G.R. No. 1340. January 12, 1905

Claro Mendoza, the appellant in this case, is charged with the crime of asesinato.

The evidence adduced at the trial fully establishes his guilt as
charged, and supports the findings of fact in the sentence of the trial
court.

Counsel for appellant assigns as error the alleged absence of the accused during the preliminary trial.

An examination of the record shows that the so-called preliminary
trial at which the accused was not present was in fact a mere
preliminary investigation, held for the purpose of determining whether
a warrant of arrest should issue on the information filed by the
provincial fiscal, and in the very nature of things the accused seldom
is present during the course of such investigations.

It is alleged further that the court erred in failing to notify the
accused of his right to bail pending trial; but granting that this
allegation be true, though it is not supported by evidence, it does not
appear that the substantial rights of the accused were prejudiced
thereby, and it nowhere appears that his right to bail was in fact
denied.

Error is further assigned in that some of the testimony admitted was
incompetent as hearsay, but it does not appear that objection was made
to the introduction of this testimony, and there is sufficient evidence
to support the finding and the sentence of the trial court after
excluding from the record all incqmpetent testimony. The sentence
should be affirmed. So ordered.

Arellano C. J. Torres, Mapa, and Johnson, JJ., concur.