People v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mateo Cruz, a member of the Constabulary, was charged with desertion under section 7 of Act No. 619 of the Philippine Commission. The charge alleged that he absented himself from the Constabulary without leave and with the intent not to return. Procedural History: The accused was tried and found guilty by the trial court. The Appeal: The accused appealed the judgment, raising several grounds for its annulment. These included the contention that the judgment was void because no preliminary hearing was afforded to the accused, and because the complaint did not appear to be sworn to. Additionally, the appellant argued that a certificate from a chief or assistant chief of Constabulary, detailing the offense and witnesses, was not introduced into evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the judgment is void for lack of a preliminary hearing and a sworn complaint. Whether the certificate from the Constabulary chief needed to be formally introduced as evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The Court held that the appellant's contentions regarding the lack of a preliminary hearing and a sworn complaint were not valid grounds for appeal because no objections were raised in the court below. Furthermore, the Court found that the absence of a formal introduction of the Constabulary certificate into evidence was not fatal to the proceedings, as the certification was properly issued and part of the record.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the appellant's arguments concerning the absence of a preliminary hearing and a sworn complaint were without merit. It was noted that no objections were made on these grounds in the court below. The Court emphasized that it does not affirmatively appear from the record that these procedural steps were indeed omitted. Therefore, the failure to object in the trial court precluded the appellant from raising these issues on appeal, as such omissions, if they occurred, were deemed waived. On Issue 2: The Court held that the certificate from the chief or assistant chief of Constabulary, as required by section 9 of Act No. 619, did not need to be formally introduced as evidence. The record indicated that such a statement of facts and list of witnesses was certified to the court by an assistant chief of the Constabulary. The Court found nothing in the provisions of section 9 that mandated the formal introduction of this certificate into evidence, implying that its proper issuance and inclusion in the case records were sufficient.
Main Doctrine
An individual enlisted in the Constabulary who absents himself without leave with the intent not to return is guilty of desertion under Act No. 619. Objections to procedural defects, such as the lack of a preliminary hearing or a sworn complaint, must be raised during the trial court proceedings to be considered on appeal. Furthermore, certifications required by statute, like those from Constabulary officials detailing offenses and witnesses, do not need to be formally introduced as evidence if properly issued and part of the record.