G.R. No. L-2754 - Abriol vs. Homeres

Fidel Abriol and six others were accused in criminal case No. 1472 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
After the prosecution presented its evidence and rested its case, counsel for the defense moved to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove guilt.
After hearing arguments on the motion for dismissal, the Court of First Instance held the proofs sufficient to convict and denied the motion.
After the denial, counsel for the defense offered to present evidence for the accused.
The provincial fiscal opposed the presentation of defense evidence.

The opposition relied on then-current procedural practice and laws.
The fiscal contended that the defense was precluded in criminal cases from presenting evidence after it had filed a motion for dismissal with or without reservation and after the motion had been denied.
The fiscal cited United States vs. De la Cruz, 28 Phil., 279.

Judge S. C. Moscoso sustained the opposition and did not allow the accused to present evidence.
The court convicted the accused and sentenced Abriol to seven years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of P2,000.

Abriol and his coaccused appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On June 7, 1948, the Court of Appeals, on its own motion, and without notice to the appellants as required in section 8 of Rule 120 and in Baradi vs. People, G. R. No. L-2658, dismissed the appeal for failure to file their brief within the extension of time granted.

Abriol then filed a petition for habeas corpus against the provincial warden of Leyte, contending that the sentence in criminal case No. 1472 was null and void for having been rendered without due process of law.
Judge Rodolfo Baltasar, who heard the petition, denied it.

Whether habeas corpus could lie to assail the conviction and sentence entered after the trial court denied the accused the opportunity to present evidence for his defense after denial of a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence

Whether habeas corpus could be used to correct what was framed as the denial of a constitutional right to be heard before sentence, as opposed to a mere trial error.
Whether the judgment, having become final due to dismissal of the appeal for failure to file a brief, remained immune from collateral attack via habeas corpus.

Whether the trial court’s refusal to allow the accused to present evidence after the denial of the motion to dismiss violated the constitutional right to be heard

Whether any “law” or “procedural practice” permitted denial of the right to present evidence before sentence.

Proper understanding and application of United States vs. De la Cruz, 28 Phil., 279, and related jurisprudence

Whether the trial court and the provincial fiscal misapplied United States vs. De la Cruz.
Whether, after the prosecution rested, denial of a defense motion for dismissal required the court to proceed with hearing defense evidence before judgment.
Whether reservation of the right to present evidence mattered for purposes of the constitutional right.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest