Case Name: VALDEZ v. UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1917-06-11
Citations: 244 U.S. 432
Docket Number: No. 361
Parties: VALDEZ v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 244
Pages: 432–455

Head Matter:
VALDEZ v. UNITED STATES.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
No. 361.
Argued April 23, 24, 1917.
Decided June 11, 1917.
The testimony of an accomplice who turns State’s evidence in a murder case is not. to be discarded because of his base character, or his oscillating retraction and reiteration of the charge, but must be ac-, corded such weight as is due it when judged by confirming or opposing ' circumstances, by his character and the influences which invested him.
In this ease the court, considering evidence on which was based a conviction of murder, concurred in by the court of first instance and the ..Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, holds that the doubt's aroused by the character and yaeillation of the government’s chief witness (who testified that- he was hired by the defendant and did the killing under his direction), are not such as to justify a reversal in view of the corroborating evidence, including evidence of á motive on the part of the defendant, and the absence of'any doubt that murder was actually done.
A view of the scene of the murder by the trial judge does not deprive the accused of his constitutional right, carried to him by the Philippine Code, to “meet the witnesses face to face,” where the view is conducted in the presence and with the consent of his counsel, and no testimony is taken, and no improper remarks are .addressed to the judge..
The right of the accused to'be present during the inspection may be waived by his counsel; but, even when the right is not waived, his absence will not warrant a reversal if no prejudice resulted.
30 Phil. Rep. 293, affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Timothy T. Ansberry, with whom Mr. Challen B. Ellis was on the briefs, for plaintiff in error:
The argument of Mr. Ansberry for the defendant was devoted to the facts and to the proposition that the absence of the accused during the view taken by the judge of first instance was fatal error. The accused, he said, was in jail at the time and had not consented. Section 5 of the Philippine Civil Qovernment Act secures in all criminal prosecutions the right of the accused to be heard by himself and his counsel. Section 3270 of the Philippine Laws, Comp. Stats. 1907, declares: “In all criminal prosecutions the defendant shall be entitled to appear and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceeding.” It is unnecessary to argue at length the interpretation of these provisions, or the question of the rights of an accused in a felony case and the circumstances under which they may and may not be waived, for these questions are now settled by the recent decision in Diaz v. United, States, 223 U. S. 442.
There this court laid down the rule of interpretation of Philippine Laws to be that the prevailing course of decision in the United States should be accepted as determining the nature and measure of the rights provided, and held that, by the prevailing course of decision in the United States, an accused who is on trial charged with a capital offense is incapable of waiving the right to be present.
There is only one subject remaining, and that is whether the rule is different when the proceeding was a view of the premises, and not the taking of testimony in .the court room, instructions to the jury, etc. There is some authority for the proposition that a view of the premises is not “a'part of the trial” on the ground that it does not involve the obtaining of evidence. Decisions to this effect are mainly those dealing with the question as to whether a review on appeal is prevented by lack of a complete record when it appears that the jury viewed the premises; and the solution of the difficulty in some of the cases is that review may be had because a view of the premises is not a part of the trial. - Some authorities have carried this suggestion into criminal cases where the question arose as to the necessity for the presence of the accused at a view of the premises. But without attempting to analyze these authorities, or the cases the other way, it is sufficient to say that both sound reason and the weight of authority support the proposition that a view of the premises in a criminal case is a part of the trial. 3 Wharton Criminal Law, 7th ed., § 3160; 22 Encyc. Pl. & Pr. 1059; Tully v. Railroad Co., 134 Massachusetts, 499; Wall v. United States Mining Co., 232 Fed. Rep. 613; People v. Milner, 122 California, 171; Benton v. State, 30 Arkansas, 328.
The whole theory upon which the accused is given a right to be present at the trial applies with equal force to his presence at a view of the premises. The right to be present, “scarcely less important to the accused than the right of trial itself” (Diaz v. United States, supra), was clearly not intended to be limited to any particular occasion, or any particular kind of proceeding in the trial, but extends to “any steps taken” (Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574) “from the empanelling of the jury to the reception of the verdict,” and during this time “nothing shall be done in the absence of the prisoner” (Lewis v. United States, 146 U. S. 371, 372).
And what is true of a criminal trial before a jury is equally true of a criminal trial had, as in the Philippines, before a judge only. Diaz v. United States, supra.
The right of the accused to be present is given him, undoubtedly, that he may have the opportunity to observe, and be observed, at every step taken so that he may make the best use of his own knowledge of the facts, and use that knowledge either in his testimony or in his conferences with counsel. At any moment of the trial something may arise which needs supplementing by facts of which the accused knows, or something may appear, either by observation of the jury or in oral evidence, which can be easily explained by the knowledge which the accused has. To say that the accused must be present when testimony, already transcribed, is read, or when the court instructs the jury, but that he need not be present when the jury is making an examination of objects and places about which the testimony centers and confirming or testing the testimony by actual view, ignores the real reason for the right.
But whatever may be the contention as to the proper function of a view of the premises, there can be no doubt that in the cáse at bar there was the “taking of evidence” at the view of the premises. People v. Hull, 86 Michigan, 446; People v. Green, 53 California, 60; State v. Bertin, 24 La. Ann. 46.
If any doubt could remain as to the right of the accused to be present at the view, because.of any technical definition of the word “trial,” it is disposed of by the broad language of the Philippine Code, which refers specifically to “every stage of the proceedings.” See Hopt v. Utah, supra.
The Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Warren for the United States, submitted:
The plaintiff in error bases his right to be personally present at the view taken by the single judge trying the case without a jury upon § 5 of the Philippine Organic Act and § 3270 of the Philippine Compiled Statutes, which embody the provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States conferring three distinct and separable rights: (a) The right of confrontation with the witnesses against him; (b) the right to be heard by himself and counsel; (c) the right to be present at every stage of the trial.
The alleged right of a defendant to be present at a view cannot be derived from the right of confrontation with witnesses given by the Sixth Amendment. . Such right applies only to testimonial evidence. Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237, 242; Dowdell v. United States, 221 U. S. 325, 330; Kirby v. United States, 174 U. S. 47, 54, 55. See also Mattox v. United States, 146 U. S. 140; Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245, 252, 253; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145.
The plaintiff in error claims that the right to be present at every stage of the trial is derived from the constitutional right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. The right to have the assistance of counsel originated at a later period than the right to be present at every stage of the trial. As to the abuses which led to the adoption of this clause of the Sixth Amendment, see 2 Story on Constitution, §§ 1793, 1794. And see also 4 Black. Comm. 355; Foster’s Crown Cases, 231, 232; 1 Bishop’s New Criminal Procedure, §§ 14-22, 120.
The right of a defendant in a criminal case to be present at all stages of the trial, on the other hand, is a right which had long been secured to him at common law before the right to have counsel was granted to him and, therefore, is clearly not derived from the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Its derivation from the early English common law is well stated in Ball v. United States, 140 U. S. 118, 131. For further authorities from the common law, see Statute of 28 Edward III, c. 3, 1354; 4 Black. Comm. 318; and the following cases: Rex v. Bacon (1664), 1 Keble, 809; 1 Levinz, 146; Rex v. Vipont (1761), 2 Burr, 1163; Rex v. Aiken (1765), 3 Burr, 1785; Rex v. Crowther (1786), 1 T. R. 125, 127; Rex v. Baker (1745), 2 Strange, 1239; Rex v. Nicolls (1745), 2 Strange, 1227; Rex v. Legingham (1670), 2 Keble, 687; T. Taym. 193; Rex v. Harris and Duke (1689), 1 Ld. Raym. 267, 482; Skinner, 683; Comberbach, 447; Holt, 399; 1 Salkeld, 400; 12 Mod. 156; Lofft, 400; Regina v. Templeman (1700), 1 Salk. 56; Rex v. Hayes (1730), 2 Strange, 843; Rex v. Gibson (1734), 2 Strange, 968; Sessions Cas. 123; 2 Barnardiston, 412; Cunningham, 29; Commonwealth v. Cody (1896), 165 Massachusetts, 133; Frey v. Calhoun (1895), 107 Michigan, 130.
The right to be present at every stage of the trial must be derived from the “due process” clause contained in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The dicta in Diaz v. United States, 223 U. S. 442, 452, which assumed that this right is derived from the Sixth Amendment, cannot be supported by authority.
Assuming, therefore,'that the right to be present at all stages of the trial is a necessary part of the “due process” guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, two questions arise in this case: (1) Is a view actually, in law, a. “part of the trial” at which the common law required the defendant to be present? (2) Was the right to be present at á view such an “essential” right as public policy forbids to be waived, under the doctrine of Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574, as explained in Lewis v. United States, 146 U. S. 370, 372, and Trono v. United States, 199 U. S. 521, 533?
The weight of authority and of. reason is to the effect that a view is not such a “part of the trial” as requires the defendant’s presence. People v. Thorn, 156 N. Y. 286; Price v. United States, 14 App. D. C. 391, 405; 3 Wigmore on Evidence, § 1803; Supp., vol. 5, § 1803. See State v. Ah Lee, 8 Oregon, 214.
That the right to be present at a view is not such an “essential” right as public policy forbids to be waived is to be seen from the fact that,, at the early common law, it was optional with the defendant whether he would give his consent to be present at a. view or not; and'no view could be taken without the defendant’s consent in a criminal case, and such consent could be given by the defendant with or without conditions. It is clear that, at common law, if he consented to a view in his absence, a view could be had in his absence. Sir Edward Duncomb’s Case (1635), Croke’s Charles, 366; King v. Staughton (1671), 2 Keble, 665; 1 Sid. 464; 2 Saunders, 160; King v. Kingsmill (1714), 1 Sess. Cas. 87; Anonymous (1728), 1 Barnardiston, 144; King v. Hatchley Tradgeley (1732), 1 Sess. Cas. 180 (repeated as Anonymous, 2 Barnardiston, 214); King v. Redman (1756), Ld. Kenyon, 384; 5 Bacon’s Abridgment, 375; Thompson’s Trials, § 879; Commonwealth v. Chance (1899), 174 Massachusetts, 245; Commonwealth v. Knapp (1830), 26 Massachusetts, 496; Commonwealth v. Webster (1850), 59 Massachusetts, 295.
It would be contrary to public policy to hold that defendant’s presence at a view is legally necessary and nonwaivable. In the first place, at no properly regulated inspection can a jury (or as in this case, a single justice) do more than observe the lay of the land and the disposition of the objects of interest connected with the crime. No evidence can be taken and no criticism or opinion offered by either side. There is, therefore, in spite of remarks in the cases, no valid reason necessitating the presence of the defendant. That is obviously the reason why defendants have so often, waived the privilege of attendance. In the second place, in many parts of the United States, especially in Alaska and the Philippines, views may be taken of places hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the place of trial. In our Southern and Western States, also, views may be taken in distant places and sparsely settled regions. Facilities for travel may be limited; means of conveyance insecure. A requirement of the presence of the defendant, non-waivable by him, presents a real danger or added facility for the escape, or rescue, of the prisoner.
A conclusion, therefore, which would extend to a crim inal defendant a comparatively valueless privilege at the expense of the safe and effective execution of justice should be avoided if possible.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McKenna
delivered the opinion of the court.
Valdez was proceeded against by complaint under the procedure of the Philippine Islands for the crime of murder. It was circumstantially described as having been committed by Valdez and one Francisco Amante and one Juan Gatmaitan, the latter having been induced by Valdez "by reason of a promise of reward" (900 pesos) to shoot one Eusebio Yuson with a shotgun furnished by Amante, inflicting nine mortal wounds, instantly killing Yuson.
There was a demurrer filed to the complaint which need not be noticed. Upon the trial of Valdez and Amante, after pleas of not guilty, the court in an opinion circumstantially reviewed the evidence and found Amante not guilty "for insufficiency of evidence." Valdez was found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt." He was sentenced to the penalty of death and to indemnification of the family of the deceased.
At a separate trial Gatmaitan was also found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
There was a motion for rehearing which was denied.
Valdez and Gatmaitan took separate appeals to the Supreme Court of the Islands, but, according to the statement of the court, at the request of counsel, the appeals were "heard and considered together, in order to give counsel for the defense an opportunity to develop any inconsistencies or contradictions which, might appear as a result of a critical analysis and comparison of the evidence of record in both cases."
The judgment against Valdez was affirmed; that against Gatmaitan was modified by the substitution of death for life imprisonment. Two of the judges dissented, one thinking that the "accused," not designating him (pre-sumably Valdez), was entitled "to an acquittal under the facts presented"; the other being of opinion that the prosecution had "not proved the guilt of the appellants of the crime of which they were convicted."
The case is here Upon a writ of error sued out by Valdez and the questions presented are, to quote counsel: (1) Whether the absence of the accused during a part of the proceedings in the trial constitutes an error requiring reversal, and (2) whether there was any evidence adequate to warrant the conviction.
The second question may be disposed of first. A negative answer is urged upon a consideration of the credibility of the witnesses, the relative probative strength of their testimonies, their mental and moral defects, the various statements of Gatmaitan, being a witness for the prosecution, first testifying to the guilt of Valdez and by subsequent statement retracting the accusation, and later retracting- the retraction, and an asserted absence of motive for the crime.
The elements of these contentions were passed upon by the lower courts and the guilt of Valdez and Gatmaitan determined. It ordinarily would be enough to say that there was justification for the determination; but lest it may be supposed that the guilt of Valdez depended alone upon the testimony of Gatmaitan, he having been an active accomplice in the homicide, some comment becomes necessary and at least a characterization of the evidence.
Gatmaitan's testimony was, of course, an important factor, but it had substantial corroboration. He was shown, it is true, to be a low type of man. One who becomes for hire as he did the criminal executor of another's malice is usually such. No other would accept the shameful service. But it is not reserved for this casé to make a novel contribution to the criminal experience of the country or to demonstrate that there are such hirers and hirelings, and when the hireling turns state's evidence, as he sometimes does, or his weakness, awed by the penalties of his crime, breaks down and confesses, as it sometimes does, or he changes or qualifies or retracts, as he sometimes does, as hope or interest or fear sways him, his testimony or confession is not to be summarily discarded but to be judged of by confirming or opposing circumstances as well as by his character and the influences that may invest him. And it was such judgment the two lower courts exercised; it is such judgment in our turn that we are required to exercise., This record, indeed, shows that the character and characteristics of Gatmaitan, his mental and social inferiority to Valdez, made him facile to Valdez' solicitation and a purchasable agent for Valdez' purpose. And Valdez was shown, independently of Gatmaitan's testimony, to have had a purpose — a fixed enmity to Yuson,- engendered in a controversy over certain water rights. In gratification of it he carefully planned the crime, set its time and place, procured its weapon, gave the weapon to Gatmaitan, and hired a scout to observe the movements of Yuson and report his approach. The service was exactly performed, and upon his approach occurred the tragedy.
Yuson was shot in the back and instantly killed as he was entering his homey and the crowning horror of it was that it was done in the hearing and almost in the presence of his wife, even as she was speaking to him and moving to meet him.
Such is the outline of the crime. And crime it was. There is no dispute about that or the manner of execution. Valdez as a witness in his own behalf denied participation in it or precedent knowledge and attempted to prove an alibi. His denial was not believed, his alibi decided not to have been established. It cannot be held, therefore, that his conviction was not sustained by the evidence and the sentence imposed upon him not justified, even though its doom be death.
Upon the other question the record shows this: Gatmaitan was a witness for the prosecution. He related that he was employed by Valdez to kill Yuson for 900 pesos, given himj Gatmaitan, for that purpose, and that he shot Yuson as Yuson was approaching his (Yuson's) house— Valdez assisting him, Gatmaitan. Indeed, Gatmaitan testified that Valdez ordered him to shoot but that the gun would not go off, and Valdez showed him how to shoot — "and right at that moment the gun went off." Gatmaitan further testified that he and Valdez located themselves "in a fence near the staircase" of Yuson's house, and from that location fired the shot.
There was other testimony, as we have indicated, and distances of objects from one another were testified to.
At the close of the testimony the prosecuting attorney-asked the court to visit "the place of the occurrence in order to make there an inspection so that the court may judge of the distances." One of the counsel for the defense assented, saying, "Yes; we do not object, so that the court may see." Another counsel for the defense called for the "motive" of the prosecution in asking "for the ocular inspection." It was replied that its object was to enable the court to obtain a correct idea "of all the distances in connection with the assassination of the deceased, as well also of the places where the witnesses for the prosecution found themselves and where they talked together." And further, "We want that done in order that everything may be clear," To which counsel for the defense replied that he had on occasions been present at ocular inspections and that testimony was taken which produced confusion, and, further: "What I wish, with the consent of the prosecuting attorney, is .that an inspection be made there, but that no testimony be taken because it produces great confusion when one tries to examine witnesses at the place of the occurrence."
The prosecuting attorney, however, thought it advisable not to dispense with such testimony or take from the court its discretion, "so that when the court arrives there it may ask of unknown persons where the deceased fell, where the wad was found,' where Gatmaitan was, and where Mateo Arcilla was." All of which opposing counsel thought, had been already proved.
The court expressed its willingness to make the inspection, as the result would be evidence for both parties after the defense had produced its rebuttal testimony, and upon the defense announcing that it had no rebuttal testimony, the case was closed.
The court made the inspection; Valdez was not present, but his counsel were. There is an opposition of affidavits submitted upon a motion for new trial. Those submitted by defendant (three of which were in almost exactly the same words) averred that the persons making them were present at the inspection by the court and saw the judge examine the various points at the scene of the crime and the point where Gatmaitan stood when he fired the murderous shot. That they also saw the widow of the deceased show the manner in which her husband fell — she illustrating — and that she also told the judge "certain facts which happened at the time of the murder." That they also saw Captain Crockett, of the constabulary, point out to the judge the places in the stairway and in the house where the shot had penetrated, and saw him walk with the judge and point out to him certain streets and houses connected with the case, and also saw the judge and such officer and the attorneys in the case and other persons examine other places.
One of the counsel for the defense also filed an affidavit. It averred that the judge went to the scene of the killing, accompanied by the attorneys for both sides, but that neither Valdez nor his attorneys were consulted by the judge as to whether or not Valdez desired to accompany the court. That the widow of the deceased "explained to the judge many occurrences which she claimed had taken place on the night of the killing, . . what she claimed to have said to the deceased just prior to the killing, and illustrated how and where the deceased had fallen, and discussed many other matters in connection with the case, during all of which time she was crying and wringing her hands in grief." That Captairi Crockett was charged by at least one witness as being an official "of a body which had forced and intimidated" the witness to give false testimony against Valdez. That Captain Crockett pointed out bullet marks to the judge, pointed out where the shot was fired as indicated by Gatmaitan, and made other statements to the judge that Gatmaitan had made to him "as to other circumstances of the case." That Captain Crockett walked through the streets with-the judge and pointed out to him various objects which had been referred to during the trial, part of the time being alone with the judge.- That Captain Crockett discussed distances between objects, giving his opinion of the same, and particularly the distance from the house of the- deceased to the house of Valdez, and told the judge in that connection that he had measured such distance with a "'speedometer' on his motorcycle." That during the inspection the affiant made objections as attorney for Valdez as to the conduct of the widow and Crockett but they were allowed to continue their conversations with the judge.
These affidavits were distinctly and circumstantially contradicted by affidavits accompanied by photographs of the positions of the judge and the persons involved. One of the affidavits was by Captain Crockett and two of them were by the attorneys who prosecuted the case, both of whom were present at the inspection and in such relation to it as to know what occurred.
The Supreme Court, in passing upon the motion, said: ".A careful examination of these affidavits and the counter-affidavits filed by the appellee satisfies us that nothing more than inspection of the scene of the murder was made by the trial judge, and that no evidence whatever was taken on that occasion; and we are of opinion that under all the circumstances there was no violation of the constitutional right of the prisoner to be confronted with the witnesses. People v. Thorn, 156 N. Y. 286, 42 L. R. A. 368, and the cases cited in the extended note in the annotated report."
Such being the record, we must assume that the judge in his inspection of the scene of the homicide was not improperly addressed by any one and, in the presence of counsel, did no more than visualize the testimony of the witnesses — giving it a certain picturesqueness, it may be, but not adding to or changing it. It would be going a great way to say that the requirement of the Philippine Code, carrying the constitutional guaranty to an accused to "meet the witnesses face' to face," was violated and could not be waived. And we think practically Valdez' presence was waived.
But, aside from any question of waiver, it would be pressing the right of an accused too far and Diaz v. United States, 223 U. S. 442, beyond its principle to so hold. As well might it be said that an accused is entitled to be with the judge in his meditations and that he could entertain no conception nor form any judgment without such personal presence.
The judgment should not be reversed upon a mere abstraction. It is difficult to divine how the inspection, even if the affidavits of the defendants should be taken at their face value, added to or took from the case as presented.
It follows that the judgment of the Supreme Court must be and it is Affirmed.