Title
Gimenez vs. Nazareno
Case
G.R. No. L-37933
Decision Date
Apr 15, 1988
Accused escaped post-arraignment; trial in absentia proceeded. Court ruled jurisdiction retained, rights waived by absence, judgment based on evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-37933)

Petitioner

Fiscals Celso M. Gimenez and Federico B. Mercado, who filed the petition to compel the trial court to render judgment against de la Vega Jr.

Respondents

Judge Ramon E. Nazareno and private respondent Teodoro de la Vega Jr., whose proceedings were held in abeyance.

Key Dates

  • August 3, 1973: Murder complaint filed.
  • August 22, 1973: Arraignment; all accused pleaded not guilty.
  • September 18, 1973: First scheduled hearing (de la Vega Jr. did not appear).
  • November 6, 1973: Lower court decision dismissing five accused and suspending proceedings as to de la Vega Jr.
  • November 16–22, 1973: Motion for reconsideration denied.
  • April 15, 1988: Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

1973 Constitution, Article IV, Section 19: Guarantees presumption of innocence, right to be heard by counsel, to confront witnesses, and authorizes trial in absentia after arraignment upon due notice and unjustified absence.

Issues

  1. Does a court lose jurisdiction over an accused who escapes custody after arraignment?
  2. Does an accused tried in absentia retain the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses?

Facts

All six accused were duly arraigned and informed of hearing dates. Before trial commenced, de la Vega Jr. escaped custody and failed to appear. Petitioners moved to proceed in absentia under Section 19. The trial court heard evidence, dismissed five accused, but postponed ruling for de la Vega Jr., reserving his right to cross-examine upon return.

Ruling on Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over an accused, once acquired by arrest or voluntary arraignment, continues until case termination. Escape does not divest the court of jurisdiction over the accused’s person.

Ruling on Trial in Absentia

Section 19 allows trial to proceed in absentia when (1) arraignment has occurred, (2) the accused has been duly notified, and (3) absence is unjustified. All requisites were met. The trial court erred in suspending proceedings and failing to render judgment upon evidence adduced.

Waiver of Rights

By unjustifiably absenting himself after notice, the accused waived personal rights to confront witnesses a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.