DANILO B. PARADA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE LORENZO B.VENERACION, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

Parada versus Veneracion

The Case

This is an administrative case. Danilo Parada, an accused in four criminal cases for estafa, filed a verified complaint against Judge Lorenzo Veneracion of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Manila, charging him with gross ignorance of the law, abuse of authority, and the rendering of unjust and erroneous interlocutory orders and judgment. The complaint arose from the judge's handling of the criminal cases, which led to Parada's arrest and incarceration. The case matters because it fixes the requisites of a valid trial in absentia, the rules on service of notice to counsel of record, and the standard of judicial competence expected of every judge.

Procedural History

The criminal cases for estafa were originally raffled to Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, presided over by Judge Senecio Ortile. Judge Ortile later inhibited himself, and the cases were re-raffled to the sala of Judge Veneracion. After the judge proceeded with trial in absentia and rendered a judgment of conviction, Parada filed a petition for habeas corpus, certiorari, and annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, declared the judgment of conviction null and void, and remanded the cases for further proceedings. Parada then filed this administrative complaint directly with the Supreme Court. The Office of the Court Administrator investigated and recommended a fine of 10,000 pesos with a warning, and the Supreme Court resolved the administrative matter in that light.

Facts

Parada was the accused in four counts of estafa, and he was bonded through the Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation. On October 23, 1993, he formally notified the trial court, through counsel, of his change of address. On October 27, 1993, he also notified the manager of the bonding company of the same change of address.

On February 8, 1994, Judge Ortile inhibited himself, and the cases were re-raffled to Judge Veneracion. By order of April 26, 1994, the hearings were set for June 3, 6, 7, and 8, 1994. The notice of hearing dated April 27, 1994, however, was sent to the former address of Parada's counsel, despite the notice of change of address on record. When Parada failed to appear on June 3, 1994, the judge ordered his arrest, ordered the confiscation of the bond, and conducted a trial in absentia, assigning a counsel de officio from the Public Attorney's Office. The warrant of arrest was issued with no bail recommended. On June 8, 1994, the judge denied the motion of the counsel de officio to allow the defense to present evidence upon Parada's arrest, holding that the failure of the accused to appear was a waiver of his right to adduce evidence.

On November 25, 1994, the judge rendered a decision convicting Parada, and the decision was promulgated despite his absence. Parada was arrested and brought to the Makati City Jail. The Court of Appeals later declared the judgment null and void and remanded the cases so that Parada could rebut the prosecution's evidence and present his own.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Veneracion is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for conducting a trial in absentia without the requisites required by the Constitution and the Rules.
• Whether or not the order of arrest with no bail recommended was erroneous and violative of the accused's constitutional right to bail.
• Whether or not the judge abused his authority in denying the motion of the counsel de officio to allow the accused to present evidence upon his arrest.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14, paragraph 2, of Article 3 of the Constitution provides:

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 unjustifiable.

This provision supplies the requisites of a valid trial in absentia, which the Court found were not met in the criminal cases.

Section 1, Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, on the rights of the accused, provides:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: (a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt; (b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment; (d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination; (e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself; (f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial; (g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf; (h) To have a speedy, impartial and public trial; (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.

The Court anchored the accused's right to be present and defend himself at every stage, and the corollary right to notice, on this provision.

Section 13, Article 3 of the Constitution provides:

All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

This provision underlies the Court's holding that the warrant of arrest with no bail recommended was a violation of Parada's right to bail, since estafa is a bailable offense.

Rule 3.01 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.

The Court invoked this rule in holding the judge to a standard of more than cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the requisites of a valid trial in absentia are that the accused has already been arraigned, that he has been duly notified of the trial, and that his failure to appear is unjustifiable. The second and third requisites were clearly wanting. Parada had not been duly notified because the notice of hearing dated April 27, 1994 was sent to the former address of his counsel, despite the formal notice of change of address filed on October 23, 1993. The Court ruled that 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, and that notices to counsel should be properly sent to his address of record unless he files a notice of change of address. The sending of the notice to the former address was an invalid service and could not bind Parada. His failure to appear was therefore justified, and the trial in absentia and the subsequent conviction were tainted with the vice of nullity for denial of due process.

On the second issue, the Court held that the warrant of arrest with no recommendation for bail was a downright violation of Parada's constitutional right to bail. The rule is clear that unless charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong, all persons detained, arrested, or otherwise under the custody of the law are entitled to bail as a matter of right. Estafa is undoubtedly a bailable offense, and this circumstance could not have escaped the attention of the respondent judge. In so doing, the judge exhibited that degree of ignorance so gross which the Court cannot countenance.

On the third issue, the Court held that the denial of the motion of the counsel de officio to allow the accused to present evidence upon his arrest, and the holding that the failure of the accused to appear was a waiver of his right to adduce evidence, formed part of the denial of due process. The Court stressed that due process of law in judicial proceedings requires that the accused be given an opportunity to be heard, and that the right to a hearing carries with it the right to be notified of every incident of the proceedings. Judges, by the very delicate nature of their functions, should be more circumspect in the performance of their duties, and had the respondent judge carefully and diligently studied the records, he would have noticed the change of address and the questioned orders could not have been precipitately issued.

Doctrine

A valid trial in absentia requires three requisites: the accused has already been arraigned; he has been duly notified of the trial; and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. Absent any of these, the trial and the resulting conviction are void for denial of due process.

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. Notices to counsel must be sent to his address of record, and unless he files a notice of change of address, his official address remains that of his address of record. Service to a former address is invalid and cannot bind the party.

The right to bail is a matter of right for all persons charged with bailable offenses, unless charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong. A warrant of arrest with no bail recommended for a bailable offense violates the Constitution.

Judges must be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. They are called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles. Gross ignorance of the law is a ground for administrative sanction.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Veneracion liable and fined him 10,000 pesos for disregarding Parada's right to procedural due process and for showing gross ignorance of the law, with a stern warning that a repetition of a similar act in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a trial in absentia is valid only if the accused has been arraigned, duly notified, and his failure to appear is unjustifiable, and notice must go to counsel's address of record. Examiners like to use this case on the requisites of trial in absentia, the right to bail for bailable offenses, and the administrative liability of judges for gross ignorance of the law.