G.R. No. 163181 October 19, 2005
Bonifacio L. Cañal, Sr. vs. People of the Philippines

FACTS

Bonifacio L. Cañal, Sr. was charged with Grave Oral Defamation before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). The Information alleged that on July 25, 1996, at the MCTC Hall in Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur, he publicly uttered defamatory words against Daylinda P. Cañal, calling her a thief and stating she lived from stealing, thereby causing her mental anguish and social humiliation. The prosecution presented two witnesses, including Daylinda, who testified to hearing the remarks and suffering embarrassment.
After the prosecution rested, Bonifacio, through new counsel Atty. Remedios R. Alvizo, indicated he would file a demurrer to evidence but failed to do so. The MCTC set multiple hearing dates for the defense to present evidence. However, on these dates, either the defense witness was absent or Atty. Alvizo failed to appear. On January 29, 1999, due to counsel’s continued absence, the prosecution moved to submit the case for decision, arguing the defense had waived its right to present evidence. The MCTC granted the motion over Bonifacio’s objection. He did not file a motion for reconsideration. The MCTC convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner was deprived of his right to due process when the trial court deemed him to have waived his right to present evidence due to his counsel’s repeated failures to appear at scheduled hearings.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction, with modification to the penalty. The Court held that the petitioner was not deprived of due process. Due process in criminal cases requires that an accused be heard in a court of competent jurisdiction, proceeded against under orderly processes of law, with notice and an opportunity to be heard. The records show the petitioner was accorded this right: he was arraigned, participated in trial, and the prosecution presented its case. The waiver of his right to present evidence was a consequence of his own and his counsel’s negligence. The MCTC gave the defense several opportunities over multiple settings to present its evidence. The petitioner did not seek reconsideration of the order submitting the case for decision, nor did he move for the substitution of his repeatedly absent counsel. A client is generally bound by the mistakes and negligence of his counsel. The failure to present evidence was therefore attributable to the petitioner. On the merits, the prosecution evidence established the crime of oral defamation. The defamatory imputation, made publicly, was presumed malicious and sufficiently caused the complainant social humiliation. The penalty was modified to a straight penalty of six months of imprisonment.