THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
OMAR MAPALAO and REX MAGUMNANG

G.R. No. 92415             May 14, 1991

Facts:

The appellants were charged with the crime of robbery with homicide and are to indemnify
the victims of the omission. Both the appellants then filed for an appeal alleging that the
court erred in convicting them in their crimes without the presumption of doubt. During the
filing and pending of the appeal however appellant Rex Magumnang fled from confinement
and has not been found. His trial then rendered him in absentia and proceeded with his
conviction. As the appellant has fled, he then waives his right to seek relief in court resulting
to his appeal being dismissed. While at large as above stated he cannot seek relief from the
Court as he is deemed to have waived the same and he has no standing in court. Also, if the
appellant has not presented or submitted himself to the court he then also waives his right to
bail.

In this case the court called for the trial in absentia as all the elements where present; the
appellant had plead a not guilty plea and was informed of his hearing dates. His absence
than was considered by the court as unjustified. The court then is obligated to resume the
trial and will not give time for the appellant to present himself in court as it would result to the
trial in absentia as unconstitutional. “What the Constitution guarantees him is a fair trial, not
continued enjoyment of his freedom even if his guilt could be proved. With the categorical
statement in the fundamental law that his absence cannot justify a delay if he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is unjustified. . . “ Although the court presumes the
appellant’s innocence until judgement is rendered, to which the judgement is based on
evidence presented in court and that no violation of due process occurs as the appellant was
given the chance to be heard in court.

Per their appeal Mapalo alleged that he was among the passengers of the vehicle on that
fateful day and to be present during the holdup, he alleged that he was not part of any crime,
that he did not know anything about it. He also asserted that the prosecution witnesses could
not have identified as it was dark in the nighttime and also saying that when they were
apprehended by the police no firearm or money was found in his possession. The Court
finds that the appeal is devoid of merit and that the court affirmed in its decision.

Issue:

Whether or not the appellant’s rights are to be waiver in his absence and should be
presumed innocent.

Ruling:

Yes, the Constitutional Provision providing the trial in absentia waives his rights as the court
has given him the opportunity to be heard and he had fled regardless of the pending appeal
and his arraignment. The appellant then waives his rights to seek relief from court the
moment he escapes his confinement and does not surrender or presents himself in court in
spite of his not guilty plea. The appellant then remains at large as he has not been found
after fleeing his sentence and confinement.