24) Gimenez V Nazareno

~LOPEZ~ G.R. No.
L-37933 April 15, 1988 Issue on Trial in Absentia

FISCAL CELSO M. GIMENEZ and FEDERICO MERCADO, petitioners vs. HON. RAMON E. 1. For trial in absentia to be had, the following requisites must be present:
NAZARENO, Presiding Judge CFI Cebu, and TEODORO DE LA VEGA, JR., respondent a. There has been an arraignment
b. Accused has been notified
Recit Ready: De La Vega was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. He escaped custody and failed c. He fails to appear and his failure to do so is unjustified
to appear the hearing which he was notified of. The trial proceeded and the lower court 2. All the above requisites were present in this case .
rendered judgment against the 5 other accused but suspended proceedings against De La 3. The lower court correctly proceeded with the reception of evidence of the
Vega. Petitioners argue that the trial in absentia directs the court to proceed with the trial prosecution and other accused but erred when it rendered a decision on the other
and render judgment. Respondents argue it will violate the right to be presumed innocent 5 accused, and suspended the proceedings as to De La Vega.
and due process. Court held in favor of petitioners. 4. The courts need not wait for the accused, who escapes from custody, to decide to
appear in court to present evidence and cross-examine the witnesses. To allow this
Doctrine: 1. Where the accused appears at the arraignment and pleads not guilty to the delay is to render ineffective the constitutional provision on trial in absentia.
crime charged, jurisdiction is acquired by the courts over his person and continues until 5. The trial judge’s contention that right to be presumed innocent will be violated if
termination of the case, despite his escape from custody of the law. 2. By De La Vega’s failure judgement is to be rendered is UNTENABLE. He is still presumed innocent as
to appear during trial of which he was notified, he virtually waived his right to present judgement must be based on evidence presented in court, and must prove him
evidence and cross-examine. guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Also, De La Vega was given the opportunity to be
heard.
Facts: 6. By De La Vega’s failure to appear during trial of which he was notified, he virtually
1. Teodoro De La Vega, Jr. and 5 other people were charged with the crime of waived his right to present evidence and cross-examine. This is also emphasized by
murder. All the accused were arraigned and they pleaded not guilty to the crime. Rule 115, Sec 1(c) which reflects the intention of the framers of the Constitution.
2. Respondent Judge Nazareno set the hearing for Sept. 18, 1973 and all the accused
were notified and informed of such. WHEREFORE, respondent judge is directed to render judgement upon the innocence or guilt
3. Before the scheduled hearing, respondent De La Vega escaped the detention of De La Vega.
center and failed to appear in court during set date.
4. This prompted petitioner Fiscals to file of motion to the lower court to proceed Relevant Provisions:
with the hearing, praying De La Vega to be tried in absentia, invoking Sec. 18, Art.
IV of the 1973 Constitution. SEC. 19. Art. IV 1973 Consti: In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be presumed
5. Lower court proceeded with the trial of the case and gave De La Vega the innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
opportunity to take the witness stand the moment he shows up. After due trial, counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
lower court rendered the decision dismissing the case against the other 5 accused speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
while holding in abeyance the proceedings against De La Vega compulsory process to the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
6. Petitioner Fiscals filed an MR questioning the ruling of the lower court on the behalf. However, after arraignment trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
gorund that it will render nugatory the concept of “trial in absentia”. MR was accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified.
denied.
Issue/s: 1.W/N court loses jurisdiction over an accused who escapes custody of the law after
arraignment and 2. W/N an accused tried in absentia retains his right to present evidence
and cross-examine witnesses against him
Held: 1. No, the Court does not lose jurisdiction. 2. No, it is deemed waived.
Issue On Jurisidction
1. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person is acquired by arrest or by voluntary
appearance. Such voluntary appearance is accomplished by appearing for
arraignment, which was what De La Vega did.
2. Jurisidiction, once it has been acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties
but continues until the termination of the case, notwithstanding his escape from
the custody of the law.

24) Gimenez V Nazareno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

24) Gimenez V Nazareno

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

24) Gimenez V Nazareno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

~LOPEZ~ G.R. No.

L-37933 April 15, 1988 Issue on Trial in Absentia

You might also like