Title
Borja vs. Mendoza
Case
G.R. No. L-45667
Decision Date
Jun 20, 1977
Manuel Borja convicted of slight physical injuries without arraignment, violating due process. Supreme Court nullified rulings, remanded for proper arraignment and trial.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-45667)

Facts:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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:

  1. 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.

  2. Trial in Absentia Without Arraignment: Whether the trial in absentia conducted by respondent Judge Senining was valid despite the absence of an arraignment.

  3. 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)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.