Anda di halaman 1dari 1

CRISOSTOMO VS SB

FACTS:
Crisostomo, a member of the Philippine National Police, and others were charged with the murder
of Renato, a detention prisoner at the Solano Municipal Jail. Crisostomo pleaded not guilty.
Trial ensued.
The presentation of evidence for Crisostomos defense was deemed waived for his failure to appear
at the scheduled hearings despite notice. Crisostomo and 1 coaccused were found guilty by the
Sandiganbayan, while the others were still at large.
ISSUE:
WON Crisostomos bail bond forfeiture was justified.
HELD:
NO.
Crisostomos absence on the 22 June 1995 hearing should not have been deemed as a waiver of his
right to present evidence. While constitutional rights may be waived, such waiver must be clear and
must be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the right. Crisostomo did not voluntarily
waive in person or even through his counsel the right to present evidence. The
Sandiganbayan imposed the waiver due to the agreement of the prosecution, Calingayan, and
Calingayans counsel.

If no waiver of the right to present evidence could be presumed from Crisostomos failure to attend
the 22 June 1995 hearing, with more reason that flight could not be logically inferred from Crisosto
mos absence at that hearing. Crisostomos absence did not even justify the forfeiture of his bail
bond. A bail bond may be forfeited only in instances where the presence of the accused is specific
ally required by the court or the Rules of Court and, despite due notice to the bondsmen to pro
duce him before the court on a given date, the accused fails to appear in person as so required. Cris
ostomo was not specifically required by the Sandiganbayan or the Rules of Court to appear on the 2
2 June 1995 hearing. Thus, there was no basis for the SB to order the confiscation of
Crisostomos surety bond and assume Crisostomo had jumped bail.