People Vs Salas Case Digest

G.R. No.
L-66469 July 29, 1986

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ALFREDO QUIJANO, petitioners,
vs.
HON. BERNARDO SALAS (In his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Cebu,
Branch VIII), MARIO ABONG, ALFREDO DE LEON, ERIWADWIN MONTEBON,
ROMEO DE GUZMAN, & EDUARDO MABUHAY, respondents.
FACTS:
• Mario Abong was originally charged with homicide in the Court of First
Instance of Cebu but before he could be arraigned the case was
reinvestigated on motion of the prosecution.1 As a result of the
reinvestigation, an amended information was filed, with no bail
recommended, to which he pleaded not guilty.2 Trial commenced, but
while it was in progress, the prisoner, taking advantage of the first
information for homicide, succeeded in deceiving the city court of Cebu
into granting him bail and ordering his release; and so he escaped.3
The respondent judge, learning later of the trickery, cancelled the
illegal bail bond and ordered Abong's re-arrest.4 But he was gone.
Nonetheless, the prosecution moved that the hearing continue in
accordance with the constitutional provision authorizing trial in
absentia under certain circumstances.5 The respondent judge denied
the motion, however, and suspended all proceedings until the return of
the accused.6 The order of the trial court is now before us on certiorari
and mandamus.
The petitioners sought the setting aside of the respondent judge's
order denying the trial in absentia and the continuation of the trial
against Mario Abong in his absence.
ISSUE:
• Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to allow trial in absentia of
the accused.
• Whether the accused's escape and failure to appear at trial are
unjustified.
RULING:
• The judge erred. He did not see the woods for the trees. He mistakenly
allowed himself to be tethered by the literal reading of the rule when
he should have viewed it from the broader perspective of its
intendment.
• Under Section 19, the defendant's escape will be considered a waiver
of this right and the inability of the court to notify him of the
subsequent hearings will not prevent it from continuing with his trial.
He will be deemed to have received due notice. The same fact of his
escape will make his failure to appear unjustified because he has, by
escaping, placed himself beyond the pale, and protection, of the law.
• Abong should be prepared to bear the consequences of his escape,
including forfeiture of the right to be notified of the subsequent
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
• The doctrine laid down in that case has been modified by Section 19,
which now allows trial in absentia, Now, the prisoner cannot by simply
escaping thwart his continued prosecution and possibly eventual
conviction provided only that: a) he has been arraigned; b) he has
been duly notified of the trial; and c) his failure to appear is
unjustified.
• Under Section 19, the defendant's escape will be considered a waiver
of this right and the inability of the court to notify him of the
subsequent hearings will not prevent it from continuing with his trial.
He will be deemed to have received due notice. The same fact of his
escape will make his failure to appear unjustified because he has, by
escaping, placed himself beyond the pale, and protection, of the law.
• Trial in absentia was not allowed in Borja v. Mendoza 10 because it
was held notwithstanding that the accused had not been previously
arraigned. His subsequent conviction was properly set aside. But in the
instant case, since all the requisites are present, there is absolutely no
reason why the respondent judge should refuse to try the accused,
who had already been arraigned at the time he was released on the
illegal bail bond. Abong should be prepared to bear the consequences
of his escape, including forfeiture of the right to be notified of the
subsequent 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.
• The decision cautions against a too-literal reading of the law,
emphasizing the need for judges to look beyond the language of the
law to understand its spirit and purpose.
WHEREFORE, the order of the trial court dated December 22, 1983,
denying the motion for the trial in absentia of the accused is set aside.
The respondent judge 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. No costs.

People Vs Salas Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Salas Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Salas Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-66469 July 29, 1986

You might also like