February 12, 1997
Ponente: Davide, Jr., J.
FACTS
Sarenas Tabag was the leader of the Integrated Civilian Home Defense Force (ICHDF) team in Brgy. Buan, Asuncion, Davao. Sometime in March 1984, he led the other members of the team (herein accused), including his son Marcelo, to undertake an operation outside of ICHDF's usual area of operation.
It turned out the operation was to kill Welbino Magdasal, Sr. and his family. Sarenas suspected that the Magdasals were members of the NPA, which group he had an axe to grind with because he was of the belief that the death of some of his own family members were done by NPA members. In other words, the operation was a mere act of revenge against suspected NPA members.
The operation was carried out successfully; Magdasal, Sr. and his wife and two children were shot to death in their home in New Corella, Davao.
It took a year after the incident before a witness came out to identify the suspects. The said witness named herein accused as the ones responsible for the massacre of Magdasal, Sr. and his family. A criminal case for multiple murder were filed in court against the accused.
Sarenas surrendered voluntarily. Later on, Coloma Tabag, Artemio Awod, Laureo Awod, and Romeo Aguipo were arrested. All of the accused were arraigned and held in the provincial jail of Davao.
In October 1989, Laureo Awod and Artemio Awod were part of a group of prisoners that managed to escape from the jail. In effect, only Sarenas, Coloma Tabag, and Romeo Aguipo were present during the criminal proceedings. • In January 1992, the trial court found the three remaining accused guilty of four counts of murder and were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
nly Sarenas and Coloma filed their appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in holding them guilty because, among others, the evidence of the prosecution was weak and that the operation was conducted as part of their duty.
RULING
Petition denied. Trial court ruling affirmed with modifications.
However, the SC chided the trial court for proceeding with the criminal trial as against only the three remaining accused.
The SC held that the trial court should have proceeded as against all the accused, including the two who broke out of the prison, because the latter's escape should have been considered a waiver of their right to be present at their trial, and the inability of the court to notify them of the subsequent hearings did not prevent the trial court from continuing with their trial. Thus, the trial court is ordered to continue with the proceedings as against accused Laureo Awod and Artemio Awod if they are still alive..
Whether the trial court should have proceeded with the criminal case, not only against the three remaining accused, but also against the escapees Laureo Awod and Artemio Awod. – YES.
The trial court erred in not proceeding with the case against Laureo Awod and Artemio Awod after their successful escape while in preventive detention. They had already been arraigned. Therefore, pursuant to the last sentence of paragraph, Section 14, Article III of the Constitution, trial against them should continue and upon its termination, judgment should be rendered against them notwithstanding their absence unless, of course, both accused have died and the fact of such death is sufficiently established.
In People v. Salas, the escape of the accused should have been considered a waiver of their right to be present at their trial, and the inability of the court to notify them of the subsequent hearings did not prevent it from continuing with their trial. They were to be deemed to have received notice. The same fact of their escape made their failure to appear unjustified because they have, by escaping, placed themselves beyond the pale and protection of the law.
Pursuant to Gimenez v. Nazareno, the trial against fugitives, just like those of the others, should be brought to its ultimate conclusion despite their absence.
In the present case, the trial court had the duty to rule on the evidence presented by the prosecution against all the accused and to render its judgment accordingly. It should not wait for the fugitives re-appearance or re-arrest. They were deemed to have waived their right to present evidence on their own behalf and to confront and cross-examine the witnesses who testified against them.
Court's warning to judges: "The trial court forgot our rulings in Salas and Nazareno. We thus take this opportunity to admonish trial judges to abandon any cavalier stance against accused who escaped after arraignment, thereby allowing the latter to make a mockery of our laws and the judicial process. Judges must always keep in mind Salas and Nazareno and apply without hesitation the principles therein laid down, otherwise they would court disciplinary action."
DOCTRINE
Trial against a fugitive should continue and upon
its termination, judgment should be rendered against him notwithstanding
his absence unless, of course, the accused had died and the fact of
such death is sufficiently established.
