Case Digest (G.R. No. 121176)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Marlon Parazo y Francisco, G.R. No. 121176, July 08, 1999, the Supreme Court En Banc, Purisima, J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant is Marlon Parazo y Francisco; the prosecution is the People of the Philippines. The case arose from Criminal Case Nos. 6167 (rape) and 6168 (frustrated homicide) tried before Branch 27, Regional Trial Court, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, which convicted Parazo and imposed the death penalty.On automatic review of the death sentence, this Court initially rendered a Decision on May 14, 1997 affirming with modification the trial court's joint decision: affirming conviction for rape under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 (amending Article 335, RPC), imposing death (with two Justices voting for reclusion perpetua), and modifying the frustrated homicide sentence. The May 14, 1997 decision also directed, under Section 25 of RA 7659, that the records be forwarded to the Office of the President upon finality.
Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration (May 29, 1997) alleging, among other things, the absence of a sign language expert during trial. On February 10, 1998 the Court granted an Urgent Omnibus Motion in part: it held consideration of the motion for reconsideration in abeyance pending medical examination, permitted a supplemental motion after examination, and ordered a Supreme Court physician to examine appellant. Pursuant thereto, on January 19, 1999 appellant was brought to UP-PGH for neurologic and otolaryngologic evaluation.
Medical reports from the Supreme Court Clinic Services (July 29, 1998) and UP-PGH (March 5, 1999) concluded appellant is profoundly hearing impaired (bilateral severe to profound hearing loss), effectively mute for conversational speech without powerful amplification, and suffers from mild mental retardation with an estimated IQ of about 60 and a mental age of approximately 7 years, 9 months. Collateral affidavits and community witnesses corroborated that Parazo was born deaf and mute, never received formal schooling, and had severe communication limitations. Trial records, however, showed no qualified sign-language interpreter participated at trial; instead, a fellow inmate known to Parazo had been called to assist.
Relying on its earlier precedent in People v. Crisologo, the Court found that trying a deaf-mute accused without a qualified sign-language interpreter deprived him of due process and of a fair opportunity to be heard. Considering the medical evidenc...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was appellant Marlon Parazo denied due process and a fair trial by being tried without the assistance of a qualified sign-language interpreter?
- If so, is vacatur of the prior conviction and the remedy of re-arraignment and re-trial warranted?
- Did the Court properly hold consideration of appellant's motion for reconsideration in abeyance to permit medical e...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)