G.R. No. 47038 , 47039, and 47040; June 6, 1941
LUIS R. PIMENTEL, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Luis R. Pimentel and Juan Paredes were prosecuted for murder under three separate informations for the deaths of Eusebio Asuit, Tomas Tapiod, and Felix Bangsaleo. After a joint trial in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, they were convicted of homicide and each was sentenced under each information to an indeterminate penalty, with a proviso that the total penalty for each accused in all three cases should not exceed 40 years, plus indemnity. Both defendants appealed. During the hearing before the first division of the Court of Appeals, conflicting versions emerged regarding the proceedings. Petitioner’s counsel alleged that when he mentioned the Solicitor General’s recommendation for the death penalty, Justice Albert stated the Court might lack jurisdiction, leading to a suspension to determine jurisdiction, with an understanding that if jurisdiction were affirmed, the cases would be reset for hearing. However, the appellate court, through its second division, rendered judgment affirming the trial court’s decision without resetting the hearing. A petition to set aside the judgment for want of hearing was denied. The government, represented by Solicitor Zulueta, averred that petitioner’s counsel informed the Court he was not prepared to argue orally and requested to file a memorandum, which was denied, and the Court decided to retain jurisdiction, informing counsel it would study the record and that a motion for reconsideration could be filed if the conclusion were unfavorable.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner was denied his fundamental right to a hearing before the Court of Appeals rendered judgment against him.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the undeniable fact remained that the petitioner could not argue the case orally in the Court of Appeals before it rendered judgment. While the fundamental right to a hearing may be waived, such waiver must be positive and unequivocal. Any implied waiver cannot rest on light and dubious circumstances but must be clearly indicative of an intention to waive. From the circumstances of the case, nothing inferred that the petitioner intended to waive his right to be heard. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the cases were ordered remanded to the Court of Appeals for a hearing and judgment thereafter.