THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PRECIANO MEJARES ET AL., DEFENDANTS. LUCIO LUANGCO, FEDERICO LUANGCO, ANTONIO JARIOL, BERNARDO GANALON AND LUIS GANALO…

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Leyte,
finding the herein appellants, Lucio Luangco, Federico Luangco, Antonio Jariol,
Bernardo Ganalon and Luis Ganalon, guilty of sedition with murder and sentencing
each of then to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of Eleuterio llanos in the amount of
P5,000. The same judgment convicted appellants’ seven co-accused, but the latter
did not appeal.

Under the first error assigned by appellants’ counsel de oficio, it
is contended that the appellants were denied time to prepare for trial. The
Solicitor General agrees to this contention. It appears that on January 31,
1948, fifty-nine persons were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Leyte
for the offense of sedition with murder committed on May 4,1947, in the
municipality of Tanauan, Leyte. On February 4, 1949, the information was amended
by reducing the number of the accused to twelve. In both informations, the
herein appellants were included. On February 25, 1949, at nine o’clock in the
morning, Attorney Fernando Sudario, then representing some of the accused, was
appointed by the court to act as attorney de oficio for all the other
accused. After arraignment on the sane clay, said attorney moved for the
postponement of the trial on the ground that he was not prepared therefor, in
view of the fact that he was appointed only on that day as attorney for some of
the accused. This motion was denied by the court which ordered the parties to
proceed with the trial. After said trial, the court rendered the judgment
hereinabove indicated.

In stating that he was not prepared for trial, Attorney Sudario argued that,
as the affidavits of the witnesses for the prosecution were not attached to the
record, he could not learn the basis of the information. In denying the motion
for postponement, the trial court ruled that the names of the witnesses for the
Government are listed in the original and amended informations. Regardless of
the merit of the ground advanced by Attorney Sudario in support for his motion
for postponement, or of the merit of the denial by the trial court, the fact is
conspicuous that defense counsel was not ready for trial on the date the
appellants were arraigned. Under section 7 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court,
after a plea of not guilty, except when the case is on appeal from the justice
of the peace, the defendant is entitled to at least two days to prepare for
trial unless the court for good cause shown shall allow further time. This
requirement has been held to be mandatory and, by its terms, the defendant is
entitled as of right to at least two days to prepare for trial, and a denial of
this right is a reversible error and a ground for new trial. (Moran, Comments on
the Rules of Court, 2d ed., Vol. II, page 688, citing the case of People
vs. Valte, 43 Phil. 907.)

Wherefore, following the recommendation of the Solicitor General, the
appealed judgment is hereby set aside and the case remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings, for the reception of such additional evidence as the
interest of justice may require, and for the rendition thereafter of the
corresponding judgment. So ordered, with costs de oficio.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor,
Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.