This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Section 14(2),[59] Article III of the Constitution, authorizing trials in absentia, allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt; (b) during trial, whenever necessary for identification purposes; and (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in which case, the accused may appear by counsel or representative. At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is required and cannot be waived.[60] | |||||
|
2005-06-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court has consistently held that a special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information.[20] The proper procedure in such a case is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion to quash and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.[21] Thus, petitioners should not have forthwith filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA and instead, they should have gone to trial and reiterate the special defenses contained in their motion to quash. There are no special or exceptional circumstances[22] in the present case such that immediate resort to a filing of a petition for certiorari should be permitted. Clearly, the CA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition. | |||||