Title
People vs. Agbulos
Case
G.R. No. 73875
Decision Date
May 18, 1993
Joselito Agbulos, charged with forcible abduction with rape, escaped bail and failed to appear at trial. Convicted in absentia, his appeal was dismissed as his escape waived his right to appeal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 176127)

Procedural History

Agbulos was arraigned on January 23, 1981, where he pleaded not guilty. Following the prosecution’s presentation of evidence, which was completed on April 25, 1984, Agbulos failed to appear at subsequent hearings, prompting a warrant for his arrest. Although a warrant was initially recalled due to incorrect notification to his bonding company, Agbulos once again failed to appear on November 5, 1984, leading to another order for his arrest and an order compelling the bonding company to show cause.

Trial and Judgment

The trial court issued a judgment against the bonding company for failing to produce Agbulos and subsequently rescheduled the trial. Despite multiple notifications, Agbulos did not attend the hearings. His defense adopted the testimony of a prosecution witness instead of presenting evidence. On June 15, 1985, the trial court found Agbulos guilty of forcible abduction with rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay P20,000 in indemnity to Bangit.

Validity of Trial in Absentia

The trial court's decision to proceed with the trial in absentia was valid under the 1973 Constitution as well as the 1987 Constitution. Article IV, Section 19 of the 1973 Constitution, which is mirrored in Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution, permits a trial to continue in the absence of the accused provided he has been notified and his absence is unjustified. This rule was enacted to expedite criminal proceedings and prevent defendants from evading justice through escape.

Impact of Accused's Escape

Agbulos' escape from custody was significant. The court determined that his failure to appear was unjustifiable due to his escape, effectively waiving his right to be present during the trial. Escaping custody serves as a waiver of rights, preventing an accused from delaying proceedings indefinitely. The principle that an accused can be tried in absentia aligns with the legal framework designed to deter manipulation of the judicial process by escapees.

Dismissal of Appeal

Agbulos’ appeal was dismissed as he had not surrendered nor returned to face the court after fleeing. According to Rule 124, Section 8 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant who escapes or jumps bail forfeits their right to appeal unless they ret

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.