G.R. No. 1340 : January 12, 1905
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. CLARO MENDOZA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Claro Mendoza was charged with and convicted of the crime of asesinato (murder). On appeal, he assigned several errors in the proceedings of the trial court. First, he alleged that he was absent during the preliminary trial. Second, he claimed the court erred in failing to notify him of his right to post bail pending trial. Third, he assigned error in the admission of alleged hearsay testimony.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court committed reversible errors (1) in conducting a preliminary investigation in the accused’s absence, (2) in allegedly failing to notify the accused of his right to bail, and (3) in admitting hearsay testimony.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
1. On the first alleged error, the Court held that the proceeding from which the accused was absent was not a trial but a preliminary investigation conducted to determine probable cause for issuing an arrest warrant. By its very nature, the accused is seldom present at such an investigation; hence, his absence was not an error.
2. On the second alleged error, the Court found that even if the accused was not notified of his right to bail (a fact not supported by evidence), his substantial rights were not prejudiced. There was no showing that his right to bail was actually denied.
3. On the third alleged error, the Court ruled that since no objection was made to the alleged hearsay testimony during the trial, the issue could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, even if all incompetent testimony were excluded, the remaining competent evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in its entirety.