Alejandro vs.

Pepito
Alejandro vs. Pepito, 96 SCRA 322 (1988)
(modified by Rule 119 Sec. 3 (e)
FACTS:
During arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not
guilty to the Crime of Homicide. Respondent Judge
issued an order stating that the accused admits in
open court that he killed the deceased but that he
acted in self-defense hence the defense counsel
should first prove evidence in self-defense and then
prosecution to present its evidence to disprove the
same.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration  contending

that the Court action was violative of Section 3, Rule
119 of the Rules of Court, which establishes the
sequence in the presentation of evidence by the
parties in criminal cases, first by the prosecution and
then by the defense, and not vice versa.
Additionally, petitioner claimed that the procedure
adopted by respondent Judge is prejudicial to the
substantial rights of the accused in the sense that
the same would give rise to the presumption that the
prosecution had already established the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt when what is
only on record is the accused’s admission that he
had killed the victim in self defense.
ISSUE: WON the judge’s order requiring the
defense to present first after the accused entered a
plea of guilty was violative of the latter’s right to be
presumed innocent?
HELD: YES. Enshrined in our Constitution as a
protection to accused persons in criminal cases is
the requirement that no person shall be held to
answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law. That requirement simply requires that the
procedure established by law shall be
followed. 4 Section 3 of Rule 119 lays down the order
of trial when an accused entered a plea of not guilty-
the prosecution first and then defense.
The procedure outlined safeguards and protects the
fundamental right of the accused to be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved. That right is
founded on the principle of justice and is intended
not to protect the guilty but to prevent as far as
human agencies can, the conviction of an innocent
person. 6 Indeed, the form of a trial is also a matter
of public order and interest; 7 the orderly course of
procedure requires that the prosecution shall go
forward and present all of its proof in the first
instance.
It is true that in the case of U.S. vs. Gaoiran,
17 Phil.404 (1910), relied upon by the prosecution
and the trial Court, the defense had produced its
proofs before the prosecution presented its case,
and it was held that no substantial rights of the
accused were prejudiced. There is one radical
difference, however, since in that case, no
objection was entered in the Court below to the
procedure followed in the presentation of proof.
In this case, the change in order of trial made by
respondent Judge was promptly and timely
objected to by the defense.
Anuncios