Parada v. Veneracion Digest

B. Remedies 1. Bail Parada v. Veneracion AM No. RTJ-96-1353 March 11, 1997 Torres, Jr., J:

is strong, all persons persons detained, detained, arrested arrested or otherwise otherwise under the custody of the law are entitled to bail as a matter of right. It should  be note noted d that that the the crim crime e with with whic which h Para Parada da was was char charge ged  d  is estafa which is undoubtedly a bailable offense.  *his circumstance could not ha,e escaped the attention of the respondent 'udge when he issued on +une "# 1!!4 the order of arrest of Parada with no recommendation for his bail. In so doing# respondent 'udge e-hibited that that degr degree ee of igno ignora ranc nce e so gros gross s whic which h the the our ourtt can can not not countenance.

Facs: Danilo Parada was charged with 4 counts of Estafa. He was duly

bonded with an accredited bonding company. In ctober of 1!!"# Parada$s counsel formally notified the court and the manager of the bonding company of change of address. %pparently# the notice of  hearing hearing was sent to complaina complainant$s nt$s former address. address. &or failure to appear on the date of hearing# respondent 'udge ordered the arrest of the accused# confiscation of the bond and a trial in absentia was conducted. No bail was recommended for Parada’s arrest. !ss"es: (hether or not respondent 'udge was correct in not recommending

bail for Parada

%econd !ss"e: Regarding the trial in absentia

/ection 14 02# %rticle " of the onstitution pro,ides# inter alia# alia# that trial may proceed proceed notwiths notwithstandi tanding ng the absence absence of the accused pro,ided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is un'ustifiable. *he re3uisites then of a ,alid trial in absentia are absentia  are 012 the accused accused has already been arraigned5 arraigned5 02 he has been duly notified of the trial5 and 0"2 his failure to appear is un'ustifiable.

(hether or not the trial in absentia was correctly held #e$d:

)o# the 'udge was not correct in not recommending bail )o# the trial in absentia was not correctly held

Raio: Raio: Firs Firs !ss"e: !ss"e: Regarding bail (Main)

*he warrant of arrest with no recommendat recommendation ion for bail that was issued issued by respondent respondent +udge +udge is a downright downright ,iolation ,iolation of Parada$s Parada$s constitutional right to bail. The rule is clear that unless charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt 

In the sub'ect criminal cases# re3uisite numbers two 02 and three 0"2 of a ,alid trial in absentia are absentia  are clearly wanting. Parada had not been duly notified of the trial because the notice of hearing was sent to the former address of Parada$s counsel despite the fact that the latter  formally notified the court of his change of address. His failure to appear therefore in the +une "# 6# 7 and 8# 1!!4 hearings is 'ustified by the absence of a ,alid ser,ice of notice of hearing to him.