Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan

Rights of the Accused

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: Jacob v. SandiganbayanPrevious case

Primary source ↗Next: People v. AbatayoNext case→

Case DigestWeek 8 - Rule 114 - Bail

Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 152398 · April 14, 2005

Rights of the Accused

Petitioner: CrisostomoRespondent: Sandiganbayan

Gist

This case has a DIRECT relationship to the requested syllabus topic of Bail and the Rights of the Accused (Rules 114-115). The controversy arose when the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner SPO1 Edgar Crisostomo of Murder after arbitrarily declaring that he had waived his constitutional right to present evidence and ordering the confiscation of his surety bond simply because he and his counsel failed to attend a single reset trial hearing on June 22, 1995. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted the petition, treated the special civil action for certiorari as an appeal, reversed the Sandiganbayan's decision, and acquitted the petitioner on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Core Doctrine

Under Section 2(c), Rule 114 and Section 1(c), Rule 115, an accused's non-appearance at a scheduled trial is a waiver of his right to be present on that date only, and not for the succeeding trial dates. A single absence therefore cannot be taken as a waiver of the right to present evidence, nor as an inference of flight justifying forfeiture of the bail bond and termination of the defence's case.

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

Rights of the Accused Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_152398_2005.html

Facts

SPO1 Edgar Crisostomo and co-accused Calingayan were charged with Murder before the Sandiganbayan for the shooting death of Renato, and Crisostomo posted a surety bond for his provisional liberty.
The Sandiganbayan set the defence's presentation of evidence for 21, 22 and 23 June 1995.
On 21 June 1995 the hearing was cancelled by the court itself — lack of quorum in the regular membership of the Second Division — and, on the parties' agreement, reset to the next day.
On 22 June 1995 Crisostomo and his counsel, Atty. Guades, failed to appear. One missed day, on a setting the court had itself moved.
That same day the Sandiganbayan ordered a warrant for his arrest, the confiscation and forfeiture of his surety bond, a declaration that he had waived his right to present evidence for non-appearance at "yesterday's and today's scheduled hearings," and the termination of trial, giving the parties thirty days to file memoranda.
The waiver rested on a bilateral agreement among the prosecution, co-accused Calingayan and Calingayan's counsel — not on anything Crisostomo said or did.
On 28 November 2000 the Sandiganbayan convicted him of Murder, imposing twelve years, five months and eleven days of prisión mayor to eighteen years, eight months and one day of reclusión temporal.
His motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolutions of 17 September 2001 and 14 January 2002.
On 14 April 2005 the Supreme Court, treating his Rule 65 petition as an appeal, reversed and acquitted him.

Issue

Did the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse its discretion in declaring that Crisostomo waived his right to present evidence and in ordering his bail bond confiscated, solely because he and his counsel missed one reset hearing — and can that absence be read under Rule 114 and Rule 115 as a broader waiver of presence or as an inference of flight?

Secondary issues. Whether the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over a Murder charge against an SPO1, and whether he was estopped from questioning it; whether a Rule 65 petition may be treated as an appeal to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and whether counsel's gross negligence may prejudice the accused; and whether the evidence proved conspiracy in Murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. Non-appearance is a waiver of the right to be present on that date only — not on succeeding dates, and not of the right to present evidence. And there was no basis to forfeit the bond or infer flight, his personal appearance not having been specifically required that day.

Secondary issue 1. JURISDICTION EXISTED, AND WAS NOT TIMELY CHALLENGED. Under Deloso v. Domingo and Republic v. Asuncion, the Sandiganbayan could try the case, and he was estopped, having raised the point only after the verdict.

Secondary issue 2. THE PETITION WAS TREATED AS AN APPEAL. The Court exercised its discretion to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, holding that Atty. Guades's gross negligence cannot prejudice the constitutional right to be heard.

Secondary issue 3. GUILT NOT PROVED. The evidence failed to overcome the presumption of innocence, and a remand being unnecessary, he was acquitted.

Ratio

The waiver's temporal scope is strict and narrow. Failure to appear without justifiable cause waives the right to be present "for trial on such date only and not for the succeeding trial dates."
And the premise was factually wrong. The Sandiganbayan declared a waiver as to both 21 and 22 June, though the 21st was cancelled by the court for lack of quorum — so he missed exactly one day.
A waiver of the right to present evidence demands far more. "While constitutional rights may be waived, such waiver must be clear and must be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the right." He relinquished nothing — the court imposed the waiver on him from an agreement among other parties.
In capital cases the judge must personally satisfy himself. The accused must be personally made aware of the consequences; warning of future absences is not enough — the judge must personally explain the exact nature and consequences, physically evaluate the accused to elicit age, socio-economic status and educational background as an index of capacity to waive, and pose all questions in a language he knows, with the record reflecting it and its English translation.
Forfeiture has its own preconditions, neither present here — and an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire record, so the Court could correct unassigned errors and acquit outright.

Doctrine

Non-appearance waives presence for that date only. "Under Section 2(c), Rule 114 and Section 1(c), Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, Crisostomo's non-appearance during the 22 June 1995 trial was merely a waiver of his right to be present for trial on such date only and not for the succeeding trial dates." A constitutional waiver must be clear and intentional: "While constitutional rights may be waived, such waiver must be clear and must be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the right." In capital cases the court must personally ensure awareness: "In criminal cases where the imposable penalty may be death, as in the present case, the court is called upon to see to it that the accused is personally made aware of the consequences of a waiver of the right to present evidence." Forfeiture requires a specific directive and notice: "A bail bond may be forfeited only in instances where the presence of the accused is specifically required by the court or the Rules of Court and, despite due notice to the bondsmen to produce him before the court on a given date, the accused fails to appear in person as so required." And "an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review."

Limits. The escape exception is the real boundary of the date-specific rule. "When an accused under custody had been notified of the date of the trial and escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on said date and on all subsequent trial dates until custody is regained" — so the narrow reading protects the absent accused, not the fugitive. And jurisdictional objections, though not waivable in themselves, can be lost to laches and estoppel — raising the Sandiganbayan's authority over an SPO1 only after conviction came too late. Read the bail point precisely: forfeiture is not a sanction for absence but a consequence of failing to produce the accused when the court has actually ordered him produced — so a judge cannot presume that an absent accused has jumped bail, and cannot convert a procedural lapse by counsel into loss of both liberty and the right to be heard.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

The central doctrine established in this decision dictates that under Section 2(c) of Rule 114 and Section 1(c) of Rule 115, the non-appearance of an accused on a specific trial date of which he had notice merely constitutes a waiver of his right to be present on that particular trial date only and does not operate as a waiver of his presence on subsequent trial dates, nor does it constitute a waiver of his constitutional right to present evidence or serve as a basis to infer flight and forfeit his bail bond, which strictly requires a specific court directive to appear and a formal notice to the bondsmen to produce the accused in person.

Facts

[Date not in record]: Criminal Case for Murder is filed against petitioner SPO1 Edgar Crisostomo and co-accused Calingayan before the Sandiganbayan for the shooting death of Renato, and Crisostomo subsequently posts a surety bond as bail to secure his provisional liberty.
[Date not in record]: The Sandiganbayan schedules the hearings for the defense's presentation of evidence on June 21, 22, and 23, 1995.
June 21, 1995: The scheduled hearing is officially cancelled due to "lack of quorum in the regular membership" of the Sandiganbayan's Second Division and upon the agreement of the parties, and the trial is reset for the next day, June 22, 1995.
June 22, 1995: The reset hearing is called, but petitioner Crisostomo and his counsel, Atty. Guades, fail to attend the trial.
June 22, 1995 (later that day): The Sandiganbayan immediately issues an Order:
- (a) Directing the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of Crisostomo;
- (b) Ordering the confiscation and forfeiture of his surety bond;
- (c) Declaring that Crisostomo has waived his right to present evidence because of his non-appearance at "yesterday's and today's scheduled hearings"; and
- (d) Terminating the trial and giving the parties thirty (30) days within which to file their respective memoranda, after which the case would be deemed submitted for decision.
November 28, 2000: The Sandiganbayan promulgates its Decision finding Crisostomo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision mayor as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
[Date not in record]: Crisostomo files a Motion for Reconsideration assailing the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction and its finding of guilt.
September 17, 2001: The Sandiganbayan promulgates its first Resolution denying Crisostomo's Motion for Reconsideration.
January 14, 2002: The Sandiganbayan promulgates its second Resolution denying Crisostomo's Motion for Reconsideration.
[Date not in record / after January 14, 2002]: Crisostomo elevates the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
April 14, 2005: The Supreme Court delivers its Decision, treating the petition as an appeal, reversing the Sandiganbayan's decision, and acquitting Crisostomo of Murder.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Edgar Crisostomo).

No Jurisdiction Over Person: Petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the crime of Murder because he only held the rank of Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) at the time the Information was filed against him.
No Direct Evidence of Conspiracy: He contends that the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of discretion in finding him guilty of conspiring to murder Renato, despite the Sandiganbayan's own admission in its decision that there was no direct evidence to prove his participation in the victim's death.
No Intentional Waiver of Rights: He asserts that his right to present evidence and his right to procedural due process were violated. He argues that his failure to attend a single hearing on June 22, 1995, did not constitute a voluntary waiver of his right to present evidence, and that the Sandiganbayan had no right to impose a waiver upon him.
Negligence of Counsel Should Not Prejudice Accused: He argues that the gross negligence of his counsel, Atty. Guades, in failing to attend the scheduled hearing should not prejudice his constitutional right to be heard.

B. Respondent (People of the Philippines / Sandiganbayan).

Jurisdiction Exists and Estoppel Applies: The prosecution argues that under the ruling in Deloso v. Domingo and the Court's instructions in Republic v. Asuncion, the Sandiganbayan had valid jurisdiction over the case. Furthermore, since Crisostomo waited until after the verdict was rendered before raising the issue, he is estopped from questioning the court's jurisdiction.
Waiver of Evidence Approved by Prosecution and Co-Accused: The respondent maintains that the Sandiganbayan’s declaration of waiver was valid because it was done in open court with the agreement of the prosecution, co-accused Calingayan, and Calingayan’s counsel after Crisostomo failed to attend the June 22, 1995 trial.
Non-Appearance Constituted Flight and Warranted Bond Forfeiture: The respondent argues that Crisostomo's failure to attend the June 22, 1995 hearing was a waiver of his presence and constituted flight, which justified the forfeiture of his bail bond and the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

C. Common Ground.

NOT IN RECORD (No stipulations of fact or common ground between the parties are mentioned in the decision).

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring that the accused waived his constitutional right to present evidence and in ordering the confiscation of his bail bond on the sole ground of his and his counsel's failure to appear at a single reset trial hearing on June 22, 1995, and whether such absence can be construed as a waiver of presence under Rule 114 and Rule 115 or as an inference of flight.

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the crime of Murder charged against Crisostomo, who held the rank of SPO1 at the time of the filing of the Information, and whether he was estopped from questioning such jurisdiction after participating in the trial.
Whether or not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be treated as an appeal in a criminal case involving a capital offense to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, and whether the gross negligence of counsel should prejudice the accused's right to be heard.
Whether or not the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to prove Crisostomo's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for conspiracy in Murder.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE: YES. The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. Under Section 2(c), Rule 114 and Section 1(c), Rule 115, the failure of an accused to appear at a scheduled trial is merely a waiver of his right to be present on that specific date only and does not waive his right to be present on subsequent dates or his right to present evidence. Furthermore, there was no legal basis to forfeit the bail bond or infer flight because the accused's personal appearance was not specifically required by the court on that date.
SECONDARY ISSUE 1: YES. The Sandiganbayan had valid jurisdiction to try the case under Deloso v. Domingo and Republic v. Asuncion, and the petitioner was estopped from questioning it because he raised the issue only after the verdict was rendered.
SECONDARY ISSUE 2: YES. The Supreme Court exercised its judicial discretion to treat the petition for certiorari as an appeal to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. The gross negligence of Atty. Guades cannot prejudice Crisostomo’s constitutional right to be heard.
SECONDARY ISSUE 3: NO. The prosecution's evidence failed to overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence, and because a remand was unnecessary, Crisostomo was acquitted.

#### Verbatim Dispositive Portion:.

NOT IN RECORD (The exact verbatim text of the final fallo of the April 14, 2005 Decision is not contained in the provided source passages. The Court, however, ultimately acquitted Edgar Crisostomo on the ground that the prosecution's evidence failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt).

Ratio

#### 1. The Strict Temporal Scope of a Waiver of Presence Under the Rules. The Supreme Court parsed the text of Section 2(c), Rule 114 and Section 1(c), Rule 115 of the Rules of Court. The Court held that when an accused fails to appear at a scheduled trial without a justifiable cause, such absence operates strictly and exclusively as a waiver of his right to be present during that trial on that particular date only.

It does not constitute a waiver of his right to be present on succeeding trial dates. The Sandiganbayan committed a patent and obvious error in declaring that Crisostomo had waived his right to be present on June 21 and June 22, 1995, because the hearing on June 21 was officially cancelled by the court itself due to a lack of quorum. Thus, Crisostomo only failed to appear on one single day (June 22, 1995), which could not legally affect his rights on subsequent trial dates.

#### 2. The High Constitutional Standard for a Waiver of the Right to Present Evidence. The Court vigorously ruled that the right to present evidence is a fundamental constitutional right which cannot be lightly presumed as waived. Under Philippine law, "while constitutional rights may be waived, such waiver must be clear and must be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the right".

Crisostomo never voluntarily relinquished his right to present evidence, either personally or through counsel; instead, the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily imposed this waiver upon him by relying on a bilateral agreement between the prosecution, the co-accused Calingayan, and Calingayan's counsel.

The Court established that in criminal cases involving capital offenses where the imposable penalty may be death or reclusion perpetua (as Murder was under the Revised Penal Code, where the medium period is reclusion perpetua):

The court has a positive duty to ensure that the accused is personally made aware of the consequences of a waiver of the right to present evidence.
It is not enough for the court to warn the accused of the consequences of future absences; the judge must personally explain in clear terms the exact nature and consequences of the waiver.
The court must conduct a physical evaluation of the accused to elicit his profile (including age, socio-economic status, and educational background) to serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed waiver.
All questions must be posed in a language known and understood by the accused, and the record must reflect the language and its English translation.

The Sandiganbayan utterly bypassed these procedural safeguards, stripping Crisostomo of his right to present evidence without even allowing him an opportunity to explain his absence.

#### 3. The Restricted Legal Grounds for Forfeiture of a Bail Bond. The Court ruled that Crisostomo's absence on June 22, 1995, did not justify the forfeiture of his surety bond. Under the Rules of Court, "a bail bond may be forfeited only in instances where the presence of the accused is specifically required by the court or the Rules of Court and, despite due notice to the bondsmen to produce him before the court on a given date, the accused fails to appear in person as so required".

Because Crisostomo's personal presence was not specifically mandated by the Sandiganbayan or by any provision of the Rules of Court on June 22, 1995, there was no legal basis to confiscate his bond or to assume that he had jumped bail. Consequently, flight could not be logically inferred from his non-appearance.

#### 4. Counsel’s Gross Negligence Cannot Override Constitutional Rights. The Court recognized that Atty. Guades was grossly negligent in failing to represent Crisostomo at the crucial defense hearing. However, the Court ruled that in criminal cases involving capital offenses where a person's life and liberty are at stake, the gross negligence of counsel cannot be allowed to prejudice the accused's constitutional right to be heard.

#### 5. Scope of Review in Criminal Appeals and Acquittal. The Court established that "an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review". The reviewing tribunal is fully authorized to correct unassigned errors or reverse the lower court's decision on grounds other than those raised by the parties.

Because the Sandiganbayan’s procedural errors deprived Crisostomo of his day in court, and the prosecution’s evidence failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, a remand was unnecessary, and the Court ordered Crisostomo's acquittal to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules.

#### 1. Temporal Limitation of Waiver of Presence:.

"Under Section 2(c), Rule 114 and Section 1(c), Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, Crisostomo's non-appearance during the 22 June 1995 trial was merely a waiver of his right to be present for trial on such date only and not for the succeeding trial dates."

#### 2. The Constitutional Standard for Waiver:.

"While constitutional rights may be waived, such waiver must be clear and must be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the right."

#### 3. Duty of the Court in Capital Waivers:.

"In criminal cases where the imposable penalty may be death, as in the present case, the court is called upon to see to it that the accused is personally made aware of the consequences of a waiver of the right to present evidence."

#### 4. Conditions for Forfeiture of Bail:.

"A bail bond may be forfeited only in instances where the presence of the accused is specifically required by the court or the Rules of Court and, despite due notice to the bondsmen to produce him before the court on a given date, the accused fails to appear in person as so required."

#### 5. Open-Ended Scope of Criminal Appeals:.

"An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the lower court's decision on grounds other than those the parties raised as errors."

C. Limitations/Exceptions.

The Escape Exception: Under Section 1(c) of Rule 115, the rule limiting the waiver of presence to a single trial date applies only to an accused who has not escaped. "When an accused under custody had been notified of the date of the trial and escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on said date and on all subsequent trial dates until custody is regained.".
Estoppel on Jurisdictional Challenges: While an accused cannot waive jurisdictional defects, he may be barred by laches and estoppel from challenging the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over his rank (e.g., being an SPO1) if he actively participates in the trial and raises the jurisdictional objection only after a verdict of conviction has been rendered.

D. Topic Integration.

This case is DIRECTLY controlling on the constitutional and procedural limits of Bail (Rule 114) and the Rights of the Accused (Rule 115).
First, on the requested subtopic of Bail, the decision defines the nature of bail as a contractual security for provisional liberty and restricts the power of the trial court to order its forfeiture.
Under Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, a trial court cannot use the forfeiture of bail as a punitive measure for mere non-appearance unless the court has issued a specific command requiring the accused's physical presence and has given formal notice to the bondsmen. This prevents courts from automatically assuming that an absent accused has "jumped bail" or fled.
Second, on the Rights of the Accused, the case establishes a critical protective boundary. It holds that the waiver of the right to be present under Rule 115 is strictly date-specific and cannot be expanded by the court into a waiver of the constitutional right to present evidence.
By prescribing a strict, mandatory, personal inquiry that a judge must conduct before accepting a waiver of the right to present evidence in capital cases, Crisostomo ensures that the presumption of innocence is actively guarded and that the accused's provisional liberty on bail is not arbitrarily canceled due to the procedural lapses of counsel.

Separate Opinions

NOT IN RECORD (The provided source passages do not record or mention any separate concurring or dissenting opinions in G.R. No. 152398).

⚖️ Nudge: Would you like me to prepare a comparative analysis showing how this strict "single-date waiver of presence" rule in Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan was subsequently applied by the Supreme Court to trial in absentia cases, or perhaps contrast it with the waiver rules under the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases?

⚠️ Dispositive portion — supplied from the primary text

This digest states that the verbatim dispositive portion was not in the source passages available to its author — an honest gap, not an invention. Supplied here from the decision:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 19780 convicting appellant EDGAR CRISOSTOMO and co-accused MARIO B. CALINGAYAN is hereby REVERSED. EDGAR CRISOSTOMO and co-accused MARIO B. CALINGAYAN are ACQUITTED of the crime of murder and ordered immediately released from prison, unless held for another lawful cause. The Director of Prisons is directed to report to this Court compliance within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision. No costs. SO ORDERED.

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_152398_2005.html

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Implementing Rules

Section 1, Rule 115, Rules of Court

Rights of accused at the trial

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 115 (Rights of Accused)

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. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his right without the assistance of counsel.

(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.

(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. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him.

(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.

(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.

(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law. (1a)

LawPhil posts the text as amended effective 1 December 2000. Later amendments — notably to the bail and preliminary-investigation rules — are not reflected here, so check the date of the decision against the date of the amendment.

Why it is cited here

A waiver of presence on one trial date is not a waiver of anything else.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: … (c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court …"

Crisostomo and his counsel missed a single reset hearing on 22 June 1995. The Sandiganbayan treated that as a waiver of his right to present evidence and convicted him of murder.

The Court held the non-appearance "merely constitutes a waiver of his right to be present on that particular trial date only" — not on subsequent dates, and certainly not of the constitutional right to present evidence.

Note the proviso in paragraph (c): presence may be compelled where "specifically ordered by the court." That is the mechanism the Sandiganbayan should have used, and its absence is why nothing followed from the absence.

Implementing Rules

Section 2, Rule 114, Rules of Court

Conditions of the bail; requirements

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 114 (Bail)

All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions:

(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the case until promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it;

(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by the court of these Rules;

(c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be present thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia; and

(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final judgment.

The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused, the amount of the undertaking and the conditions herein required. Photographs (passport size) taken within the last six (6) months showing the face, left and right profiles of the accused must be attached to the bail. (2a)

Why it is cited here

What it takes to forfeit a bond — and what it does not.

"All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions: … (b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by the court or these Rules; (c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be present thereat … (d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final judgment."

The Sandiganbayan also confiscated his surety bond, inferring flight from the one absence.

Forfeiture requires more than that: a specific court directive to appear and a formal notice to the bondsmen to produce the accused in person. Neither was given.

Read paragraph (c) closely — it says failure to appear waives the right to be present thereat. The word does the same work here as in Rule 115: it confines the consequence to that hearing.

Constitution

Article III, Section 14, 1987 Constitution

Bill of Rights

1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article III (Bill of Rights)

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

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 unjustifiable.

Why it is cited here

Why the conviction could not stand on that footing.

"No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. 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 … 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."

The proviso permits the trial to continue in the accused's absence. It does not permit the court to close the defence case and treat the right to be heard as forfeited.

The Court treated the special civil action for certiorari as an appeal, reversed, and acquitted — the prosecution having failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence it did present.

Related notes:

Assigned under the same subtopic — Rights of the Accused:

(and 16 more under this subtopic — see the Week 8 coverage table.)

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_152398_2005.html

Cited laws & provisions

Section 1, Rule 115, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

Rights of accused at the trial

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 115 (Rights of Accused)

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.

(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.

(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.

(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.

(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.

(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law. (1a)

Why it is cited here

A waiver of presence on one trial date is not a waiver of anything else.

Crisostomo and his counsel missed a single reset hearing on 22 June 1995. The Sandiganbayan treated that as a waiver of his right to present evidence and convicted him of murder.

Full entry below ↓

Section 2, Rule 114, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

Conditions of the bail; requirements

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 114 (Bail)

All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions:

(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by the court of these Rules;

(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final judgment.

Why it is cited here

What it takes to forfeit a bond — and what it does not.

The Sandiganbayan also confiscated his surety bond, inferring flight from the one absence.

Forfeiture requires more than that: a specific court directive to appear and a formal notice to the bondsmen to produce the accused in person. Neither was given.

Read paragraph (c) closely — it says failure to appear waives the right to be present thereat. The word does the same work here as in Rule 115: it confines the consequence to that hearing.

Full entry below ↓

Article III, Section 14, 1987 Constitution

Constitution

Bill of Rights

1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article III (Bill of Rights)

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

Why it is cited here

Why the conviction could not stand on that footing.

The proviso permits the trial to continue in the accused's absence. It does not permit the court to close the defence case and treat the right to be heard as forfeited.

Full entry below ↓

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

Rights of the Accused Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_152398_2005.html

Facts

SPO1 Edgar Crisostomo and co-accused Calingayan were charged with Murder before the Sandiganbayan for the shooting death of Renato, and Crisostomo posted a surety bond for his provisional liberty.
The Sandiganbayan set the defence's presentation of evidence for 21, 22 and 23 June 1995.
On 21 June 1995 the hearing was cancelled by the court itself — lack of quorum in the regular membership of the Second Division — and, on the parties' agreement, reset to the next day.
On 22 June 1995 Crisostomo and his counsel, Atty. Guades, failed to appear. One missed day, on a setting the court had itself moved.
That same day the Sandiganbayan ordered a warrant for his arrest, the confiscation and forfeiture of his surety bond, a declaration that he had waived his right to present evidence for non-appearance at "yesterday's and today's scheduled hearings," and the termination of trial, giving the parties thirty days to file memoranda.
The waiver rested on a bilateral agreement among the prosecution, co-accused Calingayan and Calingayan's counsel — not on anything Crisostomo said or did.
On 28 November 2000 the Sandiganbayan convicted him of Murder, imposing twelve years, five months and eleven days of prisión mayor to eighteen years, eight months and one day of reclusión temporal.
His motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolutions of 17 September 2001 and 14 January 2002.
On 14 April 2005 the Supreme Court, treating his Rule 65 petition as an appeal, reversed and acquitted him.

Issue

Ruling

Secondary issue 3. GUILT NOT PROVED. The evidence failed to overcome the presumption of innocence, and a remand being unnecessary, he was acquitted.

Ratio

The waiver's temporal scope is strict and narrow. Failure to appear without justifiable cause waives the right to be present "for trial on such date only and not for the succeeding trial dates."
And the premise was factually wrong. The Sandiganbayan declared a waiver as to both 21 and 22 June, though the 21st was cancelled by the court for lack of quorum — so he missed exactly one day.
A waiver of the right to present evidence demands far more. "While constitutional rights may be waived, such waiver must be clear and must be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the right." He relinquished nothing — the court imposed the waiver on him from an agreement among other parties.
In capital cases the judge must personally satisfy himself. The accused must be personally made aware of the consequences; warning of future absences is not enough — the judge must personally explain the exact nature and consequences, physically evaluate the accused to elicit age, socio-economic status and educational background as an index of capacity to waive, and pose all questions in a language he knows, with the record reflecting it and its English translation.
Forfeiture has its own preconditions, neither present here — and an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire record, so the Court could correct unassigned errors and acquit outright.

Doctrine

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Facts

[Date not in record]: Criminal Case for Murder is filed against petitioner SPO1 Edgar Crisostomo and co-accused Calingayan before the Sandiganbayan for the shooting death of Renato, and Crisostomo subsequently posts a surety bond as bail to secure his provisional liberty.
[Date not in record]: The Sandiganbayan schedules the hearings for the defense's presentation of evidence on June 21, 22, and 23, 1995.
June 21, 1995: The scheduled hearing is officially cancelled due to "lack of quorum in the regular membership" of the Sandiganbayan's Second Division and upon the agreement of the parties, and the trial is reset for the next day, June 22, 1995.
June 22, 1995: The reset hearing is called, but petitioner Crisostomo and his counsel, Atty. Guades, fail to attend the trial.
June 22, 1995 (later that day): The Sandiganbayan immediately issues an Order:
- (a) Directing the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of Crisostomo;
- (b) Ordering the confiscation and forfeiture of his surety bond;
- (c) Declaring that Crisostomo has waived his right to present evidence because of his non-appearance at "yesterday's and today's scheduled hearings"; and
- (d) Terminating the trial and giving the parties thirty (30) days within which to file their respective memoranda, after which the case would be deemed submitted for decision.
November 28, 2000: The Sandiganbayan promulgates its Decision finding Crisostomo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision mayor as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
[Date not in record]: Crisostomo files a Motion for Reconsideration assailing the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction and its finding of guilt.
September 17, 2001: The Sandiganbayan promulgates its first Resolution denying Crisostomo's Motion for Reconsideration.
January 14, 2002: The Sandiganbayan promulgates its second Resolution denying Crisostomo's Motion for Reconsideration.
[Date not in record / after January 14, 2002]: Crisostomo elevates the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
April 14, 2005: The Supreme Court delivers its Decision, treating the petition as an appeal, reversing the Sandiganbayan's decision, and acquitting Crisostomo of Murder.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Edgar Crisostomo).

No Jurisdiction Over Person: Petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the crime of Murder because he only held the rank of Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) at the time the Information was filed against him.
No Direct Evidence of Conspiracy: He contends that the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of discretion in finding him guilty of conspiring to murder Renato, despite the Sandiganbayan's own admission in its decision that there was no direct evidence to prove his participation in the victim's death.
No Intentional Waiver of Rights: He asserts that his right to present evidence and his right to procedural due process were violated. He argues that his failure to attend a single hearing on June 22, 1995, did not constitute a voluntary waiver of his right to present evidence, and that the Sandiganbayan had no right to impose a waiver upon him.
Negligence of Counsel Should Not Prejudice Accused: He argues that the gross negligence of his counsel, Atty. Guades, in failing to attend the scheduled hearing should not prejudice his constitutional right to be heard.

B. Respondent (People of the Philippines / Sandiganbayan).

Jurisdiction Exists and Estoppel Applies: The prosecution argues that under the ruling in Deloso v. Domingo and the Court's instructions in Republic v. Asuncion, the Sandiganbayan had valid jurisdiction over the case. Furthermore, since Crisostomo waited until after the verdict was rendered before raising the issue, he is estopped from questioning the court's jurisdiction.
Waiver of Evidence Approved by Prosecution and Co-Accused: The respondent maintains that the Sandiganbayan’s declaration of waiver was valid because it was done in open court with the agreement of the prosecution, co-accused Calingayan, and Calingayan’s counsel after Crisostomo failed to attend the June 22, 1995 trial.
Non-Appearance Constituted Flight and Warranted Bond Forfeiture: The respondent argues that Crisostomo's failure to attend the June 22, 1995 hearing was a waiver of his presence and constituted flight, which justified the forfeiture of his bail bond and the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

C. Common Ground.

NOT IN RECORD (No stipulations of fact or common ground between the parties are mentioned in the decision).

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring that the accused waived his constitutional right to present evidence and in ordering the confiscation of his bail bond on the sole ground of his and his counsel's failure to appear at a single reset trial hearing on June 22, 1995, and whether such absence can be construed as a waiver of presence under Rule 114 and Rule 115 or as an inference of flight.

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the crime of Murder charged against Crisostomo, who held the rank of SPO1 at the time of the filing of the Information, and whether he was estopped from questioning such jurisdiction after participating in the trial.
Whether or not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be treated as an appeal in a criminal case involving a capital offense to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, and whether the gross negligence of counsel should prejudice the accused's right to be heard.
Whether or not the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to prove Crisostomo's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for conspiracy in Murder.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE: YES. The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. Under Section 2(c), Rule 114 and Section 1(c), Rule 115, the failure of an accused to appear at a scheduled trial is merely a waiver of his right to be present on that specific date only and does not waive his right to be present on subsequent dates or his right to present evidence. Furthermore, there was no legal basis to forfeit the bail bond or infer flight because the accused's personal appearance was not specifically required by the court on that date.
SECONDARY ISSUE 1: YES. The Sandiganbayan had valid jurisdiction to try the case under Deloso v. Domingo and Republic v. Asuncion, and the petitioner was estopped from questioning it because he raised the issue only after the verdict was rendered.
SECONDARY ISSUE 2: YES. The Supreme Court exercised its judicial discretion to treat the petition for certiorari as an appeal to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. The gross negligence of Atty. Guades cannot prejudice Crisostomo’s constitutional right to be heard.
SECONDARY ISSUE 3: NO. The prosecution's evidence failed to overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence, and because a remand was unnecessary, Crisostomo was acquitted.

#### Verbatim Dispositive Portion:.

NOT IN RECORD (The exact verbatim text of the final fallo of the April 14, 2005 Decision is not contained in the provided source passages. The Court, however, ultimately acquitted Edgar Crisostomo on the ground that the prosecution's evidence failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt).

Ratio

The court has a positive duty to ensure that the accused is personally made aware of the consequences of a waiver of the right to present evidence.
It is not enough for the court to warn the accused of the consequences of future absences; the judge must personally explain in clear terms the exact nature and consequences of the waiver.
The court must conduct a physical evaluation of the accused to elicit his profile (including age, socio-economic status, and educational background) to serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed waiver.
All questions must be posed in a language known and understood by the accused, and the record must reflect the language and its English translation.

The Sandiganbayan utterly bypassed these procedural safeguards, stripping Crisostomo of his right to present evidence without even allowing him an opportunity to explain his absence.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules.

#### 1. Temporal Limitation of Waiver of Presence:.

"Under Section 2(c), Rule 114 and Section 1(c), Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, Crisostomo's non-appearance during the 22 June 1995 trial was merely a waiver of his right to be present for trial on such date only and not for the succeeding trial dates."

#### 2. The Constitutional Standard for Waiver:.

"While constitutional rights may be waived, such waiver must be clear and must be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the right."

#### 3. Duty of the Court in Capital Waivers:.

"In criminal cases where the imposable penalty may be death, as in the present case, the court is called upon to see to it that the accused is personally made aware of the consequences of a waiver of the right to present evidence."

#### 4. Conditions for Forfeiture of Bail:.

"A bail bond may be forfeited only in instances where the presence of the accused is specifically required by the court or the Rules of Court and, despite due notice to the bondsmen to produce him before the court on a given date, the accused fails to appear in person as so required."

#### 5. Open-Ended Scope of Criminal Appeals:.

"An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the lower court's decision on grounds other than those the parties raised as errors."

C. Limitations/Exceptions.

The Escape Exception: Under Section 1(c) of Rule 115, the rule limiting the waiver of presence to a single trial date applies only to an accused who has not escaped. "When an accused under custody had been notified of the date of the trial and escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on said date and on all subsequent trial dates until custody is regained.".
Estoppel on Jurisdictional Challenges: While an accused cannot waive jurisdictional defects, he may be barred by laches and estoppel from challenging the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over his rank (e.g., being an SPO1) if he actively participates in the trial and raises the jurisdictional objection only after a verdict of conviction has been rendered.

D. Topic Integration.

This case is DIRECTLY controlling on the constitutional and procedural limits of Bail (Rule 114) and the Rights of the Accused (Rule 115).
First, on the requested subtopic of Bail, the decision defines the nature of bail as a contractual security for provisional liberty and restricts the power of the trial court to order its forfeiture.
Under Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, a trial court cannot use the forfeiture of bail as a punitive measure for mere non-appearance unless the court has issued a specific command requiring the accused's physical presence and has given formal notice to the bondsmen. This prevents courts from automatically assuming that an absent accused has "jumped bail" or fled.
Second, on the Rights of the Accused, the case establishes a critical protective boundary. It holds that the waiver of the right to be present under Rule 115 is strictly date-specific and cannot be expanded by the court into a waiver of the constitutional right to present evidence.
By prescribing a strict, mandatory, personal inquiry that a judge must conduct before accepting a waiver of the right to present evidence in capital cases, Crisostomo ensures that the presumption of innocence is actively guarded and that the accused's provisional liberty on bail is not arbitrarily canceled due to the procedural lapses of counsel.

Separate Opinions

NOT IN RECORD (The provided source passages do not record or mention any separate concurring or dissenting opinions in G.R. No. 152398).

⚠️ Dispositive portion — supplied from the primary text

This digest states that the verbatim dispositive portion was not in the source passages available to its author — an honest gap, not an invention. Supplied here from the decision:

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_152398_2005.html