Parada vs. Veneracion

A trial in absentia is valid only when the accused has already been arraigned, has been duly notified of the trial, and his failure to appear is unjustifiable; absent due notice, the proceedings and resulting conviction are void for denial of due process. All persons charged with bailable offenses, such as estafa, are likewise entitled to bail as a matter of right unless charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua with strong evidence of guilt.

Danilo B. Parada was the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 93-121385 to 88 for four counts of estafa, initially raffled to Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila presided by Judge Senecio Ortile. He was duly bonded with the Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation. On October 23, 1993, Parada through counsel formally notified that court of his change of address from 219 Cityland Condominium, Buendia Extension, Makati, Metro Manila to 2412 Nobel St., Bo. San Isidro, Makati, Metro Manila, and on October 27, 1993 likewise notified the manager of the bonding company of the same change.

After Judge Ortile inhibited himself on February 8, 1994, the cases were re-raffled to the sala of respondent Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion, Branch 47, Manila. By order of April 26, 1994, the hearing was set for June 3, 6, 7 and 8, 1994. The notice of hearing dated April 27, 1994 was, however, sent to complainant's former address. For failure of Parada to appear on June 3, 1994, respondent ordered his arrest, ordered confiscation of the bond, and conducted trial in absentia, assigning Atty. Jesse Tiburan of the Public Attorney's Office as counsel de officio. A warrant of arrest was issued on June 3, 1994 with no bail recommended.

Thereafter, on the hearings of June 6, 7 and 8, 1994, respondent issued orders noting Parada's failure to appear and proceeded with trial in absentia. On June 8, 1994, the motion of the counsel de officio that the defense be allowed to present evidence upon Parada's arrest was denied, with the ruling that failure of the accused to appear was a waiver of his right to adduce evidence. On November 25, 1994, a decision was rendered convicting Parada, promulgated despite his absence. Parada was subsequently arrested and brought to the Makati City Jail and later to the Muntinlupa National Penitentiary.

Parada filed a petition for habeas corpus, certiorari and annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 37340. On August 18, 1995, the Court of Appeals declared the November 25, 1994 decision null and void and remanded the case to respondent for further proceedings to afford Parada the opportunity to rebut the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence and to present his own evidence. The trial court had convicted despite the undisputed notice of change of address and despite the absence of valid service of the hearing notices.

• Trial in Absentia and Due Process: Petitioner argued that respondent was guilty of ignorance of the law for failing to follow the legal requirements of a valid trial in absentia, which led to his conviction and premature incarceration at the Makati City Jail and Muntinlupa National Penitentiary.
• Warrant of Arrest Without Bail: Petitioner maintained that the order of arrest with no recommendation for bail was erroneous because the offense charged was bailable.
• Denial of Right to Present Evidence: Petitioner argued that respondent abused his authority in issuing the June 8, 1994 order denying the motion of his counsel de officio to allow him to present evidence upon his arrest.
• Relief Sought: Petitioner prayed for respondent's dismissal from service and that respondent be barred from railroading Criminal Cases Nos. 93-121385 to 88.

• Harassment Suit: Respondent countered that the complaint was purely and plainly a harassment suit arising from the decision rendered in People vs. Danilo Parada for estafa.
• Denial and Compassionate Motive: Respondent maintained that the charges were denied as not based on the facts and records, asserting he merely acted with compassion upon receipt of the records from another sala after being informed that private complainants had merely borrowed from loan sharks the money given to Parada and were interested only in compelling return of the money, not in jailing him.
• Good Faith: Respondent argued that he acted in good faith in the trial of said cases.

• Validity of Trial in Absentia: Whether respondent violated the constitutional requisites of a valid trial in absentia by proceeding despite lack of due notice to the accused and justified non-appearance.
• Right to Bail and to Present Evidence: Whether respondent violated complainant's constitutional right to bail and right to due process by issuing a warrant of arrest with no bail recommended for estafa and by denying counsel's motion to allow the accused to adduce evidence upon arrest.
• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and disregard of procedural due process warranting disciplinary sanction.

• Validity of Trial in Absentia: Yes. Requisites nos. 2 and 3 were wanting because notice was sent to the former address despite a prior formal notice of change of address, rendering service invalid and non-appearance justified.
• Right to Bail and to Present Evidence: Yes. Estafa is a bailable offense, so a no-bail arrest order violates the constitutional right to bail; denial of opportunity to present evidence likewise denied due process.
• Administrative Liability: Yes. Disregard of procedural due process and gross ignorance of basic law warranted a P10,000.00 fine with stern warning against repetition.

• Validity of Trial in Absentia: Under Section 14(2), Article 3 of the Constitution, trial may proceed notwithstanding absence only if the accused has been arraigned, duly notified of trial, and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. Because Parada's counsel had filed a notice of change of address on October 23, 1993, the April 27, 1994 notice sent to the old address was not sent to the address of record and could not bind Parada. Without valid service, his absence on June 3, 6, 7 and 8, 1994 was justified, and the trial in absentia and subsequent conviction were tainted with nullity for denial of the constitutional right to be present, be heard, and be notified of every incident of proceedings.
• Right to Bail and to Present Evidence: Unless charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua with strong evidence of guilt, all persons detained or under custody are entitled to bail as a matter of right. Estafa, punishable from arresto mayor to reclusion temporal depending on the amount under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, is undoubtedly bailable, so the June 3, 1994 no-bail arrest order reflected gross ignorance. The June 8, 1994 denial of the counsel de officio's plea to allow presentation of defense evidence upon arrest further deprived Parada of the opportunity to adduce evidence and meet the prosecution's case, contrary to fair play.
• Administrative Liability: Judges must be more circumspect, assiduously ascertain facts and applicable laws, and maintain more than cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedure under Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Had the records been carefully studied, the change of address would have been noticed and the precipitous arrest, trial in absentia, and conviction orders avoided. General denial without refuting specific facts, coupled with violation of elementary rules on notice, bail, and due process, established gross ignorance warranting the Office of the Court Administrator's recommended penalty.

• Requisites of valid trial in absentia — Trial may proceed notwithstanding absence of the accused only when (1) the accused has already been arraigned, (2) he has been duly notified of the trial, and (3) his failure to appear is unjustifiable, pursuant to Section 14(2), Article 3 of the Constitution. Applied here, requisites (2) and (3) were absent because notice went to the former address despite a recorded change, so the trial and conviction were void.
• Notice to counsel as notice to party — Where a party appears by attorney in a court of record, all required notices must be given to the attorney of record at his address of record unless he files a notice of change of address. Applied here, sending the April 27, 1994 hearing notice to the old address after the October 23, 1993 notice of change constituted invalid service that could not bind Parada.
• Due process in criminal proceedings — No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process, which includes the right to be present and defend at every stage, to be notified of every incident, to adduce evidence, and to meet and refute the other party's evidence. Applied here, proceeding in absentia without valid notice and barring defense evidence denied Parada that opportunity and nullified the proceedings.
• Right to bail as a matter of right — Unless charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong, all persons detained, arrested, or otherwise under custody are entitled to bail as a matter of right. Applied here, estafa is bailable, so the no-bail arrest order was a downright constitutional violation.
• Judicial competence and diligence under the Code of Judicial Conduct — Under Canon 3, Rule 3.01, judges must be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence, exhibiting more than cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules and diligently studying records before resolving matters. Applied here, failure to observe elementary rules on notice, trial in absentia, and bail demonstrated gross ignorance warranting a fine.

• "Section 14 (2), Article 3 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable." — States the constitutional basis and controlling test for trial in absentia, from which the three requisites applied to annul the proceedings are drawn.
• "As a rule, where a party appears by attorney in an action or proceeding in a court of record, all notices required to be given therein must be given to the attorney of record." — Defines the notice rule that rendered service to the former address invalid after counsel's recorded change of address.
• "Notice to a party is essential to enable him to adduce his own evidence and to meet and refute the evidence submitted by the other party." — Articulates why defective notice constituted denial of the right to be heard and due process.
• "Judges, by the very delicate nature of their functions in dispensing justice, should be more circumspect in the performance of their duties." — States the exacting standard of judicial diligence used to hold respondent administratively liable for precipitous orders.

• People vs. Salas, No. L-66469, July 29, 1986, 143 SCRA 163 — Cited as authority for the three requisites of a valid trial in absentia under Section 14(2), Article 3 of the Constitution.
• Gundayao, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 77459, May 21, 1990, 185 SCRA 606 — Cited for the rule that where a party appears by attorney, all required notices must be given to the attorney of record.
• Sy, Sr. vs. IAC, et al., No. L-66741, June 16, 1988, 162 SCRA 130 — Cited for the rule that notices to counsel must be sent to his address of record unless a notice of change of address is filed.
• Galvez vs. Eduardo, A.M. No. MTJ-94-984, January 30, 1996, 252 SCRA 572 — Cited for the duty of judges to be circumspect and assiduously ascertain facts and applicable laws in resolving litigation.
• Cui vs. Madayag, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1150, June 5, 1995, 245 SCRA 1 — Cited for the Canon 3, Rule 3.01 requirement that judges be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.
• De los Santos-Reyes vs. Montesa, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-93-983, August 7, 1995, 247 SCRA 85 — Cited for the imperative that a judge be conversant with basic legal principles beyond cursory acquaintance with statutes and rules.

• Section 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Provides that trial may proceed notwithstanding absence of the accused if duly notified and failure to appear is unjustifiable; applied to hold the trial in absentia void for lack of due notice and justified absence.
• Article 315, Revised Penal Code — Punishes estafa with imprisonment ranging from arresto mayor to reclusion temporal depending on amount of fraud; applied to establish that Parada's charge was bailable and the no-bail order was unconstitutional.
• Canon 3, Rule 3.01, Code of Judicial Conduct — Requires judges to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence; applied to find gross ignorance for violating elementary rules on notice, trial in absentia, and bail.

Regalado, Romero, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur. No separate concurring opinions with additional reasoning appear in the text.