Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bail "is the security required and given for the release of a person who
PEOPLE v. JUDGE PRIETO is in the custody of the law, that he will appear before any court in
which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or
Facts: Respondent Judge ordered the arrest of Dario Gamayon for his recognizance."
continuous failure to appear in Court every time his criminal case was
called for trial, and forfeiture of Gamayons bond, giving the Clearly, the innovation introduced by the present Constitution goes no
bondsmen thirty days from notice to produce the body of the accused further than to enable a judge to continue with the trial even if the
and show cause why judgment should not be rendered against them for accused is not present under the conditions therein specified. It does
the amount of their undertaking. not give him the right to jump bail. Where, as in this case, it is
undisputed that [Gamayon] had gone abroad, the usual procedure
provided by the Rules of Court to determine the liability of his
On motion for reconsideration, the respondent Judge set aside his bondsmen should be followed.
order. Apparently, he was misled by his misreading of the
GIMENEZ V. NAZARENO
1. On August 3, 1973, Samson Suan, Alex Potot, Rogelio Mula, Fernando charged, jurisdiction is acquired by the court over his person and this
Cargando, Rogelio Baguio and private respondent Teodoro de la Vega continues until the termination of the case, notwithstanding his escape
Jr., were charged with the crime of murder. from the custody of the law.
2. On August 22, 1973 all the above-named. accused were arraigned and Going to the second part of Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution
each of them pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Following the aforecited a "trial in absentia"may be had when the following requisites
arraignment, the respondent judge, Hon. Ramon E. Nazareno, set the are present: (1) that there has been an arraignment; (2) that the accused
hearing of the case for September 18, 1973 at 1:00 o'clock in the has been notified; and (3) that he fails to appear and his failure to do so
afternoon. is unjustified.
3. Before the scheduled date of the first hearing the private respondent In this case, all the above conditions were attendant calling for a trial in
escaped from his detention center and on the said date, failed to appear absentia.
in court. This prompted the fiscals handling the case (the petitioners
herein) to file a motion with the lower court to proceed with the hearing of The lower court in accordance with the aforestated provisions of the 1973
the case against all the accused praying that private respondent de la Constitution, correctly proceeded with the reception of the evidence of
Vega, Jr. be tried in absentia invoking the application of Section 19, the prosecution and the other accused in the absence of private
Article IV of the 1973 Constitution which provides: respondent, but it erred when it suspended the proceedings as to the
private respondent and rendered a decision as to the other accused only.
SEC. 19. In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard Upon the termination of a trial in absentia, the court has the duty to rule
by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the upon the evidence presented in court. The court need not wait for the
accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to time until the accused who who escape from custody finally decides to
meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to the appear in court to present his evidence and moss e the witnesses against
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. him. To allow the delay of proceedings for this purpose is to render
However, after arraignment trial may proceed notwithstanding the ineffective the constitutional provision on trial in absentia.
absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and
The contention of the respondent judge that the right of the accused to be
his failure to appear is unjustified. (Emphasis supplied.) *
presumed innocent will be violated if a judgment is rendered as to him is
4. After due trial, or on November 6,1973, the lower court rendered a untenable. He is still presumed innocent. A judgment of conviction must
still be based upon the evidence presented in court. Such evidence must
decision dismissing the case against the five accused while holding in
prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Also, there can be no violation
abeyance the proceedings against the private respondent.
of due process since the accused was given the opportunity to be heard.
5. Hence, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration Nor can it be said that an escapee who has been tried in absentia retains
his rights to cross-examine and to present evidence on his behalf. By his
Issue: failure to appear during the trial of which he had notice, he virtually
whether or not under Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, an waived these rights
accused who has been duly tried in absentia retains his right to present
evidence on his own behalf and to confront and cross-examine CARREDO V. PEOPLE-Malicious mischief, done
witnesses who testified against him
Held:
RIGHT TO SECURE WITNESSES AND PRODUCTION OF
To capsulize the foregoing discussion, suffice it to say that where the EVIDENCE
accused appears at the arraignment and pleads not guilty to the crime
PERFECTA, PRIMITIVO and QUIRINO CAVILI
vs.
HON. TEODORO N. FLORENDO, CLARITA, ULPIANO, RULING: No. She should be qualified to appear as witness. Section
ESTRELL, and PLACIDA 18, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states who are qualified to
CAVILI, ET AL. be witnesses. It provides: Section 18. Witnesses; their qualifications.
(G.R. No. 73039 October 9, 1987) Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who,
having organs of sense, can perceive, and perceiving, can make known
FACTS: their perception to others, may be witnesses. Neither parties nor other
persons interested in the outcome of a case shall be excluded; nor
Private respondents filed Civil Case No. 6880 against herein those who have been convicted of crime; nor any person on account of
petitioners for which summons was issued to them. Summons was not his opinion on matters of religious belief. There is no provision of the
served to Primitivo and Quirino, but only to Perfecta. Atty. Jose P. Rules disqualifying parties declared in default from taking the witness
Alamino filed a motion for extension to answer in behalf of the stand for non-disqualified parties. The law does not provide default as
defendants, manifesting the representation of his client Perfecta Cavili an exception. The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses
that she will inform her brothers Primitivo and Quirino about the case. (under Sections 19 and 20 of Rule 130 and Section 15 of Rule
After failing to file an answer within the time allowed, they were 132)excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those
declared in default, and judgment by default soon followed. mentioned in the Rules. As a general rule, where there are express
exceptions these comprise the only limitations on the operation of a
statute and no other exception will be implied.
However, an order for new trial was issued upon order of Atty. Jose P.
Alamillo, on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and, with a meritorious
defense that the properties sought to be partitioned have already been Rule 18, Section 2, likewise, does not support respondents contention.
the subject of a written partition agreement between the direct heirs of Under this rule, a party declared in default shall not be entitled to
the parties. notice of subsequent proceedings nor to take part in the trial. A party in
default loses his right to present his defense, control the proceedings,
and examine or cross-examine witnesses.
When the case was re-raffled, Judge Cipriano Vamenta set aside the
order for new trial and reinstated the judgment by default. The
Supreme Court reversed the said decision and ordered new trial upon There is nothing in the rule, however, which contemplates a
petition for certiorari filed by respondents. Respondent judge Florendo disqualification to be a witness or an opponent in a case. Default does
disqualified petitioner Perfecta as a witness upon a motion for her not make him an incompetent. As opposed to a party litigant, a witness
disqualification filed by private respondents, alleging that Perfecta has is merely a beholder, a spectator or onlooker, called upon to testify to
lost her standing in court and she cannot be allowed to participate in what he has seen, heard, or observed. As such, he takes no active part
all premise the even as a witness. Petitioners filed this petition for in the contest of rights between the parties. A party in default may thus
certiorari before the Supreme Court. be cited as a witness by his co-defendants who have the standing and
the right to present evidence which the former may provide. To reject
Perfects Cavili's presentation of testimonial evidence would be to treat
ISSUE: Whether Perfecta should be disqualified to appear as witness. Primitivo and Quirino, as if they too were in default.
May an accused compel the trial court to issue subpoena to a Physician
The petition is hereby GRANTED. The order of the respondent court who is already working in the United States to testify on his treatment
disqualifying Perfecta Cavili dela Cruz as a witness in Civil Case No. of the accused? Would the failure of said witness to appear and testify
6880 is hereby SET ASIDE. for the accused violates his right to subpoena witnesses and the
production of evidence in his favor?
FAJARDO V. GARCIA
HELD:
CRIME: MURDER
No. Such witness is beyond the jurisdiction of the Philippine Courts.
Oscar Fajardo, Cesar Fajardo and Rodrigo Doliente, with the crime of Further, his right to subpoena witnesses and the production of evidence
murder, a plea of not guilty was entered. After which, the case was set will not be violated since the hospital could produce said records and
for trial. another physician could testify on the contents thereof.
Prosecution disclosed that at the time of the arrest of petitioners on the The constitutional guarantee to an accused to compulsory process to
evening of September 11, 1972, all of them were suffering from secure the production of evidence in his behalf was not violated by the
wounds on different parts of their bodies. trial judge who refused to grant the request of the accused for leave to
serve written interrogatories to his doctor who treated their injuries
Next day, at the detention cell in Subic, the father of the accused Oscar
who already left abroad. That the said medical testimony on the
Fajardo and Cesar Fajardo sent for a doctor, Dr. Herminio Academia
injuries they sustained was vital to their defense can still be adduced
by name, to examine and thereafter treat such wounds ( medical certs
thru other witnesses and hospital records.
were given afterwards)
PEOPLE VS. AGBAYANI
At the trial: during the reception of the evidence for the defense on
March 19, 1974, petitioner Oscar Fajardo testified. Eden Agbayani filed a complaint against her father Eduardo
Agbayani for raping her in their rented room. After the arraignment of
Then when the judge asked counsel for the defense where Dr.
the case, however, Eden and her sister Fedelina Agbayani presented a
Herminio Academia was, the answer was that said doctor had left the
sworn statement stating that the matter was just a result of a family
country for abroad and was then residing in the US. It was after the
misunderstanding and that they wanted to forego the case. The court
direct examination of petitioner Oscar Fajardo that respondent Judge
then held Eden in direct contempt of court, reasoning that her
was asked for leave to serve written interrogatories on Dr. Herminio
intentional falsehood was offensive to its dignity and a blatant
Academia at his place of residence in the US.
disrespect to the Court. Eden then retracted her statement claiming
It was argued that his testimony on the examination and treatment of that she signed the statement since her mother coerced her in doing so.
the wounds on the bodies of all of the accused would be crucial for the Subsequently Eduardo Agbayani was released from jail and continued
defense, the offense charged being of a very serious character. to live with his family.
Respondent Judge asked that a motion to that effect be filed That was
Athisarraignmenton22December1994,appellant,was
done, but in May of 1974, such motion was denied. Hence this petition
for certiorari. assistedbyAttys.SamuelBaldadoandEdwindelaCruzascounselde
oficio,enteredapleaofnotguilty.Onthesucceedingdatesoftrial,
ISSUE: appellantwasrepresentedbyAtty.ArturoTemanilofthePublic
AttorneysOffice.
However a few days after his fathers release, Eden Agbayani RULING:
was awakened from her sleep by hands caressing her breast and
vagina. She turned to discover that it was her father who was then Itistruethatthetranscriptofthestenographicnotesofthe
molesting her. Frightened, she asked, Tay bakit niyo po ginagawa sa proceedingsof22December1994andtheorderissuedbythetrial
akin ito, gayong kalalabas mo lang sa kulungan? and threatened to kill courtaftertheconclusionofsaidproceedingsonlystatethatthecourt
her. The accused then proceeded to undress her. Thereafter he appointeddeoficiocounselwiththeconsentofthesaidaccused.They
undressed himself and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with the donotcategoricallydisclosethatthetrialinformedappellantofhis
complainant who could only cry helplessly. The complainant righttocounselofhisownchoice.However,thisdoesnotmeanthat
thereafter felt blood dripping from her vagina and felt pain. thetrialcourtfailedtoinformappellantofsuchright.
Eden told the incident to her sister Fedelina. They then sought It is settled that the failure of the record to disclose
the help of the prosecutor who helped them with the case and the case affirmatively that the trial judge advised the accused of his right to
against their father was re-opened. counsel is not sufficient ground to reverse conviction. The reason
being that the trial court must be presumed to have complied with the
A motion for a new trial was filed before the court by the new procedure prescribed by law for the hearing and trial of cases, and that
counsel of the accused assailing the irregularities prejudicial to the such a presumption can only be overcome by an affirmative procedure
substantial rights of the accused invoking the failure of the court to prescribed by law for the hearing and trial of cases, and that such a
inform the accused of his right to choose his own counsel. He further presumption can only be overcome by an affirmative showing to the
alleged that his counsel de oficio was never prepared during all the contrary. Thus it has also been held that unless the contrary appears in
scheduled hearings; worse, even waived the presence of appellant after the record, or that it is positively proved that the trial court failed to
the third witness for the prosecution was presented. He also averred inform that accused of his right to counsel, it will be presumed that the
that the trial court uses its inherent power of contempt to intimidate accused was informed by the court of such right.
private complainant. The accused further contended that (1)thelower
courtfailedtoapprisehimofhisrighttohavecounselofhisown Sec 19 of the Rules of Court provides that after a plea of not
choice;and(2)thelowercourtdidnotgivehimtheopportunityto guilty, the accused is entitled to two (2) days to prepare for trial unless
preparefortrial,despitethemandatedperiodoftwodaysprescribedin the court for good cause grants him further time. It must be pointed out
Section9ofRule116oftheRulesofCourt. that the right must be expressly demanded. Only when so demanded
does denial thereof constitute reversible error and a ground for new
The trial court gave full credence to the testimony of EDEN, trial. Further, such right may be waived, expressly or impliedly. In the
who appeared, during her entire testimonies on January 20 and May 4, instant case, appellant did not ask for time to prepare for trial, hence,
1995, coherent, candid and responsive. he effectively waived such right. It is untenable to believe that the
counsel who represented the appellant was not prepared during the
ISSUE: trial as records showed he was able to cross-examine the complainant
Whether or not the failure of the record to disclose affirmatively and there was no ground to claim he is incompetent to represent the
that the trial judge advised the accused of the right to have counsel is appellant in court. The SC thereby affirmed the decision of the lower
sufficient ground to reverse the judgment of conviction and to send the court finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
case back for a new trial.