Case Digest (G.R. No. L-45667)
Facts:
The case involves Manuel Borja as the petitioner and Hon. Rafael T. Mendoza, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Branch VI), and Hon. Romulo R. Senining, Judge of the City Court of Cebu (Branch I) as the respondents. The events leading to this case began when Borja was accused of slight physical injuries. On December 14, 1973, the City Court of Cebu, presided over by Judge Senining, conducted a trial in absentia without arraigning Borja. Despite his absence, the court allowed the prosecution to present evidence, which included the testimony of the offended party and three documents. The court subsequently rendered a decision on August 18, 1976, finding Borja guilty and sentencing him to twenty days of arresto menor. Borja appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance of Cebu, where Judge Mendoza presided. However, on November 16, 1976, Judge Mendoza affirmed the City Court's decision without notifying Borja or allowing him to submit a memorandum. Borja c...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-45667)
Facts:
Accusation and Trial in Absentia: Petitioner Manuel Borja was accused of slight physical injuries. Despite the absence of an arraignment, respondent Judge Romulo R. Senining of the City Court of Cebu proceeded with the trial in absentia. On August 18, 1976, Borja was found guilty and sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor.
Appeal to the Court of First Instance: Borja appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance of Cebu, presided by respondent Judge Rafael T. Mendoza. However, the appeal was decided on November 16, 1976, without notice to Borja or requiring him to submit a memorandum. The decision affirmed the City Court's judgment.
Constitutional Violation: Borja contended that the failure to arraign him violated his constitutional rights to procedural due process, specifically his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and his right to be heard by himself and counsel. He argued that this amounted to grave abuse of discretion.
Solicitor General's Comment: The Solicitor General agreed that the procedural defect was grave and rendered the decisions of both courts void. The case was submitted for decision based on this comment.
Issue:
Arraignment as a Due Process Requirement: Whether the failure to arraign Borja violated his constitutional right to procedural due process, particularly his right to be informed of the charges and to be heard by himself and counsel.
Trial in Absentia Without Arraignment: Whether the trial in absentia conducted by respondent Judge Senining was valid despite the absence of an arraignment.
Curative Effect of Appeal: Whether the appeal to the Court of First Instance cured the procedural defects in the City Court's proceedings.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)