G.R. No. L-49172 January 14, 1986 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. DNIEL !. "!REG #n $#% &a'a(y a% Ju)*+ o ($+ !our( o F#r%( In%(an&+ o Pan*a%#nan, ran&$ I/, an) /S!O /I! /LDE0 IN!E, respondent. !ON!EP!ION, JR., J.:
This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction, to annul and set aside the order of the respondent Judge, denying the petitioner's motion to compel the attendance of the accused private respondent at the trial of a criminal c riminal case for purposes of Identification, Identification, as well as the order denying the motion for the reconsideration of said order. The private respondent Vasco Vic Valdez y Bince, was charged with omicide !efore the then "ourt of #irst Instance of $angasinan, Branch %IV, doc&eted therein as "rim. "ase o. ()*+, for the death of one -evera $aulo on ecem!er //, 0122, and posted !ail for his provisional release. 3ttached to the Bail Bond was a waiver which stipulated that trial may proceed in his a!sence. 4hen the case was called for trial, the prosecution presen presented, ted, as its first witness, one 4elino $aulo who, when as&ed if he could Identify the accused, answered in the affirmative. -ince the accused was not present in court, the prosecution as&ed the court to order the presence of the accused so that he could !e Identified !y 4elino $aulo. "ounsel for the accused, however, o!jected to the motion. e invo&ed the waiver contained in the Bail Bond and contended that the presence of the accused is part of his defense. esolving the issue, the trial court, invo&ing the case of Aquino vs. Military Commission No. /, 1 denied the motion. The court said5 The legal issue that needs to !e resolved !efore the prosecution could terminate the direct e6amination of 4elino . $aulo, an alleged eyewitness to the commission of the offense complained of, is whether or not the "ourt can validly compel the accused to !e present during the trial for the purpose of having him identified !y the prosecution eyewitness as the perpetrator of the offense. There is no 7uestion that the accused has waived his presence during the trial. eedless to state, the prosecution sustains the affirmative view and the defense, the negative. The issue at !ar was one of those s7uarely raised in the 37uino case 89+*2*(:, ;ay 1, 012<= -upreme "ourt ecisions, ecisions, ;ay 012<, ><<, 1)(+100?, where si6 out of ten Justices voted that the accused may not even !e compelled to !e present during the trial when he is to !e Identified !y the witnesses of the prosecution while four voted that the accused may !e compelled in this instance. The reason of the majority is that the accused must not !e compelled to assist the prosecution in proving its case. 3s a matter of fact, the prosecution arm of the @overnment @overnment has adopted the majority rule (Legal Trends for Government Prosecutors, pulis!ed y ".P. La# Center, Marc! $%&', pp. $).* #ollowing the majority opinion in the said case, this "ourt rules that it cannot validly compel the presence of the accused during the trial when he is to !e Identified !y the prosecution witnesses. witnesses. 2 The prosecution moved for the reconsideration of the order, !ut the respondent "ourt denied the motion. ence, the present recourse. 3s prayed for, a temporary restraining order was issued, restraining the respondent "ourt from further proceeding with the hearing of "rim. "ase o. ()*+ () *+ 4 .
4e find merit in the petition. The rule adopted !y the "ourt in the case of Aquino vs. Military Commission No. ) (supra* is that while the accused may waive his presence at the trial of the case, his presence may !e compelled when he is to !e identified. The "ourt said5 It is for the foregoing reasons that the writer of this opinion voted with the si6 8(? Justices who ruled on the full right of petitioner to waive his presence at said proceedings. -ince only si6 8(? Justices 8#ernando, Teehan&ee, Barredo, 3ntonio, ;unoz $alma and 37uino? are of the view that petitioner may waive his right to !e present at all stages of the proceedings while five 8 Justices 8"astro, ;a&asiar, Asguerra, "oncepcion, Jr. and ;artin? are in agreement that he may so waive such right, e6cept when he is to !e identified, the result is that the respondent "ommission's rder re7uiring his presence at all times during the proceedings !efore it should !e modified, in the sense that petitioner+s presence s!all !e required only in t!e instance ust indicated. The ruling in People vs. Alvancena is thus pro tanto modified. 8Amphasis supplied? The "ourt has so ruled that 4e find no reason to change our stand on the issue. 4AA#A, the petition is @3TA and the orders issued !y the respondent Judge on 3ugust 0(, 012> and cto!er /, 012> in "rim. "ase o. ()*+ of the then "ourt of #irst Instance of $angasinan, entitled5 -People of t!e P!ilippines, Plaintiff, vs. asco ic alde/ y 0ince, accused,- are here!y 3C99A and -AT 3-IA. The respondent Judge or whoever might !e acting in his place is here!y AA to I--CA the necessary process to compel the attendance of the accused at the hearing of the said criminal case for purposes of Identification. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued is 9I#TA and -AT 3-IA. 4ith costs against the private respondent. IT I- - AA.