G.R. No. L-2821

FACTS:
Mariano Anastasio was initially charged with “attempt to commit rape.” During trial, the court determined the evidence did not support that charge but indicated the crime of abusos deshonestos (acts of lasciviousness) under Article 439 of the Penal Code may have been committed. The original information was dismissed, and the accused was committed to answer the new charge under Section 37 of General Orders No. 58. Upon arraignment for abusos deshonestos, the accused and his counsel, with the court’s consent, entered into an agreement with the prosecution to submit the case for decision based solely on the evidence and record from the prior trial for attempted rape. The trial court convicted the accused and imposed a penalty. On appeal, the accused contended his constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses was violated by this agreement.

ISSUE:
Whether the accused validly waived his constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him when he agreed, with advice of counsel, to have the case decided based on the transcript of testimony from a prior, dismissed case.

RULING:
Yes. The right to confrontation is a personal privilege which the accused may waive. The waiver in this case was made knowingly, voluntarily, and with the assistance of counsel in open court. The primary purpose of confrontationto secure the opportunity for cross-examinationhad already been fulfilled, as the accused and his counsel were present and cross-examined the witnesses during the first trial. The secondary purpose of observing the witness’s demeanor was also previously satisfied before the same judge. The Court found the waiver valid and consistent with jurisprudence from various United States jurisdictions. However, the Supreme Court modified the penalty. It held that the trial court erred in considering the accused’s status as a native Filipino as an extenuating circumstance under Article 11 of the Penal Code for this crime committed against a young child. Furthermore, the aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed in the victim’s dwelling (Article 10, No. 20) was present. Therefore, the penalty was increased to the maximum degree of six years of prision correccional, with corresponding accessory penalties and credit for preventive imprisonment.