G.R. No. L-9241; February 13, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARCADIO RAMIREZ and MARIANO SERADOY, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
Arcadio Ramirez and Mariano Seradoy were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for the crime of theft of large cattle. They appealed the judgment, raising two principal errors. First, they contended that the trial court erred in proceeding with the trial and receiving more than half of the testimony in the absence of their court-appointed counsel de oficio, Mr. Denison. The record showed that after the accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty, the trial commenced. Counsel Denison arrived only after the examination of the first witness and the direct examination of the second witness had been completed. However, the appellants interposed no objection to proceeding in their counsel’s absence, and upon his arrival, Mr. Denison was able to cross-examine both witnesses and take full charge of the defense. Second, the appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court committed a reversible error by proceeding with the trial in the temporary absence of the appellants’ court-appointed counsel.
2. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.

1. On the absence of counsel: The Court held that no reversible error was committed. While it cited the doctrines in U.S. v. Gimeno and U.S. v. Palisoc, which emphasize the mandatory nature of the right to counsel under General Orders No. 58, the present case was distinguishable. Here, the trial court fully complied with the law by appointing counsel de oficio. Although counsel was not present at the very start of the trial, his subsequent appearance and assumption of the defense, including his opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose direct examinations he missed, cured any initial irregularity. The Court distinguished this from U.S. v. Gimeno, where appointed counsel failed to appear at all.

2. On the sufficiency of evidence: The Court found the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction. The prosecution’s witnesses provided positive and direct testimony, which remained uncontradicted and unimpeached. The defense presented no evidence to counter the prosecution’s case. The Court found no reason to disbelieve the witnesses for the prosecution and concluded that the guilt of the appellants had been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, with costs against the appellants.