People vs. Valdez

After arraignment, an accused who waives presence may still be compelled to appear for identification by prosecution witnesses, and a claim of total waiver fails absent an unequivocal admission of identity. The 1973 Constitution permits trial to proceed notwithstanding unjustified absence after due notice, but does not confer an absolute right to ignore the conditions of bail or to deprive the prosecution of in-court identification.

Rodolfo Valdez, Jr. stood charged with murder in Criminal Case No. U-3439, with release secured by a P30,000.00 bail bond undertaking to appear, remain amenable to court orders and processes, and submit to judgment and execution. Article IV, Section 19 of the 1973 Constitution guarantees the accused specified trial rights while expressly providing that after arraignment trial may proceed notwithstanding absence where the accused was duly notified and non-appearance is unjustified.

Rodolfo Valdez, Jr. was charged with murder in Criminal Case No. U-3439 before the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, First Judicial Region, Branch XLV in Urdaneta. He obtained release on a P30,000.00 bail bond in which the bondsmen jointly and severally undertook that he would appear and answer the charge in whatever court it might be tried, at all times hold himself amenable to court orders and processes, appear for judgment if convicted and render himself to execution, or otherwise pay the bond amount to the Republic.

After arraignment, Valdez, through counsel, orally manifested in open court that he was waiving his right to be present during trial. The prosecuting fiscal moved that he nevertheless be compelled to appear and be present so prosecution witnesses could identify him. In its Order dated April 15, 1983, the trial court sustained Valdez, who invoked the majority opinion in Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. vs. Military Commission No. 2, et al., and ruled that he could not be validly compelled to appear and be present.

Thereafter the People petitioned for certiorari, praying for a writ of preliminary injunction against enforcement of the April 15, 1983 Order pending resolution, annulment of that Order, and an order compelling Valdez to appear during trial whenever required by the court. On August 10, 1983, a temporary restraining order was issued against enforcement of the assailed Order. Private respondent answered, and the case was submitted for decision on the stated issue of compellability for identification despite waiver.

• Compulsory Presence for Identification: Petitioner maintained that respondent Valdez, Jr. should be compelled to appear and be present at trial so prosecution witnesses could identify him, notwithstanding the post-arraignment waiver of presence.
• Relief Sought: Petitioner argued that the April 15, 1983 Order allowing total waiver should be annulled and set aside, enforcement thereof enjoined, and Valdez compelled to appear during trial of Criminal Case No. U-3439 whenever required by the trial court.

• Absolute Right to Absence: Private respondent maintained that Article IV, Section 19 of the 1973 Constitution grants an absolute right to absent himself from trial despite the bail-bond condition to remain amenable to court orders and processes.
• Reliance on Aquino Majority: Private respondent argued that the majority opinion in Aquino, Jr. vs. Military Commission No. 2, et al. supported total waiver, a position sustained by respondent judge in holding that Valdez could not be validly compelled to appear.

• Presence Despite Waiver: Whether respondent Rodolfo Valdez, Jr., despite waiver of his right to be present, can be compelled by the trial court to be present during trial so he can be identified by prosecution witnesses.

• Presence Despite Waiver: Yes. Despite post-arraignment waiver, the accused remains compellable to appear for identification by prosecution witnesses, consistent with the bail undertaking to remain amenable and the limited scope of trial in absentia.

• Presence Despite Waiver: Trial in absentia after arraignment upon due notice and unjustified absence was permitted, but not as a fundamental right to ignore bail terms requiring appearance whenever required and amenability to court processes. Reliance on People vs. Prieto, Sr. underscored that bail secures release on condition of appearance, with failure justifying further confinement under prior warrant. The cited Aquino formulation was read to allow waiver except at stages requiring identification, or where the accused unqualifiedly admits in open court after arraignment that he is the defendant on trial; no such unequivocal admission of identity appeared. Compelled presence was required because total absence would deny prosecution witnesses the opportunity for in-court identification and enable a subsequent claim of non-identification warranting acquittal, particularly where a witness may recognize the culprit by face without knowing his name.

• Trial in absentia after arraignment — Under the 1973 Constitution, after arraignment trial may proceed notwithstanding the accused's absence provided he was duly notified and non-appearance is unjustified. Applied here to reject total waiver as an absolute right and to preserve the court's authority to require presence for identification.
• Bail as conditional release — Bail releases a person in custody on condition that he appear before the court whenever required and remain amenable to its orders and processes, with breach supporting enforcement including confinement. Applied to hold Valdez bound by his P30,000.00 undertaking despite invoking constitutional waiver.
• Identification exception to waiver of presence — Waiver of presence does not extend to stages where identification by prosecution witnesses is necessary, unless the accused explicitly and unequivocally admits identity in the manner described, whether in signed writing or by clear personal manifestation in open court duly recorded. Applied to require Valdez's attendance for prosecution identification and to annul the order allowing total absence.

• "However, 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." — States the constitutional proviso governing trial in absentia upon which the limitation on total waiver rests.
• "the accused may waive his presence in the criminal proceedings except at the stages where Identification of his person by the prosecution witnesses is necessary. I might agree to the proposition of 'total' waiver in any case where the accused agrees explicitly and unequivocally in writing signed by him or personally manifests clearly and indubitably in open court and such manifestation is recorded, that whenever a prosecution witness mentions a name by which the accused is known, the witness is referring to him and to no one else." — Defines the identification exception and the only narrow basis for accepting total waiver.
• "if allowed to be absent in all the stages of the proceedings without giving the People's witnesses the opportunity to Identify him in court, he may in his defense say that he was never Identified as the person charged in the information and, therefore, is entitled to an acquittal." — Explains the practical prejudice to the prosecution justifying compulsion to appear.
• "Furthermore, it is possible that a witness may not know the name of the culprit but can Identify him if he sees him again, in which case the latter's presence in court is necessary." — States the additional rationale for requiring physical presence where recognition is visual rather than nominal.

• People vs. Prieto, Sr., 84 SCRA 198 — Followed for the traditional and correct concept of bail as conditional release requiring appearance whenever required, rejecting the assumption that trial in absentia created a fundamental right to ignore bond terms.
• Aquino, Jr. vs. Military Commission No. 2, et al., 63 SCRA 546 — The majority opinion was invoked by respondents to support total waiver, but the concurring and dissenting opinion of the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro was adopted as controlling reasoning to limit waiver where identification is necessary or absent unequivocal admission of identity.

• Section 19, Article IV, 1973 Constitution — Guarantees presumption of innocence, hearing by self and counsel, notice of accusation, speedy impartial public trial, confrontation, and compulsory process, while allowing post-arraignment trial despite absence upon due notice and unjustified non-appearance; applied to permit trial in absentia yet preserve compulsion to appear for identification and enforcement of bail conditions.

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.