G.R. No. 1593 : March 20, 1905
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. BENITO MERCADO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant, Benito Mercado, and the injured party, Julio Salazar, were both inmates at Bilibid Prison on February 21, 1903. On that day, Mercado, without any apparent provocation, struck Salazar on the side of the head with a heavy club. Dr. Lyon, who examined Salazar within minutes of the assault, testified that under the most favorable conditions, it would be impossible for Salazar to recover normal hearing within ninety days. He further stated it was absolutely impossible for Salazar to ever fully recover his hearing, with only a slight probability of recovering partial hearing. The trial was held inside Bilibid Prison on March 7, 1903. The defendant raised no objection to the venue at the commencement of the trial.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial held inside Bilibid Prison was illegal, thereby violating the defendant’s right to a public trial.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not suspending the proceedings to await the actual lapse of ninety days to conclusively determine the permanency of the victim’s injuries under Article 416 of the Penal Code.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that the right to a public trial is a right that can be waived. Since the defendant expressly raised no objection to holding the trial in Bilibid Prison before it commenced, he effectively waived any claim of illegality regarding the venue. Therefore, it was too late for him to raise the issue on appeal.
2. On the second issue, the Court ruled that it was not necessary to postpone the trial until ninety days had passed. The medical testimony of Dr. Lyon provided positive and sufficient evidence from which the trial court could justifiably find that the injury was permanent and that the victim would be incapacitated for more than ninety days. The Court noted that the defendant’s failure to move for a new trial indicated the judgment on the permanency of the injury was well-founded on the evidence presented.