Rivera, Juan Rafael G. I-N Case Digest Paper # 2 People of the Philippines v. Salas G. R. No.

L- 66469 July 29, 1986 Cruz, J. FACTS:

L-130291 June 27, 2013

The Court of First Instance of Cebu originally charged Mario Abong of homicide but before he could be arraigned the case was reinvestigated on motion of prosecution and as a result of this an amended information was filed, with no bail recommended, to which Abong pleaded not guilty. While the trial was in progress, Abong took advantage of the situation and deceived the courts into granting him bail after which he was released and escaped. When the respondent judge learned of this he cancelled the bail and ordered the re-arrest of Abong but he already fled. Regardless of the absence of Abong the prosecution moved the hearing to continue and observed the constitutional provision of trial in absentia but the respondent judge denied the motion and instead suspended all the proceedings until the return of the Mario Abong.

ISSUE: Whether or not the judge erred in suspending the proceedings of the accused due to the principle of trial on absentia.

HELD. YES. The judge erred in the suspension of all the proceedings until the return of the accused because he did not see the woods for the trees and took the literal reading of the rule when he should have viewed it in a broader point of view of the true intention of the rule. Contrary to Article IV, Sec. 19 of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, the doctrine of in the case at bar has been modified by Section 19, which now allows a trial in absentia and because of this the prisoner cannot simple escape to escape his continued prosecution or even his later conviction provided that: a) he has been arraigned; b) he has been duly notified of the trial; and c) his failure to appear is unjustified. The respondent judge was still probably thinking of the old doctrine when he ruled trial in absentia and he might have forgotten that the fugitive already waived his right to be duly notified due to his escape and also it makes his failure to appear unjustified. The present rule will operate to his disadvantage rather that rewarding him because his continual absence will most likely result to conviction. The too-literal reading of the law

should be rebuked and rather fulfill its purpose. The intention of the law is what is of great importance when the courts should apply it and it is usually found not the letter that killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth,. Judges should have looked in a broader light rather than clinging to the language of the law and seek by their own lights the intention for its enactment and of course apply it in the most proper way and according to its ends. The trial judge is directed to investigate the lawyer who assisted Mario Abong in securing bail from the city court of Cebu on the basis of the withdrawn information for homicide and to report to us the result of his investigation within sixty days. 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. SO ORDERED.