You are on page 1of 8

12 CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION RIGHT TO COUNSEL is guaranteed during CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION because accused confronts both expert adversaries and

d the judicial system well before his trial begins. GAMBOA VS CRUZ The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation. Police line-up is not a part of the custodial inquest. Petitioner was not yet entitled, at such stage, to counsel. However, the moment there is a move or even urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel.
PEOPLE VS AYSON MIRANDA DOCTRINE: Procedural safeguards during in-custody interrogation. 1. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, 2. That anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, 3. That he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and 4. That if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. A defendant on trial or under preliminary investigation is not under custodial interrogation. Interrogation by the police, if any there had been, would already have been ended at the time of the filing of the criminal case in court (or the public prosecutors office). PEOPLE VS PINLAC Extrajudicial confession of the accused, without assistance of a counsel, is INADMISSIBLE.

In the case, the accused was not assisted by counsel and his alleged waiver was made without the assistance of counsel. The record of the case is also replete with evidence which was not satisfactorily rebutted by the prosecution, that the accused was maltreated and tortured for seven (7) solid hours before he signed the prepared extra-judicial confession.

PEOPLE VS ANDAN Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right: (1) to remain silent; (2) to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice; and (3) to be informed of such rights. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
An investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect, i.e, when the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense. When the accused talked with the mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession did not violate his constitutional rights. 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. In the case, the admission is spontaneous, free and voluntary, therefore, admissible. NAVALLO VS SANDIGANBAYAN A person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial investigation. An audit examiner himself is NOT a law enforcement officer contemplated in the above rule.

Custodial investigation, or is in custody investigation is 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. PEOPLE VS ALICANDO
Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine; Under the exclusionary rule known as the fruit of the poisonous tree, once the primary source (the tree) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the fruit) derived from it is also inadmissible.

Govt of US vs PURUGANAN The word conviction, the constitutional provision on bail quoted above, as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not render

judgments of conviction or acquittal. The second sentence in the constitutional provision on bail merely emphasizes the right to bail in criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses. It cannot be taken to mean that the right is available even in extradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature. Bail may be applied for and granted as an exception, only upon a clear and convincing showing (1) that, once granted bail, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there existspecial, humanitarian and compelling circumstances. Court realizes that extradition is basically an executive, not a judicial, responsibility arising from the presidential power to conduct foreign relations.
13 RIGHT TO BAIL
BASCO VS RAPATALO Bail is the security required by the court and given by the accused to ensure that the accused appears before the proper court at the scheduled time and place to answer the charges brought against him or her. In theory, the only function of bail is to ensure the appearance of the defendant at the time set for trial. GRANT OF BAIL MAY BE DISCRETIONARY ART 114, SEC 7: Bail is not a matter of right in cases where the person is charged with a capital offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. When the grant of bail is discretionary, the prosecution has the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong. The determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong, being a matter of judicial discretion, remains with the judge. Judge is MANDATED to CONDUCT HEARING. The courts order granting or refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. BAYLON VS SISON The discretion lies, not in determining whether or not there will be a hearing, but in appreciating and evaluating the weight of the evidence of guilt against the accused. Prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may wish to introduce on the probable guilt of the accused, before the court resolves the motion for bail.

PEOPLE VS DONATO Bail cannot be denied to the private respondent for he is charged with the crime of rebellion and shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. PEOPLE VS FORTES An accused who is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, shall no longer be entitled to bail as a matter of right even if he appeals the case to this Court since his conviction clearly imports that the evidence of his guilt of the offense charged is strong.
COMENDADOR VS DE VILLA

Right to bail is not available in the military, as an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights.
The unique structure of the military should be enough reason to exempt military men from the constitutional coverage on the right to bail. Aside from structural peculiarity, it is vital to note that mutinous soldiers operate within the framework of democratic system, are allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by the government for the discharge of their duties and responsibilities and are paid out of revenues collected from the people. All other insurgent elements carry out their activities outside of and against the existing political system. The truly disquieting thought is that they could freely resume their heinous activity which could very well result in the overthrow of duly constituted authorities, including this Honorable Court, and replace the same with a system consonant with their own concept of government and justice. Right to Speedy Trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exists PEOPLE VS MANOTOC A court may prohibit an accused from leaving the Philippines even if he was admitted to bail.

17 - RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION BELTRAN VS SAMSON This constitutional prohibition embraces the compulsory preparation and creation by a witness of self- incriminatory evidence by means of a testimonial act. Writing is something more than moving the body, or hand, or fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical act; it requires the application of intelligence and attention; writing means for the petitioner here to furnish, through a testimonial act, evidence against himself.

CHAVEZ VS CA "The constitutional privilege was intended to shield the guilty and imprudent as well as the innocent and foresighted." Compulsion as it is understood here does not necessarily connote the use of violence; it may be the product of unintentional statements. Pressure which operates to overbear his will, disable him from making a free and rational choice, or impair his capacity for rational judgment would be sufficient. Moral coercion "tending to force testimony from the unwilling lips of the defendant is an infringement. PASCUAL VS MED. BOARD EXAM The constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination extends to administrative proceedings which possess a criminal or penal aspect because a proceeding for malpractice possesses a criminal or penal aspect in the sense that the respondent would suffer the revocation of his license as a medical practitioner, for some an even greater deprivation than forfeiture of property. PEOPLE VS GALLARDE The taking of pictures of an accused even without the assistance of counsel, being a purely mechanical act, is not a violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required. The essence of the right against self- incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act. US VS TAN TENG The result of the scientific examination was offered in evidence, during the trial of the cause. The defendant objected to the admissibility of such evidence upon the ground that it was requiring him to give testimony against himself. The objection was overruled upon the ground that "the accused was not compelled to make any admission or answer any questions, and the mere fact that an object found upon his person was examined seems no more

to infringe the rule invoked, than would the introduc!tion of stolen property taken from the person of a thief." The substance was taken from the body of the defendant without his objection. The examination of the substance was made by competent medical authority and the result showed that the defendant was suffering from said disease. Such evidence was clearly admissible. 21-DOUBLE JEOPARDY ESMEA VS POGOY Requisites for existence of legal jeopardy: prosecution (a) a valid complaint or information, (b) a competent court; (c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and (d) defendant was acquitted, convicted, or the case against him was dismissed or terminated without his express consent. Effect of existence of legal jeopardy upon accused. The acquittal or conviction of the accused or the dismissal or termination of the case without his express consent constitutes res judicata and is a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is included therein Instances with NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY (1) Oral manifestation of counsel that he had no objection to the dismissal of the case is equivalent to a declaration of conformity to its dismissal, (2) the basis of the dismissal of the case disclosed that the said court had no territorial jurisdiction over the offense, (3) here is no double jeopardy where the plea of guilty was entered before a court that has no jurisdiction over the case PSB VS BERMOY The right against double jeopardy can be invoked if (a) the accused is charged with the same offense in two separate pending cases, or (b) the accused is prosecuted anew for the same offense after he had been convicted or acquitted of such offense, or (c) the prosecution appeals from a judgment in the same case. ICASIANO VS SANDIGANBAYAN Prosecution in administrative proceedings is not subject to Double Jeopardy in criminal cases. Administrative procedure need not strictly adhere to technical rules. Substantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction. Criminal proceedings before the

Sandiganbayan, on the other hand, while they may involve the same acts subject of the administrative case, require proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. LEJANO VS PEOPLE To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being punished for the crime of which he has already been absolved. A motion for reconsideration after an acquittal is possible but the grounds are exceptional and narrow as when the court that absolved the accused gravely abused its discretion, resulting in loss of jurisdiction, or when a mistrial has occurred. MELO VS PEOPLE RULES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY; SAME OR IDENTICAL OFFENSE. One who has been charged with an offense cannot be again charged with the same or identical offense though the latter be lesser or greater than the former. " OFFENSE DOES NOT APPLY, when the second offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution, for the simple reason that in such case there is no possibility for the accused, during the first prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent. Thus, where the accused was charged with physical injuries and after conviction the injured person dies, the charge for homicide against the same accused does not put him twice in jeopardy. PAULIN VS GIMENEZ For double jeopardy to attach, the dismissal of the case must be without the express consent of the accused. Where the dismissal was ordered upon motion or with the express assent of the accused, he is deemed to have waived his protection against double jeopardy. ACQUITTAL VS DISMISSAL: Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not show that defendants guilt is beyond reasonable doubt: but dismissal does not decide the case on the merits or that the defendant is not guilty. Dismissals terminate the proceedings, either because the court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form and substance. EXCEPTIONS: Instances when the dismissal may be held to be final,

disposing of the case once and for all even if the dismissal was made on motion of the accused himself, to wit: 1. Dismissal is based on a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused after the prosecution has rested, which has the effect of a judgment on the merits and operates as an acquittal. 2. Where the dismissal is made, also on motion of the accused, because of the denial of his right to a speedy trial, which is in effect a failure to prosecute. Motion to dismiss premised on procedural grounds cannot be considered a demurrer to evidence nor was the dismissal sought by them predicated on the denial of their right to speedy trial. Demurrer to evidence due to its insufficiency presupposes that the prosecution had already rested its case. PEOPLE VS COURT OF SILAY Double jeopardy exists even if the accused was the one who filed a motion to dismiss the criminal case where such motion was filed after the prosecution had rested its case, tantamount to an acquittal of the accused.