Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. L-30104 July 25, 1973
HON. GREGORIO. N. GRCI, Ju!"# o$ %&# C'%y Cou(% o$ M)*'l), )*!
+RNCISCO LOREN,N, petitioners,
vs.
HON. +ELI- .OMINGO, Ju!"# o$ %&# Cou(% o$ +'(/% I*/%)*0# o$ M)*'l),
E.GR.O CLO )*! SIMEON CR1ONNEL, respondents.
Andres R. Narvasa, Manuel V. Chico and Felipe B. Pagkanlungan for petitioners.
Rafael S. Consengco for respondent Calo, et al.
Respondent udge in his o!n "ehalf.

+ERNN.O, J.:
The pivotal question in this petition for certiorari and prohibition, one which thus far
has reained unresolved, is the eanin! to be accorded the constitutional ri!ht to
public trial.
1
More specificall", did respondent #ud!e coit a !rave abuse of
discretion in sti!ati$in! as violative of such a !uarantee the holdin! of the trial of
the other respondents
2
inside the chabers of cit" court #ud!e %re!orio %arcia
naed as the petitioner.
3
That was done in the order now ipu!ned in this suit,
althou!h such a procedure had been a!reed to beforehand b" the other respondents
as defendants, the hearin!s have been thus conducted on fourteen separate
occasions without ob&ection on their part, and without an iota of evidence to
substantiate an" clai as to an" other person so inded bein! e'cluded fro the
preises. (t is thus evident that what too) place in the chabers of the cit" court
&ud!e was devoid of haste or intentional secrec". *or reasons to be ore full"
e'plained in the li!ht of the facts ascertained + the unique aspect of this case
havin! arisen fro what turned out to be an unseel" altercation, force li)ewise
bein! eplo"ed, due to the ode in which the arrest of private petitioner for a traffic
violation was sou!ht to be effected b" the two respondent policeen thus resultin! in
char!es and counter,char!es with ei!ht criinal cases bein! tried &ointl" b" cit" court
#ud!e in the above anner + we rule that there was no trans!ression of the ri!ht to
a public trial, and !rant the petition.
(t was alle!ed and aditted in the petition- .(n Branch ( the Cit" Court of Manila
presided over b" petitioner #ud!e, there were coenced, b" appropriate
inforations all dated #anuar" /0, /102, ei!ht 324 criinal actions a!ainst respondent
Ed!ardo Calo, and 5ieon Carbonnel and Petitioner *rancisco 6oren$ana, as
follows- a. Against #dgardo Calo 3on coplaint of *rancisco 6oren$ana4 3/4 Criinal
Case No. *,/71/18, also for sli!ht ph"sical in&uries9 384 Criinal Case No. *,/71/18,
alsofor sli!ht ph"sical in&uries9 and 3:4 Criinal Case No. *,/71/1:, for
altreatent9 b. Against Si$eon Car"onnel 3id.4 3/4Criinal Case No. *,/71/1;, for
altreatent9 384 Criinal Case No. *,/71/10, for sli!ht ph"sical in&uries9 and 3:4
Criinal Case No. *,/71/12, for li!ht threats9 3c4 Against Francisco %oren&ana 3on
coplaint of Calo and Carbonnel4 3/4 Criinal Case No. *,/7187/, for violation of
5ec. 22; of the Revised <rdinances of Manila 3resistin! an officer49 and 384 Criinal
Case No. *,/71877, for slander..
4
The above was followed b" this recital- .The trial
of the aforeentioned cases was &ointl" held on March =, /102, March /2, /102,
March 8:, /102, March :7, /102, April /;, /102, April 87, /102, Ma" =,/102, Ma" //,
/102, #une /, /102, #une />, /102, #une 88, /102, #une 81, /102, Au!ust :, /102
and Au!ust /7, /102. All the fourteen 3/=4 trial dates + e'cept March = and /2, and
April /;, /102 + fell on a 5aturda". This was arran!ed b" the parties and the Court
upon the insistence of respondents Calo and Carbonnel who, as police officers under
suspension because of the cases, desired the sae to be terinated as soon as
possible and as there were an" cases scheduled for trial on the usual criinal trial
da"s 3Monda", ?ednesda" and *rida"4, 5aturda" was a!reed upon as the invariable
trial da" for said ei!ht 324 criinal cases..
5
Also this- .The trial of the cases in
question was held, with the conforit" of the accused and their counsel, in the
chabers of #ud!e %arcia..
2
Then cae these alle!ations in the petition- .@urin! all
the fourteen 3/=4 da"s of trial, spannin! a period of several onths 3fro March to
Au!ust, /1024, the accused were at all ties represented b" their respective counsel,
who acted not onl" in defense of their clients, but as prosecutors of the accusations
filed at their clientsA instance. There was onl" one 3/4 da" when Att". Consen!co,
representin! respondent Calo and Carbonnel, was absent. This was on April 87,
/102. But at the insistence of Pat. Carbonnel, the trial proceeded, and said
respondent cross,e'ained one of the witnesses presented b" the adverse part". (n
an" case, no pretense has been ade b" the respondents that this constituted an
irre!ularit" correctible on certiorari. At the conclusion of the hearin!s the accused,
thru counsel, as)ed for and were !ranted tie to subit eoranda. Respondents
Calo and Carbonnel, thru counsel, Att". Rafael Consen!co, subitted a /=,pa!e
eorandu with not less than :> citations of relevant portions of the transcript of
steno!raphic notes in support of their pra"er for e'oneration, and conviction of
petitioner 6oren$ana in respect of their counterchar!es a!ainst the latter. (t is worth"
of note that up to this late date, said respondents Calo and Car"onnel had not
o"'ected to ( or pointed out ( an) supposed irregularit) in the proceedings thus far9
the eorandu subitted in their behalf is confined to a discussion of the
evidence adduced in, and the erits of the cases..
7
(t was stated in the ne't petition-
.The proul!ation of &ud!ent was first scheduled on 5epteber 8:, /102. This was
postponed to 5epteber 82, /102 at the instance of Att". Rafael Consen!co, as
counsel respondents Calo and Carbonnel, and a!ain to <ctober /, /102 at // oAcloc)
in the ornin!, this tie at the instance of Att". Consen!co and Att". *rancisco Boh
1
who had, in the eantie, also entered his appearance as counsel for respondents
Calo and Carbonnel. The applications for postponeent were not !rounded upon
an" supposed defect or irre!ularit" of the proceedin!s..
3

Mention was then ade of when a petition for certiorari was filed with respondent
#ud!e- .Earl" in the ornin! of <ctober /, /102, Ed!ardo Calo and 5ieon
Carbonnel, thru their counsel, Att". Rafael 5. Consen!co, filed with the Court of *irst
(nstance a petition for certiorari and prohibition, with application for preliinar"
prohibitor" and andator" in&unction ... Calle!in! &urisdictional defectsD..
9
Respondent
#ud!e actin! on such petition forthwith issued a restrainin! order thus causin! the
deferent of the proul!ation of the &ud!ent. After proceedin!s dul" had, there
was an order fro hi .declarin! that Athe constitutional and statutor" ri!hts of the
accusedA had been violated, adversel" affectin! their Ari!ht to a free and ipartial trialA
Cnotin!D Athat the trial of these cases lastin! several wee)s held e'clusivel" in
chabers and not in the court roo open the publicA9. and orderin! the cit" court
#ud!e, now petitioner, .to desist fro readin! or causin! to be read or proul!ated
the decisions he a" have rendered alread" in the criinal cases 3in question4 ...
pendin! in his Court, until further orders of this Court.A.
10
A otion for reconsideration provin! unavailin!, petition on #anuar" 82, /101,
elevated the atter to this Tribunal b" eans of the present suit for certiorari and
prohibition. (n its resolution of *ebruar" :, /101, respondents were required to
answer, with a preliinar" in&unction li)ewise bein! issued. As was to be e'pected
the answer filed b" respondent #ud!e on March //, /101 and that b" the other
respondents on March /1, /101 did attept to &ustif" the validit" of the findin! that
there was a failure to respect the ri!ht to a public trial of accused persons. Neither in
such pleadin!s nor in the eorandu filed, althou!h the dili!ence displa"ed b"
counsel was quite evident, was there an" persuasive showin! of a violation of
constitutional !uarantee of a public trial, the basic issue to be resolved. Rather it was
the ode of approach followed b" counsel Andres R. Narvasa for petitioners that did
anifest a deeper understandin! of its iplications and raifications. Accordin!l", as
previousl" stated, it is for us to !rant the erits pra"ed for.
/. The /1:> Constitution which was in force at the tie of the antecedents of this
petition, as set forth at the outset, e'plicitl" enuerated the ri!ht to a public trial to
which an accused was entitled. 5o it is, as li)ewise ade clear, under present
dispensation. As a atter of fact, that was one constitutional provision that needed
onl" a sin!le, terse suation fro the Chairan of the Coittee on the Bill of
Ri!hts, @ele!ate, later #ustice, #ose P. 6aurel, to !ain acceptance. As was stressed
b" hi- .Trial should also be public in order to offset an" dan!er of conductin! it in an
ille!al and un&ust anner..
11
(t would have been surprisin! if its proposed inclusion in
the Bill of Ri!hts had provo)ed an" discussion, uch less a debate. (t was erel" a
reiteration what appeared in the Philippine Autono" Act of /1/0, popularl" )nown
as the #ones 6aw.
12
Earlier, such a ri!ht found e'pression in the Philippine Bill of
/178, li)ewise an or!anic act of the then !overnent of this countr" as an
unincorporated territor" of the Enited 5tates.
13
Fistoricall" as was pointed out b"
#ustice Blac), spea)in! for the Enited 5tates 5upree Court in the leadin! case of (n
re <liver-
14
.This nationAs accepted practice of !uaranteein! a public trial to an
accused has its roots in CtheD En!lish coon law herita!e.
15
Fe then observed that
the e'act date of its ori!in is obscure, .but it li)el" evolved lon! before the settleent
of the CEnited 5tatesD as an accopanient of the ancient institution of &ur" trial..
12
(t
was then noted b" hi that there, .the !uarantee to an accused of the ri!ht to a
public trial appeared in a state constitution in /;;0..
17
6ater it was ebodied in the
5i'th Aendent of the *ederal Constitution ratified in /;1/.
13
Fe could conclude
his historical surve" .Toda" alost without e'ception ever" state b" constitution,
statute, or &udicial decision, requires that all criinal trials be open to the public..
19

5uch is the venerable, historical linea!e of the ri!ht to a public trial.
8. The crucial question of the eanin! to be attached this provision reains. The
Constitution !uarantees an accused the ri!ht to a public trial. ?hat does it si!nif"G
<ffhand it does see fairl" obvious that here is an instance where lan!ua!e is to be
!iven a literal application. There is no abi!uit" in the words eplo"ed. The trial
ust be public. (t possesses that character when an"one interested in observin! the
anner a &ud!e conducts the proceedin!s in his courtroo a" do so. There is to be
no ban on such attendance. Fis bein! a stran!er to the liti!ants is of no oent. No
relationship to the parties need be shown. The thou!ht that lies behind this safe!uard
is the belief that thereb" the accused is afforded further protection, that his trial is
li)el" to be conducted with re!ularit" and not tainted with an" ipropriet". (t is not
aiss to recall that @ele!ate 6aurel in his terse suation the iportance of this
ri!ht sin!led out its bein! a deterrence to arbitrariness. (t is thus understandable wh"
such a ri!ht is deeed ebraced in procedural due process.
20
?here a trial ta)es
place, as is quite usual, in the courtroo and a calendar of what cases are to be
heard is posted, no proble arises. (t the usual course of events that individuals
desirous of bein! present are free to do so. There is the well reco!ni$ed e'ception
thou!h that warrants the e'clusion of the public where the evidence a" be
characteri$ed as .offensive to decenc" or public orals..
21

?hat did occasion difficult" in this suit was that for the convenience of the parties,
and of the cit" court #ud!e, it was in the latterAs air,conditioned chabers that the
trial was held. @id that suffice to investi!ate the proceedin!s as violative of this ri!htG
The answer ust be in the ne!ative. There is no showin! that the public was thereb"
e'cluded. (t is to be aditted that the si$e of the roo allotted the #ud!e would
reduce the nuber of those who could be our present. 5uch a fact thou!h is not
indicative of an" trans!ression of this ri!ht. Courtroos are not of unifor
diensions. 5oe are saller than others. Moreover, as aditted b" #ustice Blac) in
his asterl" (n re <liver opinion, it suffices to satisf" the requireent of a trial bein!
public if the accused could .have his friends, relatives and counsel present, no atter
with what offense he a" be char!ed..
22

Then, too, reference a" also be ade to the undisputed fact at least fourteen
hearin!s had been held in chabers of the cit" court #ud!e, without ob&ection on the
part of respondent policeen. ?hat was said b" forer Chief #ustice Moran should
erase an" doubt as to the wei!ht to be accorded, ore appropriatel" the lac) of
wei!ht, to an" such ob&ection raised. Thus- .(n one case, the trial of the accused was
2
held in Bilibid prison. The accused, invo)in! his ri!ht to a public trial, assi!ned the
procedure thus ta)en as error. The 5upree Court held that as it affirativel"
appears on the record that the accused offered no ob&ection to the trial of his case in
the place where it was held, his ri!ht is deeed waived..
23
The decision referred to,
Enited 5tates v. Mercado,
24
was handed down si't",ei!ht "ears a!o in /17>.
(t does see that the challen!ed order of respondent is far fro bein! invulnerable.
:. That is all that need be said as to the obvious erit of this petition. <ne other
ob&ection to the conduct of the proceedin!s b" the cit" court #ud!e a" be briefl"
disposed of. Respondent #ud!e would see) to lend support to an order at war with
obvious eanin! of a constitutional provision b" harpin! on the alle!ed abdication b"
an assistant fiscal of his control over the prosecution. A!ain here there was a failure
to abide b" settled law. (f an" part" could coplain at all, it is the People of the
Philippines for who the fiscal spea)s and acts. The accused cannot in law be
tered an offended part" for such an alle!ed failure to copl" with official dut".
Moreover, even assuin! that respondent policeen could be heard to raise such a
!rievance, respondent #ud!e ou!ht to have been aware that thereb" no &urisdictional
defect was incurred b" the cit" court #ud!e. As was so ephaticall" declared b"
#ustice #.B.6. Re"es in Cariaga v. usto*+uerrero-
25
.The case below was
coenced and prosecuted without the intervention, ediation or participation of the
fiscal or an" of his deputies. This, notwithstandin!, the &urisdiction of the court was
not affected ... but the court should have cited the public prosecutor to intervene ... ..
22
=. There is uch to be said of course for the concern displa"ed b" respondent #ud!e
to assure the realit" as a!ainst the ere possibilit" of a trial bein! trul" public. (f it
were otherwise, such a ri!ht could be reduced to a barren for of words. To the
e'tent then that the conclusion reached b" hi was otivated b" an apprehension
that there was an evasion of a constitutional coand, he certainl" lived up to what
is e'pected of a an of the robe. *urther reflection ou!ht to have convinced hi
thou!h that such a fear was un&ustified. An ob&ective appraisal of conditions in
unicipal or cit" courts would have !one far in dispellin! such is!ivin!s. The
crowded dail" calendar, the nature of the cases handled, civil as well as criinal, the
rela'ed attitude on procedural rules not bein! strictl" adhered to all a)e for a less
tense atosphere. As a result the attendance of the !eneral public is uch ore in
evidence9 nor is its presence unwelcoe. ?hen it is reebered further that the
occupants of such courts are not chosen priaril" for their le!al acuen, but ta)en
fro that portion of the bar ore considerabl" attuned to the pulse of public life, it is
not to be rationall" e'pected that an accused would be denied whatever solace and
cofort a" coe fro the )nowled!e that a &ud!e, with the e"es of the alert court
alert to his deeanor and his rulin!s, would run the ris) of bein! un&ust, unfair, or
arbitrar". Nor does it chan!e atters, &ust because, as did happen here, it was in the
air,conditioned chabers of a cit" court &ud!e rather than in the usual place that the
trial too) place.
?FERE*<RE, the writ of certiorari pra"ed for is !ranted nullif"in!, settin! aside, and
declarin! bereft of an" le!al force or effect the order of respondent #ud!e *eli'
@oin!o Noveber 81, /102 for bein! issued with !rave abuse of discretion. The
writ of prohibition sou!ht b" petitioner is li)ewise !ranted, coandin! respondent
#ud!e or an" one actin! in his place to desist fro an" further action in Criinal
Case No. ;=2:7 of the Court of *irst (nstance of Manila other than that of disissin!
the sae. The preliinar" writ of in&unction issued b" this Court in its resolution of
*ebruar" :, /101 a!ainst the actuation of respondent #ud!e is ade peranent.
?ith costs a!ainst respondent policeen Ed!ardo Calo and 5ieon Carbonnel.
3