G.R. No. L-6693, November 26, 1912
ROBERT G. SHIELDS, plaintiff, vs. JOSE MCMICKING, defendant.

FACTS

The defendant, Jose McMicking, was charged with larceny before the Court of First Instance of Manila. Upon arraignment, he demanded at least two days to prepare for trial as expressly provided by Section 30 of General Orders No. 58 (the Code of Criminal Procedure). The trial court refused this demand and immediately forced him to trial. He was convicted and sentenced. McMicking subsequently applied for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his conviction was void for having been rendered without due process of law. The writ was granted, and after a hearing, a majority of the Supreme Court ordered his discharge.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court’s refusal to grant the defendant at least two days to prepare for trial, as mandatorily required by law, constitutes a denial of due process rendering the judgment void and subject to collateral attack via habeas corpus.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court, denying the Solicitor-General’s motion for rehearing, held that the judgment of conviction was void. The right to at least two days to prepare for trial after plea is an express, clear, and imperative statutory right under Section 30 of General Orders No. 58. It is not subject to judicial discretion. Denying this right is equivalent to denying a legal hearing altogether, amounting to a deprivation of due process of law. A trial conducted in violation of this mandatory requirement is a mere mockery and farce. Consequently, a judgment rendered under such circumstances is void for lack of due process, and habeas corpus is a proper remedy to secure the defendant’s release, as he is illegally detained under a void judgment. The motion for rehearing was denied.