This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-04-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In criminal cases where the imposable penalty may be death, as in the present case, the court is called upon to see to it that the accused is personally made aware of the consequences of a waiver of the right to present evidence.[64] In fact, it is not enough that the accused is simply warned of the consequences of another failure to attend the succeeding hearings.[65] The court must first explain to the accused personally in clear terms the exact nature and consequences of a waiver.[66] Crisostomo was not even forewarned. The Sandiganbayan simply went ahead to deprive Crisostomo of his right to present evidence without even allowing Crisostomo to explain his absence on the 22 June 1995 hearing. | |||||