Anda di halaman 1dari 13

o Equipoise Rule: where the evidence in a

RULE 115: RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED criminal case is evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the
*Right to Due Process scales in favor of the accused
Why is it in criminal case an accused enjoys this
Requirements of Due Process are satisfied only if presumption? Why does the law give the accused
the following conditions are present: the presumption of innocence?
1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with
judicial power to hear and determine the matter The SC already answered that the reason is to make
before it; the fight at least equal. In criminal cases, all the
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the resources are directed against the accused. It is the
person of the defendant or over the property accused versus People of the Philippines; so you are
which is the subject of the proceedings; fighting the government, and the government has all
3. Defendant must given the opportunity to be the resources at its command (PNP, NBI, etc.); the
heard; law will give certain presumptions in favor of the
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful accused.
hearing.

In CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, DUE PROCESS Section 1 (b)


would require that the accused be informed as to
why he is proceeded against AND what charge he To be informed of the nature and cause of the
has to meet. accusation against him.

*Rights of the Accused in Criminal Cases This right requires that the question should state
They are not intended to enable the accused to the facts and circumstances constituting the crime
defeat the very ends of justice. charges in such a way that a person of common
An accused being tried before a military tribunal understanding may easily comprehend and be
enjoys the specific constitutional safeguards informed of what it is about; to enable the person to
pertaining to criminal cases. prepare his defense.

1. The accusation serves to furnish the accused


Section 1 (a) with such description of the charge against him
as will enable him to make his defense;
To be presumed innocent until the contrary is 2. To avail himself in case of conviction or
proved beyond reasonable ground acquittal, of the protection against a further
o In all criminal prosecutions, the accused is prosecution for the same cause;
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved 3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that
beyond reasonable doubt. it may decide whether they are sufficient in law
o The burden of proof is on the prosecution to to support a conviction.
demonstrate guilt.
o All ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS constituting the o A judgment punishing the accused for an
offense charged must be proved beyond offense of which he was not legally informed,
reasonable doubt; IN CASE OF denies him due process of law.
REASONABLE DOUBT, that the offenders
guilt has been shown, he is entitled to an An accused should know why he is there. It is
acquittal. very awkward that he is charged without even
o Only if the JUDGE could arrive at a conclusion knowing what the charge is all about. That is
that the crime has been committed, precisely by why there is an arraignment to make everything
the person on trial, under such an exacting test formal.
should the sentence be one of conviction.
o Presumption of innocence can only be borne by
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Can you waive the right to be informed of the Absence of the counsel of the accused:
nature and cause of the accusation against an Judge may not hold trial of a criminal
accused? case
NO. It cannot be waived because public interest is Disregard will constitute a ground for
involved in this right; the public having an interest reversal of judgment of conviction
in seeing to it that no person is unlawfully deprived
of his life or liberty. May the right to counsel during trial be waived?
Yes. It can be waived when the accused
voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of
Section 1 (c) the court and proceeds with his defense.
The accused may defend himself in
Right to Counsel person only if the court is convinced that
he can properly protect his rights even
To be present and defend in person and by counsel without the assistance of counsel.
at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment Nonetheless, if in proper cases, the
to promulgation of the judgment. accused preferred to defend himself
The accused may, however, waive his presence personally in the trial court:
at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth He cannot be heard to complain
in his bail, unless his presence is specifically that he has not been assisted by
ordered by the court for purposes of an attorney in the proceedings
identification.
The absence of the accused without justifiable May an accused defend himself without the
cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be assistance of counsel?
considered a waiver of his right to be present Yes, but only when it sufficiently appears that
thereat. he can properly protect his right without the
When an accused under custody escapes, he assistance of counsel [Sec. 1(c)].
shall be deemed to have waived his right to be
present on all subsequent trial dates until What is the rule if the accused makes an
custody over him is regained. extrajudicial confession?
Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to Any extrajudicial confession made shall
defend himself in person when it sufficiently be in writing
appears to the court that he can properly protect signed by
his rights without the assistance of counsel. the person, detained or under
custodial investigation in the
Deprivation of the right to be heard and present presence of his counsel, or in the
evidence: latters absence, upon a valid
Court has no power to sentence him waiver, and in the presence of
Sentence pronounced is void any of the parents, older brothers
May be collaterally attacked in habeas corpus and sisters, his spouse, the
proceedings municipal mayor, the municipal
judge, district school supervisor,
Article 3 Section 12, (1) Phil. Constitution or priest or minister of the gospel
Provides for the right to remain silent as chosen by him; otherwise such
Have independent and competent counsel extrajudicial confession shall be
preferably of his own choice inadmissible as evidence in any
Constitutional Requirement satisfied when: proceeding (Sec. 2(d) RA 7438)
1. Counsel is engaged by any one acting on
behalf of the person under investigation Custodial Investigation
2. Counsel is appointed by the court upon the stage where the police investigation is no
petition of the said person or by someone longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime
on his behalf but has begun to focus on a particular suspect
taken into custody by the police who carry out a 3. He must be informed that he has the right to be
process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit assisted at all times and have the presence of an
incriminating statements independent and competent lawyer, preferably
Sec. 2(f) of RA 7438 expanded the meaning of of his own choice;
custodial investigation. It shall include the 4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or
practice of issuing an invitation to a person cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will
who is investigated in connection with an be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also
offense he is suspected to have committed, be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may
without prejudice to the liability of the be appointed by the court upon petition of the
inviting officer for any violation of law. person arrested or one acting in his behalf;
5. That whether or not the person arrested has a
When do the rights in custodial investigation lawyer, he must be informed that no custodial
attach? investigation in any form shall be conducted
The rights begin to operate at once as soon as except in the presence of his counsel or after a
the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry valid waiver has been made;
into an unsolved crime and direction is then 6. The person arrested must be informed that, at
aimed upon a particular suspect who has been any time, he has the right to communicate or
taken into custody and to whom the police confer by the most expedient means - telephone,
would then direct interrogatory question which radio, letter or messenger - with his lawyer
tend to elicit incriminating statements. (either retained or appointed), any member of
It includes the practice of issuing an invitation his immediate family, or any medical doctor,
to a person who is investigated in connection priest or minister chosen by him or by any one
with an offense he is suspected to have from his immediate family or by his counsel, or
committed. be visited by/confer with duly accredited
national or international non-government
What is the importance of the right to counsel in organization. It shall be the responsibility of the
custodial investigation? officer to ensure that this is accomplished;
So vital that under existing law, in the absence 7. He must be informed that he has the right to
of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall waive any of said rights provided it is made
be conducted and the suspected person can only voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and
be detained by the investigating officer in ensure that he understood the same;
accordance with the provisions of Art. 125 of 8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his
the Revised Penal Code. (Section 3c RA 7438) right to a lawyer, he must be informed that it
The purpose of providing counsel to a person must be done in writing AND in the presence of
under custodial investigation is to curb the counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the
uncivilized practice of extracting a confession. waiver is void even if he insists on his waiver
and chooses to speak;
What are the rights of persons under Custodial 9. That the person arrested must be informed that
Investigation? he may indicate in any manner at any time or
1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under stage of the process that he does not wish to be
custodial investigation must be informed in a questioned with warning that once he makes
language known to and understood by him of such indication, the police may not interrogate
the reason for the arrest and he must be shown him if the same had not yet commenced, or the
the warrant of arrest, if any; every other interrogation must have ceased if it has already
warnings, information or communication must begun;
be in a language known to and understood by 10. The person arrested must be informed that his
said person; initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the
2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar
silent and that any statement he makes may be him from invoking it at any time during the
used as evidence against him; process, regardless of whether he may have
answered some questions or volunteered some
statements;
11. He must also be informed that any statement or
evidence, as the case may be, obtained in Nemo Tenetur Seipsum Accusare- No one is
violation of any of the foregoing, whether bound to incriminate or accuse himself
inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part,
shall be inadmissible in evidence (People v. Right against self-incrimination was established on
Mahinay, G.R. No. 122485, Feb. 1, 1999). the grounds of:

Requirements in order that an admission of guilt 1. Public policy- if the party were required to
of an accused during a custodial investigation be testify, it would place the witness under the
admitted in evidence? strongest temptation to commit the crime of
An admission of guilt during a custodial perjury
investigation is a confession. To be admissible 2. Humanity- it would prevent the extortion of
in evidence, the confession must be voluntary, confession by address.
made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel, express and in writing. The Constitutional foundation underlying the
privilege against self-incrimination is the respect a
government must accord to the dignity and integrity
Section 1 (d) to its citizens.

To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject Involuntary confessions had been rejected by all
to cross-examination on matters covered by direct courts not only on the ground of its unreliability but
examination. His silence shall not in any manner also, and more importantly, on humanitarian
prejudice him. principles which abhor all forms of torture or
unfairness towards the accused in criminal
Right to testify as a witness proceedings.
Subject to cross examination
Limited to matters covered by the direct To be exempt from being a witness against
examination himself

Difference: Ordinary witness and accused in terms He cannot be compelled to testify or produce
of cross examination evidence in the criminal case in which he is the
accused, or one of the accused. He cannot be
Accused as Witness Ordinary Witness compelled to do so even by subpoena or other
Questions to be asked Cross-examiner is given process or order of the Court.
must be limited only to sufficient fullness and The main purpose of the privilege then is to
those covered or freedom to ask questions prohibit compulsory oral examination of
connected to matters that would test the prisoners before trial, or upon trial, for the
stated by the direct accuracy and truthfulness purpose of extorting unwilling confessions of a
examination of the witness, his crime.
freedom from interest or
bias, or the reverse.

Right to Remain Silent BELTRAN VS SAMSON AND JOSE


Shall not in any manner prejudice him
Writing is more than moving the body, or the hands,
or the fingers; writing is not purely mechanical act,
Section 1 (e) because it requires the application of intelligence
and attention
TO BE EXEMPT FROM BEING
COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST Writing means that the petitioner herein is to furnish
HIMSELF a means to determine whether or not he is the
falsifier, as the petition of the respondent fiscal The following are permissible: substance
states. from the body, morphine from mouth, put
on pants, physical exam, etc.
US VS TAN TENG
Can the right to be exempted from being
Mr. Jsutice Holmes in the case of Holt v US said: compelled to be a witness against himself be
waived? YES.
But the prohibition of compelling a man in a
criminal court to be a witness against himself, is a INSTANCES:
prohibition of the use of physical or moral By the failure of the accused to invoke the
compulsion, to extort communications from him, privilege at a proper time, that is, after the
not an exclusion of his body as evidence, when it incriminatory question is asked and before his
may be material. The objection, in principle, would answer;
forbid a jury (court) to look at a person and compare When the accused obeyed without protest the
his features with a photograph, in proof. Moreover order to show the tattooing he had on his hand
we are not considering how far a court would go in according to the witnesses;
compelling a man to exhibit himself, for when he is By taking the stand and testifying as a witness;
exhibited, whether voluntarily or by order, even if Answering freely the incriminatory questions
the order goes too far, the evidence is material, is put to him
competent.

US VS ONG SIU HONG Section 1 (f)


To force a prohibited drug from the person of an RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-
accused is along the same line as requiring him to EXAMINE WITNESSES
exhibit himself before the court; or putting in
evidence papers and other articles taken from the SOURCE Article III, Section 14 (2) of the 1987
room of an accused in his absence; or, as in the Tan Constitution
Teng case, taking a substance from the body of the
accused to be used in proving his guilt. It would be CONFRONTATION the act of setting a witness
a forced construction of the paragraph of the face-to-face with the accused so that the accused
Philippine Bill of Rights in question to hold that any may make any objection he has to the witness, and
article, substance, or thing taken from a person the witness may identify the accused.
accused of crime not be given in evidence. The
main purpose of this constitutional provision is to The right to meet the witnesses face to face is a
prohibit testimonial compulsion by oral examination personal privilege. It may be waived expressly or
in order to extort unwilling confessions from impliedly by ones conduct incompatible with his
prisoners implicating them in the commission if a assertion of the right to confront ones accusers.
crime.
EXPLANATION OF THE PROVISION to
Right to against self-incrimination applies to ensure the accused the right to be tried, to meet the
commutative testimony and not mechanical witnesses face to face during trial, to give their
testimony. testimony in his presence, and to give the accused
an opportunity of cross examination.
COMMUTATIVE TESTIMONY involves the use
of intelligence on the part of the accused or witness Therefore, the prosecution also has the right to
cross-examine the witnesses of the defense,
i.e., handwriting, signature, similar incidents including the accused if he elects to testify.
involving the use of intelligence
The court must have jurisdiction to permit the
privilege of cross-examination.
or at any investigation conducted by competent
authority, or for the taking of his deposition. It may
also require him to bring with him any books,
THREE PURPOSES OF CONFRONTATION documents, or other things under his control, in
1. It ensures that the witness will give his testimony which case it is called a subpoena duces tecum.
under oath;
2. It forces the witness to submit to cross- 2 types of subpoena:
examination; which is the most essential purpose,
and Subpoena Ad Testificandum: process directed to a
3. It enables the court to observe the demeanor of person requiring him to attend and to testify at the
the witness and assess his credibility. hearing or trial of an action, or at any investigation
conducted by competent authority, or for the taking
EXCEPTIONS of his deposition. So you are required to appear
The party may utilize as part of its evidence the there and testify in court.
testimony of a witness:
a) who is deceased Subpoena Duces Tecum:process directed to a
b) out of the country, person where it requires him to bring with him any
c) cannot, with due diligence, be found in the books, documents or other things under his control.
country In other words, the interest lies upon the documents
d) unavailable or unable to testify or other effects under his custody.
e) given in another case or proceeding (judicial or
administrative), involving the same parties and Sec. 8 and 9Consequences if Witnesses
subject matter, where the adverse party already had refused to appear after subpoena was issued to
the opportunity to cross examine him him (without adequate cause or reason)

o In case of unjustified failure of the witness


Section 1 (g) to comply, the Court/Judge issuing the
subpoena, upon proof of service of such
To have compulsory process issued to secure the subpoena and proof of witness failure to
attendance of witnesses and production of other attend, may issue warrant of arrest against
evidence in his behalf. said witness.
o Declare/Cite said witness in contempt of
SOURCE court for failure to obey the subpoena.
The 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14(2) Bill of
Rights

PURPOSE
To get the truth so that the guilty may be
punished.
Failure to issue subpoena to compel the
attendance of witness has been held to be a
deprivation of right of the accused to due
process.

IN RELATION TO RULE 21, RULES OF


COURT

Rule 21, Sec. 1Subpoena

Process directed to a person requiring him to attend


and to testify at the hearing or the trial of an action,
On the other hand, respondent counters that there
Section 1 (h) were no capricious and oppressive delays that
would justify a dismissal of the Information. The
To have speedy, impartial and public trial Office of the Solicitor General points to the
participation of petitioner himself in the protracted
Cases: proceedings, such as his filing of a Motion for
Lumanlaw vs Peralta Preliminary Investigation and his counsels absence
Flores vs People from one of the scheduled hearings. [35]
People vs Modesto Tee

JOHN JOSEPH LUMANLAW y BULINAO vs.


Hon. EDUARDO B. PERALTA JR., in His Flores v People 61 SCRA 331 (December 10, 1974)
Capacity as Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court (Branch 13), Manila, G.R. No. 164953, "rights of the accused to a speedy trial"
February 13, 2006, the Philippine Supreme Court
once again upheld the universal doctrine of Facts: Petitioners plea for their constitutional rights
SPEEDY TRIAL by asserting that vexatious, to a speedy trial by certiorari where the proceeding
oppressive, unjustified and capricious delays in the of the case for robbery against petitioners dragged
arraignment violates the constitutional right to on for over a decade without any final judgment
speedy trial and speedy case disposition, rendered by the court. Petitioners sought for the
particularly when the accused is detained. Under dismissal of the case due to inordinate delay in its
such circumstances, MANDAMUS is a proper disposition. The People in its affirmative defense
remedy for relief from prolonged detention. Thus: raised the facts that the case was not properly
captioned, as the People of the Phils. against whom
Right to Speedy Trial it is filed was not a tribunal exercising judicial
functions and without the Court of Appeals being
Arraignment is a vital stage in criminal proceedings made a part to the petition there are insufficient
in which the accused are formally informed of the facts to constitute a cause of action. Moreover, it
charges against them. [33] The proper conduct of defends that the CA took all necessary steps to
the arraignment is provided in Rule 116 of the complete the transcript of stenographic notes of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. A perusal of original trial.
the provision shows that arraignment is not a mere
formality, but an integral part of due process. [34] Issue: Whether or not the constitutional rights of
Particularly, it implements the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial was violated.
the accused to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against them and their right to Held: The court referred to previous jurisprudence
speedy trial. upholding the constitutional rights of the accused to
a speedy trial. It re-affirmed with emphasis that
On this point, petitioner argues that, by respondents such right is more significant than the procedural
failure to act expeditiously on his arraignment, his defects pointed out by the People of the Philippines
right to speedy trial was violated. He points out the that the CA should have been made party-
fourteen postponements that resulted in his respondent to the petition. Technicalities should
intolerable detention for almost two years. always give way to the reality of the situation and
Moreover, he cites Section 2 of Supreme Court that in the absence of a valid decision the stage trial
Circular No. 38-98 (implementing Republic Act No. was not completed and the accused should be
8493, otherwise known as The Speedy Trial Act of accorded with the right to contend that they had not
1998), which provides that arraignment shall be been accorded their right to be tried as promptly as
held within thirty days from the date the court circumstances permit. Thus the SC finds merit to
acquired jurisdiction over the accused. dismiss the case against the petitioners.
PEOPLE v. MODESTO TEE, GR Nos. 140546-47, hearing days, there is no showing whatsoever that
2003-01-20 prosecution capriciously caused Abratique's
absences so as to vex or oppress appellant and deny
Facts: him his rights. On record, after

When arraigned... appellant refused to enter a plea Abratique repeatedly failed to show up for the
taking of his testimony, the prosecution went to the
The trial court entered a plea of not guilty for him... extent of praying that the trial court order the arrest
duly convicted him of illegal possession of of Abratique to compel his attendance at trial. The
marijuana and sentenced him to death. prosecution likewise tried to get the NBI to produce
Abratique as the... latter was in the Bureau's
Hence, this automatic review. custody, but to no avail. Eventually, the trial court
ordered the prosecution to waive its right to present
Appellant insists that the prosecution's unjustified Abratique and rest its case on the evidence already
and willful delay in presenting witness Abratique offered.
unduly delayed the resolution of his case. He points
out that a total of eight (8) scheduled hearings had Nor do we find a delay of twenty (20) hearing days
to be reset due to the failure or willful refusal of to be an unreasonable length of time. Delay of less
Abratique to... testify against him. than two months has been found, in fact, to be not
an unreasonably lengthy period of time.
Appellant now alleges that the prosecution
deliberately resorted to delaying the case to cause Moreover, nothing on record shows that appellant
him untold miseries. Modesto Tee objected to the inability of the
prosecution to produce its witness. Under the Rules,
On record, the trial court found that prosecution appellant could have moved the trial court to require
witness Danilo G. Abratique failed to appear in no that witness Abratique post bail to ensure that the
less than eighteen (18) hearings,... No less than four latter would testify when... required.
(4) warrants of arrest were issued against him to
compel him to testify. Appellant could have moved to have Abratique
found in contempt and duly sanctioned. Appellant
Nothing on record discloses the reason for did neither. It is a bit too late in the day for
appellant to invoke now his right to speedy trial.
Abratique's aforecited absences.
No persuasive reason supports appellant's claim that
Appellant now stresses that the failure of Abratique his constitutional right to speedy trial was violated.
to appear and testify on twenty (20) hearing dates One must take into account that a trial is always
violated appellant's constitutional[72] and statutory subject to postponements and other causes of delay.
right to a speedy trial. But in the absence of a showing that delays were
unreasonable and... capricious, the State should not
Issues: be deprived of a reasonable opportunity of
prosecuting an accused.
the alleged prejudice caused by the reopening of the
case and absences of the prosecution witness, on Principles:
appellant's right to speedy... trial
A speedy trial means a trial conducted according to
Ruling: the law of criminal procedure and the rules and
regulations, free from vexatious, capricious, and
On The Alleged Violation of Appellant's oppressive delays.
Substantive Rights
The concept of speedy trial is necessarily relative. A
In the present case, although the absences of determination as to whether the right has been
prosecution witness Abratique totaled twenty (20) violated involves the weighing of several factors
such as the length of the delay, the reason for the Thus, an information was filed against Del
delay, the conduct of the prosecution and the Castillo for violation of Section 16, Article III of
accused, and the efforts... exerted by the defendant R.A. 6425 and was found guilty by the RTC and
to assert his right, as well as the prejudice and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner filed
damage caused to the accused. with the Supreme Court the petition for certiorari
contending among others that CA erred in finding
The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
when: (1) the proceedings are attended by possession of prohibited drugs, because he could
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays;... or not be presumed to be in possession of the same just
(2) when... unjustified postponements are asked for because they were found inside the nipa hut.
and secured;... or (3) when without cause or
justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to Issue: Can petitioner Del Castillo be held liable for
elapse without the party having his case tried. violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425 by
mere presumption that the petitioner has dominion
(3) when without cause or justifiable motive a long and control over the place where the shabu was
period of time is allowed to elapse without the party found?
having his case tried.
Held: No. While it is not necessary that the
property to be searched or seized should be owned
Section 1 (i) by the person against whom the search warrant is
issued, there must be sufficient showing that the
To Appeal in all cases allowed and in a matter property is under petitioners control or possession.
prescribed in law. The records are void of any evidence to show that
petitioner owns the nipa hut in question nor was it
established that he used the said structure as a shop.
Escarda, Marc Farrel The RTC, as well as the CA, merely presumed that
G.R. No. 185125 January 30, 2012 petitioner used the said structure due to the presence
Ruben Del Castillo vs. People of the Philippines of electrical materials, the petitioner being an
electrician by profession.
Facts: Pursuant to a confidential information that
petitioner Del Castillo was engaged in selling The prosecution must prove that the
shabu, police officers headed by SPO3, after petitioner had knowledge of the existence and
conducting surveillance and test-buy operation at presence of the drugs in the place under his control
the house of petitioner, secured a search warrant and dominion and the character of the drugs. With
from the RTC. Upon arrival to the residence of Del the prosecutions failure to prove that the nipa hut
Castillo to implement the search warrant, SPO3 was under petitioners control and dominion, there
Masnayon claimed that he saw petitioner run casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. In
towards a small structure, a nipa hut, in front of his considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with
house. Masnayon chased him but to no avail, the laws own starting perspective on the status of
because he and his men were not familiar with the the accused in all criminal prosecutions, he is
entrances and exits of the place. They all went back presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the
to the residence of Del Castillo and requested his contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Proof
men to get a barangay tanod and a few minutes beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof
thereafter, his men returned with two barangay sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would
tanods who searched the house of petitioner convince and satisfy the conscience of those who
including the nipa hut where the petitioner allegedly act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the
ran for cover. His men who searched the residence constitutional presumption of innocence.
of the petitioner found nothing, but one of the
barangay tanods was able to confiscate from the
nipa hut several articles, including four (4) plastic
packs containing white crystalline substance.
Escarda, Marc Farrel Miguel then filed for a pre-suspension hearing. He
Miguel v. Sandiganbayan 675 Scra averred that there was lack of hearing before the
issuance of a suspension order.
Facts: Municipal Mayor of Koronadal, Fernando
Q. Miguel, while in the performance of his official Issue: Whether or not the information is valid.
functions, committing the offense in relation to his
office, taking advantage of his official position, Held: The information is valid. In deference to the
conspiring and confederating with the private acting constitutional right of an accused to be informed of
with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, did the nature and the cause of the accusation against
then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally him, Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
give unwarranted benefits and advantages to Criminal Procedure (Rules) requires, inter alia, that
himself, by inviting them to participate in the the information shall state the designation of the
prequalification of consultants to provide the offense given by the statute and the acts or
Detailed Architectural & Engineering Design and omissions imputed which constitute the offense
Construction Supervision and Management of the charged. Additionally, the Rules requires that these
proposed Koronadal Public Market, without causing acts or omissions and its attendant circumstances
the publication of said invitation in a newspaper of must be stated in ordinary and concise language and
general circulation, thereby excluding other in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
consultants from participating in said understanding to know what offense is being
prequalification. charged and for the court to pronounce judgment.

A case was filed against Miguel for violation The test of the informations sufficiency is
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019. On motions whether the crime is described in intelligible terms
separately filed by two of the petitioners, the and with such particularity with reasonable certainty
Sandiganbayan ordered the Office of the Special so that the accused is duly informed of the offense
Prosecutor (OSP) to conduct a reinvestigation. charged. In particular, whether an information
Miguel followed suit and orally moved for a validly charges an offense depends on whether the
reinvestigation, which the Sandiganbayan likewise material facts alleged in the complaint or
granted. The Sandiganbayan gave the petitioner ten information shall establish the essential elements of
(10) days within which to file his counter-affidavit the offense charged as defined in the law. The
with the OSP. raison detre of the requirement in the Rules is to
enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense.
Instead of submitting his counter-affidavit,
the Miguel asked the Sandiganbayan for a thirty-day In arguing against the validity of the information,
extension to submit his counter-affidavit. Shortly the petitioner appears to go beyond the standard of a
before the expiry of the extension requested, Miguel person of common understanding in appreciating
asked the OSP for an additional thirty-day period to the import of the phrase acting with evident bad
file his counter-affidavit. Despite the two extensions faith and manifest partiality.
asked and granted, the petitioner asked the OSP
anew for a twenty-day extension period. Escarda, Marc Farrel
People v. Rolando de Lara 678 Scra
After several extensions sought and granted,
the petitioner filed a Motion to Quash and/or Facts: Rosabella de Lemos was abducted by
Reinvestigation for the criminal cases against him. Rolando de Lara, MagnoTamares, Carlito Villas,
On February 18, 2003, the Sandiganbayan denied and Eduardo Villas while on her way to the
the petitioners motion because of the pending OSP procession. Gloria, the mother of Rosabella, who
reinvestigation this, despite the OSPs earlier was accompanying her served as a witness, because
termination of the reinvestigation for the petitioners her daughter was kidnapped in front of her.
continuous failure to submit his counter-affidavit. Rosabella de Lemos said that she was brought to the
Because of the failure, Sandiganbayan ruled against woods, where she was raped. After being raped, she
Miguel and ordered his suspension. was brought to the authorities, however, she was
threatened that she will be killed if ever she
disagrees marrying her ex sweetheart Rolando de Malicdan killed Sato Sanad after being hired by
Lara. Gerald Alicoy to do so for the sum of P20,000.00.
Aside from describing the details of how he had his
The side of Rolando however, said that they cohort killed Sanad, during the ocular inspection, he
eloped since they still love each other, and that they even pointed out the place where the killing had
had sex because of love, there was no threat or been committed. And when he executed his extra-
kidnapping that took place because Rosabella de judicial confession before the police and during the
Lemos went willingly with Rolando. preliminary investigation of the case before the city
prosecutor wherein he admitted his participation in
Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty of the said incident, he was assisted by Atty. Daniel
rape and forcible abduction? Mangallay. However, during the trial of the case,
the accused denied any participation in the killing of
Held: Yes, Rolando de Lara is guilty of the crime Sanad. He also assailed the admissibility of his
of forcible abduction with rape, while, Carlito Villas extra-judicial confession. And, he claimed that Atty.
and Eduardo Villas guilty of grave coercion. In like Mangallay was retained by Alfredo Kinao and not
manner, only Rolando de Lara should be made by himself and that the said lawyer was unable to
liable for the amount of P50,000.00 which accused- advise or to explain to him the contents of his extra-
appellants were ordered to pay as indemnity and the judicial confession before he signed it.
costs of the suit. In addition, he must likewise pay
complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as moral Issue: Whether or not the extra-judicial confession
damages. Moral damages is to be given in rape of Espiritu is admissible as evidence.
cases even if there is neither allegation nor evidence
presented as basis therefor. Held: The Court ruled that appellant's contention
that Atty. Mangallay was retained not by the
Considering that the judgment by the trial appellant personally but by his uncle, Alfredo
court against Eduardo Villas had already become Kinao, is not proof of counsel deprivation. The fact
final and executory on account of the withdrawal of remains that Kinao, in hiring the counsel, acted on
his appeal, the additional monetary award applies behalf of appellant. Besides, appellant did not object
only to those who pursued the appeal, i.e., Rolando when Atty. Mangallay represented him during the
de Lara, Carlito Villas and MagnoTamares. investigations before the police and the city
However, since this Court finds Eduardo Villas prosecutor. In fact, he expressly acknowledged
guilty of grave coercion, which is a lesser offense, Atty. Mangallay as his counsel.We must clarify that
the penalty imposed by the trial court must likewise the right to counsel does not mean that the accused
be modified as to him, pursuant to Rule 122, 11(a) must personally hire his own counsel. The
which provides that a judgment of an appellate constitutional requirement is satisfied when a
court which is favorable shall benefit an accused counsel is (1) engaged by anyone acting on behalf
who did not join the appeal taken by his co-accused. of the person under investigation or (2) appointed
by the court upon petition of the said person or by
Topic: Weigh and Sufficiency of Evidence someone on his behalf.The assistance rendered to
Sharmaine D. Escover appellant by Atty. Mangallay met the standards that
had been set in Deniegafor the purpose of
G.R. No. 128287 February 2, 1999 safeguarding the right of the accused against
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RIZAL involuntary confession. In the present case, the
ESPIRITU Y KINAO counsel was vigilant in informing Espiritu of his
rights. He was clear in explaining to his client every
Facts: Appellant Rizal Espiritu was convicted as question propounded by the investigating officer.
charged for the crime of murder and was sentenced And he was not negligent in relating to the appellant
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetuaby the the legal consequences of the latter's extra-judicial
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. The confession.And as a consequence of the confession
conviction was based mainly on his confession and of the appellant, his conviction became inevitable.
the corroborating evidence of corpus delicti. His Such confession was evidence of a high order,
extra-judicial confession stated that he and Fred "since it is supported by the strong presumption that
no person of normal mind would deliberately and himself. It prescribes an "option of refusal to
knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by answer incriminating questions and not a
truth and his conscience." prohibition of inquiry." the right can be claimed
only when the specific question, incriminatory in
Topic: Inadmissibility of Evidence character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be
Sharmaine D. Escover claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness
the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to
G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989 appear before the court at the time appointed, or to
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. JUDGE refuse to testify altogether. It is a right that a witness
RUBEN AYSON AND FELIPE RAMOS knows or should know. He must claim it and could
be waived. The rights of the accused include: 1) he
Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel,
the Philippine Airlines, assigned at its Baguio City and to be informed of such right; 2) nor force,
station. It was alleged that he was involved in violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, the PAL which vitiates the free will shall be used against
management notified him of an investigation to be him; 3) any confession obtained in violation of
conducted. That investigation was scheduled in these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence. The
accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and individual may knowingly and intelligently waive
Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining these rights and agree to answer or make a
Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines statement. But unless and until such rights and
Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the
pertained. A letter was sent by Ramos stating his trial, no evidence obtained as a result of
willingness to settle the amount of P76,000. The interrogation can be used against him.
findings of the Audit team were given to him, and
he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also
stating that he was prevented from settling said Topic: Effects of death in civil action
amounts. He proffered a compromise however this Sharmaine D. Escover
did not ensue. Two months after a crime of estafa
was charged against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not G.R. No. 151258 February 1, 2012
guilty. Evidence by the prosecution contained ARTEMIO VILLAREAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE
Ramos written admission and statement, to which PHILIPPINES
defendants argued that the confession was taken
without the accused being represented by a lawyer. Facts: Seven Freshmen Law students of Ateneo de
Respondent Judge did not admit those stating that Manila University School of Law have been
accused was not reminded of his constitutional initiated by the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity on
rights to remain silent and to have counsel. A February 1991. The initiation rites started when the
motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors neophytes were met by some members of the
was denied. Hence this appeal. mentioned fraternity at the lobby of the Ateneo Law
School. They were consequently brought to a house
Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct and briefed on what will be happening during the
in making inadmissible as evidence the admission days when they will be initiated. They were
and statement of accused. informed that there will be physical beatings and
that the neophytes can quit anytime they want. They
Held: No. Section 20 of the 1987 constitution were brought to another house to commence their
provides that the right against self-incrimination initiation.The neophytes were insulted and
(only to witnesses other than accused, unless what is threatened even before they got off the van.
asked is relating to a different crime charged- not Members of the fraternity delivered blows to the
present in case at bar). This is accorded to every neophytes as they alighted from the van. Several
person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or initiation rites were experienced by the neophytes
under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, like the Indian run, Bicol express and rounds. They
criminal, or administrative proceeding. The right is were asked to recite provisions and principles of the
not to "be compelled to be a witness against fraternity and were hit every time they made a
mistake. Accused fraternity members, Dizon and
Villareal, asked the head of the initiation rites
(Victorino) to reopen the initiation. Fraternity
members subjected neophytes to paddling and
additional hours of physical pain. After the last
session of beatings, Lenny Villa could not walk.
Later that night, he was feeling cold and his
condition worsened. He was brought to the hospital
but was declared dead on arrival.Criminal case was
filed against 26 fraternity members and was
subsequently found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of homicide and penalized with
reclusion perpetua.On January 10 2002, CA
modified the criminal liability of each of the
accused according to individual participation. 19 of
the the accused were acquitted, 4 of the appellants
were found guilty of slight physical injuries, and 2
of the accused-appellants (Dizon and Villareal)
were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of homicide.Accused Villareal petitioned for
review on Certriori under Rue 45 on the grounds
that the CA made 2 reversible errors: first, denial of
due process and second, conviction absent proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, petitioner
Villareal died on 13 March 2011 and filed a Notice
of Death of Party on 10 August 2011.

Issue: Whether or not criminal liability for personal


penalties of the accused is extinguished by death

Held: Yes, criminal liability of the accused is


extinguished by death. The Court took note of
counsel for petitioners Notice of Death when it has
been received while the petition was pending
resolution. Personal penalties refer to the service of
personal or imprisonment penalties, while pecuniary
penalties refer to fines, costs, civil liability. Article
89 of the Revised Penal Code states that the
criminal liability of a convict for personal penalties
is totally extinguished by death of the convict. His
pecuniary penalty has been extinguished since the
death of the accused happened before his final
judgment. Therefore, the death of the petitioner for
both personal and pecuniary penalties including his
civil liability has ended. His petition has also been
dismissed and the criminal case against him has
been closed and terminated.