Gimenez v PARTIES INVOLVED: ISSUES:

Nazareno  Samson Suan, Alex Potot, Rogelio Mula, Fernando  WON the court loses jurisdiction over an accused who after being
Teodoro, Rogelio Baguio, and Teodoro de la Vega Jr.: arraigned, escapes from the custody of the law
CATCH ME IF YOU accused for the crime of murder  WON de la Vega shall be tried in absentia
CAN! (the  Fiscal Celso Gimenez and Federico Mercado: Handling  WON an accused who has been tried in absentia retains his right
escaping prisoner fiscals to present evidence on his own behalf and to confront and cross-
case)  Ramon E. Nazareno: Respondent judge examine witnesses who testified against him

An escapee who HOW THE CASE STARTED: FIRST ISSUE

has been duly  The above-mentioned accused were charged for the crime of
tried in absentia MURDER
waives his right to  On the day of their arraignment, each of them PLEADED NOT
present evidences GUILTY to the crime charged
on his own behalf  Following the arraignment, Judge Nazareno set the hearing of
and to confront the case for September 18, 1973. All the accused were duly
and cross- informed of such hearing
examine  Before the scheduled date of the first hearing, Teodoro de la
witnesses who Vega, escaped from his detention center and failed to appear
testified against in court for the hearing. (IMPORTANT EVENT)
him.  Due to de la Vega’s act of escaping, it prompted the fiscal to
file a motion to proceed with the hearing of the case despite
the fact that de la Vega has escaped.
PROCEDURES IN RTC
GIMENEZ (the handling fiscal: Filed Motion to Proceed the
Hearing Against the Accused
 PRAYER: That de la Vega be tried in absentia and invoking
the application of Section 19, Article IV of 1973 Constitution
which allows that “after arraignment trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he
has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified”
RTC: Granted such motion and proceeded with the trial of the
case
 The trial against de la Vega continued despite his absence but
the court granted him the opportunity to take the witness
stand the moment he shows up in court
RTC: Decision on the Murder Case Filed Against the Accused
 The lower court DISMISSED the case against the five accused
while HOLDING IN ABEYANCE the proceedings against de la
Vega
 The lower court likewise ordered the City Warden of Lapu-
lapu to release the 5 accused if they are no longer serving
sentence of conviction
NO. THE COURT’S JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
ACCUSED, ONCE ACQUIRED, IS NOT LOST UPON THE INSTANCE OF
THE PARTIES BUT CONTINUES UNTIL THE CASE IS TERMINATED
 AS A RULE, where the accused appears at the arraignment and
pleads not guilty to the crime charged, jurisdiction is acquired by
the court over his person and this continues until the termination
of the case, notwithstanding his escape from the custody of the
law
 IN THIS CASE, since de la Vega attended the arraignment, the
lower court has already acquired jurisdiction over his person and
such jurisdiction is not terminated despite the fact the he escaped
from the custody of the law
SECOND ISSUE
YES. DE LA VEGA SHALL BE TRIED IN ABSENTIA
 The following requisites for trial in absentia were present in the
case
1. That there has been an arraignment,
 De la Vega was arraigned on August 22, 1973 and he
pleaded not guilty
2. that the accused has been notified;
 He was also informed of the scheduled hearings set on
September 18 and 19, 1973 and this is evidenced by his
signature on the notice issued by the lower court
3. that he fails to appear and his failure to do so is
unjustified.
 Failure of de la Vega to appear is proven by a certified
copy of the Police Blotter he escaped from his detention
center.
 No explanation for his failure to appear in court in any of
the scheduled hearings was given.
 Even the trial court considered his absence unjustified
THE RTC IS WRONG IN SUSPENDING THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DE
LA VEGA FOR RENDERED INEFFECTIVE THE TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
 Upon the termination of a trial in absentia, the court has the duty
  With regard to de la Vega (the escaping prisoner)
- The lower court ruled that the case against him shall
remain pending without prejudice on the part of the said
accused to cross-examine the witnesses for the
prosecution and to present his defense whenever the
court acquires back the jurisdiction over his person
(CONTESTED PORTION OF THE DECISION)
GIMENEZ: Filed a Motion for Reconsideration
 GROUND: the decision of RTC will render nugatory the
constitutional provision on “trial in absentia”
 The trial against de la Vega shall proceed despite his absence
and it should NOT be held in abeyance
 Further, de la Vega should not be given the opportunity to
cross-examine the witness and present his evidence.
RTC: Denied the MR
 Under Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, de la
Vega, who was tried in absentia, DID NOT lose his right to
cross -examine the witnesses for the prosecution and present
his evidence because ALL ACCUSED SHOULD BE PRESEUMED
INNOCENT
 Furthermore, the lower court maintains that jurisdiction over
private respondent de la Vega, Jr. was lost when he escaped
and that his right to cross-examine and present evidence
must not be denied him once jurisdiction over his person is
reacquired
NOTE: The case was not brought up to the CA; thus, no proceedings
before the CA
to rule upon the evidence presented in court.
 The court need not wait for the time until the accused who escape
from custody finally decides to appear in court to present his
evidence and cross-examine the witnesses against him.
 To allow the delay of proceedings for this purpose is to render
ineffective the constitutional provision on trial in absentia.
THE ACT OF RENDERING JUDGMENT AGAINST DE LA VEGA DESPITE
HIS ABSENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED
INNOCENT
 He is still presumed innocent. A judgment of conviction must still
be based upon the evidence presented in court.
 Such evidence must prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
 Also, there can be no violation of due process since the accused
was given the opportunity to be heard.
THIRD ISSUE
NO. DE LA VEGA NO LONGER RETAINED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-
EXAMINE AND TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON HIS BEHALF. IT HAS BEEN
VIRTUALLY WAIVED DUE TO HIS FAILURE TO APPEAR DURING THE
TRIAL
 AS A RULE: The right of the accused to confrontation and cross-
examination of witnesses is a personal right and may be waived.
In the same vein, his right to present evidence on his behalf, a
right given to him for his own benefit and protection, may be
waived by him
 IN THIS CASE, de la Vega’s failure to appear during the trial of
which he had notice has the effect of virtually waiving his right to
cross-examine the witness and present his own evidence
 Also, the Court pointed out that based on Section 1 paragraph C of
Rule 115 of 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
“ The absence of the accused without any justifiable cause at the
trial on a particular date of which he had notice shall be
considered a waiver of his right to be present during that trial”
CONCLUSION
 an escapee who has been duly tried in absentia waives his right to
present evidences on his own behalf and to confront and cross-
examine witnesses who testified against him.