Criminal Procedures Reviewer on Trial
Declaimer: The suggested answer is only a legal opinion of the author.
K was charged with multiple counts of estafa committed against several persons. After his arraignment on all such counts, the prosecutor moved that the said cases be heard on the same dates and that common witnesses, apart from the different private complainants, will be presented against the accused. The latter, however, opposed the motion on the ground that each count is separate and distinct from the other and, therefore, must be prosecuted on the basis of the evidence particularly pertaining thereto. Accused argued that to hear all such cases together at the same time would be confusing to him and thereby prevent him from intelligently preparing his defense.
Rule on the motion.
Suggested Answer:
The motion of the prosecutor is meritorious.
The Revised Rules of Court provides that "Charges for offenses founded on the same facts or forming part of series of offenses of similar character may be tried jointly at the discretion of the court" [Rule 119, Sec. 22].
The above case in which K was charged with multiple counts of estafa allegedly committed on the single act of the accused; but the victims of which were several persons; hence Rule 119, Sec. 22 of the Revised Rules of Court is applicable in this case. The purpose of which is to minimize decongestions of court docket.
During the pre-trial in the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property filed against A, the trial court provided five (5) trial dates for the prosecution and three (3) trial dates for the defense. During the first day of trial, however, the prosecution moved for a resetting on the ground that the private complainant had yet to secure the necessary documents to prove the amount of damage caused to him by the accused but that it will be ready on the next setting. The defense immediately objected stating that under the Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases under A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, motions for postponement are prohibited motions, except only if it is based on "acts of God, force majeure or physical inability of the witness to appear and testify." The defense argued that none of those enumerated circumstances were present and that the witness was not physically incapable of testifying. It was thus prayed that the criminal case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and on the basis of the right of the accused to speedy trial.
Decide.
Suggested Answer:
The contention of the defense does not hold water.
In determining whether or not the right to speedy trial has been violated, the following factors should be considered:
(a) length of delay;
(b) the reason for the delay;
(c) the defendant's assertion of his right; and
(d) prejudice to the defendant [Jacob vs Sandiganbayan]
In the case at bar; the trial only just started; hence the factor of the length of delay is wanting. It is also submitted that there is no prejudice cause to the defendant "A".
As to the moved of prosecution to reset the hearing on the ground that the private complainant had yet to secure the necessary documents to prove the amount of damage caused to him by the accused; although the same per se is violative to the rights of the accused but the remedy of the accused is to invoked Section 8 of the Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court (RRC) so that the court by its own discretion may impose sanctions upon the prosecutor. But the same violation of the prosecution does not tantamount for the dismissal of the case on the ground of violation of the right of the accused for a speedy trial.
B was charged with falsification of a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale of a parcel of land before the trial court. The adult children of X, the supposed vendor, claim that B falsified the signature of their father in the said deed and transferred unto himself 5 hectares of valuable land. B was confident, however, that he would win the case. After all, X intimated to him that he was ready and willing to testify in B's favor, stating that his children were disgruntled that they would not inherit the property which led them to file the said case against B.
One year into the trial of the case, however, without the prosecution having yet terminated its presentation of its evidence, X was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. The doctor gave him one to two months left to live. On the other hand, the prosecution had just presented the second of the five witnesses it intended to present. B feared that X would no longer be alive by the time the third prosecution witness would be presented. As such, B, through counsel, filed a motion that they be allowed to present their witness X after explaining his terminal condition. The prosecution vehemently objected on the ground that under the rules particularly insofar as the order of trial is concerned, the defense would only be allowed to present its evidence after the prosecution has terminated its presentation, unless the court orders a modification of the order of trial.
Rule on the motion.
Suggested Answer:
B's motion is tenable.
In criminal proceedings, Sections 12 and 13, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court allows the conditional examination of defense witness prior to trial or before the prosecution rested its case [Vda. de Manguerra vs Risos]. The motion, which must be supported by the accused's affidavit and other evidence, shall state: (a) the name and residence of the witness; (b) the substance of his testimony; and (c) that the witness is sick or infirm as to afford reasonable ground for believing that he will not attend the trial.
In the above case; X the witness of B was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer and the doctor gave X one to two months left to live; therefore it is submitted that the motion of B should be granted pursuant to the above provisions attendant in this case.
A was charged with violation of RA 9165 after having been caught selling shabu to a poseur buyer. After pre-trial but before the prosecution could begin with the presentation of its evidence, it was discovered that A was connected to a known drug lord who was also charged before a different RTC. The handling prosecutor in that case conferred with the prosecutor in A's case, requesting that A be allowed to testify against the drug lord. A, however, would not agree unless the case against him be dismissed.
As such, the prosecutor made an oral manifestation before the RTC, before which A's case was pending, and moved that the case against A be dismissed as he will be utilized as an eye-witness in another drug case involving a known drug lord. Defense counsel did not object.
Should the court grant the motion of the prosecutor? Explain briefly.
Suggested Answer:
The court should deny the motion of the prosecutor.
Rule 119, Section 17 of the Revised Rules of Court gives the following conditions in dealing for the motion for the discharged of the accused to be state witness at the sound discretion of the court:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
(b) The is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
In the given case; A was charged with violation of RA 9165 after having been caught selling shabu; while the case of the drug lord pending in another RTC is different from the case of "A," hence there is no conspiracy attendant in this case. The testimony of "A" does not in any manner necessary because his case is different from that of the drug lord. The testimony of A cannot be substantially corroborated in its material points because their cases were different.
X was charged with robbery with violence against persons allegedly committed against Y before the RTC. However, when Y was presented by the prosecution during trial, it was revealed that X was not in fact trying to rob him. Rather, there was a previous altercation between the two parties. Apparently, Y had on his cellphone taken photos of X with another woman in compromising situations. When Y threatened to reveal the said photos to X's wife, their argument became physical, leading X to maul Y. After the latter was severely injured and unable to further defend himself, X took Y's phone, walked several meters away and deleted the photos. Thereafter, he threw it down to the ground. The police arrived at the scene immediately but could not get a decent answer from Y, considering his state. They heard Y repeatedly saying "X took my phone." It was for this reason they charged X with robbery with violence against persons.
After hearing the testimony of Y, the prosecutor moved that he be allowed to amend the Information to serious physical injuries. The defense opposed the motion on the ground that the time for substantially amending the information was before the arraignment and that amending it at such a time would prejudice the accused. After all, he had already prepared for his defense against the charge of robbery.
Decide.
Suggested Answer:
I will grant the petition or motion of the prosecutor.
When mistake has been made in charging the proper offense; Rule 119, Section 19 provides that "When it becomes manifest at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense and the accused cannot be convicted of the offense charged or any other offense necessarily included therein, the accused shall not be discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. In such case, the court shall commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the original case upon the filing of the proper information."
In the case at bar; the mistake has been made in charging the accused with Robbery instead of Physical Injury; hence the above provisions provides the substitution of the proper offense which may be made at any time before judgment [Teehankee vs Hon. Madayag].
On the last day of the presentation of the prosecution's evidence, the prosecutor orally offered its documentary and object evidence. The court asked the defense if it had any comment on the evidence so offered, defense counsel stated that he had no comment but that he would be filing a demurrer to evidence. There being no objection, the court admitted the evidence offered by the prosecution and gave the defense five (5) days therefrom to file whatever pleading it intended to file.
On the same day, the defense filed its demurrer to evidence. Therein, the defense clearly and specifically detailed the grounds of filing the same and argued that the prosecution failed to establish the elements of the crime charged. The prosecutor, who also received his copy of the demurrer on the same date, failed to file his comment or opposition.
Fifteen days after the demurrer was filed, the court released two issuances, i.e., (1) an order denying the demurrer to evidence, and (2) an order setting the case for promulgation of judgment on the following week. Then, on the date appointed, the decision of the court was read in open court to the accused who was convicted of the crime charged.
Shocked and aggrieved, the defense counsel filed a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. Accused asserted that he had been denied due process when the case was immediately decided without affording him his day in court. He claims that his demurrer to evidence was filed with leave of court, specifically when he was granted by the court five days to file whatever pleading it intended to file and that, in fact, he filed it on the same date. As for the prosecution, nothing was heard yet again.
Rule on the petition.
Suggested Answer:
The petition filed by the defense counsel should be denied.
The trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The Rules of court provides the following "When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution" [Rule 119, Sec. 23 RRC].
The actions of the trial court fifteen days after the demurrer was filed; in which the court released two issuances, i.e., (1) an order denying the demurrer to evidence, and (2) an order setting the case for promulgation of judgment on the following week were based on the Rule 119, Sec. 23 of the Revised Rules of Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment