People v. Salas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mario Abong was initially charged with homicide. An amended information was filed, charging a non-bailable offense, and Abong pleaded not guilty. While trial was ongoing, Abong secured bail from the city court based on the original homicide charge and escaped. Procedural History: Upon learning of the escape and the trickery used to obtain bail, the respondent judge cancelled the bail bond and ordered Abong's re-arrest. However, Abong had already fled. The prosecution moved to continue the trial in absentia, but the respondent judge denied the motion, suspending proceedings until Abong's return. The Petition: The People of the Philippines and Alfredo Quijano filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the trial court's order denying the motion for trial in absentia.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to continue the trial in absentia despite the accused's escape. Whether the accused's escape constitutes a waiver of his right to be present at the trial and to be notified of subsequent proceedings; and the consequences of such escape.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the order of the trial court. The Court directed the respondent judge to continue hearing the case against Mario Abong in absentia until its termination.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of denying trial in absentia: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge erred in denying the motion to continue the trial in absentia. The judge failed to consider the broader intendment of the constitutional provision, which is to prevent indefinite deferment or abandonment of criminal cases due to an accused's escape. The Court emphasized that the purpose of allowing trial in absentia is to speed up the disposition of cases, a purpose that would be defeated if an accused could thwart prosecution simply by escaping. On the issue of escape as waiver of right to be present and notified, and the consequences of escape: The Court clarified that under Article IV, Section 19 of the 1973 Constitution, trial may proceed in absentia if the accused has been arraigned, duly notified, and his failure to appear is unjustified. The escape of the accused, as in this case, is deemed a waiver of the right to be present and to be notified of subsequent hearings. The inability of the court to notify the escapee does not prevent the continuation of the trial. Furthermore, the act of escaping itself makes the failure to appear unjustified, as the accused has placed himself beyond the protection of the law. The Court noted that this rule modifies the old doctrine where escape operated to the fugitive's advantage by postponing proceedings. The Court stated that Abong should be prepared to bear the consequences of his escape, which include the forfeiture of his right to be notified of subsequent proceedings and to adduce evidence. This could lead to his conviction based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court also directed the trial judge to investigate the lawyer who assisted Abong in securing bail on the withdrawn information.
Main Doctrine
A criminal trial may proceed in absentia even if the accused has escaped, provided that the accused has been arraigned, duly notified of the trial, and his failure to appear is unjustified, as escape itself constitutes a waiver of the right to be present and makes the absence unjustified.