You are on page 1of 19

RIGHTSOFTHEACCUSED

Dumlaovs.
Petitioners:
Comelec
Patricio Dumlao former Governor of Nueva Vizcaya, who has
filed his Certificate of Candidacy for said position of Governor in
(BARAMBANGAN)

theforthcomingelectionsofJanuary30,1980
Romeo B. Igot taxpayer, qualified voter and a member of the
Bar
Alfredo Salapantan, Jr. taxpayer,qualifiedvoteranda resident
ofSanMiguel,Iloilo

A Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining


OrderwasfiledbyPatricioDumlao,RomeoB.IgotandAlfredoSalapantan
Jr.,intheirownbehalfandallothersallegedlysimilarlysituated,seekingto
enjoin respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from
implementing certain provisions of Batas Pambansa 51, 52, and 53 for
beingunconstitutional.

Dumlao specifically questions the constitutionality of Section 4 of Batas


Pambansa (BP) 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection
anddueprocessguaranteesoftheConstitution.

FIRSTPARAGRAPHOFSECTION4,BP52:
Section 4. Special Disqualification in addition to violation of Section 10of
Art. XIIC of the Constitution and disqualification mentioned in existing
laws, which are hereby declared as disqualification for any of the elective
officialsenumeratedinsection1hereof.

Any retired elective provincial, city of municipal official who has received
payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law
and who shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the
term of officeto which he seekstobeelected,shallnotbequalifiedtorun
forthesameelectivelocalofficefromwhichhehasretired."

Dumlao alleged that the aforecitedprovisionisdirectedinsidiouslyagainst


him, and that the classification provided therein is based on "purely
arbitrarygroundsand,therefore,classlegislation."

Fortheirpart,IgotandSalapantan,Jr.assailthevalidityof:

1. Section 7.TermsofOffice.Unlesssoonerremovedforcause,all
localelective officials hereinabove mentionedshallholdoffice for
atermof6 years, which shall commence on the first Monday of
March1980"(BP51)

2. SECOND PARAGRAPHOFSECTION4,BP52:Section4.Any
person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the State,
including acts amounting to subversion, insurrection, rebellion or
other similar crimes, shall not be qualified to be a candidate for
any of the offices covered by this Act, or to participate in any

IsSection4
ofBP52
valid?

No.

FirstparagraphofSection4,BP52isvalid.
SecondparagraphofSection4,BP52isnullandvoid.

Exclusive is the constitutional provision that, in all


criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the
right to be heard by himself and counsel. (Article IV,
Section 19, 1973 Constitution). Anaccusation,according
to fundamental law, is not synonymous with guilt. The
challenged proviso contravenes the constitutional
presumption of innocence, as a candidate is disqualified
from running for public office on the ground alone that
charges have been filed against him before a civil or
military tribunal.It condemns before oneisfullyheard.In
ultimate effect, except as to the degree of proof, no
distinction is made between a person convicted of acts
and disloyalty and oneagainstwhomchargeshavebeen
filed for such acts, as both of them wouldbeineligibleto
runforpublicoffice.Apersondisqualifiedtorunforpublic
officeon the groundthatchargeshavebeen filed against
him is virtuallyplaced in the same category as a person
already convicted of a crime with the penalty of arresto,
whichcarrieswith it the accessorypenaltyofsuspension
of theright to hold officeduringthetermofthesentence.
(Article44,RPC).

And although the filing of charges is considered as but


prima facie evidence, and therefore, may be rebutted,
yet, there is clear and present danger that because of
the proximity of the elections, time constraints will
prevent one charged with acts of disloyalty from offering
contrary proof to overcome the prima facie evidence
againsthim.

Additionally,itisbestthatevidenceproandconofactsof
disloyalty be aired before the Courts rather than before
an administrative body such as the COMELEC. A highly
possible conflict of findings between two government
bodies to the extreme detriment of a personchargedwill
thereby
be
avoided.
Furthermore,
a
legislative/administrative determination ofguiltshouldnot
beallowedtobesubstitutedforajudicialdetermination.

partisan political activity therein:


provided, that a judgment of
conviction for any of the aforementioned crimes shall be
conclusiveevidenceofsuchfactandthefilingofchargesfor
the commission of such crimes before a civil court or
militarytribunalafterpreliminaryinvestigationshallbeprima
facieevidenceofsuchfact
(BP52)

3. Section1andSection6ofBP52.

In addition to the saidprovisions,IgotandSalapantan,Jr. also questioned


theaccreditation ofsomepoliticalpartiesbytheCOMELEC,asauthorized
byBP53,onthegroundthatitiscontrarytoSection9(1),Art.XII(C)of the
Constitution, which provides that a "bona fide candidate for any public
officeshallbefreefromanyformofharassmentanddiscrimination."

Feeder
PET:
Feeder InternationalLine,Pte.Ltd.(byitsagent:FeederInternational(Phils.)
Internationalvs.CA Inc.)
RES:
CA,CourtofTaxAppeals,CommissionerofCustoms
(CABALANG)

May31,1991J.Regalado

1. The M/T "ULU WAI" foreign vessel of Honduran registry, owned and
operated by Feeder International Shipping Lines of Singapore, left
Singapore on May 6, 1986 carrying
1,100 metric tons of gas oil and
1,000 met. tons of fueloilconsignedtoFarEastSynergyCorporation
ofZamboanga
.

2. Thevesselanchored at the vicinity of Guiuanon Island in Iloilo without


notifying the Iloilo customs authorities. Thepresenceofthevesselonly
came to the knowledge of the Iloilo authorities by a civilian informer in
thearea.Thus,DistrictCollectorofIloilodispatchedaCustomsteam
.

3. TheCustoms team found out that thevesseldidnothaveonboardthe


required ship and shipping documents, except foraclearancefromthe
portauthoritiesofSingaporeclearingthevesselfor"Zamboanga."

4. PET seeksthe reversal of the decisionofrespondentCourtofAppeals


dated May 8, 1990, affirming the decision rendered by respondent
Court of Tax Appeals (and Customs)whichfoundthevesselM/T"ULU
WAI" liable under Section 2530(a) of the Tariff and Customs Code of
thePhilippines
.

5. PET contended that they were being deprived of property without due
process of law in that its right to be presumed innocent was not
recognized and the decision was not supported by proof beyond
reasonabledoub
t.

Peoplevs.
Regulacion
(DARIA)

TheaccusedAlfredoRegulacionaliasPidoywaschargedbefore
theCFIofSamarwithMurder.Judgementwasrenderedonthecase
wherebysaidaccusedwassentenced,underthechargeaforesaid,

WON
PET
arebeing
deprivedof
property
withoutdue
processof
lawinthat
itsrightto
be
presumed
innocent
wasnot
recognized

TheCourtfindsnomeritinthePetition.

It must be here emphasized that a forfeiture proceeding


under tariff and customs laws is not penal in nature,
contrarytotheargumentadvancedbyhereinpetitioner.

In
PeoplevsCFIRizal
:
It is quite clear that seizure and forfeiture
proceedings under the tariff and customs laws
are notcriminalinnatureastheydonotresultin
the conviction of the offender nor in the
imposition of the penalty As can be gleaned
from of theCode, seizure proceedings, suchas
those instituted in this case, are purely civiland
administrative in character, the main purposeof
which is to enforce the administrative fines or
forfeitureincidenttounlawfulimportation.

Thus, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in


order to justify the forfeiture of the goods. In addition, it
bears mention that petitioner, which isacorporateentity,
has no personality to invoke the
right to be presumed
innocent whichrightisavailableonlytoanindividual
whoisanaccusedinacriminalcase.

wonthere
wasa
violationof

Inacriminalcase,thepresumptionofinnocencecan
beovercomebythepresumptionofregularitywhen
thelatterisaccompaniedbystrongevidence

Peoplevs.
Lumague,Jr.
(DATUIN)

tosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.Fromthatsentence,the
accusedappealedtothiscourt.
Therecordofthecaseshowsthatatabout4pmofMarch1966,the
accusedAlfredoRegulacion,ManuelBalanguit,Romualdo
Acebuche,andthedeceasedCayetanoSosingweredrinkingbeer.

Afteranhour,thegroupproceededtothestoreofGenarodelaCruz
wheretheyorderedanotherbeer.Inthecourseoftheirmeal,
RomualdoAcebucheaskedtodancewiththedaughterofthe
accusedbuttheaccuseddemurred,sayingthatthegirldidnotknow
howtodance.However,deceasedCayetanobuttedinandinsisted
thattheaccusedshouldallowthegirltodancesayingOhComeon,
letyourdaughterdancewithhim.Anyway,mynephewisalready
thruwithyourdaughterandsomedaywewillbeinlaws.

Uponhearingthis,theaccusedstoodupinangerandthrewaglass
onCayetanohittinghimonhisshoulders.
Afteranhour,theaccusedinsistedintoaccompanyingRomualdo
Acebuchohome.Theaccused,ManuelBalanguitandRomualdo
Acebuchorodeajeep.

HugoDelaCruztestifyingfortheprosecutiondeclaredthatwhen
thejeepstoppedinfrontofthehouseofBalanguit.Whenheleft,he
heardseveralgunshotscomingfromthehouseofBalanguit.
AntonioBaluyot,anotherwitnessdeclaredthatwhenHugodela
Cruzleft,theaccusedandhissonDolodoy,cameinsideandshot
thedeceasedCayetanoseveraltimes.

Theaccuseddeclaredthatuponenteringthesalaofthehouseof
Balanguit,thedeceasedCayetanodrewhisgunandshothim.So
theaccusedalsodrewhisgunandshothim.heclaimsthatitisonly
selfdefense.

therightsof
theaccused

[presumption
of
innocence]

supportingtheguiltoftheaccused.

AsheldinJosephvsVillaluz,aftertheprosecution
hasadducedevidence,theconstitutional
presumptionofinnocencemustyieldtowhathas
beensoamplyandpersuasivelydemonstrated.It
wasincumbentontheaccusedwhohadadmitted
thekillingtoestablishhiscaseofselfdefense
insteadofrelyingmerelyontheweaknessofthe
prosecution.

ThefactthatSgt.Lagrimasdidnotfindanyweapon
nearthebodyofthedeceasedwhenhewenttothe
houseofManuelBalinguitanddidnotstaylongand
didnotconductathoroughexaminationofthescene
ofthecrime,propmtingthetrialjudgetocomment
thatthewitnesswasinefficient.

Besides,thetestimonyofSgt.Lagrimascontradicts
thedeclarationsofotherwitnessfortheprosecution
onvitalmaterialpointsastorenderitunworthyof
credence.

Evidentpremeditationhasnotalsobeenestablished
becausethemeetingoftheaccusedandthe
deceasedinthehouseofManielBalinguitwasa
chanceencounterandnotpurposelysoughtafter.

Thecrimecommitted,however,isonlyhomicidenot
murder.

Peoplevs.Ponciano,Mario,RolandoandJuanitoallsurnamedLumague..
EarlyinthemorningofJuly25,1977,AntonioA.Regalado,39,acredit
investigatoroftheSocialSecuritySystem,wasmaliciouslykilledinthe
MarikitSub.division,Marikina,Rizal.Hehad36wounds.Asaresultofthe
investigation,thefourLumaguebrothers,Ponciano,Jr.,27,Rolando,25,
Mario,23,andJuanito21,andtheirbrotherinlaw,RodolfodelaCruz,
werechargedwithmurderforthekillingofRegalado.

Atabouteleveno'clockintheeveningofJuly24,1977,Regalado,withhis
friends,RobertoAsuncion,GerardoA.Ducha,LorenzoGravadorand
RogelioBautista,hadadrinkingspreeattheHavanaPubandBeerhouse.
Shortlyaftermidnight,thegroupleftthatplaceand,asitwascurfewtime,

WON
Ponciano,
Marioand
Rolandowere
deniedof
theirrightto
beheard?

Yes.
Anaccusedhastheconstitutionalright"tobeheard
byhimselfandcounsel"andtheright"totestifyasa
witnessinhisownbehalf".Thedenialofsuchrightsisa
denialofdueprocess,asheldinPeoplevs.Santiago,:

Dueprocessoflawinacriminalprosecutionconsistsof
alawcreatingordefiningtheoffense,animpartial
tribunalofcompetentjurisdiction.accusationindueform.
noticeandopportunitytodefend,trialaccordingto
establishedprocedure,anddischargeunlessfoundguilty
(16AC.J.S.617).

theydecidedtowalktoBautistashouseinthesubdivisionabouta
kilometerawayandsleepthere.Whilewalkingonthestreetinfrontofthe
shackoccupiedbytheLumaguefamilyandPacunayen'shouse,Asuncion
heardDuchashoutingthatBautistahadbeenstabbed.WhenAsuncion
lookedbehind,henoticedthatDuchaandBautistawererunningbecause
theywerebeingpursuedbytwopersons.

Asuncion'simpulsewastofollowBautistaandDuchabutaftertakinga
fewsteps,heturnedaroundandlookedattheplacewherehehadleft
Regalado.HesawMarioLumaguebeatingRegaladoonthebackwitha
hoe(Exh.D).Asuncionwasabouttwofathomsaway.Regaladofellonthe
groundfacedown.AsunciongotastoneandthrewitatMario.
MariopulledRegaladotoadarkgrassyplacenearthelightedstreet.Four
personsapproachedRegalado.AsuncionIdentifiedthreeofthemasthe
brothersPonciano,MarioandRolandoLumague.PoncianohitRegalado
manytimeswithhisfistandstruckhimonthebackwithanadobestone.

RolandoalsothrewanadobestoneattheheadofRegaladoandboxed
himmanytimes.JuanitorepeatedlystabbedRegalado.RodolfodelaCruz
clobberedRegaladowithaclub("pamalo")abouttwofeetlong.
Then,MariowhowasarmedwithahoeturnedhisattentiontoAsuncion,
DuchaandBautistawhofleduponhisapproach.Mariopursuedthem.He
didnotovertakethem.Shortlythereafter,thefiveassailantslefttheplace
wheretheyhadassaultedRegalado.

AsuncionapproachedRegaladowhowasbloodiedalloverbutwasstill
breathing.AsunciondirectedBautistatofetchavehicle.Duchawenttothe
policestation."Thenataxicabpassedby,Asuncionhaileditandplaced
Regaladoinsidethetaxicab.HewasbroughttotheE,RodriguezHospital
butwasalreadydeadonarrivalthereat

DefensecounselGalvanannouncedthathewouldpresenttheaccusedas
witnessesatthenexthearingscheduledonFebruary24.Thathearingwas
notheld.ThecasewasresetforMarch14.Nohearingwasheldonthat
dateforreasonsnotshownintherecord.

Thetrialcourtinitsdecisionexplainedthatthedefensewaiveditsrightto
presentfurtherevidenceafteritfailedtopresentsuchevidenceinspiteof
numeriouspostponementsandwhendefensecounselfailedtoappearin
courtdespiteduenotice.ThetrialcourtconvictedPonciano,Rolandoand
MarioLumagueofmurder,sentencedeachofthemtodeathandordered
themtopaysolidarilytotheheirsofRegaladoanindemnityofthirtytwo
thousandpesos.

Peoplevs.Holgado
(DEVEYRA)
1.

AppellantFriscoHolgadowaschargedinthecourtofFirstInstance
ofRomblonwithslightillegaldetention
becauseaccordingtotheinformation,
beingaprivateperson,hedid"feloniouslyandwithoutjustifiablemotive,
kidnap

Theconstitutionalrightoftheaccusedtobeheardinhis
defenseisinviolate."Nocourtofjusticeunderoursystem
ofgovernmenthasthepowertodeprivehimofthatright."
(Abriolvs.Homeres,84Phil.525,534).
Fundamentalfairness,whichistheessenceofdue
process,requiresthatthethreeaccusedshouldbe
allowedtotestifyontheirdefensesandtopresent
additionalevidencetoprovetheirinnocence.

Thereisprrofbeyondreasonabledoubttoconvict
Juanito.

Whetherornot
theaccused
wasdeprivedof
hisrighttobe

Yes.

First,Itmustbenoticedthatinthecaptionofthecaseasit
appearsinthejudgmentabovequoted,theoffensechargedis

anddetainoneArtemiaFabreaginthehouseofAnteroHolgadoforabout
eighthours
therebydeprivingsaidArtemiaFabreagofherpersonalliberty.

2.
Onmay8,1948,thedaysetforthetrial,thetrialcourtproceededas
follows:

Court:
Isthisthecasereadyfortrial?
Fiscal:
Iamready,yourhonor.
Court:totheaccused.
Q.doyouhaveanattorneyorareyougoingtopleadguilty?A.
Ihavenolawyer
andIwillpleadguilty.
Court:
Arraigntheaccused.
Note:
Interpreterreadtheinformationtotheaccusedinthelocaldialectafterwhich
hewasaskedthisquestion.
Q.Whatdoyouplead?A.
Ipleadguilty,butIwasinstructedbyoneMr.
Ocampo.

3.
Twodayslater,oronMay10,1948,thetrialcourtrenderedthefollowing
judgment:

[CriminalCaseNo.V118]
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,vs.FRISCOHOLGADO
defendantappellant.

SLIGHTILLEGALDETENTION

SENTENCE

Theaccused,FriscoHolgado,stands
chargedwiththecrimeofkidnappingand
seriousillegaldetention
inthefollowing:

INFORMATION
ThatonoraboutDecember11,1947,inthemunicipalityofConcepcion,Provinceof
Romblon,PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,thesaid
accusedbeingaprivateindividual,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyand
feloniously,andwithoutjustifiablemotive,kidnapanddetainoneArtemiaFabreagin
thehouseofAnteroHolgadoforabout8hourstherebydeprivingsaidArtemia
Fabreagofherpersonalliberty.
Contrarytolaw.

heardby
himselfand
counselas
enshrinedinthe
Constitution.

namedSLIGHTILLEGALDETENTIONwhileinthebodyofthe
judgmentifissaidthattheaccused"
standschargedwiththe
crimeofkidnappingandseriousillegaldetention
."Underthe
circumstances,particularlythequalifiedpleagivenbythe
accusedwhowasunaidedbycounsel,itwasnotprudent,tosay
theleast,forthetrialcourttorendersuchaseriousjudgment
findingtheaccusedguiltyofacapitaloffense,andimposing
uponhimsuchaheavypenaltyastenyearsandonedayof
prisionmayortotwentyyears,withoutabsoluteanyevidenceto
determineandclarifythetruefactsofthecase.

Theproceedingsinthetrialcourtareirregularfromthe
beginning.ItisexpresslyprovidedinourrulesofCourt
Rule112,section3,that:
Ifthedefendantappearswithoutattorney,hemustbe
informedbythecourtthatitishisrighttohave
attorneybeingarraigned.,andmustbeaskedifhe
desirestheaidofattorney,theCourtmustassign
attorneydeoficiotodefendhim.Areasonabletime
mustbeallowedforprocuringattorney.

Underthisprovision,whenadefendantappearswithout
attorney,thecourthasfourimportantdutiestocomplywith:
1Itmustinformthedefendantthatitishisrighttohave
attorneybeforebeingarraigned
2Aftergivinghimsuchinformationthecourtmustask
himifhedesirestheaidofanattorney
3Ifhedesiresandisunabletoemployattorney,thecourt
mustassignattorneydeoficiotodefendhimand
4Iftheaccuseddesirestoprocureanattorneyofhisown
thecourtmustgranthimareasonabletimetherefor.

Notoneofthesedutieshadbeencompliedwithbythetrial
court.Therecorddisclosesthatsaidcourtdidnotinformthe
accusedofhisrighttohaveanattorneynordiditaskhimifhe
desiredtheaidofone.

Furthermore,oneofthegreatprinciplesofjusticeguaranteedby
ourConstitutionisthat
"nopersonshallbeheldtoanswerforacriminal
offensewithoutdueprocessoflaw",andthatall
accused"shallenjoytherighttobeheardbyhimself
andcounsel."

Incriminalcasestherecanbenofairhearingunlessthe
accusedbegiventheopportunitytobeheardbycounsel.
Therighttobeheardwouldbeoflittleavailifitdoesnot
includetherighttobeheardbycounsel
.Eventhemost
intelligentoreducatedmanmayhavenoskillinthescienceof
thelaw,particularlyintherulesofprocedure,and,without
counsel,hemaybeconvictednotbecauseheisguiltybut
becausehedoesnotknowhowtoestablishhisinnocence.And
thiscanhappenmoreeasilytopersonswhoareignorantor
uneducated.
Itisforthisreasonthattherighttobeassisted

bycounselisdeemedsoimportantthatithasbecomea
constitutionalrightanditissoimplementedthatunderour
rulesofprocedureitisnotenoughfortheCourttoapprise
anaccusedofhisrighttohaveanattorney,itisnotenough
toaskhimwhetherhedesirestheaidofanattorney,butit
isessentialthatthecourtshouldassignonedeoficioifhe
sodesiresandheispoorgranthimareasonabletimeto
procureanattorneyofhisown.

Floresvs.Ruiz
(JAVIER)

Petitioner:CrispinFlores
Respondent:Hon.JesusRuiz(presidingjudge)
Ponente:DeCastro

CrispinFloresfiled apetition forHabeasCorpusafter Hon.Ruizallegedlyarrested


anddetained himillegally.From the records,itappearsthat Floreswasdetainedin
Provincial Jail of Cagayan because he was held guilty of indirect contempt for
refusingtovacatetheproperty.Theyfailedtoredeemthepropertysoldto theheirs
ofLeonardoMandacintheauctionsale.

Petitioner, however, questions the legalityofthe proceedings fornothavingbeen


assisted by counsel during the hearing of the motion for contempt, and for not
having beenduly informedofthecontempt chargebybeing furnishedacopyofthe
motion, or properly "arraigned" before trial. Thus, petitioner claims to have been
depriveddueprocessoflawwhichvoidedtheproceedingsagainsthim

Respondentdeniedsuchallegationsandevenquotedstenographicnotes:
"COURT:IsthedefendantCrispinFloresinCourt?
(InterpretercallsoutthenameofCrispinFlores,andansweredthatheis
present).
(TheCourtaddressesCrispinFlores).
Q.Whoisgoingtorepresentyouinthiscase?
A.Ihavealawyerbuthewasnotabletocome.
Q.Didyounotifyhim?
A.Yes,sir,buthewasnotabletocometoday.
Q.Areyouwillingtogointotrialinthiscaseevenintheabsenceofyour
lawyer?
A.Yes,sir.
Q.Doyonneedtheassistanceofanylawyer?
A.Nomore,anywayIcananswer."

Petitiner alleged that when respondent judge had learned that he was without
counsel,he toldhim(petitioner)todeliverpossessionofthepremisestotheheirsof
Mandac, and gave himtendaystocarryout that mandate.Inspiteoftheplanof
petitionerthat the hearingonthat date bepostponedsothathis counsel ofrecord
could appear forhimorthat a newcounselwould be hiredtoappearinhisbehalf,
the respondent, however, demurred, and petitioner was made to sign an
understanding to deliverupthepremiseswithintheperiodindicatedbythejudgeon
pain
ofbeingimprisoned.

WON
Flores
wasdenieddue
process

Yes, he was denied of his right to be heard. The right of the


accused to counsel in criminal proceedings has never been
consideredsubjecttowaiver. Thepracticehas alwaysbeen for
thetrialcourt to provide the accusedwithacounsel deoficio,if
hehasnocounsel of hisownchoice,orcannotaffordone."The
rightto be heardwould be of littleavailif itdoesnotinclude the
right to be heard by counsel. Even the most intelligent or
educated man may have no skill in the science of the law,
particularlyintherulesofprocedure,and,withoutcounsel,
he may be convicted not because he is guilty butbecause he
does not know how to establish his innocence and this can
happen moreeasilytopersonswhoareignorantoruneducated.
It is notenough for the courtto apprisean accused of his
right to have an attorney, it is not enough to ask him
whetherhe desires the aidofanattorney,butit isessential
that the court shouldassignonedeoficio forhimif heso
desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to
procureanattorneyofhisown
.

Inthecaseatbar, thepetitionerdoesnotappeartohavebeen
duly notified of the contempt charge, nor was properly
"arraigned," since he was not assisted by counsel during the
hearing. The court constrained to holdthat theproceedings on
the contempt charge has beenvitiatedbylackofdueprocess,
entitlingpetitionertothewritofhabeascorpusheseeks.

Peoplevs.
Crisologo
(POJAS)

On 5 May 1976, a criminal complaint was filed by the Station


Commander withtheMunicipalCourt of Magsaysay,Davao del Sur
against the accused Zosimo Crisologoalias"Amang,"adeafmute,
for robbery andhomicideallegedtohavebeencommittedon1May
1976 between ten to eleven o'clock in the evening in Calamagoy,
PoblacionMagsaysay,DavaodelSur.

The arraignment was reset several times upon insistent plea of


defense counsel for a sign language expert to assist the accused.
Apparently,after5 yearsfromthedateoffilingof theinformation, no
signlanguageexpertofrepresentativeeverarrived.

accused through a counsel de oficio waived the reading of the


information and pleaded not guilty. Trial proceeded without any
evidence beingpresentedon hispart.Finally,on10February1986,
without the servicesofanexpertinsignlanguageeverbeingutilized
at any stage of the proceedings, the accused was found guilty
beyondreasonabledoubt ofrobberywith homicide andsentencedto
die by electrocution. Executive clemency was recommended,
however, in view of the accused's infirmity and his nearlytenyear
detentionasasuspect.

Counsel for the accused and the SolicitorGeneral nowask for the
reversal of the judgment of conviction due to thefailure of the trial
courttosafeguard theaccused's right to dueprocessoflawandthe
insufficiency of the purely circumstantial evidence presented to
overcome the constitutional presumption ofinnocenceinfavorof the
accused.

Whetheror
notthere
wasa
violationof
the
accuseds
rights.

[Rightto
criminaldue
process]
Righttobe
informedof
thenature
andcauseof
accusation
andrightto
remainsilent
andtobe
assistedby
counsel.

Yes.

The absence of a qualified interpreter in sign


language and of anyothermeans,whether inwriting
or otherwise, to inform the accused of the charges
against him denied the accused his fundamental
right to due process of law. The accuracy and
fairness of the factual process bywhich the guilt or
innocence of the accused was determined was not
safeguarded.The accusedcouldnotbesaidtohave
enjoyedtherighttobeheardb
y himself and counsel, and to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him in
the proceedings where his life and liberty were at
stake.

Furthermore, upon being asked who killed the


deceased, the accused allegedly admitted to Pat.
Pinto in sign language that it was he by making
gestures which Pat. Pinto interpreted to mean that
the accused had been stonedbythedeceased,thus
impelling the accused to stab the latter. This
confession,however, wasnotincludedinPat.Pinto's
affidavitas heallegedly forgot to tell theinvestigator
of his right to counsel before interrogation and
investigation due to the difficulty in conveying the
matterbysignlanguage.

Estradavs.
Petitioner:JosephEjercitoEstrada
Sandiganbayan

(BARAMBANGAN) April 4, 2001: The Office of the Ombudsman filed before the

Is RA 7080
valid?

Yes.

Thetest in determining whether a criminalstatuteisvoid


for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a
sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct
whenmeasured by commonunderstandingandpractice.
It must be stressed, however, that the vagueness
doctrinemerelyrequiresareasonabledegreeofcertainty
for the statute to be upheldnot absolute precision or
mathematical exactitude, as petitionerseemstosuggest.
Flexibility, rather than meticulous specificity is
permissible as long as the metes and bounds of the
statute are clearly delineated. An act will not be held
invalid merely because it might have been more explicit
in its wordings, or detailed in its provision. Especially
where, because of the nature of the act, it would be

Sandiganbayan eight (8) separate informations against Estrada for the


crimeofplunder.

April 1, 2001: Estrada filed anOmnibusMotionfortheremandofthecase


to the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation with respect to specific
chargesintheinformation.

April 25,2001: Sandiganbayan,ThirdDivision,issueda Resolutionfinding


probable cause for the offense of plunder that justifies the issuance of
warrantsforthearrestoftheaccused.

June 14, 2001: Estrada moved to quash the Information filed againsthim
onthegroundsthatRA7080ortheAntiPlunderAct:


1.
2.
3.

impossible to provide all the details as in all other


statutes.

The charge is communicated to the accused during the


arraignment, which is an indispensable part of the
proceedings against him. On the importanceofthisstep,
theCourtsaid:Norisitonlythedueprocessthatcallsfor
the accused being duly arraigned. As noted, it is at that
stage where, in the mode and manner required by the
Rules, an accused for the first time is granted the
opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts
him. It is imperative that he is thus made fully aware of
possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on
thenature of the crime imputed to him. At the very least
then, he must be fully informed of why the prosecuting
armofthe stateismobilizedagainsthim.Anarraignment
served that purpose. Thereafter, he is no longer in the
dark. It is true, the complaint or information may not be
worded with sufficient clarity. He would be in a much
worse position though if he does not even have such an
opportunity to plead the charge. With his counsel by his
side, he is thus in a position to enter his plea with full
knowledge of the consequences.Heisnotevenrequired
to do so immediately. He may move to quash. What is
thus evident is that an arraignment assures that he be
fully acquainted with the nature of the crime imputed to
him and the circumstances under which it is allegedly
committed. It is thus a vital aspect of the constitutional
rights guaranteed him. It is not useless formality, much
lessanidleceremony.

Suffersfromtheviceofvagueness
Dispenses with the reasonable doubt standard in criminal
prosecutions
Abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes alreadypunishable
undertheRPC

Estrada claims that all of the aforementioned grounds are clearviolations


of the fundamental rights of the accused to due process and to be
informedofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusation againsthim becauseof
itsambiguityinfailingtodefinewithprecisioncertainwordsandphrasesin
manyofitsprovisions.

Specific provisions of the AntiPlunder Act claimed by Estrada to have


transgressed constitutional boundaries are Section 1(d), Section 2 and
Section 4 of the said Act. (Kindly check these provisions, toolongtopost
here.)

Peoplevs.Brian
Dee
(CABALANG)

Thiscaseisreallylong.IincludedparticularthingsthatSirmightask.

PET:
PeopleofthePhils.
RES:
BryanDyandGiovanBernardino

January29,2002J.YnaresSantiago

1. Accusedappellants Bryan Dy and Giovan Bernardino were charged


with Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness in a complaint initiated by Gina
Marie Mobley, an American national and an exchange student at the
Chengdu University of Science and Technology in Chengdu, Sichuan,
China.

2. That on January 12, 1994, in theCityofBaguio,theaccused,actuated


by lust with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously kiss her, fondle her breast, undress her and insert their
fingers into her vagina, who was then unconscious by reason of the
drugs employed on her by the accused, all againstherwillandwithout
her consent, thereby inflicting upon the latter moral shock, fright,

WON
accused
was
deprivedof
theirright
tobe
informedof
thenature
andcause
ofthe
accusation
against
them

Indeed, the defense may waive their righttoenteraplea


and let the court enter a plea of not guiltyintheirbehalf.
However, it becomes altogether a different matter if the
accused themselves refuse to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against them. The defense
cannot hold hostage the court by their refusal to the
readingofthecomplaintorinformation.

Nonetheless,
accusedappellants were substantially
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against them when their counsel received a copy of the
Prosecutors resolution maintaining the charge for rape
and acts of lasciviousness. The failure to read the
complaint or information in a language or dialect known
to them was essentially a procedural infirmity that was
eventuallynonprejudicialtoaccusedappellants.

Notonlydid they receive a copy of theinformation,


they
likewise participated in the trial
, crossexamined the

humiliation, dishonor and besmirched reputation on the part of the


complainantandherfamily.

3. Gina and her companionHelenTennicanarebothtakingBiologymajor


and took Chinese Studies as an additional course. Both were enrolled
at thePacific Lutheran University at Tacoma, Washington,whereGina
was a university scholar. Gina and Helen decided to spend their
semestralbreakinthePhilippines.

4. TheywentinDau,Pampanga,wheretheyweresupposed to takearide
to Baguio City.Whilewaiting,theywenttoaShakeysPizzaParlornear
the terminal. Accusedappellants Bryan and Giovan, who are
brothersinlaw, were seated at the next table. Bryan recognized the
two girls from the Angeles. Bryan and Giovan offered the girls a ride
theyacceptedtheofferthinkingthattheycouldsavesome money.Both
groups checked in
Benguet Pines Tourist
, 2 rooms for each group,
oppositesidesofthecorridor.

5. Bryan and Giovan asked the girls out for some drinks and dancing at
the Songs Jazz Bar along Session Road. After the Bar, Giovan then
drove to a convenience store because they are thirsty. Both accused
alighted and returned after 10 minutes with Giovan carrying three
plastic cups of Sprite or SevenUp and Bryan, two cups and a plastic
bag containing Chinese food. Gina was then about to finish her cola
drink when shefeltsomethinggrittyinitwhichstuckintoherteeththey
werelikesmallparticles.

6. Returning to the hotel, Helen went to their room andpassedoutwhile


Gina went out and walked to towardstheboysroomalthoughshehad
no recollection of why she did so. Gina alleged that shewas forcedby
Bryan,andthatBryaninsertedhisfingersintohervagina.

7. In order to prevent penetration, because she was at that time a virgin,


Gina slid down and did a fellatio or oral sex on him. As usual, the
accusedhadadifferentstory.BryanallegedthatitwasGinawhoasked
for thesexanditwasonherownwilltogivehimfellatio.ButBryansaw
abrownred liquid on Ginas vagina and got turned off because of her
period.

8. The following morning, Bryan and Giovani left early. Bryan wrote his
phone number on a piece of paper to give to the girls, since he had
promisedtoshowthemaroundManila.

9. Gina woke up3:00pmandrememberedthatcheckouttimeat thehotel


was at 12:00 noonsosheopenedherpurseto paythe roomandfound
outthat her money wasmissing.Shecalledforthepolice,statedtothe
copsthatshewasrobbedandmolested.

10. Both girls were checked up. Gina was informed that there were no
lacerations in her vagina. Dr. Francisco Hernandez, a neurosurgeon,

complainant and her witnesses and presented their own


witnessesto debunk anddenythechargesagainstthem.
Theconductofthedefense,particularlytheirparticipation
in the trial,
clearly indicatesthattheywerefullyaware
of the nature and cause of the accusations against
them
.

Accusedappellants are clearly estopped to question the


alleged invalidity of or infirmity in their arraignment. By
actively participating in the trial of the case, they have
effectively waived whatever proceduralerrortherewasin
their arraignment. In short, whatever was the defect in
their arraignment was substantially cured by their own
omissionandsubsequentactions.

WHEREFORE, in view ofthe foregoing, the Decision of


the RTCtofBaguio City, in Criminal Case No. 12600R,
finding accusedappellant BRYAN FERDINAND DY and
GIOVAN BERNARDINO guilty of Rape, and sentencing
accusedappellant
BryanDytosufferanindeterminate
penalty of eight years of
prisionmayor
,asminimum,
up to fourteen years and eight months of
reclusion
temporal
, as maximum, is AFFIRMED.
The said
decision, insofar as accusedappellant
Giovan
Bernardinos penalty is concerned, is MODIFIED in
that heissentencedtosufferthepenaltyof
reclusion
perpetua.

asexpert witnesstocorroborateGinastestimonythatshewasdrugged
butno tests were done because there were no drug testing centers in
Baguio. Defense argued that both girls could not have been drugged
because they have not been medically examined for the presence of
drugsintheirsystem.

11. Trial Courtrendered accused guilty of rape andactsoflasciviousness.


Hence, this petition. Defense contended that there was no valid
arraignment since they were not furnished a copy of the complaint or
information. Moreover, the complaint or information was not read in a
dialect or language known to them. While they waived their right to
enteraplea,theyclaimthattheyneverwaivedtheirrighttobeinformed
ofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusationagainstthem.

Martinvs.Ver
(DARIA)

ThisisapetitionforhabeascorpusfiledbyEulaliaMartinonbehalf
ofherhusbandPvt.FranciscoMartin.

Pvt.MartinwasanenlistedmaninthePhilippineArmy.Whenhe
wasstillinservice,heallegedlysoldtwogrenadestooneRogelio
Cruz.Oneofthegrenadesexplodedduringapicnicinscausingthe
deathofthreepersonsandinjuriestothreeothers.

May5,1981,Pvt.Martinwasarrestedandconfined(restrictedto
barracks)atForBonifaciopursuanttoArt.70oftheArticlesofWar.
Thefollowingyear,hewasdischargedfromtheserviceeffective
May5,1982.OnNovember17,91982,theinstantpetitionwasfiled.
Thefollowingmonth,hewaschargedforviolationofthe85th
and97th

ArticlesofWar

85th
WasteofUnlawfulDispositionofMilitaryissuedtoSoldiers
97th
GeneralArticle

Petitionersaidthatevenassumingthatthemilitaryauthoritieshave
jurisdictiontotryandpunishhimeventhoughhewasalready
dischargedfromthemilitaryservice,hedenialtohimofhisconsti
righttospeedytiral(hehavingbeenconfinedfromthedateofhis
arrestonMay5,1981uptoDecember3,1982whenhewas
formallycharged)entitleshimtobereleasedonhabeascorpus

WONhis
constiright
tospeedy
trialwas
denied

Uyvs.Adriano
(DATUIN)

PetitionerHenryUy(andlaterthroughanamendedcomplaint,hiswife,
RosarioUywasincluded)hadbeenengagedinmanufacturing,delivering,
andselling"fake"MarcaPiasoysauce.OrlandoS.Bundoc,Intelligence
OfficerIIoftheEconomicIntelligenceandInvestigationBureau(EIIB),
4
appliedforasearchwarrant
forunfaircompetition,andseizedwere

nosuchdenial

TheSupremeCourtupheldthedecisioninPeoplevs
OrsalThetestofviolationoftherighttospeedytrial
hasalwaysbeentobegincountingdelayfromthe
timetheinformationisfiled,notbeforefiling.

Thedelayinthefilingofinformation,whichinthe
instantcasehasnotbeenwithoutreasonable
cause,isthereforenotbereckonedwithin
determiningwhethertherehasbeenadenialofthe
righttospeedytrial

Thecriminalactimputedtothepetitioner
unfortunatelyresultedinthedeathofthreepersons
andveryseriousinjuriestothreeotherswhose
testimonyisvitaltotheprefermentofchargesand
prosecutionofthepetitioner.Itisthereforenot
unreasonabletoheedtheclaimofrespondentsthat
thedelaycomplainedofwasoccasionedbythe
unavailabilityofwitnesses,aclaimwhichhasnotall
beenchallengedordeniedbythepetitioner.

WON
Petitioners
weredenied
oftheirright
toaspeedy

No.
Martinv.Ver
,48
the"balancingtest"wastodetermine
whetheradefendant'srighttoaspeedytrialhasbeen
violated.Thefourfoldfactors,Noneoftheseelements,
however,iseitheranecessaryorsufficientcondition
theyarerelatedandmustbeconsideredtogetherwith

5
fiftyfive(55)bottlesoflabelMarcaPiasoysauce.
Consequently,a
criminalcomplaintwasfiledintheMunicipalTrialCourt(MTC)ofTarlac
CityonMarch23,1994,chargingpetitionerHenryUywithviolationof
Article189(UnfairCompetition)oftheRevisedPenalCode.

Timelineofevents:
1.1994criminalcomplaint
2.1995preliminaryinvestigationwithprobablecausefindingarrest
thereafterArraignment
3.a.1996(February)firstwitnessoftheprosecutionatty.Estavillo
testified.
b.1996(October)AdminOrder10496thattheRTCshallhavejurisdiction
overviolationsofArt188189ofRPC
4.Despiteorder,MTCcontinuedTrial,2ndwitnesspresentedby
prosecutionGloriaTombocofBFAD(bureauoffoodanddrugs)
5.19993rdwitnessAlfredoLomboysupervisorofPinyakamasarap
Corporation
6.Oct121999,AttyJoselitoLimmovedtowithdrawascounselforpet,,
andnewcounsel:BalbastoandAssociates
7.2000Pet:MotionfoleavetoFileDemurrertoEvidencenoevidence
toproveoffense,courtdenied
8.June2000RTCorderedCityProsecutortoconductprelim
investigation.FiscalfoundPCandfiledinformationofviolationagainst
RPC.
9.PetitionersfiledMotiontoQuashInformationallegingthattheir
rightstodueprocessandspeedytrialhasbeenviolated.Theysaid
theyneverreceivedasupoena(whichprosecutionsaidotherwise)
Theyclaimthatdelaywasduetolackadaisicalattitudeofprosecutor
inthecase.Theirlife,libertyandproperty,nottomentiontheir
reputation,havebeenatriskastherehasbeennodeterminationof
theissueofwhetherornottoindictthem.Thus,thecaseshouldbe
dismissedinordertofreethemfromfurthercapriciousand
oppressivedilatorytacticsoftheprosecution.

Courtdenied.

trial?

otherrelevantcircumstances.

A.LengthoftheDelay

Thelengthofdelayistosomeextenta"triggering
mechanism."Untilthereissomedelay,whichis
presumptivelyprejudicial,thereisnonecessitytoinquire
intotheotherthreefactors.

B.Reasonforthedelay

Under Section 9, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of


Criminal Procedure, the accused have the burden to
prove the factual basis of the motion to quash the
Information on the ground of denial of their right to a
52
speedytrial.

Theymustdemonstrate thatthedelayintheproceedings
isvexatious, capricious, and oppressive or is causedby
unjustified postponements that were asked for and
securedorthatwithoutcauseorjustifiablemotive,along
period of timeisallowedtoelapsewithoutthecasebeing
53
tried.

On theother hand, theprosecutionisrequiredtopresent


evidence establishing that the delay was reasonably
attributed to the ordinary processes of justice, and that
petitioners suffered no serious prejudice beyond that
54
whichensuedafteraninevitableandordinarydelay.

*Adeliberate attempt to delaythetrialinordertohamper


the defense should be weighed heavily against the
prosecution.

Therecordsbearoutthecontentionofpetitionersthat
therehadbeenaconsiderabledelayinthetrialinthe
MTC.Uponmotion/agreementofpetitionersandthe
prosecution,orbecauseofthejointabsences,thetrialof
55
thecasewasdelayedformorethan11months.
Inits
owninstance,theMTCalsoresetsomeofthetrialdates
inordertocorrectmistakesinschedulingorbecausethe
56
witnesseswerenotdulynotified,
thus,delayingthetrial
ofthecaseforanadditionalsevenmonths.

Evenpetitionerscontributedtothedelayofmorethan
fivemonthstheyortheirformercounselwereeither
absentormovedforpostponementstoattendanother
57
pendingcaseorduetohealthconcerns.
Thedelayof
about21months,covering15resettings,canbe

attributedtotheprosecution.However,exceptinfive
instances,whenthetrialwasresetbecausetheprivate
58
prosecutorhadtoattendtosomeprofessional
and
59
personalmatters,
thedelayswerebroughtabout
60
becauseoftherecentengagementoflegalservice,

61
absenceofthepublicprosecutor,
andunavailabilityof
62
documents
andwitnesses.

C.Petitionersassertionoftheright

The assertion of the right to a speedy trial is entitled to


strong evidentiary weight in determining whether
defendant is being deprived thereof. Failure to claim the
right will make it difficult to prove that there wasadenial
74
ofaspeedytrial.

75
Exceptinonlyoneinstanceinthiscase,
therecordsare
bereft of any evidence that petitioners, through counsel,
have bothered to raise their objection to the several
resetting of thetrialdates.Untilthefilingofthemotionto
quash in theRTC,theynevercontestedtheprosecutorial
proceedings nor timely challenged the pendency of the
caseintheMTC.

D.Prejudicetothepetitioners

BarkerTestisemployed:(1)topreventoppressivepretrial
incarceration(2)tominimizeanxietyandconcernofthe
accusedand(3)tolimitthepossibilitythatthedefense
willbeimpaired.Ofthese,themostseriousisthelast,
becausetheinabilityofadefendanttoadequately
preparehiscaseskewsthefairnessoftheentiresystem.

Again,recordsfailedtorevealthatthedelayinbringing
petitionerstotrialinacourtofcompetentjurisdiction
causedthemanyprejudicetantamounttodeprivationof
theirrighttoaspeedytrial.Petitionersinthiscasewere
notsubjectedtopretrialincarceration,oppressiveor
otherwise,thuseliminatingthefirstBarkerconsideration
bearingonprejudice.Astotheminimizationofanxiety
andconcernoftheaccused,thereisnoshowingthat
petitionerssufferedunduepressuresinthisrespect.

Thereisnofactualbasisfortheclaimofpetitionersthat
wearenotsuppliedwithanyspecificallegationinthe
record,norwitnessesorevidencemaybecome
unavailablebecauseofthedelaysinthiscase.Torepeat,
theclaimofimpairmentofdefensebecauseofdelay
mustbespecificandnotbymereconjecture.

Dismissed.

Aquinovs.Military
Comm.#2
(DEVEYRA)

1.
FollowingtheproclamationofmartiallawinthePhilippines,petitioner
BENIGNOS.AQUINO,JR
wasarrestedonSeptember23,1972,pursuantto
GeneralOrderNo.2AofthePresidentforcomplicityinaconspiracytoseize
politicalandstatepowerinthecountryandtotakeovertheGovernment.

2.

HewasdetainedatFortBonifacioinRizalprovince.OnSeptember25,1972,

hesuedforawritofhabeascorpus
inwhichhequestionedthelegalityofthe
proclamationofmartiallawandhisarrestanddetention
.However,the
petition
wasdismissed
andupheldthevalidityofmartiallawandthearrestanddetention
ofpetitioner.

3.
WhentheproceedingsbeforetheMilitaryCommissionopenedonAugust
27,1973,
petitionerquestionedthefairnessofthetrialandannouncedthathe
didnotwishtoparticipateintheproceedings
.

4.
Thereafter,hemanifestedhisdesiretowithdrawthepetition

.
Thefollowingcontentionswereprovidedbypetitionerinthecourseofthe
proceeding:

Petitioner
challengesthejurisdictionofmilitarycommissions
totry
him,aloneortogetherwithothers,forillegalpossessionoffirearms,
ammunitionandexplosives,forviolationoftheAntiSubversionActand
formurder.

Hisconstitutionalrighttodueprocesshasbeenimpairedwhenthe
antisubversionchargesfiledagainsthimwiththemilitary
commissionwerenotinvestigatedpreliminarily
inaccordancewith
Section5oftheAntiSubversionAct,butinthemannerprescribedby
PresidentialDecreeNo.39,asamendedbyPresidentialDecreeNo.77.

Hehasthe
righttotrialinabsentia

1.
Whetherornot
civilianscanbe
subjectedtothe
jurisdictionof
military
tribunals.

2.
Whetherornot
theabsenceof
apreliminary
investigationis
adenialofdue
process.

3.
Whetherornot
petitioneris
entitledtothe
righttotrialin
absentia.

1.

RespondentMilitaryCommissionNo.2hasbeen
lawfullyconstitutedandvalidlyvestedwithjurisdictionto
hearthecasesagainstcivilians,includingthepetitioner.

Underparagraphs1and2ofSection3ofArticleXVIIofthenew
Constitution,hadtheauthorityto"promulgateproclamations,
ordersanddecreesduringtheperiodofmartiallawessentialto
thesecurityandpreservationoftheRepublic,tothedefenseof
thepoliticalandsociallibertiesofthepeopleandtothe
institutionofreformstopreventtheresurgenceoftherebellionor
7
insurrectionorsecessionorthethreatthereof....."
Pursuantto
theaforesaidSection3[1]and[2]ofArticleXVIIofthe
Constitution,GeneralOrdersNo.8,datedSeptember27,1972
(authorizingthecreationofmilitarytribunals),No.12,dated
September30,1972(definingthejurisdictionofmilitarycriminals
andprovidingforthetransferfromthecivilcourtstomilitary
tribunalsofcasesinvolvingsubversion,sedition,insurrectionor
rebellion,etc.),andNo.39,datedNovember7,1972,as
amended(prescribingtheproceduresbeforemilitarytribunals),
arenow"partofthelawoftheland.

"Itneedhardlyberemarkedthatmartiallawlawfullydeclared,"
observedWinthrop,"createsanexceptiontothegeneralruleof
exclusivesubjectiontotheciviljurisdiction,andrendersoffenses
againstthelawsofwar,aswellasthoseofacivilcharacter,
triable,atthediscretionofthecommander,(asgovernedbya
considerationforthepublicinterestsandthedueadministration
ofjustice)bymilitarytribunals."

Inthecaseatbar,pursuanttoGeneralOrderNo.12,all
"criminalcasesinvolvingsubversion,sedition,insurrectionor
rebellionorthosecommittedinfurtheranceof,ontheoccasion
ofincidenttoorinconnectionwiththecommissionofsaid
crimes"whichwerependinginthecivilcourtswereordered
transferredtothemilitarytribunals.

Therefore,theguaranteeofdueprocessisnotaguaranteeof
anyparticularformoftribunalincriminalcases.
Dueprocessof
lawdoesnotnecessarilymeansajudicialproceedinginthe
regularcourts.
2.
TheConstitution"doesnotrequiretheholdingof
preliminaryinvestigations
.

20
Therightexistsonly,ifandwhencreatedbystatute."

Itis"not
21
anessentialpartofdueprocessoflaw."
Theabsencethereof
doesnotimpairthevalidityofacriminalinformationoraffectthe
22
jurisdictionofthecourtoverthecase.
Asacreationofthe
statuteitcan,therefore,bemodifiedoramendedbylaw.

3.

UnderthepresentConstitution,
itisnowprovidedthat

"afterarraignment,trialmayproceednotwithstandingthe
absenceoftheaccusedprovidedthathehasbeenduly
notifiedandhisfailuretoappearisunjustified."

Asageneralrule,subjecttocertainexceptions,any
constitutionalorstatutoryrightmaybewaivedifsuchwaiveris
notagainstpublicpolicy.Thepersonalpresenceoftheaccused
fromthebeginningtotheendofatrialforfelony,involvinghis
lifeandliberty,hasbeenconsiderednecessaryandvitaltothe
properconductofhisdefense.The"trendofmodernauthorityis
infavorofthedoctrinethatapartyinacriminalcasemaywaive
irregularitiesandrights,whetherconstitutionalorstatutory,very
muchthesameasinacivilcase."

Thereare,forinstance,certainrightssecuredtotheindividual
bythefundamentalcharterwhichmaybethesubjectofwaiver.
Therightsofanaccusedtodefendhimselfinpersonandby
attorney,tobeinformedofthenatureandcauseofthe
accusation,toaspeedyandpublictrial,andtomeetthe
witnessesfacetoface,aswellastherightagainstunreasonable
searchesandseizures,arerightsguaranteedbythe
Constitution.Theyarerightsnecessaryeitherbecauseofthe
requirementsofdueprocesstoensureafairandimpartialtrial,
oroftheneedofprotectingtheindividualfromtheexerciseof
arbitrarypower.Andyet,thereisnoquestionthatallofthese
rightsmaybewaived.

ConsideringtheaforecitedprovisionsoftheConstitution
andtheabsenceofanylawspecificallyrequiringhis
presenceatallstagesofhistrial,thereappears,therefore,
nologicalreasonwhypetitioner,althoughheischarged
withacapitaloffense,shouldbeprecludedfromwaivinghis
righttobepresentintheproceedingsfortheperpetuation
oftestimony,sincethisright,liketheothersaforestated,
wasconferreduponhimforhisprotectionandbenefit.

ItisalsoimportanttonotethatunderSection7ofRule119of
theRevisedRulesofCourt(Depositionofwitnessforthe
prosecution)the"Failureorrefusalonthepartofthedefendant
toattendtheexaminationorthetakingofthedepositionafter
noticehereinbeforeprovided,
shallbeconsideredawaiver"

(Emphasissupplied.)Similarly,PresidentialDecreeNo.328
expresslyprovidesthat"...thefailureorrefusaltoattendthe
examinationorthetakingofthedeposition
shallbeconsidereda
waiver
."

NVIEWOFALLTHEFOREGOING,judgmentishereby
rendereddismissingthepetitionsforprohibitionwithpreliminary
injunctionandsettingasidethetemporaryrestrainingorder
issuedonApril8,1975,withcostsagainstpetitioner.

Peoplevs.Sanchez Pet:PeopleofthePhil

WON

Wecannotsustainappellant'sclaimthathewasdeniedthe right

(JAVIER)

Res:MayorAntonioSanchez

Accusedappellantswerefoundguilty beyond reasonabledoubtofseven(7)counts


of rape withhomicideon sevencounts andsentenced each one ofthemtosuffer
the penalty of seven reclusion perpetua. The prosecution's version oftheevents
was based mainly on the recollections of its star witnessesAurelioCentenoand
VicencioMalabanan coconspiratorsturnedstatewitnesses.Bothadmittedhaving
taken part in the abductionof EileenSarmenta andAllanGomez,butdeniedany
personalinvolvementintherapeof
Eileen and the twin killings that followed. In this appeal, thepith of theassigned
errorsand the focusofthe appellants'arguments istheissueofwitnesses Centeno
andMalabanan'scredibility,whoseopencourtnarrations served as principalbasis
forthetrialcourt'srenditionofa"guilty"verdict.

Appellants'claimthatthepublicitygiventothiscaseimpairedtheirrighttoafairtrial

respondents
right to a fair
trial
was
impaired

toimpartialtrialduetoprejudicialpublicity.Itistruethattheprint
and broadcast media gave the caseatbar pervasivepublicity,
just like allhigh profile andhigh stakecriminal trials.Thenand
now, we rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial isnot
incompatible to a freepress.To be sure,responsible reporting
enhancesanaccused'srighttoa fairtrial for,aswell pointed out,
'a responsible press has always been regarded as the
handmaiden of effectivejudicialadministration,especiallyinthe
criminalfield....Thepress does notsimply publishinformation
about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by
subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to
extensivepublic
scrutinyandcriticism.'

Atbest,appellant can onlyconjurepossibilityofprejudiceonthe


part of the trial judge due to the barrage of publicity that
characterizedtheinvestigationandtrialofthe case.To warranta
finding of prejudicialpublicity,theremustbeallegation andproof
that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that
theymight
be,bythebarrage ofpublicity.Inthe caseatbar,therecordsdo
not show that the trial judge developed actual bias against
appellantas a consequenceofthe extensive media coverageof
thepretrialandtrialofhiscase.Thetotalityofcircumstancesof
the case does not prove that the trial judge acquired a fixed
opinion as a result of prejudicial publicitywhichisincapable of
change even by evidence presented duringthetrial.Appellant
has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not
dischargedtheburden."

EstradaPlunder
Trial
(POJAS)

On 13 March 2001, the Kapisananng mgaBrodkaster ng Pilipinas


(KBP), an association representing duly franchised and authorized
television and radio networks throughout the country, sent a letter
requestingthisCourtto allow livemedia coverage ofthe anticipated
trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former
PresidentJosephE. EstradabeforetheSandiganbayan in order"to
assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings of an
unprecedentedcaseinourhistory."

Public interest, the petition further averred, should be evident


bearinginmindtherightofthepublictovitalinformationaffectingthe
nation.
In effect, the petition seeks a reexamination of the 23rd October
1991resolutionofthisCourtinacaseforlibelfiledbythenPresident
CorazonC.Aquino.Partoftheresolutionread:
jgc

"Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendants right to due

Whetheror
notthe
request
shouldbe
grantedin
lieuofthe
rightto
publictrial

No.

Anaccusedhasarighttoapublictrialbutitisaright
thatbelongstohim,morethananyoneelse,where
hislifeorlibertycanbeheldcriticallyinbalance.A
publictrialaimstoensurethatheisfairlydealtwith
andwouldnotbeunjustlycondemnedandthathis
rightsarenotcompromisedinsecretconclavesof
longago.

Apublictrialisnotsynonymouswithpublicized
trial
itonlyimpliesthatthecourtdoorsmustbe
opentothosewhowishtocome,sitintheavailable
seats,conductthemselveswithdecorumand
observethetrialprocess.Intheconstitutionalsense,
acourtroomshouldhaveenoughfacilitiesfora
reasonablenumberofthepublictoobservethe
proceedings,nottoosmallastorenderthe

process as well as to the fair and orderly administration of justice,


andconsidering furtherthatthe freedomofthepressand therightof
the people to information may be served and satisfied by less
distracting,degradingandprejudicialmeans, liveradioandtelevision
coverage of court proceedings shallnotbe allowed. Video footages
ofcourthearings fornewspurposes shallberestrictedandlimited to
shots of the courtroom, the judicial officers, the parties and their
counseltaken priortothe commencementofofficialproceedings.No
videoshotsorphotographsshallbepermittedduringthetrialproper
.

"Accordingly, in ordertoprotect the parties rightto due process, to


prevent the distraction of the participants in the proceedings andin
the last analysis,toavoidmiscarriageofjustice, the Court resolved
toPROHIBITliveradioandtelevision coverageofcourtproceedings.
Video footages ofcourthearingsfornews purposesshall belimited
andrestrictedasaboveindicated."
cralaw
Peoplevs.Monje Accusedappellant:FernandoMonjeyRosario
(BARAMBANGAN)
On theevening of 24 April 1997 at around 9:00 o'clock, 15yearoldImee
Diez Paulino asked permissionfromhermothertoplaybingoatthehouse
of their barangay captain at Francisco Homes, San Jose del Monte,
Bulacan. Three (3) days later, Imee's lifeless body was found lying in the
ricefields naked, except for her brassiere, with several injuriesincludinga
fractured skull that caused massive brain hemorrhage. The body was
already inastateofdecomposition.Themedicolegalofficersurmisedthat
the injuries on the skull were caused by fist blows or by a hard blunt
instrument. The genital examination disclosed that Imee was brutally
raped before she was killed. Her hymen was completely lacerated and
there was a 2.5centimeter laceration of the perineum. The medicolegal
officerfurther opined that such laceration could not have been caused by
an ordinarysizedpenisbutbyamuchbiggerobjectforciblyinsertedtothe
vagina.ThebloodclotsinthevaginalareashowedthatImee wasstillalive
whentheobjectwasforcedintoher.

During the wake, Michael Cordero, a tricycle driver plying the vicinity of
Francisco Homes, told Maria Isabel Diez Paulino, mother of Imee, that in
the evening of 24 April 1997 at around 11:00 o'clock he saw the victim
backridingwithFernandoMonjewith3otherpersonsinthesidecarwhom
he did not know. From adistanceofabout6armslengthheallegedly saw
Imee, Monje, and the 3 unidentified persons alight from the tricycle and
walk towards the ricefields. At about 1:00 o'clock the following morning
only Monje and his3companionsreturnedtothetricycle.Whenplacedon
thewitnessstandCorderoidentifiedthe3companionsofMonjeas:

1. LordinoMaglaya,alsoatricycledriver

opennessnegligibleandnottoolargeastodistract
thetrialparticipantsfromtheirproperfunctions,who
shallthenbetotallyfreetoreportwhattheyhave
observedduringtheproceedings.

withinthecourthouse,theoverridingconsiderationis
stilltheparamountrightoftheaccusedtodue
process17whichmustneverbeallowedtosuffer
diminutioninitsconstitutionalproportions.

IsMonje
guiltyofthe
crimeofrape
with
homicide?

No.Monjeisacquitted.

To administer by final judgment the dreaded lethal


injection on the basis of circumstantial evidence
consisting mainly ofthetestimonyofawitnesswhofailed
and refused to return to court and submit to
crossexamination four times is judicial tyranny of the
highest order. But the right to crossexamine witnesses
maybewaived.

Itbearsstressing thatthecrossexaminationofawitness
is an absolute right, not a mere privilege, of the party
against whom he is called. Withregardtotheaccused,it
is a right guaranteed by the fundamental law as part of
due process. Article III, Sec. 14, par. (2), of the
1987
Constitution specificallymandatesthat"theaccusedshall
enjoy the right to meet the witnesses face to face," and
Rule 115, Sec. 1, par. (f), of the
2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure enjoins that in all criminal prosecutions the
accused shall be entitled to confront and crossexamine
thewitnesses against him at thetrial.Crossexamination
serves as a safeguard to combat unreliable testimony,
providing means for discrediting a witness' testimony,
and is in the nature of an attack on the truth and
accuracy of his testimony. The purpose of
crossexamination, however, is notlimitedtobringingout
a falsehood, since it is also a leading and searching
inquiry of the witness for further disclosure touching the
particular matters detailed by him in his direct

2.
3.

ChristopherBaustista,ataxidriver
Michael Castro, a bus conductor, all residents of Francisco
Homes.

examination, and it serves to sift,modify,orexplainwhat


has been said, in order to develop new or old facts in a
view favorable to the crossexaminer. The object of
crossexamination therefore is to weakenordisprovethe
case of ones adversary,andbreakdownhistestimonyin
chief, test the recollection, veracity, accuracy, honesty
and bias or prejudice of the witness, his source of
information, his motives, interest and memory, and
exhibittheimprobabilitiesofhistestimony.

Inotherwords,theultimatepurposeofcrossexamination
is
to test the truth or falsity of the statements of a
witness during direct examination. Unfortunately, for the
accused, these objectives of crossexamination were
never attained in this case because of the continued
failure and refusal of witness Cordero to appear for his
crossexamination.

How can the truth be ascertained if the


crossexaminationisnotcompleted?

Thebasicrule is that thetestimonyofawitnessgivenon


direct examination should be stricken off the record
where there was no adequate opportunity for
crossexamination. Of course, there are notable
modifications to the basic rule whichmakeitsapplication
essentially on a casetocase basis. Thus, where aparty
had the opportunity tocrossexamineawitnessbutfailed
to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits his right to
crossexamine andthetestimonygivenbythewitnesson
direct examination will be allowed to remain on record.
But when the crossexaminationisnotorcannotbedone
or completed due to causes attributable to the party
offering the witness, or to the witness himself, the
uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incompetent
and inadmissible in evidence. The direct testimony of a
witness who dies before the conclusion of the
crossexamination can be stricken only insofar as not
coveredby the crossexamination, and the absence ofa
witness isnot enough to warrantstrikingofhistestimony
for failure to appear for further crossexamination
where
the
witness has already
been sufficiently
crossexamined
, which is not true inthepresentcase,or
that the matter on which further crossexamination is
soughtisnotincontroversy.

Another prosecution witness Jojit Vasquez testified that at about midnight


of 24 April 1997 he eloped with Irene, sisterofImee,andtheywenttothe
vacant houseofacertainAlvinsituatedalsoatFranciscoHomes.At about
2:00 o'clock the following morning, 25 April 1997, Monje and Maglaya
followed by Bautista andCastroarrivedatthesamehouseonboardtwo 2
tricycles,but Bautista and Castro left after a short while. Monjeappeared
surprised, especially upon seeing Irene. At around 3:00 o'clock Jojit and
Irene left the house and proceeded to Cubao where they boarded a bus
forPangasinan.

Monjedeniedcomplicityinthecrimechargedandpleadedforhisacquittal.
He claimedthat on 24 April 1997 at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening he
was already sleeping in his uncle's house in Francisco Homes, San Jose
Del Monte, Bulacan. He further claimed that he never woke up until 6:00
o'clockthefollowingmorning.

Quite significantly, these circumstances


do not establish an unbroken
chain of events that would show the complicity of the accused in the
rapeslay of victim Imee Paulino. Apparently, the case fortheprosecution
is woven principally around the testimony of witness Michael Cordero. It
mustbeemphasizedhoweverthathistestimonywasnotsufficientlytested
on the crucible ofcrossexamination,specifically,thatsignificantportion of
hisdirectexaminationwherehepurportedlysawtheaccusedandthree (3)
unidentified persons returning to the tricycle from the ricefield without the
victimaround1:00o'clockthefollowingmorning.

After his initial crossexamination by defense counsel, witness Cordero


failed and refused to return to court for the continuation of his
crossexamination. In other words, except for his brief crossexamination
which had barely scratched the surface, so to speak, and despite the
insistence of the defensecounseltopursuehiscrossexamination and the
repeated warnings from thetrialcourtthatitwouldbeconstrainedtostrike
outand disregardhistestimonyshouldhefailtoappearagain, thewitness
stubbornlyrefusedtoreturntocourtforhiscrossexamination.

On 13 November 2000, after trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12,of
Malolos, Bulacan, acquitted Maglaya, Bautista and Castro but convicted
Monjeofthe crime charged andsentencedhimtodeath,andtoindemnify
theheirsof the victim P75,000.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00as
moraldamages,pluscosts.

Peoplevs.Bardaje PET:
PeopleofthePhils
RES:
AdelinoBardaje
(CABALANG)

WONthe
accused

Considering that this case involved a prosecution for a


capitaloffense, the lower Court actedprecipitouslyinnot

August29,1980J.MelecioHerrera

1. The accused Adelino Bardaje in this case, after trial, has been
convicted of Forcible Abduction with Rape, and sentenced to death.
Marcelina Cuizon lodged the following complaint with the CFI of
Samar against Adelino and 5 others namely, Lucio Malate, Pedro
Odal,Adriano Odal, Silvino Odal and FidelAnsuas(hereinaftercalled
the5OTHERS).

2. On December 1417, 1965, Sta. Rita, Province of Samar, the


abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one
another, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, andat
nighttime, feloniously drag oneMarcelinaCuizon, aminorof14 years
old, from the house of one Norma Fernandez and brought her to a
faraway place and, accused Adelino Bardaje, by means of force and
intimidation forcibly had sexual intercourse with her several times
whilehiscoaccusedwereonguard.

3. Adelino was arrested on December 17th, and it was on December


20th,when he signed the alleged confession.
Thatthecommissionof
the crime the aggravating circumstances that it was committed in an
uninhabited place and with the aid of armed men, were present.
Only
Adelinostoodintrial,5otherswereneverarrested.

4. December 15, ADELINO and the FIVE OTHERS brought her to


another mountain, 6 kilometers farther, arriving there past twelve
o'clock noon at thehouse of one called Ceferino who livedtherewith
hiswifeandsevenchildren(oneisNairita).

5. For his part, Adelino, aged 18, admittedhavinghad carnalknowledge


of Marcelina but denied having raped her. He claimsthatthey eloped
on December 14 to 17, 1965aspreviouslyplanned,theyhavingbeen
sweethearts since November 12, 1964. As such, they used todate in
Taclobanand"anythinggoes".

6. ADELINOwanted to haveNaritatestifyonhisbehalf,andasubpoena
had been issued to her. But instead of taking effective steps to have
Narita brought to Court, thelowercourtgaveresponsibilityforNarita's
attendance to the defense, expressly stating that, if the defense was
notabletobringhertotheCourt,hertestimonywillbedispensedwith.
Hence,petition.

Borjavs.Mendoza Absenceofarraignment
(DARIA)

BorjawasaccusedofslightphysicalinjuriesinthecityofCebu.
Howeverhewasnotarraigned.RespondentJudgeSenining
proceededwiththetrialinabsentiaandthereafter,inadecision
promulgatedonAug.18,1976,foundhimguiltyofsuchoffenseand
sentencedhimtosufferimprisonmentforaperiodof20daysof

rightto
have
compulsory
process
was
deprivedby
CFIof
Samar

having Narita brought to Court, by ordering her arrest if


necessary ADELINO was deprived of his right "to have
compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of
witnessesonhisbehalf."

Itmay not be amiss to state then that just as in pleas of


guilty where a graveoffenseischargedtrialJudgeshave
been enjoinedtorefrainfromacceptingthemwithalacrity
but to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that an accused
fully understands the import of his plea, so also, in
prosecutions for capital offenses, it behooves the trial
Courts to exercise greatercareinsafeguardingtherights
of an accused. The trial Judge should also take a more
active role by means of searching questions in the
examination of witnesses for the ascertaintment of the
truth and credibility of their testimonies so that any
judgment of conviction imposing the supreme penalty
may rest on firm and unequivocal grounds. The life and
libertyofanindividualdemandnoless.

WHEREFORE, upon reasonable doubt, the judgment


appealed from imposing the death penalty, is reversed
and the appellant,
Adelino Bardaje, acquitted of the
crime withwhich he is charged.Hisimmediatereleaseis
orderedunlesslieisheldonothercharges.

WON
petitioners
constiright
wasviolated
whenhewas
not
arraigned

YES

Arraignmentisindispensableasthemeansfor
bringingtheaccusedintocourtandnotifyinghimof
thecauseheisrequiredtomeet

ncriminalcases,therecanbenofairhearingunless

arrestomenor.

ThecasewasappealedtotheCFIofCebupresidedbyrespondent
JudgeMendoza.Itwasalsoallegedthatwithoutanynoticeto
petitioner,andwithoutrequiringhimtosubmithismemorandum,a
decisionontheappealedcasewasrenderedonNov.16,1976.The
failuretoarraignhimisviolativeofhisconstirighttoproceduraldue
processmorespecificallyofhisrighttobeinformedofthenature
andcauseoftheaccusationagainsthimandhisrighttobeheardby
himselfandcounse
l.

theaccusedbegivenanopportunitytobeheardby
acounsel.Therighttobeheardwouldbeoflittle
availifitdoesnotincludetherighttobeheardbya
counsel.

Theindispensablerequisitefortrialinabsentiais
thatitshouldcomeafterarraignment.Theexpress
mentioninthepresentconstioftheneedforsucha
stepemphasizesitsimportanceintheprocedural
schemetoaccordanaccuseddueprocess.Without
theaccusedhavingbeenarraigned,itbecomes
academictodiscusstheapplicabilityoftheexception
tothebasicconstirightthattheaccusedshouldbe
heardbyhimselfandcounsel.