Civil Code: Persons, Family, and Relations
Topic: Waiver of Rights
Relevant Article: Art 6 of the Civil Code
Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary
to laws, public policy, public order, morals, good
customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law.
Artemio Villareal v People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012
Ponente: Chief Justice Sereno
Facts:
 Lenny, a neophyte of Aquila Fraternity, died
after being subjected to traditional formsof
Aquilan "initiation rites such as "paddling"
and other additional rounds of physical pain.
 Accused alumni fraternity members Fidelito
Dizon (Dizon) and Artemio Villareal
(Villareal) were the ones who demanded and
insisted that the rites be reopened.
 In a criminal case for homicide, the trial court
rendered judgment holding two of the
accused-appellants – Fidelito Dizon and
Artemio Villareal – guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of homicide under Article
249 of the Revised Penal Code.
 Villareal filed a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 for errors allegedly
committed by CA: (1) denial of due process;
(2) conviction absent proof beyond
reasonable doubt
 Dizon filed the same questioning the CA’s
decision: (1) denial of due process when CA
sustained the trial court’s forfeiture of his
right to present evidence; (2) denial of due
process when CA did not apply the same
“ratio decidendi” that served as basis of
acquittal of the other accused.
 As to the first issue raised by Dizon, the trial
court expected Dizon to present evidence on
an earlier date since a co-accused, Antonio
General, no longer presented separate
evidence during trial.
 According to Dizon, his right should not have
been considered as waived because he was
justified in asking for a postponement. He
argues that he did not ask for a resetting of
any of the hearing dates and in fact insisted
that he was ready to present evidence on the
original pre-assigned schedule, and not on
an earlier hearing date.
Issue:
Whether or not Dizon’s non-presentment of
evidence, rescheduled at an earlier date,
constitutes a valid waiver of right to present
evidence as held by CA
Ruling/s:
 No.
 The right of the accused to present evidence
is guaranteed by no less than the
Constitution itself. 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, as well
as the right to be present and defend oneself
n person at every stage of the proceedings.
 While constitutional rights may be waived,
such waiver must be clear and must be
coupled with an actual intention to relinquish
the right.
 The court must first explain to the accused
personally in clear terms the exact nature
and consequences of a waiver, for such
should not be assumed and taken lightly
especially if it is a criminal case involving a
grave penalty.
 However, an invalid waiver of right to present
evidence and be heard does not per se work
to vacate a finding of guilt in the criminal
case or to enforce automatic remand of the
case to the trial court.
 In People v. Bodoso, the Court ruled that
where facts have adequately been
represented in a criminal case, and no
procedural unfairness or irregularity has
prejudiced either the prosecution or the
defense as a result of the invalid waiver, the
rule is that a guilty verdict may nevertheless
be upheld if the judgment is supported
beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on
record.
Therefore, the Court, speaking thru CJ Sereno, ruled
to proceed to decide with the case as to not inflict
further injustice on the parties.