P. 1
Crim Pro

Crim Pro

|Views: 5|Likes:
Published by Basri Jay
Crim Pro
Crim Pro

More info:

Published by: Basri Jay on Jul 12, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/12/2013

pdf

text

original

Scire Licet

       

HOME | About | Case Digests A-Z | Categories | Law Primers A-Z | Links | Notes | Privacy Policy

legal knowledge base

Enter keyword or case title
Dec 14, 2009

BILL OF RIGHTS: Rights of an Accused
RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED
Before Criminal Prosecution: (before arraignment)
      

Right to due process (Sec. 14(1)) Custodial rights (Sec. 12) Right to be informed of his rights Right to remain silent Right to counsel Right to bail (Sec. 13) Right to speedy disposition of his case (Sec. 16)

Right of free access to the courts

During Criminal Prosecution: (after arraignment up to promulgation of judgment)
        

Right to presumption of innocence (Sec. 14(2)) Right to be heard by himself and counsel (Sec. 14(2)) Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him (Sec. 14(2)) Right to have speedy, impartial and public trial (Sec. 14(2)) Right to confrontation (Sec. 14(2)) Right to have compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and production of evidence on his behalf (Sec. 14(2)) Right against self-incrimination (Sec. 17) Right against double jeopardy (Sec. 21) 9.Right against ex-post facto law and bill of attainder (Sec. 22)

After Conviction:

Right against excessive fines and cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment (Sec. 19)

SECTION 12 Custodial Rights
Sec. 12: (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

-

To

put

the

accused

on or

equal mere

footing restriction

with on

the physical

State liberty

"in custody" -

includes

deprivation

Custodial Investigation – investigation conducted by law enforcer immediately after arrest The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine – all evidence (the fruit) derived from an illegal search (the poisonous tree) must be suppressed, whether it was obtained directly through the illegal search itself, or indirectly using information obtained in the illegal search “But For” Test – or taint doctrine; the evidence would not have come to light but for the illegal action of the police WHEN CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION BEGINS: 1. Restrictive View - limited to in-custody interrogations as when the accused has been arrested and brought to the custody of the police for questioning 2. Expanded View – contemplates two situations: (1) general inquiry as to identification, circumstances of a crime without focus on any particular suspect; and (2) suspicion is focused on a particular person and questions are asked from him to elicit admissions or information **Under the expanded view, general inquiry as to identification, like in a police line-up, is not considered part of “custodial investigation” hence the accused may be identified by a witness in a police line-up even if made not in the presence of counsel NOT PART OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION: Police line-up, or during process of identification Spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning, but given in an ordinary manner (spur-of-the-moment statements) – res gestae  Volunteered statements  Extrajudicial admission to the prosecutor or a private person  Investigation made by a citizen or private security officer
 

Miranda

Doctrine:

Rights

Under

Custodial

Investigation

we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. provided the waiver is made voluntarily. but. the police may not question him. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed. 1997 Under these circumstances. but given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime. If. Arizona. 116437. Ed 2d 694 Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow. if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated. stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. The mayor did not know that appellant was going to confess his guilt to him. It is true that a municipal mayor has "operational supervision and control" over the local police and may arguably be deemed a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution. unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it. and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney. he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking. either retained or appointed. not elicited through questioning by the authorities. it cannot be successfully claimed that appellant's confession before the mayor is inadmissible. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. The rights under Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of . By custodial investigation. When appellant talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of hte right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights.Miranda vs. there can be no questioning. his uncounseled confession to him did not violate his constitutional rights. briefly stated. March 3. that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him. No. Extrajudicial Confessions to Mayor and Media Admissible People vs. the person must be warned that he has the right to remain silent. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. However. freely and voluntarily sought the mayor for a private meeting. G. it has been held that the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement. it is this: the prosecution may not use statements. 16 L. No police authority ordered appellant to talk to the mayor. Likewise. Thus. appellant's confession to the mayor was not made in response to any interrogation by the latter. knowingly and intelligently. In fact.R. the mayor did not question appellant at all. Andan. however. It was appellant himself who spontaneously. the following measures are required: Prior to any questioning.

benefit of counsel. Q: H. The confessions were made in response to questions by news reporters. He did so without assistance of counsel. Admissible? A: No. without X’s statements admissible? is not a law enforcer. X was also made to sign booking sheets and police reports. RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT Refers not only to testimonial confessions but also to acts . was asked to provide the police investigating team with samples of his DNA. Q: COA auditor investigated certain government agency. also without counsel. Later. an AFP major. An AFP member is not a law enforcer. Even if H is a police officer. saw the latter cheating on him with her paramour. not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. He questioned X. Q: Miguel. Appellant's confessions to the media were likewise properly admitted. he was not acting in his official capacity as a police officer but in his personal capacity as her husband.coercion by the state as would lead the accused to admit something false. What is your name? Right to remain silent? Grabe ha ^_^) . H filed a case for adultery against W and used her statement as evidence. Handwriting is not a mere mechanical act. The act of providing samples for identification is a mere mechanical act. We have held that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. Admissible? A: Yes. A COA auditor anomalies in the accounts of a a public employee therein. Q: If in the above case.but does not apply to acts that are merely mechanical (does not require use of intelligence) or to general questions (e. Q: X. not covered by the right against self-incrimination.g. the accused in a case for rape. the time when he questioned W. and husband of W. arrested B and questioned him without benefit of counsel. Admissible? A: Yes. not by the police or any other investigating officer. Admissible? A: Yes. a police officer. Are A: Yes. The paramour was able to escape while W was detained by H and then questioned. his wife. Hence we hold that appellant's confession to the mayor was correctly admitted by the trial court.

Obrero. the suspect really needs the guiding hand of counsel. . an uncounseled statement. Go) Reenactment - RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT AND COMPETENT COUNSEL absolute. Under the Constitution. G. is presumed to be psychologically coerced. 2000 Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary. 122142. xxx But what renders the confession of accused-appellant inadmissible is the fact that accused-appellant was not given the Miranda warnings effectively. No. even if accused himself is a counsel is not hampered with any conflicts of lawyer interest “Independent” - “Competent” . and. May 17. Swept into an unfamiliar environment and surrounded by intimidating figures typical of the atmosphere of police interrogation.counsel who is vigilant in protecting the rights of accused Accused must be apprised of his rights under custodial investigation People vs.R. §12(1) was derived. in the absence of conclusive evidence showing the declarant’s consent in executing the same has been vitiated. such confession will be sustained. III. such as it is called in the United States from which Art.MECHANICAL ACTS:      Paraffin test DNA test Examination of physical body Fingerprinting Being asked to step on a footprint to compare foot size NOT MECHANICAL:     Handwriting Initials on marked money Signing of inventory receipts in search warrant (see People vs.

This kind of giving of warnings. As to who has burden of proving the voluntariness of the confession and that the constitutional safeguards have been complied with. the prosecution has the burden of proof. In case of waiver of rights. (2) he must be warned that anything he says can and will be used against him. it is required that the suspect in custodial interrogation must be given the following warnings: (1) He must be informed of his right to remain silent. whether he had his own counsel or he wanted the police to appoint one for him. xxx Independent Counsel Moreover. who. Art. cannot be considered an "independent counsel" as contemplated by the law for the reason that he was station commander of the WPD at the time he assisted accused-appellant. care should have been scrupulously observed by the police investigator that accused-appellant was specifically asked these questions considering that he only finished the fourth grade of the elementary school. NOTA BENE: The right to counsel attaches upon investigation. a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Mere Perfunctory Reading of Miranda Warnings not Enough There was thus only a perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights to accused-appellant without any effort to find out from him whether he wanted to have counsel and. then it is admissible even if done without assistance of counsel. under the first paragraph of this provision. III.Now. that is. accused-appellant was assisted by Atty. has been found to be merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect. if so. in several decisions[16] of this Court. §12(1) requires that counsel assisting suspects in custodial interrogations be competent and independent. the same must be done in writing and in the presence of counsel. though presumably competent. Especially in this case.  A legal officer of a city cannot qualify as “independent” counsel. Here. and (3) he must be told that he has a right to counsel.  If admission is made before a private person. De los Reyes.  . when the investigation officer starts to ask question to elicit information or confession or admission. and that if he is indigent.

before conviction. quasi-recidivists. life imprisonment. not check > Property – real property. . which may be summary and does not have to be separate and distinct from the trial itself 2. Prosecution has right to present evidence – if this is denied. person who violated his probation or parole. not exclusively to those already formally charged of a crime. the grant of bail is void . EXCEPTIONS:  Reclusion perpetua.Available whether or not the case has already been filed for as long as the person has been denied his liberty or otherwise deprived thereof . except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong.SECTION 13 Right to Bail Sec. Excessive bail shall not be required. be bailable by sufficient sureties. Any person who is under detention and custody and deprived of his liberty may avail himself of this right. and death when evidence of guilt is strong  Military men facing charges before court martial  Recidivists. habitual delinquents. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. 13: All persons.A mode to ensure the attendance of the accused at his trial 2 KINDS OF BAIL:  Bail Bond > Cash – money. Right to a hearing. not personal property (because value depreciates). even if penalty is less than six years  Extradition or deportation proceedings  Contempts in legislative inquiry RIGHTS INCLUDED: 1. shall. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. annotated in the title > Surety – similar to insurance  Recognizance GENERAL RULE: Available to all persons.

It becomes discretionary only upon the court whether to grant the accused provisional liberty on the same bail bond. which conviction was appealed to the CA. if he has been provisionally released.before conviction  Minority .accused was charged with murder but was convicted with homicide.before conviction.after conviction for more than 6 years imprisonment  CA .  When the charge is punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher. The prosecution should also be allowed to present evidence. the highest penalty that can be imposed is only reclusion temporal)  Reclusion Perpetua or higher if evidence of guilt is not strong   NOTA BENE: If the accused is convicted and penalty of more than 6 years imprisonment is imposed. below reclusion perpetua and even if evidence of guilt is strong  Minority .recidivist. the trial court should cancel the bail.before and after conviction (less than 6 years imprisonment) RTC . the trial court should deny bail but the CA has discretion whether to let the accused out on provisional liberty  WHEN BAIL SHALL BE DENIED:   MTC . hearing for grant of bail is mandatory to comply with due process of law. below reclusion perpetua but more than 6 years imprisonment  Reclusion Perpetua or death . quasi-recidivist.  WHEN A MATTER OF DISCRETON: RTC . a privileged mitigating circumstance (lower by two degrees.WHEN A MATTER OF RIGHT: MTC . habitual delinquent.after conviction. When Bail may be Cancelled . or after conviction for offense punishable by death or reclusion perpetua Habeas Corpus vis-à-vis Bail.charged with reclusion perpetua and evidence of guilt is strong. violated parole or probation RTC . even if convicted of lesser penalty.even if reclusion perpetua or death and evidence of guilt is strong.

Thereafter. What is more. Only if it can be demonstrated that there has been no violation of one's right to liberty will he be absolved from responsibility. as to the legality of the warrants of arrest previously issued." Bail. Rightfully it is latitudinarian in scope. like ours. required three separate amended informations. No. would not therefore lie. had previously come to this court to challenge the filing of one information where there were three victims. This it has to discharge without loss of time. however. Remedy of Habeas Corpus not available when there is Warrant of Arrest The above formulation of what is settled law finds no application to the present situation. CFI. he must justify the action taken. Such a remedy.R. the confinement must thereby cease. It cannot be denied that petitioner's co-accused. the right to bail was rightfully stress as an aspect of the protection accorded individual freedom which. There is aptness and accuracy in the characterization of the writ of habeas corpus as the writ of liberty. under the circumstances. It is wideranging and all embracing in its reach. this Court.Mendoza vs. is he. too transcendental and vital in a republican state. Unless there be such a showing. in Unal v. Petitioner's deprivation of liberty is in accordance with a warrant of arrest properly issued after a determination by the judge in compliance with the constitutional provision requiring the examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses produced. L-35612-14. 1973 Habeas Corpus: When it is available Habeas corpus could be invoked by petitioner if he were able to show the illegality of his detention." To be more . People. as a matter of fact. Hernandez. however. ." is too basic. notwithstanding the absence of any flaw in one's confinement. concept. entitled to bail? Precisely that is the remedy by which. Detention must be for a cause recognized by law. in his eloquent language. rationale Even if it be granted that petitioner may not be released on a habeas corpus proceeding. Nelso Unal. Such actuation he would now condemn as a grave abuse of discretion. Habeas corpus. There was no question.. G.. however. In the landmark decision of Chief Justice Concepcion. provisional liberty may still be had. The party who is keeping a person in custody has to produce him in court as soon as possible. No allegation to the contrary may be entertained. The writ imposes on the judiciary the grave responsibility of ascertaining whether a deprivation of physical freedom is warranted. It can dig deep into the facts to assure that there be no toleration of illegal restraint. Accordingly. but likewise of petitioner. June 27. was granted him in accordance with an order of the municipal court of Mulanay. Hermogenes Lumanglas and Leopoldo Trinidad. People v.. the bail was revoked by the Court of First Instance in the order now challenged. not only in the case of the parties in such petition.

there would be a violation of procedural due process. is whether once the provisional liberty has been thus obtained. and order of the Court granting bail should be considered void. Quezon. his failure to object being the basis of the bail granted by the municipal court of Mulanay. Nor is there anything unreasonable in denying this right to one charged with a capital offense when evidence of guilt is strong. would just simply make himself scarce and thus frustrate the hearing of his case. is subject to the limitation that the person applying for bail should be in custody of the law. within a reasonable time. when the bail was granted. In the answer filed on behalf of respondent Court. Such an allegation was denied by petitioner. a mode short of confinement which would. Enage "Before conviction. The purpose of bail is to secure one's release and it would be incongruous as to grant bail to one who is free. We are not called upon to rule definitely on this aspect as independently thereof. in the language of Cooley. Thereby a regime of liberty is honored in the observance and not in the breach. could not have granted bail in accordance with our ruling in Feliciano v. Such a right flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal. insure the attendance of the accused for the subsequent trial. the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present. ftlinethat a person charged with a crime. there are two other basic objections. San Diego is thus squarely in point: "Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial. One was that petitioner." .'" Secondly. Thus: "'The constitutional mandate that all persons shall before conviction be bailable except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong. If. it could be terminated by the cancellation of the bail. It is. an ever-present threat.matter of fact about it. Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza did stress the absence of authority on the part of special counselor Antonio R. as in the criminal case involved in the instant special civil action. rather than await the outcome of the proceeding against him with a death sentence. the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity. every person is bailable except if charged with capital offense when the evidence of guilt is strong. was still at large. with reasonable certainty. especially so where his defense is weak. as the likelihood is. and what is worse. Robles who was not authorized to intervene in this case on behalf of the state but did so. the prosecution was never given a chance to present its evidence. or otherwise deprived of his liberty. all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the Court should resolve the motion for bail. therefore. It is not beyond the realm of probability. A bail is intended as a guarantee that such an intent would be thwarted. The authoritative doctrine in People v. Pasicolan. The municipal court. however. there is this excerpt from de la Camara v." Can bail be cancelled without violating the right to bail? The precise question however. unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. temptation to flee the jurisdiction would be too great to be resisted.

Extradition Proceedings: Due Process and Right to Bail Gov’t. xxx Indeed. With the advent of easier and faster means of international travel. we cannot afford to be an . governments are adjusting their methods of dealing with criminals and crimes that transcend international boundaries. 148571. the flight of affluent criminals from one country to another for the purpose of committing crime and evading prosecution has become more frequent.R. in this era of globalization. 24.”[30] It is the only regular system that has been devised to return fugitives to the jurisdiction of a court competent to try them in accordance with municipal and international law. G. the US Government requested the extradition of Mark Jimenez. and an expanding ring of international crimes and criminals. 2002 FACTS: Pursuant to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty. such warrant was issued but the trial court allowed Jimenez to post bail for his provisional liberty. Extradition Is a Postulates Major Instrument for of the Suppression Extradition of Crime. Afterwards. ISSUE: Whether or not extraditee is entitled to notice and hearing before issuance of warrant of arrest  Whether or not the right to bail is available in extradition proceedings  RULING: Five 1. extradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of suppressing crime by facilitating the arrest and the custodial transfer of a fugitive from one state to the other. easier and faster international travel. Sept. No. Purganan. Today. First. Accordingly. of the USA vs. A hearing was held to determine whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. “a majority of nations in the world community have come to look upon extradition as the major effective instrument of international co-operation in the suppression of crime.

in a class by itself -. otherwise. To begin with. Hence. We need to cooperate with other states in order to improve our chances of suppressing crime in our own country. as pointed out in Secretary of Justice v. The United States adheres to a similar practice whereby the Secretary of State exercises wide discretion in balancing the equities of the case and the demands of the nation’s foreign relations before making the ultimate decision to extradite. our courts may adjudge an individual extraditable but the President has the final discretion to extradite him. The Requesting State Will Accord Due Process to the Accused Second. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis Third. each other’s legal system and judicial process. as a rule. “An extradition [proceeding] is sui generis.they are not. In contradistinction to a criminal proceeding. the constitutional rights of the accused are at fore.isolationist state. an extradition treaty presupposes that both parties thereto have examined. An extradition proceeding is summary in nature while criminal proceedings involve a full-blown trial. constitutional rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extraditee x x x. upon extradition to the requesting state. More pointedly. In terms of the quantum of evidence to be satisfied. in extradition which is sui generis -. unlike in a criminal case where judgment becomes executory upon being rendered final. That signature signifies our full faith that the accused will be given.’ Finally. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. the process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused.” . 2. in an extradition proceeding. a criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction while a fugitive may be ordered extradited ‘upon showing of the existence of a prima facie case. extradition proceedings are not criminal in nature. the treaty would not have been signed. His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited. x x x x x x x x x “There are other differences between an extradition proceeding and a criminal proceeding. Lantion. the rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding allow admission of evidence under less stringent standards. our duly authorized representative’s signature on an extradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and the willingness of the other state to protect the basic rights of the person sought to be extradited. and that both accept and trust. or would have been directly attacked for its unconstitutionality. all relevant and basic rights in the criminal proceedings that will take place therein. 3. In criminal proceedings.

4. and our legislative branch ratified it. Extradition is merely a measure of international judicial assistance through which a person charged with or convicted of a crime is restored to a jurisdiction with the best claim to try that person. Verily. Fulfilling our obligations under the Extradition Treaty promotes comity with the requesting state. Hence. we are bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply in good faith with our obligations under the Treaty. This prima facie presumption finds reinforcement in the experience of the executive branch: nothing short of confinement can ensure that the accused will not flee the jurisdiction of the requested state in order to thwart their extradition to the requesting state. persons to be extradited are presumed to be flight risks.” Accordingly. the Philippines must be ready and in a position to deliver the accused. failure to fulfill our obligations thereunder paints a bad image of our country before the world community. as set forth in the Treaty. Indeed. Such determination during the extradition proceedings will only result in needless duplication and delay. are satisfied. particularly an extradition treaty that hinges on reciprocity.Given the foregoing. It is not part of the function of the assisting authorities to enter into questions that are the prerogative of that jurisdiction. This principle requires that we deliver the accused to the requesting country if the conditions precedent to extradition. In other words. “[t]he demanding government. 5.(1) leaving the requesting state right before the conclusion of his . Prior acts of herein respondent -. extradition hearings would not even begin. the Treaty carries the presumption that its implementation will serve the national interest. Fourth. The present extradition case further validates the premise that persons sought to be extradited have a propensity to flee. our executive branch of government voluntarily entered into the Extradition Treaty. is entitled to the delivery of the accused on the issue of the proper warrant. The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is only to determine whether the extradition request complies with the Extradition Treaty. when it has done all that the treaty and the law require it to do. There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight Fifth. should it be found proper. and whether the person sought is extraditable. On the other hand. Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith. Such failure would discourage other states from entering into treaties with us. if only the accused were willing to submit to trial in the requesting country. it is evident that the extradition court is not called upon to ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the person sought to be extradited. and the other government is under obligation to make the surrender.

our Extradition Law. The trial court is not expected to make an exhaustive determination to ferret out the true and actual situation. as a means of imparting a sense of urgency and swiftness in the determination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. By using the phrase “if it appears. xxx Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution. From the knowledge and the material then available to it. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.a prima facie finding -sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and detention of the accused. He has demonstrated that he has the capacity and the will to flee. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be considered “immediate. Hearing entails sending notices to the opposing parties. the Constitution itself . 2. underlying high risk of flight.eloquently speak of his aversion to the processes in the requesting state. receiving facts and arguments from them. which is invoked by Jimenez. These circumstances point to an ever-present. the court is expected merely to get a good first impression -. as well as his predisposition to avoid them at all cost. and (2) remaining in the requested state despite learning that the requesting state is seeking his return and that the crimes he is charged with are bailable -. from fleeing a second time? Due Process Is an extraditee entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest? It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069. papers. It provides: “Sec. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. and giving them time to prepare and present such facts and arguments. houses. given sufficient opportunity.” the law further conveys that accuracy is not as important as speed at such early stage. This qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant.indictment proceedings there. does not require a notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. immediately upon the filing of the petition.” The law could not have intended the word as a mere superfluity but.” To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants. Having fled once. on the whole. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. what is there to stop him. uses the word “immediate” to qualify the arrest of the accused.

under oath or affirmation -. applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. This scenario is also anathema to the summary nature of extraditions.of complainants and the witnesses they may produce. because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. Moreover. It does not apply to extradition proceedings.in his effort to negate a prima facie finding? Such a procedure could convert the determination of a prima facie case into a full-blown trial of the entire proceedings and possibly make trial of the main case superfluous.not the opposite -. unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. where the presumption of innocence is not at issue. If the accused were allowed to be heard and necessarily to present evidence during the prima facie determination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.if he so desires -. As suggested by the use of the word “conviction.” the constitutional provision on bail quoted above. It must be noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus finds application “only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses . In the present case. in cases of clear insufficiency of evidence on record. a more restrictive one -. The provision in the Constitution stating that the “right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended” does not detract from the rule that the constitutional right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings. x x x At most. as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. validating the act of respondent judge and instituting the practice of hearing the accused and his witnesses at this early stage would be discordant with the rationale for the entire system. what would stop him from presenting his entire plethora of defenses at this stage -.requires only the examination -. judges merely further examine complainants and their witnesses. If a different procedure were called for at all. There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest.” It follows that the constitutional provision on bail will not apply to a case like extradition. That the case under consideration is an extradition and not a criminal action is not sufficient to justify the adoption of a set of procedures more protective of the accused. Right Extradition Different from to Ordinary Criminal Bail Proceedings We agree with petitioner. the constitutional right to bail “flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal.would be justified in view of respondent’s demonstrated predisposition to flee.

those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when it grants provisional liberty in extradition cases therein. the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community. adaptable to every situation calling for its application. which is not normally a judicial prerogative. humanitarian and compelling circumstances including. the judiciary has the constitutional duty to curb grave abuse of discretion and tyranny.inherent in or directly connected with invasion. bail may be applied for and granted as an exception. Exceptions to the “No Bail” Rule The rule. precision and emphatic forcefulness. Indeed. He should apply for bail before the courts trying the criminal cases against him. any intrusion by the courts into the exercise of this power should be characterized by caution. It cannot be taken to mean that the right is available even in extradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature. In short. we repeat. the right to due process extends to the “life. not a judicial.” it also recognizes the limits of its own prerogatives and the need to fulfill international obligations. However. In its barest concept. after a potential extraditee has been arrested or placed under the custody of the law. The Court realizes that extradition is basically an executive. not before the extradition court. Hence. while this Court is ever protective of “the sporting idea of fair play. once granted bail.” Hence. the applicant bears the burden of proving the above two-tiered requirement with clarity. liberty or property” of every person. we believe that the right to due process is broad enough to include the grant of basic fairness to extraditees. as well as the power to promulgate rules to protect and enforce constitutional rights. extradition proceedings are separate and distinct from the trial for the offenses for which he is charged. the second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely emphasizes the right to bail in criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses. Bail is a Matter of Discretion on the part of Appellate Court . is that bail is not a matter of right in extradition cases.” Accordingly and to best serve the ends of justice. it partakes of the nature of police assistance amongst states. so that the vital international and bilateral interests of our country will not be unreasonably impeded or compromised. It is “dynamic and resilient. Since this exception has no express or specific statutory basis. To stress. and (2) that there exist special. That the offenses for which Jimenez is sought to be extradited are bailable in the United States is not an argument to grant him one in the present case. Furthermore. responsibility arising from the presidential power to conduct foreign relations. as a matter of reciprocity. we believe and so hold that. and since it is derived essentially from general principles of justice and fairness. only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that.

an ever-present threat. It is not beyond the realm of probability. that a person charged with a crime. Such appellant can hardly be unmindful of the fact that.R. ISSUE: Whether or not accused is entitled to right to bail pending appeal as a matter of right RULING: The Purpose of Bail In the case of De la Camara vs. in the language of Cooley. there is a substantial likelihood of his conviction (and the corresponding penalty) being affirmed on appeal. every person is bailable except if charged with capital offenses when the evidence of guilt is strong. A bail is intended as a guarantee that such an intent would be thwarted. the trial court approved Obosa’s bail bond. he was only convicted of two counts of homicide by the trial court. The aforequoted rationale applies with equal force to an appellant who. was nevertheless originally charged with a capital offense. However. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. as the likelihood is. with reasonable certainty. temptation to flee the jurisdiction would be too great to be resisted. Such a right flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal. Jan. which found strong evidence of guilt. would just simply make himself scarce and thus frustrate the hearing of his case. rather than await the outcome of the proceeding against him with a death sentence. unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. prompting the prosecution to request the CA to cancel the bail bond approved by the trial court." (Underscoring supplied). CA. this petition. While this is pending. or worse.Obosa vs. Nor is there anything unreasonable in denying this right to one charged with a capital offense when evidence of guilt is strong. No. a 'mode short of confinement which would. Thereby a regime of liberty is honored in the observance and not in the breach. Enage. 16. especially so where his defense is weak. in the ordinary course of things. 1997 FACTS: Obosa was charged with two counts of murder for the ambush and slaying of former Secretary of Interior and Local Governments Jaime Ferrer and his driver Jesus Calderon. G. Meanwhile. however. we analyzed the purpose of bail and why it should be denied to one charged with a capital offense when evidence of guilt is strong: "x x x Before conviction. Obosa applied for bail with the trial court. though convicted of an offense not punishable by death. It is. the not insignificant possibility and infinitely more . insure the attendance of the accused' for the subsequent trial. 144350. Hence. he appealed the case to the CA.

14: (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. and public trial. procedural. Thus.. even factual questions may once more be weighed and evaluated. if the prosecution had previously demonstrated that evidence of the accused's guilt is strong. In such an instance. as it had done so in this case. the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. CA. with the end in view of upholding the majesty of the law and the administration of justice. may upon application be bailed at the discretion of the court. to be Presumed Innocent. the possibility of conviction upon the original charge is ever present. such determination subsists even on appeal. That being the situation. et al. impartial. while the accused. Bail is a Matter of Discretion on Appeal We have previously held that. as the entire case is submitted for review. and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. that discretion — particularly with respect to extending the bail — should be exercised not with laxity. SECTION 14 Right to Due Process. (2) In all criminal prosecutions. which may be increased. since such determination is for the purpose of resolving whether to grant or deny bail and does not have any bearing on whether petitioner will ultimately be acquitted or convicted of the charge. but with caution and only for strong reasons. not substantive . trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. the appellant cannot but be sorely tempted to flee. despite conviction for a lesser offense. after conviction. after arraignment. including Penalty In Quemuel vs. However. Appeal in a Criminal Case Opens the Whole Case for Review.unpleasant prospect of instead being found guilty of the capital offense originally charged. Likewise. this Court held that the appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review and this includes the penalty. on appeal. to meet the witnesses face to face. Speedy Trial Sec. to have a speedy.procedure established by law for the prosecution of offenses must be followed STEPS: DUE PROCESS . to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.

Lantion. G. Decision 13. 17. Preliminary investigation by the prosecutor to determine probable cause for purposes of filing information 4. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jiminez to the United States. Promulgation of judgment NOTA BENE: The absence of preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of a criminal information. On the same day petitioner designate and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to handle the case. Pre-trial conference 8. Presentation of evidence by defense 10. Arraignment 6. Presentation of evidence by prosecution 9. ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent has right to notice and hearing . 2000 FACTS: On June 18. Mark Jiminez through counsel. Extradition Proceedings: No Notice and Hearing during Evaluation Stage Secretary of Justice vs. No. Oct. Arrest and interrogation by authorities 3. nor does it otherwise render it defective. neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case. wrote a letter to Justice Secretary requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U. 1999. 139465. Filing of information in court 5. Preliminary examination by judge to determine probable cause for issuance of warrant of arrest 2. the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S Government and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies of the requested papers but the petitioner denied the request for the consistency of Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty stated in Article 7 that the Philippine Government must present the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition. Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents. Rebuttal 11.1. Preliminary conference 7. Offer of evidence 12.S Note Verbale No.R.

if there is presented. As held by the US Supreme Court in United States v. constitutional rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extraditee especially by one whose extradition papers are still undergoing evaluation. the process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. To begin with. Galanis: . it deserves the careful consideration of this Court. Extradition Proceeding is Sui Generis. Justice is best served when done without delay. Extradition treaties provide the assurance that the punishment of these crimes will not be frustrated by the frontiers of territorial sovereignty. The submission of the private respondent. countries like the Philippines forge extradition treaties to arrest the dramatic rise of international and transnational crimes like terrorism and drug trafficking.RULING: Rationale of Extradition Treaty. It ought to follow that the RP-US Extradition Treaty calls for an interpretation that will minimize if not prevent the escape of extraditees from the long arm of the law and expedite their trial. Not Criminal An extradition proceeding is sui generis. ." (emphasis supplied) We erode no right of an extraditee when we do not allow time to stand still on his prosecution. such reasonable ground to suppose him guilty as to make it proper that he should be tried. His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited. does not meet this desideratum. he held: "It is common in extradition cases to attempt to bring to bear all the factitious niceties of a criminal trial at common law. as a rule. The fear of the petitioner Secretary of Justice that the demanded notice is equivalent to a notice to flee must be deeply rooted on the experience of the executive branch of our government. it cannot be gainsaid that private respondent’s demand for advance notice can delay the summary process of executive evaluation of the extradition request and its accompanying papers. Hence. But it is a waste of time . It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. . even in somewhat untechnical form according to our ideas. Implicit in the treaties should be the unbending commitment that the perpetrators of these crimes will not be coddled by any signatory state. Summary Proceeding It cannot be gainsaid that today. that as a probable extraditee under the RP-US Extradition Treaty he should be furnished a copy of the US government request for his extradition and its supporting documents even while they are still under evaluation by petitioner Secretary of Justice. good faith to the demanding government requires his surrender. In addition. The foresight of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes did not miss this danger. As it comes from the branch of our government in charge of the faithful execution of our laws. In 1911.

The United States adheres to a similar practice whereby the Secretary of State exercises wide discretion in balancing the equities of the case and the demands of the nation's foreign relations before making the ultimate decision to extradite. It is traditionally held that the President has power and even supremacy over the country’s foreign relations. unlike in a criminal case where judgment becomes executory upon being rendered final." Under our constitutional scheme. The executive department is aptly accorded deference on matters of foreign relations ." Finally." The concept of due process is flexible for "not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure. Electoral Commission. This we hold for the procedural due process required by a given set of circumstances "must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as the private interest that has been affected by governmental action." Constitutional Right to Due Process vis-a-vis State’s Obligation to Treaty Considering that in the case at bar. In contradistinction to a criminal proceeding. As an extradition proceeding is not criminal in character and the evaluation stage in an extradition proceeding is not akin to a preliminary investigation. the extradition proceeding is only at its evaluation stage. we held that the "Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines. In terms of the quantum of evidence to be satisfied. the due process safeguards in the latter do not necessarily apply to the former. allotment of power to the executive. among others. executive power is vested in the President of the Philippines. the legislative and the judicial departments of the government." There are other differences between an extradition proceeding and a criminal proceeding. An extradition proceeding is summary in nature while criminal proceedings involve a full-blown trial. in an extradition proceeding. Executive power includes. the rules of evidence in an extradition proceeding allow admission of evidence under less stringent standards. the nature of the right being claimed by the private respondent is nebulous and the degree of prejudice he will allegedly suffer is weak."An extradition proceeding is not a criminal prosecution. and the constitutional safeguards that accompany a criminal trial in this country do not shield an accused from extradition pursuant to a valid treaty. the power to contract or guarantee foreign loans and the power to enter into treaties or international agreements. our courts may adjudge an individual extraditable but the President has the final discretion to extradite him. The task of safeguarding that these treaties are duly honored devolves upon the executive department which has the competence and authority to so act in the international arena. we accord greater weight to the interests espoused by the government thru the petitioner Secretary of Justice. a criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction while a fugitive may be ordered extradited "upon showing of the existence of a prima facie case. In Angara v.

considering the President’s most comprehensive and most confidential information about the international scene of which he is regularly briefed by our diplomatic and consular officials. which in turn depends on the extent to which an individual will be "condemned to suffer grievous loss. especially transnational crimes. Laws involving crimes and crime prevention are undergoing universalization. The deference we give to the executive department is dictated by the principle of separation of powers. It cannot be eroded without endangering our government. One manifest purpose of this trend towards globalization is to deny easy refuge to a criminal whose activities threaten the peace and progress of civilized countries. The extraditee's right to know is momentarily withheld during the evaluation stage of the extradition process to accommodate the more compelling interest of the State to prevent escape of potential extraditees which can be precipitated by premature information of the basis of the request for his extradition. P." We have explained why an extraditee has no right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. . a prior determination should be made as to whether procedural protections are at all due and when they are due. In sum. As aforesaid. The time for the extraditee to know the basis of the request for his extradition is merely moved to the filing in court of the formal petition for extradition. we rule that the temporary hold on private respondent's privilege of notice and hearing is a soft restraint on his right to due process which will not deprive him of fundamental fairness should he decide to resist the request for his extradition to the United States. crimes are becoming the concern of one world. More and more. No less compelling at that stage of the extradition proceedings is the need to be more deferential to the judgment of a co-equal branch of the government. Needless to state. It is to the great interest of the Philippines to be part of this irreversible movement in light of its vulnerability to crimes. which has been endowed by our Constitution with greater power over matters involving our foreign relations. the Executive. There is no denial of due process as long as fundamental fairness is assured a party.D. Procedural due process requires a determination of what process is due. this balance of interests is not a static but a moving balance which can be adjusted as the extradition process moves from the administrative stage to the judicial stage and to the execution stage depending on factors that will come into play. when it is due. In tilting the balance in favor of the interests of the State. 1069 which implements the RP-US Extradition Treaty affords an extraditee sufficient opportunity to meet the evidence against him once the petition is filed in court. His access to ultra-sensitive military intelligence data is also unlimited. and the degree of what is due. This principle is one of the cornerstones of our democratic government. No. Stated otherwise. the Court stresses that it is not ruling that the private respondent has no right to due process at all throughout the length and breadth of the extrajudicial proceedings. The Philippines also has a national interest to help in suppressing crimes and one way to do it is to facilitate the extradition of persons covered by treaties duly entered by our government.

clear and compelling evidence (People v. independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused. April 8. Thus. one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt. To meet this standard. then the evidence does not fulfill the tests of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction" (People v. People v. Tulagan. in People v. the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.R. Presumption of Regularity of Performance of Official Duty . 143 SCRA 107 [1986]. both oral and documentary. moral certainty. Thus.Burden of proof PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE lies on his accusers to prove him guilty Equiponderance of Evidence (Equipoise Doctrine) – when preponderance of evidence is at equipoise. according to the fundamental law. Austria. there is need for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the state. when the scale stand at an equipoise and there is nothing in evidence to incline it either way. Ale. Dramayo. the court shall rule against the party who has the burden of proof Proof beyond reasonable doubt – not to be equated with absolute certainty. G. Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind Prosecution has Burden of Proof People vs. court will find for the defendant. Presumption of Innocence vs. synonymous with guilt. To overcome the presumption of innocence. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into account. 1991 It is axiomatic that conviction should be made on the basis of a strong. Modesto. "if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations. 25 SCRA 36 [1968]). No. The proof against him must survive the test of reason. L-55109. 145 SCRA 64 [1986]. the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. 42 SCRA 60 [1971]. proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed. this Court held: Accusation is not.

Indeed. There is no such equipoise here. 74259. in which case the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused. looking only to the execution of the sentence  GENERAL RULE: Accused may waive his right to be present during trial. And this presumption prevails over the presumption of regularity of the performance of official duty.R. People. the threshold issue is whether or not the guilt of the appellant has been established by this required quantum of proof? We rule in the negative. G. 16. this presumption alone cannot by itself support a judgment of conviction. His conviction must be affirmed. The presumed innocence of the accused must yield to the positive finding that he malversed the sum of P50.87 to the prejudice of the public whose confidence he has breached. Accordingly. The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the petitioner with his nebulous claims of persecution and conspiracy. no matter how despicable the crime for which he may have been charged. G. Jan. an accused. In this case. No.R. 14. RIGHT TO BE HEARD Right to be present at the trial accused has an absolute right to be personally present during the entire proceedings from arraignment to sentence. 1991 Doctrine The equipoise rule invoked by the petitioner is applicable only where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced.310. Nor can it be overcome by just an ordinary proof to the contrary for to convict an accused. we reverse his conviction based on reasonable doubt. if he so desires  limited only to trial court proceedings and only to the actual trial therein. No. we can not stamp with approval the trial court's undue reliance with the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. Equipoise Corpuz vs. Feb. EXCEPTIONS: (Presence of Accused is Mandatory) . no less and nothing more than proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary. For the same reason. under our Constitution. 113498. While SPO1 Alilio is presumed to have regularly performed his official duty. not to appellate proceedings or proceedings subsequent to the entry of final judgment. Briones. still enjoys the presumption of innocence. 1997 The foregoing circumstances militate against affirming appellant's conviction.People vs.

it will be promulgated even without presence of accused but he will be furnished with copies sent to his last known address. the accused need not be present. a counsel de officio shall be appointed for him the indispensable aid of counsel continues even at the stage of appeal not waivable the right to be represented by counsel is ABSOLUTE. he must be informed by the court of such right before being arraigned. the presence of the accused is mandatory. If the judgment is conviction but for a light offense.   Right to counsel      if the accused appears without an attorney. the accused need not be present. presence of the accused is not necessary. Arraignment and plea – presence of lawyer is also indispensable  during trial. for identification  during the promulgation of sentence.  If trial in absentia and judgment is rendered. unless for a light offense wherein the accused may appear by counsel or a representative NOTA BENE: If the judgment is one of acquittal. not during preliminary investigation REASON: so defendant may make objection to the witness or so witness may identify him  right to cross-examine   . whose presence is indispensable.  If appeal. and must be asked if he desires to have the aid of counsel if he can’t afford one.  If the judgment is conviction and the offense is grave. It is the duty of the appellate court to appoint counsel. but the option of the accused to hire one of his own choice is LIMITED Right to an impartial judge  a judge who had conducted the preliminary investigation and made a finding of probable cause is not disqualified from trying the case. in the absence of evidence of partiality Right of confrontation available only during trial.

not designation of the offense. (3) failure of the accused to appear is unjustified 3. only formal amendments to the Information may be granted by court not waivable description. accused cannot anymore ask the witness’ direct examination to be expunged from the records since the denial of the right to confrontation is through no fault of plaintiff EXCEPTIONS: 1. EXCEPT: for purposes of proving moral damages only. and .REQUISITES: (1) accused has been arraigned. It means a trial free from vexatious. (2) accused has been duly notified of the date of trial. insane or otherwise cannot be found.to compel a person having under his control documents or papers relevant to the case to bring such items to court during trial to compulsory processes RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION      presence of accused is indispensable during arraignment and promulgation of judgment of conviction after arraignment. if the defense counsel deferred cross-examination of the prosecution witness and then this witness dies. in the Philippines Right 2 KINDS OF SUBPOENA: 1. As soon as after indictment as the prosecution can with reasonable diligence prepare for it. Ad testificandum . IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL available in every criminal prosecution “Speedy” . with due diligence. then it is allowed to be proved even if not alleged - RIGHT TO SPEEDY.witness is dead. Trial in absentia . controls all the attending aggravating and qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the Information and proved during trial. Duces Tecum .to compel a witness to attend and testify 2. Depositions . Dying Declaration 2. capricious.there is no fixed criterion in our statues to determine with precision the time for speedy trial.

We are not impressed by the attempt of the Sandiganbayan to sanitize the long delay by indulging in the speculative assumption that "the delay may be due to a painstaking and gruelling scrutiny by the Tanodbayan as to whether the evidence . 16: All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial. **Covers including term and carefully all phases of any judicial. including substantial compliance with the time limitation prescribed by the law for the resolution of the case by the prosecutor.oppressive delays.R. Exception to the Rule Tatad vs. March 21. first jeopardy attaches. No. G. quasi-judicial or administrative proceedings. 72335-39.cold neutrality of an impartial judge. but under the constitutional guarantee of "speedy disposition" of cases as embodied in Section 16 of the Bill of Rights (both in the 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions). the inordinate delay is violative of the petitioner's constitutional rights. absence of bias or prejudice “Public” open to the free observation of all . “Impartial” . quasi-judicial. Sandiganbayan. A delay of close to three (3) years can not be deemed reasonable or justifiable in the light of the circumstance obtaining in the case at bar. But justice and fairness. The circumstances of each case must be weighed to find out whether there has been a “speedy disposition” Inordinate Delay in Preliminary Investigation Violative.EXCEPT: evidence to be adduced at the trial is of such character as to be offensive to decency and public morals SECTION 16 Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases Sec. not speed. Speedy is a relative must be a flexible concept. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law governing the conduct of preliminary investigation. 1988 We find the long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation by the Tanodbayan in the instant case to be violative of the constitutional right of the accused to due process. Not only under the broad umbrella of the due process clause. custodial and preliminary investigation of an accused. or administrative bodies. are the objectives NOTA BENE: If the accused is acquitted on ground of denial of his right to speedy trial. it is a judgment on the merits and therefore. is part of the procedural due process constitutionally guaranteed by the fundamental law.

Dec. L-109266. 2. we find it unnecessary to rule on the other issues raised by petitioner. The other two charges relating to alleged bribery and alleged giving of unwarranted benefits to a relative. the information was filed only on May 9. . which it took the Tanodbayan to resolve the case. p. Tatad v. In Tatad. Delay in Preliminary Investigation. while presenting more substantial legal and factual issues. Accordingly." In the first place. 1989 issue of the Manila Standard. there was a continuum of the investigatory process but it got snarled because of the complexity of the issues involved. there indeed was an unexplained inaction on the part of the public prosecutors in spite of the simplicity of the legal and factual issues involved therein. the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. certainly do not warrant or justify the period of three years. 1992 (Rollo. In view of the foregoing. But an undue delay in the conduct of a preliminary investigation can not be corrected. In the case at bench. After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of this case. three out of the five charges against the petitioner were for his alleged failure to file his sworn statement of assets and liabilities required by Republic Act No. The act complained of in the original information came to the attention of the Ombudsman only when it was first reported in the January 10. which must be emphatically rejected. we are constrained to hold that the inordinate delay in terminating the preliminary investigation and filing the information in the instant case is violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right of the petitioner to due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases against him. It has been suggested that the long delay in terminating the preliminary investigation should not be deemed fatal. 1991 and the amended informations on December 8. 14). 10501. 1988". Not Violative Santiago vs. Immediately thereafter. 10499. for even the complete absence of a preliminary investigation does not warrant dismissal of the information. Garchitorena. Sandiganbayan. 3019. G. True-but the absence of a preliminary investigation can be corrected by giving the accused such investigation. 10500.presented during the preliminary investigation merited prosecution of a former high ranking government official. man has not yet invented a device for setting back time. which certainly did not involve complicated legal and factual issues necessitating such "painstaking and gruelling scrutiny" as would justify a delay of almost three years in terminating the preliminary investigation. for until now. According to her. 10502 and 10503 should be dismissed. Secondly. 159 SCRA 70 [1988] is inapplicable to petitioner's case. while the offense was allegedly committed "on or before October 17. No. 1993 Petitioner cannot complain that her constitutional rights to due process were violated by reason of the delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation.R. such a statement suggests a double standard of treatment.

until it reached the Ombudsman in March 1991.the investigatory process was set in motion. but he is entitled to the right not to testify as a witness against himself. SECTION 17 Right Against Self-Incrimination Sec. Nos. to say or do anything that can be used against himself  Accused can invoke this right from the beginning. like the splitting of causes of action. The case was handled by a panel of four prosecutors.R. normal for a draft resolution with a dissenting vote. however in case of witness. The investigation was first assigned to Special Prosecutor Gualberto dela Llana but on request of petitioner herself the investigation was re-assigned to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. who submitted a draft resolution for the filing of the charges on March 29. The draft resolution had to undergo the hierarchy of review. We note that petitioner had previously filed two petitions before us involving Criminal Case No. he can invoke this right only when the questions start to become incriminating   RATIONALE: 1. 1990. Public policy 2. 16698 (G. Available both before or during criminal prosecution Accused is competent to testify in his behalf. He cannot be compelled to incriminate himself.” EXCEPTIONS:  If he is discharged as a state witness  After he is convicted or acquitted  By trying him separately instead of jointly with his other co-accused .R. A piece-meal presentation of issues. Petitioner has not explained why she failed to raise the issue of delay in the preliminary investigation and the filing of the information against her in those petitions. 99289-99290. is self-defeating. Humanity GENERAL RULE: The accused cannot be compelled to testify against his co-accused under the theory that the “act of one is the act of all. 17: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. that is. No. G. 107598).

Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.SECTION 19 Right Against Excessive Fines and Cruel. Neither shall death penalty be imposed. 21: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. (2) The employment of physical. unless. Excessive fines – flagrantly disproportionate to the offense no matter what circumstances the offense was committed Cruel and unusual punishment – in its form. 19: (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed. conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. Degrading or Inhuman Punishment Sec. the Congress hereafter provides for it. or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law. for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.Same Jeopardy – Offense two perils (First or dangers of being of tried and Sec. in flagrant disproportion between the offense and the punishment SECTION 21 Right Against Double Jeopardy Sec. punished KINDS: 21) sentence REQUISITES:       First jeopardy A valid complaint and information A court of competent jurisdiction Arraignment and valid plea First jeopardy has been terminated Second jeopardy for the same offense – includes an attempt or frustration of the same offense or it necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other . Double 2 1. psychological. nor cruel. duration or amount. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance.

acquittal or dismissal upon the merit without consent of the accused CONVICTION: a judgment declaring the accused guilty of the offense charged and imposing upon him the penalty provided by law.R. Lacson. 8. or both. – A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party. accused may appeal and this is not double jeopardy ACQUITTAL: a termination of the case based upon the merits of the issue.“Terminated” – either by conviction. 21)   this will only apply if the accused has been either convicted or acquitted if the case was only dismissed not upon the merits. the dismissal is equivalent to acquittal if it is grounded on (1) insufficiency of evidence (demurrer to evidence after prosecution has rested its case). G. With respect to offenses .  Even if the motion to dismiss was filed by the accused. conformity. etc. first jeopardy only attaches if dismissal without consent of accused NOTA BENE: Consent means approval. Mere silence of the accused should not be construed as consent. Provisional dismissal. April 1. 149453. agreement. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Dismissal Procedure reads: Sec. The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount. 2003 Section 8. (2) denial of the right to speedy trial  Supervening Facts – when the second offense was not in existence when the first offense was charged and tried. then another information may be filed or the present information may be amended (substantial)  2. the prosecution may re-file Provisional People vs. prosecution cannot appeal anymore DISMISSAL: a termination of the case other than upon the merits thereof. shall become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. No.Act Punished by a Law and Ordinance (Second sentence of Sec. acquiescence.

punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years. 3. Where the accused writes on the motion of a prosecutor for a provisional dismissal of the case No objection or With my conformity. the prosecution with the express conformity of the accused or the accused moves for a provisional (sin perjuicio) dismissal of the case. The case may be revived or refiled even beyond the prescribed periods subject to the right of the accused to oppose the same on the ground of double jeopardy or that such revival or refiling is barred by the statute of limitations. Express consent to a provisional dismissal is given either viva voce or in writing. the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally. On the other hand. Although the second paragraph of the new rule states that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after the issuance thereof without the case having been revived. the provision should be construed to mean that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after service of the order of dismissal on the public prosecutor who has control of the prosecution without the criminal case having been revived. 4. the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of the case. The raison d’ etre for the requirement of the express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of a criminal case is to bar him from subsequently asserting that the revival of the criminal case will place him in double jeopardy for the same offense or for an offense necessarily included therein. . direct. A motion of the accused for a provisional dismissal of a case is an express consent to such provisional dismissal. The public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the timeline unless he is served with a copy of the order of dismissal. the offended party is notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case. namely: 1. unequivocal consent requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning. the case may be revived only within the periods provided in the new rule. 2. the respondent is burdened to establish the essential requisites of the first paragraph thereof. The mere inaction or silence of the accused to a motion for a provisional dismissal of the case or his failure to object to a provisional dismissal does not amount to express consent. or both the prosecution and the accused move for a provisional dismissal of the case. If a criminal case is provisionally dismissed with the express consent of the accused. their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. the writing amounts to express consent of the accused to a provisional dismissal of the case. the new rule would not apply. The foregoing requirements are conditions sine qua non to the application of the timebar in the second paragraph of the new rule. It is a positive. if a criminal case is provisionally dismissed without the express consent of the accused or over his objection. Having invoked said rule before the petitioners-panel of prosecutors and before the Court of Appeals.

other persons are charged under a new criminal complaint for the same offense or necessarily included therein. Jr. the State is not barred by the time limit set forth in the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Q-99-81679 to Q-99-81689. 22: No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. in a case wherein after the provisional dismissal of a criminal case. or if under a new criminal complaint. The State can thus revive or refile Criminal Cases Nos. A new preliminary investigation is also required if aside from the original accused. the role of a fiscal is not mainly to prosecute but essentially to do justice to every man and to assist the court in dispensing that justice.” In this case. the respondent has failed to prove that the first and second requisites of the first paragraph of the new rule were present when Judge Agnir. the original witnesses of the prosecution or some of them may have recanted their testimonies or may have died or may no longer be available and new witnesses for the State have emerged. “the fiscal is not called by the Rules of Court to wait in ambush. After all. Q-99-81679 to Q-9981689 or file new Informations for multiple murder against the respondent. or aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when committed. Ex post facto law – one that punishes an act which was not punishable when committed. The accused must be accorded the right to submit counter-affidavits and evidence. Irrefragably. dismissed Criminal Cases Nos. or if under a new criminal complaint. Jr. or changes the laws on evidence so that lesser evidence is needed for conviction than when the act was done . the criminal liability of the accused is upgraded from that as an accessory to that as a principal. the prosecution did not file any motion for the provisional dismissal of the said criminal cases. issued his resolution. However. xxx xxx Since the conditions sine qua non for the application of the new rule were not present when Judge Agnir. SECTION 22 No Ex Post Facto Law or Bill of Attainder Sec.The case may be revived by the State within the time-bar either by the refiling of the Information or by the filing of a new Information for the same offense or an offense necessarily included therein. a new preliminary investigation must be conducted before an Information is refiled or a new Information is filed. the original charge has been upgraded. There would be no need of a new preliminary investigation.

3. There is a law 2. Penal Retroactive Disadvantageous to the accused Must take from the accused any right that was regarded... at the time of the adoption of the constitution as vital for the protection of life and liberty and which he enjoyed at the time of the commission of the offense charged against him ELEMENTS OF BILL OF ATTAINDER: 1. 2010 at 8:42 PM Post a Comment Links to this post Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) FOLLOWERS . 2. The penal burden is imposed directly by the law without judicial trial 1 comments: Anonymous said.Bill of Attainder – a law which inflicts punishment without benefit of judicial trial ELEMENTS OF EX POST FACTO LAW: 1. The law imposes a penal burden on a specified individual or an easily ascertainable members of a group 3. thank you so much :) keep it up! September 29. 4.

DIRECTORIES The Best Links ©Co nte nt s b y S cire Lic e t .? . D e sig n b y J inso na .. Co nve rte d to B lo g ge r b y Blo g g e r Te mp late s Searching for philippine bill of rights section 14 e..

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->