*NOTE – Inasmuch as I know, only the italicized portions are pertinent to the
topic on the Waiver of Rights, in which this case is included in the Persons
syllabus.
February 1, 2012 | Sereno, J
G.R. No. 151258: Villareal v. People
Petitioner: Artemio Villareal
Respondent: People of the Philippines
G.R No. 154954: People v. Court of Appeals
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondents: The Honorable Court Of Appeals, Antonio Mariano
Almeda, Dalmacio Lim, Jr., Junel Anthony Ama, Ernesto Jose
Montecillo, Vincent Tecson, Antonio General, Santiago Ranada III,
Nelson Victorino, Jaime Maria Flores II, Zosimo Mendoza, Michael
Musngi, Vicente Verdadero, Etienne Guerrero, Jude Fernandez, Amante
Purisima II, Eulogio Sabban, Percival Brigola, Paul Angelo Santos,
Jonas Karl B. Perez, Renato Bantug, Jr., Adel Abas, Joseph Lledo, and
Ronan De Guzman
G.R No 155101: Dizon v. People
Petitioner: Fidelito Dizon
Respondent: People of the Philippines
G.R No. 178057 & G.R No. 178080: Villa v. Escalona
Petitioner: Gerarda H. Villa
Respondent: Manuel Lorenzo Escalona II, Marcus Joel Capellan Ramos,
Crisanto Cruz Saruca, Jr., and Anselmo Adriano
DOCTRINE: Waiver of Rights
“Article III, Section 14(2) thereof, provides that in all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel.
This constitutional right includes the right to present evidence in one’s
defense…”
“While constitutional rights may be waived, such waiver must be clear and
must be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the right.” Furthermore,
the accused must be “personally made aware of the consequences of a waiver
of the right to present evidence.”
THE CONSOLIDATED FACTS:
 On February 1991, the neophytes of the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity
(Aquila Fraternity) signified their intention to join the fraternity.
On the first day of their initiation rites February 8, 1991, they were
briefed on what to expect during the initiation, which included
physical beatings and psychological torment, and were informed that
they could quit at any time. The neophytes chose to proceed and
were physically beaten by the Aquilans. They survived the first day.
On the afternoon of February 9, 1991, the initiation rites were revived
and the neophytes were subjected the same manner of hazing they
survived on the first day.
After the initiation ended for that day, Fidelito Dizon and Artemio
Villareal demanded the reopening of the rites and Nelson Victorino,
the head of the initiation rites, allowed it. Leonard Lenny Villa died as
a consequence of the physical injuries inflicted during the rites.
 Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was filed against 35
Aquilans:
o 26 of the accused were jointly tried (Criminal Case No. C-
38340(91)).
o The trial of the remaining nine (Criminal Case No. C-38340)
was held in abeyance because some matters had to be
resolved first.
 On November 8, 1993, the 26 accused were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code.
 On November 29, 1993, the trial of the remaining 9 commenced
anew.
 On January 10, 2002, the Court of Appeals set aside the finding of
conspiracy by the trial court in Criminal Case No. C-38340(91) and
modified the criminal liability of the 25 surviving accused according
to individual participation:
o 19 (Victorino et al.) were acquitted since their guilt was not
established by proof.
o 4 of them, Tecson, Ama, Alemda, and Bantug (Tecson et
al.) were found guilty of slight physical injuries. They were
sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor ordered to jointly
pay the heirs the sum of ₱30,000 as indemnity.
o 2 of them, Dizon and Villareal, were found guilty of
homicide. They were sentenced to an indeterminate
sentence of 10 years of prision mayor to 17 years of
reclusion temporal and were ordered to jointly pay the heirs
the sum of ₱50,000 as indemnity and an addition
₱1,000,000 by way of moral damages.
  On August 5, 2002, the trial court dismissed the charge against
Concepcion on the ground of violation of his right to speedy trial. On
October 2006, the CA also dismissed the criminal case against
Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano on the same ground.
Villareal v. People:
Nature of the Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
FACTS:
Petitioner, Villareal, raises two reversible errors committed by the CA:
 the denial of due process and;
 conviction absent proof beyond reasonable doubt.
However while the case was still pending, on August 10, 2011, counsel for
petitioner filed a Notice of Death of Party. According to the Notice, Petitioner
died on March 13, 2011.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner’s criminal liability survives his death.
HELD: NO. His criminal liability was totally extinguished by the fact of his
death, pursuant to Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that:
By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the
death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
Thus, this petition is dismissed and the criminal case against him is CLOSED
and TERMINATED.
Dizon v. People
Nature of the Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
FACTS:
Petitioner claims that he was denied due process when the CA sustained the
trial court’s forfeiture of his right to present evidence. This is supported by the
following facts:
 On August 19, 1993, another accused, General, did not present
his evidence. Instead, his counsel would adopt testimonial
evidence of another accused who had already testified.
 Because of this, the trial court ordered petitioner, Dizon, to
present evidence on the next trial date August 25, 1993, instead
of his original dates. The original dates for his reception of
evidence were supposed to start two weeks later.
 Petitioner was not able to present evidence. The trial court then
waivered his right to present evidence on any date.
Petitioner also contends that he was deprived of due process when the CA
did not apply the same ratio decidendi that served as basis of acquittal of the
others. He argues the following:
 His acts were part of traditional initiation rites and were not tainted
by evil motives.
 According to the Solicitor General, the individual blows inflicted by
Dizon and Villareal could not have resulted in Lenny’s death.
However, the injuries result to the violent death if taken collectively.
 He was not motivated by ill will since his utterances regarding the
stolen parking space of Dizon’s father by Lenny’s father were only
part of psychological initiation.
 His manifestation of compassion and concern for Villa after the rites
negated his alleged motivation of ill will.
People v. Court of Appeals
Nature of the Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65
FACTS:
According to the Solicitor General, the ruling of the trial court should have
been upheld, inasmuch as it found that there was conspiracy to inflict physical
injuries.
Since the injuries led to death, petitioner posits that the accused are criminally
liable for homicide, pursuant to Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, which
provides:
Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony
(delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which
he intended.
Petitioner also argues that the rule on double jeopardy is inapplicable since
the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion when it set aside the finding of
conspiracy by trial court and in ruling that criminal liability must be based on
individual participation.
Villa v. Escalona
Nature of the Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari
FACTS:
Due to several pending incidents, the trial court ordered a separate trial for
Escalona, Saruca, Adriano, Ramos, Ampil, Concepcion, De Vera, S.
Fernandez, and Cabangon (Criminal Case No. C-38340) to commence after
proceedings against the 26 other accused (Criminal Case No. C-38340(91))
have terminated.
On November 8 1993, the trial court found the 26 accused guilty. However,
the initial trial involving the remaining 9 did not commence until March 28,
2005, which is almost 12 years after the arraignment of the 9.
Petitioner, Villa, assails the CA’s dismissal of 4 of the 9 accused, Escalona,
Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano given that the accused failed to assert their right
to speedy trial within a reasonable period of time. Petitioner also points out
that the prosecution cannot be faulted for the delay, as the original records
and the required evidence were not at its disposal, but were still in the
appellate court.
ISSUES:
 1. W/N the waiver of petitioner Dizon’s right to present evidence
constitutes denial of due process. (MAIN Issue for Syllabus)
2. W/N the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed
the case against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano for violation
of the right of the accused to speedy trial.
3. W/N the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it set aside
the finding of conspiracy by the trial court and adjudicated the liability
of each accused according to individual participation.
4. W/N Dizon is guilty of homicide.
5. W/N the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it pronounced
Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug guilty only of slight physical
injuries.
HELD:
1. YES. Article III, Section 14(2) provides that “In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself
and counsel.” This constitutional right includes the right to present
evidence in one’s defense.
In Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, the S.C. held that “Under Section
2(c), Rule 114 and Section 1(c), Rule 115 of the Rules of Court,
Crisostomo’s nonappearance during the 22 June 1995 trial was
merely a waiver of his right to be present for trial on such date only
and not for the succeeding trial dates.”
Therefore, the failure of petitioner to present evidence on August 25,
1993 was merely a waiver of his right to present evidence on such
date only and not for the succeeding trial dates, especially since
Dizon was not scheduled to testify until two weeks later. Additionally,
stripping all the pre-assigned trial dates constitutes a patent denial
of the right to due process.
Nevertheless, an invalid waiver of the right to present evidence does
not vacate a finding of guilt in the criminal case. So the guilty verdict
may be upheld if the judgement is supported beyond any reasonable
doubt by the evidence on record.
2. NO. The right to a speedy trial is included in Sections 14(2) and 16,
Article III of the Constitution. Since the prosecution failed to comply
with the order of the court a quo requiring it to secure certified true
copies of the records of the case, which were elevated to the CA, the
right to the speedy trial of the accused has been utterly violated in
this case.
Thus, the ruling of the CA regarding the dismissal the criminal case
filed against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano is AFFIRMED.
3. YES. According to Section 21, Article III of the Constitution, “No
person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense.”
Given that and since the prosecution failed to prove, beyond
reasonable doubt Victorino et al.’s individual participation, the
appealed judgement acquitting Victorino et al. is AFFIRMED
4. YES. Although there was absence of malicious intent, the Revised
Penal Code also punishes felonies that are committed by means of
fault. According to Article 3, there is fault when the wrongful act
results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Reckless imprudence or negligence can be attributed to a voluntary
act done without malice, from which an immediate injury results by
reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person
committing it.
Consequently, the collective acts of the fraternity members were
tantamount to reckless imprudence, resulting in homicide. Since the
victim’s death was the cumulative effect of the injuries suffered, all
those who directly participated in the hazing, which include Dizon,
are criminally liable.
5. YES. Certiorari may be used to correct an abusive judgment upon a
clear demonstration that the lower court blatantly abused its authority
to a point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense
justice.
Considering that the CA found that the physical punishment heaped
on the victim were serious in nature, it was patently erroneous for the
court to limit the criminal liability of Tecson et al. to slight physical
injuries, which is a light felony. Accordingly, the CA committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Therefore, the ruling of the CA is MODIFIED and SET ASIDE IN
PART.
Tecson et al, as well as Dizon are sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate prison term of 4 months and one 1 day of arresto
mayor, as minimum, to 4 years and two 2 months of prision
correccional, as maximum. They are also ORDERED to jointly pay
the heirs of Lenny Villa ₱50,000 as indemnity ₱1,000,000 by way of
moral damages.