Moslares v. CA, 291 SCRA 440 (1998)

Moslares v. CA, 291 SCRA 440 (1998)

Nature: Petition for Certiorari: Petitioner Honor P. Morales seeks to set aside the decision of the CA, dismissing his petition for review and affirming the order of the RTC, declaring petitioner to have waived his right to present evidence, and affirming too the decision of the same RTC finding petitioner guilty of violation of BP 22 which decision was promulgated in absentia. Likewise, petitioner seeks to nullify respondent appellate court's resolutions denying his petition for bail.

Keywords:  Deprivation of right to be heard; right of the accused; BP 22

Summary: Morales purchased 3 units of Toyota Corolla registered under his name, under Manila Construction Corp; and under Austra-Phil Homes Inc. For the payment of the cars, he issued a cheque from Philippine Bank of Commissions in the amount of 1.4M. Subsequently, cheque was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Morales was then charged for the violation of BP 22 and Estafa

MELO, J.

Facts:

On February 19, 1991, petitioner purchased three units of Toyota Corolla 1600 from Toyota Bel-Air, Inc which were thereupon registered under his name, under the name of Manila Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines, and under the name of Austra-Phil Homes Inc. In payment thereof, petitioner issued Philippine Bank of Commissions Check No. 841644 dated May 24, 1991 in the amount of P1,425,780.00. When presented for payment, said check was dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. Thus, petitioner was charged for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and for Estafa.

The hearings of the case were postponed several times either at the instance of the petitioner or the prosecution, or motu proprio by the court. On September 13, 1995, the scheduled date of the presentation of evidence by petitioner, he failed to appear, but was represented by a newly retained lawyer, Atty. Dionisio Landero, who claimed that he was not ready to proceed with the trial as he was not yet familiar with the case. As a result, the trial court set the promulgation of the decision on October 30, 1995.

On October 9, 1995, petitioner filed a Motion for Recorsideration/Re Trial. However, on October 26, 1995 the trial court issued its assailed decision, portions of which read:

The record shows that accused Honor Moslares did not attend during the presentation of evidence for the prosecution nor for the defense. The Court set the presentation of evidence for the defense nineteen (19) times four (4) of which were cancelled on the ground that there was a typhoon and the public prosecutor was 'indisposed'. But the accused did not even testify and presented only one witness, a certain Sixto Avila. Subject cases were submitted for decision four (4) times for failure of the accused to present evidence but was lifted in the interest of justice upon motion of the accused. He changed his lawyer four times everytime the Court ordered the case submitted for decision for failure of the accused to present his evidenced inorder to gain a delay.

RTC: rendered that the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of BP 22 and the court hereby sentence Honor Moslares to suffer imprisonment for one (1) year.

On October 30, 1995, the trial court proceeded to promulgate in absentia the October 26, 1996 decision.

On November 14, 1995, petitioner filed a notice of appeal which was denied due course by the lower court in its assailed order dated dated February 1, 1996. The lower court, relying on the case of People vs. Mapalao (197 SCRA 79[1991]), considered petitioner to have waived his right to appeal.

CA: rendered a decision dismissing the petition for review and denying the petition to post bail. Motions for reconsideration subsequently filed by petitioner were denied.

Issue: WON the CA gravely abused its discretion by:

1.     Affirming the decision of the lower court that the petitioner had waived his right to present evidence by numerous postponements

2.     Affirming the decision of the lower court which was promulgated in absentia without giving petitioner an opportunity to present evidence in support of his defense.

Held: Yes. The Court of Appeals, in affirming said decision, gravely abused its discretion as it sustained a decision of the lower court rendered in violation of the right of petitioner to due process

Ratio: While it is true that the right to present evidence may be waived expressly or impliedly, it cannot be said that petitioner had waived said right in this case. The postponement sought by petitioner and counsel appear to be justified and were not vexatious and oppressive as borne by the record of the case. The intention and the willingness of petitioner to present evidence can be gleaned from the fact that he had already presented one witness and has other witnesses ready for presentation, although this was delayed, but for meritorious reasons, such as illness of the petitioner and his counsel, petitioner's confinement at a hospital, ongoing negotiations between the parties, and substitution of counsel.

The rights of an accused during trial are given paramount importance in our laws and rules on criminal procedure. Among the fundamental rights of the accused is the right to be heard by himself and counsel. Verily, this right is even guaranteed by the Constitution itself. This right has been recognized and established in order to make sure that justice is done to the accused.

Further, the constitution right of the accused to be heard in his defense is inviolate. No court of justice under our system of government has the power to deprive him of that right (People vs. Lumague, Jr., 111 SCRA 515 [1982]).

It would have thus been more befitting and seemly of the Court of Appeals had it ordered the trial court to reopen the case for the reception of petitioner's evidence. Granting that petitioner had sought a number of postponements, the requirements of substantial justice mandate that he should have been given his day in court. The grant of a reasonable continuance would have been sounder judicial discretion to ferret out the truth, than to have a speedy disposition of the case, but at the expense of a fundamental right.

Hence, it was error for the trial court to have proceeded with the promulgation of decision on the premise that petitioner had waived his right to appear in court to present his evidence. Likewise, the Court of Appeals, in affirming said decision, gravely abused its discretion as it sustained a decision of the lower court rendered in violation of the right of petitioner to due process. As enunciated in the case of Alliance of Democratic Free Labor Organization vs. Laguesma (254 SCRA 565 [1996]), the most basic tenet of due process is the right to heard.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1996 affirming the October 30, 1996 decision of the lower court, as well as said latter decision, are hereby set aside, and the case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings whereat, petioner may be given an opportunity to post bail. For this reason, respondent court's resolution dated April 11, 1997 and May 19, 1997 denying petitioner's petition for bail are likewise set aside. No special pronouncement is made as to costs. SO ORDERED.