Talino v.

Sandiganbayan
16 March 1987 Justice Cruz SUMMARY: The accused in this case, public officers, were charged with the crime of estafa through falsification of public documents in four separate informations. These officers allegedly conspired by making it appear in the supporting papers that repairs for four government vehicles were undertaken. The cases were tried jointly. Subsequently, three of them asked for a separate trial, including petitioner in this case. Petitioner was found guilty. He assailed Sandiganbayans decision, stating that he was not able to cross-examine his co-accused in the original proceeding. DOCTRINE: The right of confrontation is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the person facing criminal prosecution who should know, in fairness, who his accusers are and must be given a chance to cross-examine them on their charges. No accusation is permitted to be made against his back or in his absence nor is any derogatory information accepted if it is made anonymously, as in poison pen letters sent by persons who cannot stand by their libels and must shroud their spite in secrecy. That is also the reason why ex parte affidavits are not permitted unless the affiant is presented in court and hearsay is barred save only in the cases allowed by the Rules of Court, like the dying declaration. ACCUSED: Agustin Talino (Sole petitioner), Genaro Basilio, Aljeandro Macadangdang, Pio Ulat, Renato Valdez COMPLAINANT: People of the Philippines CRIME COMMITED (include the details of how it was committed): Estafa through falsification of public documents by making it appear in the supporting papers (receipts) that repairs for four government vehicles were undertaken. INFORMATION/COMPLAINT FILED BY: People of the Philippines INFORMATION/COMPLAINANT FILED IN: Sandiganbayan

PROCEDURAL PROBLEM RELATED TO THE SYLLABUS: NATURE OF RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE FACTS: 1. Four separate informations with estafa through falsification of public documents were filed against the accused in this case, for having conspired to defraud the government in the amount of 26, 523 pesos representing cost of repairs of four government vehicles. There was no need for such repairs. These cases were tried jointly for all the accused until after the prosecution had rested. Three of the accused, including petitioner Talino requested for a separate trial, which were allowed. Meanwhile, Pio Ulat gave damaging testimony against petitioner Talino in the original proceeding (joint proceedings), relating Talinos detail in participation in the questioned transactions. Saniganbayan rendered its decision finding the five accused guilty of the crime charged. Talino assailed the decision of Sandiganbayan, on the ground that for not being able to cross-examine Pio Ulat, it violated his right of confrontation guaranteed by the Constitution. Did the Sandiganbayan err in granting separate trials? Did Sandiganbayan consider Ulats testimony in the original proceeding when it convicted Talino?(RELEVANT)

2. 3. 4. 5. ISSUE: 1. 2.

RATIO: 1. NO. The grant of separate trial rests within the discretion of the court and is not a matter of right of the accused, especially in cases where it is sought after the prosecution has presented its evidence. While the Rules of Court does not specify when the motion for such trial should be filed, Court held that it should be done before the prosecution commences to rpesent its evidence. The rule in every case is that the trial court should exercise utmost circumspection in granting a motion for separate trial, allowing the same only after thorough study of the justification for it. 2. NO. The Sandiganbayan was able to establish Talinos guilt beyond reasonable doubt, without considering Ulats testimony.

(Court discusses CONFRONTATION)

the

NATURE

OF

THE

RIGHT

OF

The right of confrontation is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the person facing criminal prosecution who should know, in fairness, who his accusers are and must be given a chance to cross-examine them on their charges. No accusation is permitted to be made against his back or in his absence nor is any derogatory information accepted if it is made anonymously, as in poison pen letters sent by persons who cannot stand by their libels and must shroud their spite in secrecy. That is also the reason why ex parte affidavits are not permitted unless the affiant is presented in court and hearsay is barred save only in the cases allowed by the Rules of Court, like the dying declaration.

Sandiganbayan convicted Talino based on his own acts in approving the questioned vouchers as proof of his complicity in the plot to swindle government. Sandignabayan did not admit the incriminatory testimony of Ulat because Talino did not cross examine Ulat and was not even required to be present when Ulat was testifying. In fact, Sandiganabyan requested that Ulat be presented as a rebuttal witness in the separate trial but this was not done. Because of this, Sandiganbayan did not consider Ulats testimony.

RULING: Judgment of Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED, with costs against the petitioner.

In United States v. Javier, 12 this Court emphasized: ... With reference to the clause of the Bill of Rights, which we have quoted, Justice Day said in a case of Philippine origin that it intends to secure the accused in the right to be tried, so far as facts provable by witnesses are concerned, by only such witnesses as meet him face to face at the trial who give their testimony in his presence, and give to the accused an opportunity of cross-examination. It was intended to prevent the conviction of the accused upon depositions or ex parte affidavits, and particularly to preserve the right of the accused to test the recollection of the witness in the exercise of the right of cross-examination.' In other words, confrontation is essential because cross-examination is essential. A second reason for the prohibition is that a tribunal may have before it the deportment and appearance of the witness while testifying. (U.S. v. Anastacio [1906], 6 Phil. 413.) The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands has applied this constitutional provision on behalf of accused persons in a number of cases.