Prior to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which became effective
on Dec. 1, 2000, pre-trial in criminal cases was not mandatory. It was
only if the accused and counsel agree, that the court was to conduct a
pre-trial conference without impairing the rights of the accused. The
Revised Rules provide that pre-trial is now mandatory in criminal cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and ordinary courts. Further, the
subjects that could be taken up were expanded to include – apart from
plea bargaining, stipulation of facts, marking of evidence and waiver of
objections of admissibility of evidence – modification of the order of
trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense.
To strengthen the mandatory character of the pre-trial in a
criminal case, if the counsel for the accused or the prosecutor does not
appear and has no acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation, the
court may now impose proper sanctions or penalties. Further, the Revised
Rules reiterate that, after the pre-trial, the court shall issue an
order reciting the actions taken, the facts stipulated and the evidence
marked. Such order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters
not disposed of, and control the course of the action during the trial,
unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice.
The Revised Rules also reiterate the requirement of a pre-trial
agreement and that the same must be reduced in writing and signed by the
accused and counsel in order that the same may be used against the
accused. The Revised Rules added that such agreement covering the
matters considered during the pre-trial shall be approved by the court.
It is interesting to note that in the past, even prior to the
old rules on criminal procedure which preceded the Revised Rules, a
stipulation of facts was not allowed in criminal cases. In the case of US vs. Donato,
9 Phil 701, the Supreme Court held that agreements between attorneys
for the prosecution and for the defense in criminal cases, by which it
is stipulated that certain witnesses, if present, would testify to
certain facts prevent a review of the evidence by the Supreme Court and
are in violation of the law. In a later case, the Supreme Court
reiterated the impropriety and impermissibility of rendering judgment in
a criminal case on the basis of such an agreement rather than on any
evidence being adduced for testimony taken from witnesses, as such
practice defeats the purposes of criminal law, and is an open violation
of the rules of criminal procedure. The rule prohibiting the stipulation
of facts in criminal cases is grounded on the fundamental right of the
accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the corollary
duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution is duty-bound to prove all the
elements of the crime and may not be relieved of this obligation by the
mere expedient of stipulating with defense counsel on a matter
constitutive of an essential element of the crime charged (People vs. Hernandez, 260 SCRA 36).
The rationale behind the proscription against this class of agreements was reiterated in the case of US vs. Manlimos,
11 Phil, 547. There, the Supreme Court said that it is not supposed to
be within the knowledge or competence of counsel to predict what a
proposed witness would say under the sanction of his oath and the test
of cross-examination.
Of course, under the Revised Rules, a stipulation of facts in
criminal cases is now expressly allowed by law, particularly during
pre-trial. In fact, as stated in People vs. Hernandez, although
not expressly sanctioned under the old rules of court, a stipulation of
facts made by the parties during the trial itself of a criminal case has
long been allowed and recognized as declarations constituting judicial
admissions, hence, binding upon the parties. Thus, although the
requirement is for an agreement or admission made or entered during the
pre-trial conference to be reduced in writing and signed by the accused
and his counsel before the same may be used in evidence against the
accused, the Supreme Court ruled in the afore-cited case that where the
stipulation of facts was made during trial and therefore automatically
reduced into writing and contained in the official transcript of the
proceedings had in court, the conformity of the accused in the form of
his signature affixed thereto is unnecessary. Another reason for its
ruling, according to the Supreme Court, is that the right of the accused
to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him is a personal
privilege which may be waived. Hence, a stipulation of facts or judicial
admission by the accused that witnesses if present would testify to
certain facts stated in the affidavit of the prosecution was precisely
in the nature of such waiver.
Another case pertinent to the subject of pre-trial in a criminal case is People vs. Webb, 312
SCRA 573. There, the principal issue was whether or not the trial judge
gravely abused her discretion in denying the motion to take testimony
by oral depositions in the United States which would be used in the
criminal case. The Supreme Court, disagreeing with the Court of Appeals,
quoted the definition of an oral deposition to be a pre-trial discovery
device by which one party through his attorney asks oral questions of
the other party or of a witness for the other party, which is conducted
under oath outside of the court room. Further, the purposes of taking
depositions, as noted by the Supreme Court, are, among others, to
expedite litigation, prevent delay, simplify and narrow the issues,
facilitate both preparation and trial, educate the parties in advance of
trial as to the real value of their claims and defenses thereby
encouraging settlements. Thus, a deposition, in keeping with its nature
as a mode of discovery, should be taken before and not during trial.
Supporting this is American jurisprudence to the effect that the rules
on criminal practice, particularly on the defense of alibi, which is the
accused main defense, state that when a person intends to rely on such
defense, the accused must move for the taking of the deposition of his
witnesses within the time provided for filing a pre-trial motion.
(The author is a senior partner of the Angara Abello
Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW). She may be
contacted at tel. #: 830-8000; fax #: 894-4697; or e-mail:
accra@accralaw.com)
source: Philippine Star's POINT OF LAW - POINT OF LAW by Teresita J. Herbosa
No comments:
Post a Comment