Bernardo v. People
Bernardo v. People
Bernardo v. People
Facts
Carmelo Bernardo (Bernardo) was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila
with six counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22), for issuing six postdated checks
in equal amounts of P22,500 to F.T. YLANG-YLANG MARKETING, CORP.(Ylang Ylang Mktg).
At the pre-trial conference, petitioner failed to appear despite notice, prompting Branch 24 of the
MeTC to issue a warrant of arrest against him and set the cases for trial in absentia.
After the prosecution presented its first witness, petitioner filed a Waiver of Appearance, a Motion
to Lift Warrant of Arrest, and a Motion to Quash on the ground that the facts charged in the
Information under Criminal Case Nos. 320975-76 do not constitute an offense.
Consequently, the trial court lifted the warrant of arrest in view of petitioner’s appearance but
denied the Motion to Quash for lack of merit.
At the following trial date, petitioner failed to appear despite notice, drawing the trial court to
proceed with his trial in absentia and issue warrant of arrest against him.
By a Decision promulgated in absentia on December 13, 2001, the trial court found petitioner
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. 22 in all the cases.
Issue
Whether MeTC’s decision promulgated in absentia violates petitioner’s rights to due process.
Ruling
Suffice it to state that the requisites of a valid trial in absentia, viz, (1) the accused has already
been arraigned, (2) he has been duly notified of the trial, and (3) his failure to appear is
unjustifiable are clearly present in the case at bar.
The holding of trial in absentia is authorized under Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987
Constitution which provides that "after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the
absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable."
Therefore, petitioner’s rights to due process were not violated by the MeTC’s decision
promulgated in absentia.