G.R. No. 77542 . March 19, 1990.
ELIAS CARREDO, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VICTORIA CATOSTOS, and HON. GENEROSO A. JUABAN (Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch VII), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elias Carredo was charged with malicious mischief before the Municipal Trial Court. After arraignment and pleading not guilty, he filed a written waiver of his appearance during trial, stating his agreement that the trial could proceed in his absence and that he “admits that he could be identified by witnesses who are testifying at the time that said accused was not present.” At a subsequent hearing, the prosecution moved to recall its principal witness to identify the accused, who was absent. The court rescheduled the hearing and issued a subpoena to Carredo, who failed to appear. His counsel argued his presence could no longer be required due to the waiver.
The municipal judge nevertheless issued an order for Carredo’s arrest and the confiscation of his cash bond. Carredo’s petition for certiorari and prohibition to the Regional Trial Court was denied. He thus elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether an accused who, after arraignment, has filed a written waiver of appearance can be compelled to appear for identification by prosecution witnesses, and be validly ordered arrested for non-compliance.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, ruling that the accused can be compelled to appear for identification despite a prior waiver of appearance. The Court anchored its decision on the proper interpretation of the constitutional provision on trial in absentia (then Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, now Section 14[2], Article III of the 1987 Constitution ), which allows trial to proceed after arraignment notwithstanding the accused’s absence, provided he has been duly notified.
The Court, citing precedents like Aquino, Jr. vs. Military Commission No. 2 and People vs. Presiding Judge, held that while an accused may waive the right to be present at trial, this waiver is not absolute. His presence can still be compelled specifically for the purpose of identification by prosecution witnesses. This is a vital safeguard for the prosecution, as a conviction often hinges on a witness’s positive identification of the accused in court. Without such identification, an accused could later claim he was never properly identified and seek acquittal.
The Court found that Carredo’s written waiver—wherein he merely admitted “that he could be identified by witnesses” in his absence—was insufficient to excuse his presence. It did not constitute the “unqualified admission” required by jurisprudence, which is an explicit admission in open court after arraignment that he is the very person named as the defendant. His statement was deemed vague and conditional. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a waiver of the right to be present does not release the accused from his obligations under his bail bond to appear in court when so required by the court. The order for his arrest for failing to obey the subpoena was therefore valid.