Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 665 views

    Parada v. Veneracion Digest

    Uploaded by

    Francis Guinoo
    The document summarizes a court case regarding Danilo Parada who was charged with 4 counts of Estafa. Parada was bonded with an accredited bonding company. When Parada failed to appear in court, the judge ordered his arrest without bail and conducted a trial in absentia. The Supreme Court held that the judge was incorrect to not recommend bail, as Estafa is a bailable offense. The Court also held that the trial in absentia was invalid, as Parada was not properly notified of the trial due to the notice being sent to his old address despite his lawyer notifying the court of an address change.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Parada v. Veneracion Digest

    Uploaded by

    Francis Guinoo
    665 views1 page
    The document summarizes a court case regarding Danilo Parada who was charged with 4 counts of Estafa. Parada was bonded with an accredited bonding company. When Parada failed to appear in court, the judge ordered his arrest without bail and conducted a trial in absentia. The Supreme Court held that the judge was incorrect to not recommend bail, as Estafa is a bailable offense. The Court also held that the trial in absentia was invalid, as Parada was not properly notified of the trial due to the notice being sent to his old address despite his lawyer notifying the court of an address change.

    Original Description:

    Criminal Procedure

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case regarding Danilo Parada who was charged with 4 counts of Estafa. Parada was bonded with an accredited bonding company. When Parada failed to appear in court, the judge ordered his arrest without bail and conducted a trial in absentia. The Supreme Court held that the judge was incorrect to not recommend bail, as Estafa is a bailable offense. The Court also held that the trial in absentia was invalid, as Parada was not properly notified of the trial due to the notice being sent to his old address despite his lawyer notifying the court of an address change.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    665 views1 page

    Parada v. Veneracion Digest

    Uploaded by

    Francis Guinoo
    The document summarizes a court case regarding Danilo Parada who was charged with 4 counts of Estafa. Parada was bonded with an accredited bonding company. When Parada failed to appear in court, the judge ordered his arrest without bail and conducted a trial in absentia. The Supreme Court held that the judge was incorrect to not recommend bail, as Estafa is a bailable offense. The Court also held that the trial in absentia was invalid, as Parada was not properly notified of the trial due to the notice being sent to his old address despite his lawyer notifying the court of an address change.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    B.

    Remedies
    1. Bail
    Parada v. Veneracion
    AM No. RTJ-96-1353
    March 11, 1997
    Torres, Jr., J:
    Facts: Danilo Parada was charged with 4 counts of Estafa. He was duly
    bonded with an accredited bonding company. In October of 1993,
    Paradas counsel formally notified the court and the manager of the
    bonding company of change of address. Apparently, the notice of
    hearing was sent to complainants former address. For failure to
    appear on the date of hearing, respondent judge ordered the arrest
    of the accused, confiscation of the bond and a trial in absentia was
    conducted. No bail was recommended for Paradas arrest.
    Issues: Whether or not respondent judge was correct in not recommending
    bail for Parada

    is strong, all persons detained, arrested or otherwise under the


    custody of the law are entitled to bail as a matter of right. It should
    be noted that the crime with which Parada was charged
    is estafa which is undoubtedly a bailable offense. This circumstance
    could not have escaped the attention of the respondent judge when
    he issued on June 3, 1994 the order of arrest of Parada with no
    recommendation for his bail. In so doing, respondent judge exhibited
    that degree of ignorance so gross which the Court can not
    countenance.
    Second Issue: Regarding the trial in absentia

    Section 14 (2), Article 3 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that


    trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
    provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
    unjustifiable. The requisites then of a valid trial in absentia are: (1)
    the accused has already been arraigned; (2) he has been duly
    notified of the trial; and (3) his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

    Whether or not the trial in absentia was correctly held


    Held:

    No, the judge was not correct in not recommending bail


    No, the trial in absentia was not correctly held

    Ratio: First Issue: Regarding bail (Main)


    The warrant of arrest with no recommendation for bail that was
    issued by respondent Judge is a downright violation of Paradas
    constitutional right to bail. The rule is clear that unless charged with
    offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt

    In the subject criminal cases, requisite numbers two (2) and three (3)
    of a valid trial in 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 Paradas counsel despite the fact that the latter
    formally notified the court of his change of address. His failure to
    appear therefore in the June 3, 6, 7 and 8, 1994 hearings is justified
    by the absence of a valid service of notice of hearing to him.

    You might also like