Case Digest (G.R. No. 73875)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Joselito Agbulos, G.R. No. 73875, May 18, 1993, First Division, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.The criminal action arose from a complaint by Angelita P. Bangit, which led to the filing of charges against Joselito Agbulos for forcible abduction with rape. Agbulos was arraigned on January 23, 1981, and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution completed its presentation of evidence on April 25, 1984.
After the prosecution rested, Agbulos failed to appear at scheduled hearings. A warrant for his arrest was issued on August 13, 1984, for failure to appear; that order of arrest was recalled on September 24, 1984 because notice had been sent to the wrong bonding company. A hearing was reset for November 5, 1984, and the accused was notified at his home address, but he again failed to appear on that date; the trial court ordered his arrest and gave the bonding company 30 days to produce him or show cause why its undertaking should not be forfeited.
On December 18, 1984 the trial court issued an order forfeiting the bond for failure to produce the accused, cancelling that day's continuation of trial and resetting the defense presentation for January 30, 1985, with the admonition that a further failure to appear would be deemed a waiver of the right to present evidence and the case would be submitted for decision on the record; an order for arrest was directed to be issued. Agbulos again failed to appear on January 30, 1985; his counsel adopted certain prosecution testimony as evidence for the defense and then rested.
The Regional Trial Court, Bulacan (Judge Pablo S. Villanueva) rendered its decision on June 15, 1985, finding Agbulos guilty of forcible abduction with rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, ordering indemnity of P20,000 and costs. On July 11, 1985 the trial court entered judgment against the bonding company for failing to produce the accused. Counsel for Agbulos filed a notice of appeal on August 16, 19...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the appeal should be dismissed because the accused-appellant escaped/jumped bail and remained at large, thereby forfeiting his standing to pursue the appeal.
- Whether the trial held in the accused's absence was valid under the Constitution and applicable rules given the arraignment and notice that preceded ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)