Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37933)
Facts:
Fiscal Celso M. Gimenez and Federico B. Mercado (petitioners) filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Supreme Court En Banc (G.R. No. L-37933, April 15, 1988, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court) against Hon. Ramon E. Nazareno, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Cebu, and Teodoro de la Vega, Jr. (respondents).On August 3, 1973, Samson Suan, Alex Potot, Rogelio Mula, Fernando Cargando, Rogelio Baguio and private respondent Teodoro de la Vega, Jr. were charged with murder. All were arraigned on August 22, 1973; each pleaded not guilty. The trial court scheduled hearings for September 18, 1973 (and other dates), and the accused, including de la Vega, were duly informed of those dates.
Before the scheduled hearings, private respondent de la Vega escaped from custody and failed to appear at the trial. The provincial fiscals (petitioners here) moved the trial court to proceed with the trial and to try de la Vega in absentia, invoking Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. The trial court received evidence and proceeded with the case against the other accused but later, on November 6, 1973, rendered a decision dismissing the case as to five accused and expressly held the proceedings against de la Vega in abeyance pending reacquisition of jurisdiction over his person; the court stated that de la Vega could cross-examine prosecution witnesses and present his defense whenever jurisdiction over him was regained.
The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 16, 1973; the trial court denied it on November 22, 1973. The petitioners then brought the present petition for certiorari and mandamus to the Supreme Cour...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- After arraignment, does a court lose jurisdiction over an accused who escapes from custody?
- Under Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, does an accused who has been tried in absentia retain the right to present evidence on his own behalf and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who testified against him upon reac...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)