G.R. No. L-64731 October 26, 1983
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH XLV, URDANETA, PANGASINAN, and RODOLFO VALDEZ, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Rodolfo Valdez, Jr., charged with murder and out on a P30,000.00 bail bond, was arraigned. The bond contained a condition that he would “at all times hold himself amenable to the orders and processes of the Court.” After arraignment, through counsel, he orally manifested in open court a waiver of his right to be present during the trial. The prosecution fiscal moved to compel his appearance so that he could be identified by prosecution witnesses. The respondent judge, in an Order dated April 15, 1983, sustained Valdez’s position, citing the majority opinion in Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 2, and held that the accused could not be validly compelled to appear. The People, through the Solicitor General, filed this petition for certiorari seeking to annul the Order and to compel Valdez’s appearance for identification purposes during trial.

ISSUE

Whether an accused, who has been arraigned and has waived his right to be present, can be compelled by the trial court to appear during trial for the purpose of identification by prosecution witnesses.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the respondent judge’s Order, and made permanent the restraining order against its enforcement. The Court clarified that while Section 19, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution permits trial in absentia after arraignment, this right is not absolute and does not nullify the conditions of a bail bond. The constitutional provision must be read in conjunction with the accused’s contractual obligation under his bail bond to hold himself amenable to court orders. Citing the concurring and dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Castro in the Aquino case, the Court ruled that an accused may waive his presence except at stages where identification by prosecution witnesses is necessary. The rationale is to prevent the accused from subsequently claiming, as a defense, that he was never properly identified in court as the perpetrator. His presence is indispensable to afford the prosecution a fair opportunity to establish his identity, especially where witnesses may know the culprit by sight but not by name. Therefore, the trial court has the authority and duty to compel the accused’s appearance for identification purposes notwithstanding a general waiver.