499 Phil. 80
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
WHEREFORE:On May 17, 2004, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the decision and further moved that he be allowed to present evidence.[7] The same, however, was denied in a resolution dated June 10, 2004, the dispositive portion of which reads:
- In Criminal Cases No. 26686 to 26697, the Court finds the accused Juan G. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for TWELVE (12) COUNTS of the crime of Falsification by Public Officer defined under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of, after applying the indeterminate sentence law, TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY of prisión correccional as minimum, up to TEN (10) YEARS of prisión mayor, as maximum, for each count;
Fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) for each count, or a total of TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (P24,000.00) for all twelve counts; and
All the accessory penalties provided for by law.- In Criminal Case No. 26698, the Court finds the accused Juan G. Rivera GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds defined under Article 217(4) of the Revised Penal Code, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of, after applying
i) the indeterminate sentence law, TWELVE (12) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS, and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of reclusion temporal as minimum, up to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum,
ii) the penalty of perpetual special disqualification,
iii) a fine of SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTY FIVE PESOS (P794,445.00).
By way of restitution, the accused is likewise ordered to indemnify the government in the same amount of SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY FOUR THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTY FIVE PESOS (P794,445.00); and
All the accessory penalties provided for by law.
SO ORDERED.[6]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court is constrained to DENY the omnibus motion for reconsideration.Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.[9]
SO ORDERED.[8]
CHAIRMAN:It appears from the aforequoted TSN of the hearing on September 29, 2003, that counsel for accused, Atty. Belarmino, asked for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence but was curtly ordered to file the same even without leave of court. When Atty. Belarmino inquired about the resolution on the prosecution’s Formal Offer of Exhibits, the Sandiganbayan thought that it was only an excuse to request for postponement, and that he was not prepared for the hearing.
Call the cases.
INTERPRETER:
Criminal Cases Nos. 26686-97 and 26698 entitled, People versus Juan Rivera, for trial.
PROSECUTOR:
Respectfully appearing for the People, your Honor.
COUNSEL:
Same appearance for the accused, your Honor.
CHAIRMAN:
Ready? It’s your turn now to present evidence (referring to defense counsel).
COUNSEL:
Your Honor please, last week, we received a telegram from this Court, wherein we were notified that the prosecution’s Formal Offer of Exhibits has been resolved. But we have not received the final Resolution, your Honor.
CHAIRMAN:
Will that be a justification for asking for a postponement? Don’t you think of preparing for today’s hearing?
COUNSEL:
I don’t intend, your Honor, to request for postponement, however, we have thought that upon receipt of said Resolution, we will be asking for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence.
CHAIRMAN:
You file your demurrer to evidence, just file it without leave of court.
COUNSEL:
I will have to discuss this matter yet with my collaborating counsel, your Honor.
CHAIRMAN:
You do that, since you are the lead counsel.
Where is the accused?
COUNSEL:
He is in court, your Honor.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay, just tell us if you are not ready, but do not say you are still going to confer with the accused.
If you will tell us you are not ready yet, so that you will have time to intelligently prepare for it, by all means, we will agree to that.
COUNSEL:
Thank you, your Honor.
CHAIRMAN:
ORDER.
When these cases were called for hearing this morning, counsel for the accused manifested that he will be filing a demurrer to evidence even without leave of court.
WHEREFORE, as prayed for, the defense is hereby granted a period of ten (10) days within which to file the said demurrer, furnishing the prosecution a copy thereof, who asked for the same period to file its comment/opposition thereto. Thereafter, this incident shall be deemed submitted for resolution of this Court.
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied)
Henceforth, to protect the constitutional right to due process of every accused in a capital offense and to avoid any confusion about the proper steps to be taken when a trial court comes face to face with an accused or his counsel who wants to waive his client’s right to present evidence and be heard, it shall be the unequivocal duty of the trial court to observe, as a prerequisite to the validity of such waiver, a procedure akin to a “searching inquiry” as specified in People v. Aranzado when an accused pleads guilty, particularly –Similarly, in People v. Flores,[22] counsel for accused manifested that Flores was waiving his right to present evidence and requested for time to file a demurrer to evidence. The records were bereft of any indications that accused voluntarily waived his right to present evidence and with full comprehension. In that case, we ruled thus:
- The trial court shall hear both the prosecution and the accused with their respective counsel on the desire or manifestation of the accused to waive the right to present evidence and be heard.
- The trial court shall ensure the attendance of the prosecution and especially the accused with their respective counsel in the hearing which must be recorded. Their presence must be duly entered in the minutes of the proceedings.
- During the hearing, it shall be the task of the trial court to –
a. ask the defense counsel a series of question to determine whether he had conferred with and completely explained to the accused that he had the right to present evidence and be heard as well as its meaning and consequences, together with the significance and outcome of the waiver of such right. If the lawyer for the accused has not done so, the trial court shall give the latter enough time to fulfill this professional obligation.In passing, trial courts may also abide by the foregoing procedure even when the waiver of the right to be present and be heard is made in criminal cases involving non-capital offenses. After all, in whatever action or forum the accused is situated, the waiver that he makes if it is to be binding and effective must still be exhibited in the case records to have been validly undertaken, that is, it was done voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. As a matter of good court practice, the trial court would have to rely upon the most convenient, if not primary, evidence of the validity of the waiver which would amount to the same thing as showing its adherence to the step-by-step process outlined above.[21] (Emphasis supplied)
b. inquire from the defense counsel with conformity of the accused whether he wants to present evidence or submit a memorandum elucidating on the contradictions and insufficiency of the prosecution evidence, if any, or in default theory, file a demurrer to evidence with prior leave of court, if he so believes that the prosecution evidence is so weak that it need not even be rebutted. If there is a desire to do so, the trial court shall give the defense enough time to this purpose.
c. elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as his age, socio-economic status, and educational background, which may serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed waiver.
d. all questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and understood by the latter, hence, the record must state the language used for this purpose as well as reflect the corresponding translation thereof in English.
The lower court, in view of the severity of the imposable penalty, ought to have inquired into the voluntariness and full knowledge of the consequences of accused-appellants’ waiver. Though the Rules require no such inquiry to be undertaken by the court for the validity of such waiver or any judgment made as result of the waiver, prudence, however, requires the Court to ascertain the same to avoid any grave miscarriage of justice. Although accused-appellants’ waiver amazed the lower court, nevertheless, the record is devoid of any facts which would indicate that the lower court took steps to assure itself of accused-appellants’ voluntariness and full knowledge of the consequences of their waiver.Finally, the evidence on record of the instant case do not clearly show where and to whom the allegedly malversed money were given after it was encashed. What is clear is that the calamity fund was released to Almeda O. Lim, the Municipal Treasurer of Guinobatan, Albay to which Official Receipt No. 8749242H was issued. Thereafter, checks bearing her signature and that of Rivera’s were personally encashed by her while she was allegedly accompanied by Garcia. Witnesses who owned the forged receipts testified that they handed the blank receipts to Garcia and not to petitioner. Then, after receipt of the cash, the disbursement vouchers and other forms required to liquidate the amount were allegedly prepared by Almeda O. Lim and thereafter, transmitted to Rivera for approval, and finally to the provincial Government. It has not been satisfactorily established whether petitioner has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has consented to the taking by another person, of such funds.
Besides, counsels’ waiver should have put the court on guard. Any lawyer worth his salt ought to know that the filing of a demurrer to evidence with leave of court as was done below, has the beneficial effect of reserving the movant’s right to present evidence if the demurrer is denied by the court. Thus, a counsel who files a demurrer with leave of court, but at the same time expressly waives his right to present evidence should put a judge on guard that said counsel may not entirely comprehend the consequences of the waiver. The trial court should have exercised prudence by warning counsel about the prejudicial effects of their waiver, that with such a waiver, the case would be deemed submitted for decision, and their leave to file motion for demurrer to evidence will have no effect.[23]