People v. Dichoso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Remilia Dichoso, was indicted for Estafa for allegedly misappropriating jewelries worth P9,500.00 received in trust from complainant Mrs. Norma Dychangco under an obligation to sell them on commission or return them or their proceeds. The accused failed to do either. Procedural History: The case went through numerous postponements initiated by the defense. After the prosecution rested, the defense repeatedly asked for continuances. On November 17, 1977, after eight months of postponements, the defense counsel manifested that he was no longer presenting evidence and would submit the case based on the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The trial court considered the case submitted for decision and subsequently rendered a judgment convicting the accused-appellant. The trial court denied the defense's motions to set aside the judgment and to allow the introduction of evidence, as well as the motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court on a pure question of law, alleging that the trial court erred in ruling that the waiver of the appellant to be present authorized her counsel to waive the presentation of evidence and in abetting repeated postponements before considering the case submitted without the appellant having presented her evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant was denied her constitutional right to be heard and to present evidence in her defense, considering her repeated absences and the defense's dilatory tactics. Whether the trial court erred in considering the case submitted for decision despite the defense not having presented evidence, given the circumstances of repeated postponements and the accused's failure to appear.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court convicting the accused-appellant of Estafa and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party is affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of denial of the right to be heard and present evidence: The Supreme Court held that the accused-appellant was not denied her constitutional right to be heard and to present evidence. The Court emphasized that while this right is inviolable, it can be waived, either expressly or by implication. In this case, the accused-appellant, through her repeated unjustified absences and the dilatory tactics employed by the defense, effectively waived her right to present evidence. The trial court had repeatedly granted postponements to safeguard her rights, but she persisted in her failure to appear. Her counsel's manifestation to submit the case without presenting evidence was a direct consequence of her repeated failures to appear at scheduled hearings. Therefore, the trial court had sufficient legal justification to proceed and render judgment based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court noted that the accused cannot complain of being deprived of her right to present evidence when she unreasonably absented herself from all hearings. The waiver by her counsel was not from an express waiver to be present, but was prompted by her repeated failure to appear without justifiable reason. The Court stated that it could not be expected to abet or condone such scheme to defeat the expeditious determination of the case and trifling with the administration of justice. Speedy justice is a prerogative of both the accused and the complainant. On the issue of the trial court considering the case submitted without defense evidence: The Supreme Court found no error in the trial court's action. The Court reiterated that the accused had waived her right to submit evidence by her conduct. The repeated postponements, all at the instance of the defense, and the ultimate failure of the accused to appear at the hearing on November 17, 1977, despite her counsel's manifestation to submit the case, provided a legal basis for the trial court to consider the case submitted for decision. The Court cited People vs. Mendez, stating that to grant the plea to reopen the case and send it back for trial anew would be to sanction plainly dilatory tactics adopted to harass and tire out the complainant, which the Court refused to be a party to. The Court stressed that a complainant is as much entitled to speedy justice as the accused themselves. The evidence presented by the prosecution conclusively showed that the accused obtained jewelry to sell on commission, failed to account for the proceeds or return the jewelry, and failed to do so despite repeated demands and written promises. The crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty imposed by the trial court was affirmed.
Main Doctrine
An accused who, through repeated dilatory tactics and unjustified absences, causes numerous postponements and ultimately fails to present evidence despite counsel's manifestation to submit the case, is deemed to have waived the right to be heard and to present evidence, justifying the trial court's rendition of judgment based on the prosecution's evidence.