PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH XLV, URDANETA, PANGASINAN, AND RODOLFO VALDEZ, JR., RESPONDENTS.

Private respondent Rodolfo Valdez, Jr. is charged in Criminal
Case No. U-3439 with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, First Judicial Region, Branch XLV in Urdaneta. He is out on a P30,000.00 bail bond which
contains the following conditions –

“The aforenamed, as bondsmen, hereby
jointly and severally undertake that the above-mentioned defendant, as
principal therein, will appear
and answer the charge above-mentioned in whatever Court it may be tried,
and will at all times hold
himself amenable to the orders and processes of the Court, and if
convicted, will appear for judgment,
and render himself to the execution thereof; or that if he fails to perform any
of these conditions will pay to the Republic of the Philippines the sum of
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), x x x.” (Emphasis supplied)

After his arraignment,
Rodolfo Valdez, Jr., thru his counsel, manifested orally in open court that he
was waiving his right to be present during the trial. The prosecuting fiscal
moved that respondent Rodolfo Valdez, Jr. be compelled to appear and be present
at the trial so that he could be identified by prosecution witnesses.
Respondent judge in his Order, dated April 15, 1983, sustained the position of
private respondent who cited the
majority opinion in the case of Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. vs. Military Commission No. 2, et al., 63 SCRA
546, and held that “he cannot be validly compelled to appear and be
present during the trial of this case.”

Hence, this petition for certiorari
with prayer, among others, (1) that pending the resolution of this case on the
merits, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to restrain respondent judge
from enforcing his Order dated
April 15, 1983; (2) that said Order dated April 15, 1983 of respondent judge be
annulled and set aside and (3) that private respondent Rodolfo Valdez, Jr. be
compelled to appear during the trial of Criminal Case No. U-3439 whenever
required to do so by the trial court.

On August 10, 1983, We
resolved “(a) to require the respondents to file an ANSWER thereto, within
ten (10) days from notice hereof, and not to move to dismiss the petition; and
(b) to ISSUE effective immediately and until further orders
from this Court, a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER enjoining the respondent Judge
from enforcing the Order dated April 15, 1983, allowing the accused, Rodolfo
Valdez, Jr. to totally waive his presence during the trial of Criminal Case No.
U-3439, entitled ‘People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Rodolfo Valdez,
Jr., alias Niño, et al., Accused,’ of the Regional
Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch XLV at Urdaneta, Pangasinan.” (p.
17, Rollo)

Private respondent filed
his answer to the petition and, after deliberation, We resolved to give due
course to the petition and to decide the issue, without requiring memorandum
from the parties, as to whether or not respondent Rodolfo Valdez, Jr., despite
his waiver of his right to be present, can be compelled by the trial court to
be present during the trial of
Criminal Case No. U-3439 so that he can be identified by the witnesses
for the prosecution.

Article IV of the 1973
Constitution, Section 19 thereof provides-

“SEC. 19. In all criminal pro­secutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be
heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses, face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf. 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.”

It is the submission of
private respondent that the above constitutional provision grants him absolute
right to absent himself from the trial of the case filed against him despite
the condition of his bail bond that he “will at all times hold himself
amenable to the orders and processes of the Court.”

In the case of People vs.
Prieto, Sr., 84 SCRA 198, it was held that “[r]espondent Judge unfortunately assumed that thereby a
defendant was thus conferred a fundamental right to ignore the terms of
the bond posted by him in accordance with his constitutional right to bail. The
present Constitution certainly has not made a dent on the
traditional and correct concept of a bail as given to allow the release of a
person in the custody of the law on condition that he would
appear before any court whenever so required. Upon failure to do so, the
warrant of arrest previously issued can be a sufficient justification for his
confinement.” Further, in Aquino, Jr. vs.
Military Commission No. 2, et al., 63 SCRA 546, the late Chief Justice Fred
Ruiz Castro, in his concurring and dissenting opinion, clearly stated that
“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.” Stated differently, the 1973 Constitution now unqualifiedly
permits trial in absentia even of capital offenses, provided that
after arraignment he may be
compelled to appear for the purpose of identification by the witnesses of the
prosecution, or provided he unqualifiedly admits in open court after his
arraign­ment that he is the person named as the defendant in the case on trial.
Reason for requiring the presence of the accused, despite his waiver, is, 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.

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.

ACCORDINGLY, the
petition is granted and the assailed Order, dated April 15, 1983, of
respondent judge is hereby ANNULLED and
SET ASIDE, and the restraining order enjoining said respondent judge from enforcing his
appealed order is made permanent.

SO ORDERED.

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