 11, 1997

Torres Jr., J.

DANILO B. PARADA v. JUDGE LORENZO P.

VENERACION
ISSUE(S)
W/N the trial in absentia was conducted in violation
of accuseds right to notice of hearing? YES
W/N the lack of recommendation of bail in the
procured Warrant of Arrest was unlawful? YES

FACTS

Oct. 23, 1993: Parada notified the Manila

(MNL) RTC that he had changed his
address1; he also notified the Manager of the
bonding company2
Feb, 8, 1994: Judge Ortile inhibited himself
so case was re-raffled to Judge Veneracions
sala, and set the cases for dates on June 3-8
The notice of hearing however was sent to
Paradas former address and so he failed to
attend said hearings; Judge would order his
arrests3, order the confiscation of the bond
and conduct a trial in absentia
J. Veneracion: failure of the accused to
appear is a waiver of his right to adduce
evidence4; Parada was found guilty of
ESTAFA
Parada would file petitions for Habeas
Corpus, Certiorari and Annulment of
Judgment w/ the CA, who REVERSED the
RTCs decision
Parada would file w/ the SC the instant
complaint in connection w/ the decision and

1 From 219 Cityland Condominium,

Buendia Ext. Makati to 2412 Nobel St.,
Bo. San Isidro, Makati
2 Duly bonded with the Eastern
Assurance and Surety Corporation

orders of Judge Veneracion in that he is

ignorant of the law as displayed by: (1) his
not following the legal requirements of a
valid trial in absentia, (2) his ordering of an
arrest w/o a recommendation of bail, & (3)
his denying the motion present evidence
upon his arrest
Office of the Court Administrator:
complainant was never notified of any
hearing, and lack of recommendation of bail
denies Paradas right to due process

HELD
Trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the accused provided that hes been duly notified
& his failure to appear is unjustifiable. The
requisites then of a valid trial in absentia are: (1)
the accused has already been arraigned, (2) hes
been duly notified of the trial, and (3) his failure
to appears unjustifiable5

(2) and (3) are clearly valid

Parada had not been duly notified; notice of
hearing was sent to his former address
despite his formal notification to the court of
such change; failure to appear therefor is
justified
Where a party appears by attorney in an
action/proceeding in a court of record, all
notices required to be given therein must be
given to the attorney of record 6; Paradas
counsel submitted noticed before so Judge V
should have already taken cognizance of the
new address
Notice: essential to allow party to adduce his
own evidence and to meet and refute the
evidence submitted by the other party7;
judges by the very delicate nature f their
functions in dispensing justice, should be
more circumspect in the performance of
their duties8

3 Warrant issued on June 3, 1994

5 Art. III, s.14(2) [CONSTI]

4 In response to counsel de officios

motion to allow presenting of evidence
upon Paradas arrest

6 Gundayao, et al. v CA
7 Cruz I, Constitutional Law (1995)

BAIL; Art. III, s.14March 11, 1997

Torres Jr., J.

Warrant of Arrest with no recommendation for

bail is a downright violation of the right to bail

Unless charged w/ offenses punishable by

reclusion perpetua and evidence of guilts
strong, all persons detained, arrested or
otherwise under the custody of the law are
entitled to bail as a matter of right
Crime w/ w/c Parada was charged
(ESTAFA9) is also a bailable offense

8 Galvez v. Eduardo
9 See Art. 315 (RPC)