People v. Escalante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Eugenio P. Escalante, was the cashier of the Iloilo customhouse. On November 7, 1916, the prosecuting attorney of Iloilo filed a complaint charging Escalante with violating Section 2662 of the Administrative Code. The complaint alleged that during October 1916, Escalante willfully, unlawfully, and criminally took and misappropriated P12,000 collected as customs duties, failing to account for and enter the sum in the customhouse books. He appropriated the money for his personal gain to the prejudice of the Philippine Government and did not turn it into the treasury until required to do so. Procedural History: Upon arraignment on November 22, 1916, the defendant pleaded guilty to the crime charged. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo found him guilty and sentenced him to fifteen months' imprisonment, to pay the costs, and to be perpetually disqualified from holding public office or employment. He was also deprived of all accrued leave. The defendant appealed this sentence to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appellant alleged that the lower court erred in (1) not holding a preliminary investigation, thus failing to acquire jurisdiction, and (2) depriving him of his constitutional right to counsel, as he was not informed of this right.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the absence of a preliminary investigation. Whether the defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the sentence of the lower court. The defendant was sentenced to be imprisoned for fifteen months, disqualified forever from holding any public office or employment, and to pay the costs. The portion of the sentence depriving the defendant of his accrued leave was declared null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction due to lack of preliminary investigation: The Court held that the right to a preliminary investigation is a personal right conferred by statute and may be waived. If no objection is raised in the lower court regarding the absence of a preliminary investigation, the accused is deemed to have waived this right, and such objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court cited numerous cases supporting this principle, including U.S. vs. Lete. The presumption omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in contrarium applies, meaning all acts are presumed to have been performed regularly and solemnly until the contrary is proven. Furthermore, Section 334, paragraph 31 of Act No. 190 presumes that the law has been obeyed unless shown otherwise. On the issue of deprivation of the right to counsel: The Court reiterated that the right to be represented by an attorney is also a personal right that may be waived. This waiver occurs when the defendant voluntarily submits to the court's jurisdiction and proceeds with the defense. The Court noted that the defendant did not raise the question of his right to counsel in the trial court, and therefore, it could not be considered for the first time on appeal. The failure of the record to affirmatively show that the trial judge advised the accused of his right to counsel is not sufficient ground to reverse a conviction if the accused proceeded with the defense without objection. The Court applied the doctrine that the failure to raise these questions in the trial court means they are deemed waived.
Main Doctrine
The right to a preliminary investigation and the right to counsel are personal and waivable rights. Failure to raise these issues in the trial court constitutes a waiver, and they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The presumption is that the law has been obeyed unless the contrary is shown.