GR 151249; (February, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 151249-50; February 26, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee vs. ARIEL MACARANG, appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Ariel Macarang was charged with two counts of qualified rape against his minor daughter. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty with the assistance of counsel. After the prosecution rested its case, the trial court scheduled multiple hearings for the presentation of the defense evidence. These hearings were repeatedly postponed, often due to the absence or unpreparedness of the appellant or his counsel. The trial court eventually issued an order warning that if the appellant was not ready to present evidence at the next hearing, he would be deemed to have waived his right to do so.
At the final scheduled hearing, the appellant again manifested he was not ready. Consequently, the trial court considered the right to present evidence waived, deemed the case submitted for decision based solely on the prosecution’s evidence, and subsequently convicted appellant of two counts of qualified rape, imposing the death penalty for each. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court validly considered the appellant to have waived his right to present evidence.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court emphasized that the right to present evidence is a fundamental component of the right to be heard and to due process. A waiver of this right must not only be voluntary but also knowing, intelligent, and undertaken with sufficient awareness of its consequences.
The trial court’s procedural lapse was fatal. It failed to conduct a personal and searching inquiry of the appellant himself to ascertain whether he fully understood the implications of his repeated failure to present evidence and whether he was intentionally waiving his right. The waiver was inferred merely from the appellant’s manifestations of unpreparedness and the delays, without any direct and explicit confirmation from him that he comprehended he was forfeiting his chance to refute the charges. This omission violated due process. The Court held that the validity of such a waiver cannot be presumed from the actions of counsel or from the appellant’s passive conduct alone; it requires a clear, on-the-record determination that the accused personally made an informed choice. Therefore, the case was remanded to allow the appellant the opportunity to present his defense.