G.R. Nos.

L-32951-2 September 17, 1971

RICARDO DE LA CAMARA, petitioner,
vs.
HON. MANEL LO!E" ENAGE, !res#$#%& '($&e o) t*e Co(rt o) +#rst I%st,%-e o)
A&(s,% $e. Norte ,%$ /(t(,% C#t0 1/r,%-* II2, respondents.
+ERNANDO, J.:
An order of respondent Judge Manuel Lopez Enage, fixing the bail of petitioner, Ricardo de
la Camara, in the sum of !,!"#,$%%.%% is assailed in this petition for certiorari as repugnant
to the constitutional mandate prohibiting excessive bail.
1
&he merit of the petition on its face
is thus apparent. 'onetheless, relief sought setting aside the above order b( reducing the
amount of bail to )%,%%%.%% cannot be granted, as in the mean*hile, petitioner had
escaped from the provincial +ail, thus rendering this case moot and academic. ,t is deemed
advisable, ho*ever, for the guidance of lo*er court +udges, to set forth ane* the controlling
and authoritative doctrines that should be observed in fixing the amount of the bail sought in
order that full respect be accorded to such a constitutional right.
&he facts are not in dispute. etitioner, Ricardo, de la Camara, Municipal Ma(or of
Magsa(sa(, Misamis -riental, *as arrested on 'ovember ., !"/0 and detained at the
rovincial Jail of Agusan, for his alleged participation in the 1illing of fourteen and the
*ounding of t*elve other laborers of the &irador Logging Co., at 'ato, Esperanza, Agusan
del 2ur, on August $!, !"/0. &hereafter, on 'ovember $#, !"/0, the rovincial 3iscal of
Agusan filed *ith the Court of 3irst ,nstance a case for multiple frustrated murder
2
and
another for multiple murder
3
against petitioner, his co4accused 'ambinalot &agunan and
3ortunato 5algo, resulting from the aforesaid occurrence. &hen on Januar( !), !"/", came
an application for bail filed b( petitioner *ith the lo*er court, premised on the assertion that
there *as no evidence to lin1 him *ith such fatal incident of August $!, !"/0. 6e li1e*ise
mantained his innocence. Respondent Judge started the trial of petitioner on 3ebruar( $),
!"/", the prosecution resting its case on Jul( !%, !"/". As of the time of the filing ofthe
petition, the defense had not presented its evidence.
Respondent Judge, on August !%, !".%, issued an order granting petitioner7s application for
bail, admitting that there *as a failure on the part of the prosecution to prove that petitioner
*ould flee even if he had the opportunit(,but fixed the amount of the bail bond at the
excessive amount of !,!"#,$%%.%%,the sum of 0)%,%%%.%% for the information charging
multiple murder and 8##,$%%.%% for the offense of multiple frustrated murder. &hen came
the allegation that on August !$, !".%, the 2ecretar( of Justice, 9icente Abad 2antos, upon
being informed of such order, sent a telegram to respondent Judgestating that the bond
re:uired ;is excessive; and suggesting that a )%,%%%.%%bond, either in cash or propert(,
*ould be reasonable. &here *as li1e*ise a motion for reconsideration to reduce the amount.
Respondent Judge ho*ever remained adamant. 6ence this petition.
&he ans*er filed b( respondent Judge on March #, !".! set forth the circumstances
concerning the issuance of the above order and the other incidents of the case, *hich, to his
mind *ould disprove an( charge that he *asguilt( of grave abuse of discretion. ,t stressed,
moreover, that the challengedorder *ould find support in circulars of the <epartment of
Justice given sanction b( this Court. 6e sought the dismissal of the petition for lac1 of merit.
,n the hearing of the case set for March 8!, !".!, there *as no appearance for both the
petitioner and respondents *ith the former, upon *ritten motion, being given thirt( da(s
*ithin *hich to submit a memorandum in lieu of oral argument, respondent Judge in turn
having the same period from receipt thereofto file his repl(. 2uch a memorandum as dul(
submitted b( petitioner on April /, !".!.
,nstead of a repl(, respondent Judge submitted, on Ma( $/, !".!, a supplemental ans*er
*herein he alleged that petitioner escaped from the provincial +ail on April $0, !".! and had
since then remained at large. &here *as a reiteration then of the dismissal of this petition for
lac1 of merit, to*hich petitioner countered in a pleading dated June ., !".!, and filed *ith
this Court the next da( *ith this plea= ;&he undersigned counsel, therefore, vehementl(
interpose opposition, on behalf of petitioner, to respondent7s pra(er for dismissal of the
present petition for lac1 of merit. 3or, the issue in this case is not alone the fate of petitioner
Ricardo de la Camara. &he issue in the present petition that calls for the resolution of this
6onorable &ribunal is the fate of countless other Ricardo de la Camaras who maybe
awaiting the clear-cut definition and declaration of the power of trial courts in regard to the
fixing of bail.;
3

>hile under the circumstances a ruling on the merits of the petition for certiorari is not
*arranted, still, as set forth at the opening of this opinion, the fact that this case is moot and
academic should not preclude this&ribunal from setting forth in language clear and
unmista1able, the obligationof fidelit( on the part of lo*er court +udges to the une:uivocal
command of theConstitution that excessive bail shall not be re:uired.
!. ?efore conviction, ever( person is bailable except if charged *ith capital offenses *hen
the evidence of guilt is strong.
5
2uch a right flo*s from the presumption of innocence in favor
of ever( accused *ho should not be sub+ected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he *ould
be entitled to ac:uittal, unless his guilt be proved be(ond reasonable doubt. &hereb( a
regimeof libert( is honored in the observance and not in the breach. ,t is not be(ondthe
realm of probabilit(, ho*ever, that a person charged *ith a crime, especiall( so *here his
defense is *ea1, *ould +ust simpl( ma1e himself scarceand thus frustrate the hearing of his
case. A bail is intended as a guarantee that such an intent *ould be th*arted. ,t is, in the
language of Coole(, a ;mode short of confinement *hich *ould, *ith reasonable certaint(,
insure the attendance of the accused; for the subse:uent trial.
4
'or is there, an(thing
unreasonable in den(ing this right to one charged *ith a capital offense *hen evidence of
guilt is strong, as the li1elihood is, rather than a*ait the outcome of the proceeding against
him *ith a death sentence, an ever4present threat, temptation to flee the +urisdiction *ould
be too great to be resisted.
$. >here, ho*ever, the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugator( b( re:uiring a
sum that is excessive. 2o the Constitution commands. ,t is understandable *h(. ,f there *ere
no such prohibition, the right to bail becomes meaningless. ,t *ould have been more
forthright if no mention of such a guarantee *ere found in the fundamental la*. ,t is not to be
lost sight of that the @nited 2tates Constitution limits itself to a prohibition against excessive
bail.
7
As construed in the latest American decision, ;the sole permissible function of mone(
bail is to assure the accused7s presence at trial, and declared that ;bail set at a higher figure
than an amount reasonabl(calculated to fulfill thus purpose is ;excessive; under the Eighth
Amendment.;
5
'othing can be clearer, therefore, than that the challenged order of August !%, !".% fixing
the amount of !,!"#,$%%.%% as the bail that should be posted b( petitioner, the sum of
0)%,%%%.%% for the information charging multiple murder, there being fourteen victim, and
the sum of 8##,$%% for the other offense of multiple frustrated murder, there being t*elve
victims, is clearl( violative of constitutional provision. @nder the circumstances, there being
onl( t*o offenses charged, the amount re:uired as bail could not possibl( exceed
#%,%%%.%% for the information for murder and $#,%%%.%% for the other information for
frustrated murder. 'or should it be ignored in this case that the <epartment of Justice did
recomend the total sum of )%,%%%.%% for the t*ooffenses.
8. &here is an attempt on the part of respondent Judge to +ustif( *hat, on its face, appears to
be indefensible b( the alleged reliance on Villaseor v. Abano.
9
&he guidelines in the fixing
of bail *as there summarized, in the opinion of Justice 2anchez, as follo*s= ;A!B abilit( of the
accused to give bailC A$B nature of the offenseC A8B penalt( for the offense chargedC A)B
character and reputation of the accusedC A#B health of the accusedC A/B character and
strength of the evidenceC A.B probabilit( of the accused appearing in trialC A0B forfeiture of
other bondsC A"B *hether the accused *asa fugitive from +ustice *hen arrestedC and A!%B if
the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases.;
16
Respondent Judge,
ho*ever, did ignore this decisive consideration appearing at the end of the above opinion=
;<iscretion, indeed, is *ith the court called upon to rule on the :uestion of bail. >e must
stress, ho*ever, that *here conditions imposed upon a defendant see1ing bail *ould
amount to a refusal thereof and render nugator( the constitutional right to bail, *e *ill not
hesitate to exercise our supervisor(po*ers to provide the re:uired remed(.;
11

'o attempt at rationalization can therefore give a color of validit( to the challenged order.
&here is grim iron( in an accused being told that he has a right to bail but at the same time
being re:uired to post such an exorbitant sum. >hat aggravates the situation is that the
lo*er court +udge *ould apparentl( (ield to the command of the fundamental la*. ,n realit(,
such a sanctimonious avo*al of respect for a mandate of the Constitution *as on a purel(
verbal level. &here is reason to believe that an( person in the position of petitioner *ould
under the circumstances be unable to resists thoughts of escaping from confinement,
reduced as he must have been to a stateof desperation. ,n the same breath that he *as told
he could be bailed out, the excessive amount re:uired could onl( mean that provisional
libert( *ould bebe(ond his reach. ,t *ould have been more forthright if he *ere informed
categoricall( that such a right could not be availed of. &here *ould have beenno
disappointment of expectations then. ,t does call to mind these *ords of Justice Jac1son, ;a
promise to the ear to be bro1en to the hope, a teasing illusion li1e a munificent be:uest in a
pauper7s *ill.;
12
,t is no *onder that the resulting frustration left resentment and bitterness in
its *a1e.etitioner7s subse:uent escape cannot be condoned. &hat is *h( he is not entitled
to the relief pra(ed for. >hat respondent Judge did, ho*ever, does call for repudiation from
this Court.
'or is there an( +ustification then for imputing his inabilit( to fix a lesser amount b( virtue of
an alleged reliance on a decision of this &ribunal. Even if one *ere charitabl( inclined, the
mildest characterization of such a result is that there *as a clear reading of the Abano
opinion *hen such a meaning *as ascribed to it. 'o doctrine refinement ma( elicit approval
if to doso *ould be to reduce the right to bail to a barren form of *ords. 'ot onl( isthe order
complained of absolutel( bereft of support in la*, but it flies in the face of common sense. ,t
is not too much to sa( that it is at *ar *ith thecommand of reason.
>ith petitioner, ho*ever, having escaped from the provincial +ail, no ruling can be had on his
plea to nullif( the above order.
>6ERE3-RE, this case is dismissed for being moot and academic. >ithout pronouncement
as to costs.
G.R. No. 131529 '(%e 4, 2661
+RANCISCO 7A!, 'R., ,8, ED9IN 7A!, petitioner,
vs.
COR: O+ A!!EALS ,%$ :HE !EO!LE O+ :HE !HILI!!INES, respondents.
GON"AGA-RE7ES, J.;
&he right against excessive bail, and the libert( of abode and travel, are being invo1ed to set
aside t*o resolutions of the Court of Appeals *hich fixed bail at #,#%%,%%%.%% and imposed
conditions on change of residence and travel abroad.
3or misappropriating amounts e:uivalent to #,#%%,%%%.%%, petitioner *as convicted of
estafa b( the Regional &rial Court of asig Cit(
!
and *as sentenced to four (ears and t*o
months of prision correctional, as minimum to eight (ears of prision mayor as maximum, ;in
addition to one A!B (ear for each additional !%,%%%.%% in excess of $$,%%%.%% but in no
case shall it exceed t*ent( A$%B (ears.;
$
6e filed a notice of appeal, and moved to be allo*ed
provisional libert( under the cash bond he had filed earlier in the proceedings. &he motion
*as denied b( the trial court in an order dated 3ebruar( !.,!""".
After the records of the case *ere transmitted to the Court of Appeals, petitioner filed *ith
the said court a Motion to 3ix ?ail 3or the rovisional Libert( of Accused Appellant ending
Appeal, invo1ing the last paragraph of 2ection #, Rule !!) of the !"". Revised Rules of
Court. As1ed to comment on this motion, the 2olicitor 5eneral opined that petitioner ma( be
allo*ed to post bail in the amount of #,#%%,%%%.%% and be re:uired to secure ;a
certificationDguarant( from the Ma(or of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the
area and that he *ill remain to be so until final +udgment is rendered or in case he transfers
residence, it must be *ith prior notice to the court and private complainant.;
8
etitioner filed a
Repl(, contending that the proposed bail of#,#%%,%%%.%% *as violative of his right against
excessive bail.
&he assailed resolution of the Court of Appeals
)
, issued on -ctober /, !""", upheld the
recommendation of the 2olicitor 5eneralC thus, its dispositive portion reads=
>6ERE3-RE, premises considered, the ;Motion to 3ix ?ail 3or rovisional Libert(
of Accused4Appellant ending Appeal; is hereb( 5RA'&E<. Accused4appellant
3rancisco Eap, Jr., a.1.a. Ed*in Eap is hereb( ALL->E< &- -2& ?A,L in the
amount of 3ive Million 3ive 6undred &housand A#,#%%,%%%.%%B esos, sub+ect to
the follo*ing conditions, viz. =
A!B 6e Aaccused4appellantB secures a certificationDguarant( from the Ma(or of
the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he *ill
remain to be a resident therein until final +udgment is rendered or in case he
transfers residence, it must be *ith prior notice to the courtC
A$B &he Commission of lmmigration and <eportation AC,<B is hereb( directed
to issue a hold departure order against accused4appellantC and
A8B &he accused4appellant shall forth*ith surrender his passport to the
<ivision Cler1 of Court for safe1eeping until the court orders its returnC
A)B An( violation of the aforesaid conditions shall cause the forfeiture of
accused4appellant7s bail bond, the dismissal of appeal and his immediate
arrest and confinement in +ail.
2- -R<ERE<.
#
A motion for reconsideration *as filed, see1ing the reduction of the amount of bail fixed b(
respondent court, but *as denied in a resolution issued on 'ovember $#, !""". 6ence, this
petition.
etitioner sets out the follo*ing assignments of error=
&he respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in fixing the
bail of the provisional libert( of petitioner pending appeal in the amount of # .#
million.
&he respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in basing the
bail for the provisional libert( of the petitioner on his civil liabilit(.
&he respondent Court of Appeals undul( restricted petitioner7s constitutional libert( of
abode and travel in imposing the other conditions for the grant of bail.
etitioner contends that the Court of Appeals, b( setting bail at a prohibitor( amount,
effectivel( denied him his right to bail. 6e challenges the legal basis of respondent court for
fixing bail at #,#%%,%%%.%%, *hich is e:uivalent to the amount of his civil liabilit( to private
complainant Manila Mahogan( Mar1eting Corporation, and argues that the Rules of Court
never intended for the civil liabilit( of the accused to be a guideline or basis for determining
the amount of bail. 6e pra(s that bail be reduced to at least )%,%%%.%%, citing the maximum
amount of bail that can be posted for the crime of estafa under the !""/ ?ail ?ond 5uide, or
$%,%%%.%%, e:uivalent to the amount of bail he posted during the trial of the case.
/

-n the other hand, the 2olicitor 5eneral maintains that no grave abuse of discretion could be
ascribed to the Court of Appeals for fixing the amount of bail at #,#%%,%%%.%% considering
the severit( of the penalt( imposed, the *eight of the evidence against petitioner, and the
gravit( of the offense of *hich petitioner *as convicted b( the R&C. 6e asserted that the
#,#%%,%%%.%% not onl( corresponded to civil liabilit( but also to the amount of fraud imputed
to petitioner. &he 2olicitor 5eneral further pointed out the probabilit( of flight in case
petitioner is released on bail, it having been established that petitioner *as in possession of
a valid passport and visa and had in fact left the countr( several times during the course of
the proceedings in the lo*er court. ,t *as also sho*n that petitioner used different names in
his business transactions and had several abodes in different parts of the countr(.
As for the conditions imposed b( the bail bond, the 2olicitor 5eneral advanced that all that
the Court of Appeals re:uires is notice in case of change of addressC it does not in an( *a(
impair petitioner7s right to change abode for as long as the court is apprised of his change of
residence during the pendenc( of the appeal.
etitioner7s case falls *ithin the provisions of 2ection #, Rule !!) of the !"". Rules of Court
*hich states=
2EC. #. ail, when discretionary. 44 @pon conviction b( the Regional &rial Court of an
offense not punishable b( death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the court,
on application, ma( admit the accused to bail.
&he court, in its discretion, ma( allo* the accused to continue on provisional libert(
under the same bail bond during the period to appeal sub+ect to the consent of the
bondsman.
,f the court imposed a penalt( of imprisonment exceeding six A/B (ears, but not more
than t*ent( A$%B (ears, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previousl(
granted shall be cancelled, upon a sho*ing b( the prosecution, *ith notice to the
accused, of the follo*ing or other similar circumstances=
AaB &hat the accused is a recidivist, :uasi4recidivist, or habitual delin:uent, or has
committed the crime aggravated b( the circumstance of reiterationC
AbB &hat the accused is found to have previousl( escaped from legal confinement,
evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions of his bail *ithout valid +ustificationC
AcB &hat the accused committed the offense *hile on probation, parole, or under
conditional pardonC
AdB &hat the circumstances of the accused or his case indicate the probabilit( of flight
if released on bailC or
AeB &hat there is undue ris1 that during the pendenc( of the appeal, the accused ma(
commit another crime.
&he appellate court ma( revie* the resolution of the Regional &rial Court, on motion
and *ith notice to the adverse part(.
.

&here is no :uestion that in the present case the Court of Appeals exercised its discretion in
favor of allo*ing bail to petitioner on appeal. Respondent court stated that it *as doing so for
;humanitarian reasons;, and despite a perceived high ris1 of flight, as b( petitioner7s
admission he *ent out of the countr( several times during the pendenc( of the case, for
*hich reason the court deemed it necessar( to peg the amount of bail at #,#%%,%%%.%%.
&he prohibition against re:uiring excessive bail is enshrined in the Constitution.
0
&he obvious
rationale, as declared in the leading case of !e la Camara vs. "nage,
"
is that imposing bail in
an excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail. &hus, in Villaseor vs.
Abano,
!%
this Court made the pronouncement that it *ill not hesitate to exercise its
supervisor( po*ers over lo*er courts should the latter, after holding the accused entitled to
bail, effectivel( den( the same b( imposing a prohibitor( sum or exacting unreasonable
conditions.
xxx &here is grim iron( in an accused being told that he has a right to bail but at the
same time being re:uired to post such an exorbitant sum. >hat aggravates the
situation is that the lo*er court +udge *ould apparentl( (ield to the command of the
fundamental la*. ,n realit(, such a sanctimonious avo*al of respect for a mandate of
the Constitution *as on a purel( verbal level. &here is reason to believe that an(
person in the position of petitioner *ould under the circumstances be unable to resist
thoughts of escaping from confinement, reduced as he must have been to a state of
desperation. ,n the same breath as he *as told he could be bailed out, the excessive
amount re:uired could onl( mean that provisional libert( *ould be be(ond his reach.
,t *ould have been more forthright if he *ere informed categoricall( that such a right
could not be availed of. &here *ould have been no disappointment of expectations
then. ,t does call to mind these *ords of Justice Jac1son, ;a promise to the ear to be
bro1en to the hope, a teasing illusion li1e a munificent be:uest in a pauper7s *ill.;
FFF
!!
At the same time, 2ection ", Rule !!) of the Revised Rules of Criminal rocedure advises
courts to consider the follo*ing factors in the setting of the amount of bail=
AaB 3inancial abilit( of the accused to give bailC
AbB 'ature and circumstances of the offenseC
AcB enalt( for the offense chargedC
AdB Character and reputation of the accusedC
AeB Age and health of the accusedC
AfB >eight of the evidence against the accusedC
AgB robabilit( of the accused appearing at the trialC
AhB 3orfeiture of other bailC
AiB &he fact that the accused *as a fugitive from +ustice *hen arrestedC and
A+B endenc( of other cases *here the accused is on bail.
&hus, the court has *ide latitude in fixing the amount of bail. >here it fears that the accused
ma( +ump bail, it is certainl( not precluded from installing devices to ensure against the
same. -ptions ma( include increasing the bail bond to an appropriate level, or re:uiring the
person to report periodicall( to the court and to ma1e an accounting of his movements.
!$
,n
the present case, *here petitioner *as found to have left the countr( several times *hile the
case *as pending, the Court of Appeals re:uired the confiscation of his passport and the
issuance of a hold4departure order against him.
@nder the circumstances of this case, *e find that appropriate conditions have been
imposed in the bail bond to ensure against the ris1 of flight, particularl(, the combination of
the hold4departure order and the re:uirement that petitioner inform the court of an( change
of residence and of his *hereabouts. Although an increase in the amount of bail *hile the
case is on appeal ma( be meritorious, *e find that the setting of the amount at
#,#%%,%%%.%% is unreasonable, excessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitioner7s
right to bail.
&he purpose for bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial,
!8
or *henever
so re:uired b( the Court
!)
. &he amount should be high enough to assure the presence of the
accused *hen re:uired but no higher than is reasonabl( calculated to fulfill this purpose.
!#
&o
fix bail at an amount e:uivalent to the civil liabilit( of *hich petitioner is charged Ain this case,
#,#%%,%%%.%%B.is to permit the impression that the amount paid as bail is an exaction of the
civil liabilit( that accused is charged ofC this *e cannot allo* because bail is not intended as
a punishment, nor as a satisfaction of civil liabilit( *hich should necessaril( a*ait the
+udgment of the appellate court.
At the same time, *e cannot (ield to petitioner7s submission that bail in the instant case be
set at )%,%%%.%% based on the !""/ ?ail ?ond 5uide. A&he current ?ail ?ond 5uide, issued
on August $", $%%%, maintains recommended bail at )%,%%%.%% for estafa *here the
amount of fraud is !)$,%%%.%% or over and the imposable penalt( $% (ears of reclusion
temporal#. &rue, the Court has held that the ?ail ?ond 5uide, a circular of the <epartment of
Justice for the guidance of state prosecutors, although technicall( not binding upon the
courts, ;merits attention, being in a sense an expression of polic( of the Executive ?ranch,
through the <epartment of Justice, in the enforcement of criminal la*s.;
!/
&hus, courts are
advised that the( must not onl( be a*are but should also consider the ?ail ?ond 5uide due
to its significance in the administration of criminal +ustice.
!.
&his not*ithstanding, the Court is
not precluded from imposing in petitioner7s case an amount higher than )%,%%%.%% Abased
on the ?ail ?ond 5uideB *here it perceives that an appropriate increase is dictated b( the
circumstances.
,t militates emphasis that petitioner is see1ing bail on appeal. 2ection #, Rule !!) of the
Revised Rules of Criminal rocedure is clear that although the grant of bail on appeal is non4
capital offenses is discretionar(, *hen the penalt( imposed on the convicted accused
exceeds six (ears and circumstances exist that point to the probabilit( of flight if released on
bail, then the accused must be denied bail, or his bail previousl( granted should be
cancelled.
!0
,n the same vein, the Court has held that the discretion to extend bail during the
course of the appeal should be exercised *ith grave caution and for strong reasons,
considering that the accused had been in fact convicted b( the trial court.
!"
,n an earlier case,
the Court adopted 2enator 9icente J. 3rancisco7s dis:uisition on *h( bail should be denied
after +udgment of conviction as a matter of *ise discretionC thus=
&he importance attached to conviction is due to the underl(ing principle that bail
should be granted onl( *here it is uncertain *hether the accused is guilt( or
innocent, and therefore, *here that uncertaint( is removed b( conviction it *ould,
generall( spea1ing, be absurd to admit to bail. After a person has been tried and
convicted the presumption of innocence *hich ma( be relied upon in prior
applications is rebutted, and the burden is upon the accused to sho* error in the
conviction. 3rom another point of vie* it ma( be properl( argued that the probabilit(
of ultimate punishment is so enhanced b( the conviction that the accused is much
more li1el( to attempt to escape if liberated on bail than before conviction.xxx
$%

etitioner is see1ing bail on appeal. 6e *as in fact declared guilt( be(ond reasonable doubt
b( the R&C, and due to the serious amount of fraud involved, sentenced to imprisonment for
t*ent( (ears 44the maximum penalt( for estafa b( false pretenses or fraudulent acts allo*ed
b( the Revised enal Code. Although it cannot be controverted that the Court of Appeals,
despite the foregoing considerations and the possibilit( of flight still *ielded its discretion to
grant petitioner bail, the setting of bail in the amount of #,#%%,%%%.%% is un+ustified as
having no legal nor factual basis. 5uided b( the penalt( imposed b( the lo*er court and the
*eight of the evidence against petitioner, *e believe that the amount of $%%,%%%.%% is more
reasonable.
etitioner also contests the condition imposed b( the Court of Appeals that he secure ;a
certificationDguarant( from the Ma(or of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the
area and that he *ill remain to be a resident therein until final +udgment is rendered or in
case he transfers residence, it must be *ith prior notice to the court;, claiming that the same
violates his libert( of abode and travel.
'otabl(, petitioner does not :uestion the hold4departure order *hich prevents him from
leaving the hilippines unless expressl( permitted b( the court *hich issued the order.
$!
,n
fact, the petition submits that ;the hold4departure order against petitioner is alread( sufficient
guarantee that he *ill not escape. &hus, to re:uire him to inform the court ever( time he
changed his residence is alread( unnecessar(.;
$$

&he right to change abode and travel *ithin the hilippines, being invo1ed b( petitioner, are
not absolute rights. 2ection /, Article ,,, of the !"0. Constitution states=
&he libert( of abode and of changing the same *ithin the limits prescribed b( la*
shall not be impaired except upon la*ful order of the court. 'either shall the right to
travel be impaired except in the interest of national securit(, public safet(, or public
health, as ma( be provided b( la*.
&he order of the Court of Appeals releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such la*ful order as
contemplated b( the above provision.
$8
&he condition imposed b( the Court of Appeals is
simpl( consistent *ith the nature and function of a bail bond, *hich is to ensure that
petitioner *ill ma1e himself available at all times *henever the Court re:uires his presence.
?esides, a closer loo1 at the :uestioned condition *ill sho* that petitioner is not prevented
from changing abodeC he is merel( re:uired to inform the court in case he does so.
9HERE+ORE, the petition is !AR:IALL7 GRAN:ED. etitioner7s bail pending appeal is
reduced from #,#%%,%%%.%% to $%%,%%%.%%. ,n all other respects, the resolutions of the
Court of Appeals, dated -ctober /, !""" and 'ovember $#, !""", respectivel(, are
A++IRMED. 'o pronouncement as to costs.
G.R. No. 113356 ',%(,r0 14, 1997
'OSE :. O/OSA, petitioner,
vs.
COR: O+ A!!EALS ,%$ !EO!LE O+ :HE !HILI!!INES, respondents.

!ANGANI/AN, J.:
&he main issue in this case is *hether petitioner Jose &. -bosa, *ho *as charged *ith t*o
A$B counts of murder Aa capital offenseB
1
for the ambush sla(ing of former 2ecretar( of
,nterior and Local 5overnments Jaime '. 3errer and his driver Jesus <. Calderon, but *ho
*as convicted onl( of t*o A$B counts of homicide b( the trial court, ma( be granted bail after
such conviction for homicide, a non4capital offense. &he Regional &rial Court of Ma1ati
ans*ered in the affirmative but the Court of Appeals ruled other*ise.
etitioner thus as1s this Court to resolve said issue in this petition under Rule /# assailing
the t*o Resolutions
2
of the respondent Court
3
promulgated on 'ovember !", !""8 and
March ", !""), respectivel(. &he first Resolution
3
of 'ovember !", !""8 disposed as
follo*s=
5
>6ERE3-RE, the Court 5RA'&2 the 2olicitor 5eneral7s motion to cancel accused4
appellant Jose &. -bosa7s bailbond. &he Court '@LL,3,E2 the lo*er court7s order
dated Ma( 8!, !""%, granting bail to accused -bosa.
Let *arrant issue for the arrest of the accused4appellant Jose &. -bosa.
-n the same date, 'ovember !", !""8, an -rder of Arrest against petitioner *as issued
under signature of then Court of Appeals Associate Justice ?ernardo . ardo.
4
-n <ecember ., !""8, petitioner filed a Motion to Guash >arrant of Arrest and to 2et Aside
and Reconsider Resolution of 'ovember !",!""8.
7
&he second assailed Resolution
5

promulgated on March ", !"") denied the motion as follo*s=
,' 9,E> >6ERE-3, the Court hereb( <E',E2 accused -bosa7s ;Motion to :uash
*arrant of arrest and to set aside and reconsider the resolution of 'ovember !",
!""8; dated <ecember ), !""8, for lac1 of merit.
Let a cop( of this resolution be given to the 6onorable, the 2ecretar( of Justice,
Manila, so that he ma( issue the appropriate directive to the <irector, ?ureau of
Corrections, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, for the rectification of the prison record of
accused Jose &. -bosa.
$he %acts
Aside from the disagreement as to the date *hen notice of appeal *as actuall( filed *ith the
trial court,
9
the facts precedent to this petition are undisputed as set out in the first assailed
Resolution, thus=
16
-n <ecember ), !"0., 2enior 2tate rosecutor Aurelio C. &rampe charged the
accused Jose &. -bosa and three others *ith murder on t*o counts, b( separate
amended informations filed *ith the Regional &rial Court of Ma1ati, ?ranch #/, for
the ambush4sla(ing of 2ecretar( of Local 5overnments Jaime '. 3errer and his
driver Jesus <. Calderon, *hich occurred on August $, !"0., at about /=8% in the
evening, at La 6uerta, araAHBa:ue, Metro Manila, as 2ecretar( 3errer *as riding in
his car, going to the 2t. Andre* Church near the plaza of La 6uerta, to hear 2unda(
mass.
Each information alleged that the 1illing *as *ith the attendance of the follo*ing
:ualif(ingDaggravating circumstances, to *it= treacher(, evident premeditation, abuse
of superior strength, nighttime purposel( sought, disregard of the respect due to the
victim on account of his ran1 and age Aas to 2ecretar( 3errerB, and b( a band. &he
rosecutor recommended no bail, as the evidence of guilt *as strong.
<uring the trial of the t*o cases, *hich *ere consolidated and tried +ointl(, the
accused -bosa *as detained at Camp ?agong <i*a, &aguig, Metro Manila.
At the time of the commission of the t*o offenses, the accused -bosa *as a virtual
;escapee; from the 'ational enitentiar( at Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, particularl(, at
the 2ampaguita <etention 2tation, *here he *as serving a prison term for robber(
as a maximum securit( prisoner.
,ndeed, b( virtue of a subpoena illegall( issued b( a +udge of the Municipal &rial
Court of 2aria(a, Guezon, accused -bosa *as escorted out of prison to appear
before said +udge on the pretext that the +udge needed his presence so that the +udge
could in:uire about the *hereabouts of the accused therein. >hile accused -bosa
*as out of prison, he *as able to participate in the commission of the double murder
no* charged against him as principal for the ambush4sla(ing of 2ecretar( 3errer and
his driver ALorenzo vs. Mar:uez, !/$ 2CRA #)/, ##8B.
>itnesses positivel( identified accused Jose &. -bosa as one of three assassins
firing at a car near the canteen at the corner of 9ictor Medina 2treet and Guirino
Avenue, araAHBa:ue, Metro Manila. ,t *as the car of 2ecretar( 3errer. 6e sustained
eight entrance gunshot *ounds on the right side of his head, nec1 and bod(, *hile
his driver sustained three entrance *ounds on the left temple, right side of the nec1,
right arm, chest and right hip. &he( died on the spot.
,n its decision dated Ma( $#, !""%, the lo*er court found the accused -bosa guilt(
be(ond reasonable doubt of homicide on t*o
counts.
11
,n ruling that the crime committed *as homicide, not murder as charged in the
informations, the lo*er court declared that there *as no :ualif(ing circumstance
attendant. ,n fact, ho*ever, the lo*er court itself found that the accused shot the victims
*hile the latter *ere inside the car, un*ar( of an( danger to their lives, for un1no*n to
them, *ere the assassins lur1ing in the dar1, firing their guns from behind, a
circumstance indubitabl( sho*ing treacher( Aeople vs. &achado, !.% 2CRA /!!,
eople vs. Juanga, !0" 2CRA $$/B. &here is treacher( *hen the victims *ere attac1ed
*ithout *arning and their bac1s turned to the assailants, as in this case Aeople vs.
&achado, supraB. &here is treacher( *hen the unarmed and unsuspecting victim *as
ambushed in the dar1, *ithout an( ris1 to his assailants Aeople vs. Egaras, !/8 2CRA
/"$B. Moreover, the crimes could be :ualified b( ta1ing advantage of superior strength
and aid of armed men Aeople vs. ?alu(ot, !.% 2CRA #/"B. >here the attac1ers
cooperated in such a *a( to secure advantage of their combined strength, there is
present the :ualif(ing circumstance of ta1ing advantage of superior strength Aeople vs.
?alu(ot, supraC eople vs. Malinao, !0) 2CRA !)0B.
-n Ma( 8!, !""%, the lo*er court promulgated its decision and on the same
occasion, accused -bosa manifested his intention to appeal and as1ed the Court to
allo* him to post bail for his provisional libert(. ,mmediatel(, the lo*er court granted
accused -bosa7s motion and fixed bail at $%,%%%.%%, in each case.
-n June !, !""%, accused -bosa filed a *ritten notice of appeal, dated June ),
!""%, thereb( perfecting appeal from the decision AAlama vs. Abbas, !$) hil. !)/#B.
?( the perfection of the appeal, the lo*er court thereb( lost +urisdiction over the case
and this means both the record and the person of the accused4appellant. &he
sentencing court lost +urisdiction or po*er to do an(thing or an( matter in relation to
the person of the accused4appellant A<irector of risons vs. &eodoro, ". hil. 8"!,
8"#48"/B, except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of
the parties, *hich do not involve an( matter litigated b( the appeal Aeople vs.
Aranda, !%/ hil. !%%0B.
-n June ), !""%, accused -bosa filed a bailbond in the amount of )%,%%%.%%,
through laridel 2uret( and Assurance Compan(, *hich the lo*er court approved.
-n the same da(, June ), !""%, the lo*er court issued an order of release. &he
prison authorities at the 'ational enitentiar( released accused -bosa also on the
same da( not*ithstanding that, as hereinabove stated, at the time of the commission
of the double murder, accused -bosa *as serving a prison term for robber(.
&he respondent Court li1e*ise discoursed on the service of sentence made b( the accused.
&hus, it extensivel( discussed the follo*ing computation on the penalties imposed upon the
petitioner for his previous offenses, *hich all the more convinced respondent Court that
petitioner *as not entitled to bail on the date he applied therefor on Ma( 8!, !""% and filed
his bailbond on June ), !""%, as follo*s=
12
At the time the accused committed the crimes charged, he *as an inmate at the
'ational enitentiar(, 'e* ?ilibid risons, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. 6e *as in +ail,
but *as able to commit the 3errer assassination. 6e *as serving imprisonment b(
final +udgment in each of three A8B cases, namel(, AaB theft, for *hich he *as
sentenced to eleven A!!B months and fifteen A!#B da(s of prision correccionalC AbB
robber( in band, for *hich he *as sentenced to an indeterminate penalt( of six A/B
months and one A!B da( of prision correccional, as minimum, to four A)B (ears, t*o
A$B months and one A!B da( of prision correccional, as maximum, and AcB evasion of
service of sentence, for *hich he *as sentenced to six A/B months of arresto mayor.
&hese sentences are to be served successivel( not simultaneousl( AArticle .%,
Revised enal CodeC eople vs. Re(es, #$ hil. #80C 5ordon vs. >olfe, / hil. ./C
eople vs. Medina, #" hil. !8)C @nited 2tates vs. Claravall, 8! hil. /#$C eople vs.
-lfindo, ). hil. !C eople vs. &an, #% hil. //%B. ,n successive service of sentences,
the time of the second sentence did not commence to run until the expiration of the
first A5ordon vs. >olfe, supraB.
6e commenced service of sentence on -ctober !!,!"." A*ith credit for preventive
imprisonmentB and *as admitted to the 'e* ?ilibid risons on Januar( #, !"0% A2ee
prison record attached to 2upplement, dated Januar( 8!, !"") of the 2olicitor
5eneralC Cf. prison record IincompleteJ attached to Manifestation dated 3ebruar( $,
!"") of the Accused AppellantB.
-n <ecember $#, !"0%, he escaped from detention at 3ort <el ilar, ?aguio Cit(,
*here he *as temporaril( *or1ing on a prison pro+ect A2ee decision, 5rim. Case 'o.
)!#"4R, Regional &rial Court, ?aguio Cit(, eople vs. Jose -bosa ( &utaHaB. >hile a
fugitive from +ustice, he committed other crimes, in Guezon Cit(, Ma1ati, and
Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. &he cases are pending A2ee prison record, supraB.
6e *as recaptured on August $., !"0/. @nder prison regulations, he forfeited his
allo*ance for good conduct prescribed b( la* AArticle "., Revised enal CodeC Act
$)0" of the hilippine LegislatureB. ,n addition, he must serve the time spent at large
A&2ALB of five A#B (ears, eight A0B months and t*o A$B da(s, and the unserved portion
of his successive sentences for robber( in band, theft and evasion of service of
sentence aforementioned. ,n sum, he has to serve the balance of his sentence for
robber( in band of four A)B (ears, t*o A$B months and one A!B da( of prision
correccional the sentence for theft of eleven A!!B months and fifteen A!#B da(s of
prision correccionalC and the sentence for evasion of service of sentence of six A/B
months of arresto mayor, reaching a total of five A#B (ears, seven A.B months and
sixteen A!/B da(s. 2ince his commitment to +ail on -ctober !!, !".", to the time he
escaped on <ecember $#, !"0%, he had served one A!B (ear, t*o A$B months, and
fourteen A!)B da(s, *hich, deducted from the totalit( of his prison term, *ould leave a
balance of four A)B (ears, five A#B months and t*o A$B da(s. &hus, he must still serve
this unserved portion of his sentences in addition to the time spent at large. Counting
the time from his re4arrest on August $., !"0/, and adding thereto five A#B (ears,
eight A0B months and t*o A$B da(s Atime spent at largeB, the result is that he must
serve up to April $", !""$. &o this shall be added the remaining balance of his
successive sentences of four A)B (ears, five A#B months and t*o A$B da(AsB.
Conse:uentl(, he has to serve sentence and remain in confinement up to -ctober !,
!""/. -f course, he ma( be given allo*ance for good conduct. ?ut good conduct
time allo*ance can not be computed in advance A3ran1 vs. >olfe, !! hil. )//B. &his
is counted onl( during the time an accused actuall( served *ith good conduct and
diligence A3ran1 vs. >olfe, supraC 2ee A:uino, &he Revised enal Code, 9ol. ,, !"0.
ed., pp. 0%840%)B. 6o*ever, accused -bosa can not avail himself of this beneficent
provision of the la* because, *hile he *as at large, he committed infraction of prison
rules AescapingB and other crimes, including the 3errer assassination, and for *hich
he *as placed under preventive imprisonment commencing on <ecember ), !"0.,
the date the informations at bar *ere filed against him. ?ecause he *as then under
custod(, no *arrant of arrest or commitment order need be issued AAsuncion vs.
erale+o, 5.R. 'o. 0$"!#, June $$, !"00, minute resolutionC Cf. eople vs. >ilson, )
hil. 80!C @mil vs. Ramos, !0. 2CRA 8!!B. Allo*ance for good conduct does not
appl( to detention prisoners A?a1ing vs. <irector of risons, $0 2CRA 0#!B.
Conse:uentl(, b( all rec1oning, accused -bosa could not be released from prison on
June ), !""%, *hen he *as admitted to bail. 6is release *as illegal. 6e still has to
serve the balance of his unserved sentences until -ctober !, !""/.
-n 2eptember /, !""8, respondent eople, through the -ffice of the 2olicitor 5eneral
A-25B, filed *ith respondent Court an urgent motion,
13
pra(ing for cancellation of petitioner7s
bail bond.
etitioner promptl( filed an opposition,
13
to *hich respondent eople submitted a repl(.
15

&hereupon, respondent Court issued its first :uestioned Resolution dated 'ovember !",
!""8=
14
aB canceling petitioner7s bail bond, bB nullif(ing the trial court7s order of Ma( 8!, !""%
*hich granted bail to petitioner, and cB issuing a *arrant for his immediate arrest.
etitioner7s t*in motions for reconsideration
17
and :uashal of *arrant of arrest proved futile
as respondent Court, on March ", !""), after the parties7 additional pleadings *ere
submitted and after hearing the parties7 oral arguments, issued its second :uestioned
Resolution den(ing said motions for lac1 of merit.
$he &ssues
&he petitioner *orded the issue in this case as follo*s=
15
&he principal constitutional and legal issues involved in this petition is AsicB *hether
petitioner as accused4appellant before the respondent 6onorable Court of Appeals is
entitled to bail as a matter of right and to en+o( the bail granted b( the Regional &rial
Court, in Ma1ati, Metro Manila, pending appeal from the +udgment convicting him of
6omicide on t*o A$B counts though charged *ith MurderC and assuming that bail is a
matter of discretion, the trial court had alread( exercised sound discretion in granting
bail to accused4appellant, no* petitioner in this case, and respondent Court of
Appeals is devoid of +urisdiction in cancelling said bailbond.
&he 2olicitor 5eneral stated the issues more clearl(, thus=
19
,
>hether or not the trial court still have AsicB +urisdiction over the case *hen it
approved petitioner7s bail bond on June ), !""%.
,,
Considering that the murder charge against petitioner still stands pending his appeal
and strong evidence of guilt actuall( exists based on respondent Court of Appeals7
o*n preliminar( determination and the lo*er court7s initial finding as *ell, is petitioner
entitled to bail as a matter of right pending revie* of his conviction for homicideK
,,,
6o* does petitioner7s prison record affect his alleged right to bailK
$he Court's Ruling
%irst &ssue= $rial Court's (urisdiction
&o decide the issue of *hether the cancellation of bail bond b( the respondent Court *as
correct, *e deem it necessar( to determine first *hether the trial court had +urisdiction to
grant bail under the circumstances of this case.
etitioner contends that the trial court *as correct in allo*ing him ;to post bail for his
provisional libert( on the same da(, Ma( 8!, !""% *hen the +udgment of conviction of AsicB
homicide *as promulgated and the accused4appellant ApetitionerB manifested his intention to
appeal the +udgment of conviction. At the time, the lo*er court still had +urisdiction over the
case as to empo*er it to issue the order granting bail pending appeal. Appellant filed his
notice of appeal onl( on June ), !""%, on *hich date his appeal *as deemed perfected and
the lo*er court lost +urisdiction over the case. 6ence, the grant of bail on Ma( 8!, !""%
cannot be validl( attac1ed on +urisdictional grounds.;
26
&hrough its counsel, the 2olicitor 5eneral, respondent eople admits that petitioner
manifested his intention to appeal on Ma( 8!, !""% and filed his *ritten notice of appeal on
June !, !""%. ?ut the 2olicitor 5eneral nevertheless contends that ;. . . it *as onl( on June
), !""%, or three A8B da(s after perfecting his appeal that petitioner posted his bail bond in
the amount of )%,%%%.%% through laridel 2uret( and Assurance Compan(. Clearl(, *hen
the lo*er court approved the bail bond on the same da( June ), !""%B, it no longer had
Jurisdiction over the case.;
21
&he respondent Court found that ;AoBn June !, !""%, accused -bosa filed a *ritten notice of
appeal, dated June ), !""%, thereb( perfecting appeal from the decision . . .;
22
>e revie*ed the page
23
cited b( respondent Court, and found that indeed, the *ritten notice
of appeal, although dated June ), !""%, *as made and actuall( served upon the trial court
on June !, !""%. 2uch being the case, did the trial court correctl( approve the bail bond on
June ),!""%K &o ans*er this, there is a need to revisit 2ection 8, Rule !$$ of the Rules of
Court=
2ec. 8. )ow appeal ta*en. L AaB &he appeal to the Regional &rial Court, or to the
Court of Appeals in cases decided b( the Regional &rial Court in the exercise of its
original +urisdiction, shall be ta1en b( filing a notice of appeal *ith the court *hich
rendered the +udgment or order appealed from, and b( serving a cop( thereof upon
the adverse part(.
xxx xxx xxx
2ince petitioner did file the *ritten notice of appeal on June !, !""%, petitioner7s appeal *as,
perforce, perfected, *ithout need of an( further or other act, and conse:uentl( and
ineluctabl(, the trial court lost +urisdiction over the case, both over the record and over the
sub+ect of the case.
23
As has been ruled=
25
&he :uestion presented for our resolution is= <id the Court of 3irst ,nstance that
convicted respondent Lacson have the po*er and authorit( to issue the *rit of
preliminar( in+unction, prohibiting the transfer of said Lacson from the provincial
hospital of -ccidental 'egros to the ,nsular enitentiar( at Muntinglupa, RizalK >hile
there is no express provision on this point, it is contrar( to the generall( accepted
principles of procedure for said court to be invested *ith said po*er or authorit(. A
necessar( regard for orderl( procedure demands that once a case, *hether civil or
criminal, has been appealed from a trial court to an appellate AsicB court and the
appeal therefrom perfected, the court a +uo loses +urisdiction over the case, both
over the record and over the sub+ect of the case. &hus in civil cases the rule is that
after the appeal has been perfected from a +udgment of the Court of 3irst ,nstance,
the trial court losses AsicB +urisdiction over the case, except to issue orders for the
protection and preservation of the rights of the parties *hich do not involve an(
matter litigated b( the appeal ARule )!, 2ec. "B. &he +urisdiction of the court over the
matters involved in the case is lost b( the perfected appeal, save in those cases
*hich the rules expressl( except therefrom. AEmphasis suppliedB.
?ut it should be noted that the bail *as granted on Ma( 8!, !""% b( the trial Court.
24
&he
validit( and effectivit( of the subse:uent approval of the bail bond b( the trial court on June
), !""% is therefore the matter at issue. >e agree *ith respondent Court and respondent
eople that, *hile bail *as granted b( the trial court *hen it had +urisdiction, the approval of
the bail bond *as done *ithout authorit(, because b( then, the appeal had alread( been
perfected and the trial court had lost +urisdiction. 'eedless to sa(, the situation *ould have
been different had bail been granted and approval thereof given before the notice of appeal
*as filed.
As the approval *as decreed b( the trial court in excess of +urisdiction, then the bailbond *as
never validl( approved. -n this basis alone, regardless of the outcome of the other issues, it
is indisputable that the instant petition should be dismissed.
,econd &ssue= &s -etitioner "ntitled $o ail
As A .atter of Right/
&he second issue, *hile no longer critical to the disposition of this case, *ill nevertheless be
tac1led, in vie* of its importance. &he 2olicitor 5eneral argues that ;AfBor *hile petitioner *as
convicted of the lesser offense of homicide, the fact that he has appealed resultantl( thro*s
the *hole case open for revie* and reverts him bac1 to his original situation as a person
charged *ith the capital offense of murder on t*o A$B counts against *hom a strong
evidence of guilt exists as initiall( found b( the trial court during the bail proceedings a +uo.;

27
etitioner ans*ers b( sa(ing that ;once the accused *ho is charged *ith a capital offense is
convicted not of the offense for *hich he is charged but for a lesser one *hich is not capital
or punished *ith reclusion perpetua, he is entitled to bail as a matter of right because the
fact that the evidence of his guilt of a capital offense is not strong is necessaril( to be
inferred from his conviction of the lesser offense.;
25
-n this point, respondent Court ratiocinated=
29
,n this case, although the accused is charged *ith murder on t*o counts, and
evidence of guilt is strong, the lo*er court found him guilt( of homicide also on t*o
A$B counts. 6e has appealed. An appeal b( the accused thro*s the *hole case open
for revie* and this includes the penalt(, the indemnit( and the damages a*arded b(
the trial court *hich ma( be increased AGuemuel vs. Court of Appeals, !8% hil. 88B.
&he appellate court ma( find the accused guilt( of the original crime charged and
impose on him the proper penalt( therefor ALinatoc vs. eople, .) hil. #0/B. ?(
virtue of the appeal, the conviction for the lesser offense of homicide is sta(ed in the
meantime. 6ence, the accused is bac1 to the original situation as he *as before
+udgment ACf . eo vs. ?ocar, ". hil. 8"0B, that is, one charged *ith capital offenses
*here evidence of guilt is strong. ?ail must be denied.
&o resolve this issue, *e refer to 2ection !8, Article ,,, of the !"0. Constitution *hich
provides=
2ec. !8. All persons, except those charged *ith offenses punishable b( reclusion
perpetua *hen evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable b(
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as ma( be provided b( la*. &he
right to bail shall not be impaired even *hen the privilege of the *rit of habeas
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be re:uired.
,n the case of !e la Camara vs. "nage,
36
*e anal(zed the purpose of bail and *h( it should
be denied to one charge *ith a capital offense *hen evidence of guilt is strong=
. . . ?efore conviction, ever( person is bailable except if charged *ith capital offenses
*hen the evidence of guilt is strong. 2uch a right flo*s from the presumption of
innocence in favor of ever( accused *ho should not be sub+ected to the loss of
freedom as thereafter he *ould be entitled to ac:uittal, unless his guilt be proved
be(ond reasonable doubt. &hereb( a regime of libert( is honored in the observance
and not in the breach. ,t is not be(ond the realm of probabilit(, ho*ever, that a
person charged *ith a crime, especiall( so *here his defense is *ea1, *ould +ust
simpl( ma1e himself scarce and thus frustrate the hearing of his case. A bail is
intended as a guarantee that such an intent *ould be th*arted. ,t is, in the language
of Coole(, a ;mode short of confinement *hich *ould, *ith reasonable certaint(,
insure the attendance of the accused; for the subse:uent trial. 0or is there anything
unreasonable in denying this right to one charged with a capital offense when
evidence of guilt is strong, as the li*elihood is, rather than await the outcome of the
proceeding against him with a death sentence, an ever-present threat, temptation to
flee the 1urisdiction would be too great to be resisted. AEmphasis suppliedB.
&he afore:uoted rationale applies *ith e:ual force to an appellant *ho, though convicted of
an offense not punishable b( death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, *as
nevertheless originall( charged *ith a capital offense. 2uch appellant can hardl( be
unmindful of the fact that, in the ordinar( course of things, there is a substantial li1elihood of
his conviction Aand the corresponding penalt(B being affirmed on appeal, or *orse, the not
insignificant possibilit( and infinitel( more unpleasant prospect of instead being found guilt(
of the capital offense originall( charged. ,n such an instance, the appellant cannot but be
sorel( tempted to flee.
-ur Rules of Court, follo*ing the mandate of our fundamental la*, set the standard to be
observed in applications for bail. 2ection 8, Rule !!) of the !"0# Rules on Criminal
procedure,
31
as amended, provides=
2ec. 8. ail, a matter of rightC exception. All persons in custod( shall, before final
conviction, be entitled to bail as a matter of right, except those charged *ith a capital
offense or an offense *hich, under the law at the time of its commission and at the
time of the application for bail, is punishable b( reclusion perpetua, *hen evidence of
guilt is strong. AEmphasis suppliedB.
,n orinaga vs. $amin,
32
*hich *as promulgated in !""8, this Court laid do*n the guidelines
for the grant of bail=
&he !"0. Constitution provides that all persons, except those charged *ith offenses
punishable b( reclusion perpetua *hen evidence of guilt is strong shall, before
conviction, be bailable b( sufficient sureties or be released on recognizance as ma(
be provided b( la*. Corollaril(, the Rules of Court, under 2ection 8, Rule !!)
thereof, provides that all persons in custod( shall, before final conviction, be entitled
to bail as a matter of right, except those charged *ith a capital offense or an offense
*hich, under the la* at the time of its commission and at the time of the application
for bail, is punishable b( reclusion perpetua, *hen evidence of guilt is strong.
As no* revised in the !"0# Rules of Criminal rocedure and provided in Rule !!)
thereof, the rules on availabilit( of bail to an accused ma( be restated as follo*s=
!. Admission to bail is a matter of right at an( stage of the action
*here the charge is not for a capital offense or is not punishable b(
reclusion perpetuaC I2ec. 8, Rule !!), !"0# Rules on Crim.
rocedureJ.
$. Regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution, no bail shall
be allo*ed if the accused is charged *ith a capital offense or of an
offense punishable b( reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is
strongC I&demJ.
8. Even if a capital offense is charged and the evidence of guilt is
strong, the accused ma( still be admitted to bail in the discretion of
the court if there are strong grounds to apprehend that his continued
confinement *ill endanger his life or result in permanent impairment
of health, I<e la Rama vs. eople7s Court, )8 -.5. 'o. !%, )!%.
A!").BJ but onl( before +udgment in the regional trial courtC and
). 'o bail shall be allo*ed after final +udgment, unless the accused
has applied for probation and has not commenced to serve sentence,
I2ection $!, Rule !!), !"0# Rules of CourtJ the penalt( and offense
being *ithin the purvie* of the probation la*.
6o*ever, the above guidelines, along *ith Rule !!) itself, have since been modified b(
Administrative Circular 'o. !$4"), *hich *as issued b( this Court and *hich came into effect
on -ctober !, !""). 9eril(, had herein petitioner made application for bail after the effectivit(
of said circular, this case *ould have been readil( and promptl( resolved against petitioner.
3or, :uite recentl(, in Robin Cario -adilla vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,
33
*e held, ma1ing
reference to said administrative circular=
?ail is either a matter of right, or of discretion. ,t is a matter of right *hen the offense
charged is not punishable b( death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. -n the
other hand, upon conviction b( the Regional &rial Court of an offense not punishable
b( death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail becomes a matter of
discretion. 2imilarl(, if the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six 23#
years but not more than twenty 245# years then bail is a matter of discretion, except
when any of the enumerated circumstances under paragraph 6 of ,ection 7, Rule
889 is present then bail shall be denied. ?ut when the accused is charged with a
capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
and evidence of guilt is strong, bail shall be denied, as it is neither a matter of right
nor a discretion. ,f the evidence, ho*ever, is not strong bail becomes a matter of
right. ACitation omittedC emphasis suppliedB.
And, as above adverted to, the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 8 of 2ection #, Rule
!!) of the !"") Revised Rules on Criminal rocedure L the presence of an( of *hich could
preclude the grant of bail L are as follo*s=
AaB &hat the accused is a recidivist, :uasi4recidivist, or habitual
delin:uent, or has committed the crime aggravated b( the
circumstance of reiterationC
AbB &hat the accused is found to have previousl( escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions of his
bail *ithout valid +ustificationC
AcB &hat the accused committed the offense *hile on probation,
parole, or under conditional pardonC
AdB &hat the circumstances of the accused or his case indicate the
probabilit( of flight if released on bailC or
AeB &hat there is undue ris1 that during the pendenc( of the appeal,
the accused ma( commit another crime.
,t *ill be readil( noted that, pursuant to the foregoing amendments, not onl( does the
conviction of petitioner for t*o counts of homicide dis:ualif( him from being admitted to bail
as a matter of right and sub+ect his bail application to the sound discretion of the court, but
more significantl(, the circumstances enumerated in paragraphs a, b, d and e above, *hich
are present in petitioner7s situation, *ould have +ustified and *arranted the denial of bail,
except that a retroactive application of the said circular in the instant case is barred as it
*ould obviousl( be unfavorable to petitioner.
?ut be that as it ma(, the rules on bail at the time of petitioner7s conviction Ai.e., prior to their
amendment b( Adm. Circular !$4")B do not favor petitioner7s cause either. ,n :uemuel vs.
CA, et al.,
33
this Court held that the appeal in a criminal case opens the *hole case for
revie* and this includes the penalt(, *hich ma( be increased. &hus, on appeal, as the entire
case is submitted for revie*, even factual :uestions ma( be increased. &hus, on appeal, as
the entire case is submitted for revie*, even factual :uestions ma( once more be *eighed
and evaluated. &hat being the situation, the possibilit( of conviction upon the original charge
is ever present. Li1e*ise, if the prosecution had previousl( demonstrated that evidence of
the accused7s guilt is strong, as it had done so in this case, such determination subsists even
on appeal, despite conviction for a lesser offense, since such determination is for the
purpose of resolving *hether to grant or den( bail and does not have an( bearing on
*hether petitioner *ill ultimatel( be ac:uitted or convicted of the charge.
>e have previousl( held that, *hile the accused, after conviction, ma( upon application be
bailed at the discretion of the court, that discretion L particularl( *ith respect to extending
the bail L should be exercised not *ith laxit(, but *ith caution and onl( for strong reasons,
*ith the end in vie* of upholding the ma+est( of the la* and the administration of +ustice.
35
And the grave caution that must attend the exercise of +udicial discretion in granting bail to a
convicted accused is best illustrated and exemplified in Administrative Circular 'o. !$4")
amending Rule !!), 2ection # *hich no* specificall( provides that, although the grant of bail
is discretionar( in non4capital offenses, nevertheless, *hen imprisonment has been imposed
on the convicted accused in excess of six A/B (ear and circumstances exist Ainter alia, *here
the accused is found to have previousl( escaped from legal confinement or evaded
sentence, or there is an undue ris1 that the accused ma( commit another crime *hile his
appeal is pendingB that point to a considerable li1elihood that the accused ma( flee if
released on bail, then the accused must be denied bail, or his bail previousl( granted should
be cancelled.
?ut the same rationale obtained even under the old rules on bail Ai.e., prior to their
amendment b( Adm. Circular !$4")B. 2enator 9icente J. 3rancisco7s
34
elo:uent explanation
on *h( bail should be denied as a matter of *ise discretion after +udgment of conviction
reflects that thin1ing, *hich remains valid up to no*=
&he importance attached to conviction is due to the underl(ing principle that bail
should be granted onl( *here it is uncertain *hether the accused is guilt( or
innocent, and therefore, *here that uncertaint( is removed b( conviction it *ould,
generall( spea1ing, be absurd to admit to bail. After a person has been tried and
convicted the presumption of innocence *hich ma( be relied upon in prior
applications is rebutted, and the burden is upon the accused to sho* error in the
conviction. 3rom another point of vie* it ma( be properl( argued that the probabilit(
of ultimate punishment is so enhanced b( the conviction that the accused is much
more li1el( to attempt to escape if liberated on bail than before conviction. . . .
$hird &ssue= -etitioner's Record
etitioner claims that respondent Court of Appeals erred in concluding ;that at the time the
bail *as granted and approved b( 6is 6onor of the trial court, he has still to serve sentence
and remain in confinement up to -ctober !, !""/; and hence *as not entitled to bail.
37

etitioner, citing Luis ?. Re(es,
35
maintains that the ?ureau of Corrections properl( released
him from prison on Jul( !0, !""%.
>e find it unnecessar( to address this issue in the resolution of the instant petition. 6aving
alread( determined that the bail bond *as approved *ithout +urisdiction and that the Court of
Appeals *as correct in issuing the t*o :uestioned Resolutions, *e thus hold that, petitioner
cannot be released from confinement. &he determination of *hether or not petitioner should
still be imprisoned up to -ctober !, !""/, and onl( thereafter ma( possibl( be released on
bail is no longer material for the disposition of this case. &hus, *e shall longer burden
ourselves *ith the resolution of this academic issue.
"-&;<=>"
,n sum, *e rule that bail cannot be granted as a matter of right even after an accused, *ho is
charged with a capital offense, appeals his conviction for a non-capital crime. Courts must
exercise utmost caution in deciding applications for bail considering that the accused on
appeal ma( still be convicted of the original capital offense charged and that thus the ris1
attendant to +umping bail still subsists. ,n fact, trial courts *ould be *ell advised to leave the
matter of bail, after conviction for a lesser crime than the capital offense originall( charged,
to the appellate court7s sound discretion.
>e also hold that the trial court had failed to exercise the degree of discretion and caution
re:uired under and mandated b( our statutes and rules, for, aside from being too hast( in
granting bail immediatel( after promulgation of +udgment, and acting *ithout +urisdiction in
approving the bailbond, it inexplicabl( ignored the undeniable fact of petitioner7s previous
escape from legal confinement as *ell as his prior convictions.
@pon the other hand, the respondent Court should be commended for its vigilance,
discretion and steadfastness. ,n ruling against bail, it even scoured the records and found
that treacher( attended the 1illing thereb( +ustif(ing its action. &he trial court7s literal
interpretation of the la* on bail *as forcefull( debun1ed b( the appellate courts7 excellent
dis:uisition on the rationale of the applicable rules. &rul(, la* must be understood not b( ;the
letter that 1illeth but b( the spirit that giveth life.; La* should not be read and interpreted in
isolated academic abstraction nor even for the sa1e of logical s(mmetr( but al*a(s in
context of pulsating social realities and specific environmental facts. &rul(, ;the real essence
of +ustice does not emanate from :uibblings over patch*or1 legal technicalit(. ,t proceeds
from the spirit7s gut consciousness of the d(namic role of la* as a bric1 in the ultimate
development of the social edifice.;
39
>6ERE3-RE, for lac1 of merit, the instant petition is hereb( <E',E< and the t*o assailed
Resolutions A33,RME<.
G.R. No. L-5371 M,r-* 24, 1953
:HE !EO!LE O+ :HE !HILI!!INES, plaintiff4appellee,
vs.
A<INO MINGOA, defendant4appellant.
RE7ES, J.;
3ound short in his accounts as officer4in4charge of the office of the municipal treasurer of
<espu+ols, Romblon, and unable to produce the missing fund amounting to 8,"80 upon
demand b( the provincial auditor, the defendant A:uino Mingoa *as prosecuted for the
crime of malversation of public funds in the Court of 3irst ,nstance of Romblon, and having
been found guilt( as charged and sentenced to the corresponding penalt(, he appealed to
the Court of Appeals. ?ut that court certified the case here on the ground that it involved a
constitutional :uestion.
&he evidence sho*s that it is not disputed that upon examination of his boo1s and accounts
on 2eptember !, !")", defendants, as accountable officer, *as found short in the sum
above4named and that, re:uired to produce the missing fund, he *as not able to do so. 6e
explained to the examining officer that some da(s before he had, b( mista1e, put the mone(
in a large envelope *hich he too1 *ith him to sho* and that he forgot it on his seat and it
*as not there an(more *hen he returned. ?ut he did not testif( in court and presented no
evidence in his favor.
>e agree *ith the trial +udge that defendant7s explanation is inherentl( unbelievable and
cannot overcome the presumption of guilt arising from his inabilit( to produce the fund *hich
*as found missing. As 6is 6onor observes, if the mone( *as reall( lost *ithout defendant7s
fault, the most natural thing for him to do *ould be to so inform his superiors and appl( for
release from liabilit(. ?ut this he did not do. ,nstead, he tried to borro* to cover the shortage.
And on the flims( excuse that he preferred to do his o*n sleuthing, he even did not report
the loss to the police. Considering further as the prosecution points out in its brief, that
defendant had at first tried to avoid meeting the auditor *ho *anted to examine his
accounts, and that for sometime before the alleged loss man( teachers and other emplo(ees
of the to*n had not been paid their salaries, there is good ground to believe that defendant
had reall( malversed the fund in :uestion and that his stor( about its loss *as pure
invention.
,t is no* contended, ho*ever, that lac1ing direct evidence of actual misappropriation the trial
court convicted defendant on mere presumptions, that is, presumptions of criminal intent in
losing the mone( under the circumstances alleged and presumptions of guilt from the mere
fact that he failed, upon demand to produce the sum lac1ing. &he criticism as to the first
presumption is irrelevant, for the fact is that trial court did not believe defendant7s explanation
that the mone( *as lost, considering it mere cloa1 to cover actual misappropriation. &hat is
*h( the court said that ;*hether or not he AdefendantB is guilt( of malversation for negligence
is of no moment . . . ; And as to the other presumption, the same is authorized b( article $!.
of the Revised enal Code, *hich provides=
&he failure of a public officer to have dul( forthcoming an( public funds or propert(
*ith *hich he is chargeable, upon demand b( an( dul( authorized officer, shall be
prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or propert( to personal use.
&he contention that this legal provision violates the constitutional right of the accused to be
presumed innocent until the contrar( is proved cannot be sustained. &he :uestion of the
constitutionalit( of the statute not having been raised in the court belo*, it ma( not be
considered for the first time on appeal. ARobb vs. eople, /0 hil., 8$%.B
,n man( event, the validit( of statutes establishing presumptions in criminal cases is no*
settled matter, Coole(, in his *or1 on constitutional limitations, 0th ed., 9o. ,, pp. /8"4
/)!sa(s that ;there is no constitutional ob+ection to the passage of la* providing that the
presumption of innocence ma( be overcome b( contrar( presumption founded upon the
experience of human conduct, and enacting *hat evidence shall be sufficient to overcome
such presumption of innocence.; ,n line *ith this vie*, it is generall( held in the @nited
2tates that the legislature ma( enact that *hen certain facts have been proven the( shall be
prima facie evidence of the existence of the guilt of the accused and shift the burden of proof
provided there be rational connection bet*een that facts proved and the ultimate fact
presumed so that the inference of the one from proof of the others is not unreasonable and
arbitrar( because of lac1 of connection bet*een the t*o in common experience. A2ee
annotation on constitutionalit( of statutes or ordinances ma1ing one fact presumptive or
prima facie evidence of another, !/$ A.L.R. )"#4#8#C also, 2tate vs. ?ro*n, !0$ 2.E., 080,
*ith reference to embezzlement.B &he same vie* has been adopted here as ma( be seen
from the decisions of this court in the @.2. vs. &ria, !. hil., 8%8C @.2. vs. Luling, 8) hil.,
.$#C and -eople vs. .erilo, 5.R. 'o. L48)0", promulgated June $0, !"#!.
&he statute in the present case creates a presumption of guilt once certain facts are proved.
,t ma1es the failure of public officer to have dul( forthcoming, upon proper demaand, an(
public funds or propert( *ith *hich he is chargeable prima facie evidence that he has put
such missing funds or propert( to personal use. &he ultimate fact presumed is that officer
has malversed the funds or propert( entrusted to his custod(, and the presumption is made
to arise from proof that he has received them and (et he has failed to have them forthcoming
upon proper demand. Clearl(, the fact presumed is but a natural inference from the fact
proved, so that it cannot be said that there is no rational connection bet*een the t*o.
3urthermore, the statute establishes onl( a prima facie presumption, thus giving the accused
an opportunit( to present evidence to rebut it. &he presumption is reasonable and *ill stand
the test of validit( laid do*n in the above citations.
&here being no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereb( affirmed,
*ith costs.
G.R. No. L-53554 ',%(,r0 36, 1952
:HE !EO!LE O+ :HE !HILI!!INES, plaintiff4appellee,
vs.
!ONCIANO LMAGE, 'R., MARIO LMAGE, ROLANDO LMAGE ,%$ 'ANI:O
LMAGE, accused *hose death sentences are under revie*.
!ER CRIAM;
&his is a murder case. Earl( in the morning of Jul( $#, !".., Antonio A. Regalado, 8", a
credit investigator of the 2ocial 2ecurit( 2(stem, *as maliciousl( 1illed in the Mari1it 2ub.
division, Mari1ina, Rizal.
&he postmortem examination revealed that he had fourteen incised *ounds, t*o lacerated
*ounds, ten punctured *ounds and ten stab *ounds, or thirty-six wounds in all, eight of
*hich *ere fatal because the( affected his vital organs li1e his lungs, liver, heart and
intestines AExh. AB. &he *ounds *ere located in different parts of his bod(= front and bac1,
head, arms, legs, abdomen, 1nees, chest and shoulders AExh. ?B. -bviousl(, he had been
assaulted b( more than one person.
&he incised and stab *ounds *ere caused b( a bladed *eapon such as a 1itchen 1nife. &he
lacerated *ounds *ere caused b( a blunt instrument such as a piece of *ood or iron bar.
&he punctured *ounds *ere caused b( a pointed instrument such as an icepic1.
Elma ,cater Regalado, a thirt(4nine (ear4old business*oman, the victim7s *ido*, testified
that she spent $#,%%% for the funeral of her husband and for miscellaneous obligations
AExh. J to J40B. Aside from his *ido*, the deceased *as survived b( his t*o children, ,an, )
and 2hiela, /. ,n her letter to 5eneral Romeo C. Espino, she said AExh. MB=
,n our o*n little *orld, m( husband and , planned the future of our children.
Ma. 2hiela *as to be a nurse *hile L. ,an, ... *as to be a doctor according to
his *ish. >e planned and re+oiced in our little hopes even *hen life *as
difficult, until last Jul( $#, !".. at about %%8% 6rs. *hen a gang of hoodlums
pounced upon m( husband and his companions *hile the( *ere on their *a(
home and robbed him and brutall( and mercilessl( murdered him, and *ith
him, the beautiful dreams *e had for our children.
Even a mad dog or an abominable criminal did not deserve his manner of
deathN 6e, *ho never harmed an(bod( nor span1ed his children out of love,
la( there in a mudd( street of the Mari1it 2ubdivision, gasping for breath and
calling our ... son even as his assailants too1 turns in stabbing him and
pummeling him *ith a garden hoe that bro1e at the handle as it hit m(
helpless husband as he la( on the ground.
-ur house that *as once a happ( home *hen he *as around is no longer
the same since he has gone. -ur little girl, Ma. 2hiela, eats her brea1fast
silentl( *ith tears streaming do*n her faceC our son L. ,an 1eeps as1ing me
*hen his father *ill *a1e up, and ,, *ill never get used to the emptiness and
the void that he has left behind.
&he Mari1ina police could not solve the crime. At the re:uest of Mrs. Regalado, 5eneral
Espino referred the case to the Constabular( criminal investigation service AC,2B at Camp
Crame.
As a result of the investigation, the four Lumague brothers, onciano, Jr., $., Rolando, $#,
Mario, $8, and Juanito $!, and their brother4in4la*, Rodolfo de la Cruz, *ere charged *ith
murder for the 1illing of Regalado. onciano, Rolando and Mario *ere arrest on August $%,
!"... Juanito *as arrested on -ctober !%, !".. *hen the prosecution had alread( finished
the presentation of its evidence against his three brothers. <e la Cruz is at large.
&he Lumague brothers came from a famil( of five bo(s and five girls. &he( gre* up in the
slum area of &ondo, Manila. &heir parents *ere natives of La @nion. &he father, a convict,
*as 1illed b( a member of the -xo gang Ap. !80, RecordB.
Even before the Lumague brothers *ere implicated in the 1illing of Regalado, Rolando had
been charged in the municipal court of 2an 3ernando, La @nion *ith frustrated murder and
slight ph(sical in+uries AExh. L and MB. ,n the same court, onciano *as charged *ith
frustrated homicide AExh. B. 6e *as also charged in the provincial fiscal7s office of La @nion
*ith direct assault of an agent of a person in authorit( and robber( AExh. R and 2B.
onciano is married *ith four children. 6e used to be a shoe repairman. 6e finished grade
four. Rolando is married *ith three children. 6e finished grave five. 6e used to be a tric(cle
driver. Mario is married *ith three children. 6e finished grade three. 6e *as +obless.
&he probation officers found the Lumague brothers to have mar1ed criminal tendencies and
to have a propensit( for anti4social behavior Ap. !8", RecordB.
$rial of -onciano, Rolando and .ario ;umague.L &hese three brothers *ere tried first
because the other t*o accused, Juanito Lumague and Rodolfo de la Cruz, *ere at large.
According to the prosecution, in Jul(, !".., the Lumague brothers, *ith their mother,
Morales, and their sister and brother4in4la*, Rodolfo de la Cruz, *ere renting from >alter
Romero 5utierrez a shac1 or ;barong4barong; in the Mari1it 2ubdivision in Mari1ina near the
residence of 9irgilio acuna(en.
At about eleven o7cloc1 in the evening of Jul( $), !".., Regalado, *ith his friends, Roberto
Asuncion, 5erardo A. <ucha, Lorenzo 5ravador and Rogelio ?autista, had a drin1ing spree
at the 6avana ub and ?eerhouse located at ?arrio Concepcion, Mari1ina, Metro Manila.
Each of the five dran1 three bottles of beer. &he( *atched the floor sho*.
2hortl( after midnight, the group left that place and, as it *as curfe* time, the( decided to
*al1 to ?autista7s house in the subdivision about a 1ilometer a*a( and sleep there.
ARegalado *as a resident of #4C Annapolis 2treet, Cubao, Guezon Cit(, a neighbor of
Asuncion *ho resided at #4< Annapolis 2treet.B
>hat happened *hile the group *as *al1ing *as testified to b( t*o e(e*itnesses, Asuncion,
8%, and acuna(en, $!, a high school graduate, *ho, as noted above, *as residing at a
house near the shac1 *here the Lumague famil( *as sta(ing and *ho claimed to have been
a victim of an assault perpetrated b( the members of the Lumague famil( in June, !"...
Asuncion testified that he and Regalado *ere *al1ing together. 5ravador *as ahead of
them. ?autista and <ucha follo*ed Regalado and Asuncion. >hile *al1ing on the street in
front of the shac1 occupied b( the Lumague famil( and acuna(en7s house, Asuncion heard
<ucha shouting that ?autista had been stabbed. >hen Asuncion loo1ed behind, he noticed
that <ucha and ?autista *ere running because the( *ere being pursued b( t*o persons.
Asuncion7s impulse *as to follo* ?autista and <ucha but after ta1ing a fe* steps, he turned
around and loo1ed at the place *here he had left Regalado. 6e sa* Mario Lumague beating
Regalado on the bac1 *ith a hoe AExh. <B. Asuncion *as about t*o fathoms a*a(. Regalado
fell on the ground face do*n. Asuncion got a stone and thre* it at Mario.
Mario pulled Regalado to a dar1 grass( place near the lighted street. 3our persons
approached Regalado. Asuncion ,dentified three of them as the brothers onciano, Mario
and Rolando Lumague. onciano hit Regalado man( times *ith his fist and struc1 him on
the bac1 *ith an adobe stone.
Rolando also thre* an adobe stone at the head of Regalado and boxed him man( times.
Juanito repeatedl( stabbed Regalado. Rodolfo de la Cruz clobbered Regalado *ith a club
A;pamalo;B about t*o feet long.
&hen, Mario *ho *as armed *ith a hoe turned his attention to Asuncion, <ucha and ?autista
*ho fled upon his approach. Mario pursued them. 6e did not overta1e them. 2hortl(
thereafter, the five assailants left the place *here the( had assaulted Regalado.
Asuncion approached Regalado *ho *as bloodied all over but *as still breathing. Asuncion
directed ?autista to fetch a vehicle. <ucha *ent to the police station. ;&hen a taxicab passed
b(, Asuncion hailed it and placed Regalado inside the taxicab. 6e *as brought to the E,
Rodriguez 6ospital but *as alread( dead on arrival thereat.
Asuncion7s testimon( is a confirmation of his s*orn statements dated August 0 and $$, !"..
before the Constabular( investigator of the C,2 police intelligence section at Camp Crame
AExh. C and C4$B.
acuna(en, the other prosecution *itness, a neighbor of the Lumague famil(, *ho *as
ac:uainted *ith the members thereof, testified that at past midnight on Jul( $#, !".. he *as
in the balcon( of his house overloo1ing the lighted street.
6e *itnessed the assault on Regalado *hich *as perpetrated b( the four Lumague brothers
and their brother4in4la* Rodolfo de la Cruz. acuna(en, *ho *as at a distance of fifteen
meters from the scene of the assault, corroborated the particulars thereof as narrated b(
Asuncion. acuna(en7s testimon( is a confirmation of his s*orn statement dated August ",
!".. before the Constabular( investigator of the C,2 police intelligence section at Camp
Crame AExh. 5B.
<ucha, *ho, li1e 5ravador and ?autista, did not testif(, executed s*orn statements dated
August ! ! and $$, !". . before the Constabular( C,2 investigator AExh. E and 3B. <ucha,
$#, a high school graduate, narrated ho* he and ?autista encountered a person *ho tried to
stab ?autista. &hen, <ucha sa* another person beating Regalado *ith a hoe. At a
confrontation, <ucha ,dentified Mario as the *ielder of the hoe onciano as the one *ho
assaulted Regalado *ith an adobe stone and Rolando as the one *ho boxed Regalado App.
."408, RecordB.
Another documentar( evidence of the prosecution is the hardl( legible s*orn statement of
Mario Lumague ta1en b( the same Constabular( investigator AExh. 6, pp. 0.4"%, RecordB.
&he investigator, before interrogating Mario, *arned him that an(thing that he *ould sa(
regarding the death of Regalado *ould be used against him in court and that he AMarioB had
the rights A!B to remain silent and not to ans*er an( :uestion that *ould be pre+udicial to
him, A$B to have counsel, A8B to be investigated in the presence of his la*(er and A)B to have
counsel de oficio if he could not afford to hire his o*n la*(er.
&hen, the investigator as1ed Mario *hether after being apprised of his constitutional rights
he *as *illing to give a voluntar( statement and to sign an ac1no*ledgment that he
understood his constitutional rights. Mario ans*ered in the affirmative. 6e then signed the
follo*ing certification, amounting to a *aiver of his constitutional rights, *hich formed part of
his statement=
,to a( nagpapatuna( na nauuna*aan 1ong lahat ang a1ing mga 1arapatan
na napali*anag sa a1in ng inbestigador ga(a ng pagbibiga( ng sala(sa( na
1usang loob, at hindi na rin 1u1uha ng abogado dahil 1atotohanan lamang
ang a1ing sasabihin. AExh. 64! p. 0., Record.B
Mario7s version in his statement is that he and Juanita *ere in the 6avana ub and ?eer
5arden from seven to ten o7cloc1 in the evening of Jul( $# Ashould be $)B, !"... At around
eleven o7cloc1, *hen Mario *as alread( in his residence at the Mari1it 2ubdivision A*here he
lived *ith his brothers, mother and brother4in4la*B he heard a shout coming from the street in
front of the house and the sound of an ob+ect hitting the roof A;1alabog;B and he sa* Juanito
going out of the house.
&hen, later, ?eth, the sister of his brother4in4la*, informed Mario that some persons had
ganged up against Juanita. Mario came out of the house and allegedl( sa* Juanita prostrate
on the street in front of their house. Mario reentered the house, got a hoe and helped Juanita
in resisting his four assailants *ho *ere holding stones and assaulting Juanita. Mario
clubbed on the head the person holding Juanita. Juanito got a 1itchen 1nife from the house
and repeatedl( stabbed the person *hom Mario had clubbed on the head and *ho *as
sitting on the ground. &he assaulted person fell on the ground. Mario and Juanito ran a*a(.
Mario in his statement disclosed that the persons sta(ing in the house at the Mari1it
2ubdivision *ere Rodolfo de la Cruz and his *ife 6ermenegilda AMario7s sisterB, ,ldefonsa or
erlita Lumague, Re(naldo Lumague, ?eth de la Cruz, Lita Lumague AMario7s *ifeB and
Juanito A'o. 8$, Exh. 6B.
.ario said that only he himself and (uanita assaulted Regalado but he
2.ario# was not sure whether he was the only one who *illed Regalado A'o.
)%, Exh. 6B.
&he version of the defense is that Juanita Lumague *as the sole assaulted of Regalado.
onciano, Rolando and Mario presented as *itnesses their mother Emerenciana Morales
and Angelita Ramos, Eleno 5omez and >innie Camacho to prove their defense of alibi.
Emerenciana, a sixt(4nine (ear4old *ido*, testified that in Jul(, !".. she resided *ith the
spouses 6ermenegilda Lumague and Rodolfo de la Cruz in the house *hich the( had been
renting for three months in the Mari1it 2ubdivision. ,n the evening of Jul( $), !".. she *ent
to bed at eleven o7 cloc1. 2he *as a*a1ened because of the noise caused b( some persons
*ho *ere passing near the house and *ho *ere challenging the ,locanos to a fight. 2he
came out of the house and sa* five men *ho *ere ver( nois(.
2he advised them to go home because it *as alread( ver( late. &he( allegedl( ans*ered
that the( did not observe the curfe* and the( cursed the resident for enforcing it.
Emerenciana said that the five men pushed her to*ards the door of her house and she fell
on the ground. 2he *as allegedl( stoned b( the five nois( individuals. 2he *as hit in the
chee1, chest, left foot and front part of her bod(. A *oman named Marilou AAngelitaB *as
also stoned and her foot *as in+ured A;nipila(;B A)!$B.
Emerenciana admitted that *hen the incident happened she, her children and son4in4la*
*ere sta(ing in the house but *hen as1ed to clarif( her ans*er she said that her daughter
6ermenegilda, son4in4la* Rodolfo de la Cruz and her grandchildren *ere sta(ing in the
house A8"0B. 2he declared that she did not 1no* *ho 1illed Regalado and that *hen
Regalado *as 1illed her four sons ;*ere not there; A8""B, meaning that Rolando, onciano
and Juanito *ere in the province, Mario *as in &ondo and Rodolfo *as in the house A)%%48B.
>hen pressed b( counsel de oficio to clarif( the *hereabouts of Juanito, Emerenciana
ans*ered that Juanita arrived in the house *hen Emerenciana *as pushed b( the five
persons A)%/"B.
Emerenciana categoricall( declared that onciano never resided *ith her in Mari1ina A)!%4
!!B. 2he testified that *hen Juanita *as boxed b( the men, a fight ensued bet*een them
and Juanita. 2he admitted that Juanita had previousl( been confined in the Madrigal
Rehabilitation Center for having been involved in a homicide case *ith his brother4in4la*,
Maximino <acana(.
Angelita Ramos, $%, a helper of Emerenciana, testified that acuna(en used to go to
Emerenciana7s house. ,n the afternoon of Jul( $), !".., onciano *as not in the house in
Mari1ina but *as in ?auang, La @nion, Mario *as in &ondo and Rolando *as in ?arrio
Ambangonan, ugo, La @nion, but (uanita was in "merenciana's house in the .ari*it
,ubdivision, .ari*ina.
Angelita corroborated Emerenciana7s, testimon( that at about midnight on Jul( $) five
persons passed b( Emerenciana7s house and challenged the ,locanos to step out.
Emerenciana came out of the house and told the five persons to go home. 2he *as pushed
b( the five persons and she fell on the ground.
At that +uncture, Juanita and acuna(en arrived. Regalado allegedl( boxed Juanita. &he five
persons thre* stones and the *itness, Angelita, *as hit in the an1le. acuna(en assaulted
Regalado *ith a hoe Regalado fell on the ground face do*n. acuna(en repeatedl( stabbed
Regalado A)/!B.
?ecause Angelita *as not available for cross4examination, her testimon( on direct
examination *as stric1en out of the record A#%/B.
Eleno 5omez, #%, a farmer, a resident of ?arrio Guinavite, ?auang, La @nion, and a first
cousin of Julian Camacho, *ho in turn is a first cousin of the Lumague brothers, testified that
in the evening of Jul( $), !".. he acted as guard at a dance held on the occasion of a
*edding in ?arrio Guinavite and that onciano, Rolando and Mario *ere present at that
dance A).#B. Juanita and <e la Cruz *ere not present at that dance. A fe* moments later,
5omez testified that Rolando and Mario *ere not present at the *edding part( A)0"B.
>innie Camacho, a t*ent(4three (ear4old house*ife, *hose husband is a first cousin of
Rolando, testified that on Jul( $) and $#,!".. Rolando *as at her house in ?arrio
Ambangonan, ugo. 6e planted rice on Jul( $). &he next da( he *ent fishing in the river.
!ecision in the case of -onciano, Rolando and .ario ;umague.?At the conclusion of
>innie7s testimon( on Januar( 8!, !".0, defense counsel 5alvan announced that he *ould
present the accused as *itnesses at the next hearing scheduled on 3ebruar( $). &hat
hearing *as not held. &he case *as reset for March !). 'o hearing *as held on that date for
reasons not sho*n in the record.
-n that date, the trial court issued an order re:uiring the prosecution to present its
memorandum *ithin ten da(s and giving defense counsel 5alvan five da(s *ithin *hich to
file a repl( memorandum. ,t scheduled on April !0 the promulgation of its sentence.
&he prosecution in a motion dated March $%, !".0 offered its Exhibits L to 2 *hich *ere
mar1ed during the cross4examination of the defense *itnesses. 5alvan ob+ectived to Exhibits
L, M and '. 6e did not ma1e not attached to the motion.
&he prosecution filed its memorandum on April #. 5alvan *as furnished *ith a cop( thereof.
6e did not submit his repl( memorandum. As scheduled, the death sentence against
nciano, Rolando and Mario *as ;dictated and promulgated in open court; on April !0, !".0.
&he trial court convicted onciano, Rolando and Mario Lumague of murder, sentenced each
of them to death and ordered them to pa( solidaril( to the heirs of Regalado an indemnit( of
thirt(4t*o thousand pesos. &reacher( and abuse of superiorit( *ere considered :ualiff(ing
circumstances. Cruelt( *as appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstances. Cruelt(
*as appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstances. &he trial court did not give
credence to the alibis of the accused.
&he trial court in its decision explained that the defense *aived its right to present further
evidence after it failed to present such evidence in spite of numerious postponements and
*hen defense counsel failed to appear in court despite due notice Ap. $0/, RecordB.
5alvan filed on April $) a motion for reconsideration. 6e complained that the accused *ere
denied due process of la* because the( *ere not given a chance to testif( in their behalf.
&he motion *as denied. &he trial court in its order of April $0, !".0 directed the cler1 of court
to for*ard the record of the case to this Court.
,eparate trial and decision in (uanito ;umague's case. L As priorl( noted, Juanito *as
arrested in ?arrio ambangonan, on -ctober !%, !".. *hen the prosecution had finished the
presentation of its evidence against his brothers onciano, Roland and Mario. >hen
arraigned on -ctober !", Juanito pleaded not guilt(. 6e *as given a separate trial.
At the hearing on June $0, !".0, *hen the medico4legol officer *as testif( for the second
time in the separate trial for Juanito, ?en+amin 2antos, Juanito7s counsel, interrupted the
testimon( of the medico4legal and manifested that Juanito *as *ithdra*ing his plea of not
guilt( and changing it to a plea of guilt(. &he doctor7s testimon( *as suspended. Juanita *as
placed on the *itness stand. 6e too1 his oath and *as interrogated as follo*s=
Court to Juanito Lumague= <o (ou confirm and affirm that (ou
are changing (our plea of not guilt( to that plea of guilt(K L
A. Ees, sir. , *as not able to tal1.
G. b( Court= Eou *ere not able to tal1 because (ou *ere
arrested. ...LA. 'o, (our 6onor. &he reason at that time ,
*as as1ing but , *as not able to reason out that & was the
one who committed the crime.
Court= >h( did (ou not tell the la*(er of (our brother that (ou
AareB the onl( one to be presented b( the defense la*(erK L
A. , stated so, (our 6onor.
Court= <id an(bod( intimidate, coerce (ou or promise (ou of
Aan(B lenienc( for changing that plea of not guilt( to that plea
of guilt(K4 A.'o. (our 6onor. A##%4##$B
&he trial court then ordered the resumption of the presentation of evidence against Juanita.
&he medico4legal officer *as cross4examined b( Juanito7s counsel Asuncion and Elma !.
Regalado testified again. &he prosecution formall( offered in evidence against Juanita the
same Exhibits A to M *hich it had alread( presented during the trial of onciano, Rolando
and Mario Lumague.
Juanito7s counsel did not present an( evidence. -n Jul( #, !".0, the trial court rendered in
Juanito7s case a decision similar to its previous decision. ,t convicted him of murder,
sentenced him to death and ordered him to pa( the same indemnit( Ap. $0!, RecordB.
Ruling.L,n this automatic revie* of the fear death sentences, counsel de oficio contends
that the trial court erred in not giving the four accused a chance to present other *itnesses
and to testif( in their behalf, in admitting the extra+udicial confession of Mario Lumague, in
giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution *itnesses and in convicting the
accused of murder.
>ith respect to Juanita Lumague, *ho *ithdre* his plea of not guilt(, *ho *as tried
separatel( and *hose guilt *as also established b( means of the evidence presented
against him, *e find that the counsel7s contentions are devoid of merit. Juanito7s guilt *as
proven be(ond reasonable doubt. 6is plea of guilt( and the evidence introduced b( the
prosecution destro(ed the presumption of innocence in his favor.
&here is conclusive evidence that he *as the one *ho stabbed Regalado. ,n doing so, he
conspired *ith the other assailants of the victim particularl( *ith the assailant *ho
treacherousl( struc1 Regalado on the bac1 *ith a hoe Even Juanito7s mother admitted that
he too1 part in the assault A)%04", )!84)B. And, of course, the fact that Juanita *as a fugitive
from +ustice for several months is an indication of his guilt.
&he trial court correctl( held that the 1illing *as murder :ualified b( treacher( and abuse of
superiorit( and aggravated b( cruelt(. 6ence, death is the proper penalt(. Juanito7s plea of
guilt( is not mitigating because it *as made after the prosecution had commenced the
presentation of its evidence.
>ith respect to the other three accused, onciano, Mario and Rolando Lumague, *ho
pleaded not guilt( and *ho *ere tried ahead of Juanito, there is merit in their contention that
the( *ere denied due process of la* because the( *ere not given a chance to testif( in their
behalf and to present additional evidence.
An accused has the constitutional right ;to be heard b( himself and counsel; and the right ;to
testif( as a *itness in his o*n behalf ;. &he denial of such rights is a denial of due process,
as held in eople vs. 2antiago, )/ hil. .8). 2ee eople vs. Abuda, L48%%%", 3ebruar( $.,
!".!, 8. 2CRA .0".
<ue process of la* in a criminal prosecution consists of a la* creating or
defining the offense, an impartial tribunal of competent +urisdiction.
accusation in due form. notice and opportunit( to defend, trial according to
established procedure, and discharge unless found guilt( A!/A C.J.2. /!.B.
&he constitutional right of the accused to be heard in his defense is inviolate. ;'o court of
+ustice under our s(stem of government has the po*er to deprive him of that right.; AAbriol
vs. 6omeres, 0) hil. #$#, #8)B.
3undamental fairness, *hich is the essence of due process, re:uires that the three accused
should be allo*ed to testif( on their defenses and to present additional evidence to prove
their innocence.
>6ERE3-RE, *e affirm the trial court7s separate decision dated July 7, 8@AB, sentencing
Juanito Lumague to death.
,ts prior decision of April 8B, 8@AB, sentencing to death onciano, Mario and Rolando, all
surnamed Lumague, is set aside. ,t is directed to receive the additional evidence of the said
accused, sub+ect to the right of the prosecution to present rebuttal evidence and the right of
the accused to present surrebuttal evidence. &he evidence alread( presented subsists and
should be ta1en into account in the rendition of another decision. Costs de oficio.
G.R. No. L-35767 M,0 31, 1979
CRIS!INO +LORES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. G. 'ESS /. RI", !res#$#%& '($&e, Co(rt o) +#rst I%st,%-e o) C,&,0,%,
!RO=INCIAL 9ARDEN o) C,&,0,% ,%$ LEONARDO MANDAC, represe%te$ b0 *#s
He#rs, t*r( t*e 9#$o> DOLORES =DA. DE MANDAC, respondents.
DE CAS:RO, J:
&his is a etition for certiorari andDor 6abeas Corpus filed b( petitioner Crispin 3lores on
-ctober $), !".$ after he has been allegedl( arrested and detained illegall( b( -rder of the
respondent Judge, dated June $%, !".$, finding him guilt( of indirect contempt. AAnnex A,
etition, p.!!, RolloB.
3rom the records of this case, it appears that petitioner *as actuall( arrested on August $0,
!".$ and has since been detained in the rovincial Jail of Caga(an until his release b( virtue
of a bond of #%%.%% *hich he *as allo*ed to file b( this Court in its Resolution dated
-ctober 8!, !".$ Ap. 88, RolloB, *hich he must have filed as he had precisel( as1ed to be
bailed, pending his appeal from the -rder of the respondent +udge dated August !%, !".$.
AAnnex E to etition, p. $), RolloB. &he reason for the dela(ed arrest is that petitioner *as
given a period up to August !, !".$ ;to inform the court *hether or not he relin:uishes his
possession over the land in :uestion.;
&he land in :uestion *as levied upon and sold on execution on 'ovember $0, !".0 to
satisf( the a*ard of damages in favor of Leonardo Mandac, plaintiff in Civil Case 'o. !/!/ of
the Court of 3irst ,nstance of Caga(an against petitioner and his father, <oroteo 3lores, as
defendants and the losing parties in said case. &he( failed to redeem the propert( sold to the
heirs of Leonardo Mandac in the auction sale. 6ence, the respondent court ordered
petitioner to place in possession the heirs of Leonardo Mandac *ho had in the meantime
died. 3or his refusal to vacate the land in favor of the heirs of Mandac, contempt proceedings
*ere instituted against petitioner on motion of Att(. Antonio '. Laggui as counsel of the
aforementioned heirs. As previousl( stated, these contempt proceedings led to his arrest and
detention.
etitioner, ho*ever, :uestions the legalit( of the proceedings for not having been assisted b(
counsel during the hearing of the motion for contempt, and for not having been dul( informed
of the contempt charge b( being furnished a cop( of the motion, or properl( ;arraigned;
before trial. &hus, petitioner claims to have been deprived due process of la* *hich voided
the proceedings against him as for lac1 of +urisdiction of the court to inflict the penalt(
imposed on him, citing ,antiago vs. Ali*pala, L4$#!88, 2eptember $0, !"/0, $# 2CRA 8#/.
3urther, petitioner contends that his act of not surrendering possession of his levied propert(
does not constitute contempt, citing the case of 3austino Lagrimas vs4 J of Camiling, et al.,
L4!)8)#, Jul( $%, !"/!, $ 2CRA ."8, and Chinese Commercial -roperty Co. vs. .artineC, et
al., L40#/#, 'ovember 8%, !"/$, / 2CRA 0#!.
!. -n the issue of *hether petitioner *as denied due process as he claims, both respondent
+udge and private respondents den( the claim of petitioner, of having been so denied, private
respondents even :uoting from the transcript of the stenographic notes the follo*ing=
C-@R&= ,s the defendant Crispin 3lores in CourtK
A,nterpreter calls out the name of Crispin 3lores, and ans*ered that he is presentB.
A &he Court addresses Crispin 3loresB.
G. >ho is going to represent (ou in this caseK
A. , have a la*(er but he *as not able to come.
G. <id (ou notif( himK
A. Ees, sir, but he *as not able to come toda(.
G. Are (ou *illing to go into trial in this case even in the absence of (our la*(erK
A. Ees, sir.
G. <o (ou need the assistance of an( la*(erK
A. 'o more, an(*a( , can ans*er.
App. ! and $, tsn ?arias June !", !".$B.
&he veracit( of the alleged proceedings as indicated above is denied b( petitioner, alleging
that no such proceedings too1 place, and that, in an( event, the transcript *as not signed b(
the stenographer. >hat happened according to him, is that , *hen respondent +udge had
learned that he *as *ithout counsel, he told him ApetitionerB to deliver possession of the
premises to the private respondents, and for this purpose gave him ten A!%B da(s to carr( out
that mandate. ,n spite of the plan of petitioner that the hearing on that date be postponed so
that his counsel of record could appear for him or that a ne* counsel *ould be hired to
appear in his behalf, the respondent +udge, ho*ever, demurred, and *ith the assistance of a
certain Att(. Joshua astores, petitioner *as made to sign an understanding to deliver up
the premises *ithin the period indicated b( the +udge on pain of being imprisoned.;
Aetitioner7s Memorandum, pp. ."40%, RolloB.
&he right of the accused to counsel in criminal proceedings has never been considered
sub+ect to *aiver. &he practice has al*a(s been for the trial court to provide the accused
*ith a counsel de officio, if he has no counsel of his o*n choice, or cannot afford one. &his is
because L
&he right to be heard *ould be of little avail if it does not include the right to
be heard b( counsel. Even the most intelligent or educated man ma( have no
s1ill in the science of the la*, particularl( in the rules of procedure, and,
*ithout counsel, he ma( be convicted not because he is guilt( but because
he does not 1no* ho* to establish his innocence and this can happen more
easil( to persons *ho are ignorant or uneducated. ,t is for this reason that his
right to be assisted b( counsel is deemed so important that it has become a
constitutional right and it is so implemented that under our rules of procedure
it is not enough for the court to apprise an accused of his right to have an
attorne(, it is not enough to as1 him *hether he desires the aid of an
attorne(, but it is essential that the court should assign one de oficio for him if
he so desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to procure an
attorne( of his o*n. Aeople vs. 6olgado, 0# hil. .#$C 2ee also Aguador vs.
Enerio 8. 2CRA !)%B.
-n the basis of the afore:uoted ruling, it cannot be disputed that the respondent court failed
in its dut( designed to satisf( the constitutional right of an accused to counsel. etitioner, as
the respondent in the contempt charge, a proceedings that parta1e of the nature of a criminal
prosecution, *as thus denied due process. &his is more so as petitioner does not appear to
have been dul( notified of the contempt charge, nor *as properl( ;arraigned,; since he *as
not assisted b( counsel during the hearing A2antiago vs. Ali1pala, supraB. Admittedl( *ith a
counsel of record, petitioner could not have *illingl( submitted to go to trial *hen his counsel
failed to appear. ,t is certainl( much easier to believe, that, as petitioner alleges, he as1ed for
postponement, because of the absence of his counsel, but that the respondent +udge denied
the plea, a fact not expressl( traversed in the respondent +udge7s comment Ap. #/, RolloB.
'either has he denied the allegation in the petition that there *as a denial of petitioner7s right
to due process for not having been dul( informed of the contempt charge, nor *as his
counsel furnished a cop( thereof, as he is entitled to one as a matter of right and as a
matter4of dut( of the court. All that respondent +udge said in his comment is that ;defendant
3lores has been granted his da( in court to defend himself from the charges presented b(
reason of his contumacious acts.; Ap. #/, RolloB.
>e are, therefore, constrained to hold that the proceedings on the contempt charge has
been vitiated b( lac1 of due process, entitling petitioner to the *rit of habeas corpus he
see1s.
6abeas corpus is a high prerogative *rit. ,t is traditionall( considered as an
exceptional remed( to release a person *hose libert( is illegall( restrained
such as *hen the accused7s constitutional rights are disregarded. 2uch
defects results in the absence or loss of 7+urisdiction and therefore invalidates
the trial and the conse:uent conviction of the accused *hose fundamental
right *as violated. &hat void +udgment of conviction ma( be challenged b(
collateral attac1, *hich precisel( is the function of habeas corpus. &his *rit
ma( issue even if another remed( *hich is less effective ma( be availed of
b( the defendant. &n )arden vs. $he !irector of -risons A0!=.)!D!")0DB,
Justice &uason, spea1ing for the Court, explicitl( announced that ;deprivation
of an( fundamental or constitutional rights; +ustif( a proceeding for habeas
corpus, on the ground of lac1 of +urisdiction. Abriol vs. )omeres A0) hil. #$#B
is even more categorical. ,n that case, the action of a lo*er court, den(ing
the accused the opportunit( to present proof for his defense, his motion for
dismissal failing, *as held b( this Court as a deprivation of his right to due
process. As *as made clear b( the opinion of Justice -zaeta= 7'o court of
+ustice under our s(stem of government has the po*er to deprive him of that
right. ,f the accused does not *aive his right to be heard but on the contrar(
invo1es the right, and the court denies it to him, that court no longer has
+urisdiction to proceedC it has no po*er to sentence the accused *ithout
hearing him in his defenseC and the sentence thus pronounced is void and
ma( be conateran( attac1ed in a habeas corpus proceeding. A2antiago vs.
Ali1pala, supra.B
$. >e also find as not clearl( established b( the pleadings and annexes, the legal basis for
the pronouncement of guilt for contempt against petitioner. >hat *ould constitute contempt
is the re4entr( of the defeated part( into the premises after possession thereof has been
delivered to the prevailing part( b( the sheriff in enforcement of the *rit of execution ARom
vs. Cobadora, L4$)./), Jul( !., !"/", $0 2CRA .#0, ./8C Chinese Commercial ropert(
Co. vs. Martinez, et. al., L4!0#/#, 'ovember 8%, !"/$, / 2CRA 0)0C 3austino Lagrimas vs.
J of Camiling, et. al., L4!)8)#, Jul( $%,!"/!, $ 2CRA ."8B. &hus, in the order of the
respondent +udge, dated 2eptember $0, !".$, AAnnex 5 to etition, pp. 8%48!, RolloB, it *as
stated that=
?( virtue of the *rit of execution of the decision in this case the plaintiffs *ere
placed in possession over the parcel described in paragraph 8 of the
complaint. 2ometime in March, !"/", defendants invaded the land and since
then, the( refused to vacate same. laintiffs, on Jul( $, !"/", filed the first
motion for contempt against the defendants.
&he other properties of defendants *ere levied, foreclosed and sold to
defendants on 'ovember $0, !"/0 in a public auction to satisf( the damages
a*arded in the same +udgment. &he defendants failed to redeem the bidded
properties *ithin the one (ear from the registration of the certificate of sale of
the land, and (et defendants refused to vacate same land for *hich plaintiffs
filed the second motion for contempt on <ecember !., !".!.
&he Court did not pass upon the first motion for contempt but gave due
course to the second motion for contempt.
,t is altogether clear that *ith respect to the parcel described in paragraph 8 of the complaint,
the Mandacs *ere placed in possession thereof but subse:uentl(, the petitioner herein
invaded the land and had since refused to leave it. >ith respect, ho*ever, to the land in
:uestion, petitioner never vacated the sameC there *as, therefore, no re4entr( to spea1 of.
According to petitioner, the sheriff *ho tried to enforce the *rit of possession never
succeeded in locating the specific land to be delivered to the Mandacs to be able to claim
having placed the latter in possession of the land. App. ..4 .0, RolloB. >here the defeated
part( as1ed to vacate the premises b( the +udgment of the court, refuses to vacate the same
on being ordered b( the sheriff enforcing a *rit of execution or possession, no contempt is
committed, as held in 5o(ena de :uiCon vs. -hilippine 0ational an*, et al., 5. R. 'o. L4
$0#!, Januar( 8!, !"#%, cited in Chinese Commercial -roperty Co. vs. .artineC, et al.,
supra. ,n the case of Rom vs. Cobadora, L4$)./), Jul( !., !"/", $0 2CRA .#0, Justice
&eehan1ee, spea1ing for the court said=
&he order of execution issued b( the lo*er court is address solel( and
exclusivel( to the sheriff, *ho under the above4cited rules is called upon to
oust the defeated part( from the propert( and ma1e the deliver( or restitution
b( placing the prevailing part( in possession of the propert(, and mere
refusal or un*illingness on the part of the defeated part( to relin:uish the
propert(, *ould not constitute contempt.
8. &here is, li1e*ise, an allegation in the petition that the Motion for Contempt *as filed b(
the counsel of Leonardo Mandac after the latter7s death, and therefore, the motion *as
unauthorized and *ithout legal standing. 3rom *hat has been said above that petitioner is
not guilt( of contempt, the challenge against the legalit( of the motion for contempt need not
be in:uired into. ,n fairness, ho*ever, to private respondent from his allegation in his Ans*er
that L
.. Att(. edro '. Laggui had authorit( to file the motion for contempt against
the etitioner on June 8%, !"/"C at that time, Leonardo Mandac *as still
alive. Att(. Antonio '. Laggui li1e*ise had authorit( to file the motion for
contempt against the etitioner on <ecember !., !".! no longer as counsel
for the deceased Leonardo Mandac L for at that time he *as alread( dead
L but as counsel for his *ife and children in *hose favor the corresponding
deed of sale of the parcels of land sold at auction on 'ovember $0, !"/0,
*as executed b( the 2heriff on 3ebruar( !$, !".%, pursuant to the -rder
dated Januar( $!, !".%. AAns*er, p. /", RolloB.
>e have no hesitation to sa( that the Motion for Contempt has been filed *ith proper
authorit(.
3or all the foregoing, the present petition should be, as it is, hereb( granted, thereb( setting
aside the order of the respondent +udge finding petitioner guilt( of indirect contempt. 'o
pronouncement as to costs.
G.R. No. L-29615 Apr#. 29, 1975
:HE !EO!LE O+ :HE !HILI!!INES, plaintiff4appellee,
vs.
+ELI!E MALNSING, E: AL., $e)e%$,%ts, MANEL =ILLEGAS, defendant4appellant.
+ERNANDO, J.:+.wph!1
,t *as the failure of the lo*er court to respect the constitutional right to counsel,
1
so it is
alleged, that is the basis for see1ing the reversal of a conviction for murder of appellant
Manuel 9illegas.
2
&here is more than ample support in the records for the charge thus
hurled. As therein sho*n, Attorne( 5eronimo a+arito explicitl( manifested in the opening of
the trial that appellant intimated to him that he had his o*n la*(er.
3
&here *as an admission
that he did appear for him in the preliminar( investigation but onl( because there *as no
other counsel.
3
arentheticall(, it ma( be observed that *hile in the original complaint there
*ere t*o other accused *ith the same surname as the la*(er, 5eremias a+arito and
2amuel a+arito, after such preliminar( investigation, no doubt due to the efforts of this
particular la*(er, possibl( a 1insman, the( ;*ere both discharged for lac1 of probable
cause.;
5
&o resume, the lo*er court at this stage then as1ed *hether the appellant notified
Attorne( a+arito about his change of mind. >hen he ans*ered in the negative, the Court
stated= ;All right, (ou have a la*(er *ho is appearing for (ou.;
4
,t is to the credit of such
counsel that he had reservations about the matter, stating that as the accused had
manifested that he had dispensed *ith his services, his representation might later on be
:uestioned.
7
&he court *as not sufficientl( impressed. Appellant *as informed that ;the
Court *ill give (ou a la*(er. Att(. a+arito is appointed as counsel de oficio for (ou. >e *ill
proceed *ith the trial.;
5
After mar1ing it of record that he *as appointed as such counsel de
oficio, the attorne( *as as1ed *hether he *anted to confer *ith appellant. &his *as the
ans*er= ;, thin1 , 1no* the case.; 9 &he Court then immediatel( proceeded *ith the hearing,
having the first *itness called.
16
,n the decision itself, there is this meaningful admission b(
the court= ;'o evidence *as presented for and in behalf of Manuel 9illegas.;
11

&his is ho* the matter *as characterized in the brief of appellant= ;&he prosecution during
the trial presented its *itnesses, and li1e*ise all the defendants, ... except the appellant
Manuel 9illegas, too1 the *itness stand and testified for and in their defense. &he appellant
is a ver( old man, ignorant and unletteredC during the entire proceedings in the case, the
appellant *hile present did not 1no* *hat *as going onC the trial court never apprised the
appellant of his fundamental right to be assisted b( a la*(erC the trial court did not even
bother in:uiring *h( the appellant Manuel 9illegas did not ta1e the *itness stand,
Isomething out of the ordinar( asJ all defendants, except the appellant, had testifiedC and the
trial court *ent on throughout the proceedings of the case *ithout 1no*ing *h( the appellant
did not testif(, that if the appellant testified *hat *ould his testimon( be li1e, *hat *ould be
his demeanor during his testimon(, ...;
12
6ence, his insistence that no deference *as sho*n
to the constitutional right to counsel. >e are inclined to agree and *e reverse. Considering,
ho*ever, the gravit( of the offense charged, instead of an ac:uittal, there should be a ne*
trial *ith all the safeguards thro*n around an accused.
!. &hat *ould be to vindicate a fundamental safeguard *hich in this case, perhaps from a
desire of the lo*er court to proceed *ith the trial and thus ease *hat could be a congestion
in its sala, *as inadvertentl( disregarded. ,t is not enough that a counsel de oficio *as
appointed, especiall( so as here, *here the accused had indicated that he *anted a la*(er
of his choice, a decision prompted moreover b( the fact that he had lost confidence in the
member of the bar thus designated. 'or is it to manifest respect for this right if the counsel
de oficio thus named, instead of conferring *ith the accused, *ould +ust blithel( inform the
+udge that he *as alread( full( prepared for his exacting responsibilit(. ,t *as unintended, of
course, but the result could not rightl( be distinguished from pure travest(. Appellant could
then rightfull( invo1e this constitutional guarantee. ,nasmuch as it is intended to assure a +ust
and fair proceeding, he is entitled at the most to a ne* trial *here he can be dul(
represented either b( a counsel of his choice or b( one appointed de oficio, one *ho *ould
discharge his tas1 in a much more diligent and conscientious manner and *ould not readil(
assume that he need not bother himself undul( *ith familiarizing himself further *ith all
aspects of the case. 3or onl( in such a *a( ma( there be an intelligent defense. ,f the matter
be vie*ed thus, there is no unfairness to the state either. ,t can still see to it that a person
against *hom a probable cause had been found *ould have to stand trial, but, to repeat,
*ith all the constitutional safeguards.
$. ,t *ould not be amiss to refer to the opinion of Chief Justice Moran in -eople v. )olgado,
13
*here the importance of this right *as stressed. &hus= ;,n criminal cases there can be no fair
hearing unless the accused be given an opportunit( to be heard b( counsel. &he right to be
heard *ould be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard b( counsel. Even the
most intelligent or educated man ma( have no s1ill in the science of la*, particularl( in the
rules of procedure, and, *ithout counsel, he ma( be convicted not because he is guilt( but
because he does not 1no* ho* to establish his innocence. And this can happen more easil(
to persons *ho are ignorant or uneducated. ,t is for this reason that the right to be assisted
b( counsel is deemed so important that it has become a constitutional right and it is so
implemented that under our rules of procedure it is not enough for the Court to apprise an
accused of his right to have an attorne(, it is not enough to as1 him *hether he desires the
aid of an attorne(, but it is essential that the court should assign one de oficio for him if he so
desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorne( of his o*n.;
13

&here are a number of American 2upreme Court decisions to the same effect. ,n one of
them, >illiam v. Maiser, Justice <ouglas succinctl( summed up the matter thus= ;I&he
accusedJ needs the aid of counsel lest he be the victim of overzealous prosecutors, of the
la*7s complexit(, or of his o*n ignorance or be*ilderment.;
15

>hat is more, it is one of the *orth*hile innovations of the present Constitution that even at
the stage of custodial interrogation *hen the police agencies are investigating a man7s
possible connection *ith a crime, he is alread( entitled to counsel.
14
,n a true sense, that is
merel( to underscore the historical fact that even under the organic acts
17
prior to the !"8#
Constitution, there *as an a*areness of the importance of the right to counsel.
15
&his is not
of course to assert that this Court in the past had invariabl( accorded it an interpretation
favorable to the stand of an accused. &hus in >nited ,tates v. ;abial,
19
a !"!) decision, it
*as held that the failure of the record to disclose affirmativel( that the trial +udge advised the
accused of their right to counsel is not sufficient ground for the reversal of a conviction.
>hen Labial *as affirmed in >nited ,tates v. "scalante,
26
decided in !"!., Justice Malcolm
*as moved to file a vigorous dissent. ,t suffices to recall his conformit( to the vie* of Coole(
that this is ;perhaps the privilege most important to the person accused of crime.
21
,t is in that
spirit, or something a1in to it, that the framers of the !"8# Constitution approached the
sub+ect. -f even greater relevance is the fact that the present fundamental la* has, as
above indicated, vitalized still further its *orth and significance.
>6ERE3-RE, the lo*er court decision of <ecember ), !"/. insofar as it found Manuel
9illegas guilt( of the crime of murder is reversed and a ne* trial ordered forth*ith for such
accused. &his decision is immediatel( executor(. 'o costs.
G.R. No. 137255 De-ember 11, 2661
!EO!LE O+ :HE !HILI!!INES, appellee,
vs.
DANILO A/INO 0 AD=INCLA, appellant.
!ANGANI/AN, J.;
Rape, particularl( incestuous rape, is reprehensible and abominable. 6o*ever, to convict the
accused and to sentence him to death re:uires proof be(ond reasonable doubt of the
elements of the crime and the :ualif(ing circumstances specificall( alleged in the
information. Conviction al*a(s rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution,
never on the *ea1ness or the absence of that of the defense.
$he Case
3or automatic revie* b( this Court is the <ecision
!
dated Januar( $%, !""",
promulgated b( the Regional &rial Court AR&CB of Calamba, Laguna A?ranch 8)B in
Criminal Case 'o. #."84"04C, finding <anilo Abino ( Advincula guilt( of rape be(ond
reasonable doubt. >e :uote the decretal portion of the <ecision=
;ACC-R<,'5LE, this Court finds accused <anilo Abino ( Advincula 5@,L&E be(ond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 88# of
the Revised enal Code, as amended, and hereb( sentences him to suffer the
penalt( of death.
;Accused is further directed to indemnif( the offended part(, <aniela Abino, the sum
of 3,3&E &6-@2A'< A#%,%%%.%%B E2-2 as and for moral damages.
;>ith costs against the accused.;
$
&he ,nformation
8
against appellant reads as follo*s=
;&hat on or about April /, !""/, in the Municipalit( of Los ?aHos, rovince of Laguna
and *ithin the +urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the above4named accused did
then and there have carnal 1no*ledge of his daughter, the minor <A',ELA A?,'- (
MERCA<-, *ho *as then asleep and unconscious, against her *ill and consent, to
her damage and pre+udice.;
>ith the assistance of his counsel,
)
appellant pleaded not guilt( *hen arraigned on Jul( !%,
!""0.
#
,n due course, the latter *as tried and convicted of :ualified rape.
$he %acts
Version of the -rosecution
&he -ffice of the 2olicitor 5eneral summarized the evidence for the prosecution in this *ise=
/
;!. 3ourteen4(ear old <aniela Abino lived *ith her father, appellant <anilo Abino, at
Agua 2anta, an old resort located in ?ambang, Los ?aHos, Laguna. Appellant *as a
member of the Los ?aHos tas1 force on mar1et securit(, assigned to night shift dut(
at the mar1et. <aniela7s mother no longer lived *ith them as she had another famil(.
;$. -n the evening of April /, !""/, appellant came home drun1. 6e too1 a bath and
told <aniela to prepare his things for the mar1et. <aniela obe(ed him and *ent to the
second floor of their house to fix her father7s things. Appellant follo*ed <aniela clad
onl( in his under*ear *ith a to*el *rapped around his *aist. 6e embraced <aniela
and pressed his penis against her buttoc1s. <aniela pulled herself a*a( from
appellant and *ent do*nstairs.
;8. >hen appellant *ent do*n, <aniela told him that she *as no longer going *ith
him to his office. Appellant said nothing and left for *or1. <aniela sta(ed at the first
floor of their house until she decided to go to bed and *ent upstairs.
;). <aniela *as fast asleep in her bed *hen she felt somebod( on top of her and
1issing her. 2he opened her e(es and sa* appellant *ho *as na1ed. <aniela found
herself na1ed too as she no longer had her pant( and shorts on. >hen <aniela *o1e
up and moved, appellant stood up, dressed himself and then left. <aniela felt intense
pain in her vagina and cried.
;#. <aniela put on her pant( and tried to sleep, but sleep escaped her and she 1ept
on cr(ing. &he follo*ing morning, she prepared herself for school and coo1ed rice.
<aniela, ho*ever, did not go to school that da( and sta(ed at home.
;/. <aniela did not immediatel( tell an(bod( about *hat appellant did to her. 2he
sta(ed *ith him for about seventeen months more or until 2eptember !""..
6o*ever, <aniela eventuall( decided to run a*a( from home because she *as
afraid that appellant might molest and hurt her again.
;.. <aniela sta(ed in a canteen near 72tar Cit(7 in Manila. After her stint at the
canteen, <aniela *or1ed for one Mando arr in asa( Cit(. 2he, ho*ever, left his
emplo(. ,n <ecember of !""., <aniela found herself in ?aguio Cit( *here she met a
social *or1er *ho placed her in the custod( of the <epartment of 2ocial >elfare and
<evelopment.
;0. -n <ecember !., !""., <aniela *as brought b( one Aileen Edades of the
Commission on 6uman Rights to the Cit( 6ealth -ffice in 2an ablo Cit(. &here she
*as examined b( <r. Azucena ,. ?ando(, the Assistant Cit( 6ealth -fficer of 2an
ablo Cit(.
;". <r. ?ando( found that <aniela7s sex organ bore a 78rd and " o7cloc1 old healed
laceration scar7 and that the scar *as caused b( the insertion of a foreign bod(,
specificall(, 7the penis or a male organ,7 into <aniela7s vagina. According to <r.
?ando(, the laceration might have been inflicted 7a (ear ago7.;
Version of the !efense
-n the other hand, the ublic Attorne(7s -ffice presents appellant7s version of the incident
simpl( as follo*s=
.
;<anilo AbiHo ( Advincula testified that the allegation in the complaint is not true. &he
onl( reason *h( the complainant filed the rape charge against him is that he is a ver(
strict father, that7s the reason *h( the complainant is angr( *ith him.;
Ruling of the $rial Court
&he court a +uo found complainant7s testimon( ;strong, credible and competent.; ,t ;could
not fathom an( +ustifiable reason *h( she at so (oung an age *ould accuse her o*n father
and portra( the latter as a beast *ho deflo*ered her if the same be not true.; 3inding carnal
1no*ledge to have ta1en place bet*een them, it sentenced appellant to death.
6ence, this automatic revie* before us.
0
Assignment of "rrors
,n his ?rief, appellant faults the court a :uo *ith the follo*ing alleged errors=
"
;&he lo*er court erred in convicting the accused based on the incredible and
inconsistent testimon( of <aniela AbiHo.
;&he lo*er court gravel( erred in convicting the accused despite failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt be(ond reasonable doubt.;
?asicall(, the assigned errors boil do*n to the sole issue of *hether the prosecution
evidence proves appellant7s guilt be(ond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
$he Court's Ruling
&he appeal is meritorious.
.ain &ssueD
,ufficiency of "vidence
At the time of the alleged commission of the acts stated in the ,nformation, the Revised
enal Code, as amended b( 2ection !! of RA ./#", specifies ho* rape ma( be committed,
as follo*s=
;Art. 88#. Ehen and how rape is committed. L Rape is committed b( having carnal
1no*ledge of a *oman under an( of the follo*ing circumstances=
!. ?( using force or intimidationC
$. >hen the *oman is deprived of reason or other*ise unconsciousC and
8. >hen the *oman is under t*elve (ears of age or is demented.
;&he crime of rape shall be punished b( reclusion perpetua.
;>henever the crime of rape is committed *ith the use of a deadl( *eapon or b( t*o
or more persons, the penalt( shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
;>hen b( reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the
penalt( shall be death.
;>hen the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed b( reason or
on the occasion thereof, the penalt( shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
;>hen b( reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the
penalt( shall be death.
;&he death penalt( shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed *ith an(
of the follo*ing attendant circumstances=
!. *hen the victim is under eighteen A!0B (ears of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative b( consanguinit( or affinit( *ithin the third
civil degree, or the common4la*4spouse of the parent of the victim.
$. *hen the victim is under the custod( of the police or militar( authorities.
8. *hen the rape is committed in full vie* of the husband, parent, an( of the children
of other relatives *ithin the third degree of consanguinit(.
). *hen the victim is a religious or a child belo* seven A.B (ears old.
#. *hen the offender 1no*s that he is afflicted *ith Ac:uired ,mmune <eficienc(
2(ndrome AA,<2B disease.
/. *hen committed b( an( member of the Armed 3orces of the hilippines or the
hilippine 'ational olice or an( la* enforcement agenc(.
.. *hen b( reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent
ph(sical mutilation.;
,nsofar as it is relevant to the present case, the la* states that once the crime of rape is
proven, the circumstance of father4daughter relationship bet*een the victim and the offender
raises the penalt( to death. 2uch relationship, *hich must be both alleged in the information
and proven b( the evidence, does not b( itself operate to convert carnal 1no*ledge to rape.
,t bears emphasizing that the la* re:uires that the elements of rape be proven first before
the circumstance of relationship can be appreciated to increase the penalt(.
,n the present case, the ,nformation alleges that the crime of rape *as committed under
paragraph number t*o of Article 88# of the Revised enal Code. 6ence, before appellant
can be convicted thereof, t*o elements must concur= A!B he had carnal 1no*ledge of
complainant, <anielaC and A$B she *as unconscious *hen it happened.
&he prosecution sought to prove the element of unconsciousness through the testimon( of
<aniela that on the night of April /, !""/, she *as asleep. As to the element of carnal
1no*ledge, it presented onl( the follo*ing circumstantial evidence=
!. -n the night of April /, !""/, <aniela *o1e up to find her father on top of her, but he
promptl( got off *hen she ;opened her e(es.;
$. &hereafter she felt pain in her vagina.
8. After seventeen months, she left home and *andered from place to place for several more
months, until she met a social *or1er in ?aguio.
). 2he *as then examined and found to have old healed h(menal lacerations at the 8 and
the " o7cloc1 positions and a (ello*ish *hite discharge, *hich indicated infection due to
coitus several times *ith an infected male.
!%
An examination of <aniela7s entire testimon( compels us to reverse the R&C7s hast(
conclusion of rape based onl( on its circumstantial finding of carnal 1no*ledge bet*een
appellant and <aniela. Contrar( to the court a +uo's pronouncement, <aniela *as not
convincing on ver( material points.
G &ell us on the night of April /, !""/ *here *ere (ou thenK
A , *as in our house at Agua 2anta.
G >here is this Agua 2anta *here (ou said (ou *ere thenK
A ,n ?ambang sir.
3,2CAL=
G= Los ?aHos, LagunaK
A Ees, sir.
G >ere (ou alone in (our house or did (ou have companions at that timeK
A 'one, sir.
G >hat time did (ou go to sleep that night of April /, !""/K
A , do not 1no* the time sir.
G >hen as1ed if (ou haIdJ an( companions on that night of April /, !""/ (ou
said (ou haIdJ no companions, tell us *h( *ere (ou alone on that night in (our
houseK
A ?ecausIeJ m( father left.
G 6o* about (our mother, do (ou have an( motherK
A Ees, sir.
G >here *as she on that night of April /, !""/K
A 2he alread( has another famil(.
G >hat time did (ou *a1e up that night of April /, !""/K
A , do not 1no*.
G >ere (ou able to continuousl( sleep the *hole night of April /, !""/K
A 'o, sir.
G >h(K
A ?ecause that night, m( father *ho *as drIuJn1 too1 his bath and after that he
told me to fix his things in going to the office. 2o , *ent upstairs to fix his things and
he follo*ed me.
A&&E. A<ERAE-'=
?efore the next :uestion, *e ob+ect to the ans*er, (our honor, considering
that is not responsive to the :uestion.
3,2CAL=
G >here did he follo* (ouK
A &o the second floor of our house.
G After (our father follo*ed (ou IoJn the second floor of (our house, *hat did he
doK if an(K
A 6e told me it *as cold.
G After he embraced (ou, *hat happenedK
A ;Eong ari ni(a idini1it sa pu*et 1o.;
G After he did that to (ou, *hat did he do nextK
A ;@malis a1o sa harap ni(a at bumaba Ia1oJ ng hagdan.;
A>itness is cr(ingB
G After (ou said (ou left and *ent do*n, *hat did (our father doK
A 6e dressed up and *hen he *as alread( on the first floor, , told him that , *ill
not go *ith him an(more ItoJ the office.
G >h(K <id he as1 (ou to go *ith him ItoJ the officeK
A Ees, sir, *e are al*a(s together in his office and , am sleeping in his office.
G ?( the *a(, *here IisJ this office *here (ou said (our father is *or1ingK
A 'ear the mar1et sir.
G >hat is his *or1 in the mar1etK
A &ax collector sir.
G After (ou told (our father that (ou *ill not go *ith him an(more *hat did he
tell (ouK
A 'othing, he +ust left.
G -n (our part, *hat did (ou do after (our father leftK
A , +ust sta(ed in the first floor of our house, up to . . . nighItJ time and *hen . . .
night time came , *ent to sleep.
3,2CAL=
G= <id (our father come bac1 that nightK
A Ees, sir.
A&&E. A<ERAE-'=
Leading, (our honor.
3,2CAL=
G= >h( did (ou 1no* that (our father *ent bac1 that nightK
A , sa* him that night.
G At *hat time did (ou see him and *hat *as he doing at the time (ou sa*
himK
A >hen , sa* him that night , don7t 1no* *hat time *as thatI.J , returned to
sleep and , *as a*a1ened and felt that someone *as on m( top.
G >ere (ou able to recognize *ho *as that somebod( *ho *as on (our topK
A Ees, sir.
G >hoK
A M( father sir.
G >hat *as (our father doing at the time (ou said he *as on top of (ouK
A >hen , opened m( e(es he left me.
G Can (ou tell us *hat (our father *as *earing *hen (ou said he *as on top of
(ouK
A ants and *hite t4shirt and IheJ *as *earing a vest.
G And *hen (our father (ou said left *hat did (ou notice on (our selfK
A M( private part *as painful.
3,2CAL=
G= Aside from the pain that (ou felt *hat else did (ou InoticeJ from (our private
partK
A ;Mahapdi; *henever , am urinating.
G >hen (ou said (ou felt pain after (our father left, *hat *ere (ou *earingK
A , *as *earing m( uniform.
G At the time (our father left at the time (ou sa* him, *hat *ere (ou *earingK
A , *as *earing s1irt and shorts.
G 2o *hen (ou said (ou felt pain after (ou said (our father *as on top of I(ouJ
and then (ou left, *hat did (ou doK
A , noticed m( pant( *as (ello*ish and *as hot ;mainit ng 1onti;.
G And *hen (ou noticed these things, *hat did (ou doK
A , +ust cried.
G >here *as (our father at the time (ou said (ou *ere cr(ingK
A 6e returned to the mar1et.
G 3inall(, *hat time did (ou *a1e up that morningK
A , *as not able to sleep then.
G &he follo*ing morning, *hat did (ou doK
A , coo1ed rice and prepared m(self IforJ school.
G <id (ou go to school the follo*ing da(K
A 'o, sir.
3,2CAL=
G= >h(K
A , felt laz(.
G >hat did (ou do that da( of April . *hen (ou said (ou did not go to schoolK
A 'othing sir. , +ust sta(ed in the house.
!!
&hen, on redirect examination, she testified=
G= 'o* (ou said that (ou *o1e up, (our father *as on top of (ou, *hat *as he
doing at that time *hen he *as on (our topK
A= 6e *as 1issing me, sir.
G= And aside from 1issing, *hat else x x x did Ihe doJ to (ouK
A= 'othing more, sir.;
!$
,n attempting to clarif( and consolidate its case against appellant, the prosecution succeeded
onl( in destro(ing the testimon( of its star *itness. ,n the process, it further strengthened the
premise that, other than l(ing on top of <aniela and 1issing her, appellant did ;nothing more;
on April /, !""/.
&he circumstantial evidence in the present case admits of the possibilit( that appellant could
have had carnal 1no*ledge of complainant. ?ut *e cannot affirm his death sentence on the
basis alone of a mere possibilit(. 2ettled +urisprudence
!8
re:uires proof be(ond reasonable
doubt, not mere possibilit( of the presence of all the elements of the crime charged.
6ere, the prosecution7s contention that the element of carnal 1no*ledge concurred *ith the
element of unconsciousness is neither believable nor supported b( evidence. &here is no
evidence to sho* that <aniela *as 1noc1ed out, drugged, intoxicated, tired and *orn out or
in an( similar condition that *ould induce such a heav( sleep. &here *as therefore nothing
that *ould account for her insensitivit( to appellant7s supposed act of inserting his penis into
her vagina, if this reall( happened on April /, !""/.
&he prosecution claims that the painful vagina and the lacerated h(men are circumstantial
evidence of carnal 1no*ledge that occurred *hile <aniela *as asleep on the night of April /,
!""/. ,f this *ere so, it follo*s that the purported penile penetration must have been deep
enough to reach and lacerate her h(men at the 8 and the " o7cloc1 positions. ,t is simpl(
incredible that the pain that can reasonabl( be expected from such insertion of a penis into
her (oung, virginal vaginal canal *ould fail to *a1e her up. 6o* could she have slept
through the entr( of her father7s penis into her vagina and its exit therefrom L from
beginning to end L and a*a1ened onl( after the alleged completion of the crime, as the
prosecution *ould have us believeK ,t ma( have been possible if she had been drugged, but
a case must rest on evidence, not on mere possibilit(.
;,t is a legal truism that evidence, to be believed, must not onl( proceed from the mouth of a
credible *itness, but must be credible in itself.;
!)
;>e have no test of the truth of human
testimon(, except in conformit( *ith our 1no*ledge, observation, and experience and
*hatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of +udicial
cognizance.;
!#
,n the present case, the circumstances surrounding the prosecution7s
allegations are not in accord *ith human experience. ;&he proof against the accused must
overcome not onl( ;the test of reason and logic, but above all, that of experience.;
!/
,t is more
reasonable to believe, that, as <aniela herself testified, appellant 1issed her on the night of
April /, !""/ L but did nothing moreC or, as can reasonabl( be inferred from the records, he
had carnal 1no*ledge of her, but she *as conscious and willing.
<octrinall(, *here ;the inculpator( facts and circumstances are capable of t*o or more
explanations one of *hich is consistent *ith the innocence of the accused and the other
consistent *ith his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certaint( and is
not sufficient to support a conviction.;
!.
,t is claimed that appellant had carnal 1no*ledge of his daughter on a da( other than on April
/, !""/, and under some circumstance other than *hile she *as asleep. Aside from
speculation and con+ecture, this argument finds no factual support. And even if true, such
circumstance cannot convict him of the rape charged in the ,nformation.
'either can *e, in these proceedings, convict appellant of rape committed through
intimidation as a result of his moral ascendanc(, even if it *ere proven be(ond reasonable
doubt. 6e *as charged and tried on an ,nformation alleging rape of a *oman *ho *as
;asleep and unconscious.; Convicting him of rape done b( intimidation *ould violate his
constitutional right ;to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.;
!0
Rape, particularl( incestuous rape, is reprehensible and abominable. 6o*ever, to convict the
accused and to sentence him to death re:uires that A!B the prosecution7s evidence for the
elements of the crime and A$B the :ualif(ing circumstances specificall( alleged in the
,nformation must pass the test of moral certaint(. Absent the satisfaction of this stringent
re:uirement, *e must uphold appellant7s constitutional right to be presumed innocent.
>6ERE3-RE, the appeal is 5RA'&E< and the assailed <ecision is hereb( RE9ER2E<
and 2E& A2,<E. Appellant <anilo Abino ( Advincula is ACG@,&&E< on reasonable doubt.
&he director of the ?ureau of Corrections is ordered to cause the immediate release of
appellant, unless the latter is being la*full( held for another causeC and to inform the Court of
the date of appellant7s release, or the reasons for his continued confinement, *ithin ten da(s
from notice. 'o pronouncement as to costs.
G.R. No. 114734 '(.0 23, 1997
!EO!LE O+ :HE !HILI!!INES, plaintiff4appellee,
vs.
/EN'AMIN OR:EGA, 'R. 0 CON'E, MANEL GARCIA 0 RI=ERA ,%$ 'OHN DOE,
accused,
/EN'AMIN OR:EGA, 'R. 0 CON'E ,%$ MANEL GARCIA 0 RI=ERA, accused4
appellants.

!ANGANI/AN, J.:
A person *ho commits a felon( is liable for the direct, natural and logical conse:uences of
his *rongful act even *here the resulting crime is more serious than that intended. 6ence,
an accused *ho originall( intended to conceal and to bur( *hat he thought *as the lifeless
bod( of the victim can be held liable as a principal, not simpl( as an accessor(, *here it is
proven that the said victim *as actuall( alive but subse:uentl( died as a direct result of such
concealment and burial. 'onetheless, in the present case, Appellant 5arcia cannot be held
liable as a principal because the prosecution failed to allege such death through dro*ning in
the ,nformation. 'either ma( said appellant be held liable as an accessor( due to his
relationship *ith the principal 1iller, Appellant -rtega, *ho is his brother4in4la*.
,tatement of the Case
&his case springs from the +oint appeal interposed b( Appellants ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. and
Manuel 5arcia from the <ecision,
1
dated 3ebruar( ", !"") *ritten b( Judge Adriano R.
-sorio,
2
finding them guilt( of murder.
Appellants *ere charged b( 2tate rosecutor ?ernardo 2. Razon in an ,nformation
3
dated
-ctober !", !""$, as follo*s=
&hat on or about -ctober !., !""$ in 9alenzuela, Metro Manila, hilippines
and *ithin the +urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the above4named
accused, conspiring together and mutuall( helping one another, *ithout an(
+ustifiable cause, *ith treacher( and evident premeditation and *ith abuse of
superior strenght AsicB and *ith deliberate intent to 1ill, did then and there
*illfull(, unla*full( and feloniousl( attac1, assault and stab repeatedl( *ith a
pointed *eapon on the different parts of the bod( one A'<RE MAR
MA2A'5MAE ( A?L-LA, thereb( inflicting upon the latter serious ph(sical
in+uries *hich directl( caused his death.
<uring arraignment, Appellants -rtega and 5arcia, assisted b( counsel de oficio,
3
pleaded
not guilt( to the charge.
5
Accused ;John <oe; *as then at large.
4
After trial in due course,
the court a +uo promulgated the :uestioned <ecision. &he dispositive portion reads=
7
>6ERE3-RE, finding accused ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. ( Con+e and Manuel
5arcia ( Rivera IgJuilt( be(ond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, the
Court hereb( sentenced AsicB them to suffer the penalt( of R"C;>,&<0
-"R-"$>A and to pa( the costs of suit.
Accused are hereb( ordered to pa( the offended part( the sum of
8#,%%%.%% for funeral expenses of deceased Andre Mar Masang1a( and
death indemnit( of #%,%%%.%%.
&he 'otice of Appeal, dated March ", !""), *as thus filed b( Att(. Evaristo . 9elicaria
5
*ho
too1 over from the ublic Attorne(7s -ffice as counsel for the accused.
$he %acts
"vidence for the -rosecution
&he trial court summarized the testimonies of the prosecution *itnesses as follo*s=
9
<iosdado Guitlong substantiall( testified that on -ctober !#, !""$ at about
#=8% in the afternoon, he, the victim Andre Mar Masang1a(, Ariel Caranto,
Romeo -rtega, Roberto 2an Andres *ere having a drin1ing spree in the
compound near the house of ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. at <aangba1al,
<alandanan, 9alenzuela, Metro Manila. &hat *hile the( *ere drin1ing,
accused ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. and Manuel 5arcia *ho *ere Ialread(J drun1
arrived and +oined them. &hat victim Andre Mar Masang1a( ans*ered the call
of nature and *ent to the bac1 portion of the house. &hat accused ?en+amin
-rtega, Jr. follo*ed him and later the( Ireferring to the participants in the
drin1ing sessionJ heard the victim Andre Mar shouted, ;<on7t, help meN;
A6u*ag, tulungan nin(o a1oNB &hat he and Ariel Caranto ran to*ards the
bac1 portion of the house and Ithe(J sa* accused ?en+amin -rtega, Jr., on
top of Andre Mar Masang1a( *ho *as l(ing do*n in a canal *ith his face up
and stabbing the latter *ith a long bladed *eapon. &hat Ariel Caranto ran
and fetched ?en+amin -rtega, 2r., the father of accused ?en+amin, Jr. &hat
he IGuitlongJ *ent to Romeo -rtega in the place *here the( *ere having the
drin1ing session Ifor the latterJ to pacif( his brother ?en+amin, Jr. &hat Romeo
-rtega *ent to the place of the stabbing and together *ith ?en+amin -rtega,
Jr. and Manuel 5arcia lifted Andre Mar Masang1a( from the canal and
brought Andre Mar to the *ell and dropped the latter inside the *ell. &hat
Romeo -rtega, ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. and Manuel 5arcia then dropped
stones measuring !! to !$ inches high, $ feet in length and !! to !$ inches
in *eight to the bod( of Andre Mar Masang1a( inside the *ell. &hat Romeo
-rtega *arned him IGuitlongJ not to tell an(bod( of *hat he sa*. &hat he
ans*ered in the affirmative and he *as allo*ed to go home. &hat his house
is about $%% meters from Romeo -rtega7s house. &hat upon reaching home,
his conscience bothered him and he told his mother *hat he *itnessed. &hat
he *ent to the residence of Col. Leonardo -rig and reported the matter. &hat
Col. -rig accompanied him to the 9alenzuela olice 2tation and some police
officers *ent *ith them to the crime scene. &hat accused ?en+amin -rtega,
Jr. and Manuel 5arcia *ere apprehended and *ere brought to the police
station.
-n cross4examination, he said that he did not tal1 to the la*(er before he
*as presented as *itness in this case. &hat he narrated the incident to his
mother on the night he *itnessed the 1illing on -ctober !#, !""$. &hat on
-ctober !#, !""$ at #=8% in the afternoon *hen he arrived, victim Andre Mar
Masang1a(, Romeo -rtega, 2erafin and one ?o(et *ere alread( having IaJ
drin1ing spree and he +oined them. &hat accused ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. and
Manuel 5arcia *ere not (et in the place. &hat the stabbing happened
bet*een !$=%% midnight and !$=8% a.m. &hat the( dran1 gin *ith finger foods
such as por1 and shell fish. &hat he met the victim Andre Mar Masang1a(
onl( on that occasion. &hat accused ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. and Manuel 5arcia
+oined them at about !!=%% p.m. &hat there *as no altercation bet*een
?en+amin -rtega, Jr. and Manuel 5arcia in one hand and Andre Mar
Masang1a(, during the drin1ing session. &hat at about !$=8% a.m. Andre Mar
Masang1a( ans*ered the call of nature and *ent to the bac1 portion of the
house. &hat he cannot see Andre Mar Masang1a( from the place the( *ere
having the drin1ing session. &hat he did not see *hat happened to Andre
Mar Masang1a(. &hat he onl( heard Masang1a( as1ing for help. &hat
accused Manuel 5arcia *as still in the drin1ing session *hen he heard
Masang1a( *as as1ing for help. &hat ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. and Manuel
5arcia are his friends and neighbors. &hat *hen he heard Andre Mar
Masang1a( *as as1ing for help, he and Ariel Caranto ran to the bac1 portion
of the house and sa* ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. on top of Andre Mar Masang1a(
and stabbing the latter. &hat Andre Mar Masang1a( *as l(ing do*n *ith his
bac1 in the canal and ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. on top stabbing the former. &hat
he did not see an( in+uries on ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. &hat he called Romeo
-rtega to pacif( his brother ?en+amin, Jr. &hat he did not do an(thing to
separate ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. and Masang1a(. &hat he 1no*s that Andre
Mar Masang1a( *as courting Ra:uel -rtega. &hat Ra:uel -rtega as1ed
permission from Andre Mar Masang1a( *hen she left bet*een 0=%% and "=%%
p.m. &hat there *as no trouble that occurred during the drin1ing session.
' 2uperintendent Leonardo -rig substantiall( testified that <iosdado
Guitlong is his neighbor for about " (ears. &hat on -ctober !/, !""$ at #=%%
in the morning, he *as summoned b( <iosdado Guitlong and reported to him
the stabbing incident that occurred at <aangba1al near the subdivision he is
living. &hat he rela(ed the information to the 9alenzuela olice 2tation and a
police team under police officer aram accompanied them to the place. &hat
he as1ed the police officers to verif( if there is a bod( of person inside the
*ell. &hat the *ell *as covered *ith stones and he as1ed the police officers
to see1 the help of theneighbors AsicB to remove the stones inside the *ell.
&hat after the stones *ere removed, the bod( of the victim *as found inside
the *ell. &hat the lifeless bod( *as pulled out from the *ell. &hat the bod(
has several stab *ounds. &hat he came to 1no* the victim as Andre Mar
Masang1a(. &hat t*o men *ere arrested b( the police officers.
-n cross4examination, he said that he sa* the bod( *hen ta1en out of the
*ell *ith several stab *ounds. &hat <iosdado Guitlong told him that he *as
drin1ing *ith the victim and the assailants at the time of the incident. &hat
?en+amin -rtega, Jr. stabbed the victim *hile the latter *as ans*ering the
call of nature.
'?, Medico Legal -fficer <r. Ludivico J. Lagat substantiall( testified that he
conducted IanJ autops( on the cadaver of Andre Mar Masang1a( on -ctober
!/, !""$ at the 9alenzuela Memorial 6omes located at Macarthur 6igh*a(.
&hat he prepared the autops( report and the s1etch of human head and bod(
indicating the location of the stab *ounds. &hat the cause of death is multiple
stab *ounds, contributor(, IaJsph(xia b( submersion in *ater. &hat there
*ere !8 stab *ounds, 0 of *hich *ere on the frontal part of the bod(, $ at the
bac1 and there *ere contused abrasions around the nec1 and on the left
arm. &here *as stab *ound at the left side of the nec1. &hat the contused
abrasion could be produced b( cord or *ire or rope. &hat there is AanB incised
*ound on the left forearm. &hat the stab *ounds *hich *ere bac1*ard
do*n*ard of the bod( involved the lungs. &hat the victim *as in front of the
assailant. &hat the stab *ound on the upper left shoulder *as caused *hen
the assailant *as in front of the victim. &hat the assailant *as in front of the
victim *hen the stab *ound near the upper left armpit *as inflicted as *ell as
the stab *ound on the left chest *all. &hat the stab *ound on the bac1 left
side of the bod( and the stab *ound on the bac1 right portion of the bod(
ma( be produced *hen the assailant *as at the bac1 of the victim. &hat the
assailant *as in front of the victim *hen the stab *oundIsJ on the left elbo*
and left arm *ere inflicted. &hat the large air*a( is filled *ith mudd( particles
indicating that the victim *as alive *hen the victim inhaled the mudd(
particles. &he heart is filled *ith multiple hemorrhage, loss of blood or
decreased of blood. &he lungs is filled *ith *ater or mudd( particles. &he
brain is pale due to loss of blood. &he stomach is one half filled *ith mudd(
particles *hich could Ihave beenJ ta1en in *hen submerged in *ater.
-n cross4examination, he said that he found !8 stab *ounds on the bod( of
the victim. &hat he cannot tell if the assailant or the victim *ere standing.
&hat it is possible that the stab *ounds *as AsicB inflicted *hen both
Ireferring to participantsJ *ere standing or the victim *as l(ing do*n and the
assailant *as on top. &hat he cannot tell the number of the assailants.
"vidence for the Appellants
Appellant Manuel 5arcia testified that in the earl( morning of -ctober !#, !""$, he and his
*ife, Maritess 5arcia, brought their feverish daughter, Mar+orie, to the olo Emergenc(
6ospital. 6e left the hospital at seven o7cloc1 in the morning, *ent home, changed his
clothes and *ent to *or1.
16
After office hours, he and ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. passed b( the
canteen at their place of *or1. After drin1ing beer, the( left at eight o7cloc1 in the evening
and headed home. En route, the( chanced on <iosdado Guitlong alias Mac4mac and Andre
Mar Masang1a(, *ho invited them to +oin their o*n drin1ing spree. &hereupon, Appellant
5arcia7s *ife came and as1ed him to go home because their daughter *as still sic1. &o
alleviate his daughter7s illness, he fetched his mother4in4la* *ho performed a ritual called
;ta*as.; After the ritual, he remained at home and attended to his sic1 daughter. 6e then fell
asleep but *as a*a1ened b( police officers at six o7cloc1 in the morning of the follo*ing da(.
Maritess 5arcia substantiall( corroborated the testimon( of her husband. 2he ho*ever
added t*o other participants in the drin1ing session aside from <iosdado Guitlong alias Mac4
mac and Andre Mar Masang1a(, namel(, a .ang 2erafin and ?o(et 2antos.
11
?en+amin -rtega, Jr. li1e*ise substantiall( corroborated the testimon( of Appellant Manuel
5arcia.
12
According to him, bet*een eleven and t*elve o7cloc1 in the evening, Masang1a(
left the drin1ing session. &hirt( A8%B minutes after Masang1a( left, he also left the drin1ing
place to urinate.
13
6e *ent behind the house *here he sa* Masang1a( peeping through the
room of his sister Ra:uel. 6e ignored Masang1a( and continued urinating.
13
After he *as
through, Masang1a( approached him and as1ed *here his sister *as. 6e ans*ered that he
did not 1no*. >ithout *arning, Masang1a( allegedl( boxed him in the mouth, an attac1 that
induced bleeding and caused him to fall on his bac1. >hen he *as about to stand up,
Masang1a( dre* a 1nife and stabbed him, hitting him on the left arm, thereb( immobilizing
him. Masang1a( then gripped his nec1 *ith his left arm and threatened to 1ill him. @nable to
move, -rtega shouted for help. Guitlong came and, to avoid being stabbed, grabbed
Masang1a(7s right hand *hich *as holding the 1nife. Guitlong *as able to *rest the 1nife
from Masang1a( and, *ith it, he stabbed Masang1a( ten A!%B times successivel(, in the left
chest and in the middle of the stomach. >hen
the stabbing started, -rtega moved to the left side of Masang1a( to avoid being hit.
15

Guitlong chased Masang1a( *ho ran to*ards the direction of the *ell. &hereafter, -rtega
*ent home and treated his in+ured left armpit and lips. &hen, he slept.
>hen he *o1e up at six o7cloc1 the follo*ing morning, he sa* police officers in front of his
house. &a1ing him *ith them, the la*men proceeded to the *ell. 3rom the railroad trac1s
*here he *as as1ed to sit, he sa* the police officers lift the bod( of a dead person from the
*ell. 6e came to 1no* the identit( of the dead person onl( after the bod( *as ta1en to the
police head:uarters.
14
$he $rial Court's !iscussion
&he trial court explained its basis for appellants7 conviction as follo*s=
17
&he Court is convinced that the concerted acts of accused ?en+amin -rtega,
Jr., Manuel 5arcia, Jr. and one Romeo -rtega in lifting, carr(ing and
dumping the victim Andre Mar Masang1a( *ho *as still alive and breathing
inside the deep *ell filled *ith *ater, head first and thre* big stonesDroc1s
inside the *ell to cover the victim is a clear indication of the communit( of
design to finishD1ill victim Andre Mar Masang1a(. >ounded and unarmed
victim Andre Mar Masang1a( *as in no position to flee andDor defend himself
against the three malefactors. Conspirac( and the ta1ing advantage of
superior strength *ere in attendance. &he crime committed b( the accused is
Murder.
Concert of action at the moment of consummating the crime and the form
and manner in *hich assistance is rendered to the person inflicting the fatal
*ound ma( determine complicit( *here it *ould not other*ise be evidence
Aeople vs. Eu, 0% 2CRA 80$ A!"..BB.
Ever( person criminall( liable for a felon( is also civill( liable. Accused AmBust
reimburse the heirs of victim Andre Mar Masang1a( the amount of
8#,%%%.%% for the funeral expenses of the deceased.
$he &ssues
,n their ten4page brief, appellants fault the trial court *ith the
follo*ing=
15
,. &he trial court erred in holding that there is conspirac( on
the basis of the prosecution7s evidence that at the time both
accused and one Romeo -rtega lifted the bod( of Andre*
Masang1a( from *here he succumbed due to stab *ounds
and brought and drop said bod( of Andre* Masang1a( to the
*ell to commit murderC
,,. &he trial court erred in finding and holding that Andre*
Masang1a( *as still alive at the time his bod( *as dropped in
the *ellC
,,,. &he trial court erred in convicting Manuel 5arcia and in not
ac:uitting the latter of the crime chargedC and
,9. &he trial court erred in not finding that if at all ?en+amin
-rtega Jr. is guilt( onl( of homicide alone.
-n the basis of the records and the arguments raised b( the appellants and the eople, *e
believe that the :uestion to be resolved could be simplified thus= >hat are the criminal
liabilities, if an(, of Appellants -rtega and 5arciaK
$he Court's Ruling
>e find the appeal partl( meritorious. Appellant -rtega is guilt( onl( of homicide. Appellant
5arcia deserves ac:uittal.
%irst &ssue= ;iability of Appellant <rtega
&he *itnesses for the prosecution and defense presented conflicting narrations. &he
prosecution *itnesses described the commission of the crime and positivel( identified
appellants as the perpetrators. &he *itnesses for the defense, on the other hand, attempted
to prove denial and alibi. As to *hich of the t*o contending versions spea1s the truth
primaril( rests on a critical evaluation of the credibilit( of the *itnesses and their stories. ,n
this regard, the trial court held=
19
&he Court has listened intentl( to the narration of the accused and their
*itnesses and the prosecution *itnesses and has 1eenl( observed their
behavior and demeanor on the *itness stand and is convinced that the stor(
of the prosecution is the more believable version. rosecution e(e*itness
<iosdado Guitlong appeared and sounded credible and his credibilit( is
reinforced b( the fact that he has no reason to testif( falsel( against the
accused. ,t *as <iosdado Guitlong *ho reported the stabbing incident to the
police authorities. ,f Guitlong stabbed and 1illed the victim Masang1a(, he *ill
1eep a*a( from the police authorities and *ill go in hiding. . . .
?ecause the trial court had the opportunit( to observe the *itnesses7 demeanor and
deportment on the stand as the( rendered their testimonies, its evaluation of the credibilit( of
*itnesses is entitled to the highest respect. &herefore, unless the trial +udge plainl(
overloo1ed certain facts of substance and value *hich, if considered, might affect the result
of the case, his assessment of credibilit( must be respected.
26
,n the instant case, *e have meticulousl( scoured the records and found no reason to
reverse the trial court7s assessment of the credibilit( of the *itnesses and their testimonies
21

insofar as Appellant -rtega is concerned. &he narration of E(e*itness <iosdado Guitlong
appears to be spontaneous and consistent. ,t is straightfor*ard, detailed, vivid and logical.
&hus, it clearl( deserves full credence.
-n the other hand, in asserting alibi and denial, the defense bordered on the unbelievable.
Appellant -rtega claimed that after he *as able to free himself from Masang1a(7s grip, he
*ent home, treated his in+uries and slept.
22
&his is not the ordinar( reaction of a person
assaulted. ,f -rtega7s version of the assault *as true, he should have immediatel( reported
the matter to the police authorities, if onl( out of gratitude to Guitlong *ho came to his
rescue. Li1e*ise, it is difficult to believe that a man *ould +ust sleep after someone *as
stabbed in his o*n bac1(ard. 3urther, *e deem it incredible that <iosdado Guitlong *ould
stab Masang1a( ten A!%B times successivel(, completel( ignoring ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. *ho
*as grappling *ith Masang1a(. Also inconsistent *ith human experience is his narration that
Masang1a( persisted in cho1ing him instead of defending himself from the alleged
successive stabbing of Guitlong.
23
&he natural tendenc( of a person under attac1 is to
defend himself and not to persist in cho1ing a defenseless third person.
.urder or )omicide/
Although treacher(, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength *ere alleged in the
information, the trial court found the presence onl( of abuse of superior strength.
>e disagree *ith the trial court7s finding. Abuse of superior strength re:uires deliberate
intent on the part of the accused to ta1e advantage of such superiorit(. ,t must be sho*n that
the accused purposel( used excessive force that *as manifestl( out of proportion to the
means available to the victim7s defense.
23
,n this light, it is necessar( to evaluate not onl( the
ph(sical condition and *eapon of the protagonists but also the various incidents of the event.
25
,n his testimon(, >itness <ominador Guitlong mentioned nothing about Appellant -rtega7s
availment of force excessivel( out of proportion to the means of defense available to the
victim to defend himself. Guitlong described the assault made b( Appellant -rtega as
follo*s=
24
A&&E. AL&@'A=
G >ill (ou please tell me the place and date *herein (ou
have a drin1ing spree *ith Andre* Masang1a( and *here
(ou *itnessed a stabbing incidentK
A ,t *as on -ctober !#, !""$, sir, at about #=8% in the
afternoon *e *ere drin1ing in the house of Mr. ?en+amin
-rtega, 2r., because the house of ?en+amin -rtega 2r. and
the house of his son ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. are near each
other.
xxx xxx xxx
G Mr. >itness, *ho *ere the companions of said persons,
?en+amin -rtega, Jr., Manuel 5arcia, (ou AsicB in drin1ing in
said placeK
A &he other companions in the drin1ing session *ere Ariel
Caranto ( <uca(, Roberto 2an Andres and Romeo -rtega.
G >hat about this victim, Andre* Masang1a(, *here *as he
at that timeK
A Also the victim, Andre* Masang1a(, he *as also there.
G Eou said that the t*o accused, Manuel 5arcia and
?en+amin -rtega, Jr. arrived drun1 and +oined the groupK
A Ees, sir.
G >hat happened nextK
A >hile *e *ere there together and *e *ere drin1ing ...
Ainterrupted b( Att(. AltunaB
G >ho is that ;*e;K
A Referring to ?en+amin -rtega, Jr., Manuel 5arcia, Ariel
Caranto, Romeo -rtega, Roberto 2an Andres, m(self and
Andre* Masang1a(. Andre* Masang1a( ans*er to a call of
nature and *ent to the bac1 portion of the house, and
?en+amin -rtega, Jr. follo*ed him *here he *as.
G >hat happened nextK
A And after*ards *e heard a shout and the shout said
;6u*ag, tulungan n7(o a1o;.
G 3rom *hom did (ou hear this utteranceK
A &he shout came from Andre* Masang1a(.
G After ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. follo*ed Andre* Masang1a( to
ans*er a call of nature and after (ou heard ;hu*ag, tulungan
n7(o a1o; coming from the mouth of the late Andre*
Masang1a(, *hat happened nextK
A Ariel Caranto and , ran to*ards the bac1 portion of the
house.
G And *hat did (ou seeK
A And , sa* that ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. *as on top of Andre*
Masang1a( and he *as stabbing Masang1a(.
G >ill (ou please demonstrate to the 6onorable Court ho*
the stabbing *as done telling us the particular position of the
late Andre* Masang1a( and ho* ?en+amin -rtega, Jr.
proceeded *ith the stabbing against the late victim, Andre*
Masang1a(K
,'&ERRE&ER=
AAt this +uncture, the *itness demonstrating.B
Andre* Masang1a( *as l(ing do*n on a canal *ith his face
up, then ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. *as ;na1a1aba(o; and *ith his
right hand *ith closed fist holding the *eapon, he *as
thrusting this *eapon on the bod( of the victim, he *as
ma1ing do*n*ard and up*ard motion thrust.
A&&E. AL&@'A= A&o the *itnessB
G 6o* man( times did ?en+amin -rtega, Jr. stabbed Andre*
Masang1a(K
A , cannot count the number of times.
,t should be noted that 9ictim Masang1a( *as a six4footer, *hereas Appellant -rtega, Jr.
*as onl( five feet and five inches tall.
27
&here *as no testimon( as to ho* the attac1 *as
initiated. &he accused and the victim *ere alread( grappling *hen Guitlong arrived. 'othing
in the foregoing testimon( and circumstances can be interpreted as abuse of superior
strength. 6ence, -rtega is liable onl( for homicide, not murder.
,econd &ssue= ;iability of Appellant .anuel =arcia
Appellants argue that the finding of conspirac( b( the trial court ;is based on mere
assumption and con+ecture . . .;
25
Allegedl(, the medico4legal finding that the large air*a(
*as ;filled *ith mudd( particles indicating that the victim *as alive *hen the victim inhaled
the mudd( particles; did not necessaril( mean that such mudd( particles entered the bod( of
the victim *hile he *as still alive. &he ,inumpaang ,alaysay of Guitlong stated, ;0ilubayan
lang nang sa*sa* nang mapatay na si Andrew ni en1amin <rtega, (r.; &hus, the
prosecution evidence sho*s Masang1a( *as alread( ;dead; *hen he *as lifted and dumped
into the *ell. 6ence, 5arcia could be held liable onl( as an accessor(.
29
>e do not agree *ith the above contention. Article ), par. !, of the Revised enal Code
states that criminal liabilit( shall be incurred b( ;an( person committing a felon( AdelitoB
although the *rongful act done be different from that *hich he intended.; &he essential
re:uisites for the application of this provision are that AaB the intended act is feloniousC AbB the
resulting act is li1e*ise a felon(C and AcB the unintended albeit graver *rong *as primaril(
caused b( the actor7s *rongful acts. ,n assisting Appellant -rtega, Jr. carr( the bod( of
Masang1a( to the *ell, Appellant 5arcia *as committing a felon(. &he offense *as that of
concealing the bod( of the crime to prevent its discover(, i.e. that of being an accessor( in
the crime of homicide.
36
Although Appellant 5arcia ma( have been una*are that the victim
*as still alive *hen he assisted -rtega in thro*ing the bod( into the *ell, he is still liable for
the direct and natural conse:uence of his felonious act, even if the resulting offense is *orse
than that intended.
&rue, Appellant 5arcia merel( assisted in concealing the bod( of the victim. ?ut the autops(
conducted b( the '?, medico4legal officer sho*ed that the victim at that time *as still alive,
and that he died subse:uentl( of dro*ning.
31
&hat dro*ning *as the immediate cause of
death *as medicall( demonstrated b( the mudd( particles found in the victim7s air*a(, lungs
and stomach.
32
&his is evident from the expert testimon( given b( the medico4legal officer,
:uoted belo*=
33
A&&E. AL&@'A=
G >ill (ou please explain this in simple language the last
portion of Exhibit ', beginning *ith ;tracheo4bronchial tree;,
that is sentence immediatel( after paragraph !%, $.# cms. >ill
(ou please explain thisK
A &he trancheo4bronchial tree is filled *ith mudd( particles.
G , as1 (ou a :uestion on this. Could the victim have possibl(
get this particular materialK
A 'o, sir.
G >hat do (ou mean b( noK
A A person should be alive so that the muddy particles could
be inhaled.
G 2o, in short, (ou are telling or sa(ing to us that if there is no
inhaling or the ta1ing or receiving of mudd( particles at that
time, the person is still aliveK
A Fes, sir.
G 2econd pointK
A &he heart is pale *ith some multiple petechial hemorrhages
at the anterior surface.
G And this ma( IbeJ due to stab *ounds or asph(xiaK
A &hese are the effects or due to asph(xia or decreased
amount of blood going to the heart.
G &his asph(xia are (ou referring to is the dro*ningK
A Ees, sir.
G 'ext point is the lungsK
A &he lungs is also filled *ith multiple petechial hemorrhages.
G >hat could have caused this in+ur( of the lungsK
A &his is due to asph(xia or the loss of blood.
G Are (ou sa(ing that the lungs have been filled *ith *ater or
mudd( particlesK
A Ees, sir.
G And, precisel(, (ou are no* testif(ing that due to stab
*ounds or asph(xia, the lungs have been damaged per (our
ReportK
A Ees, sir.
G Continuing this brain and other visceral organs, pale. >hat
is thisK
A &he paleness of the brain and other visceral organs is due
to loss of blood.
G And, of course, loss of blood could be attributed to the stab
*ound *hich is number !8K
A Ees, sir.
G And the last one, under the particular point ;hemothorax;K
A ,t indicates at the right side. &here are around !,)%% cc of
blood that accumulate at the thoraxic cavit( and this *as
admixed *ith granular materialsK
G And *hat cause the admixing *ith granular materials on
said particular portion of the bod(K
A Could be mudd( particles.
G <ue to the ta1ing of madd( AsicB materials as affected b(
asph(xiaK Am , correctK
A ,t7s due to stab *ounds those mudd( particles *hich set4in
thru the stab *ounds.
G 2o, because of the opening of the stab *ounds, the mudd(
particles no* came in, in that particular portion of the bod(
and caused admixing of granular materialsK
A Ees, sir.
G Continuing *ith (our report, particularl(, the last t*o
portions, *ill (ou please explain the sameK
A &he hemoperitoneum there are "%% cc of blood that
accumulated inside the abdomen.
G And *hat could have cause the sameK
A I&Jhe stab *ound of the abdomen.
G &he last one, stomach !D$ filled *ith mudd( particles.
lease explain the sameK
A &he victim could have ta1en these *hen he *as
submerged in *ater.
G >hat is the ta1e inK
A Mudd( particles.
G And he was still alive at that time/
A Fes, sir. AEmphasis suppliedB
A 3ilipino authorit( on forensic medicine opines that an( of the follo*ing medical findings
ma( sho* that dro*ning is the cause of death=
33
!. &he presence of materials or foreign bodies in the hands of
the victim. &he clenching of the hands is a manifestation of
cadaveric spasm in the effort of the victim to save himself
from dro*ning.
$. ,ncrease in volume Aemph(sema a:uosumB and edema of
the lungs Aedema a:uosumB.
8. resence of *ater and fluid in the stomach contents
corresponding to the medium *here the bod( *as recovered.
). resence of froth, foam or foreign bodies in the air passage
found in the medium *here the victim *as found.
#. resence of *ater in the middle ear.
&he third and fourth findings *ere present in the case of 9ictim Masang1a(. ,t *as
proven that his airpassage, or specificall( his tracheo4bronchial tree, *as filled *ith
mudd( particles *hich *ere residues at the bottom of the *ell. Even his stomach
*as half4filled *ith such mudd( particles. &he unrebutted testimon( of the medico4
legal officer that all these mudd( particles *ere ingested *hen the victim *as still
alive proved that the victim died of dro*ning inside the *ell.
&he dro*ning *as the direct, natural and logical conse:uence of the felon( that. Appellant
5arcia had intended to commitC it exemplifies praeter intentionem covered b( Article ), par.
!, of the Revised enal Code. @nder this paragraph, a person ma( be convicted of homicide
although he had no original intent to 1ill.
35
,n spite of the evidence sho*ing that Appellant 5arcia could be held liable as principal in the
crime of homicide, there are, ho*ever, t*o legal obstacles barring his conviction, even as an
accessor( L as pra(ed for b( appellants7 counsel himself.
%irst. &he ,nformation accused Appellant 5arcia Aand Appellant -rtegaB of ;attac1IingJ,
assaultIingJ, and stabIbingJ repeatedl( *ith a pointed *eapon on the different parts of the
bod( one A'<RE MAR MA2A'5MAE ( A?L-LA.; &he prosecution7s evidence itself sho*s
that 5arcia had nothing to do *ith the stabbing *hich *as solel( perpetrated b( Appellant
-rtega. 6is responsibilit( relates onl( to the attempted concealment of the crime and the
resulting dro*ning of 9ictim Masang1a(. &he hornboo1 doctrine in our +urisdiction is that an
accused cannot be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearl( charged in the complaint or
information. Constitutionall(, he has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. &o convict him of an offense other than that charged in the
complaint or information *ould be a violation of this constitutional right.
34
2ection !), par. $,
of the !"0. Constitution explicitl( guarantees the follo*ing=
A$B ,n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until
the contrar( is proved, and shall en+o( the right to be heard b( himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speed(, impartial, and public trial, to meet the *itnesses face
to face, and to have compulsor( process to secure the attendance of
*itnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. 6o*ever, after
arraignment, trial ma( proceed not*ithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been dul( notified and his failure to appear is
un+ustifiable. AEmphasis suppliedB
,n -eople vs. -ailano,
37
this Court ruled that there can be no conviction for rape on a *oman
;deprived of reason or other*ise unconscious; *here the information charged the accused of
sexual assault ;b( using force or intimidation,; thus=
&he criminal complaint in this case alleged the commission of the crime
through the first method although the prosecution sought to establish at the
trial that the complainant *as a mental retardate. ,ts purpose in doing so is
not clear. ?ut *hatever it *as, it has not succeeded.
,f the prosecution *as see1ing to convict the accused4appellant on the
ground that he violated Anita *hile she *as deprived of reason or
unconscious, such conviction could not have been possible under the
criminal complaint as *orded. &his described the offense as having been
committed b( ;Antonio ailano, being then provided *ith a sc(the, b( means
of violence and intimidation, A*hoB did, then and there, *ilfull(, unla*full( and
feloniousl( have carnal 1no*ledge of the complainant, Anita ,baHez, !# (ears
of age, against her *ill7. 'o mention *as made of the second circumstance.
Conviction of the accused4appellant on the finding that he had raped Anita
*hile she *as unconscious or other*ise deprived of reason L and not
through force and intimidation, *hich *as the method alleged L *ould have
violated his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. IArticle ,9, 2ec. !", Constitution of !".8C no* Article ,,,, 2ec.
!)A$BJ &his right is safeguarded b( the Constitution to ever( accused so he
can prepare an ade:uate defense against the charge against him. Convicting
him of a ground not alleged *hile he is concentrating his defense against the
ground alleged *ould plainl( be unfair and underhanded. &his right *as, of
course, available to the herein accused4appellant.
,n -eople vs. RamireC, Ifn= /" 2CRA !))J *e held that a person charged *ith
rape could not be found guilt( of :ualified seduction, *hich had not been
alleged in the criminal complaint against him. ,n the case of eople vs.
Montes, Ifn= !$$ 2CRA )%"J the Court did not permit the conviction for
homicide of a person held responsible for the suicide of the *oman he *as
supposed to have raped, as the crime he *as accused of L and ac:uitted L
*as not homicide but rape. More to the point is $ubb v. -eople of the
-hilippines, Ifn= !%! hil. !!)J *here the accused *as charged *ith the
misappropriation of funds held b( him in trust *ith the obligation to return the
same under Article 8!#, paragraph lAbB of the Revised enal Code, but *as
convicted of s*indling b( means of false pretenses, under paragraph $AbB of
the said Article, *hich *as not alleged in the information. &he Court said
such conviction *ould violate the ?ill of Rights.
?( parit( of reasoning, Appellant 5arcia cannot be convicted of homicide through dro*ning
in an information that charges murder b( means of stabbing.
,econd. Although the prosecution *as able to prove that Appellant 5arcia assisted in
;concealing . . . the bod( of the crime, . . . in order to prevent its discover(,; he can neither
be convicted as an accessor( after the fact defined under Article !", par. $, of the Revised
enal Code. &he records sho* that Appellant 5arcia is a brother4in4la* of Appellant -rtega,
35
the latter7s sister, Maritess, being his *ife.
39
2uch relationship exempts Appellant 5arcia
from criminal liabilit( as provided b( Article $% of the Revised enal Code=
Art. $%. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. L &he penalties
prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those *ho are such
*ith respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural,
and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives b( affinit( *ithin the same
degrees *ith the single exception of accessories falling *ithin the provisions
of paragraph ! of the next preceding article.
-n the other hand, ;the next preceding article; provides=
Art. !". Accessories. L Accessories are those *ho, having 1no*ledge of the
commission of the crime, and *ithout having participated therein, either as
principals or accomplices, ta1e part subse:uent to its commission in an( of
the follo*ing manners=
!. ?( profiting themselves or assisting the
offender to profit b( the effects of the crime.
$. ?( concealing or destro(ing the bod( of the
crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discover(.
8. ?( harboring, concealing, or assisting in the
escape of the principal of the crime, provided
the accessor( acts *ith abuse of his public
functions or *henever the author of the crime
is guilt( of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to ta1e the life of the Chief Executive,
or is 1no*n to be habituall( guilt( of some
other crime.
Appellant 5arcia, being a covered relative b( affinit( of the principal accused, ?en+amin
-rtega, Jr., is legall( entitled to the afore:uoted exempting provision of the Revised enal
Code. &his Court is thus mandated b( la* to ac:uit him.
-enalty and !amages
&he a*ard of actual damages should be reduced to 8!,."%.%% from 8#,%%%.%%. &he
former amount *as proven both b( documentar( evidence and b( the testimon( of Melba
Lozano, a sister of the victim.
35
-f the expenses alleged to have been incurred, the Court
can give credence onl( to those that are supported b( receipts and appear to have been
genuinel( incurred in connection *ith the death of the victim.
39
6o*ever, in line *ith current
+urisprudence,
36
Appellant -rtega shall also indemnif( the heirs of the deceased in the sum
of #%,%%%.%%. ,ndemnit( re:uires no proof other than the fact of death and appellant7s
responsibilit( therefor.
33
&he penalt( for homicide is reclusion temporal under Article $)" of the Revised enal Code,
*hich is imposable in its medium period, absent an( aggravating or mitigating circumstance,
as in the case of Appellant -rtega. ?ecause he is entitled to the benefits of the
,ndeterminate 2entence La*, the minimum term shall be one degree lo*er, that is, prision
mayor.
>6ERE3-RE, premises considered, the +oint appeal is AR&LE 5RA'&E<. Appellant
?en+amin -rtega, Jr. is found 5@,L&E of homicide and sentenced to ten A!%B (ears of prision
mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen A!)B (ears, eight A0B months and one A!B da( of
reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. Appellant -rtega, Jr. is also -R<ERE< to pa( the
heirs of the victim #%,%%%.%% as indemnit( and 8!,."%.%% as actual damages. Appellant
Manuel 5arcia is ACG@,&&E<. 6is immediate release from confinement is -R<ERE<
unless he is detained for some other valid cause.
G.R. No. L-21731 ',%(,r0 25, 1923
ARELIA CONDE, petitioner,
vs.
!A/LO RI=ERA, ,-t#%& pro?#%-#,. )#s-,. o) :,0,b,s, ,%$
+EDERICO M. NSON, @(st#-e o) t*e pe,-e o) L(-e%,, :,0,b,s, respondents.
MALCOLM, J.:
Aurelia Conde, formerl( a municipal mid*ife in Lucena, &a(abas, has been forced to
respond to no less than five informations for various crimes and misdemeanors, has
appeared *ith her *itnesses and counsel at hearings no less than on eight different
occasions onl( to see the cause postponed, has t*ice been re:uired to come to the
2upreme Court for protection, and no*, after the passage of more than one (ear from the
time *hen the first information *as filed, seems as far a*a( from a definite resolution of her
troubles as she *as *hen originall( charged.
hilippine organic and statutor( la* expressl( guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the
accused shall en+o( the right to have a speed( trial. Aurelia Conde, li1e all other accused
persons, has a right to a speed( trial in order that if innocent she ma( go free, and she has
been deprived of that right in defiance of la*. <ismissed from her humble position, and
compelled to dance attendance on courts *hile investigations and trials are arbitraril(
postponed *ithout her consent, is palpabl( and openl( un+ust to her and a detriment to the
public. ?( the use of reasonable diligence, the prosecution could have settled upon the
appropriate information, could have attended to the formal preliminar( examination, and
could have prepared the case for a trial free from vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
dela(s.
-nce before, as intimidated, the petitioner had to come to us for redress of her grievances.
>e thought then *e had pointed out the *a( for the parties. ?ut it seems not. -nce again
therefore and finall(, *e hope, *e propose to do all in our po*er to assist this poor *oman to
obtain +ustice. -n the one hand has been the petitioner, of humble station, *ithout
resources, but fortunatel( assisted b( a persistent la*(er, *hile on the other hand has been
the 5overnment of the hilippine ,slands *hich should be the last to set an example of dela(
and oppression in the administration of +ustice. &he Court is thus under a moral and legal
obligation to see that these proceedings come to an end and that the accused is discharged
from the custod( of the la*.
>e la( do*n the legal proposition that, *here a prosecuting officer, *ithout good cause,
secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest be(ond a reasonable
period of time, as in this instance for more than a (ear, the accused is entitled to relief b( a
proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of
his libert(, b( habeas corpus to obtain his freedom. A!/ C.J., )8" et se+.C ,n the matter of
3ord I!"!!J, !/% Cal., 88)C @.2. vs. 3ox I!00%J, 8 Montana, #!$. 2ee further our previous
decision in Conde vs. Judge of 3irst ,nstance, 3ourteenth Judicial <istrict, and the rovincial
3iscal of &a(abas, 'o. $!$8/.
!

&he *rit pra(ed for shall issue and the rovincial 3iscal of &a(abas shall abstain from further
attempts to prosecute the accused pursuant to informations gro*ing out of the facts set forth
in previous informations, and the charges no* pending before the +ustice of the peace of
Lucena, &a(abas, are ordered dismissed, *ith cost against the respondent fiscal. >e
append to our order the observation that, *ithout doubt, the Attorne(45eneral, being full(
cognizant of the facts of record, *ill ta1e such administrative action as to him seems proper
to the end that incidents of this character ma( not recur. 2o ordered.
G.R. No. L-42516 '(.0 25, 1953
ELALIA MAR:IN, petitioner,
vs.
GEN. +A/IAN =ER, CHIE+ O+ S:A++, ARMED +ORCES O+ :HE !HILI!!INES ,%$
GEN. HAMIL:ON DIMA7A, 'DGE AD=OCA:E GENERAL, respondents.
!LANA, J.:
&his is a petition for habeas corpus filed b( Eulalia Martin on behalf of her husband, vt.
3rancisco Martin.
vt. Martin *as an enlisted man in the hilippine Arm(. -n or about April !), !"0!, *hen he
*as still in the service, he allegedl( sold t*o grenades to one Rogelio Cruz at #%.%% each,
one of *hich exploded during a picnic in Laoag Cit( on April !., !"0! causing the death of
three persons, including Rogelio Cruz, and in+uries to three others.
According to respondents, vt. Martin has admitted to Cpl. Lucio &uppal, hilippine Arm(,
having sold the grenades to Rogelio Cruz in Laoag Cit(, although this is denied b( vt.
Martin.
After an initial investigation conducted b( the Laoag Cit( C and ,' authorities, a report
*as submitted to the Ministr( of 'ational <efense *hich referred the matter to the Chief of
2taff, A3, *ho in turn directed the ,nspector 5eneral to conduct another investigation.
-n Ma( #, !"0!, vt. Martin *as arrested and confined Arestricted to barrac1sB at 3ort
?onifacio pursuant to Article .% of the Articles of >ar, infra. &he follo*ing (ear, he *as
discharged from the service effective as of Ma( #, !"0$. -n 'ovember !., !"0$ the instant
petition *as filed. &he follo*ing month, i.e., <ecember 8, !"0$, vt. Martin *as charged for
violation of the 0#th and ".th Articles of >ar, *hich read=
AR&. 0#. Easte or >nlawful !isposition of .ilitary -roperty &ssued to
,oldiers.?Any soldier *ho sells or *rongfull( disposes of or *illfull( or
through neglect in+ures or losses an( horse, arms, ammunition,
accouterments, e:uipment, clothing, or other propert( issued for use in the
militar( service, shall be punished as a court4martial ma( direct.
AR&. ".. =eneral Article.L&hough not mentioned in these articles, all
disorders and neglects to the pre+udice of good order and militar( discipline
and all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the militar( service shall be
ta1en cognizance of b( a general or special or summar( court4martial
according to the nature and degree of the offense, and punished at the
discretion of such court.
&he charge sheet stipulates the follo*ing charges=
C6AR5E ,= 9iolation of the 0#th Article of >ar.
2pecification= ,n that rivate Martin assigned *ith the 6ead:uarters and
6ead:uarters 2ervice ?attalion, 3irst ,nfantr( <ivision, hilippine Arm( on or
about !) April !"0! at Laoag Cit( *rongl( disposed of b( sale to Rogelio
Cruz t*o A$B grenades.
C6AR5E ,,= 9iolation of the ".th Article of >ar.
2pecification= ,n that rivate 3rancisco Martin, ... on or about the month of
April !"0! at Laoag Cit(, unla*full( and *ithout authorit( had in his
possession t*o A$B hand grenades thus committing an act pre+udicial to good
order and militar( discipline and of a nature that *ill bring discredit to the
militar( establishment.
&he petitioner contends that having been discharged from the militar( service, he is no
longer sub+ect to court4martial even if the offenses of *hich he is charged *ere committed
*hile he *as still sub+ect to militar( la*. 6e therefore, concludes that his continued detention
pursuant to Article .% of the Articles of >ar A*hich authorizes the arrestDconfinement of an(
person sub+ect to militar( la* *ho is charged *ith an offense under the Articles of >arB is
illegal and he, accordingl(, should be released. &his posture has no merit.
5enerall(, court4martial +urisdiction over persons in the militar( service of the hilippines
ceases upon discharge or other separation from such service. &his ho*ever, is but a general
rule. &he Articles of >ar in terms prescribe some exceptions designed to enhance discipline
and good order *ithin the militar( organization. &hus, court4martial +urisdiction as to certain
cases of fraud and misappropriation of militar( hard*are and other government propert( is
not extinguished b( discharge or dismissal pursuant to the "#th Article of >ar.
AR&. "#. %rauds Against the 5overnment.LAn( person sub+ect to militar(
la* ...
>ho steals, embezzles, 1no*ingl( and *illingl( misappropriates, applies to
his o*n use or benefit or *rongfull( or 1no*ingl( sells or disposes of an(
ordnance, arms, e:uipment, ammunition, clothing, subsistence, stores,
mone(, or other propert( of the 5overnment furnished or intended for the
militar( service thereof ...
2hall, on conviction thereof, be punished b( fine or imprisonment, or b( such
other punishment as a court4martial ma( ad+udge, or b( an( or all of said
penalties. And if any person, being guilty of any of the offenses aforesaid
while in the service of the Armed %orces of the -hilippines or of the hilippine
Constabular( receives his discharge or is dismissed from the service, he
shall continue to be liable to be arrested and held for trial and sentence by a
court-martial in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had not
received such discharge nor been dismissed. AEmphasis supplied.B
,t *as on the basis of the foregoing legal provision, among others, that this Court sustained
the court4martial of the petitioner in <e la Cruz vs. Alcaraz, et al. after his reversion to
inactive status, for misappropriation of public funds committed *hile he *as still in the active
militar( service. &he Court, thru Mr. Justice J. ?. L. Re(es, said=
&here is no :uestion that although appellant had been reverted to inactive
AcivilianB status in the reserve force of the hilippine Arm(, he is still
amenable to investigation and court4martial under the Artitles of >ar b( the
hilippine 'av( for alleged acts of misappropriation of government funds
committed *hile he *as still in the active militar( service. As correctl( held b(
the Court belo*, appellant7s case falls *ithin the provisions of Article "# of
the Articles of >ar ACommon*ealth Act 'o. )%0, as amendedB, *hich
provides as follo*s= ...
&he lo*er Court did not, therefore, err in refusing to en+oin appellant7s
investigation b( the naval authorities on charges that he had misappropriated
public propert( *hile he *as still in the service of the hilippine 'av(,
speciall( since petitioner admits that he is still a member of the Reserve
3orce.; A"" hil. !8% at !8!4!8$.B.
>e conclude that despite his discharge from the militar( service, the petitioner is still sub+ect
to militar( la* for the purpose of prosecuting him for illegal disposal of militar( propert(, and
his preventive detention thereunder L pending trial and punishment for the said offense
committed *hen he *as in the militar( service L is la*ful.
Alternativel(, petitioner maintains that even assuming that the +urisdiction of the militar(
authorities to tr( and punish him *as not abated b( his discharge from militar( service, the
denial to him of his constitutional right to speed( trial Ahe having been confined from the date
of his arrest on Ma( #, !"0! up to <ecember 8, !"0$ *hen he *as formall( charged L a
period of , (ear and . monthsB entitles him to be released on habeas corpus.
&he fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution appl( to all persons, including those
sub+ect to militar( la*, AA:uino vs. Militar( Commission 'o. $, /8 2CRA #)/C Ca(aga vs.
&angonan, // 2CRA $!/C 5o vs. -livas, .) 2CRA $8%C Romero vs. once Enrile, .# 2CRA
)$".B &o :uote Ex arte Milligan, ) >all. $=
&he Constitution is a la* for rulers and for people e:uall( in *ar and in peace
and covers *ith the shield of its protection all classes of men at all times and
under all circumstances.
,t *ould indeed be parodoxical if militar( men *ho are called upon in times of the gravest
national crises to la( do*n their lives in defense of peace and freedom *ould be the ver(
people to be singled out for denial of the fundamental rights for *hich the( ris1 their lives.
3or denial of a constitutional right to the accused, the hearing tribunal ma( lose its
+urisdiction to conduct further proceedings. ,n such a case, habeas corpus *ould lie to obtain
the release of the accused. A5umabon vs. <irector, 8. 2CRA )$%C Acevedo vs. 2armiento,
8/ 2CRA $).C A:uino vs. once Enrile, #" 2CRA !08C 3lores vs. eople, /! 2CRA 88!C
<acu(an vs. Ramos, 0# 2CRA )0., 9entura vs. eople, 0/ 2CRA !00C Romero vs. once
Enrile, .# 2CRA )$"C A:uino vs. once Enrile, supraC 5o vs. -livas, supra.B
,n the case at bar, the petitioner claims that he has been denied his constitutional right of
speed( trial because the charges against him *ere filed onl( about ! (ear and . months
after his arrest.
&here *as no such denial. As stated b( this Court in a per curiam decision= ;x... the test of
violation of the right to speed( trial has al*a(s been to begin counting the dela( from the
time the information is filed, not before the filing. &he dela( in the filing of the information,
*hich in the instant case has not been *ithout reasonable cause, is therefore not to be
rec1oned *ith in determining *hether there has been a denial of the right to speed( trial.;
Aeople vs. -rsal, !!8 2CRA $$/ at $8/.B
At an( rate, *hether or not one has been denied speed( trial is not susceptible to precise
:uantification. At best, the constitutional right of speed( trial is relative, consistent *ith
reasonable dela(s, ta1ing into account the circumstances of each case. As expressed in
?ar1er vs. >ingo, 88 L. Ed $d !%!=
... the right to a speed( trial is a more vague and genericall( different concept
than other constitutional rights guaranteed to accused persons and cannot be
:uantified into a specified number of da(s or months, and it is impossible to
pinpoint a precise time in the +udicial process *hen the right must be
asserted or considered *aived ...
... a claim that a defendant has been denied his right to a speed( trial is
sub+ect to a balancing test, in *hich the conduct of both the prosecution and
the defendant are *eighed, and courts should consider such factors as
length of the dela(, reason for the dela(, the defendant7s assertion or non4
assertion of his right, and pre+udice to the defendant resulting from the dela(,
in determining *hether defendant7s right to a speed( trial has been denied ...
Returning to the case at hand, the criminal act imputed to the petitioner unfortunatel(
resulted in the death of three persons Aincluding Rogelio Cruz *ho allegedl( bought the
handgrenades from the petitionerB and ver( serious in+uries to three others *hose testimon(
is vital to the preferment of charges and prosecution of the petitioner. ,t is therefore not
unreasonable to heed the claim of respondents that the dela( complained of *as occasioned
b( the unavailabilit( of *itnesses, a claim *hich has not at all been challenged or denied b(
the petitioner.
>6ERE3-RE, the petition for habeas corpus is dismissed, *ithout pre+udice to the
petitioner see1ing his provisional release on bail from the militar( authorities or the Ministr(
of 'ational <efense. 'o costs.
G.R. No. 159695 O-tober 27, 2664
S!S. HENR7 ,%$ ROSARIO 7, petitioners,
vs.
HON. 'DGE ARSENIO !. ADRIANO, #% *#s -,p,-#t0 ,s !,#r#%& '($&e o) R:C, /r. 43,
:,r.,- C#t0, CI:7 !ROSEC:OR ALI!IO C. 7ML ,%$ !IAABAMASARA! COR!.,
respondents.
CALLE'O, SR., J.;
Challenged in this instant etition for Revie* on Certiorari is the <ecision
!
of the Court of
Appeals ACAB in CA45.R. 2 'o. /$!%8 *hich affirmed the -rders of the Regional &rial
Court AR&CB of &arlac Cit(
$
den(ing the motion to :uash the ,nformation in Criminal Case
'os. /#!$4").
?ased on a confidential information that petitioner 6enr( @( had been engaged in
manufacturing, delivering, and selling ;fa1e; Marca iHa so( sauce,
8
-rlando 2. ?undoc,
,ntelligence -fficer ,, of the Economic ,ntelligence and ,nvestigation ?ureau AE,,?B, applied
for a search *arrant
)
for unfair competition *hich *as granted on 3ebruar( !), !""). >hen
the search *arrant *as implemented on even date, Att(. 3rancisco R. Estavillo, agent of the
'ational ?ureau of ,nvestigation A'?,B in &arlac, seized fift(4five A##B bottles of label Marca
iHa so( sauce.
#
Conse:uentl(, a criminal complaint *as filed in the Municipal &rial Court AM&CB of &arlac Cit(
on March $8, !""), charging petitioner 6enr( @( *ith violation of Article !0" A@nfair
CompetitionB of the Revised enal Code.
/
-n 'ovember 0, !""), private respondent iHa1amasarap Corporation moved to amend the
criminal charge b( including 6enr(7s spouse, petitioner Rosario @(.
.
&he court granted the
motion in its -rder dated 'ovember !#, !"") and admitted the amended criminal complaint
*hich reads=
&he undersigned, L@,2 E. 5-'OALE2, Comptroller of ,PAMAMA2ARA
C-R-RA&,-' of #08 2ta. 9eronica 2t., 'ovaliches, Guezon Cit(, and b( authorit(
of the said corporation, under oath accuses 6E'RE @E, R-2AR,- 5@&,ERREO @E
and a certain J-6' <-E of 9iolation of Article !0" of the Revised enal Code,
committed as follo*s=
&hat on or about 3ebruar( !), !""), and for sometimes AsicB prior thereto, in
Municipalit( of &arlac, &arlac, hilippines, the said Rosario 5. @( accused, being
then the o*ner of a business establishment *ith principal address at hase ,,
'orthern 6ills 2ubdivision, 2an 9icente, &arlac, &arlac, and her co4accused,
husband, 6E'RE @E, and a certain John <oe, did then and there, *illfull(,
unla*full( and feloniousl( conspire and confederate together and help one another
engaged in unfair competition *ith the intention of deceiving and defrauding the
public in general and the consuming public in general and ,PAMAMA2ARA
Corporation, the manufacturer and bottler of so( sauce under the name ;MARCA
,PA,; a Itrademar1J dul( registered *ith the hilippine atent -ffice and sell or offer
for sale so( sauce manufactured b( them *ith the brand name ;Marca iHa; *hich is
a bastard version of the trademar1, and using the bottles of iHa1amasarap
Corporation and substituted the contents thereof *ith those manufactured b( the
accused and passing to the public that said products to be the products of
iHa1amasarap Corporation *hich is not true, thereb( inducing the public to believe
that the above4mentioned so( sauce sold or offered for sale b( said accused are
genuine ;MARCA ,PA; so( sauce manufactured b( ,PAMAMA2ARA
C-R-RA&,-', and of inferior :ualit( to the damage and pre+udice of the
iHa1amasarap Corporation.
Contrar( to la*.
&arlac, &arlac, 'ovember 0, !"").
0
After preliminar( examination of the prosecution *itnesses, the court found probable cause
to indict petitioners.
"
-n Januar( 8%, !""#, the court issued a *arrant of arrest against
petitioners.
!%
&he( *ere released after posting a cash bond on 3ebruar( !, !""#.
!!
-n Jul(
!%, !""#, petitioners *ere arraigned, assisted b( counsel, and pleaded not guilt( to the
charge.
!$
etitioners, through counsel, *aived the pre4trial conference on -ctober $#, !""#.
&he initial trial *as set on 'ovember $., !""#.
!8
6o*ever, it *as onl( on 3ebruar( $/, !""/ that the first *itness of the prosecution, Att(.
Estavillo of the '?,, testified. ,n the meantime, in -ctober !""/, this Court issued
Administrative -rder AA.-.B 'o. !%)4"/ providing, inter alia, that the R&C shall have
exclusive +urisdiction over violations of Articles !00 and !0" of the Revised enal Code and
Republic Act AR.A.B 'o. !//, as amended, thus=
9,-LA&,-'2 -3 ,'&ELLEC&@AL R-ER&E R,56&2 2@C6 A2, ?@& '-&
L,M,&E< &-, 9,-LA&,-'2 -3 AR&. !00 -3 &6E RE9,2E< E'AL C-<E
A2@?2&,&@&,'5 A'< AL&ER,'5 &RA<EMARM2, &RA<E 'AME2, -R 2ER9,CE
MARM2B, AR&. !0" -3 &6E RE9,2E< E'AL C-<E A@'3A,R C-ME&,&,-',
3RA@<@LE'& RE5,2&RA&,-' -3 &RA<EMARM2, &RA<E 'AME2, -R
2ER9,CE MARM2, 3RA@<@LE'& <E2,5'A&,-' -3 -R,5,', A'< 3AL2E
<E2CR,&,-'B, .<. '-. )" AR-&EC&,-' -3 ,'&ELLEC&@AL R-ER&E
R,56&2B, .<. '-. 0. AA' AC& CREA&,'5 &6E 9,<E-5RAM RE5@LA&-RE
?-AR<B, R.A. '-. !/#, A2 AME'<E< A&6E A&E'& LA>B, A'< R.A. '-. !//,
A2 AME'<E< A&6E &RA<EMARM LA>B 26ALL ?E &R,E< EFCL@2,9ELE ?E
&6E RE5,-'AL &R,AL C-@R&2 ,' ACC-R<A'CE >,&6 &6E E2&A?L,26E<
RA33LE 2C6EME EFCE& &6-2E C-9ERE< ?E A<M,',2&RA&,9E -R<ER
'-. !!84"# <A&E< $ -C&-?ER !""#, ,' >6,C6 CA2E, &6E <E2,5'A&E<
RE5,-'AL &R,AL C-@R&2 26ALL C-'&,'@E &- -?2ER9E &6E R-9,2,-'2
&6ERE,'.
C-'2,<ER,'5 &6A& J@R,2<,C&,-' 3-R 9,-LA&,-'2 -3 ,'&ELLEC&@AL
R-ER&E R,56&2 6ERE,'?E3-RE ME'&,-'E< ,2 '-> C-'3,'E<
EFCL@2,9ELE &- &6E RE5,-'AL &R,AL C-@R&2, &6E <E2,5'A&,-' -3
ME&R--L,&A' &R,AL C-@R&2 A'< M@',C,AL &R,AL C-@R&2 ,' C,&,E2
@'<ER A<M,',2&RA&,9E -R<ER '-. !!84"# ,2 <ELE&E< A'< >,&6<RA>'.
<espite the administrative order of the Court, the M&C continued *ith the trial. 5loria .
&omboc, Anal(st of the ?ureau of 3ood and <rugs Administration A?3A<B, testified on
August $#, !"".. ,n the meantime, Articles !00 and !0" of the Revised enal Code *ere
amended b( R.A. 'o. 0$"8, other*ise 1no*n as the ,ntellectual ropert( Code. &*o (ears
thereafter, Alfredo Lombo(, supervisor of iHa1amasarap Corporation, testified on August
8%, !""".
-n <ecember !$, !""", the prosecution filed its formal offer of evidence.
!)
,n the meantime,
on -ctober $$, !""", Att(. Joselito L. Lim had moved to *ithdra* his appearance as counsel
for petitionersC
!#
the court had granted the motion on -ctober $#, !"""C
!/
and the ne*
counsel of petitioners, ?albastro and Associates, had entered its appearance on 'ovember
$), !""".
!.
-n 3ebruar( !#, $%%%, the court resolved to admit the documentar( evidence of the
prosecution except Exhibit ;E; *hich *as re+ected b( the court, and Exhibits ;,; and ;J; *hich
*ere *ithdra*n.
!0
&he prosecution rested its case.
-n March !%, $%%%, petitioners, through their ne* counsel, filed a Motion for Leave to 3ile
<emurrer to Evidence.
!"
&he court granted the motion. ,n their demurrer,
$%
petitioners argued
that a +udgment of ac:uittal is proper since no sufficient evidence *as presented to prove
be(ond reasonable doubt that the( are guilt( of the offense charged. &he prosecution *as
not able to establish that the( gave their goods the general appearance of another
manufacturer or dealer and that the( had the intent to defraud the public or iHa1amasarap
Corporation. Moreover, under both R.A. 'o. !//, as amended, and its repealing la*, R.A.
'o. 0$"8, the R&C had +urisdiction over the crime chargedC hence, the amended complaint
should be :uashed.
&he prosecution opposed the demurrer to evidence, contending that it had presented proof
be(ond reasonable doubt of the guilt of petitioners for the crime charged. &he prosecution
maintained that, under ?atas ambansa A?..B ?lg. !$", the M&C had +urisdiction over the
crime charged in the light of the imposable penalt( for unfair competition under Article !0" of
the Revised enal Code.
$!
,n its Resolution dated Ma( !/, $%%%,
$$
the court held that there *as prima facie evidence
*hich, if unrebutted or not contradicted, *ould be sufficient to *arrant the conviction of
petitioners. 6o*ever, the court ruled that the R&C *as vested b( la* *ith the exclusive and
original +urisdiction to tr( and decide charges for violation of R.A. 'o. !// as amended b(
R.A. 'o. 0$"8. Accordingl(, the court denied the demurrer to evidence and ordered the
records of the case for*arded to the -ffice of the rovincial rosecutor for appropriate
action.
&he Cit( rosecutor for*arded the case records to the Cler1 of Court of R&C, ?r. /8, &arlac
Cit(.
$8
-n June !", $%%%, the R&C ordered the Cit( rosecutor to conduct the re:uisite
preliminar( investigation and to file the necessar( ,nformation if he found probable cause
against petitioners.
&he Cit( rosecutor found probable cause based on the findings of the M&C in its Ma( !/,
$%%% Resolution that there *as a prima facie case against petitioners.
$)
6e filed an
,nformation in the R&C on Jul( !0, $%%% for violation of Article !0" of the Revised enal
Code.
$#
&he ,nformation reads=
&hat on or about 3ebruar( !), !"") and sometime prior thereto, at &arlac Cit(, and
*ithin the +urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the accused, being the o*ner of a
business establishment *ith principal address at hase ,, 'orthern 6ills 2ubd., 2an
9icente, &arlac Cit(, the accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another
did then and there *illfull(, unla*full( and feloniousl(, in unfair competition *ith the
intention of deceiving and defrauding the public in general and the
,PAMAMA2ARA C-R-RA&,-', the name ;MARCA ,PA,; and sell or offer for
sale so( sauce manufactured b( them *ith the brand name ;Marca iHa,; *hich is a
version of the trademar1, and using the bottles of iHa1amasarap Corporation and
substituted the contents thereof *ith those manufactured b( the accused and
passing to the public the products, thereb( inducing the public to believe that the so(
sauce sold or offered for sale b( the accused are genuine ;MARCA ,PA; so(
sauce, to the damage and pre+udice of ,PAMAMA2ARA C-R-RA&,-'.
C-'&RARE &- LA>.
$/
etitioners filed a Motion to Guash the ,nformation,
$.
alleging that their rights to due process
and speed( trial had been violated. -ther than the notice of hearing sent b( the court, the(
never received a subpoena *hich re:uired them to submit their evidence during a
preliminar( investigation. etitioners further averred that certain dela(s in the trial are
permissible, especiall( *hen such dela(s are due to uncontrollable circumstances or b(
accident. ,n this case, the inordinate dela( *as obviousl( brought b( the lac1adaisical
attitude ta1en b( the prosecutor in prosecuting the case. etitioners pointed out that there
*as alread( a dela( of six A/B long (ears from the time the initial complaint *as filed, and that
the( had alread( been pre+udiced. &heir life, libert( and propert(, not to mention their
reputation, have been at ris1 as there has been no determination of the issue of *hether or
not to indict them. &hus, the case should be dismissed in order to free them from further
capricious and oppressive dilator( tactics of the prosecution. ,ndeed, their right to a speed(
trial is part of due process, both of *hich are guaranteed b( no less than the fundamental
la* itself. &he( insisted that the( should not be made to un+ustl( a*ait the prosecution of the
charges against them.
,n opposition, the Cit( rosecutor clarified that subpoenas *ere sent to the parties during the
preliminar( investigation. ,n fact, petitioner 6enr( @( appeared and submitted the case for
resolution *ithout submitting additional evidence. Also, the proceedings in the M&C *ere not
part of preliminar( investigation but the trial on the merits.
$0
-n 2eptember 0, $%%%, the court issued an -rder den(ing the motion to :uash.
$"
&he court
ruled that=
>hile there must have been a protracted trial since the case *as originall( filed
before the Municipal &rial Court, a period of about six A/B (ears, as the accused
contends, nevertheless the dela( if an(, is partl( attributable to the accused. I&he(J
allo*ed the prosecution to rest the evidence in chief before raising the issue of lac1
of +urisdiction. 6ad the accused immediatel( raised the issue of lac1 of +urisdiction,
this case could have been filed ane* before the R&C. &he accused allo*ed
themselves to be arraigned *ithout raising the issue of +urisdiction. ,n fact, the
prosecution IhadJ rested its evidence in chief.
&he parties ma(I,J ho*everI,J stipulate in the pre4trial that all the proceedings ta1en
before the Municipal &rial Court are automaticall( reproduced and are considered
part of the prosecution7s evidence, so that the trial *ill no* be *ith respect to the
reception of defense evidence.
8%
etitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the -rder
8!
*hich the trial court denied.
8$
At
the same time, the court granted the oral motion of the prosecution to amend the ,nformation
to reflect in its caption that the la* violated b( the accused is R.A. 'o. 0$"8 and not Article
!0" of the Revised enal Code. -n -ctober !$, $%%%, the Cit( rosecutor filed an amended
,nformation. &he inculpator( portion reads=
&hat on or about 3ebruar( !), !"") and sometimes prior thereto, at &arlac Cit(, and
*ithin the +urisdiction of this 6onorable Court, the accused, being the o*ner of a
business establishment *ith principal address at hase ,, 'orthern 6ills 2ubd., 2an
9icente, &arlac Cit(, the accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another
did then and there *illfull(, unla*full( and feloniousl(, in 9iolation of 2ec. !/0 of R.A.
'o. 0$"8 *ith the intention of deceiving and defrauding the public in general and the
,PAMAMA2ARA C-R-RA&,-', the name ;MARCA ,PA,; and sell or offer for
sale so( sauce manufactured b( them *ith the brand name ;Marca iHa,; *hich is a
version of the trademar1, and using the bottles of iHa1amasarap Corporation and
substituted the contents thereof *ith those manufactured b( the accused and
passing to the public the products, thereb( inducing the public to believe that the so(
sauce sold or offered for sale b( the accused are genuine ;MARCA ,PA; so(
sauce, to the damage and pre+udice of ,PAMAMA2ARA C-R-RA&,-'.
C-'&RARE &- LA>.
88
etitioners then filed before the CA a petition for certiorari *ith pra(er for temporar(
restraining order and preliminar( in+unction,
8)
on the sole ground that respondent +udge
committed grave abuse of discretion in den(ing their motion to :uash based on violation of
their right to a speed( trial. &he( claimed that there *as no active effort on their part to dela(
the case as the( merel( attended the scheduled hearings and participated in the preliminar(
investigation. -n the contrar(, it is the prosecution that has the unmitigated obligation to
immediatel( file the ,nformation *ith the proper court. &he public prosecutor is supposedl(
1no*ledgeable of the existing la*s and +urisprudence since his office has the delicate tas1 of
prosecuting cases in behalf of the 2tate. @nder the Rules on Criminal rocedure, he is the
officer responsible for the direction and control of criminal prosecutions. ,n the case at bar,
the public prosecutor failed in his bounden dut( b( neglecting to file the case in the court of
competent +urisdiction. &he prosecution could not advance a single reason to +ustif( the
procedural error and instead pointed its accusing finger to petitioners *ho are +ust ordinar(
citizens. &heir failure to call the attention of the prosecution is neither ac:uiescence nor
consent on their part. >hile their former la*(er *as obviousl( lac1luster in their defense, the
act of the counsel should not deprive them of their constitutional right to a speed( trial. 3or
petitioners, the prosecution7s blunder in procedure and ignorance of existing la*s and
+urisprudence far out*eigh *hatever minimal participation, if an(, the( had in the protracted
proceedings.
-n March $!, $%%8, the CA dismissed the petition.
8#
&he fallo of the decision reads=
9HERE+ORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereb( DISMISSED for
lac1 of merit. &he -rders dated 2eptember 0, $%%% and -ctober ", $%%% of the public
respondent are hereb( DISMISSED.
8/
,n dismissing the petition, the appellate court ratiocinated that=
I&Jhe right to a speed( disposition of a case, li1e the right to speed( trial, is deemed
violated onl( *hen the proceeding is attended b( vexatious, capricious and
oppressive dela(s; ACastillo v. ,andiganbayan, 8$0 2CRA /", ./BC ;or *hen
un+ustified postponements of the trial are as1ed for and secured, or *hen *ithout
cause or +ustifiable motive a long period of time is allo*ed to elapse *ithout the part(
having his case tried.; Ainay v. ,andiganbayan, 8!/ 2CRA /#, "8B
,n the instant case, aside from the fact that it too1 almost six (ears for the
prosecution to complete the presentation of its evidence, petitioners failed to sho*
that the dela(, if ever there is an(, *as caused solel( b( the prosecution. 'either did
the petitioners sho* that the proceedings before the Municipal &rial Court *as
attended b( vexatious, capricious and oppressive dela(s attributable to the
prosecution or that un+ustified postponements of the trial *ere as1ed for and secured
b( the prosecution to the pre+udice of the petitioners. &he fact alone that the
prosecution had consumed six A/B (ears to complete its presentation of evidence,
*ithout an( allegation or proof that the prosecution has caused unreasonable dela(s
or that the proceeding *as attended b( vexatious, capricious and oppressive dela(s,
to -ur minds is not sufficient for the application upon the petitioners of their
Constitutional right to speed( trial. ;A mere mathematical rec1oning of the time
involved, therefore, *ould not be sufficient. ,n the application of the Constitutional
guarantee of the right to speed( disposition of cases, particular regard must also be
ta1en of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.; Ainay v.
,andiganbayan, supra, p. "8B. ,n the case at bar, petitioners failed to present, for -ur
perusal, the circumstances attending the trial of their case before the Municipal &rial
Court.
&he onl( controvers( of the instant case lies in the fact that the Municipal &rial Court
*hich heard the case has no +urisdiction over the said case. >hile it ma( be
conceded that the prosecution erred in not filing the information against the
petitioners to a proper court, still, petitioners are not blameless in this regard.
etitioners, through their counsel, had activel( participated in the proceedings before
the Municipal &rial Court. etitioners had to *ait for almost six A/B (ears to elapse
before the( brought to the attention of the Municipal &rial Court that it had no
+urisdiction to hear the case against the petitioners. etitioners have, b( reason of
their participation in the proceedings before the Municipal &rial Court and also b(
reason of their silence and inaction, allo*ed the Municipal &rial Court to proceed *ith
a case for six A/B (ears despite absence of +urisdiction of such court to hear the case.
>e cannot allo* the petitioners to reap from their acts or omissions. ;A litigation is
not a game of technicalities in *hich one, more deepl( schooled and s1illed in the
subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destro(s the other.; A%ortune
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, $$" 2CRA 8##, 8/)B
;&he constitutional privilege *as never intended as furnishing a technical means for
escaping trial.; A"sguerra v. Court of %irst &nstance of .anila, et al., "# hil. /%",
/!!4/!$B ;&he right of an accused to a speed( trial is guaranteed to him b( the
Constitution, but the same shall not be utilized to deprive the 2tate of a reasonable
opportunit( of fairl( indicting criminals. ,t secures rights to an accused, but it does not
preclude the rights of public +ustice. A!omingo v. ,andiganbayan, 8$$ 2CRA /##,
//.B
8.
etitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, *hich the appellate court denied.
80
etitioners sought relief from this Court on a petition for revie*, alleging that=
&6E 6-'-RA?LE C-@R& -3 AEAL2 C-MM,&&E< 5RA9E A?@2E -3
<,2CRE&,-' AM-@'&,'5 &- LACM -R EFCE22 -3 J@R,2<,C&,-' >6E' ,&
A33,RME< &6E C-@R& A :><72 <E',AL -3 E&,&,-'ER27 M-&,-' &-
G@A26, ?A2E< -' 9,-LA&,-' -3 &6E,R R,56& &- 2EE<E &R,AL A2EC. !/,
AR&. 8, !"0. C-'2&,&@&,-'B.
8"
etitioners reiterate their arguments in the CA to support the present petition. &he( aver that=
,n this case, the prosecution too1 six A/B long and grueling (ears before it filed an
,nformation *ith a competent court, despite the fact that +urisdiction of the Regional
&rial Courts over trademar1 cases remained unchanged since the birth of the
&rademar1 La*. 2urel(, this inordinate dela( can be considered a ;vexatious,
capricious and oppressive dela(; *hich is constitutionall( impermissible in this
+urisdiction pursuant to the right of the accused to speed( trial.
,ndeed, petitioners have been pre+udiced. &heir lives, libert( and propert(, not to
mention their reputation have all been put at ris1 for so long.
&he public prosecutor failed to explain the reason for the dela(. &ruth to tell, even at
this last stage, the public prosecutor chooses to remain silent *h( it had un+ustifiabl(
ta1en him too long to file this case before a competent court. @nfortunatel(, the Court
of Appeals deliberatel( ignored this glaring fla* committed b( the public prosecutor
and instead focused on petitioners7 alleged negligence in not raising the issue of
+urisdiction earlier. ,t further ruled that due to this fact, petitioners are thus not entirel(
blameless for the dela( of the trial.
&ruth to tell, these findings of the Court of Appeals are palpabl( erroneous.
3irstl(, it is elementar( that +urisdiction over the sub+ect matter ma( be raised at an(
stage of the proceedings. &his is because no amount of *aiver can confer +urisdiction
on a court over an offense for *hich such +urisdiction has not been conferred b( la*
in the first place.
2econdl(, even assuming that petitioners failed to raise the issue of +urisdiction
earlier, still, the( could not be estopped from invo1ing their right to speed( trial. &he
dela( to be considered ;partl( attributable; to the accused A*hich could *or1 against
him in invo1ing the right to speed( trialB presupposes an active effort of the defendant
to dela( the case A.anabat v. $imbang, .) hil. $"#B. &here is no violation of the
right to speed( trial *here the dela( is imputable to the accused A,olis v. Agloro, /8
2CRA 8.%B. 6ere, it *as the prosecution that had the unmitigated obligation to file
the ,nformation *ith the correct court, *ithin a reasonable time. ,t did not. 2uch
blunder *as fatal to its cause.
&o emphasize, petitioners need not even call the attention of the prosecution that it
had failed to file the case *ith the proper court, contrar( to the opinion of the Court of
Appeals. x x x
)%
x x x x
Although petitioners agree *ith the Court of Appeals that mere mathematical
rec1oning of time *ould not be sufficient for the application of the right to speed(
trial, still, the public prosecutor7s blunder should alread( be considered ;vexatious,
capricious and oppressive; *arranting the dismissal of the case.
,ndeed, to condone the public prosecutor7s manner of having directed this case, +ust
li1e *hat the Court of Appeals did, might give rise to a disturbing precedent *here
the constitutional right of the accused could ver( *ell be set aside to +ustif( the
mishandling of the prosecution b( officers of the 2tate.
)!
2ection !AhB, Rule !!# of the Revised Rules of Criminal rocedure provides that the accused
is entitled to a speed(, impartial and public trial. 2ection $, Rule !!" of the said Rules
provides that trial, once commenced, shall be continuous until terminated=
2ec. $. Continuous trial until terminatedG postponements. Q &rial, once commenced,
shall continue from da( to da( as far as practicable until terminated. ,t ma( be
postponed for a reasonable period of time for good cause.
&he court shall, after consultation *ith the prosecutor and defense counsel, set the
case for continuous trial on a *ee1l( or other short4term trial calendar at the earliest
possible time so as to ensure speed( trial. ,n no case shall the entire trial period
exceed one hundred eight( A!0%B da(s from the first da( of trial, except as other*ise
authorized b( the 2upreme Court.
&he time limitations provided under this section and the preceding section shall not
appl( *here special la*s or circulars of the 2upreme Court provide for a shorter
period of trial.
6o*ever, an( period of dela( resulting from a continuance granted b( the court motu
proprio, or on motion of either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution, if the court
granted the continuance on the basis of its findings set forth in the order that the ends of
+ustice is served b( ta1ing such action out*eigh the best interest of the public and the
accused on a speed( trial, shall be deducted.
&he trial court ma( grant continuance, ta1ing into account the follo*ing factors=
AaB >hether or not the failure to grant a continuance in the proceeding *ould li1el(
ma1e a continuation of such proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage of
+usticeC and
AbB >hether or not the case ta1en as a *hole is so novel, unusual and complex, due
to the number of accused or the nature of the prosecution, or that it is unreasonable
to expect ade:uate preparation *ithin the periods of time established therein.
,n addition, no continuance under section 8AfB of this Rule shall be granted because
of congestion of the court7s calendar or lac1 of diligent preparation or failure to obtain
available *itnesses on the part of the prosecutor.
)$
@nder the Constitution and 2ection !A.B of Rule !!# of the Revised Rules of Criminal
rocedure, the accused shall be entitled to have a speed( and impartial trial. ;2peed( trial; is
a relative term and necessaril( a flexible concept.
)8
,n determining *hether the right of the
accused to a speed( trial *as violated, the dela( should be considered, in vie* of the
entiret( of the proceedings.
))
,ndeed, mere mathematical rec1oning of the time involved
*ould not suffice
)#
as the realities of ever(da( life must be regarded in +udicial proceedings
*hich, after all, do not exist in a vacuum.
)/
Apart from the constitutional provision and 2ection !!#, 2ection !AiB of the Rules of Criminal
rocedure, A.-. 'o. !!84"# of the Court provides that=
&he trial of cases for violation of ,ntellectual ropert( Rights covered b( this
Administrative -rder shall be immediatel( commenced and shall continue from da(
to da( to be terminated as far as practicable *ithin sixt( A/%B da(s from initial trial.
Judgment thereon shall be rendered *ithin thirt( A8%B da(s from date of submission
for decision.
More than a decade after the !".$ leading @.2. case of ar*er v. Eingo
).
*as promulgated,
this Court, in .artin v. Ver,
)0
began adopting the ;balancing test; to determine *hether a
defendant7s right to a speed( trial has been violated. As this test necessaril( compels the
courts to approach speed( trial cases on an ad hoc basis, the conduct of both the
prosecution and defendant are *eighed apropos the four4fold factors, to *it= A!B length of the
dela(C A$B reason for the dela(C A8B defendant7s assertion or non4assertion of his rightC and A)B
pre+udice to defendant resulting from the dela(.
)"
'one of these elements, ho*ever, is either
a necessar( or sufficient conditionC the( are related and must be considered together *ith
other relevant circumstances. &hese factors have no talismanic :ualities as courts must still
engage in a difficult and sensitive balancing process.
#%
A. ;ength of the !elay
&he length of dela( is to some extent a ;triggering mechanism.; @ntil there is some dela(,
*hich is presumptivel( pre+udicial, there is no necessit( to in:uire into the other three factors.
'evertheless, due to the imprecision of the right to a speed( trial, the length of dela( that *ill
provo1e such an in:uir( is necessaril( dependent upon the peculiar circumstances of the
case.
#!
. Reason for the !elay
@nder 2ection ", Rule !!" of the Revised Rules of Criminal rocedure, the accused have
the burden to prove the factual basis of the motion to :uash the ,nformation on the ground of
denial of their right to a speed( trial.
#$
&he( must demonstrate that the dela( in the
proceedings is vexatious, capricious, and oppressiveC or is caused b( un+ustified
postponements that *ere as1ed for and securedC or that *ithout cause or +ustifiable motive,
a long period of time is allo*ed to elapse *ithout the case being tried.
#8
-n the other hand,
the prosecution is re:uired to present evidence establishing that the dela( *as reasonabl(
attributed to the ordinar( processes of +ustice, and that petitioners suffered no serious
pre+udice be(ond that *hich ensued after an inevitable and ordinar( dela(.
#)
&he records bear out the contention of petitioners that there had been a considerable dela(
in the trial in the M&C. @pon motionDagreement of petitioners and the prosecution, or
because of the +oint absences, the trial of the case *as dela(ed for more than !! months.
##

,n its o*n instance, the M&C also reset some of the trial dates in order to correct mista1es in
scheduling or because the *itnesses *ere not dul( notified,
#/
thus, dela(ing the trial of the
case for an additional seven months. Even petitioners contributed to the dela( of more than
five months Q the( or their former counsel *ere either absent or moved for postponements to
attend another pending case or due to health concerns.
#.
&he dela( of about $! months,
covering !# re4settings, can be attributed to the prosecution. 6o*ever, except in five
instances, *hen the trial *as reset because the private prosecutor had to attend to some
professional
#0
and personal matters,
#"
the dela(s *ere brought about because of the recent
engagement of legal service,
/%
absence of the public prosecutor,
/!
and unavailabilit( of
documents
/$
and *itnesses.
/8

'ot onl( the petitioners but the 2tate as *ell *ere pre+udiced b( the inordinate dela( in the
trial of the case. ,t too1 the prosecution more than four (ears to rest its case after presenting
onl( three *itnesses. 6ad the prosecution, petitioner and the trial court been assiduous in
avoiding an( inordinate dela( in the trial, the prosecution could have rested its case much
earlier. &he court even failed to order the absent counselDprosecutorD*itnesses to
explainD+ustif( their absences or cite them for contempt. &he speed( trial mandated b( the
Constitution and the Revised Rules of Criminal rocedure is as much the responsibilit( of
the prosecution, the trial court and petitioners to the extent that the trial is inordinatel(
dela(ed, and to that extent the interest of +ustice is pre+udiced.
&he case before the R&C should not be dismissed simpl( because the public prosecution did
not move for the dismissal of the case in the M&C based on A.-. 'o. !%)4"/ declaring that
the R&C has exclusive +urisdiction over cases under Articles !00 and !0" of the Revised
enal CodeC or for failure of the M&C to motu proprio dismiss the case on that ground. &he
Cit( rosecutor then believed in good faith, albeit erroneousl(, that under R.A. 'o. ./"!
*hich amended ?.. ?lg. !$", the M&C had +urisdiction over the crime charged.
&he mista1e of the Cit( rosecutor and the failure of the M&C to dismiss the case motu
proprio should not pre+udice the interest of the 2tate to prosecute criminal offenses and,
more importantl(, defeat the right of the offended part( to redress for its grievance.
2ignificantl(, petitioners do not attribute to the prosecution or to the M&C an( malice
aforethought or conscious disregard of their right to a speed( trialC nor have substantiall(
proven the same b( clear and convincing evidence. 6ence, absent sho*ing of bad faith or
gross negligence, dela( caused b( the lapse of the prosecution is not in itself violative of the
right to a speed( trial.
<ifferent *eights should be assigned to various reasons b( *hich the prosecution +ustifies
the dela(. A deliberate attempt to dela( the trial in order to hamper the defense should be
*eighed heavil( against the prosecution. A more neutral reason such as negligence or
overcro*ded courts should be *eighed less heavil( but nevertheless should be considered
since the ultimate responsibilit( for such circumstances must rest *ith the government rather
than *ith defendant.
/)
,n CorpuC v. ,andiganbayan,
/#
the Court had carefull( balanced the societal interest in the
case, *hich involved the so4called ;tax credit certificates scam,; and the need to give
substance to the defendants7 constitutional rights. ,n said suit, *e upheld the decision of the
2andiganba(an A2pecial 3ourth <ivisionB that the dismissal of the cases *as too drastic,
precipitate and un*arranted. >hile the Court recognized that defendants *ere pre+udiced b(
the dela( in the reinvestigation of the cases and the submission of a complete report b( the
-mbudsmanD2pecial rosecutor to the 2andiganba(an, *e underscored that the 2tate
should not be pre+udiced and deprived of its right to prosecute cases simpl( because of the
ineptitude or nonchalance of the -mbudsmanD2pecial rosecutor. ;An overzealous or
precipitate dismissal of a case ma( enable defendant, *ho ma( be guilt(, to go free *ithout
having been tried, thereb( infringing the societal interest in tr(ing people accused of crimes
b( granting them immunization because of legal error.;
//
&he same observation *as made in Valencia v. ,andiganbayan.
/.
6ere, the Court noted the
haphazard manner b( *hich the prosecutor handled the litigation for the 2tate *hen he
rested the case *ithout adducing evidence for the prosecution and simpl( rel(ing on the
Joint 2tipulation of 3acts, *hich the accused did not even sign before its submission to the
2andiganba(an. ,n allo*ing the prosecution to present additional evidence and in dismissing
the claim of the accused that his constitutional right to a speed( trial had been violated, *e
ruled=
As significant as the right of an accused to a speed( trial is the right of the 2tate to
prosecute people *ho violate its penal la*s. &he right to a speed( trial is deemed
violated onl( *hen the proceeding is attended b( vexatious, capricious and
oppressive dela(s x x x I&Jo erroneousl( put premium on the right to speed( trial in
the instant case and den( the prosecution7s pra(er to adduce additional evidence
*ould logicall( result in the dismissal of the case for the 2tate. &here is no difference
bet*een an order outrightl( dismissing the case and an order allo*ing the eventual
dismissal thereof. ?oth *ould set a dangerous precedent *hich enables the
accused, *ho ma( be guilt(, to go free *ithout having been validl( tried, thereb(
infringing the interest of the societ(.
/0
Certainl(, the right to speed( trial cannot be invo1ed *here to sustain the same *ould result
in a clear denial of due process to the prosecution. ,t should not operate in depriving the
2tate of its inherent prerogative to prosecute criminal cases or generall( in seeing to it that
all those *ho approach the bar of +ustice is afforded fair opportunit( to present their side.
/"

3or it is not onl( the 2tateC more so, the offended part( *ho is entitled to due process in
criminal cases.
.%
,n essence, the right to a speed( trial does not preclude the people7s e:uall(
important right to public +ustice.
.!
&hus, as succinctl( decreed in ,tate v. .c$ague=
.$
&he constitutional and statutor( provisions for a speed( trial are for the protection of
the defendant, but that does not mean that the state is the onl( one that ma( initiate
action. &here is reall( no reason for the courts to free an accused simpl( because a
dilator( prosecutor has 7gone to sleep at the s*itch7 *hile the defendant and his
counsel rest in silence. &hese solicitous provisions are not to be used as offensive
*eapons, but are for the benefit of defendants *ho claim their protection. &he( are a
shield, and the( 7must not be left hanging on the *all of the armor(.7 ,t is for the
protection of personal rights, not to embarrass the administration of the criminal la*
nor to defeat public +ustice.
?e that as it ma(, the conduct of the Cit( rosecutor and the M&C must not pass *ithout
admonition. &his Court must emphasize that the 2tate, through the court and the public
prosecutor, has the absolute dut( to insure that the criminal +ustice s(stem is consistent *ith
due process and the constitutional rights of the accused. 2ociet( has a particular interest in
bringing s*ift prosecutions, and the societ(7s representatives are the ones *ho should
protect that interest. &he trial court and the prosecution are not *ithout responsibilit( for the
expeditious trial of criminal cases. &he burden for trial promptness is not solel( upon the
defense. &he right to a speed( trial is constitutionall( guaranteed and, as such, is not to be
honored onl( for the vigilant and the 1no*ledgeable.
.8
C. -etitioners' Assertion of the Right
&he assertion of the right to a speed( trial is entitled to strong evidentiar( *eight in
determining *hether defendant is being deprived thereof. 3ailure to claim the right *ill ma1e
it difficult to prove that there *as a denial of a speed( trial.
.)
Except in onl( one instance in this case,
.#
the records are bereft of an( evidence that
petitioners, through counsel, have bothered to raise their ob+ection to the several re4setting
of the trial dates. &his is not unexpected since, as alread( sho*n, the reasons for the dela(
are not in themselves totall( inexcusable or unreasonable. Moreover, petitioners activel(
participated in the trial *hen the prosecution presented its evidence, as the( scrutinized the
documentar( evidence and cross4examined the *itnesses. @ntil the filing of the motion to
:uash in the R&C, the( never contested the prosecutorial proceedings nor timel( challenged
the pendenc( of the case in the M&C.
>hile it is true that lac1 of +urisdiction ma( be assailed at an( stage of the proceedings, such
defense must be seasonabl( raised at the earliest possible opportunit(. -ther*ise, active
participation in the trial *ould estop a part( from later challenging such *ant of +urisdiction.
./
,n the same vein, one7s failure to timel( :uestion the dela( in the trial of a case *ould be an
implied acceptance of such dela( and a *aiver of the right to :uestion the same. Except
*hen other*ise expressl( so provided, the speed( trial right, li1e an( other right conferred b(
the Constitution or statute, ma( be *aived *hen not positivel( asserted.
..
A part(7s silence
ma( amount to laches.
.0
&he right to a speed( trial is a privilege of the accused. ,f he does
not claim it, he should not complain. R.A. 'o. 0)"8 A2peed( &rial Act of !""0B is a means of
enforcing 2ection !)A$B, Article ,,, of the Constitution.
."
&he spirit of the la* is that the
accused must go on record in the attitude of demanding a trial or resisting dela(. ,f he does
not do this, he must be held, in la*, to have *aived the privilege.
&his Court cannot subscribe to petitioners7 untiring argument that, being ;ordinar( citizens,;
the( should not be made to suffer from the ;lac1luster; performance of their former counsel
*ho failed to recognize the M&C7s *ant of +urisdiction. &oo often *e have held that a client is
bound b( the acts, mista1es or negligence of his counsel.
0%
&his is, as it should be, since a
counsel has the implied authorit( to do all acts *hich are necessar( or, at least, incidental to
the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client. An( act performed *ithin
the scope of his general and implied authorit( is, in the e(es of the la*, regarded as the act
of the client.
0!
,f the rule *ere other*ise, there *ould be no end to litigation so long as a ne*
counsel could be emplo(ed *ho *ould allege and sho* that the prior counsel had not been
sufficientl( diligent, experienced, or learned.
0$
,t *ould enable ever( part( to render inutile an
adverse order or decision through the simple expedient of alleging gross negligence on the
part of the counsel.
08
Ever( shortcoming of a counsel could be the sub+ect of challenge b( his
client through another counsel *ho, if he is also found *anting, *ould li1e*ise be diso*ned
b( the same client through another counsel, and so on ad infinitum.
0)
roceedings *ould
then be indefinite, tentative and at times, sub+ect to reopening b( the simple subterfuge of
replacing counsel.
0#
>hile the rule admits of certain exceptions,
0/
*e find none present in this case. -ther than
his obvious failure to assert lac1 of +urisdiction, Att(. Lim undeniabl( represented the cause
of his clients in the M&C proceedings. ,nterestingl(, their ne* counsel, *ittingl( or
un*ittingl(, raised the issue of +urisdiction onl( four months after it entered its appearance,
0.

thus, adding to the dela(.
!. -re1udice to the -etitioners
,n the ar*er case,
00
the different interests of a defendant *hich ma( be affected b( the
violation of the right to a speed( trial *ere identified. ,t *as held that pre+udice should be
assessed in the light of the interests of a defendant *hich the speed( trial right *as designed
to protect, namel(= A!B to prevent oppressive pretrial incarcerationC A$B to minimize anxiet(
and concern of the accusedC and A8B to limit the possibilit( that the defense *ill be impaired.
-f these, the most serious is the last, because the inabilit( of a defendant to ade:uatel(
prepare his case s1e*s the fairness of the entire s(stem. ,f *itnesses die or disappear
during a dela(, the pre+udice is obvious. &here is also pre+udice if defense *itnesses are
unable to recall accuratel( events of the distant past. Loss of memor(, ho*ever, is not
al*a(s reflected in the record because *hat has been forgotten can rarel( be sho*n. Even if
an accused is not incarcerated prior to trial, he is still disadvantaged b( restraints on his
libert( and b( living under a cloud of anxiet(, suspicion, and often hostilit(.
0"
After all, arrest is
a public act that ma( seriousl( interfere *ith the defendant7s libert(, *hether he is free on
bail or not, and that ma( disrupt his emplo(ment, drain his financial resources, curtail his
associations, sub+ect him to public oblo:u(, and create anxiet( in him, his famil( and
friends.
"%
Again, a perusal of the records failed to reveal that the dela( in bringing petitioners to trial in
a court of competent +urisdiction caused them an( pre+udice tantamount to deprivation of
their right to a speed( trial. etitioners in this case *ere not sub+ected to pretrial
incarceration, oppressive or other*ise, thus eliminating the first ?ar1er consideration bearing
on pre+udice.
As to the minimization of anxiet( and concern of the accused, there is no sho*ing that
petitioners suffered undue pressures in this respect. Mere reference to a general
asseveration that their ;life, libert( and propert(, not to mention reputation; have been
pre+udiced is not enough. &here must be conclusive factual basis, as this Court cannot rel(
on pure speculation or guess*or1. 2urel(, a pending criminal case ma( cause trepidation
but, as stressed in ar*er, the standard here is minimization, not necessaril( elimination of
the natural conse:uences of an indictment. >hile this is not to be brushed off lightl(, it is not
b( itself sufficient to support a claim of denial of the right to a speed( trial.
&here is no factual basis for the claim of petitioners that *e are not supplied *ith an( specific
allegation in the record, nor *itnesses or evidence ma( become unavailable because of the
dela(s in this case. &o repeat, the claim of impairment of defense because of dela( must be
specific and not b( mere con+ecture. 9ague assertions of faded memor( *ill not suffice.
3ailure to claim that particular evidence had been lost or had disappeared defeats speed(
trial claim.
As neither the specific t(pes of pre+udice mentioned in ar*er nor an( others have been
brought to the Court7s attention, *e are constrained to dismiss petitioners7 claim. &he
passage of time alone, *ithout a significant deprivation of libert( or impairment of the abilit(
to properl( defend oneself, is not absolute evidence of pre+udice. &he right to a speed( trial
is not primaril( intended to prevent pre+udice to the defense caused b( the passage of timeC
that interest is protected primaril( b( the due process clause and the statutes of limitations.
"!
,n several cases *here it is manifest that due process of la* or other rights guaranteed b(
the Constitution or statutes has been denied, this Court has not faltered to accord the so4
called ;radical relief; to 1eep accused from enduring the rigors and expense of a full4blo*n
trial.
"$
,n this case, ho*ever, there appears no persuasive, much less compelling, ground to
allo* the same relief for absence of clear and convincing sho*ing that the dela( *as
unreasonable or arbitrar( and *as seasonabl( ob+ected to b( petitioners.
IN LIGH: O+ ALL :HE +OREGOING, the instant petition is DENIED for lac1 of merit. &he
March $!, $%%8 <ecision and Jul( !., $%%8 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are
A++IRMED. &he Regional &rial Court, ?ranch /), &arlac Cit(, is directed to proceed *ith the
trial on the merits of the criminal case *ith all reasonable and +udicious dispatch consistent
*ith the right of petitioners to a speed( trial. 'o costs.
G.R. No. 169271 M,r-* 13, 2666
RICARDO CAS:ILLO, DEME:RIO CA/ISON 'R., ,%$ RODOL+O AGDE!!A, petitioners,
vs.
HONORA/LE SANDIGAN/A7AN 1SECOND DI=ISION2, ,%$ !EO!LE O+ :HE
!HILI!!INES, represe%te$ b0 HONORA/LE CONRADO =AS<E", OM/DSMAN,
respondents.
7NARES-SAN:IAGO, J.:
?efore this Court is a etition for Certiorari assailing t*o -rders dated 3ebruar( !0, !""8
!

and March 0, !""8
$
of the 2andiganba(an7s 2econd <ivision den(ing petitioners7 Motion to
<ismiss and Motion for Reconsideration.
-n August $#, !"0/, concerned emplo(ees of the Commission on Audit AC-AB filed a
Complaint before the &anodba(an,
8
against Ricardo Castillo, Rodolfo Agdeppa and <emetrio
Cabison Jr., C-A Auditor 9,,,, C-A Auditor ,,, and C-A Auditor ,,,, respectivel(, all assigned
at the 'ational 6ousing Authorit( A'6AB, for alleged ;submittal of initial ver( derogator(
reports *hich became the basis for the filing of cases *ith the &anodba(an and the reversals
of their initial recommendations for contractors.; etitioners *ere notified of the Complaint on
2eptember $$, !"0/ *hen the( *ere directed b( the &anodba(an to file their counter4
affidavits, *hich the( did on 2eptember 8%, !"0/.
,n a resolution dated -ctober 8%, !"0., the &anodba(an found prima facie case against
petitioners and accordingl( recommended the filing of an ,nformation against them for
violation of 2ection 8AeB of the Anti45raft and Corrupt ractices Act ARA 8%!"B.
)
-n 'ovember $., !"0., petitioners promptl( filed a Motion for Reinvestigation.
#
-n March
$!, !"00, the( filed a Motion to Resolve their Motion for Reinvestigation.
/
>ithout acting upon the Motion for Reinvestigation and Motion to Resolve Motion for
Reinvestigation, an ,nformation *as filed on 'ovember #, !""%, before the 2andiganba(an,
*hich reads=
&hat on or about August #, !"0/ or prior and subse:uent thereto, in Guezon
Cit(, Metro Manila, hilippines and *ithin the +urisdiction of this 6onorable
Court, accused namel(, Ricardo R. Castillo, Rodolfo M. Agdeppa and
<emetrio M. Cabison Jr., all public officers being then C-A Auditor 9,,,, C-A
Auditor ,, and C-A Auditor ,,,, respectivel(, ta1ing advantage of their official
positions, *hile in the performance or discharge of their administrative official
functions, *ith evident bad faith and manifest partialit(, conspiring,
confederating and confabulating *ith each other, did then and there *illfull(,
unla*full( and fraudulentl( cause undue in+ur(, damage and pre+udice to the
5overnment of the Republic of the hilippines, to *it= that t*o contracts *ere
entered into b( the '6A management *ith t*o private contractors relative to
the complete development of hase 94A ac1ages 8 R ) *hich is being
constructed b( 2armiento Construction Co., and li1e*ise hase ,F ac1ages
. R .4A *hich is being constructed b( the 2upra Construction Co., both
constructions are located at the &ala Estate 2ites R 2ervices, b( causing to
prepare, submit, issue and sign in the different inventor(
reportsDrecommendation on various occasions that 2armiento Construction
had an overpa(ment in the amount of 8/$,#"!."0 for hase 94A ac1ages
8 R ) but later on said accused changed their inventor(
reportsDrecommendation and subse:uentl( read+usted this as overpa(ment
on ph(sical *or1 thereb( pre+udicing the government on account of
accused7s constant changesDreversals in the inventor( reports prepared,
signed and submitted b( themC *hereas in the second contract *ith 2upra
Construction, accused issued an inventor( report b( stating thereon that said
contractor had a *or1 deficienc( in the amount of .00,0%/.") but refraining
from ta1ing appropriate action on account of !,0.8,%"!.)% *ithheld on &ala
to pa( a refund order on a &ondo contract issued b( the C-A main office.
&he said accused raised the deficienc( in the amount of 0##,$0!.#%. Later
on, another inventor( report *as issued and prepared b( a &ri4artite &eam
Committee composed of C-A, '6A and the contractors stating a *or1
deficienc( in the amount of 8#$,!$!.)% onl(. <espite previous inventor(
reportsDrecommendation b( the accused citing different amounts and another
amount b( the &ri4artite &eam Committee said accused later stated that the
final deficiencies of 2upra Construction is no longer 0##,$0!.#0 but *as
reduced onl( to .%,#"/.8., *hich reductions in the contractors7 final
deficiencies *ere not +ustified thereb( giving un*arranted benefits,
preference and advantage to the above4mentioned contractor to the damage
and pre+udice of the government in the amount of $8!,#$8.%% and to the
2armiento Construction for inventoried accomplishment *ere not dul(
credited b( the said accused.
.
&rial on the merits thereafter ensued. After the prosecution rested its case, petitioners filed a
<emurrer to Evidence but the same *as denied b( the 2andiganba(an in a Resolution dated
<ecember !!, !""$.
0
etitioners7 Motion for Reconsideration *as li1e*ise denied in a
Resolution dated Januar( $%, !""8.
"
&hereafter, petitioners filed a Motion to <ismiss
!%
dated 3ebruar( !#, !""8 citing lac1 of
+urisdiction and violation of due process, but the same *as denied b( the 2andiganba(an.
etitioners7 Motion Reconsideration
!!
*as also denied.
6ence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition, raising the follo*ing grounds=
&he 6onorable Respondent 2andiganba(an committed grave abuse of
discretion in not dismissing the ,nformation not*ithstanding that there *as a
violation of petitioners7 constitutional rights of ;due process; and ;speed(
disposition of cases; and there *as use of the strong arm of the la* in an
oppressive and vindictive manner against the petitioners.
!. @nexplained and un+ustified dela( of three A8B (ears before an ,nformation
is filed before the 6onorable Respondent 2andiganba(an counting from the
date of the resolution of the -mbudsman recommending the prosecution of
the petitioners for violation of Rep. Act 'o. 8%!" Aor a total of four A)B (ears
from initial investigation up to filing of informationBC
$. Motion for Reinvestigation and Motion to Resolve the Motion for
Reinvestigation filed b( the petitioners before the -ffice of the 6onorable
Respondent -mbudsman *ere not acted uponC
8. 'o reason or explanation *as made b( the prosecution on the dela( in the
filing of ,nformationC
). >ith no plausible explanation on hand, the petitioners are thus inclined to
reason out, or even suspect, that there is connection bet*een such dela(
and their past and contemporaneous official actsC
#. &he lapse of three A8B (ears or a total of four A)B (ears from start of
investigation up to filing of ,nformation ma( result in the destruction of
affirmative evidence tending to establish the innocence of the petitioners and
that the passage of time ma( have produced an unfavorable effect on their
defenseC
/. 9iolation of constitutional rights divests the court of +urisdictionC
.. Lac1 of +urisdiction of the court ma( be raised at an( timeC
0. Criminal prosecution ma( be en+oined in order to afford ade:uate
protection to constitutional rights and to prevent the use of the strong arm of
the la* in an oppressive and vindictive mannerC
". 2ub+ect of instant petition are the -rders of the 6onorable of Respondent
2andiganba(an den(ing the Motion to <ismiss of petitioners for violation of
their constitutional rights and the use against them of the strong arm of the
la* in an oppressive and vindictive manner.
etitioners submit that the -mbudsman oppressed and discriminated against them b( not
issuing an( notice, repl( or order den(ing their Motion or Reinvestigation as *ell as their
Motion to Resolve their Motion for Reconsideration. &he( argue that the -mbudsman should
have granted outright their Motion for Reinvestigation in vie* of the ruling in Haldivar v.
,andiganbayan
!$
*herein this Court held, thus=
@nder the !"0. Constitution, the -mbudsman Aas distinguished from the
incumbent &anodba(anB is charged *ith the dut( to=
,nvestigate on its o*n, or on complaint b( an( person, an( act or omission of
an( public official, emplo(ee, office or agenc(, *hen such act or omission
appears to be illegal, un+ust, improper, or inefficient.; Aemphasis omittedB
xxx xxx xxx
'o* then, inasmuch as the aforementioned dut( is given to the -mbudsman,
the incumbent &anodba(an Acalled 2pecial rosecutor under the !"0.
Constitution and *ho is supposed to retain the po*ers and duties '-&
5,9E' to the -mbudsmanB is clearl( without authority to conduct preliminar(
investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases *ith the
2andiganba(an, except upon orders of the -mbudsman. &his right to do so
*as lost effective 3ebruar( $, !"0.. 3rom that time, he has been divested of
such authorit(.
etitioners7 contention is misleading. ,n the aforecited case, this Court clearl( held that the
authorit( of the &anodba(an to conduct preliminar( investigations and to direct the filing of
criminal cases *as lost effective 3ebruar( $, !"0.. &he inference, therefore, of such holding
is that the &anodba(an had such authorit( prior to 3ebruar( $, !"0.. ,n this case, the
&anodba(an issued petitioners a subpoena on 2eptember $$, !"0/ directing them to file
their counter4affidavits, *hich the latter complied *ith on 2eptember 8%, !"0/. ,n short, the
preliminar( investigation *as conducted b( the &anodba(an before he lost his authorit( to do
so.
6ence, there *as no need for the -mbudsman to conduct another preliminar( investigation
as the one conducted b( the former &anodba(an *as valid and legal. resumabl(, the ne*
-mbudsman recognized the results of the preliminar( investigation conducted b( the then
&anodba(an and adopted the conclusions reached therein *hen he ordered the filing of an
,nformation against petitioners.
Conse:uentl(, there *as no need for the -mbudsman to act on the petitioners7 Motion for
Reinvestigation. As stated, there *as no need for the -mbudsman to conduct another
preliminar( investigation.
etitioners also submit that the( *ere deprived of their constitutional right to a speed( trial b(
reason of the dela( in the filing of the ,nformation b( the -mbudsman. &he( contend that the
2andiganba(an abused its discretion in not dismissing the ,nformation filed against them on
the ground that ;there *as unexplained and un+ustified dela( of more than three A8B (ears
before an information *as filed against them from the filing of the complaint on August $#,
!"0/ up to the filing of the ,nformation on 'ovember #, !""%.; ,n fine, the( point out that
considering that the preliminar( investigation *as concluded as earl( as -ctober 8%, !"0.,
the first -mbudsman constituted under the !"0. Constitution should have filed the
,nformation as soon as he *as appointed on June /, !"00. ,nstead, it too1 more than t*o
(ears and 8,80/ cases before Criminal Case 'o. !/$)% *as filed against them on 'ovember
#, !""%. ,n other *ords, petitioners argue that since the Resolution of the -mbudsman
recommending the filing of the ,nformation *as issued on -ctober 8%, !"0., then the
,nformation should have been filed immediatel( thereafter, considering that even before the
promulgation of the Oaldivar case on April $., !"00, thousands of ,nformations had been
filed.
!8
etitioners7 contention is *ithout merit.
,n Co1uangco (r. v. ,andiganbayan,
!)
this Court has held that the constitutional guarantee
set forth in 2ection !/, Article ,,, of the !"0. Constitution,
!#
of ;AtBhe right to a speed(
disposition of a case, li1e the right to speed( trial, is deemed violated only *hen the
proceeding is attended b( vexatious, capricious, and oppressive dela(s.; ;. . . A&Bhe concept
of speed( disposition of cases is a relative term and must necessaril( be a flexible concept.
6ence, the doctrinal rule is that in the determination of *hether that right has been violated,
the factors that ma( be considered and balanced are the length of dela(, the reason for such
dela( and the assertion or failure to assert such right b( the accused, and the pre+udice
caused b( the dela(.; As pointed out b( petitioners, the complaint *as filed before the
&anoba(an on August $#, !"0/. -n -ctober 8%, !"0., a Resolution *as issued finding a
prima facie case against petitioners and recommending the filing of an ,nformation *ith the
2andiganba(an. 6o*ever, it *as onl( on 'ovember #, !""% *hen the ,nformation *as filed.
Admittedl(, it too1 three A8B (ears for the -mbudsman to file the ,nformation against
petitioners from the date of the Resolution recommending the filing thereof.
,n explaining the dela( in the filing of the ,nformation, ho*ever, the -ffice of the 2olicitor
5eneral averred, as follo*s=
,t *ill be noted that the normal operations of the -ffice of the 2pecial
rosecutor *as affected b( the <ecision of this 6onorable Court in Haldivar
v. ,andiganbayan and Haldivar v. =onCaleC, !/% 2CRA 0)8 dated April $.,
!"00, *here it *as ruled that the incumbent &anodba(an lost his right to
conduct preliminar( investigation and to direct the filing of criminal cases *ith
the 2andiganba(an effective 3ebruar( $, !"0.. As a result, complaints
Aincluding that involved in the present petitionB, resolutions and other legal
papers a*aiting action during that period remained pending the appointment
of an -mbudsman.
>hen the -mbudsman *as appointed in !"00, it too1 some time still before
his -ffice could become full( constituted and operational. ?ecause of the
unavoidable dela( caused b( the aforementioned circumstances, the
corresponding ,nformation in the criminal case involved *as filed and
approved onl( in !""%.
rescinding from the foregoing, this Court finds no violation of petitioners7 right to a speed(
disposition of their case. &he dela( *as not vexatious, capricious, nor oppressive,
considering the factual milieu of this case, namel( the structural reorganizations and
procedural changes brought about b( fre:uent amendments of procedural la*s in the initial
stages of this case. &he complaint *as filed on August $#, !"0/. -n -ctober 8%, !"0., the
-mbudsman issued a Resolution finding a prima facie case and recommending the filing of
an ,nformation. Mean*hile, on April $., !"00, the Haldivar case *as promulgated holding
that the &anodba(an lost his authorit( to conduct preliminar( investigations and to direct the
filing of ,nformations *ith the 2andiganba(an effective 3ebruar( $, !"0.. &hen on 'ovember
#, !""%, the ,nformation against petitioners *as filed.
,n the case inay v. ,andiganbayan and .agsaysay v.
,andiganbayan,
!.
this Court has held that=
A mere mathematical rec1oning of the time involved, therefore, *ould not be
sufficient. ,n the application of the constitutional guarantee of the right to
speed( disposition of cases, particular regard must also be ta1en of the facts
and circumstances peculiar to each case.
,n AlviCo v. ,andiganbayan,
!0
this Court has reiterated that it has ta1en +udicial cognizance
of the fre:uent amendments of procedural la*s b( presidential decrees, the structural
reorganizations in existing prosecutorial agencies and the creation of ne* ones b( executive
fiat, resulting in changes of personnel, preliminar( +urisdiction, functions and po*ers of
prosecuting agencies.
,n addition, it is clearl( apparent from the figures cited b( petitioners that the 2andiganba(an
*as burdened *ith a heav( caseload. arentheticall(, this Court has ta1en +udicial
cognizance of the fact that the ever increasing caseload of courts has affected the speed(
disposition of cases pending before the 2andiganba(an. >hile petitioners certainl( have the
right to a speed( disposition of their case, the structural reorganization of the prosecutorial
agencies, the procedural changes brought about b( the Haldivar case as *ell as the
2andiganba(an7s heav( caseload certainl( are valid reasons for the dela( in the disposition
of petitioners7 case. 3or those reasons, the dela( certainl( cannot be considered as
vexatious, capricious and oppressive. 'either is it unreasonable nor inordinate.
>6ERE3-RE, in vie* of the foregoing, the instant petition is <E',E< and the t*o -rders
dated 3ebruar( !0, !""8 and March 0, !""8 of the 2andiganba(an7s 2econd <ivision in
Criminal Case 'o. !/$)% are A33,RME<. &he 2andiganba(an is <,REC&E< to proceed
*ith dispatch in the disposition of this case.8Iwphi8.nJt
G.R. No. L-36163 '(.0 25, 1973
HON. GREGORIO. N. GARCIA, '($&e o) t*e C#t0 Co(rt o) M,%#.,, ,%$ +RANCISCO
LOREN"ANA, petitioners,
vs.
HON. +ELIC DOMINGO, '($&e o) t*e Co(rt o) +#rst I%st,%-e o) M,%#.,, EDGARDO
CALO ,%$ SIMEON CAR/ONNEL, respondents.
+ERNANDO, J.:
&he pivotal :uestion in this petition for certiorari and prohibition, one *hich thus far has
remained unresolved, is the meaning to be accorded the constitutional right to public trial.
1

More specificall(, did respondent Judge commit a grave abuse of discretion in stigmatizing
as violative of such a guarantee the holding of the trial of the other respondents
2
inside the
chambers of cit( court Judge 5regorio 5arcia named as the petitioner.
3
&hat *as done in
the order no* impugned in this suit, although such a procedure had been agreed to
beforehand b( the other respondents as defendants, the hearings have been thus conducted
on fourteen separate occasions *ithout ob+ection on their part, and *ithout an iota of
evidence to substantiate an( claim as to an( other person so minded being excluded from
the premises. ,t is thus evident that *hat too1 place in the chambers of the cit( court +udge
*as devoid of haste or intentional secrec(. 3or reasons to be more full( explained in the light
of the facts ascertained L the uni:ue aspect of this case having arisen from *hat turned out
to be an unseeml( altercation, force li1e*ise being emplo(ed, due to the mode in *hich the
arrest of private petitioner for a traffic violation *as sought to be effected b( the t*o
respondent policemen thus resulting in charges and counter4charges *ith eight criminal
cases being tried +ointl( b( cit( court Judge in the above manner L *e rule that there *as
no transgression of the right to a public trial, and grant the petition.
,t *as alleged and admitted in the petition= ;,n ?ranch , the Cit( Court of Manila presided
over b( petitioner Judge, there *ere commenced, b( appropriate informations all dated
Januar( !/, !"/0, eight A0B criminal actions against respondent Edgardo Calo, and 2imeon
Carbonnel and etitioner 3rancisco Lorenzana, as follo*s= a. Against "dgardo Calo Aon
complaint of 3rancisco LorenzanaB A!B Criminal Case 'o. 34!%"!"$, also for slight ph(sical
in+uriesC A$B Criminal Case 'o. 34!%"!"$, alsofor slight ph(sical in+uriesC and A8B Criminal
Case 'o. 34!%"!"8, for maltreatmentC b. Against ,imeon Carbonnel Aid.B A!BCriminal Case
'o. 34!%"!"., for maltreatmentC A$B Criminal Case 'o. 34!%"!"/, for slight ph(sical in+uriesC
and A8B Criminal Case 'o. 34!%"!"0, for light threatsC AcB Against %rancisco ;orenCana Aon
complaint of Calo and CarbonnelB A!B Criminal Case 'o. 34!%"$%!, for violation of 2ec. 00.
of the Revised -rdinances of Manila Aresisting an officerBC and A$B Criminal Case 'o. 34
!%"$%%, for slander.;
3
&he above *as follo*ed b( this recital= ;&he trial of the
aforementioned cases *as +ointl( held on March ), !"/0, March !0, !"/0, March $8, !"/0,
March 8%, !"/0, April !., !"/0, April $%, !"/0, Ma( ),!"/0, Ma( !!, !"/0, June !, !"/0,
June !#, !"/0, June $$, !"/0, June $", !"/0, August 8, !"/0 and August !%, !"/0. All the
fourteen A!)B trial dates L except March ) and !0, and April !., !"/0 L fell on a 2aturda(.
&his *as arranged b( the parties and the Court upon the insistence of respondents Calo and
Carbonnel *ho, as police officers under suspension because of the cases, desired the same
to be terminated as soon as possible and as there *ere man( cases scheduled for trial on
the usual criminal trial da(s AMonda(, >ednesda( and 3rida(B, 2aturda( *as agreed upon
as the invariable trial da( for said eight A0B criminal cases.;
5
Also this= ;&he trial of the cases
in :uestion *as held, *ith the conformit( of the accused and their counsel, in the chambers
of Judge 5arcia.;
4
&hen came these allegations in the petition= ;<uring all the fourteen A!)B
da(s of trial, spanning a period of several months Afrom March to August, !"/0B, the accused
*ere at all times represented b( their respective counsel, *ho acted not onl( in defense of
their clients, but as prosecutors of the accusations filed at their clients7 instance. &here *as
onl( one A!B da( *hen Att(. Consengco, representing respondent Calo and Carbonnel, *as
absent. &his *as on April $%, !"/0. ?ut at the insistence of at. Carbonnel, the trial
proceeded, and said respondent cross4examined one of the *itnesses presented b( the
adverse part(. ,n an( case, no pretense has been made b( the respondents that this
constituted an irregularit( correctible on certiorari. At the conclusion of the hearings the
accused, thru counsel, as1ed for and *ere granted time to submit memoranda. Respondents
Calo and Carbonnel, thru counsel, Att(. Rafael Consengco, submitted a !)4page
memorandum *ith not less than 8# citations of relevant portions of the transcript of
stenographic notes in support of their pra(er for exoneration, and conviction of petitioner
Lorenzana in respect of their countercharges against the latter. ,t is *orth( of note that up to
this late date, said respondents Calo and Carbonnel had not ob1ected to ? or pointed out ?
any supposed irregularity in the proceedings thus farC the memorandum submitted in their
behalf is confined to a discussion of the evidence adduced in, and the merits of the cases.;
7

,t *as stated in the next petition=
;&he promulgation of +udgment *as first scheduled on 2eptember $8, !"/0. &his *as
postponed to 2eptember $0, !"/0 at the instance of Att(. Rafael Consengco, as counsel
respondents Calo and Carbonnel, and again to -ctober !, !"/0 at !! o7cloc1 in the morning,
this time at the instance of Att(. Consengco and Att(. 3rancisco Moh *ho had, in the
meantime, also entered his appearance as counsel for respondents Calo and Carbonnel.
&he applications for postponement *ere not grounded upon an( supposed defect or
irregularit( of the proceedings.;
5

Mention *as then made of *hen a petition for certiorari *as filed *ith respondent Judge=
;Earl( in the morning of -ctober !, !"/0, Edgardo Calo and 2imeon Carbonnel, thru their
counsel, Att(. Rafael 2. Consengco, filed *ith the Court of 3irst ,nstance a petition for
certiorari and prohibition, *ith application for preliminar( prohibitor( and mandator(
in+unction ... Ialleging +urisdictional defectsJ.;
9
Respondent Judge acting on such petition
forth*ith issued a restraining order thus causing the deferment of the promulgation of the
+udgment. After proceedings dul( had, there *as an order from him ;declaring that 7the
constitutional and statutor( rights of the accused7 had been violated, adversel( affecting their
7right to a free and impartial trial7 InotingJ 7that the trial of these cases lasting several *ee1s
held exclusivel( in chambers and not in the court room open the public7C; and ordering the
cit( court Judge, no* petitioner, ;to desist from reading or causing to be read or promulgated
the decisions he ma( have rendered alread( in the criminal cases Ain :uestionB ... pending in
his Court, until further orders of this Court.7;
16
A motion for reconsideration proving unavailing, petition on Januar( $0, !"/", elevated the
matter to this &ribunal b( means of the present suit for certiorari and prohibition. ,n its
resolution of 3ebruar( 8, !"/", respondents *ere re:uired to ans*er, *ith a preliminar(
in+unction li1e*ise being issued. As *as to be expected the ans*er filed b( respondent
Judge on March !!, !"/" and that b( the other respondents on March !", !"/" did attempt
to +ustif( the validit( of the finding that there *as a failure to respect the right to a public trial
of accused persons. 'either in such pleadings nor in the memorandum filed, although the
diligence displa(ed b( counsel *as :uite evident, *as there an( persuasive sho*ing of a
violation of constitutional guarantee of a public trial, the basic issue to be resolved. Rather it
*as the mode of approach follo*ed b( counsel Andres R. 'arvasa for petitioners that did
manifest a deeper understanding of its implications and ramifications. Accordingl(, as
previousl( stated, it is for us to grant the merits pra(ed for.
!. &he !"8# Constitution *hich *as in force at the time of the antecedents of this petition, as
set forth at the outset, explicitl( enumerated the right to a public trial to *hich an accused
*as entitled. 2o it is, as li1e*ise made clear, under present dispensation. As a matter of fact,
that *as one constitutional provision that needed onl( a single, terse summation from the
Chairman of the Committee on the ?ill of Rights, <elegate, later Justice, Jose . Laurel, to
gain acceptance. As *as stressed b( him= ;&rial should also be public in order to offset an(
danger of conducting it in an illegal and un+ust manner.;
11
,t *ould have been surprising if its
proposed inclusion in the ?ill of Rights had provo1ed an( discussion, much less a debate. ,t
*as merel( a reiteration *hat appeared in the hilippine Autonom( Act of !"!/, popularl(
1no*n as the Jones La*.
12
Earlier, such a right found expression in the hilippine ?ill of
!"%$, li1e*ise an organic act of the then government of this countr( as an unincorporated
territor( of the @nited 2tates.
13
6istoricall( as *as pointed out b( Justice ?lac1, spea1ing for
the @nited 2tates 2upreme Court in the leading case of ,n re -liver=
13
;&his nation7s
accepted practice of guaranteeing a public trial to an accused has its roots in ItheJ English
common la* heritage.
15
6e then observed that the exact date of its origin is obscure, ;but it
li1el( evolved long before the settlement of the I@nited 2tatesJ as an accompaniment of the
ancient institution of +ur( trial.;
14
,t *as then noted b( him that there, ;the guarantee to an
accused of the right to a public trial appeared in a state constitution in !../.;
17
Later it *as
embodied in the 2ixth Amendment of the 3ederal Constitution ratified in !."!.
15
6e could
conclude his historical surve( ;&oda( almost *ithout exception ever( state b( constitution,
statute, or +udicial decision, re:uires that all criminal trials be open to the public.;
19
2uch is
the venerable, historical lineage of the right to a public trial.
$. &he crucial :uestion of the meaning to be attached this provision remains. &he
Constitution guarantees an accused the right to a public trial. >hat does it signif(K -ffhand it
does seem fairl( obvious that here is an instance *here language is to be given a literal
application. &here is no ambiguit( in the *ords emplo(ed. &he trial must be public. ,t
possesses that character *hen an(one interested in observing the manner a +udge conducts
the proceedings in his courtroom ma( do so. &here is to be no ban on such attendance. 6is
being a stranger to the litigants is of no moment. 'o relationship to the parties need be
sho*n. &he thought that lies behind this safeguard is the belief that thereb( the accused is
afforded further protection, that his trial is li1el( to be conducted *ith regularit( and not
tainted *ith an( impropriet(. ,t is not amiss to recall that <elegate Laurel in his terse
summation the importance of this right singled out its being a deterrence to arbitrariness. ,t is
thus understandable *h( such a right is deemed embraced in procedural due process.
26

>here a trial ta1es place, as is :uite usual, in the courtroom and a calendar of *hat cases
are to be heard is posted, no problem arises. ,t the usual course of events that individuals
desirous of being present are free to do so. &here is the *ell recognized exception though
that *arrants the exclusion of the public *here the evidence ma( be characterized as
;offensive to decenc( or public morals.;
21

>hat did occasion difficult( in this suit *as that for the convenience of the parties, and of the
cit( court Judge, it *as in the latter7s air4conditioned chambers that the trial *as held. <id
that suffice to investigate the proceedings as violative of this rightK &he ans*er must be in
the negative. &here is no sho*ing that the public *as thereb( excluded. ,t is to be admitted
that the size of the room allotted the Judge *ould reduce the number of those *ho could be
our present. 2uch a fact though is not indicative of an( transgression of this right.
Courtrooms are not of uniform dimensions. 2ome are smaller than others. Moreover, as
admitted b( Justice ?lac1 in his masterl( ,n re -liver opinion, it suffices to satisf( the
re:uirement of a trial being public if the accused could ;have his friends, relatives and
counsel present, no matter *ith *hat offense he ma( be charged.;
22

&hen, too, reference ma( also be made to the undisputed fact at least fourteen hearings had
been held in chambers of the cit( court Judge, *ithout ob+ection on the part of respondent
policemen. >hat *as said b( former Chief Justice Moran should erase an( doubt as to the
*eight to be accorded, more appropriatel( the lac1 of *eight, to an( such ob+ection raised.
&hus= ;,n one case, the trial of the accused *as held in ?ilibid prison. &he accused, invo1ing
his right to a public trial, assigned the procedure thus ta1en as error. &he 2upreme Court
held that as it affirmativel( appears on the record that the accused offered no ob+ection to the
trial of his case in the place *here it *as held, his right is deemed *aived.;
23
&he decision
referred to, @nited 2tates v. Mercado,
23
*as handed do*n sixt(4eight (ears ago in !"%#.
,t does seem that the challenged order of respondent is far from being invulnerable.
8. &hat is all that need be said as to the obvious merit of this petition. -ne other ob+ection to
the conduct of the proceedings b( the cit( court Judge ma( be briefl( disposed of.
Respondent Judge *ould see1 to lend support to an order at *ar *ith obvious meaning of a
constitutional provision b( harping on the alleged abdication b( an assistant fiscal of his
control over the prosecution. Again here there *as a failure to abide b( settled la*. ,f an(
part( could complain at all, it is the eople of the hilippines for *hom the fiscal spea1s and
acts. &he accused cannot in la* be termed an offended part( for such an alleged failure to
compl( *ith official dut(. Moreover, even assuming that respondent policemen could be
heard to raise such a grievance, respondent Judge ought to have been a*are that thereb(
no +urisdictional defect *as incurred b( the cit( court Judge. As *as so emphaticall(
declared b( Justice J.?.L. Re(es in Cariaga v. (usto-=uerrero=
25
;&he case belo* *as
commenced and prosecuted *ithout the intervention, mediation or participation of the fiscal
or an( of his deputies. &his, not*ithstanding, the +urisdiction of the court *as not affected ...
but the court should have cited the public prosecutor to intervene ... .;
24
). &here is much to be said of course for the concern displa(ed b( respondent Judge to
assure the realit( as against the mere possibilit( of a trial being trul( public. ,f it *ere
other*ise, such a right could be reduced to a barren form of *ords. &o the extent then that
the conclusion reached b( him *as motivated b( an apprehension that there *as an evasion
of a constitutional command, he certainl( lived up to *hat is expected of a man of the robe.
3urther reflection ought to have convinced him though that such a fear *as un+ustified. An
ob+ective appraisal of conditions in municipal or cit( courts *ould have gone far in dispelling
such misgivings. &he cro*ded dail( calendar, the nature of the cases handled, civil as *ell
as criminal, the relaxed attitude on procedural rules not being strictl( adhered to all ma1e for
a less tense atmosphere. As a result the attendance of the general public is much more in
evidenceC nor is its presence un*elcome. >hen it is remembered further that the occupants
of such courts are not chosen primaril( for their legal acumen, but ta1en from that portion of
the bar more considerabl( attuned to the pulse of public life, it is not to be rationall( expected
that an accused *ould be denied *hatever solace and comfort ma( come from the
1no*ledge that a +udge, *ith the e(es of the alert court alert to his demeanor and his rulings,
*ould run the ris1 of being un+ust, unfair, or arbitrar(. 'or does it change matters, +ust
because, as did happen here, it *as in the air4conditioned chambers of a cit( court +udge
rather than in the usual place that the trial too1 place.
>6ERE3-RE, the *rit of certiorari pra(ed for is granted nullif(ing, setting aside, and
declaring bereft of an( legal force or effect the order of respondent Judge 3elix <omingo
'ovember $", !"/0 for being issued *ith grave abuse of discretion. &he *rit of prohibition
sought b( petitioner is li1e*ise granted, commanding respondent Judge or an( one acting in
his place to desist from an( further action in Criminal Case 'o. .)08% of the Court of 3irst
,nstance of Manila other than that of dismissing the same. &he preliminar( *rit of in+unction
issued b( this Court in its resolution of 3ebruar( 8, !"/" against the actuation of respondent
Judge is made permanent. >ith costs against respondent policemen Edgardo Calo and
2imeon Carbonnel.
G.R. No. L-44349 '(.0 29, 1954
!EO!LE O+ :HE !HILI!!INES ,%$ AL+REDO <I'ANO, petitioners,
vs.
HON. /ERNARDO SALAS 1I% *#s -,p,-#t0 ,s !res#$#%& '($&e o) R:C, Ceb(, /r,%-*
=III2, MARIO A/ONG, AL+REDO DE LEON, ERI9AD9IN MON:E/ON, ROMEO DE
G"MAN, D EDARDO MA/HA7, respondents.
CR", J.:
Mario Abong *as originall( charged *ith homicide in the Court of 3irst ,nstance of Cebu but
before he could be arraigned the case *as reinvestigated on motion of the prosecution.
1
As a
result of the reinvestigation, an amended information *as filed, *ith no bail recommended, to *hich he pleaded not guilt(.
2
&rial
commenced, but *hile it *as in progress, the prisoner, ta1ing advantage of the first information for homicide, succeeded in
deceiving the cit( court of Cebu into granting him bail and ordering his releaseC and so he escaped.
3
&he respondent +udge,
learning later of the tric1er(, cancelled the illegal bail bond and ordered Abong7s re4arrest.
3
?ut he *as gone. 'onetheless, the
prosecution moved that the hearing continue in accordance *ith the constitutional provision authorizing trial in absentia under
certain circumstances.
5
&he respondent +udge denied the motion, ho*ever, and suspended all proceedings until the return of the
accused.
4
&he order of the trial court is no* before us on certiorari and mandamus.
7

&he +udge erred. 6e did not see the *oods for the trees. 6e mista1enl( allo*ed himself to be
tethered b( the literal reading of the rule *hen he should have vie*ed it from the broader
perspective of its intendment.
&he rule is found in the last sentence of Article ,9, 2ection !", of the !".8 Constitution,
reading in full as follo*s=
2ection !". ,n all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrar( is proved and shall en+o( the right to be heard b(
himself and counsel, to he informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speed(, impartial, and public trial, to meet
the *itnesses face to face, and to have compulsor( process to secure the
attendance of *itnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
6o*ever, after arraignment, trial ma( proceed not*ithstanding the absence
of the accused provided that he has been dul( notified and his failure to
appear is un+ustified.
&he purpose of this rule is to speed up the disposition of criminal cases, trial of *hich could
in the past be indefinitel( deferred, and man( times completel( abandoned, because of the
defendant7s escape. &he old case of -eople v. Avancea
5
re:uired his presence at certain stages of the
trial *hich as a result, had to be discontinued as long as the defendant had not re4appeared or remained at large. As his right to
be present at these stages *as then held not *aivable even b( his escape, such escape thus operated to the fugitive7s
advantage, and in moc1er( of the authorities, insofar as the trial could not proceed as long as he had not been recaptured.
&he doctrine laid do*n in that case has been modified b( 2ection !", *hich no* allo*s trial
in absentia, 'o*, the prisoner cannot b( simpl( escaping th*art his continued prosecution
and possibl( eventual conviction provided onl( that= aB he has been arraignedC bB he has
been dul( notified of the trialC and cB his failure to appear is un+ustified.
&he respondent +udge *as probabl( still thin1ing of the old doctrine *hen he ruled that trial in
absentia of the escapee could not be held because he could not be dul( notified under
2ection !". 6e forgets that the fugitive is no* deemed to have *aived such notice precisel(
because he has escaped, and it is also this escape that ma1es his failure to appear at his
trial un+ustified. Escape can never be a legal +ustification. ,n the past, his escape ;re*arded;
him b( postponing all further proceedings against him and in effect ultimatel( absolving him
of the charge he *as facing. @nder the present rule, his escape *ill, legall( spea1ing,
operate to Ms disadvantage b( preventing him from attending his trial, *hich *ill continue
even in his absence and most li1el( result in his conviction.
&he right to be present at one7s trial ma( no* be *aived except onl( at that stage *here the
prosecution intends to present *itnesses *ho *ill ,dentif( the accused.
9
@nder 2ection !", the
defendant7s escape *ill be considered a *aiver of this right and the inabilit( of the court to notif( him of the subse:uent hearings
*ill not prevent it from continuing *ith his trial. 6e *ill be deemed to have received due notice. &he same fact of his escape *ill
ma1e his failure to appear un+ustified because he has, b( escaping, placed himself be(ond the pale, and protection, of the la*.
&rial in absentia *as not allo*ed in or1a v. .endoCa
16
because it *as held not*ithstanding that the
accused had not been previousl( arraigned. 6is subse:uent conviction *as properl( set aside. ?ut in the instant case, since all
the re:uisites are present, there is absolutel( no reason *h( the respondent +udge should refuse to tr( the accused, *ho had
alread( been arraigned at the time he *as released on the illegal bail bond. Abong should be prepared to bear the conse:uences
of his escape, including forfeiture of the right to be notified of the subse:uent 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.
>e admonish against a too4literal reading of the la* as this is apt to constrict rather than
fulfill its purpose and defeat the intention of its authors. &hat intention is usuall( found not in
;the letter that 1illeth but in the spirit that vivifieth,; *hich is not reall( that evanescent or
elusive. As +udges, *e must loo1 be(ond and not be bound b( the language of the la*,
see1ing to discover, b( our o*n lights, the reason and the rh(me for its enactment. &hat *e
ma( properl( appl( it according to its ends, *e need and must use not onl( learning but also
vision.
&he trial +udge is directed to investigate the la*(er *ho assisted Mario Abong in securing
bail from the cit( court of Cebu on the basis of the *ithdra*n information for homicide and to
report to us the result of his investigation *ithin sixt( da(s.
>6ERE3-RE, the order of the trial court dated <ecember $$, !"08, den(ing the motion for
the trial in absentia of the accused is set aside. &he respondent +udge 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. 'o costs.
G.R. No. L-35447 '(%e 26, 1977
MANEL /OR'A, petitioner,
vs.
HON. RA+AEL :. MENDO"A, '($&e o) t*e Co(rt o) +#rst I%st,%-e o) Ceb( 1/r,%-* =I2
,%$ HON. ROMLO R. SENINING, '($&e o) t*e C#t0 Co(rt o) Ceb( 1/r,%-* I2,
respondents.
+ERNANDO, J.:
&he +urisdictional infirmit( imputer to respondent Judge Romulo R. 2enining of the Cit( of
Cebu *hich *as not remedied b( respondent Judge Rafael &. Mendoza of the Court of 3irst
,nstance of Cebu in this certionrari proceeding *as the absence of an arrainment of
petitioner Manuel ?or+a, *ho *as accused of slight ph(sical in+uries. &his not*ithstanding
respondent Judge 2enining proceeded *ith the trial in abssentia and thereafter, in a decision
promulgated on August !0, !"./, found him guilt( of such offense and sentenced him to
suffer imprisonment for a period of t*ent( da(s of arresto menor.
1
&hereafter, an appeal *as
dul( elevated to the Court of 3irst ,nstance of Cebu presided b( respondent Judge Mendoza.
2
,t *as then alleged that *ithout an( notice to petitioner and *ithout re:uiring him to submit
his memorandum, a decision on the appealed case *as rendered on 'ovember !/, !"./
petitioner that the failure to arraign him is violative of his constitutional right to procedural due
process,
3
more specificall( of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him and of his right to be heard b( himself and counsel.
3
&her *as thus,
at the ver( least, a graveabuse of discretion. &he 2olicitor 5eneral,
5
*hen as1ed to
comment, agreed that the procedural defect *as of such gravit( as to render void the
decision of the Cit( Court affirmed b( the Court of 3irst ,nstance. &he comment *as
considered as ans*er, *ith the case being submitted for decision.
Respect for the constitutional rights of an accused as authoritativel( construed b( this Court,
dul( ta1en note of in the comment of the 2olicitor 5eneral, thus calls for the grant of the *rit
of certiorari pra(ed for.
!. &he plea of petitioner to nullif( the proceedings had in the criminal case against him finds
support in the procedural due process mandate of the Constitution. ,t re:uires that the
accused be arraigned so that he ma( be informed as to *h( he *as indicted and *hat penal
offense he has to face, to be convicted onl( on a sho*ing that his guilt is sho*n be(ond
reasonable doubt *ith full opportunit( to disprove the evidence against him. Moreover, the
sentence to be imposed in such a case is to be in accordance *ith a valid la*.
4
&his Court,
in -eople v. Castillo,
7
spea1ing through Justice <e Jo(a and follo*ing the language of the
American 2upreme Court, ,dentified due process *ith the accused having ;been heard in a
court of competent +urisdiction, and proceeded against under the orderl( processes of la*,
and onl( punished after in:uir( and investigation, upon notice to him, *ith an opportunit( to
be heard, and a +udgment a*arded *ith the authorit( of a constitutional la*, ...;
5
An
arraignment thus becomes indispensable as the means ;for bringing the accused into court
and notif(ing him of the cause he is re:uired to meet ... ;
9
,ts importance *as stressed b(
Justice Moreland as earl( as !"!/ in the leading case of >nited ,tates v. inayoh.
16
6e
pointed out that upon the accused being arraigned, ;there is a dut( laid b( the Code Ino* the
Rules of CourtJ upon the court to inform IhimJ of certain rights and to extend to him, on his
demand, certain others. &his dut( is an affirmative one *hich the court, on its o*n motion,
must perform, unless *aived.;
11
&o emphasize its importance, he added= ;'o such dut(,
ho*ever, is laid on the court *ith regard to the rights of the accused *hich he ma( be
entitled to exercise during the trial. &hose are rights *hich he must assert himself and the
benefits of *hich he himself must demand. ,n other *ords, in the arraignment the court must
act of its own volition, ...;
12
,n the terse and apt language of the 2olicitor 5eneral=
;Arraignment is an indispensable re:uirement in an( criminal prosecution.;
13
rocedural due
process demands no less.
$. 'or is it onl( the due process guarantee that calls for the accused being dul( arraigned.
As noted, it is at that stage *here in the mode and manner re:uired b( the Rules, an
accused, for the first time, is granted the opportunit( to 1no* the precise charge that
confronts him. ,t is imperative that he is thus made full( a*are of ossible loss of freedom,
even of his life, depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him. At the ver( least then,
he must be full( informed of *h( the prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized against him.
An arraignment serves that purpose. &hereafter he is no longer in the dar1. ,t is true, the
complaint or information ma( not be *orded *ith sufficient clarit(. 6e *ould be in a much
*orse position though if he does not even have such an opportunit( to plead to the charge.
>ith his counsel b( his side, he is thus in a position to enter his plea *ith full 1no*ledge of
the conse:uences. 6e is not even re:uired to do so immediatel(. 6e ma( move to :uash.
>hat is thus evident is that an arraignment assures that he be full( ac:uainted *ith the
nature of the crime imputed to him and the circumstances under *hich it is allegedl(
committed. ,t is thus a vital aspect of the constitutional rights guaranteed him. ,t is not
useless formalit(, much less an ,dle ceremon(.
8. An e:uall( fatal defect in the proceeding had before respondent Judge 2enining *as that
not*ithstanding its being conducted in the absence of petitioner, he *as convicted. ,t *as
sho*n that after one postponement due to his failure to appear, the case *as reset for
hearing. >hen that date came, <ecember !), !".8, *ithout petitioner being present,
although his bondsmen *ere notified, respondent Judge, as set forth in the comment of the
2olicitor 5eneral, ;allo*ed the prosecution to present its evidence invo1ing Letter of
,nstruction 'o. )%. -nl( one *itness testified, the offended part( herself, and three
documents *ere offered in evidence after *hich the prosecution rested its case. &hereupon,
respondent Cit( Court set the promulgation of the decision on <ecember $0, !".8.;
13
,t
could then conclude= =9eril( the records clearl( sho* that petitioner *as not arraigned at all
and *as not represented b( counsel throughout the *hole proceedings in the respondent
Cit( Court.;
15
,t is indisputable then that there *as a denial of petitioner7s constitutional right
to be heard b( himself and counsel. As categoricall( affirmed b( Justice -zaeta for this
Court in the leading case of Abriol v. )omeres=
14
;,t is the constitutional right of the accused
to be heard in his defense before sentence is pronounced on him.;
17
6e added further that
such ;constitutional right is inviolate.;
15
&here is no doubt that it could be *aived, but here
there *as no such *aiver, *hether express or implied. ,t suffices to refer to another leading
case, -eople v. )olgado,
19
*here the then Chief Justice Moran emphaticall( too1 note of the
importance of the right to counsel= ;,n criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the
accused be given an opportunit( to be heard b( counsel. &he right to be heard *ould be of
little avail if it does not include the right to be heard b( counsel. Even the most intelligent or
educated man ma( have no s1ill in the science of the la*, particularl( in the rules of
procedure, and, *ithout counsel, he ma( be convicted not because he is guilt( but because
he does not 1no* ho* to establish his innocence.;
26
>ith the violation of the constitutional
right to be heard b( himself and counsel being thus manifest, it is easil( understandable *h(
the 2olicitor 5eneral agreed *ith petitioner that the sentence imposed on him should be set
aside for being null.
). &he provision in the present Constitution allo*ing trial to be held in absentia is unavailing.
,t cannot +ustif( the actuation of respondent Judge 2enining. ,ts language is clear and
explicit. >hat is more, it is mandator(. &hus= ;6o*ever, after arraignment, trial ma( proceed
not*ithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been dul( notified and his
failure to appear is un+ustified.;
21
As pointed out then b( the 2olicitor 5eneral, the
indispensable re:uisite for trial in absentia is that it should come ;after arraignment.; &he
express mention in the present Constitution of the need for such a step emphasizes its
importance in the procedural scheme to accord an accused due process. >ithout the
accused having been arraigned, it becomes academic to discuss the applicabilit( of this
exception to the basic constitutional right that the accused should be heard b( himself and
counsel.
#. 'or did the appeal to the Court of 3irst ,nstance presided b( respondent Judge Mendoza
possess an( curative aspect. &o :uote ane* from the comment of the 2olicitor 5eneral=
;Respondent Court of 3irst ,nstance ... considered the appeal ta1en b( the petitioner as
*aiver of the defects in the proceedings in the respondent Cit( Court. recisel(, the appeal
itself is tantamount to :uestioning those defects. ,n fact, the Memorandum in support of the
appeal unmista1abl( raised as error the absence of petitioner at the arraignment and cited
+urisprudence, commentaries and the rules to bolster his position. 2pecificall(, the absence
of an arraignment can be invo1ed at an(time in vie* of the re:uirements of due process to
ensure a fair and impartial trial.;
22
>6ERE3-RE, the petition for certiorari is granted. &he decision of respondent Judge
Romulo R. 2enining dated <ecember $0, !".8, finding the accused guilt( of the crime of
slight ph(sical in+uries, is nullified and set aside. Li1e*ise, the decision of respondent Judge
Rafael &. Mendoza dated 'ovember !/, !"./, affirming the aforesaid decision of Judge
2enining, is nullified and set aside. &he case is remanded to the Cit( Court of Cebu for the
prosecution of the offense of slight ph(sical in+uries, *ith due respect and observance of the
provisions of the Rules of Court, starting *ith the arraignment of petitioner.
G.R. No. L-35553 A(&(st 4, 1956
:HE !EO!LE O+ :HE !HILI!!INES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. AL/ER:O =. SENERIS, As D#str#-t '($&e, Co(rt o) +#rst I%st,%-e, /r,%-* II,
S#Etee%t* '($#-#,. D#str#-t, ",mbo,%&, C#t0 ,%$ !ILAR ANGELES DE !IMEN:EL,
respondents.
MABASIAR, J.:
&he legal issue posed in this special civil action for certiorari, *ith pra(er for a *rit of
preliminar( in+unction, spa*ned b( the August ), !".0 order of respondent +udge in Criminal
Case 'o. .#% for parricide against therein accused ilar Angeles de imentel, hereinafter
referred to as private respondent, is the admissibilit( in evidence of the testimon( of a
prosecution *itness in the said criminal case *ho dies before completion of his cross4
examination. &hat issue is crucial to the fate of private respondent, considering that the
deceased prosecution *itness ;... is the most vital and the onl( e(e*itness available to the
prosecution against respondent ilar Angeles de imentel for the commission of the
gruesome crime of parricide ...; Ap. !%, rec.B.
&he factual bac1ground of the action is undisputed.
-n 3ebruar( 0, !".0, Assistant rovincial 3iscal Camilo E. &amin, *ho *as then on official
detail *ith the office of the Cit( 3iscal, Oamboanga Cit(, filed *ith the Court of 3irst ,nstance,
2ixteenth Judicial <istrict, Oamboanga Cit(, an amended information for parricide in Criminal
Case 'o. !.)$, charging herein private respondent as principal by inducement, .ario
0emenio y delos ,antos and ,alim !oe as principals by direct participation and .oises
Andaya y (ul*anain, as accomplice, in the fatal stabbing on 2eptember /, !".. in
Oamboanga Cit( of Eduardo imentel ( -rario, the la*ful husband of private respondent.
&he amended information reads=
&hat on or about 2eptember /, !".., in the Cit( of Oamboanga, hilippines,
and *ithin the +urisdiction of this Court, the above4named accused ilar
Angeles de imentel, *ith deliberate intent to 1ill her husband, Eduardo
imentel ( -rario, *ith *hom she *as united in la*ful *edloc1, did then and
there, *illfull(, unla*full( and feloniousl(, induce and offer a sum of mone(
as consideration or prize to said accused Mario 'emenio ( delos 2antos and
2alim <oe to 1ill her said la*full( *edded husband Eduardo imentel (
-rario, and because and on account of said promised consideration or prize
*hich *as accepted, the said accused Mario 'emenio ( delos 2antos and
2alim <oe, did then and there, *illfull( and feloniousl( assault, attac1 and
stab *ith a 1nife *ith *hich the( *ere convenientl( provided, the person of
said Eduardo imentel ( -rario, thereb( inflicting upon the latter mortal
*ound *hich directl( caused his deathC that the above4named accused
Moises Anda(a ( Jul1anain although *ithout having participated directl( in
the commission of the offense above4 described, too1 part prior to its
commission b( then and there acting as the contact man in the execution of
their plot to 1ill said Eduardo imentel ( -rario.
Contrar( to la* Ap. !8, rec.B
-n Januar( !., !".0, private respondent, assisted b( her counsel, moved and *as granted
a separate trial Ap. !/, rec.B.
-n 3ebruar( $$, !".0, the accused Mario 'emenio ( delos 2antos, assisted b( his counsel
de oficio, entered on arraignment a plea of guilt(. Respondent +udge thereafter rendered
+udgment convicting accused Mario 'emenio ( delos 2antos of murder L :ualified b( the
circumstance of prize and re*ard4and not of parricide as charged in the informationC
because he ;... had no relation *hatsoever to the deceased Eduardo imentel ...; and
appreciating the mitigating circumstances of voluntar( plea of guilt( and lac1 of instruction
and education, imposed on him the indeterminate penalt( of eight A0B (ears of prision mayor
as the minimum, to fourteen A!)B (ears and eight A0B months of reclusion temporal as the
maximumC to indemnif( the heirs of the deceased Eduardo imentel the amount of
!$,%%%.%% and to pa( one4fourth ASB of the costs of the proceedings App. !#4!", rec.B.
,mmediatel( after promulgation of +udgment, accused Mario 'emenio ( delos 2antos offered
to testif( against his co4accused, herein private respondent, in her separate trial earlier
granted b( the respondent +udge in the same criminal case, no* numbered .#%. Allo*ed, he
testified as prosecution *itness on 3ebruar( $0, March /, and March $$, !".0 and as
summarized b( the petitioner, his testimon( on direct examination contained in sevent(4six
A./B pages of transcripts of stenographic notes App. $!4)), #.4/), rec.B, is to the effect ;...that
he and 2alim <oe *ere hired b( respondent ilar Angeles de imentel, for the consideration
of 8,%%%.%% to 1ill Eduardo imentel, husband of respondent ilar Angeles de imentel, in
the evening of 2eptember /, !".., in the latter7s residence in Oamboanga Cit(, and that it
*as respondent ilar Angeles de imentel herself *ho actuall( pointed out the victim
Eduardo imentel to the *itness, *ho then stabbed the said victim to death...&hat he did not
1no* the ,dentit( of the victim Eduardo imentel at the time of the stabbing in the evening of
2eptember /, !"... 6e *as guided solel( b( respondent ilar Angeles de imentel, *ho
pointed out her victim spouse to him ...; Aallegation 'o. ), petition, pp. )4#, rec.B.
After the prosecution had terminated on March $$, !".0 the direct examination of its *itness
Mario 'emenio ( delos 2antos, counsel for private respondent moved for the holding in
abe(ance of the cross4examination of the said prosecution *itness until after he AcounselB
shall have been furnished *ith the transcripts of the stenographic notes of the direct
examination of said prosecution *itness Ap. )., &2', March $$, !".0, p. /), rec.BC allegation
'o. #, petition, p. #, rec.B. &he same *as granted b( the respondent +udge *ho ordered the
resumption of the hearing on April !", !".0 App. /), "), !%0, rec.B.
?ut on April !", !".0, aforesaid prosecution *itness failed to appear because he *as not
served *ith a subpoena Ap. !%0, rec.B. Conse:uentl(, the hearing *as reset for June ., !".0
Aibid.B
-n June ., !".0, counsel for private respondent commenced his cross4 examination of
prosecution *itness Mario 'emenio ( delos 2antos, *hich cross4examination ho*ever *as
not completed on that session for lac1 of material time, thus=
A&&E. CAL9E'&-=
, reserve m( right to cross4examine the *itness further.
C-@R&
Reservation to continue the cross4examination is granted.
-R<ER= 3or lac1 of material time, as pra(ed for and upon agreement of the
parties toda(7s hearing is hereb( ad+ourned and to be resumed on Jul( 8,
!".0 at 0=8% o7cloc1 in the morning Ap. 0), rec.B.
According to the petition, the uncompleted cross4examination reduced in fift(4three A#8B
pages of transcripts of stenographic notes App. /#40), rec.B had alread( ;... touched on the
conspirac( existing among 2alim <oe, *itness Mario 'emenio and respondent ilar Angeles
de imentel to 1ill Eduardo imentel, in the latter7s residence in Oamboanga Cit( in the
evening of 2eptember /, !".., and also on the actual stabbing b( *itness Mario 'emenio of
the victim Eduardo imentel *ho *as pointed out to the *itness41iller b( his *ife,
respondent ilar Angeles de imentel ...; Ap. ., rec.B. &his is not disputed b( private
respondent.
Continuation of the cross4examination *as, as aforestated, set for Jul( 8, !".0 at 0=8%
o7cloc1 in the morning.
6o*ever, prosecution *itness Mario 'emenio ( delos 2antos *as shot dead b( the
,ntegrated 'ational olice patrols on June $!, !".0 *hile allegedl( escaping from the 2an
Ramon rison and enal 3arm, Oamboanga Cit(, *here he *as then serving his sentence.
Conse:uentl(, the completion of his cross4examination became an impossibilit(.
-n Jul( $%, !".0, petitioner, *ithout an( motion on the part of the defense for the stri1ing out
of the deceased *itness7s testimon(, filed *ith the respondent court a motion pra(ing for a
ruling on the admissibilit( of the testimon( of deceased *itness Mario 'emenio ( delos
2antos.
-n August ), !".0, respondent +udge issued an order declaring as inadmissible the entire
testimon( of the deceased *itness Mario 'emenio ( delos 2antos on the principal ground ;...
that the defense *as not able to complete its cross4examination of said *itness ...;, rel(ing
on the case of -rtigas, Jr. vs. Lufthansa, etc., L4$0..8, June 8%, !".#, /) 2CRA, pp.
/!%,/8/48.B.
6ence, this action, to *hich >E gave due course on <ecember ), !".0, after considering
private respondent7s comment as *ell as those of the 2olicitor 5eneral and of the
respondent +udge *ho *as re:uired to file one. -n even date, >E li1e*ise issued a
temporar( restraining order ;... effective immediatel( and until further orders from this Court
en+oining respondent <istrict Judge from continuing *ith the trial of Criminal Case 'o. .#%
A!.)$B entitled eople of the hilippines, plaintiff, versus ilar Angeles de imentel,
accused, in the Court of 3irst ,nstance of Oamboanga Cit(, ?ranch ,,.;
etitioner contends that respondent +udge gravel( abused his discretion in ruling as
inadmissible the testimon( of prosecution *itness Mario 'emenio ( delos 2antos.
>E agree.
,
!. &he constitutional right of confrontation, *hich guarantees to the accused the right to
cross4examine the *itnesses for the prosecution, is one of the most basic rights of an
accused person under our s(stem of +ustice. ,t is a fundamental right *hich is part of due
process not onl( in criminal proceedings but also in civil proceedings as *ell as in
proceedings in administrative tribunals *ith :uasi4+udicial po*ers A2avor( Luncheonette vs.
La1as Manggaga*ang ilipino, et al., /$ 2CRA $#0 I!".#JB.
,n almost exactl( the same language, both the !"8# and !".8 Constitutions secured it, thus=
;,n all criminal prosecutions, the accused ... shall en+o( the right ... to meet the *itnesses
face to face ...; A2ection !", Art. ,9, ?ill of Rights, !".8 ConstitutionC 2ection !., Art. ,,,, !"8#
ConstitutionB. Echoing the same guarantee, 2ection , AfB of Rule !!# of the Revised Rules of
Court provides that in all criminal proceedings the defendant shall have the right to be
confronted at the trial b(, and to cross4 examine the *itnesses against him. Constitutional
confrontation re:uirements appl( specificall( to criminal proceedings and have been held to
have t*o purposesC first and primaril(, to secure the opportunit( of cross4examination, and
secondaril(, to obtain the benefit of the moral impact of the courtroom atmosphere as it
affects the *itnesses demeanor A$! Am Jur $d 8/%B. 2tated other*ise, it insures that the
*itness *ill give his testimon( under oath, thus deterring l(ing b( the threat of per+ur(
chargeC it forces the *itness to submit to cross4examination, a valuable instrument in
exposing falsehood and bringing out the truthC and it enables the court to observe the
demeanor of the *itness and assess his credibilit( ACalifornia v. 5reen, 88" @.2. !#.
I!".%JB.
$. ?ut *hile the right to confrontation and cross4examination is a fundamental right, >E have
ruled that the same can be *aived expressl( or implied b( conduct amounting to a
renunciation of the right of cross4examination A2avor( Luncheonettee vs. La1as ng
Manggaga*ang ilipino, et al., supra, p. $#", citing @.2. v. Atanacio, / hil. )!8 I!"%/JC
eople vs. dela Cruz, #/ 2CRA 0), "! I!".)!B. &he conduct of a part( *hich ma( be
construed as a implied *aiver of the right to cross4examine ma( ta1e various forms. ?ut the
common basic principles underl(ing the application of the rule on implied *aiver is that the
part( *as given the opportunit( to confront and cross4examination an opposing *itness but
failed to ta1e advantage of it for reasons attributable to himself alone. &hus, *here a part(
has had the opportunit( to cross4examine an opposing *itness but failed to avail himself of it,
he necessaril( forfeits the right to cross4examine and the testimon( given on direct
examination of the *itness *ill be received or allo*ed to remain in the record A2avor(
Luncheonette vs. La1as ng Maggaga*ang ilipino, et al., supra, citing 3rancisco, Revised
Rules of Court, 9ol. on Evidence, p. 0#8, in turn citing eople vs. Cole, )8 '.E. #%04#!$ and
?radle( vs. Miric1, "! '.E. $"8C see alo $" Am. Jur. $d .)"B.
-n the other hand, *hen the cross4examination is not and cannot be done or completed due
to causes attributable to the part( offering the *itness, as *as the situation in the Lufthansa
5erman Airlines case A/) 2CRA /!% I!".#JB relied upon b( respondent +udge, the
uncompleted testimon( is thereb( rendered incompetent and inadmissible in evidence. >E
emphasized in the said case that ;I&Jhe right of a part( to cross4examine the *itness of his
adversar( is invaluable as it is inviolable in civil cases, no less than the right of the accused
in criminal cases. &he express recognition of such right of the accused in the Constitution
does not render the right of parties in civil cases less constitutionall( based, for it is an
indispensable part of the due process guaranteed b( the fundamental la*. 2ub+ect to
appropriate supervision b( the +udge in order to avoid unnecessar( dela(s on account of its
being undul( protracted and to needed in+unctions protective of the right of the *itness
against self4incrimination and oppressive and un*arranted harassment and embarrassment,
a part( is absolutel( entitled to a full cross4examination as prescribed in 2ection 0 of Rule
!8$ ... @ntil such cross4examination has been finished, the testimon( of the *itness cannot
be considered as complete and ma( not, therefore be allo*ed to form part of the evidence to
be considered b( the court in deciding the case; Ap. /8.B. 6o*ever, >E li1e*ise therein
emphasized that *here the right to cross examine is lost *holl( or in part through the fault of
the cross4examiner, then the testimon( on direct examination ma( be ta1en into accountC but
*hen cross4examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable
to the part( offering the *itness, the uncompleted testimon( is thereb( rendered incompetent
Ap. /8/B
8. &he effects of absence of and incomplete cross4examination of *itness on the
admissibilit( in evidence of his testimon( on direct examination has been extensivel(
discussed thus= ;As a general rule, the testimon( of a *itness, given on direct examination,
should be stric1en *here there is not an ade:uate opportunit( for cross4examination, as
*here the *itness b( reason of his death, illness, or absence cannot be sub+ected to cross4
examination. Although the contrar( has been held A2cott v. McCann, $) A. #8/, ./ Md. ).B,
the testimon( of a *itness, given on direct examination, should be stric1en *here there is not
an ade:uate opportunit( for cross4examination A'ehring v. 2mith, )" '.>. $d 08!, $)8 ,o*a
$$#B, as *here the part( against *hom he testified is, through no fault of his o*n, deprived
of the right to cross4examine him b( reason of his death A6enderson v. &*in 3alls Count( 0%
. $d 0%!, #" ,daho ".C &*in 3alls Count(, 2tate of ,daho v. 6enderson, #" 2. Ct. !)", 8%#
@.2. #/0, 08 L. Ed. 8#0B, or as a result of the illness of the *itness or absence, or a mistrial
ordered. $he direct testimony of a witness who dies before conclusion of the cross-
examination can be stric*en only insofar as not covered by the cross-examination ACurtice v.
>est, $ 'E2 #%., #% 6un )., affirmed $) '.E. !%"", !$! '.E. /"/B, and absence of a
witness is not enough to warrant stri*ing his testimony for failure to appear for further cross-
examination where the witness has already been sufficiently cross-examined ALe* Cho( v.
Lim 2ing $!/ . 000, !$# >ash /8!B, or the matter on *hich further cross4examination is
sought is not in controvers( AsupraB. ,t has been held that a referee has no po*er to stri1e
the examination of a *itness on his failure to appear for cross4examination *here a good
excuse is given A,n re Croo1s, $8 6un /"/B; I"0 CJ2 !$/4!$., Emphasis suppliedJ.
Moreover, ;I,Jf one is deprived of the opportunit( of a cross4examination *ithout fault upon
his part, as in the case of the illness or death of a *itness after direct examination, it is
generall( held that he is entitled to have the direct testimon( stric1en from the record. &his
doctrine rests on the common la* rule that no evidence should be admitted but *hat *as or
might be under the examination of both parties, and that exparte statements are too
uncertain and unreliable to be considered in the investigation of controverted facts A>ra( vs.
2tate, !#) Ala 8/, )# 2o /".C eople vs. Manchetti, $" Cal. $d )#$,!.# $d #88C A. 6.
Angerstein, ,nc. vs. Jan1o*s1i, ## <el 8%), !0. A$d 0!C 'ehring vs. 2mith, $)8 ,o*a $$#,
)" '>$d 08!C Citizens ?an1 R &rust Co. vs. Reid Motor Co. $!/ 'C )8$, # 2E $d 8!0B. ,t
has been held, ho*ever, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to
discharge the +ur( *here the state *itness collapsed before cross4 examination *as
completed, it being sho*n that no motion to stri*e the testimony was made, that it *as not
indicated *hat further information *as sought to be produced b( further cross4examination,
and that the *itness7 testimon( *as largel( cumulative A?an1s vs, Common*ealth, 8!$ M(
$"., $$. 2> $d )$/B; I0! Am Jur $d ).)J.
). >igmore, eminent authorit( on evidence, opined that=
xxx xxx xxx
... where the death or illness prevents cross-examination under such
circumstances that no responsibility of any sort can be attributed to either the
witness of his party, it seems harsh measure to stri*e out all that has been
obtained on the direct examination. rinciple re:uires in strictness nothing
less. ut the true solution would be to avoid any inflexible rule, and to leave it
to the trial +udge to admit the direct examination so far as the loss of cross4
examination can be sho*n to him to be not in that instance a material loss.
Courts differ in their treatment of this difficult situationC except that by general
concession a cross-examination begun but unfinished sufices if its purposes
have been substantially accomplished
xxx xxx xxx
A9ol. ,,, . !%0, Emphasis suppliedB.
,,
!. Respondent +udge7s full reliance on the Lufthansa 5erman Airlines case cannot be
sustained. &o be sure, *hile the cross4examination of the *itness in the aforesaid Lufthansa
case and that of the *itness in the present action *ere both uncompleted, the causes
thereof *ere different in that *hile in the present case it *as the death of the *itness, in the
Lufthansa case, it *as the un+ustified and unexplained failure of Lufthansa to present its
*itness on the scheduled date for his cross4examination *hich had alread( been preceded
b( several postponements initiated b( Lufthansa itself, thus depriving the other part( the
opportunit( to complete the cross4examination of said *itness. Conse:uentl(, this Court
therein correctl( ruled as inadmissible the testimon( of the said *itness on the principle that
;... *hen cross4examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes
attributable to the party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimon( is thereb( rendered
incompetent ...; Asupra, at p. /8/B. As clear as da(, the Lufthansa ruling therefore applies
onl( if there is a finding that the cause for non4completion of the cross4examination of a
*itness *as attributable to the ver( part( offering the said *itness. Conse:uentl(, the same
is inapplicable to the instant action as the cause for the non4completion of the cross4
examination of petitioner7s *itness *as a fortuitous event as he *as 1illed, as per the
pleadings submitted in this action, b( the la* enforcers A,ntegrated 'ational olice atrolsB
after his escape from prison. As a matter of fact, respondent +udge, in his :uestioned order,
did not la( an( basis for the application of the Lufthansa ruling as he failed to ma1e an(
finding that the non4completion *as due to petitioner, the part( offering the *itness, *hose
testimon( he declared as inadmissible in evidence. A reading of the :uestioned order
reveals that respondent +udge ruled as inadmissible said :uestioned testimon( mainl(
because private respondent can no longer finish her cross4examinationC hence incomplete.
6o*ever, private respondent advanced in this action the cavalier theor( that the failure of
her counsel to complete his cross4examination of petitioner7s *itness *as due to the fault of
or *as attributable to the petitioner, eople of the hilippines, because it *as the ver(
agents of 2tate *ho 1illed its o*n *itnessC hence, ma1ing the :uestioned testimon( of
petitioner7s *itness inadmissible, per the Lufthansa ruling.
&he contention does not deserve serious consideration. &here *as no finding nor an(
sho*ing as the same is farfetched or inconceivable that the 1illing of the *itness of petitioner
b( its o*n agents *as ill4motivated. &he prosecution did not order the shooting of the
government *itness. 6e *as shot *hile escaping from prison. ,t is petitioner7s cause *hich
*ill possibl( suffer from said deathC not the cause of private respondent. ,t ma( be true that
the escape of the said *itness and his conse:uent death ma( be attributable to the
negligence of petitioner7s agentsC but such negligence ma( not bind the petitioner as to pre4
+udiciall( affect its cause and interest L the prosecution of criminal offenses L b( reason of
the generall( accepted principle that the 2tate is not bound b( the negligence or tortious acts
of its agents. As the cause of non4completion *as, as aforesaid, be(ond the control of the
prosecution, respondent +udge7s :uestioned order cannot be sustained on the basis of the
Lufthansa ruling *hich, as aforestated, *as principall( anchored on the finding that the
cause of the non4completion of the cross4examination of the therein *itness *as attributable
to the ver( part( offering him as a *itness.
$. -n the other hand, >E find no merit in petitioner7s contention that the testimon( of its
deceased *itness is admissible on the ground that private respondent had *aived her right
to cross4examine the *itness and that the cause of non4completion *as attributable to said
private respondent. As correctl( pointed out b( private respondent and sustained b(
respondent +udge, petitioner is not +ustified in attributing fault to her Aprivate respondentB and
in contending that she is deemed to have partl( lost alread( the right of cross4examination b(
not availing of the right to cross4examine the *itness Mario 'emenio on March $$, !".0 or
right after his direct examination *as closed and dela(ing until the lapse of t*o and a half
A$TB months thereafter before ma1ing such cross4examinationC because *hile it is true that
her counsel did not immediatel( start *ith his cross4examination of the deceased *itness on
March $$, !".0, he did avail, ho*ever, of such right on the same da( b( initiall( obtaining an
opportunit( to ma1e preparations for an effective exercise thereof considering the nature of
the case L a capital one L and the length of the direct examinationC three sittings on three
different dates or on 3ebruar( $0, !".0, March /, !".0 and March $$, !".0. 6ence, there
*as no *aiver of her right of cross4examination. Moreover, the deferment of the cross4
examination of the *itness re:uested b( private respondent on March $$, !".0 *as
approved b( respondent +udge *ithout an( ob+ection on the part of petitioner App. )#, )/, /),
rec.B. And on the date for the cross4examination of the *itness Mario 'emenio or on April !",
!".0, counsel for private respondent failed to cross4examine the said *itness not of his o*n
design but because said *itness failed to appear on that date for the reason that due to the
oversight of the court7s personnel the subpoena for said *itness *as not served on him at
the 2an Ramon rison and enal 3arm App. "%, !%0, rec.B. And respondent +udge had to re4
set the hearing for the cross4examination of the *itness b( the private respondent onl( to
June ., !".0 because of the fact that respondent +udge too1, *ith the approval of the
2upreme Court, his summer vacation the *hole month of Ma(, !".0.
,t is thus apparent that no fault can be imputed to the private respondent for the length of
time that elapsed before her counsel *as able to commence his cross4examination of the
*itness. And private respondent7s counsel *as not able to complete his cross4examination of
the *itness on June ., !".0 for lac1 of material time b( reason of *hich and upon
agreement of the parties the hearing *as ad+ourned and ordered resumed on Jul( 8, !".0
Ap. 0), rec.B.
,t appears, therefore, that the situation is one *hereb( the cause of non4completion of the
cross4examination of the deceased *itness *as attributed neither to the fault of petitioner
nor the private respondent. Conse:uentl(, the admissibilit( or inadmissibilit( of the testimon(
of the said *itness cannot be resolved on the basis of the rule enunciated in the Lufthansa
case.
,,,
&here is merit in the contention of the petitioner that the :uestioned testimon( of its
deceased *itness is admissible in evidence because private respondent7s counsel had
alread( ;... rigorousl( and extensivel( cross4examined *itness Mario 'emenio on all
essential elements of the crime charged AparricideB, all of *hich have been testified upon b(
said *itness in his direct examination4in4chief, and conse:uentl(, the cross4examination4in4
chief, has alread( been concluded.;
&he cross4examination *as completed insofar as the essential elements of the crime
charged L parricide, fact of *illing-is concerned. >hat remained *as merel( the cross4
examination regarding the price or re*ard, *hich is not an element of parricide, but onl( an
aggravating circumstance Apar. !!, Art. !), Revised enal CodeB.
As elaborated b( petitioner in its memorandum=
&he crime charged in the case at bar is arricide under Article $)/ of the
Revised enal Code.
&he elements of the crime of arricide are that a person *as 1illedC that the
1illing *as intentionall( caused b( the accusedC and that the victim is a parent
or child, *hether legitimate or illegitimate, or the la*ful spouse, or legitimate
ascendant or descendant of the accused. -nce these facts are established
be(ond reasonable doubt, conviction is *arranted A2ee A:uino, &he Revised
enal Code, !"/! Ed., 9ol. ,,, p. !!.!B.
&he deceased Eduardo imentel has been sufficientl( sho*n to be the la*ful
husband of private respondent ilar imentel b( means of the marriage
contract executed bet*een them on Ma( !0, !".! ... mar1ed as Exhibit 7R7
for the prosecution ...
&he cross4examination of *itness Mario 'emenio b( the counsel for private
respondent on June ., !".0 touched on the conspirac(, and agreement,
existing among 2alim <oe, *itness Mario 'emenio and private respondent
ilar imentel to 1ill Eduardo imentel, in the latter7s residence in
Oamboanga Cit( in the evening of 2eptember /, !".., and also on the actual
stabbing b( *itness Mario 'emenio of the victim Eduardo imentel *ho *as
pointed out to the *itness41iller b( his *ife, the private respondent ilar
imentel herself... &he matter of consideration or price of 8,%%%.%%, *hich
both the public and private respondents maintain *as not touched in the
cross4examination of *itness Mario 'emenio, is not an essential element of
the crime of parricide. rice or consideration is merel( an aggravating
circumstance of the crime charged, not an essential element thereof. &he
failure to touch the same in the cross4examination *ould not at all affect the
existence of the crime of parricide. 3urthermore, there is no sho*ing or even
the slightest indication that the *itness or his testimon( *ould be discredited
if he *as cross4examined on the promised consideration. &he probabilit( is
rather ver( great that the *itness *ould onl( have confirmed the existence of
the promised consideration *ere he cross4examined on the same.
3rom the foregoing discussion, it is submitted that the rigorous and searching
cross4examination of *itness Mario 'emenio on June ., !".0, practicall(
concluded alread( the cross4examination4in4chief, or has alread(
substantiall( accomplished the purpose of the cross4examination, and
therefore, the failure to pursue the privilege of further cross4examination,
*ould not adversel( affect the admissibilit( of the direct testimon( of said
*itness an(more App. !#"!/$, rec.B.
rivate respondent did not d*ell on the aforesaid points in her memorandum.
?ecause the cross4examination made b( the counsel of private respondent of the deceased
*itness *as extensive and alread( covered the sub+ect matter of his direct testimon( as
state *itness relating to the essential elements of the crime of parricide, and *hat remained
for further cross4examination is the matter of price or re*ard allegedl( paid b( private
respondent for the commission of the crime, *hich is merel( an aggravating circumstance
and does not affect the existence of the offense charged, the respondent +udge gravel(
abused his discretion in declaring as entirel( inadmissible the testimon( of the state *itness
*ho died through no fault of an( of the parties before his cross4examination could be
finished.
>6ERE3-RE, &6E A@5@2& ),!".0 -R<ER -3 &6E RE2-'<E'& J@<5E ,2
6ERE?E 2E& A2,<EC &6E RE2&RA,','5 -R<ER -3 <ECEM?ER ), !".0 ,22@E< ?E
&6,2 C-@R& ,2 6ERE?E L,3&E<C A'< RE2-'<E'& J@<5E -R 6,2 2@CCE22-R ,2
ACC-R<,'5LE -R<ERE< &- R-CEE< >,&6 &6E &R,AL -3 CR,M,'AL CA2E '-.
.#% A!.)$B A'< &- A<M,& A'< C-'2,<ER ,' <EC,<,'5 &6E CA2E &6E &E2&,M-'E
-3 &6E <ECEA2E< >,&'E22 MAR,- 'EME',- ( <EL-2 2A'&-2 EFCL@<,'5 -'LE
&6E -R&,-' &6ERE-3 C-'CER','5 &6E A55RA9A&,'5 C,RC@M2&A'CE -3
R,CE -R RE>AR< >6,C6 >A2 '-& C-9ERE< ?E &6E CR-224EFAM,'A&,-'. '-
C-2&2.
G.R. No. L-51513 M,0 15, 1953
:HE !EO!LE O+ :HE !HILI!!INES, plaintiff4appellee,
vs.
+ELICIANO GOROS!E ,%$ R+INO /LANADI, accused4appellants.
A/AD SAN:OS, J.:
,n a verified complaint filed on -ctober 0, !".), *ith the Municipal Court of
ulilan, ?ulacan, A'A2&AC,A <E JE2@2 accused 5ERAR<- 3AJAR<-,
R@3,'- ?@LA'A<, and 3EL,C,A'- 5-R-2E of the crime of forcible
abduction *ith rape. A"xpediente, p. !.B &he crime *as said to have been
committed on 2eptember 8%, !".), starting in laridel, ?ulacan, thru ulilan, and
thence to &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a.
Municipal Judge Alfredo 9. 5ranados of the Municipal Court of ulilan received
the complaint and conducted a preliminar( investigation, first stage.
-n -ctober $#, !".), the Complaint *as amended. Rufino ?ulanadi and
3eliciano 5orospe *ere again named but 5erardo 3a+ardo *as dropped and
-2CAR AL9ARA' *as named instead. &he date *hen the crime *as said to
have been committed *as changed from 2eptember 8%, !".), to 2eptember $#,
!".). A&d, p. )!.B
Again Judge 5ranados conducted a preliminar( investigation and on 'ovember
!0, !".), he issued an order for the arrest of ?ulanadi, 5orospe and Alvaran and
fixed their bail at !#,%%%.%% each. A&d, p. .%.B
?ulanadi and 5orospe posted the re:uisite bail. Alvaran remained at large.
&he second stage of the preliminar( investigation *as set on 3ebruar( #, !".#,
but on that da( neither ?ulanadi or 5orospe appeared for *hich reason Judge
5ranados declared that the( had *aived their right thereto and elevated the case
to the Court of 3irst ,nstance of ?ulacan, A&d, p. 0..B
-n March !", !".#, rovincial 3iscal ascual C. Mliatch1o filed *ith the C3, of
?ulacan an information for forcible abduction *ith rape against 5orospe and
?ulanadi. ,t *as doc1eted as Criminal Case 'o. !$"84M. A&d., p. 00.B ?ut on Jul(
$#, !".#, 3iscal Mliatch1o filed an amended information *hich reads=
&hat on or about the 47th da( of 2eptember, !".), in the municipalit( of
laridel province of ?ulacan, hilippines, and *ithin the +urisdiction of
this 6onorable Court, the said accused 3eliciano 5orospe and Rufino
?ulanadi, together *ith one -scar Alvaran *ho is still at large, conspiring
and confederating together and helping one another, did then and there
*ilfull(, unla*full(, and feloniousl(, b( means of force, violence and
intimidation, and *ith le*d design abduct the complaining *itness
Anastacia de Jesus, an unmarried *oman, !) (ears of age, b( then and
there ta1ing and carr(ing her to &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a, against her *ill
and *ith4out her consent, and upon arrival there, the said accused b(
means of violence, force and intimidation have carnal 1no*ledge of the
said Anastacia de Jesus against her *ill and consent. A&d, p. !%%.B
Judge 'ell( L. Romero 9aldellon started the trial of the case on -ctober !#,
!".#. &he accused and their counsel de parte had long been notified that the
case *as to be tried on that da( but the( did not appear so the former *ere tried
in absentia, After hearing part of the testimon( of Anastacia de Jesus, the
complainant, Judge 9aldellon *as transferred to Metro Manila and she *as
replaced b( Judge 3idel . urisima *ho finished the trial. ?ut Judge urisima
issued an order on March !%, !"./, *herein he inhibited himself from deciding
the case. 6e said, ;Considering that Judge Alfredo 9. 5ranados is a first cousin
b( affinit( of the undersigned residing Judge and if onl( to ma1e sure that the
decision to be rendered in this case shall be above suspicion and considering
further the gravit( of the offense charged, the undersigned residing Judge
hereb( inhibits himself from deciding this case.; A&d, pp. 80/480..B 2o it *as
Judge Jesus R. de 9ega *ho decided the case and rendered the follo*ing
+udgment=
REM,2E2 C-'2,<ERE<, the Court finds both the herein accused
5orospe and ?ulanadi guilt( be(ond reasonable doubt of rape committed
against Anastacia de Jesus as charged in the information. Considering
the legal principle that each of the herein accused is responsible not onl(
for the act of rape committed personall( b( him but also for the rape
committed b( his other co4accused on account of the finding of
conspirac( or cooperation in the commission of the said crime charged
against them, the Court accordingl( sentences each of the herein
accused 5orospe and ?ulanadi to suffer t*o A$B perpetual penalties of
reclusion perpetua to be served in accordance *ith Art. .% of the
Revised enal Code, *ith all the accessor( penalt( of the la*.
?oth accused are further ordered to indemnif( Anastacia de Jesus in the
amount of )%,%%%.%% for actual exemplar( and moral damagesC and to
pa( the costs. A,d, p. )!".B
&he case is no* before @s on appeal.
&he eople7s version of the facts is as follo*s=
Complainant Anastacia de Jesus, a !) (ear4old girl at the tune of the
incident, single, student at the Calumpit ,nstitute, ?ulacan, and resident
of uHgo, Calumpit, ?ulacan, *as, at about !%=%% and of 2eptember $#,
!".), at laridel, ?ulacan, in front of the Caltex 2tation, intending to
cross the street to bu( a boo1. 2he *as loo1ing for a boo1, entitled
;<i*ang 5uinto; App. $4#, t.s.n., <ec. !#, !".#C pp. !.4!0, t.s.n., March
!%, !"./C p. ), t.s.n., March !!, !"./B. &*o persons passed b(, one of
*hom *as appellant Rufino ?ulanadi *ho *aived a hand1erchief across
her face, *hich affected her consciousness and she felt dizz( but felt that
she *as being held and boarded into a motor vehicle App. #4!!, t.s.n.,
<ec. !#, !".#C p. !0, t.s.n., March !%, !"./B.
Complainant regained her fun consciousness at about 0=%% o7cloc1 in the
evening of 2eptember $#, !".), in a nipa hut near the irrigation pump, of
5erardo 3a+ardo, at Calipahan, &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a, ,nside she sa*
appellants, 3eliciano 5orospe, Rufino ?ulanadi, and 5erardo 3a+ardo
App. !!4!), !., $!, t.s.n., <ec. !#, !".#B. &he( *ere arguing *h( she
AcomplainantB had to be ta1en b( appellants Rufino ?ulanadi and
3eliciano 5orospe Ap. !/, t.s.n., <ec. !#, !".#B.
&hat evening, at the said nipa hut, complainant *as forced to drin1 a
strange tasting ro(al soft drin1 b( appellant 3eliciano 5orospe and
appellant Rufino ?ulanadi, *ho held her hands App. $!4$8, t.s.n., <ec.
!#, !".#B. After drin1ing the soft drin1 complainant lost consciousness.
2he *o1e up onl( the next morning *ith aches and pains all over her
bod( especiall( her private part. 2he found herself na1ed. Appellants,
Rufino ?ulanadi and 3eliciano 5orospe, *ere there b( her side standing
*hen she *o1e up App. $84$/, t.s.n., <ec. !#, !".#C p. $$, t.s.n., Jan. !$,
!"./B. 5erardo 3a+ardo *as also there. All the three of them *ere na1ed.
Evidentl(, appellants and 5erardo 3a+ardo sexuall( abused her Ap. $.,
t.s.n., <ec. !#, !".#C p. !#, t.s.n., March !%, !"./B.
Appellants and 5erardo 3a+ardo forcibl( 1ept Anastacia de Jesus for nine
A"B da(s in the hut, *ith appellants, and 5erardo 3a+ardo ta1ing turns in
sexuall( abusing her during the night. <uring the da( she *as guarded
b( -scar Alvaran.
After her nine4da( ordeal, 5erardo 3a+ardo brought her to the house of
Cirilo ?alanaga( at ?ancal &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a App. $%4$8, t.s.n.,
March !$, !"./B. >hen 5erardo 3a+ardo left the house, Anastacia de
Jesus related to Cirilo ?alanaga( *hat the appellants and 3a+ardo did to
her. Cirilo ?alanaga(, therefore, *ired Anastacia7s parents and then
brought her to the &alavera Municipal ?uilding *here she executed an
affidavit about her ordeal. 2he also told the C of her harro*ing
experience App. $84$#, t.s.n., March !$, !"./B.
>hen complainant *as brought home, her friends readil( noticed that
she *as not her usual self an(more as ;she cannot ans*er and she +ust
1ept on shouting and cr(ing and trembling;, sa(ing ;1eep a*a( from me,
have pit( on me.; App. !)4!#, t.s.n., -ct. !),!".#B.
Complainant Anastacia de Jesus *as ph(sicall( examined on -ctober /,
!".), b( <ra. 'orma 9. 5ungon *ho issued a medical certificate on her
findings, as follo*s=
atient examined *ith the presence of a *ard 'urse.
2he is conscious, coherent ans*ers to :uestions
intelligentl(.
-hysical "xamination
?reast L s(metrical conical in shape, areola pigmented.
Mons pubis L pubic hair scant( in amount.
&nternal "xaminationD
6(men L presence of healed lacerations, at !!, #, 8
o7cloc1.
9aginal introctus L admits $ fingers *D difficult(.
Cervix L small, closed
2MEAR 3-R 2ERMA&-O-A L 'E5A&,9E7 AExh. 54!, . /, rec.B
A?rief, pp. 84/.B
&he appellants ma1e the follo*ing assignment of errors=
,. &6E L->ER C-@R& ERRE< ,' 3,'<,'5 &6E ACC@2E< 5@,L&E
-3 &6E CR,ME -3 RAE >6,C6 &6E R-2EC@&,-' ALLE5E2 &-
6A9E ?EE' C-MM,&&E< ,' &ALA9ERA, R-9,'CE -3 '@E9A
EC,JA A'< '-& ,' &6E R-9,'CE -3 ?@LACA'.
,,. &6E 6-'-RA?LE J@<5E JE2@2 R. <E 9E5A, RE2,<,'5
J@<5E -3 &6E C-@R& -3 3,R2& ,'2&A'CE -3 ?@LACA',
?RA'C6 ,, ERRE< ,' RE'<ER,'5 &6E <EC,2,-' AEALE<
3R-M >6E' 6E 6A2 '- A@&6-R,&E &- <- 2- ?ECA@2E &6,2
CA2E >A2 E'&,RELE &R,E< ,' &6E C-@R& -3 3,R2& ,'2&A'CE
-3 ?@LACA', ?RA'C6 ,, RE2,<E< -9ER ?E 6-'-RA?LE J@<5E
3,<EL . @R,2,MA.
,,,. &6E L->ER C-@R& ERRE< ,' A<M,&&,'5 &6E &E2&,M-'E -3
5ERAR<- 3AJAR<- >6-2E CR-224EFAM,'A&,-' >A2 '-&
3,',26E< <@E &- 6,2 3A,L@RE &- AEAR ,'2,&E -3 A
>ARRA'& 3-R 6,2 ARRE2&.
,9. &6E L->ER C-@R& ERRE< ,' 3,'<,'5 &6E ACC@2E<
3EL,C,A'- 5-R-2E A'< R@3,'- ?@LA'A<, 5@,L&E ?EE-'<
REA2-'A?LE <-@?& -3 &6E CR,ME -3 RAE. A?rief, pp. $!4$$.B
&he first assignment of error raises the follo*ing :uestions= A!B >h( *as the
complaint not filed in laridel, ?ulacan or &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a but in ulilan,
?ulacanK A$B 2ince the rape *as committed in &alavera, *h( *as the case tried
b( the C3, of ?ulacan and not b( the C3, of 'ueva Eci+aK
&he above :uestions are easil( ans*ered. Abduction is a persistent and
continuing offense. A@.2. vs. ?ernabe, $8 hil. !#) I!"!$J.B 6ence it ma( be
;tried in the court of the municipalit( or province *herein the offense *as
committed or an( one of the essential ingredients thereof too1 place.; ARules of
Court, Rule !!%, 2ec. !)IaJ.B &he Municipal Court of ulilan had +urisdiction
because the abductors and their captive passed ulilan on their *a( from
laridel to &alavera. And the C3, of ?ulacan Aas *ell as the C3, of 'ueva Eci+aB
had +urisdiction because essential elements of the offense too1 place in ?ulacan
Aand also in 'ueva Eci+aB.
&he second assignment of error asserts that Judge de 9ega had no authorit( to
render the decision in the case.
Judge urisima in the order *herein he inhibited himself from deciding the case
also ;ordered to have the same re4raffled off and assigned to another branch. ;
&he case *as presumabl( re4raffled to Judge de 9ega *ho issued an order on
June $8, !".0, *hich states, inter aliaD
Considering the foregoing, and in order to be properl( guided in the
further disposition of this case, and to obviate possible ob+ections and
criticisms *hich ma( come from an( or both parties in the final
disposition thereof, the Court resolves to re:uire the parties to submit
their respective *ritten comments *ithin fifteen A!#B da(s from receipt
hereof on the propriet( and advisabilit( of the decision in this case to be
rendered b( the residing Judge of this CourtC and to call a conference to
hear further the vie*s and arguments of the parties on this :uestion,
*hich is hereb( set on Jul( !0, !".0, at !=8% p.m. Let notices be sent
accordingl(, to all parties concerned. A"xpediente, p. 8"%.B
'either the comments nor the memorial of the conference are in the expediente
but on March $0, !".", counsel for the accused filed a motion stating=
$. &hat the above promulgation *as held in abe(ance, and then the
accused received the order dated June !8, !".0 *here the Court, called
the parties to a conference on Jul( !0, !".0C
8. &hat the parties appeared before this Court on Jul( !0, !".0C
). &hat up to the present a <ecision in the above entitled case has not
(et been promulgated.
>6ERE3-RE, it is respectfull( pra(ed of this 6onorable Court that the
above entitled case be resolved. A&d., p. )%!.B
And on June ), !".", Judge de 9ega promulgated the decision. A&d, p. )!%.B
>e hold that Judge de 9ega had the po*er to decide the case. ;>here a court of
first instance is divided into several branches each of the branches is not a court
distinct and separate from the others. Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the
+udges, so that *hen a complaint or information is filed before one branch or
+udge, +urisdiction does not attach to said branch of +udge alone, to the exclusion
of the others. &rial ma( be had or proceedings ma( continue b( and before
another branch or +udge.; ALumpa(, et al. vs. Moscoso, !%# hil. "/0 I!"#"J.B
,t is to be recalled Chat in the original complaint filed b( Anastacia de Jesus
before the Municipal Court of ulilan, 5erardo 3a+ardo *as one of the accused.
,n the amended complaint, 3a+ardo7s name *as dropped and -scar Alvaran *as
named instead. 'onetheless, *hen Anastacia testified she said that she *as
brought to the house of 5erardo 3a+ardo in &alavera, 'ueva Eci+aC that *hen she
*o1e up after she *as forced to drin1 something, 3a+ardo *as there *ith
5orospe and ?ulanadi, and all three *ere na1edC that 3a+ardo *as one of those
*ho raped herC and that it *as 3a+ardo *ho brought her to Cirilo ?alanaga(.
>h( *as 3a+ardo dropped from the complaintK &he record does not (ield an
ans*er but perhaps he decided to cooperate *ith the complainant because soon
after she finished her testimon( the prosecution presented 3a+ardo as its next
*itness.
3a+ardo testified, among other things, that he *as given a lift from the monument
in Caloocan Cit( to 'ueva Eci+a b( 5orospe and ?ulanadiC that in laridel,
bet*een the mar1et and the bridge, the t*o forced Anastacia to go *ith themC
that Anastacia *as brought to his house and later transferred to a nipa hut near
an irrigation pumpC that in the nipa hut Anastacia *as undressed b( 5orospeC
that 5orospe, ?ulanadi and Alvaran too1 turns in spending $% to 8% minutes
inside the hut *ith AnastaciaC and that he did not have sex *ith her.
,t can thus be seen that 3a+ardo *as a 1e( *itness. 6is testimon( corroborated
that of Anastacia in material matters.
6is direct examination too1 place on June $8 and $), !"./. 6is cross4
examination commenced on August ), !"./ A*hole da(B, and *as continued on
August ", !"./. &he cross4examination is recorded on pages !!$ to $8% of the
transcript. ?ut the defense did not indicate that it *as through *ith 3a+ardo.
-n August ", !"./, the trial court continued the hearing to August !!, !"./.
A"xpediente, p. $%).B -n the latter date, 3a+ardo failed to appear and the case
*as re4scheduled to be heard on 2eptember !8, !"./. A&d. p. $%0.B -n
2eptember !8, !"./, 3a+ardo again failed to appear and the case *as re4set to
2eptember $", !"./. A&d. p. $$$.B 3a+ardo did not appear on 2eptember $",
!"./, so he *as ordered arrested. A&d, p. $$84$$/.B 3a+ardo *as not arrested but
despite such fact the prosecution rested its case.
,n their third assignment of error the appellants be*ail the fact that the trial court
decided the case even though the( had not finished cross4examining 3a+ardo.
&he trial court committed no error in admitting the testimon( of 3a+ardo although
the defense had not finished its cross4examination. An examination of the
transcript of 3a+ardo7s testimon( sho*s that he *as sub+ected to detailed cross4
examination on material points. ,n fact, the cross4examination *as lengthier than
the direct examination. >e adopt *ith approval the statement of the court a +uo
on this point=
&he records sho* that the counsel for the accused has extensivel( cross
examined 3a+ardo. &he Court could not help but *onder *hat other
matters not (et touched during the cross4examination of 3a+ardo could
still be elicited from him that *ould probabl( destro( or affect his
testimon( in4chief. ,f the counsel for the accused expected 3a+ardo to
testif( further on material matters favorable to the cause of the defense,
he should have proffered such further testimon( and entered into the
records ho* the absent *itness *ould have testified if he *ere available
for further cross4examination. &he failure of the said counsel to do so
indicates that ever( material point has been as1ed from 3a+ardo during
the time he *as under examination.
>hile cross4examination is a right available to the adverse part(, it is not
absolute in the sense that a cross4examiner could determine for himself
the length and scope of his cross4examination of a *itness. &he court
has al*a(s the discretion to limit the cross examination and to consider it
terminated donated if it *ould serve the ends of +ustice.
&he Court, therefore, hereb( resolves to admit the testimon( of 3a+ardo.
&his resolution finds support, though indirectl(, from 2ection /, Rule !88
of the Rules of Court, *hich empo*ers the court to stop the introduction
of further testimon( upon a particular point *hen the evidence upon it is
alread( so full that more to the same point cannot reasonabl( be
expected to be additionall( persuasive. &he position herein ta1en b( the
Court in brushing aside technicalities is in accordance *ith a
fundamental rule that the provisions of the Rules of Court shall be
liberall( construed in order to promote their ob+ect and assist the parties
in obtaining a +ust, speed( and inexpensive determination of ever( action
or proceeding. A2ection $, Rule !, Rules of CourtB.; A&d, p. )!0.B
Moreover, even if 3a+ardo7s testimon( be disregarded the accused ma(
nonetheless be convicted in the light of other evidence.
&he fourth assignment of error raises the issue of credibilit( of *itnesses L
those of the prosecution versus those of the defense.
&he prosecution7s version has alread( been stated above. >e no* have to
consider the version of the appellants *hich is as follo*s=
-n 2eptember 8%, !".) at )= %% -7cloc1 in the afternoon, accused
3eliciano 5orospe, ?aranga( Captain of Andal Alinio district, &alavera,
'ueva Eci+a, since !".$ up to the present and at the same time a
member of the 2angguniang ?a(an of &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a,
representing tha ?aranga( 5roup, *ent to the house of his friend,
Re(naldo Matias at Calipahan, &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a, to attend a
birthda( part( App. 8/ R 8., &.s.n., 3ebruar( ., !".., C3,B. Accused
Rufino ?ulanadi, *ho *as a former councilman of Calipahan, &alavera,
'ueva Eci+a, also attended said part( as he *as also invited Ap. !$,
&.s.n., 3ebruar( $0, !".., C3,.B. At about .=%% o7cloc1 in the evening,
several teenagers *ere shouting in front of the house of 5erardo 3a+ardo
*hich is -'E 6@'<RE< A!%%B ME&ER2 a*a( from the house *here
the birthda( part( *as being held Ap. 80, &.s.n., 3ebruar( ., !".. C3,B.
&he house of 3a+ardo being *ithin his +urisdiction App. 8" R )% ,bid B,
accused ?aranga( Captain 5orospe proceeded to the place *here the
shouts *ere coming from, follo*ed b( other guests in the birthda( part(,
among *hom *as Councilman Rufino ?ulanadi Ap. 8", ,bidB. there *ere $
groups of teenagers *ho *ere at odds *ith each other. -ne *as the
group of 5il 'ocum and the other, the group of ,sagani Castro. ?arrio
Captain 5orospe tal1ed *ith the t*o A$B groups of teenagers and he *as
informed that 3a+ardo *ho promised to give a *oman to one group made
the same commitment *ith respect to the same *oman to the other
group App. )! R )$, ,bidB. &hat *oman *as complainant Anastacia de
Jesus, as there *ere previous occasions that 5erardo 3a+ardo brought
*omen of ,ll4repute to his house, 5orospe called him and as1ed him *h(
he brought again another *oman of ill4repute to that place. 6e even
as1ed 5erardo7s *ife, <ella 3a+ardo, *h( she tolerated 5erardo to bring
that 1ind of *oman in their house *hen the( are alread( married. 2he
ans*ered that she could not stop him because he *ould cause her
bodil( harm. 5orospe also called Anastacia and as1eed her *h( she
*ent *ith 5rardo *ho is a married man App. )) to )., &bidB. &hereafter he
told her to leave the place. 5erardo pleaded that Anastacia be allo*ed to
sta( onl( for that night and he *ould ta1e her out of the place the next
da(.
&he follo*ing morning, -ctober !,!".) *hile accused Rufino ?ulanadi
*as t(ing the rope of his carabao to graze in the subdivision at
Calipahan, &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a, 5erardo approached him and said,
;Monsehal maaari bang itira 1o and babaing dala4dala 1o sa baha( sa
balong4balong ng 1alaba* mo; A Councilman, ma( , be allo*ed to let the
girl *ho is *ith me in m( house to live or sta( in the shade of (ou
carabaoB. 6e pleaded *ith ?ulanadi because according to him his *ife
*as :uarrelling *ith him because of that *oman App. $!4$8, &.s.n.,
3ebruar( $0, !".., C3,B. ?ulanadi vehementl( refused and reminded
5erardo about the *arning of ?arrio Captain 5orospe to get that *oman
out of the place. 5erardo left, angr( and *as murmuring Ap. $8, &bidB.
?ulanadi left his carabao to graze and proceeded to his field to see the
laborers *ho *ere pulling grasses there, &he farmers in &alavera are
organized into groups of &*ent( A$%B for the s(stematic distribution of
irrigation *ater, each *ith a chairman. ?ulanadi *as the chairman of his
group. ?ecause there *as shortage of *ater he started the engine of his
irrigation pump. lie had his lunch in the field. At 8=%% o7cloc1 in the
afternoon, a son of an o*ner of a neighboring field informed him that
*ater *as alread( being released from the 2apang ?aca <am. @pon
verif(ing that *ater *as reall( coming, he stopped the motor of his
litigation pump. App. $$4$/, &bidB, 6e cleaned the passage of *ater to his
field for t*o A$B hours. At #=%% o7cloc1 in the afternoon, he *ent home to
eat because he *as hungr(. 6e left the pump house open because he
intended to go bad after supper. >hen he came bac1, he sa* that there
*as light inside his pump house. As he *as approaching, 5erardo met
him and pleaded that he and the *oman be allo*ed to sleep there.
?ulanadi refused sa(ing, , +ust bought this pump recentl(, ;2asalahulain
mo ba itoK 6indi p*ede (on 5erardo, 1amalasan (on.; AAre (ou going to
tarnish thisK &hat cannot be 5erardo, that *ill bring me bad luc1B A$/4$",
,bidB. ?ulanadi sa* Anastacia pla(ing *ith the *ater. 6e told her not to
ma1e the *ater dirt( as it is being used as drin1ing *ater and Anastacia
said, ;su(a naman 1a(o 1a( selan4selan mong matanda.; AEou are ver(
touch( old manB. >hen ?ulanadi told them that he *ould report them to
the ?arrio Captain, the( pleaded to him not to do so, but +ust the same,
he *ent to the ?arrio Captain to report.
>hen ?ulanadi arrived in the house of ?arrio Captain 3eliciano 5orospe,
the latter *as conversing *ith -scar Alvaran Ap. 8!, ,bid R p. )", t.s.n.,
3ebruar( ., !"..B. @pon receiving the report, the 8, Rufino ?ulanadi,
3eliciano 5orospe and -scar Alvaran, *ent to the pump house. ?arrio
Captain 5orospe tal1ed to 5erardo 3a+ardo and Anastacia de Jesus
sa(ing. ;&alaga palang matitigas ang ulo nin(o, pinaalalahanan 1o na
1a(o, a(a* pa nin(ong luma(o ditoN; AEou are reall( hard headed, , have
alread( *arned (ou but still (ou did not leave this placeB. ?ulanadi and
5orospe *ere ver( angr( and Anastacia got angr( too and said that it is
none of their business *hat she and 5erardo do. 2he rushed to*ards
the t*o as if to stri1e them but 5erardo stopped her and pleaded *ith the
t*o to allo* them to sta( there +ust for that night because he said,
;aabutan na 1ami ng curfe*; A*e *ill be curfe*edB. 5orospe and
?ulanadi relented and left *arning them that if the( *ould still be there
the next morning the( *ill report the matter to the .C. App. 8!48#, &bid R
pp. $4/, 3ebruar( $), !".., C3,B.
&he next morning, -ctober $, !".., >ednesda(, 5erardo 3a+ardo and
Anastacia de Jesus left the pump house of ?ulanadi. 5erardo brought
Anastacia to the house of his cousin 3loring at Munoz, 'ueva Eci+a,
*here the( sta(ed that night. &he follo*ing morning, -ctober 8, !".. he
brought her to the house of his uncle Cirilo ?alanaga( at ?a1al ,,
&alavera, 'ueva Eci+a AExhibit ,B. 6e told his uncle that Anastacia is a
student, and he re:uested ?alanaga( to devise *a(s and means to
return her to her parents because he might be placed in trouble Ap. .,
&.s.n., -ctober !$, !".), Municipal Court of ulilanB.
After 5erardo left, ?alanaga( *ent to the room *here Anastacia *as and
volunteered to ta1e her to her parents, but she said she *ould thin1 it
over. &hat night, -ctober 8, !".), ?alanaga( brought her to the house of
?arrio Captain Andres 'azar of ?a1al ,, &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a, to inform
him of Anastacia7s presence in that house, and also so that she could
relate ever(thing to the ?arrio Captain Ap. !%, &.s.n., -ctober !$, !".),
Municipal Court of ulilanB. &here *as a regulation in ?a1al ,, &alavera,
'ueva Eci+a, that a stranger *ho arrives there should submit a statement
as to the reason of his presence in the barrio. ?arrio Captain Andres
'azar too1 the statement of Anastacia de Jesus Ap. ), &.s.n., 3ebruar( .,
!".., C3,B *hich *as in the form of :uestion and ans*er. &his *as
reduced in *riting b( Councilman Aniceto <amian *ho *as summoned
for that occasion, in the presence of the barrio captain himself, Cirilo
?alanaga(, and his *ife. &he statement of Anastacia de Jesus mar1ed
as Exhibit ;!; *as signed b( Councilman Aniceto <amian and Cirilo
?alanaga( as *itnesses App. . to !), &.s.n., 3ebruar( ., !".. C3,B. &o
protect the interest of Anastacia, ?arrio Captain 'azar as1ed ?alanaga(
to notif( her parents Ap. !8, &bidB.
-n -ctober ), !".), Cirilo ?alanaga( accompanied Anastacia to the
olice <epartment of &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a, *here she made a report
AExhibit !8B. &hen he *ired the famil( of Anastacia at ungo, Calumpit,
?ulacan. -n -ctober /, !".) Anastacia7s relatives arrived, composed of
her uncle, Enri:ue de Jesus, brother of 9ictoriano de Jesus, sister Lolita
de Jesus and brother4in4la* Adriano 'icolas. &he( accompanied her to
the olice <epartment of &alavera, *here she made a statement, Exhibit
# *hich is also Exhibit C Ap. 8, &.s.n., June !/, !"./, C3,B. &hat same
date, -ctober /, !".) she *as examined b( <r. 'orma 5ongon at the
<r. aulino J. 5arcia Memorial Research and Medical Center upon
re:uest of the olice <epartment of &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a and a Medical
Certificate *as issued to her AExhs. ;5;, ;54!;, ;54$;, ;6; and ;64!;B.
,n the meantime, on -ctober ), !".), accused ?arrio Captain 3eliciano
5orospe and his *ife, *ith Ma(or and Mrs. ?onifacio de Jesus of
&alavera, 'ueva Eci+a, Engineer and Mrs. ?acani and 8 other couples
*ent to ?aguio Cit( to attend the convention of the Luzon Area
Communit( Christian 3amil( Movement at 2t. Louise @niversit(. &he(
rented a house and sta(ed there for &6REE A8B da(s, -ctober ), !".) to
-ctober /, !".). At #=%% o7cloc1 in the afternoon on -ctober /, !".),
*hen the convention ended, the( *ent home to &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a
App. !%4!$, &.s.n., 3ebruar( $), !".., C3,B.
-n -ctober /, !".), at about 0=%% o7cloc1 in the morning, accused
Rufino ?ulanadi on his *a( to the field to cut grasses for his carabao,
passed b( a store to bu( cigarette. &o his surprise he sa* 5erardo there
and he as1ed him *here his ;alaga; *as Athe girl he is ta1ing care ofB
and 5erardo ans*ered, ;inagpapahinga 1o si(a sa ?a1al at
pina1a*alan 1o na; A, let her rest in ?a1al and , have alread( let her goB.
5erardo further said that the girl *as intending to file a case against him,
and ?ulanadi told him, ;Mabuti nga sa i(o, a(a* mo 1asing tumigil sa
masamang negos(o mo;. A&hat7s good for (ou because (ou don7t *ant to
stop (our bad businessB. >hen ?ulanadi proceeded on his *a( to the
field, a +eep suddenl( stopped beside him. -n the +eep *ere C 2gt.
Jimenez, several policemen and Anastacia de Jesus. 2gt. Jimenez
immediatel( got off the +eep, tied Rufino7s hand *ith his o*n rope that he
brought *ith him to be used in t(ing the grasses that he *ould cut, and
brought him to the Municipal ?uilding of &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a, *here he
*as loc1ed in +ail. >hen as1ed about 5erardo, he informed the .C. that
he sa* him in the store. 5erardo *as li1e*ise arrested. ?ulanadi *as
as1ed about the case and he said he did not 1no* an(thing about it App.
8. to )%, &.s.n., 3ebruar( $0, !".., C3,B.
>hen accused ?arrio Captain 5orospe arrived *ith his *ife from ?aguio
in the evening of -ctober /, !".), his mother informed him that a
policeman *as loo1ing for him. 6e told his mother that he *ould +ust go
to the Municipal ?uilding the follo*ing da( because he *as tired. &he
next da(, -ctober ., !".) at 0=8% o7cloc1 in the morning, he *ent to the
Municipal ?uilding. @pon his arrival, 5erardo met him, put his arms on
his shoulders and said that the case can be settled in the amount of
$%%.%%. 5orospe said ;tarantado 1a pala; AEou son of a bitchB. ;, *ill
not give even a single centavo because (ou are the one responsible for
this. , have nothing to do *ith this case.; 5orospe proceeded to see 2gt.
Jimenez *ho told him that the case *as transferred to Cabanatuan Cit(.
&he 8 of them, ?ulanadi, 5orospe and 3a+ardo *ere brought to the C
head:uarters *here the( *ere intervie*ed one after the other, after
*hich 5orospe and ?ulanadi *ere sent home.
&he complainant filed the case in the Municipal Court of ulilan, ?ulacan,
on -ctober 0, !".), t*o A$B da(s after she had gone home in ungo,
Calumpit, ?ulacan AExhibit 0B. 5erardo 3a+ardo *ho *as in the custod(
of the olice <epartment of &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a *as ta1en b( the
olicemen of ulilan, ?ulacan.
-n -ctober $$, !".) *hile the case *as being investigated b( Municipal
Judge Alfredo 5ranados *here Anastacia had alread( testified on
-ctober ", !".), Anastacia again executed another affidavit because
that *as *hat her la*(er, Att(. 2antos *anted Ap. $/, t.s.n., March !$,
!"./, C3,B. -n the same date 5erardo 3a+ardo executed another
statement in the olice <epartment of ulilan ?ulacan. &hereafter,
complainant filed an Amended Complaint *herein 5erardo, against
*hom she *as originall( complaining against, *as excluded as one of
the accused to be utilized as her *itness, and -scar Alvaran *as
included for the first time. &he alleged date of the incident *as changed
from 2eptember 8%, !".) to 2eptember $#, !".). 2ubse:uentl( the
case *as elevated to the Court of 3irst ,nstance of ?ulacan, ?ranch ,.
A?rief, pp. !$4$!.B
&he version of the appellants does net inspire belief because it appears to have
been contrived. &he appellants portra( Anastacia as *anton and unchaste
*oman a prostitute. ?ut one7s credulit( has to be undul( stretched in order to bu(
the line that a girl of !) (ears *ho *as still going to school *as a prostitute *ho
*ent far a*a( from her home in order to peddle her bod(. &he appellant7s version
is simpl( too crude to be convincing.
-pposed to the appellants7 version is the affirmative narration of events made b(
Anastacia *hich *ere corroborated b( 5erardo 3a+ardo. &he stor( *inch she
unfolded could have been inspired onl( b( her thirst for +ustice. ,n her :uest she
had to live her ordeal all over again for a length( period because she *as on the
*itness stand on <ecember !#, !".#C Januar( !$, March !%, March !!, Ma( 8
and June !/, !"./. <uring all those da(s she had to bare in public her shame
and humiliation.
&o be sure there *ere inconsistencies in the testimon( of Anastacia but the(
*ere in details rather than in the highlights of her terrible experience and could
ver( *ell be attributed to her tender age and confused state of mind caused b(
her private hell.
&he 2olicitor 5eneral states that 5erardo 3a+ardo, the discharged state *itness,
also committed rape hence the appellants should each be found guilt( of three
A8B rapes because in a conspirac( the act of one is the act of all. >e cannot
agree in respect of the participation of 3a+ardo. 2ince 3a+ardo *as dropped from
the complaint his guilt had not been established. 6o*ever, >e agree *ith the
2olicitor 5eneral7s observation ;that a motor vehicle *as used to bring her
IAnastacia de JesusJ from laridel, ?ulacan, *here she *as first deceived and
drugged, and then ta1en to an isolated uninhabited place at a nipa hut, near an
irrigation pump at Calipahan, &alavera, 'ueva Eci+a, *here she *as abused, t*o
A$B aggravating circumstances are present, namel( use of motor vehicle and
uninhabited place AArt. !), R..C.B,; so that death is the proper penalt(. A?rief,
pp. !)4!#.B 6o*ever, for lac1 of the necessar( number of votes the death penalt(
cannot be imposed.
>6ERE3-RE, the +udgment of the court a +uo is hereb( affirmed in all respects.
Costs against the appellants.
G.R. Nos. 115335-39 September 14, 1997
!EO!LE O+ :HE !HILI!!INES, plaintiff4appellee,
vs.
LANIE OR:I"-MI7ABE, accused4appellant.
REGALADO, J.:
Accused4appellant Lanie -rtiz4Mi(a1e *as charged *ith illegal recruitment in large scale in
the Regional &rial Court of Ma1ati on a complaint initiated b( Elenita Marasigan, ,melda
5enerillo and Rosamar del Rosario. ,n addition, she *as indicted for estafa b( means of
false pretenses in the same court, the offended part( being Elenita Marasigan alone.
&he information in the charge of illegal recruitment in large scale in Criminal Case 'o. "$4
/!#8 reads as follo*s=
&hat in or about the period comprised from June !""$ to August !""$, in the
Municipalit( of araHa:ue, Metro Manila, hilippines and *ithin the +urisdiction of this
6onorable Court, the above4named accused, falsel( representing herself to have the
capacit( and po*er to contract, enlist and recruit *or1ers for emplo(ment abroad did
then and there *illfull(, unla*full(, and feloniousl( collect for a fee, recruit and
promise emplo(mentD+ob placement abroad to the follo*ing persons, to *it= !B
Rosamar del RosarioC $B Elenita MarasiganC 8B ,melda 5enerillo, *ithout first
securing the re:uired license or authorit( from the <epartment of Labor and
Emplo(ment, thus amounting to illegal recruitment in large scale, in violation of the
aforecited la*.
1
&he information in the charge for estafa in Criminal Case 'o. "$4/!#) alleges=
&hat in or about or sometime in the month of August, !""$, in the Municipalit( of
araHa:ue, Metro Manila, hilippines and *ithin the +urisdiction of this 6onorable
Court, the above4named accused, b( means of false pretenses executed prior to or
simultaneousl( *ith the commission of the fraud, falsel( pretending to have the
capacit( and po*er to send complainant Elenita Marasigan to *or1 abroad,
succeeded in inducing the latter to give and deliver to her the total sum of
$8,%%%.%%, the accused 1no*ing full( *ell that the said manifestations and
representation are false and fraudulent and calculated onl( to deceive the said
complainant to part *ith her mone(, and, once in possession thereof, the said
accused did then and there *illfull(, unla*full( and feloniousl( appropriate, appl( and
convert the same to her o*n personal use and benefit, to the damage and pre+udice
of the said Elenita Marasigan, in the aforementioned amount of $8,%%%.%%.
2
@pon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilt( to the charges and the cases *ere tried
+ointl( in ?ranch !)# of the Regional &rial Court of Ma1ati.
-f the three complainants in the case for illegal recruitment in large scale, Marasigan *as
the onl( one *ho testified at the trial. &he t*o other complainants, 5enerillo and <el Rosario,
*ere unable to testif( as the( *ere then abroad.
Marasigan testified that she *as a 8$ (ear4old unmarried sales representative in !""$ *hen
she *as introduced to appellant b( her co4complainants.
3
Appellant promised Marasigan a
+ob as a factor( *or1er in &ai*an for a #,%%%.%% fee. At that time, Marasigan had a pending
application for overseas emplo(ment pending in a recruitment agenc(. Realizing that the fee
charged b( appellant *as much lo*er than that of the agenc(, Marasigan *ithdre* her
mone( from the agenc( and gave it to appellant.
3
Marasigan paid appellant #,%%%.%%, but she *as later re:uired to ma1e additional
pa(ments. ?( the middle of the (ear, she had paid a total of $8,%%%.%% on installment basis.
5
2ave for t*o receipts,
4
Marasigan *as not issued receipts for the foregoing pa(ments
despite her persistence in re:uesting for the same.
Marasigan *as assured b( appellant that obtaining a &ai*anese visa *ould not be a
problem.
7
2he *as also sho*n a plane tic1et to &ai*an, allegedl( issued in her name.
5

Appellant issued Marasigan a photocop( of her plane tic1et,
9
the original of *hich *as
promised to be given to her before her departure.
16
Marasigan *as never issued a visa.
11
'either *as she given the promised plane tic1et.
@nable to depart for &ai*an, she *ent to the travel agenc( *hich issued the tic1et and *as
informed that not onl( *as she not boo1ed b( appellant for the alleged flight, but that the
staff in the agenc( did not even 1no* appellant.
Later, Marasigan proceeded to the supposed residence of appellant and *as informed that
appellant did not live there.
12
@pon verification *ith the hilippine -verseas Emplo(ment
Administration A-EAB, it *as revealed that appellant *as not authorized to recruit *or1ers
for overseas emplo(ment.
13
Marasigan *anted to recover her mone( but, b( then, appellant
could no longer be located.
&he prosecution sought to prove that 5enerillo and <el Rosario, the t*o other complainants
in the illegal recruitment case, *ere also victimized b( appellant. ,n lieu of their testimonies,
the prosecution presented as *itnesses Lilia 5enerillo, the mother of ,melda 5enerillo, and
9ictoria Amin, the sister of <el Rosario.
Lilia 5enerillo claimed that she gave her daughter 0,%%%.%% to cover her application for
placement abroad *hich *as made through appellant.
13
&*ice, she accompanied her
daughter to the residence of appellant so that she could meet herC ho*ever, she *as not
involved in the transactions bet*een her daughter and appellant.
15
'either *as she around
*hen pa(ments *ere made to appellant. ,melda 5enerillo *as unable to leave for abroad
and Lilia 5enerillo concluded that she had become a victim of illegal recruitment.
&he prosecution presented 9ictoria Amin, the sister of Rosamar <el Rosario, to sho* that
the latter *as also a victim of illegal recruitment. 9ictoria Amin testified that appellant *as
supposed to provide her sister a +ob abroad. 2he claimed that she gave her sister a total of
!%,%%%.%% *hich *as intended to cover the latter7s processing fee.
14
9ictoria Amin never met appellant and *as not around *hen her sister made pa(ments. 2he
assumed that the mone( *as paid to appellant based on receipts, allegedl( issued b(
appellant, *hich her sister sho*ed her.
17
<el Rosario *as unable to leave for abroad despite
the representations of appellant. 9ictoria Amin claimed that her sister, li1e Marasigan and
5enerillo, *as a victim of illegal recruitment.
&he final *itness for the prosecution *as Riza ?alberte,
15
a representative of the -EA, *ho
testified that appellant *as neither licensed nor authorized to recruit *or1ers for overseas
emplo(ment, -EA certificate certification.
19
@pon the foregoing evidence, the prosecution sought to prove that although t*o of the three
complainants in the illegal recruitment case *ere unable to testif(, appellant *as guilt( of
committing the offense against all three complainants and, therefore, should be convicted as
charged.
-n the other hand, appellant, *ho *as the sole *itness for the defense, denied that she
recruited the complainants for overseas emplo(ment and claimed that the pa(ments made to
her *ere solel( for purchasing plane tic1ets at a discounted rate as she had connections *ith
a travel agenc(.
26
2he denied that she *as paid b( Marasigan the amount of $8,%%%.%%, claiming that she
*as paid onl( 0,%%%.%%, as sho*n b( a receipt. 2he further insisted that, through the travel
agenc(,
21
she *as able to purchase discounted plane tic1ets for the complainants upon
partial pa(ment of the tic1et prices, the balance of *hich she guaranteed. According to her,
the complainants *ere supposed to pa( her the balance but because the( failed to do so,
she *as obliged to pa( the entire cost of each tic1et.
&he evidence presented b( the parties *ere thus contradictor( but the trial court found the
prosecution7s evidence more credible. -n <ecember !., !""8, +udgment *as rendered b(
said court convicting appellant of both crimes as charged.
22
,n convicting appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale, the lo*er court adopted a
previous decision of ?ranch .0 of the Metropolitan &rial Court of araHa:ue as a basis for
the +udgment. 2aid previous decision *as a conviction for estafa promulgated on Jul( $/,
!""8,
23
rendered in Criminal Cases 'os. .)0#$4#8, involving the same circumstances in the
instant case, *herein complainants 5enerillo and <el Rosario charged appellant *ith t*o
counts of estafa. &his decision *as not appealed and had become final and executor(.
,n thus convicting appellant in the illegal recruitment case, the decision therein of the
Regional &rial Court stated that the facts in the foregoing estafa cases *ere the same as
those in the illegal recruitment case before it. ,t, therefore, adopted the facts and conclusions
established in the earlier decision as its o*n findings of facts and as its retionale for the
conviction in the case before it.
23
,n Criminal Case 'o. "$4/!#8, the Ma1ati court sentenced appellant to serve the penalt( of
life imprisonment for illegal recruitment in large scale, as *ell as to pa( a fine of
!%%,%%%.%%. Appellant *as also ordered to reimburse the complainants the follo*ing
pa(ments made to her, viC.= AaB Marasigan, $8,%%%.%%C AbB 5enerillo, $,#%%.%%C and AcB <el
Rosario, $,#%%.%%.
,n the same +udgment and for the estafa charged in Criminal Case 'o. "$4/!#), the Ma1ati
court sentenced appellant to suffer imprisonment of four A)B (ears and t*o A$B months of
prision correccional, as minimum, to eight A0B (ears of prision mayor, as maximum, and to
pa( the costs.
,n the instant petition, appellant see1s the reversal of the foregoing +udgment of the Regional
&rial Court of Ma1ati convicting her of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.
2pecificall(, she insists that the trial court erred in convicting her of illegal recruitment in large
scale as the evidence presented *as insufficient.
Moreover, appellant claims that she is not guilt( of acts constituting illegal recruitment, in
large scale or other*ise, because contrar( to the findings of the trial court, she did not recruit
the complainants but merel( purchased plane tic1ets for them. 3inall(, she contends that in
convicting her of estafa, the lo*er court erred as she did not misappropriate the mone( paid
to her b( Marasigan, hence there *as no damage to the complainants *hich *ould
substantiate the conviction.
>e uphold the finding that appellant is guilt( but *e are, compelled to modif( the +udgment
for the offenses she should be convicted of and the corresponding penalties therefor.
Appellant maintains that her conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale is erroneous. ,t is
her vie* that in the prosecution of a case for such offense, at least three complainants are
re:uired to appear as *itnesses in the trial and, since Marasigan *as the onl( complainant
presented as a *itness, the conviction *as groundless.
&he 2olicitor 5eneral also advocates the conviction of appellant for simple illegal recruitment
*hich provides a lo*er penalt(. &he Court finds the arguments of the 2olicitor 5eneral
meritorious and adopts his position.
&he Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as ;. . . an( act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring *or1ers and includes referrals, contract
services, promising or advertising for emplo(ment, locall( or abroad, *hether for profit or
not . . . .;
25
,llegal recruitment is li1e*ise defined and made punishable under the Labor Code, thus=
Art. 80. &llegal Recruitment. L
AaB An( recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under
Article 8) of this Code, to be underta1en b( non4licensees or non4holders of authorit(
shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 8" of this Code. . . .
AbB ,llegal recruitment *hen committed b( a s(ndicate or in large scale shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in
accordance *ith Article 8" hereof.
. . . ,llegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three
A8B or more persons individuall( or as a group.
Art. 8". -enalties. L
AaB &he penalt( of life imprisonment and a fine of -ne 6undred &housand esos
A!%%,%%%.%%B shall be imposed if ,llegal Recruitment constitutes economic sabotage
as defined hereinC
xxx xxx xxx
AcB An( person *ho is neither a licensee nor a holder of authorit( under this &itle
found violating an( provision thereof or its implementing rules and regulations shall,
upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalt( of imprisonment of not less than four A)B
(ears nor more than eight A0B (ears or a fine of not less than $%,%%%.%% nor more
than !%%,%%%.%%, or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the
court. . . .
24
<uring the pendenc( of this case, Republic Act 'o. 0%)$, other*ise 1no*n as the ;Migrant
>or1ers and -verseas 3ilipinos Act of !""#,; *as passed increasing the penalt( for illegal
recruitment. &his ne* la*, ho*ever, does not appl( to the instant case because the offense
charged herein *as committed in !""$, before the effectivit( of said Republic Act 'o. 0%)$.
6ence, *hat are applicable are the aforecited Labor Code provisions.
,t is evident that in illegal recruitment cases, the number of persons victimized is
determinative. >here illegal recruitment is committed against a lone victim, the accused ma(
be convicted of simple illegal recruitment *hich is punishable *ith a lo*er penalt( under
Article 8"AcB of the Labor Code. Corollaril(, *here the offense is committed against three or
more persons, it is :ualified to illegal recruitment in large scale *hich provides a higher
penalt( under Article 8"AaB of the same Code.
&he position of the 2olicitor 5eneral is that the conviction of appellant should be merel( for
the lesser offense of simple illegal recruitment. 6e submits that the Regional &rial Court of
Ma1ati erred in convicting appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale because the
conviction *as based on an earlier decision of the Metropolitan &rial Court of araHa:ue
*here appellant *as found guilt( of estafa committed against 5enerillo and <el Rosario.
,t is argued that the Ma1ati court could not validl( adopt the facts embodied in the decision of
the araHa:ue court to sho* that illegal recruitment *as committed against 5enerillo and
<el Rosario as *ell. ,llegal recruitment *as allegedl( proven to have been committed against
onl( one person, particularl(, Elenita Marasigan. Appellant, therefore, ma( onl( be held guilt(
of simple illegal recruitment and not of such offense in large scale.
6e further submits that the adoption b( the Ma1ati court of the facts in the decision of the
araHa:ue court for estafa to constitute the basis of the subse:uent conviction for illegal
recruitment is erroneous as it is a violation of the right of appellant to confront the *itnesses,
that is, complainants 5enerillo and <el Rosario, during trial before it. 6e cites the pertinent
provision of Rule !!# of the Rules of Court, to *it=
2ec. !. Rights of accused at the trial. ,n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
be entitled=
xxx xxx xxx
AfB &o confront and cross4examine the *itnesses against him at the trial. Either part(
ma( utilize as part of its evidence the testimon( of a *itness *ho is deceased, out of
or cannot, *ith due diligence be found in the hilippines, unavailable or other*ise
unable testif(, given in another case or proceeding, +udicial or administrative,
involving the same parties and sub+ect matter, the adverse part( having had the
opportunit( to cross4examine him.
xxx xxx xxx
,t *ill be noted that the principle embodied in the foregoing rule is li1e*ise found in the
follo*ing provision of Rule !8%=
2ec. ).. $estimony or deposition at a former proceeding. L &he testimon( or
deposition of a *itness deceased or unable to testif(, given in a former case or
proceeding, +udicial or administrative, involving the same parties and sub+ect matter,
ma( be given in evidence against the adverse part( *ho had the opportunit( to
cross4examine him.
@nder the aforecited rules, the accused in a criminal case is guaranteed the right of
confrontation. 2uch right has t*o purposes= first, to secure the opportunit( of cross4
examinationC and, second, to allo* the +udge to observe the deportment and appearance of
the *itness *hile testif(ing.
27
&his right, ho*ever, is not absolute as it is recognized that it is sometimes impossible to
recall or produce a *itness *ho has alread( testified in a previous proceeding, in *hich
event his previous testimon( is made admissible as a distinct piece of evidence, b( *a( of
exception to the hearsa( rule.
25
&he previous testimon( is made admissible because it
ma1es the administration of +ustice orderl( and expeditious.
29
@nder these rules, the adoption b( the Ma1ati trial court of the facts stated in the decision of
the araHa:ue trial court does not fall under the exception to the right of confrontation as the
exception contemplated b( la* covers onl( the utilization of testimonies of absent *itnesses
made in previous proceedings, and does not include utilization of previous decisions or
+udgments.
,n the instant case, the prosecution did not offer the testimonies made b( complainants
5enerillo and <el Rosario in the previous estafa case. ,nstead, *hat *as offered, admitted in
evidence, and utilized as a basis for the conviction in the case for illegal recruitment in large
scale *as the previous decision in the estafa case.
A previous decision or +udgment, *hile admissible in evidence, ma( onl( prove that an
accused *as previousl( convicted of a crime.
36
,t ma( not be used to prove that the accused
is guilt( of a crime charged in a subse:uent case, in lieu of the re:uisite evidence proving
the commission of the crime, as said previous decision is hearsa(. &o sanction its being
used as a basis for conviction in a subse:uent case *ould constitute a violation of the right
of the accused to confront the *itnesses against him.
As earlier stated, the Ma1ati court7s utilization of and reliance on the previous decision of the
araHa:ue court must be re+ected. Ever( conviction must be based on the findings of fact
made b( a trial court according to its appreciation of the evidence before it. A conviction ma(
not be based merel( on the findings of fact of another court, especiall( *here *hat is
presented is onl( its decision sans the transcript of the testimon( of the *itnesses *ho
testified therein and upon *hich the decision is based.
3urthermore, this is not the onl( reason *h( appellant ma( not be held liable for illegal
recruitment in large scale. An evaluation of the evidence presented before the trial court
sho*s us that, apart from the adopted decision in the previous estafa case, there *as no
other basis for said trial court7s conclusion that illegal recruitment in large scale *as
committed against all three complainants.
&he distinction bet*een simple illegal recruitment and illegal recruitment in large scale are
emphasized b( +urisprudence. 2imple illegal recruitment is committed *here a person= AaB
underta1es an( recruitment activit( defined under Article !8AbB or an( prohibited practice
enumerated under Articles 8) and 80 of the Labor CodeC and AbB does not have a license or
authorit( to la*full( engage in the recruitment and placement of *or1ers.
31
-n the other
hand, illegal recruitment in large scale further re:uires a third element, that is, the offense is
committed against three or more persons, individuall( or as a group.
32
,n illegal recruitment in large scale, *hile the la* does not re:uire that at least three victims
testif( at the trial, it is necessar( that there is sufficient evidence proving that the offense *as
committed against three or more persons. &his Court agrees *ith the trial court that the
evidence presented sufficientl( proves that illegal recruitment *as committed b( appellant
against Marasigan, but the same conclusion cannot be made as regards 5enerillo and <el
Rosario as *ell.
&he testimonies of 5enerillo7s mother, Lilia 5enerillo, and <el Rosario7s sister, 9ictoria Amin,
reveal that these *itnesses had no personal 1no*ledge of the actual circumstances
surrounding the charges filed b( 5enerillo and <el Rosario for illegal recruitment in large
scale. 'either of these *itnesses *as priv( to the transactions bet*een appellant and each
of the t*o complainants. &he *itnesses claimed that appellant illegall( recruited 5enerillo
and <el Rosario. 'onetheless, *e find their averments to be unfounded as the( *ere not
even present *hen 5enerillo and <el Rosario negotiated *ith and made pa(ments to
appellant.
3or insufficienc( of evidence and in the absence of the third element of illegal recruitment in
large scale, particularl(, that ;the offense is committed against three or more persons,; *e
cannot affirm the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale. 'onetheless, *e agree *ith
the finding of the trial court that appellant illegall( recruited Marasigan, for *hich she must be
held liable for the lesser offense of simple illegal recruitment.
Appellant7s defense that she did not recruit Marasigan but merel( purchased a plane tic1et
for her is belied b( the evidence as it is undeniable that she represented to Marasigan that
she had the abilit( to send people to *or1 as factor( *or1ers in &ai*an. 6er pretext that the
fees paid to her *ere merel( pa(ments for a plane tic1et is a desperate attempt to exonerate
herself from the charges and cannot be sustained.
3urthermore, no improper motive ma( be attributed to Marasigan in charging appellant. &he
fact that Marasigan *as poor does not ma1e her so heartless as to contrive a criminal
charge against appellant. 2he *as a simple *oman *ith big dreams and it *as appellant7s
duplicit( *hich reduced those dreams to naught. Marasigan had no motive to testif( falsel(
against appellant except to tell the truth.
33
?esides, if there *as an(one *hose testimon( needed corroboration, it *as appellant as
there *as nothing in her testimon( except the bare denial of the accusations.
33
,f appellant
reall( intended to purchase a plane tic1et and not to recruit Marasigan, she should have
presented evidence to support this claim. Also, in her testimon(, appellant named an
emplo(ee in the travel agenc( *ho *as allegedl( her contact person for the purchase of the
tic1et. 2he could have presented that person, or some other emplo(ee of the agenc(, to
sho* that the transaction *as merel( for bu(ing a tic1et. 6er failure to do the foregoing acts
belies her pretensions.
&he Court li1e*ise affirms the conviction of appellant for estafa *hich *as committed against
Marasigan. Conviction under the Labor Code for illegal recruitment does not preclude
punishment under the Revised enal Code for the felon( of estafa.
35
&his Court is convinced
that the prosecution proved be(ond reasonable doubt that appellant violated Article 8!#A$B
AaB of the Revised enal Code *hich provides that estafa is committed=
$. ?( means of an( of the follo*ing false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior
to or simultaneousl( *ith the commission of the fraud=
AaB ?( using fictitious name or falsel( pretending to possess po*er, influence,
:ualifications, propert(, credit, agenc(, business or imaginar( transactions, or b(
means of other similar deceits.
&he evidence is clear that in falsel( pretending to possess po*er to deplo( persons for
overseas placement, appellant deceived the complainant into believing that she *ould
provide her a +ob in &ai*an. 6er assurances made Marasigan exhaust *hatever resources
she had to pa( the placement fee re:uired in exchange for the promised +ob. &he elements
of deceit and damage for this form of estafa are indisputabl( present, hence the conviction
for estafa in Criminal Case 'o. "$4/!#) should be affirmed.
@nder the Revised enal Code, an accused found guilt( of estafa shall be sentenced to=
. . . &he penalt( of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over !$,%%% but does not exceed
$$,%%% pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalt( provided in
this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one (ear for each
additional !%,%%% pesos. . . .
34
&he amount involved in the estafa case is $8,%%%.%%. Appl(ing the ,ndeterminate 2entence
La*, the maximum penalt( shall be ta1en from the maximum period of the foregoing basic
penalt(, specificall(, *ithin the range of imprisonment from six A/B (ears, eight A0B months
and t*ent(4one A$!B da(s to eight A0B (ears.
-n the other hand, the minimum penalt( of the indeterminate sentence shall be *ithin the
range of the penalt( next lo*er in degree to that provided b( la*, *ithout considering the
incremental penalt( for the amount in excess of $$,%%%.%%.
37
&hat penalt( immediatel(
lo*er in degree is prison correccional in its minimum and medium periods, *ith a duration of
six A/B months and one A!B da( to four A)B (ears and t*o A$B months. -n these
considerations, the trial court correctl( fixed the minimum and maximum terms of the
indeterminate sentence in the estafa case.
>hile *e must be vigilant and should punish, to the fullest extent of the la*, those *ho pre(
upon the desperate *ith empt( promises of better lives, onl( to feed on their aspirations, *e
must not be heedless of the basic rule that a conviction ma( be sustained onl( *here it is for
the correct offense and the burden of proof of the guilt of the accused has been met b( the
prosecution.
>6ERE3-RE, the +udgment of the court a +uo finding accused4appellant Lanie -rtiz4
Mi(a1e guilt( be(ond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale
ACriminal Case 'o. "$4/!#8B and estafa ACriminal Case 'o. "$4/!#)B is hereb( M-<,3,E<,
as follo*s.
!B Accused4appellant is declared guilt( be(ond reasonable doubt of simple illegal
recruitment, as defined in Article 80AaB of the Labor Code, as amended. 2he is hereb(
ordered to serve an indeterminate sentence of four A)B (ears, as minimum, to eight A0B (ears,
as maximum, and to pa( a fine of !%%,%%%.%%.
$B ,n Criminal Case 'o. "$4/!#) for estafa, herein accused4appellant is ordered to serve an
indeterminate sentence of four A)B (ears and t*o A$B months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eight A0B (ears of prision mayor, as maximum, and to reimburse Elenita
Marasigan the sum of $8,%%%.%%.
,n all other respects, the aforestated +udgment is A33,RME<, *ith costs against accused4
appellant in both instances.
G.R. No. 165355 '(.0 21, 1997
:HE !EO!LE O+ :HE !HILI!!INES, plaintiff4appellee,
vs.
RODENCIO NARCA 7 GAGARIN, /EN'AMIN NARCA 7 GAGARIN, RODELIO NARCA 7
GAGARIN, ,%$ 'AIME /ALDELAMAR 7 SELMO, defendants4appellants.

+RANCISCO, J.:
3or the death of Mauro Reglos, Jr. Ahereinafter victimB, defendants4appellants Rodencio U
;Rud(;, ?en+amin, Rogelio all surnamed 'arca and their brother4in4la* Jaime U ?en+amin
?aldelamar *ere charged
1
*ith the follo*ing information for murder=
&hat on or about the !%th da( of March, !""%, bet*een .=%% and 0=%% in the
evening, at baranga( Cavite, municipalit( of 5uimba, province of 'ueva
Eci+a, Republic of the hilippines, and *ithin the +urisdiction of this 6onorable
Court, the above4named accused, *ith intent to 1ill, *ith treacher( and
evident premeditation, b( conspiring, confederating and helping one another,
and ta1ing advantage of the dar1ness of the night, did then and there,
*illfull(, unla*full( and feloniousl( attac1, assault and hac1 *ith bolos one
MA@R- RE5L-2, JR., inflicting upon said victim fatal hac1 *ounds that
caused his instantaneous death.
2
>hen appellants7 failed in their motion to :uash the above information, the( filed a motion for
bail.
3
<uring the bail hearings on 2eptember !", !""%, the victim7s *ife Elizabeth Reglos,
*ho *as *ith him on that fateful night, testified on direct examination. <efense counsel
re:uested the court that his cross4examination of Elizabeth be conducted on the next
hearing, -ctober ), !""%.
3
2uch cross4examination on said date never too1 place because
Elizabeth and her son *ere bludgeoned to death on 2eptember $0, !""%.
5
After hearing, the
lo*er court denied bail.
4
<uring arraignment, appellants pleaded ;not guilt(;.
7
&rial ensued
and the lo*er court thereafter rendered +udgment
5
convicting appellants, the dispositive
portion of *hich reads=
>6ERE3-RE, premises considered, +udgment is hereb( rendered, finding
the accused ?en+amin 'arca ( 5agarin, Rodencio ;Rud(; 'arca ( 5agarin,
Rogelio 'arca ( 5agarin and Jaime ;?en+amin; ?aldelamar ( 2elmo, guilt(
be(ond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, defined and penalized
under Article $)0 of the Revised enal Code, and hereb( sentences EAC6
of them to suffer the penalt( of L,3E ,MR,2-'ME'&.
&he said accused are li1e*ise ordered to pa(, +ointl( and severall(, the heirs
of the deceased Mauro Reglos, Jr., the sum of #%,%%%.%% as indemnification
fee, the sum of $",%%%.%% as actual damages and expenses, *ithout
subsidiar( imprisonment in case of insolvenc(, and to pa( the costs.
,& ,2 2- -R<ERE<.
9
&he facts given credence b( the trial court are as follo*s=
16
. . . A-Bn March !%, !""%, bet*een .=%% to 0=%% o7cloc1 in the evening, after
spouses Mauro Reglos, Jr. and Elizabeth Reglos have +ust come from the
house of the father of Mauro Reglos, Jr. at ?aranga( Cavite lum, 5uimba,
'ueva Eci+a, *ho *as then sic1, and on their *a( home to 2ta. Ana, 5uimba,
'ueva Eci+a, accused ?en+amin 'arca suddenl( hac1ed Mauro Reglos, Jr. at
the bac1 portion of his head *ith a long bolo 1no*n as ;panabas;. >hen
Mauro *as about to fall at his bac1, Jaime ?aldelamar, Rogelio 'arca and
Rodencio ;Rud(; 'arca suddenl( appeared, and the( too1 turns in hac1ing
Mauro *ith bolos. >hen Mauro *as being hac1ed, his *ife Elizabeth
screamed for help, and Arturo Reglos and <ante Reglos responded and
arrived at the scene of the incident. &he( sa* ?en+amin, Rodencio ;Rud(;
and Rogelio, all surnamed 'arca, and Jaime ?aldelamar, all armed *ith
bolos, guarding their brother Mauro Reglos, Jr. *ho *as l(ing face
do*n*ard, soa1ed *ith blood, but still alive. Arturo Reglos and <ante Reglos
and Elizabeth Reglos cannot approach Mauro Reglos, Jr. because the( *ere
threatened b( the 'arca brothers and Jaime ?aldelamar. &*o minutes after
Arturo and <ante Reglos arrived, all the accused left, but accused Rogelio
'arca returned and hac1ed Mauro Reglos once more at his bac1.
-n appeal to this court, appellants b( *a( of defense A!B assail the validit( of the preliminar(
investigation because the( *ere not represented therein b( counsel and *as therefore
deprived of due process, A$B argue that the testimon( of Elizabeth Reglos in the bail hearings
should not be given credence since she *as not cross4examined, and A8B claim that pending
this appeal, appellant ?en+amin executed an affidavit assuming full and sole responsibilit( for
the victim7s death but nonetheless invo1es self4defense *hile the other appellants in their
respective affidavits state that the( *ere not in the scene of the crime.
11
All these defenses must fail.
-n the first defense, there is nothing in the Rules *hich renders invalid a preliminar(
investigation held *ithout defendant7s counsel. 'ot being a part of the due process clause
12

but a right merel( created b( la*, preliminar( investigation if held *ithin the statutor(
limitations cannot be voided. Appellant7s argument, if sustained, *ould ma1e a moc1er( of
criminal procedure, since all that a part( has to do to th*art the validit( of the preliminar(
investigation is for their counsel not to attend the investigation. ,t must be emphasized that
the preliminar( investigation is not the venue for the full exercise of the rights of the parties.
&his is *h( preliminar( investigation is not considered as a part of trial but merel(
preparator( thereto
13
and that the records therein shall not form part of the records of the
case in court.
13
arties ma( submit affidavits but have no right to examine *itnesses though
the( can propound :uestions through the investigating officer.
15
,n fact, a preliminar(
investigation ma( even be conducted ex-parte in certain cases.
14
Moreover, in 2ection ! of
Rule !!$, the purpose of a preliminar( investigation is onl( to determine a *ell grounded
belief if a crime *as ;probabl(; committed b( an accused.
17
,n an( case, the invalidit( or
absence of a preliminar( investigation does not affect the +urisdiction of the court *hich ma(
have ta1en cognizance of the information nor impair the validit( of the information or
other*ise render it defective.
15
-n their second defense, it is to be noted that the defense7s failure to cross4examine
Elizabeth Reglos *as occasioned b( her supervening death. Lac1 of cross4examination due
to the death of the *itness does not necessaril( render the deceased7s previous testimon(
expungible. &hus, this Court in Republic v. ,andiganbayan,
19
citing %ulgado v. CA.
26
said
that=
&he *holesale exclusion of testimonies *as too inflexible a solution to the
procedural impasse because it pre+udiced the part( *hose onl( fault *as to
die before he could be cross4examined. &he prudent alternative should have
been to admit the direct examination so far as the loss of cross4examination
could have been sho*n to be not in that instance a material loss. And more
compelling so in the instant case *here it has become evident that the
adverse part( *as afforded a reasonable chance for cross4examination but
through his o*n fault failed to cross4examine the *itness.
Ehere death prevents cross-examination under such circumstances that no
responsibilit( of an( sort can be ascribed to the plaintiff or the *itness, it
seems a harsh measure to stri*e out all that has obtained in the direct
examination. AEmphasis suppliedB
?esides, mere opportunity and not actual cross4examination is the essence of the
right to cross4examine.
21
Appellants lost such opportunit( *hen the( sought the
deferment of their cross4examination of Elizabeth, and the( onl( have themselves to
blame in forever losing that right b( reason of Elizabeth7s demise. &his Court hold
that the right to cross4examination
is a personal one *hich ma( be *aived expressly or impliedly by conduct
amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination. &hus, *here a
part( has had the opportunit( to cross4examine a *itness but failed to avail
himself of it, he necessaril( forfeits the right to cross4examine and the
testimon( given on direct examination of the *itness *ill be received or
allo*ed to remain in the record. . . . A>Baiver of the right to cross4examine
ma( ta1e various forms. ?ut the common basic principle underl(ing the
application of the rule on implied waiver is that the party was given the
opportunity to confront and cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to
fa*e advantage of if for reasons attributable to himself alone.
22
AEmphasis
suppliedB
>e also find unmeritorious appellants7 argument that Elizabeth7s testimon(, having been
ta1en during the bail hearings, cannot be used against them. 2ection !AfB of Rule !!#
provides that ;either part( ma( utilize as part of its evidence the testimon( of a *itness *ho
is deceased . . . given in another case or proceeding;, and under 2ection 0 Rule !!)
23
as
amended b( Circular !$4")
23
, ;evidence presented during the bail hearings,; li1e the
testimon( of deceased *itness Elizabeth, are ;considered automaticall( reproduced at the
trial; sub+ect onl( to the possible recall of the ;*itness for additional examination unless the
*itness is dead outside the hilippines or other*ise unable to testif(.;
-n their third defense, appellant ?en+amin admits that he 1illed the victim but onl( in self4
defense and that his co4appellants, *ho are invo1ing alibi, had nothing to do *ith the crime.
-ne *ho claims self4defense must prove= AaB unla*ful aggression, AbB reasonable necessit(
of the means emplo(ed to prevent or repel it and AcB lac1 of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself.
25
,n the case at bench, the foremost element of unla*ful
aggression is absent. @nla*ful aggression presupposes an actual or imminent danger on the
life or limb of a person. Mere shouting, intimidating or threatening attitude of the victim,
assuming that to be true, does not constitute unla*ful aggression.
24
,f there be an( such
aggression, it obviousl( came from appellants. Evidence on record sho*s that the victim *as
onl( *al1ing *ith his *ife, *hen he *as suddenl( and *ithout *arning attac1ed b(
appellants *ith ;panabas; and bolos. 6e *as hit at the bac1 of his head chopping off a part
of his s1ull exposing his brain.
27
>here the attac1 is perpetrated suddenl( and *ithout
*arning, there is treacher(.
25
<ue to appellants7 treacherous acts, the outnumbered victim
*as caught b( surprise and had no *himper of a chance to defend himself.
29
&his satisfies
the t*o conditions of treacher(=
AaB emplo(ment of means of execution that gives the person
attac1ed no opportunit( to defend himself or to retaliate, and
AbB that said means of execution be deliberatel( and
consciousl( adopted.
36
-nce the fact of alevosia *as established and proven, an( claim of self defense
cannot prosper for being inconsistent *ith treacher(.
,n addition, the location and severit( of the fatal *ounds on the head exposing the
brain
31
and the numerous other *ounds suffered b( the victim belie the claim of self4
defense but is indicative of a determined effort to 1ill.
32
Absent unla*ful aggression,
there *ould be no occasion for the second and third elements to be present. &hus,
appellant ?en+amin failed to discharge his burden of proving b( clear and convincing
evidence the exculpator( cause he invo1es.
33
6e must rel( on the strength of his
o*n evidence and not on the *ea1ness of that for the prosecution, for even if the
latter7s evidence is *ea1, it could not be disbelieved after he himself admitted the
1illing.
33
Accordingl(, his conviction *ill follo* from his admission as author of the
crime as *ell as his failure to prove self defense b( the re:uired :uantum of
evidence.
35
>ith respect to the defense of alibi b( the other appellants L such defense, aside
from being inherentl( *ea1 and eas( to fabricate, crumbles in the face of their
positive identification
34
b( prosecution *itnesses as being present in the scene of the
crime as *ell as the victim7s d(ing declaration pointing to appellants as his
assailants.
Appellants Rogelio and Rodencio7s contention that the( *ere irrigating their farm up
to the late hour of "=%% .M. on that fatal night is unbelievable since farm *or1ers do
not usuall( *or1 up to that late hours. &he( had not strictl( complied *ith the
re:uirements of time and place in their alibi b( failing to sho* that the( *ere
some*here else *hen the crime occurred and that it *as ph(sicall( impossible for
them to be at the scene at the covered time.
37
>orth noting is that the distance of the
houses of all appellants to the crime scene ranges from as near as 8 meters to as far
as !,#%% meters, and their field is about 0%% meters a*a( or a mere !# minute *al1
therefrom.
35
Although none among the prosecution *itnesses presented in the trial
proper sa* the actual assault b( appellants on the victim, (et one *itness AArturo
ReglosB testified that appellant Rogelio after leaving the scene returned thereto and
hac1ed the victim on his bac1 one more time.
39
Appellant Jaime7s denial of his
participation in the 1illing cannot stand against his positive identification in the scene
holding a ;panabas; together *ith other appellants. &he denial li1e alibi is *ea1ened
b( the over*helming evidence on record supporting a +udgment of conviction.
&he circumstantial evidence on record also points to appellants7 guilt. ursuant to
2ection 8 of Rule !88 conviction ma( be had on circumstantial evidence considering
that the re:uisites thereof *ere satisfied herein, to *it=
L there is more than one circumstance
L the facts from *hich the inference are derived are provenC and
L the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction be(ond reasonable doubt.
36
&he follo*ing undisputed facts *hen combined produce a logical conclusion pointing
to appellants7 culpabilit(= AaB their presence in the scene of the crime at about /=8% to
.=%% M, AbB the( *ere holding sharp instruments li1e bolos or ;panabas;, AcB the(
*ere tal1ing to each other after the hac1ing of the victim *ith appellant ?en+amin
telling his co4appellants that he *ill be the onl( one *ho *ill admit responsibilit(, AdB
the( prevented and threatened the rescuing *ife and brothers of the victim to come
near the latter7s prostrate bod(.
31
AeB the( all left together, AfB the( *ere positivel(
identified b( prosecution *itnesses, AgB the medical examination sho*ed that the
victim7s *ounds *ere caused b( sharp or sharpened instruments
32
L li1e the blood4
stained ;panabas; appellants *ere seen holding.
3urther damaging appellants avo*ed innocence is the testimon( of Arturo Reglos
that *hen he approached the victim *ho *as alread( l(ing on the ground soa1ed in
his o*n blood, the latter told the former that he *as hac1ed and attac1ed b(
appellants. &he victim even told *itness Arturo *h( the appellants did this to him
*hen he had no fault. &his is a clear case of a d(ing declaration the elements for its
admissibilit( are as follo*s=
AaB the declaration must concern the crime and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant7s deathC
AbB it *as made at a time *hen the declarant *as under a
consciousness of an impending deathC
AcB the declarant *ould have been competent to testif( had he
survivedC
AdB the declaration is offered in an( case in *hich the
decedent is the victim.
33
All these elements are present in this case. &he victim7s declaration pertains to the
hac1ing incident particularl( the identit( of his assailants. 2uch declaration *as made
*hen the declarant is certain that his death is at hand, considering the degree or the
*ounds in his opened s1ull and that death supervened shortl( after*ards. &he rules
does not re:uire that the declarant must first state explicitl( his perception of the
inevitabilit( of his death so long as the circumstances *ould +ustif( a conclusion that
the is conscious of his condition.
33
3urther, the declarant *as not incompetent to
testif( since he possess personal 1no*ledge of the facts and could ma1e 1no*n
such 1no*ledge to others L +ust *hat he did. Competenc( to testif( means abilit( to
perceive, to retain *hat has been perceived and to express *hat has been retained.
&hus, the statement of the victim has the vestiges of a d(ing declaration and even if
not, there can be no doubt about its admissibilit( as part of the res gestae.
35
>ith respect to the :ualif(ing circumstances of evident premeditation and nighttime,
the same *ere not proven and are not supported b( evidence on record. &o
appreciate evident premeditation three elements must be established=
A!B the time *hen the offender determined to commit the
crimeC
A$B an act manifestl( indicating that the offender had clung to
his determinationC and
A8B a sufficient lapse of time bet*een the determination to
commit the crime and the execution thereof, to allo* the
offender to reflect upon the conse:uences of his act.
34
&he records are bereft of direct evidence that appellants concocted and deliberatel(
executed an( plan or preparation to 1ill the victim.
37
&he prosecution failed to prove
evident premeditation b( evidence as clear as the crime itself.
35
>ith respect to the
circumstance of nighttime, the mere fact that the crime *as committed at about /=8%4
.=%% p.m. does not prove that appellants used the dar1ness of the night to facilitate
their evil design.
39
Again the record is silent *hether appellants too1 advantage of or
purposel( sought
56
nocturnit( or that it facilitated the perpetration of their felonious
acts.
51
?e that as it ma(, nighttime is absorbed in treacher(.
52
As to the allegation of conspirac(, this is sustained b( evidence on record. &he victim *as
first hac1ed on the bac1 b( appellant ?en+amin and then almost simultaneousl( b( the other
appellants. After the victim fell to the ground *ith blood oozing from his *ounds, appellants
*ere seen tal1ing *ith each other and even left the crime scene together. Although,
conspirac( li1e the crime must be proven be(ond doubt,
53
it need not be established b(
direct proof.
53
2o long as the acts of the conspirators are characterize b( unit( of purpose,
intent and
design
55
in order to effect a common unla*ful ob+ective
54
L conspirac( exists as such fact
ma( be inferred from the coordinated acts and movements of the co4conspirators.
57

Appellants7 action implicitl( sho*ed unit( of purpose among them L a concerted effort to
Dbring about the death of the victim.
55
6aving established conspirac(, all the appellants are
ans*erable as co4principals regardless of their degree of participation.
59
&hus, it becomes
secondar(
46
and unnecessar( to determine *ho inflicted the fatal *ounds
41
L the act of one
is the act of all and that all must suffer for their acts.
42
At an( rate, the appeal assails the factual findings of the trial court *hich are generall(
accorded great *eight and respect on appeal, especiall( since in this case, such findings are
supported b( substantial evidence on record.
43
Li1e*ise, the evaluation and assessment of
credibilit( of *itness is best left to the trial court +udge because of his uni:ue position of
having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the *itnesses deportment on
the stand, *hich opportunit( is denied to the revie*ing court.
43
As aptl( observed b( the trial
court=
I&Jhe testimonies of the accused and their *itnesses, aside from being self4
serving, improbable, hard to believe, and AsicB not in accordance *ith
common 1no*ledge and experience of man1ind.
-n the other hand, the testimonies of prosecution *itness Elizabeth Reglos
and the other *itnesses Arturo Reglos and <ante Reglos are ver( revealing,
straight to the point, probable and consistent.
45
'o cogent reasons or material circumstances *ere sho*n to have been overloo1ed,
misunderstood or disregarded b( the trial court, *hich if considered *ill var( the
outcome of the case.
44
?efore *e conclude, it is erroneous for the trial court to impose on appellants ;life
imprisonment; as it is no*here in the scheme of penalties in the Revised enal Code
47
nor
is it a penalt( similar to ;reclusion perpetua;.
45
&he appealed +udgment is dated 2eptember
!""$. As earl( as !")0, the Court had made it clear that reclusion perpetua is not the same
as life imprisonment, and that ;no trial +udge should mista1e one for the other;.
49
&his ruling
*as reiterated in the case of -eople v. aguio promulgated on April 8%, !""!.
76
,t is for this
reason that 2upreme Court Administrative Circular /4A4"$ Adated June $!, !""8B *hich
amended Circular /4"$ Adated -ctober !$, !""$B en+oins trial +udges to strictl( observe the
distinction bet*een life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua in order to curb the erroneous
practice of using them interchangeabl( in the imposition of penalt( in serious offenses li1e
murder.
rior to the 6einous Crimes La* AR.A. ./#"B the penalt( for murder *as ;reclusion temporal
maximum to death;.
71
,n accordance *ith the graduation of penalties in Article /8, *hen
there is neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, as in this case, the penalt( is the
medium period *hich is reclusion perpetua.
>6ERE3-RE, sub+ect to the modification that each appellant shall suffer the penalt( of
reclusion perpetua and not life imprisonment, the appealed decision of the Regional &rial
Court of 5uimba, 'ueva Eci+a convicting appellants Rodencio, ?en+amin, Rogelio all
surnamed 'arca and Jaime ?aldelamar of murder and the imposition of the monetar(
a*ards are A33,RME<.
G.R. No. L-29271 A(&(st 29, 1956
:HE !EO!LE O+ :HE !HILI!!INES, plaintiff4appellee,
vs.
ADELINO /ARDA'E, defendant4appellant.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
&he accused A<EL,'- ?arda+e in this case, after trial, has been convicted of 3orcible
Abduction *ith Rape, and sentenced to death. &he case is before us on automatic revie*.
-n <ecember $%, !"/#, MARCEL,'A Cuizon lodged the follo*ing complaint *ith the Court
of 3irst ,nstance of 2amar against A<EL,'- and five A#B others 7namel(, Lucio Malate, edro
-dal, Adriano -dal, 2ilvino -dal and 3idel Ansuas Ahereinafter called the 3,9E -&6ER2B=
&he undersigned complainant, after having been dul( s*orn to according to la*, accuses
Adelino ?arda+e, Lucio Malate, edro -dal, Adriano -dal, 2ilvino -dal and 3idel Ansuas of
the crime of Rape, committed as follo*s=
&hat on or about the period from the !)th da( to !.th da( of <ecember,
!"/#, in ?o. Lopig, 2ta. Rita, rovince of 2amar, hilippines, and *ithin the
+urisdiction of this 6onorable Court the above4named accused, conspiring,
confederating together and helping one another, *ith le*d design, b( means
of force and intimidation, and at nighttime, did then and there *ilfull(,
unla*full( and feloniousl( drag one Marcelina Cuizon from the house of one
'orma 3ernandez and brought her to a far a*a( place and once there,
accused Adelino ?arda+e, b( means of force and intimidation forcibl( had
sexual intercourse *ith her several times *hile his co4accused *ere on
guard.
Contrar( to la*. AEmphasis suppliedB.
A<EL,'- *as arrested on <ecember !.th, and it *as on <ecember $%th, *hen he signed
the alleged confession, Exhibit ;C;, admitting having 1idnapped and molested MARCEL,'A,
1
*hich *as probabl( the basis for MARCEL,'A7s complaint, presumabl( prepared *ith the
help of the 3iscal. >hat has been noticed is that, in Exhibit ;C;, A<EL,'- had mentioned
that, besides the 3,9E -&6ER2, a sixth, <omingo -dal, *as *ith the group *hen
MARCEL,'A *as ;1idnapped;. &here is no indication in the record as to *h( <omingo -dal
*as not included in MARCEL,'A7s complaint as one of the accused.
&he follo*ing da(, <ecember $!st, the 3iscal7s office filed the follo*ing ,nformation *ith the
Court=
&he undersigned Assistant rovincial 3iscal accuses Adelino ?arda+e, Lucio
Malate, edro -dal, Adriano -dal, 2ilvino -dal and 3idel Ansuas of the
crime of Rape with &llegal !etention committed as follo*s=
&hat on or about the period from the !)th da( to !.th da( of <ecember, !"/#, in ?o.
Crossing, Municipalit( of 2ta. Rita, rovince of 2amar, hilippines and *ithin the +urisdiction
of this 6onorable court the above4named accused, conspiring, confederating together and
helping one another, *ith Lucio Malate, edro -dal, Adriano -dal, 2ilvino -dal and 3idel
Ansuas, *ith le*d design, b( means of force and intimidation, armed with bolos and at
nighttime, did then and there *ilfull(, unla*full( and feloniousl( drag one Marcelina Cuizon,
a minor of !) (ears old, from the house of one 'orma 3ernandez and brought her to a far
a*a( place and once there, accused Adelino ?arda+e, b( means of force and intimidation
forcibl( had sexual intercourse *ith her for several times *hile his co4accused *ere on
guard.
$hat the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstances that it was committed in an
uninhabited place and with the aid of armed men, were present. 2"mphasis supplied#.
,t *ill be noted that the complaint filed directl( b( MARCEL,'A *ith the Court *as amended
b( the 3iscal in the ,nformation. >hile MARCEL,'A charged A<EL,'- onl( *ith Rape, the
3iscal charged him *ith ;Rape *ith ,llegal <etention;. MARCEL,'A merel( alleged that she
*as dragged from the house of 'orma 3ernandez b( means of force and intimidation and at
nighttime. -n the other hand, the ,nformation added that the accused *ere ;armed *ith
bolos;. &he name of the barrio *as also changed from Lopig to Crossing. Lastl(, the
,nformation included the allegation that the crime of Rape *ith ,llegal <etention *as
committed *ith the ;aggravating circumstances that it *as committed in an uninhabited place
and *ith the aid of armed men;.
-f the six A/B persons accused, the 3,9E -&6ER2 *ere never arrested, and onl( A<EL,'-
stood trial. &he period of the offense *as from <ecember !)th to !.th, *ith the complaint
having been filed on <ecember $%th, or barel( three A8B da(s thereafter. >ith that time frame
in mind, an anal(sis of the ,nformation *ill sho* the assumption that onl( A<EL,'- *as the
principal culprit *hile the 3,9E -&6ER2 *ere either principals b( cooperation or
accomplices. &hus, the clause ;*ith; Lucio Malate, edro -dal, Mariano -dal, 2ilvino -dal
and 3idel Ansuas; indicates that it *as A<EL,'- *ho had dragged MARCEL,'A ;*ith; the
help of the 3,9E -&6ER2. ?oth the complaint and ,nformation also indicated that A<EL,'-
*as the onl( one *ho committed the rape, *hile the 3,9E -&6ER2 *ere merel(
accomplices.
-n June $, !"//, before the arraignment of A<EL,'-, the ,nformation *as amended to
include the allegation that MARCEL,'A *as detained and deprived of libert( for a period of
th%ree A8B da(s, *hich allegation could be ta1en into account in connection *ith ,llegal
<etention
2
but not in connection *ith 3orcible Abduction.
3
2ince according to Exhibit ;C;,
MARCEL,'A *as ;1idnapped; at midnight of <ecember !)th, and A<EL,'- *as arrested in
the morning of <ecember !.th, or an interval of less than .$ 6ours, it could not be correctl(
pleaded that MARCEL,'A *as deprived of libert( for three A8B da(s.
3

After the trial *as concluded, A<EL,'-7s la*(er submitted his Memorandum on Jul( $/,
!"/., in *hich he specificall( argued that ;the prosecution did not establish the elements of
Rape and ,llegal <etention as prescribed b( Articles 88# and $/. of the Revised enal
Code.; ,t *as onl( in the Memorandum of the 3iscal, dated Jul( $., !"/., *hen the position
*as ta1en that the crime *hich should be imputed to A<EL,'- is Rape *ith 3orcible
Abduction. &he prosecution7s Memorandum stated=
Although the information is for Rape *ith ,llegal <etention instead of Rape
*ith 3orcible Abduction, (et from the bod( of the information it could be
clearl( gleaned that the elements of abduction are sufficientl( alleged therein
and hence the accused can be convicted thereunder Aeople vs. Emiliano
Javete, CA %!"#/4#.4CR April ., !"/) A0$4!"/#B.
&he follo*ing da(, Jul( $0, !"/., the trial Court found A<EL,'- guilt( of 3orcible Abduction
*ith Rape *ith the aggravating circumstances of d*elling and aid of armed men, and
sentenced him to death.
&he version of complainant MARCEL,'A Cuizon, !) (ears of age, is that in <ecember,
!"/#, she and her mother *ere living in the house of her aunt, 2ofia 3ernandez, at ?arrio
Crossing, 2ta. Rita, 2amar, *here she *or1ed as a beautician. At .=%% o7cloc1 in the evening
of <ecember !), !"/# *hile she *as then eating supper, A<EL,'-, *hom she 1ne* *hen
the( *ere ;still small;, and *ho *as her classmate in 5rade ,, A!"/%B, accompanied b( the
3,9E -&6ER2, entered the house and began drin1ing ;sho hoc tong; *hich the( brought
along. After the li:uor had been full( consumed, 2ilvino -dal bro1e the 1erosene lamp
causing complete dar1ness. 2he then ran to the room *here her mother *as. A<EL,'-,
edro -dal, 3idel Ansuas, and Adriano -dal, follo*ed her, tried to extricate her from her
mother7s embrace and dragged the t*o of them to the sala. edro -dal cho1ed the mother7s
nec1 thereb( loosening her hold on the daughter and the four males, t*o of *hom *ere
armed *ith bolos, forced her do*nstairs and b( holding and dragging her, brought her to the
mountain about t*o 1ilometers from ?arrio Crossing. &hat *as about !$ midnight. -n the
*a(, A<EL,'- slapped her rendering her unconscious. 2he regained consciousness in a
hut, *ith A<EL,'- holding her hands, and removing her pant(. 2he bit and 1ic1ed him.
<espite her struggle, A<EL,'- succeeded in having sexual intercourse *ith her *hile his
other companions sta(ed outside on guard.
@nder cross4examination, MARCEL,'A declared that she did not 1no* *ho o*ned the hut
and that it *as +ust a one4room affair *here a *oman and t*o small children livedC that she
and Appellant slept in that same room as the *oman, *hile the 3,9E -&6ER2 slept near the
1itchen.
5

At about 0=%% o7cloc1 the follo*ing morning, <ecember !#, A<EL,'- and the 3,9E -&6ER2
brought her to another mountain, / 1ilometers farther, arriving there past t*elve o7cloc1 noon
at the house of one called Ceferino Aalso called CiprianoB *ho lived there *ith his famil(. 2he
*as 1ept in one room. -utside the room *ere edro -dal, Adriano -dal and 3idel Ansuas,
still armed *ith bolos, drin1ing and guarding her. ,n the evening, A<EL,'- had another
sexual intercourse *ith her even though she bit and 1ic1ed him and shouted for help *hich
*as to no avail as all present *ere relatives of A<EL,'-, *ith the latter Ceferino ;&ata(;
2he curled the hair of 'arita Adaughter of CeferinoB the next da(, because A<EL,'-
threatened to 1ill her if she did not. 6er curling paraphernalia *as ta1en b( Adriano -dal,
upon A<EL,'-7s instructions, from 'orma 3ernandez Aher cousinB *ho gave the e:uipment
as she A'ormaB *as also threatened. MARCEL,'A and her ;captors; sta(ed in Ceferino7s
house for t*o da(s. ,n the morning of <ecember !., t*o soldiers *ith her father, Ale+o
Cuizon, arrived. &he soldiers apprehended A<EL,'- *hile the 3,9E -&6ER2 +umped do*n
the *indo* and fled. @pon her father, she embraced him and cried. &he( all returned to
?arrio Crossing. 2he and her mother, Maria 3ernandez, then *ent to Catbalogan, *here she
filed a complaint at the 3iscal7s -ffice on <ecember $%, !"/# and submitted to a medical
examination at the 2amar rovincial 6ospital.
>hen cross4examined, Complainant admitted that Ceferino, his *ife. and seven children
*ere living in the same hut *here she *as ta1en the second time, *hich hut *as about *aist
high from the ground, consisted of one room, 8 x $ meters, a sala, / x 8 meters, and a
1itchen. ?et*een the room and the sala *as a *all of split bamboos so that noise inside the
room could be heard clearl( from the other side.
4

<r. 9itus 6oba(an, Jr., Resident h(sician at the 2amar rovincial 6ospital, declared that he
examined MARCEL,'A on <ecember $%, !"/# and issued a Medical Certificate *ith the
follo*ing findings=
!. 'o evidence of external in+uries around the vulva or an( part of the bod(.
$. 6(men no intact, presence of old healed laceration at ), ., !$ o7cloc1.
8. 9agina easil( admits t*o fingers.
). 9aginal smear negative for spermatozoa
7

Explaining the ;old healed laceration;, the doctor stated that laceration ma( have been
caused b( possible sexual intercourse or other factors, and if it *ere intercourse, he
estimated that it could have occured ; sa(, t*o *ee1s or one month; or possibl( more.
5

3or his part, A<EL,'-, aged !0, admitted having had carnal 1no*ledge of MARCEL,'A but
denied having raped her. 6e claims that the( eloped on <ecember !) to !., !"/# as
previousl( planned, the( having been s*eethearts since 'ovember !$, !"/). As such, the(
used to date in &acloban and ;an(thing goes;. MARCEL,'A7s famil( used to have a house in
?arrio Crossing but no* MARCEL,'A +ust sta(s in the house of her aunt, 2ofia, *hich is
about five houses a*a( from theirs. ,n the evening of <ecember !), !"/#, *hile 2ofia,
MARCEL,'A7s mother and others *ere eating, MARCEL,'A handed him a bag and beaut(
culture e:uipment through the *indo*, *ent do*nstairs, after *hich the t*o of them *al1ed
to the mountains, to Ceferino Armada7s house. Ceferino *as a cousin of A<EL,'-7s mother.
6e and MARCEL,'A slept in the bedroom *ith !04(ear old 'arita, Ceferino7s daughter.
>hile in that hut, food *as brought to them b( his sister, 'enita. MARCEL,'A curled 'arita7s
hair the next da(.
,n the morning of <ecember !., !"/#, 2ets. &erado and 5acelos, accompanied b(
MARCEL,'A7s father, Ale+o Cuizon, apprehended him for having 1idnapped MARCEL,'A.
&he latter ran to him and embraced him and said she *as to blame. not*ithstanding, he *as
boxed b( the soldiers as instructed b( MARCEL,'A7s father and ta1en to Maulong C
6ead:uarters for :uestioning. <uring the investigation, he *as boxed and 1ic1ed and *as
forced to sign a statement implicating the 3,9E -&6ER2 as his companions even if untrue.
6e did not 1no* *ho attested to his statement as one 2gt. 5acelos too1 the document
else*here.
Ceferino Armada, /% (ears of age, the o*ner of the hut *here MARCEL,'A *as allegedl(
forcibl( brought the second time, corroborated that portion of A<EL,'-7s testimon(
regarding their sta( in his house adding that MARCEL,'A and A<EL,'- had told him that
the( had elopedC that MARCEL,'A even offered to curl his daughter7s hair A'arita7s and
Concepcion7sB, and helped in house chores and in the threshing of pala(, *hile A<EL,'-
helped in carr(ing pala( because it *as rain(.
&he trial Court found the prosecutors version of the incident more *orth( of credence stating
that Complainant had no improper motive to implicate A<EL,'- in such a detestable crime
as Rape.
-n the basis of the evidence, testimonial and documentar(, *e find that the guilt of
A<EL,'- has not been established be(ond reasonable doubt.
,n crimes against chastit(, the conviction or ac:uittal of an accused depends almost entirel(
on the credibilit( of a complainant7s testimon( since b( the intrinsic nature of those crimes
the( usuall( involve onl( t*o persons L the complainant and the accused. &he offended
part(7s testimon(, therefore, must be sub+ected to thorough scrutin( for a determination of its
veracit( be(ond reasonable doubt.
,n the instant case, *e find MARCEL,'A7s charge that she *as forcibl( abducted and
after*ards raped b( A<EL,'- in conspirac( *ith 3,9E -&6ER2 highl( dubious and
inherentl( improbable.
&o start *ith, according to the medical findings, ;no evidence of external in+uries *as found
around the vulva or an( part of the bod(; of Complainant, a fact *hich is strange, indeed,
considering that Complainant *as allegedl( ;dragged; slapped; into unconsciousness,
;*restled; *ith, and criminall( abused. h(sical evidence is of the highest order and spea1s
more elo:uentl( than an *itnesses put together. >e are also faced *ith the medical finding
of ;old healed lacerations; in the h(men *hich, according to the testimon( of the examining
ph(sician *ould have occurred t*o *ee1s or even one month before if said lacerations had
been caused b( sexual intercourse. &his expert opinion bolsters the defense that
MARCEL,'A and A<EL,'- had previous amorous relations at the same time that it casts
serious doubts on the charge of intercourse b( force and intimidation.
2econdl(, b( Complainant7s o*n admission, the first hut she *as ta1en to *as a small one4
room affair occupied b( a *oman and t*o small children. 6er charge, therefore, that she
*as ravished in that same room is highl( improbable and contrar( to human experience.
&hirdl(, from her o*n lips, Complainant testified that the second hut *here she *as ta1en,
that of Ceferino Armada, consisted of a small room separated from the sala b( a *all of split
bamboos. 3urther, that Ceferino *ith his *ife and seven children all lived therein. ,t
challenges human credulit( that she could have been sexuall( abused *ith so man( *ithin
hearing and distance. ,t is unbelievable, too, that under those circumstances the 3,9E
-&6ER2 could have stood guard outside, armed *ith bolos and drin1ing, *hile A<EL,'-
allegedl( too1 advantage of her. ,f rape *ere, indeed, their malevolent intent, the( *ould, in
all probabilit(, have ta1en turns in abusing her. &hat the( did not, indicates that there *as,
indeed, some special relationship bet*een MARCEL,'A and A<EL,'-. 3urthermore, *ith
people around, and the hut constructed as it *as, it *ould have been an eas( matter for
MARCEL,'A to have shouted and cried for help. 2urel(, the old man Ceferino, his *ife
andDor his children could not have been insensible to her outcries not*ithstanding their
relationship to A<EL,'-. &he aphorism still rings true that evidence to be believed must not
onl( come from the mouth of a credible *itness but must be credible in itself.
Additionall(, Complainant admits that she even curled the hair of 'arita, one of Ceferino7s
daughters, a fact inconsistent *ith her allegation of ;captivit(;. &hat she *as threatened *ith
death if she did not accede to such an inconse:uential re:uest defies credulit(. &he
livelihood is that, as the defense maintains, MARCEL,'A *as not forcibl( abducted but that
she and A<EL,'- had, in fact, eloped and that she had brought her beaut( culture
paraphernalia *ith her, or, that she herself had sent for them from her cousin 'orma
3ernandez voluntaril( and not under threat from A<EL,'-.
&he totalit( of the foregoing circumstances count *ith such great *eight and significance that
the( lend an aura of improbabilit( and reasonable doubt to the allegation that MARCEL,'A
had been ;1idnapped; or ;illegall( detained; and that *hen she and A<EL,'- engaged in
sexual intercourse, it *as because of force or intimidation exercised upon her. &he( are
circumstances that *ere overloo1ed b( the trial Court and +ustif( a reversal of its finding of
guilt as an exception to the established rule that the findings of fact of a trial Judge based on
the relative credibilit( of *itnesses are entitled to great respect and *ill not be disturbed b(
appellate Courts.
&his case also constitutes an exception to the general belief that a (oung girl *ould not
expose herself to the ordeal of public trial if she *ere not motivated solel( b( a desire to
have the culprit *ho had ravished and shamed her placed behind bars. As *e vie* it,
MARCEL,'A *as confronted *ith a paradoxical situation as a daughter of relative tender
age *ho could not shamefacedl( admit to her parents that she had eloped and voluntaril(
submitted to sexual intercourse, since that elopement must have met *ith righteous
indignation on the part of her parents. As a result, MARCEL,'A *as faced *ith no other
choice but to charge A<EL,'- *ith rape or incur the ire of her parents and social disrepute
from a small communit(.
,n respect of the alleged confession of A<EL,'-, suffice it to re4state that ;an extra+udicial
confession made b( an accused shag not be sufficient ground for conviction unless
corroborated b( evidence of corpus delicti.
9
Corpus delicti is proved *hen the evidence on
record sho*s that the crime prosecuted had been committed. &hat proof has not been met in
the case at bar, the evidence establishing more of an elopement rather than 1idnapping or
illegal detention or forcible abduction, and much less rape. Moreover, A<EL,'-, aged !0,
*as b( himself *hen being investigated b( soldiers,
16
*ithout benefit of counsel nor of
an(one to advise him of his rights. Aside from his declaration that >s confession *as
obtained through maltreatment and violence,
11
it *as also vitiated b( a procedural
irregularit( testified to b( no less than prosecution *itness 2gt. edro 5acelos to the effect
that he and room after he presented the statement to the Cler1 of Court, Mr. Ro+as.
12
&here
is reason to believe, therefore that the so called confession *as attested *ithout A<EL,'-7s
presence so that the latter cannot be said to have dul( subscribed and s*orn to it.
,t should also be noted that throughout the hearings before the trial Court, it *as assumed
that A<EL,'- *as being held responsible for the complex crime of Rape *ith ,llegal
<etention. >hile it is true that an accused can be punished for a crime described b( the facts
alleged in tile ,nformation despite a *rong designation of the crime in the preamble of the
,nformation,
13
(et, in capital cases, it should be desirable that, *henever a discrepanc( is
noted bet*een the designation of the crime made b( the 3iscal and the crime described b(
the facts pleaded in his ,nformation. &he lo*er Court should call attention of the accused to
the discrepanc(, so that the accused ma( be full( apprised of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. &his *as not done in regards to A<EL,'- *ho all the time *as
under the impression that he *as being tried for Rape *ith ,llegal <etention, and not for
3orcible Abduction *ith Rape. ,f A<EL,'- had 1no*n that he *as being tried for 3orcible
Abduction *ith Rape, he ma( have changed the strateg( or tactics of his defense. 'ot that it
could be said he *ould have done soC but he should have been advised he had the right,
and given the opportunit(, to do so.
Again, one of the rights of an accused is ;to have compulsor( process issued to secure the
attendance of *itnesses on his behalf.
13
A<EL,'- had stated that, *hile MARCEL,'A *as
in the house of Ceferino Armada, she curled the hair of 'arita. one of the latter7s children, as
*ell as the hair of other girls in the vicinit(.
A<EL,'- *anted to have 'arita testif( on his behalf, and a subpoena had been issued to
her. ?ut instead of ta1ing effective steps to have 'arita brought to Court, the lo*er court
gave responsibilit( for 'arita7s attendance to the defense, expressl( stating that, if the
defense *as not able to bring her to the Court, her testimon( *ill be dispensed *ith. &he
record sho*s=
A&&E. ?-6-L
, appear as counsel for the accused. @p to no*, Eour 6onor,
the *itnesses *e have been expecting have not (et arrived.
&his representation, *ith the consent of the Cler1 of Court
have *ired the Chief of olice of 2ta. Rita, 2amar to bring
Ceferino Armada and 'arita Armada tomorro* for the
hearing, continuation of this case for those persons
mentioned to testif(, (our 6onor, for the accused. >e pra(,
Eour 6onor, that *e be given time to hear from the Chief of
olice to bring those persons tomorro*, Eour 6onor.
C-@R&
>hat *ill be the nature of the testimonies of those *itnesses.
xxx xxx xxx
C-@R&
6o* about the other girlK
A&&E. ?-6-L
'arita Armada *ill substantiall( be corroborative, Eour 6onor.
C-@R&
2uppose the t*o *itnesses do not arrive tomorro*, for *hich
this case is set alsoK
A&&E. ?-6-L
,f *e receive information and find that those *itnesses could
reall( not come for this case, Eour 6onor, , *ill be
constrained to submit the case for decision based on the
testimon( of the accused. 6o*ever, Eour 6onor, if it *ill be all
right *ith the 6onorable Court and *e find that there is hope
that *ithin this *ee1 Ceferino Armada could come here, in
vie* of the distance, , pra( before the 6onorable Court that
*e be given time *ithin this *ee1 to present Ceferino
Armada, and upon his failure, submit the case for decision
C-@R&
&he Court *ill not allo* that an(more, an(*a( this case is set
for tomorro*. &he Court *ail grant the postponement toda(
on condition that an( *itness not presented tomorro* *ill be
considered *aived Afterall as (ou have manifest, ) their
testimonies *ill be corroborative.
xxx xxx xxx
C-@R&
>hat , mean is that (ou should have ta1en the necessar(
precaution for the attendance of (our *itness toda(
considering that there is a subpoena for the *itnesses.4
-R<ER 4 for the reason that accused have no more
*itnesses to present toda(, the trial of this case is hereb(
ostponed for tomorro*, Jul( $/, !"/. at 0=8% A.M., *ith the
*arning that *itnesses not presented during that da( shall be
considered *aived.
15

Considering that this case involved a prosecution for a capital offense, the lo*er Court acted
precipitousl( in not having 'arita brought to Court, b( ordering her arrest if necessar(
A<EL,'- *as deprived of his right ;to have compulsor( process issued to secure the
attendance of *itnesses on his behalf.;
Crucial :uestions should also have been as1ed b( the trial Court of *itnesses. MARCEL,'A
testified before the lo*er Court on <ecember !, !"//. -n <ecember !$, !"//, 5acelos,
the C 2gt. *ho investigated the complaint against A<EL,'-, testified=
G. >as that investigation of M Cuizon reduced to *ritingK
A. Ees, 2ir.
14

,t *ould have been advisable if the lo*er Court had right then and there as1ed for the
production of the *ritten statement of MARCEL,'A.
&he medical report, Exhibit ;?;, implied that MARCEL,'A could have had sexual intercourse
previous to <ecember !)th. -n the other hand, A<EL,'- had testified that he and
MARCEL,'A used to go together to &acloban, and *hile there several times, ;*e had sexual
intercourse because she li1es it.;
17
Considering the possible infliction of the death penalt( on
A<EL,'-, the lo*er Court could have as1ed MARCEL,'A if she had had sexual intercourse
prior to <ecember !)th and, if so, if it *as *ith A<EL,'-.
3urther, there *as possibilit( that A<EL,'- and MARCEL,'A had reall( been s*eethearts.
&he lo*er Court could have as1ed MARCEL,'A if she realized that, charging A<EL,'- *ith
Rape *ith ,llegal <etention, the latter could be sentenced to death. ,f that had been
explained to her clearl( b( the lo*er Court, she might then have admitted that she *as
neither raped nor ;1idnapped; nor illegall( detained.
MARCEL,'A could had been examined on the t*o matters mentioned above, *ith the Court
excluding the public from the hearing under the provisions of Rule !!", 2ection !).
MARCEL,'A might have testified *ithout feeling the pressure of her relatives or other
persons, if such pressure had in fact existed.
,t ma( not be amiss to state then that +ust as in pleas of guilt( *here a grave offense is
charged trial Judges have been en+oined to refrain from accepting them *ith alacrit( but to
be extra solicitous in seeing to it that an accused full( understands the import of his plea, so
also, in prosecutions for capital offenses, it behooves the trial Courts to exercise greater care
in safeguarding the rights of an accused. &he trial Judge should also ta1e a more active role
b( means of searching :uestions in the examination of *itnesses for the ascertaintment of
the truth and credibilit( of their testimonies so that an( +udgment of conviction imposing the
supreme penalt( ma( rest on firm and une:uivocal grounds. &he life and libert( of an
individual demand no less.
>6ERE3-RE, upon reasonable doubt, the +udgment appealed from imposing the death
penalt(, is reversed and the appellant, Adelino ?arda+e, ac:uitted of the crime *ith *hich he
is charged. 6is immediate release is ordered unless lie is held on other charges.