“trial in absentia not allowed when it is necessary to establish the identity of accused by the witness”
Facts: Accused after arraignment waives his right to appear in court during the trial while under a bond. At the presentation of the principal witness the court issued a subpoena to the accused to appear on trial for the purpose of meeting the witness face to face, however he did not appear with the justification of his waiver. Subsequently the municipal judge issued order of arrest of the accused with confiscation of his cash bond and ordering the bondsman to show cause why no judgment shall be rendered against him.

Issue: Whether or not an accused may be compelled by the court to appear before the court despite waiver in favor of trail by absentia.

Held: The court held that such waiver only constitutes a waiver of the right of the accused to meet the witness face to face. It does not in effect deprive the prosecution of its right to require the presence of the accused for the purpose of identification by its witnesses which is vital in the conviction of the accused. It does not further release the accused from his obligation under the bond to appear in court whenever so required. The accused is accorded with the right to waive his own personal right but not his duty and obligation to the court.

Facts: For the convenience of the parties the trial was held in the air conditioned chamber of the respondent judge Garcia. The complaint was under the premise that such act is in violation of the right to hold a public trial.

Issue: Whether or not such proceeding of holding trial in the chamber of the judge in violation to the principle of right to a public trial.

Held: It is not in violation of the right to a public trial since the trial was still open to public and there is no showing that the public was deprived to witness the trial proceeding.