You are on page 1of 22

People Vs. Judge Ayson 175 SCRA 216 G.R. No.

85215 July 7, 1989 Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines and was allegedly involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. The PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted. That investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. A letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle the amount of P76,000. The findings of the Audit team were given to him, and he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was prevented from settling said amounts. He proffered a compromise however this did not ensue. Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not guilty. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’ written admission and statement, to which defendants argued that the confession was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. Respondent Judge did not admit those stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. A motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was denied. Hence this appeal. Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as evidence the admission and statement of accused. Held: No. The judge should admit the evidence in court as the accused was not under custodial investigation when his statements were taken. One cannot invoke violation of the right to counsel in administrative proceeding. The right to self incrimination and custodial investigation are accorded only when the accused is subjected to custodial inquest which involves the questioning initiated by police authorities after a person is taken in custody or deprived of his freedom in any way. Because the statements were obtained beyond the purview of custodial investigation the evidence should be admitted in court. Facts: In order to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing and to allow a free, unlimited and exhaustive investigation of all aspects of the killing of Sen Aquino at MIA, PD 1886 was

promulgated creating an ad hoc Fact Finding Board aka the Agrava Board. The board conducted public hearings wherein various witnesses appeared and testified and/or produced documentary and other evidence either in obedience to a subpoena or in response to an invitation issued by the board. Among those who testified and produced evidence before the board are the respondents in this petition. Respondents contend that their individual testimonies before said board should not be admitted in evidence and prayed that the same be rejected as evidence for the prosecution. However, said prayer was denied by the Sandiganbayan contending that their testimonies could not be excluded because the immunity was not available to them because of their failure to invoke their right against self-incrimination before the ad hoc Fact Finding Board. Issue: 1. WON the testimonies given by the 8 respondents who did not invoke their rights against self-incrimination before the Agrava Board is admissible in evidence. Held: 1. NO. The Board is in truth and in fact, and to all legal intents and purposes, an entity charged, not only with the function of determining the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing, but more importantly, the determination of the person or persons criminally responsible therefore so that they may be brought before the bar of justice. The investigation therefor is also geared, as any other similar investigation of its sort, to the ascertainment and/or determination of the culprit or culprits, their consequent prosecution and ultimately, their conviction. In the course of receiving evidence, persons summoned to testify will include not merely plain witnesses but also those suspected as authors and co-participants in the tragic killing. And when suspects are summoned and called to testify and/or produce evidence, the situation is one where the person testifying or producing evidence is undergoing investigation for the commission of an offense and not merely in order to shed light on the facts and surrounding circumstances of the assassination, but more importantly, to determine the character and extent of his participation therein. This notwithstanding, Presidential Decree No. 1886 denied them the right to remain silent. They were compelled to testify or

be witnesses against themselves. Section 5 of P.D. 1886 leave them no choice. They have to take the witness stand, testify or produce evidence, under pain of contempt if they failed or refused to do so. The jeopardy of being placed behind prison bars even before conviction dangled before their very eyes. Similarly, they cannot invoke the right not to be a witness against themselves, both of which are sacrosantly enshrined and protected by our fundamental law. Both these constitutional rights to remain silent and not to be compelled to be a witness against himself) were right away totally foreclosed by P.D. 1886. And yet when they so testified and produced evidence as ordered, they were not immune from prosecution by reason of the testimony given by them. Issue: 2. WON the right against self incrimination extends to testimonies given before the Agrava board and not to an investigating officer Held: YES. The privilege has consistently been held to extend to all proceedings sanctioned by law and to all cases in which punishment is sought to be visited upon a witness, whether a party or not. If in a mere forfeiture case where only property rights were involved, "the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself" is secured in favor of the defendant, then with more reason it cannot be denied to a person facing investigation before a Fact Finding Board where his life and liberty, by reason of the statements to be given by him, hang on the balance. The deletion of the phrase "in a criminal case" connotes no other import except to make said provision also applicable to cases other than criminal. Decidedly then, the right "not to be compelled to testify against himself" applies to the herein private respondents notwithstanding that the proceedings before the Agrava Board is not, in its strictest sense, a criminal case. Immunity Statutes:

1. One which grants “Use Immunity” prohibits use of witness' compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness. 2. One which grants “Transactional Immunity” - grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates. It is beyond dispute that said law belongs
Page 1 of 22

to the first type of immunity statutes (Use Immunity). It grants merely immunity from use of any statement given before the Board, but not immunity from prosecution by reason or on the basis thereof. Merely testifying and/or producing evidence do not render the witness immuned from prosecution notwithstanding his invocation of the right against selfincrimination. He is merely saved from the use against him of such statement and nothing more. Stated otherwise, he still runs the risk of being prosecuted even if he sets up his right against selfincrimination. The dictates of fair play, which is the hallmark of due process, demands that private respondents should have been informed of their rights to remain silent and warned that any and all statements to be given by them may be used against them. This, they were denied, under the pretense that they are not entitled to it and that the Board has no obligation to so inform them. The provision on self incrimination renders inadmissible any confession obtained in violation thereof. As herein earlier discussed, this exclusionary rule applies not only to confessions but also to admissions, whether made by a witness in any proceeding or by an accused in a criminal proceeding or any person under investigation for the commission of an offense. Summary: As a rule, such infringement of the constitutional right renders inoperative the testimonial compulsion, meaning, the witness cannot be compelled to answer UNLESS a co-extensive protection in the form of IMMUNITY is offered. Hence, under the oppressive compulsion of P.D. 1886, immunity must in fact be offered to the witness before he can be required to answer, so as to safeguard his sacred constitutional right. But in this case, the compulsion has already produced its desired results — the private respondents had all testified without offer of immunity. Their constitutional rights are therefore, in jeopardy. The only way to cure the law of its unconstitutional effects is to construe it in the manner as if IMMUNITY had in fact been offered. We hold, therefore, that in view of the potent sanctions imposed on the refusal to testify or to answer questions under Sec. 4 of P.D. 1886, the testimonies compelled thereby are deemed immunized under Section 5 of the same law. The applicability of the immunity granted by P.D. 1886 cannot be made to depend on a claim of the privilege against self-incrimination which the same law practically strips away from the witness.

PEOPLE VS. MAQUEDA [242 SCRA 565; G.R. NO.112983; 22 MAR 1994] Facts: British Horace William Barker (consultant of WB) was slain inside his house in Tuba, Benguet while his Filipino wife, Teresita Mendoza was badly battered with lead pipes on the occasion of a robbery. Two household helpers of the victims identified Salvamante (a former houseboy of the victims) and Maqueda as the robbers. Mike Tabayan and his friend also saw the two accused a kilometer away from the house of the victims that same morning, when the two accused asked them for directions. Maqueda was then arrested in Guinyangan, Quezon. He was taken to Calauag, Quezon where he signed a Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein he narrated his participation in the crime. According to SPO3 Molleno, he informed Maqueda of his constitutional rights before he signed such document. Afterwards he was brought to the Benguet Provincial Jail. While he was under detention, Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant Bail. He stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering to be a State witness in the above entitled case, it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case." Maqueda also admitted his involvement in the commission of the robbery to Prosecutor Zarate and to Salvosa. Issue: Whether or Not the trial court was correct in holding that the Sinumpaan Salaysay is admissible as evidence. Held: No. The Sinumpaang Salaysay is inadmissible because it was in clear violation of the constitutional rights of the accused. First, he was not informed of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Second, he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. At the time of the confession, the accused was already facing charges in court. He no longer had the right to remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to refuse to be a witness and not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal. And yet, despite his knowing fully well that a case had already been filed in court, he still confessed when he did not have to do so. The contention of the trial court that the accused is not entitled to such rights anymore because the information has been filed and a warrant of arrest has been issued already, is untenable. The exercise of the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under Section 12(1) of the Bill of Rights

are not confined to that period prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information but are available at that stage when a person is "under investigation for the commission of an offense." Pursuant to Section 12(3) of the Bill of Rights therefore, such extra-judicial admission is inadmissible as evidence. As to the admissions made by Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa, the trial court admitted their testimony thereon only to prove the tenor of their conversation but not to prove the truth of the admission because such testimony was objected to as hearsay. Maqueda voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the course of an investigation, but in connection with Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a state witness; and as to the other admission (Salvosa), it was given to a private person therefore admissible. Note: a distinction between a confession and admission has been made by the SC: Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Confession. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him.

GAMBOA VS. CRUZ [162 SCRA 642;L56291; 27 JUN 1988] Facts: Petitioner was arrested for vagrancy without a warrant. During a line-up of 5 detainees including petitioner, he was identified by a complainant to be a companion in a robbery, thereafter he was charged. Petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit on the ground that the conduct of the line-up, without notice and in the absence of his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. The court denied said motion. Hearing was set, hence the petition. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner’s right to counsel and due process violated. Held: No. The police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, petitioner was not yet entitled, at such stage, to counsel. He had not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. The moment there is a move or even an urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous
Page 2 of 22

3. August 25. Among the evidence the trial court relied upon were the confession of the accused. punctilious. 101808. 6. in his capacity as General Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA). In any case. as he was duly represented by a counsel. We emphasized that when the constitution requires a person under investigation "to be informed" of his rights to remain silent and to have an independent and competent counsel preferably of his own choice. “to pay immediately the Philippine National Construction Corporation. PEOPLE VS. Marcos’s private secretary. and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding of what is conveyed. petitioner was not. we declared that: "This stereotyped "advice" appearing in practically all extrajudicial confessions which are later repudiated has assumed the nature of a "legal form" or model. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN. NO. Issue: Whether or Not accused-appellant deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of his right. the right of a person under investigation "to be informed" implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police Continente 100801-02 investigator to explain. and unconstrained giving up of a right is missing.R. He was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense. it must be presumed to contemplate the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.1985…” Tabuena withdrew the sum of 55M on three separate occasions (25M. it has been ruled that while the initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of the lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators. since they were not informed of their constitutional right and contests the independence and competence of Atty. other accused on the police vehicle and brought them to the police station. 7. one of whom the accused who had a drinking spree with the deceased.R. and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 1 and par. from said suspect. he must be provided with one. On the right to due process. 1986. 5M – with Adolfo Peralta) and delivered them to Gimenez. The showing of a spontaneous. 25M. deceased was with two companions on the previous night. According to Pat. TABUENA vs. It must be emphasized that both appellants never signified their desire to have lawyers of their own choice. They boarded accused along with Magtibay. President Marcos allegedly commanded petitioner Tabuena. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. G. deprived of this substantive and constitutional right. What due process abhors is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard. If the person cannot afford the service of counsel. Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao. he should then and there be assisted by counsel. but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. BOLANOS 211 SCRA 262. Police investigators either automatically type it together with the curt "Opo" as the answer or ask the accused to sign it or even copy it in their own handwriting. 3 JUL 1992 Facts: Oscar Pagdalian was murdered in Marble Supply. thru this Office (Office of the President). unless he waives the right. the accused really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. Filemon Corpuz (counsel for Itass) on the ground that said lawyer was a military lawyer. People vs G. Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution. and artificially stately style does not create an impression of voluntariness or even understanding on the part of the accused. RTC convicted him hence the appeal. Being already under custodial investigation while on board the police patrol jeep on the way to the Police Station where formal investigation may have been conducted. In the case of People vs. fixed. Page 3 of 22 . Nos. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent preferably of his own choice. there is a denial of the right. in any way. and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. Held: Yes. only that he chose not to. The accused argued that their confession were inadmissible in evidence. 2000 Facts: The trial court convicted the accused of murder. We have consistently declared in a string of cases that the advice or "Paliwanag" found at the beginning of extrajudicial confessions that merely enumerate to the accused his custodial rights do not meet the standard provided by law. Issue: Whether or not accused-appellants were informed of their constitutional right to counsel? Held: Yes. xxxx (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. Balagtas Bulacan. LUIS A. the sum P55M in cash as partial payment of MIAA’s account with said company mentioned in a Memorandum of (Trade and Industry) Minister Robert Ongpin to this Office dated Jan. In other words. Its tired. Facts: In a Presidential Memorandum (the Marcos Memorandum) dated Jan. While in the vehicle Bolanos admitted that he killed the deceased. free.at the time. appellant should have been informed of his Constitutional rights under Article III." Appellants Continente and Itaas may not validly repudiate the counsels who rendered them legal assistance during their respective investigations as biased and incompetent. They are terse and perfunctory statements that do not evince a clear and sufficient effort to inform and explain to the appellant his constitutional rights. When they apprehended the accused they found the firearm of the deceased on the chair where the accused was allegedly seated. Jara. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection against the former's appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. Short of this. more particularly par.

"Respect for the Constitution". to borrow once again Mr. or to be more precise.R. Here. Justice Cruz's words. . His contentions are mainly based on the effects of the said law that it suffers from the vice of vagueness. there is nevertheless no impediment for us to consider such matter as additional basis for a reversal since the settled doctrine is that an appeal throws the whole case open to review. A substantial portion of the TSN was incorporated in the majority opinion not to focus on "numbers" alone. Hardly in fact can one avoid the impression that the Sandiganbayan had allied itself with.00 and P500.It is without dispute that Tabuena did not follow the normal procedures in withdrawal and delivery of the money (no disbursement slips and paid in cold cash). and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from whether they are made the subject of assignments of error or not. In this connection. v. November 19. respectively.00. While such competence under the 1973 Constitution contemplated that such an act should the National Assembly the 1976 Amendments made clear come from the National Assembly that he as incumbent President" shall continue to exercise legislative powers until martial law shall have been lifted. Tabuena was only issued a receipt after the third delivery and it did not mention anything about the purpose of the receipt or the money being used to pay PNCC. with its overzealousness. it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions. as amended by RA 7659. 148560. was best exemplified in one question addressed to Peralta. The Court ruled on the issue by citing the case of Nunez vs." over the records. assumed the dual role of magistrate and advocate.. In short. their cross. Justice Makasiar. 55M in cash. neither interfering nor 46 intervening in the conduct of the trial. 44 But not only should his examination be limited to asking "clarificatory" questions. PNCC said themselves that they didn’t receive the P55M. In fact. As the opinion went on to state: "It is not a grant of authority to legislate. but more importantly to show that the court questions were in the interest of the prosecution and which thus depart from that common standard of fairness and impartiality. confronted with "numbers" without necessarily realizing the partiality of the Court. the highest-ranking official to be prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder). there was no receipt from the PNCC recognizing payment of debt. Petitioner took advantage of her position as branch clerk of court by persuading the offended parties Josefina Meimban and Pilar Bautista to deliver to her the sums of P 1. wishes to impress upon the Court that the assailed law is so defectively fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line which divides the valid from the constitutionally infirm. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Sandiganbayan when it held: It is to be made clear that the power of the then President and Prime Minister Ferdinand E. Prosecution: there were no standing obligations in favor of the PNCC at the time of disbursement of 55M. is quite inaccurate. Furthermore. as partial payment of MIAA’s obligations to PNCC and that he believed that MIAA indeed had those liabilities to PNCC. the observation made in the Dissenting Opinion to the effect that the majority of this Court was "unduly disturbed" with the number of court questions alone. but a recognition of such power as already eating in favor of the incumbent President during the period of Martial Law. had taken the cudgels for the prosecution in proving the case against Tabuena and Peralta when the Justices cross-examined the witnesses. MEJIA VS PAMARAN Issue: Whether or not respondent court acted without jurisdiction and in violation of the guaranty of due process of law as it has neither been created as mandated by the Constitution nor constituted as conceived by the decree for its creation Held: No. probing 40 (The insinuating type and insinuation. "is more important than securing a conviction based on a violation of the 35 While going rights of the accused. and it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Page 4 of 22 Facts: The Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of paragraph (b). . Meimban and Bautista were defendants in separate ejectment cases. But more importantly. ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN G. these limitations were not observed. Tabuena claimed that he was only complying with the direct order of Marcos (plus the Marcos memorandum which contained same order) to immediately forward to the office of the President. 45 the right should be sparingly and judiciously used. . we were struck by the way the Sandiganbayan actively took part in the questioning of a defense witness and of the accused themselves. hence this case.examinations supplementing those made by Prosecutor Viernes and far exceeding the latter's questions in length. Commission on Elections decided in 1975. upon review of the records. In the language of the ponente. for the rule is that the court should stay out of it as much as possible. Marcos to create the Sandiganbayan in 1978 is not challenged in this proceeding. Issue: WON there was violation of due process in the trial of the Petitioner Held: Yes compelling reason for their acquittal is the violation of the accused's basic constitutional right to due process. but merely acknowledged that Gimenez had received the sum of 55M from Tabuena on three occasions.000. Tabuena and Peralta may not have raised this as an error.. it dissipated "all doubts as to the legality of such lawmaking authority by the President during the period of Martial Law. in consideration of a promise that petitioner will get a favorable resolution of their cases in court. No. it is very difficult to be. Sandiganbayan rejected Tabuena’s claim of good faith and found him guilty of malversation by negligence. Thus. The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" requirement of due process was certainly denied Tabuena and Peralta when the court. there is an affirmation of the ruling of this Court in Aquino Jr. 2001 Facts: Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada. which will be underscored. that Tabuena acted in good faith. we note that the questions of the court were in the nature of cross examinations characteristic of confrontation.) Thus we beg to quote in length from the transcripts pertaining to witness Monera. Tabuena and Peralta This Court has acknowledged the right of a trial judge to question witnesses with a view to satisfying his mind upon any material point which presents itself during the trial of a case over which he presides. Section 3 of Republic Act No.

L-52245. Issue: WON the Plunder Law requires less evidence for providing the predicate crimes of plunder and therefore violates the rights of the accused to due process Held: No. he denies criminal liability therefor on the novel ground that he was not aware that his traveling bags contained the prohibited drug. In ultimate effect. The purpose of the provision is to satisfy the “need for new blood” in the workplace. The trial court convicted him. through the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. (d). No. Relative to petitioner’s contentions on the purported defect of Sec. may be rebutted. the provision amounts to class legislation.Code. will thereby be avoided. 4 purports to do no more than prescribe a rule of procedure for the prosecution of a criminal case for plunder. 1 par.” And although the filing of charges is considered as but prima facie evidence. “Explicit is the constitutional provision that. according to the fundamental law. a British national. a legislative/administrative determination of guilt should not be allowed to be substituted for a judicial determination. in relation to sec. it contains a rule of evidence and a substantive element of the crime. All the essential elements of plunder can be culled and understood from its definition in Sec. 4 does not define or establish any substantive right in favor of the accused but only operated in furtherance of a remedy. no distinction is made between a person convicted of acts of dislotalty and one against whom charges have been filed for such acts. Petitioner’s contention is untenable. to the extreme detriment of a person charged. What is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt is every element of the crime charged—the element of the offense. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52 as discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution.” and that Sec. 4. Sec. time constraints will prevent one charged with acts of disloyalty from offering contrary proof to overcome the prima facie evidence against him. Petitioners Igot and Salapantan Jr. He also challenges the credibility of the lawmen who apprehended him. 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.R. 4 provides that any retired elective provicial or municipal official who has received payments of retirement benefits and shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected. and unless the State succeeds in demonstrating by proof beyond reasonable doubt that culpability lies. 2.6 kilograms of hashish. An accusation. rebellion. yet. One class can be treated differently from another class. the accused is entitled to an acquittal. 4 (Rule of Evidence) states that: For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder. Sec. 1997 Facts: Appellant. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52. which protects the accused against conviction except upon proof of reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. and therefore. In regards to the second paragraph of Sec. What is crucial for the prosecution is to present sufficient evidence to engender that moral certitude exacted by the fundamental law to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. for attempting to transport 5. a prohibited drug. A person disqualified to run for public office on the ground that charges have been filed against him is virtually placed in the same category as a person already convicted of a crime with the penalty of arresto. accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. The challenged proviso contravenes the constitutional presumption of innocence. is not synonymous with guilt. section 19. 22 JAN 1980] Facts: Petitioner Dumlao questions the constitutionality of Sec. as in all other crimes. also assail the validity of Sec. in all criminal prosecutions. Not everything alleged in the information needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 4 is “two-pronged. 114396. it is best that evidence pro and con of acts of disloyalty be aired before the Courts rather than before an administrative body such as the COMELEC. was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. “ such that without it the accused cannot be convicted of plunder. Issue: Whether or not the aforementioned statutory provisions violate the Constitution and thus. the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Revised Penal Code). shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired. It condemns before one is fully heard. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification. as both of them would be ineligible to run for public office. or to participate in any partisan activity therein: provided that a judgment of conviction of those crimes shall be conclusive evidence of such fact and the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact. 4 of BP Blg 52 remains constitutional and valid. which states that any person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the State. should be declared null and void Held: In regards to the unconstitutionality of the provisions. In a criminal prosecution for plunder. except as to the degree of proof. Being a purely procedural measure. The main thesis of the defense is that it was not proven that appellant knew Page 5 of 22 . People vs Burton G. Additionally. 1973 Constitution). which carries with it the accessory penalty of suspension of the right to hold office during the term of the sentence (Art. it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass. it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy. The “reasonable doubt” standard has acquired such exalted stature in the realm of constitutional law as it gives life to the Due Process Clause. all of which are purportedly clear violations of the fundamental rights of the accused to due process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. including those amounting to subversion. COMELEC [95 SCRA 392. 4 is his submission that “pattern” is a “very important element of the crime of plunder. and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel (Article IV. 44. it should be declared null and void for being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to an accused. employees 65 years of age are classified differently from younger employees. Sec. there is "clear and present danger" that because of the proximity of the elections. the accused always has in his favor the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. insurrection. shall not be qualified for any of the offices covered by the act. Sec. A highly possible conflict of findings between two government bodies. According to Dumlao. DUMLAO VS. In this case. February 19. Furthermore. Though caught in flagrante delicto. or other similar crimes. Sec.

Under the Rules of Evidence (Sec.000. as a state of mind.000. which is unimportant in malum prohibitum. Not only were the blocks and bars of the prohibited drug of a considerable amount.87 to the prejudice of the public whose confidence he has breached. as well as the surrounding circumstances. In prosecutions involving prohibited drugs.R. 171980 October 6. tape recorder. Under the facts obtaining in this case. particularly the testimony of Zuño. In several cases.08 which was discovered to be a shortage from the government funds contending that the P50. and thereafter to place upon the accused the burden of showing that his act or acts are innocent and are not committed with any criminal intent or [24] intention. not appellant’s a reversal of The existence of animus possidendi is only prima facie.000. appellant also admits that Parry was only a casual acquaintance whom he had met for about five to six times only. Appellant explains that this transaction. which is an element of illegal transportation of a prohibited drug. Animus possidendi. in which case the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused.6 kilos of hashish cleverly and painstakingly concealed inside appellant’s luggage and rubber shoes can be said to be in the possession and control of appellant with his knowledge. the 5. SPO4 Gotidoc found on the top cover of the refrigerator one (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. 2010 Facts: During the search in accused-appellant’s house. as unworthy of credence. Thereafter he prepared a Page 6 of 22 .” Such disputable presumption is based upon the principle that direct proof of facts of this nature is rarely available. In any event. in explaining how the drug came into his possession. and Reebok rubber shoes which Parry would redeem from appellant in Australia. clothes. the state has a right to specify what proofs shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt. to be so generous as to shell out such an amount to a mere acquaintance. People vs Olive Mamaril G. Furthermore.that the bags he had checked in at the airport contained a prohibited drug. the Court has held that possession of a considerable quantity of marijuana cannot indicate anything except the intention of the accused to sell.” The burden of evidence is thus shifted to the possessor to explain absence of animus possidendi. or attempt at concealment on his part. he challenges the prosecution’s evidence. this “purchase” was suspiciously made only hours prior to appellant’s apprehension at the airport. However. Rule 131. He denied having misused the whole amount of P72. There is no such equipoise here. distribute and deliver said prohibited [22] drug. Thus. camera. The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the petitioner with his nebulous claims of persecution and conspiracy. Issue: Whether or not the court erred in observing the presumption of innocence of the accused of the charge against him Held: Yes. but they were placed inside three different objects in order to escape detection by the authorities. are owned by him. Its existence may and usually must be inferred from the attendant events in each particular [23] case. “things which a person possesses. and did not [25] intend to do so. false statement. Rules of Court). Issue: Whether or contentions deserve decision. resort to other evidence is necessary. The equipoise rule invoked by the petitioner is applicable only where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced. Corpuz v People 194 SCRA 73 (1991) Facts: Petitioner seeks reversal of the lower court’s decision finding him guilty for malversation of public funds.00 was the unliquidated withdrawal made by their paymaster Pineda thru the 4 checks he issued while the petitioner was on leave and that he was forced by their Provincial Treasurer Aluning to post said amount in his cash book despite not actually receiving the amount. Records shows that the checks issued for the paymaster were duly liquidated to the accused and there were inconsistent entries on his cash books and that he was not really on leave on the day the said checks were disbursed by the paymaster. Knowledge refers to a mental state of awareness of a fact. It is held that presumption of innocence of the accused should yield to the positive findings that he malversed the government funds considering all the evidences presented that point out to his guilt on the charge imputed against him. The prosecution’s evidence was allegedly overcome by appellant’s testimony that he bought the luggage and shoes from a certain John Parry without knowing that they concealed hashish. and animus possidendi or intent to possess a prohibited drug. may be determined on a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused. and the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be (a) purely [26] arbitrary mandate.00-per-month trust fund proceeds. Appellant further claims that the trial court misunderstood his defense to be lack of “criminal intent” in carrying the prohibited drug instead of “lack of knowledge” that he was carrying it. except in cases of confession. as a whole.823. The Court also finds incredible appellant’s allegation that he had no idea that the luggage and rubber shoes he “purchased” from a certain John Parry contained prohibited drugs. The accused was the acting supervising cashier at the Provincial Treasurer’s office. It leaves us with no other conclusion than that the animus possidendi did in fact exist at the time of the arrest. an act of charity. 3[j]. to Parry who was raising money for his plane fare. No. Since courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state its perceptions with certainty. or exercises acts of ownership over. is undeserving of credence as it is contrary to common experience. much less appellant who was unemployed and was relying only on the P6. it is subject to contrary proof and may be rebutted by evidence that the accused did not in fact exercise power and control over the thing in question. Even the alleged transaction between them is dubious. Thus.00 for the two pieces of luggage. Held: No. was more of a loan. it is unbelievable for anyone.310. The constitutional presumption of innocence will not apply as long as there is “some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed. which brought no benefit or advantage to him. may be considered [27] in determining his guilt. Appellant explains that the trial court confused malice or criminal intent. Any evasion. A mere uncorroborated claim of the accused that he did not know that he had a prohibited drug in his possession is insufficient. Appellant’s explanation. Appellant claims that he had paid Parry P10. The presumed innocence of the accused must yield to the positive finding that he malversed the sum of P50.

Issue: Whether the accused was denied his constitutional right to effective and vigilant counsel. The [29] narration of the police officer who implemented the search warrant. and (2) the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by public officers cannot prevail over the [19] presumption of innocence. Court of Appeals [GR 94262. said presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by public officers cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence Held: No. The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental principle of due process. the likewise repeated referral to the In the case at hand. Bermas (April 21. inter alia. In this appeal. that (1) the search warrant was not based on probable cause. 31 May 1991] Facts: Issue: Whether or not. vs.100 metric tons of gas oil and 1. that accused-appellant has not properly and effectively been accorded the right to counsel. The repeated contentions of [23] frame-up of the accused-appellant and that the dangerous drug of methamphetamine hydrochloride was planted by the police officers do not deserve further considerations by this Court. accused-appellant.Right to be Informed People vs. Ruling: In convicting an accused.000 metric tons of fuel oil consigned to Page 7 of 22 . defense cannot solely rely upon the constitutional presumption of innocence for. Frame-up. must be given weight. buttressed by the presumption that they have regularly performed their duties in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary. The right to counsel means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause for the defense and acts accordingly. through her new counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office. the contention being that the frame-up argument is supported by the constitutional presumption of innocence. owned and operated by Feeder International Shipping Lines of Singapore. RIGHT TO INFORMATION (Art. III. Indeed it is a constitutional [27] in all criminal mandate that prosecutions. the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and that on the other hand.” Stated otherwise. his bearing constantly in mind of the basic rights of the accused. essential laws and existing jurisprudence. particularly at the trial of the case. The plastic sachet was brought to the Tarlac Provincial Crime Laboratory located at Tarlac Provincial Hospital for qualitative examination. and his knowing the fundamental procedures. The trial court found the accusedappellant guilty of violation of Section 11. in this case. 1999) Facts: The accused was found guilty of the crime of rape. is generally viewed with caution by the Court because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. The examination conducted by Engr. of R. he should also be asked whether he wants to avail himself of one and should be told that he can hire a counsel of his own choice if he so desires or that one can be provided to him at his request. the narration of the incident by law enforcers. it [28] is in the Rules of Court that. while it is constitutional. presenting new arguments. it is also essential that the accused has been duly afforded his fundamental nights. commonly known as shabu. (Emphasis supplied) xxx” changes as to the lawyers assigned to the accused. While We are aware that in some cases. It is on firmer ground than the self-serving statement of the [30] The accused-appellant of frame-up. The argument is without merit. yielded positive results for 0. The due process requirement is a part of a person's basic rights. a dangerous [9] drug. Notably. the accused-appellant herself stated in [31] her brief that “no proof was proffered by the accused-appellant of the police officers’ alleged ill motive. primacy of the constitutional presumption of innocence over the presumption of regularity in the performance of public [26] functions. That official duty has been regularly performed. Marcene G. most regrettably. but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: “xxx “m. it is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with or performed perfunctorily. the evidence allegedly obtained through it may not be admitted to support the accused[18] appellant’s conviction. his being well-versed on the case. Let this case be REMANDED to the court a quo for trial on the basis of the complaint.055 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. nevertheless the defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the police officers performed their duties regularly and that they acted within the [24] bounds of their authority. it is not enough that proof beyond reasonable doubt has been adduced. It is a right of the accused at the trial to be present in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings from the arraignment to the promulgation of the judgment. Article II. 9165 and so did the CA. like alibi. hence. Agala. the presumption is not conclusive. Ltd. An accused must be given the right to be represented by counsel for. Sec 7). harass. unless so represented.This Court finds and must hold. Feeder International Line PTE. It is never enough that accused be simply informed of his right to counsel. There were a number of The M/T "ULU WAI" a foreign vessel of Honduran registry. the Forensic Chemist who tested the white crystalline substance. law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence in order that to. which basically means that a person must be heard before being condemned.Certificate of Good Search and Confiscation Receipt which the appellant refused to sign. was found after trial and appellate review as the true story. The right assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the proceedings. there is great danger that any defense presented in his behalf will be as inadequate considering the legal perquisites and skills needed in the court proceedings. the socalled frame-up was virtually pure allegation bereft of credible proof. – “The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted. left Singapore on 6 May 1986 carrying 1. It is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the [25] And so is Dangerous Drugs Act. goes further back.A.

agreed on a stipulation of facts. and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney. Feeder International is guilty of illegal importation. on 19 January 1990. Apparently the court became Page 8 of 22 . a corporate entity has no personality to invoke the right to be presumed innocent which right is available only to an individual who is an accused in a criminal case. in relation to criminal proceedings. Philippines. On 21 March 1990. On 8 May 1990. proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in order to justify the forfeiture of the goods. affirming the decisin of the District Collector of Customs of Iloilo in toto. On 14 December 1988. Feeder International filed a petition for review of the decisions of the Collector and the Commissioner of Customs with the Court of Tax Appeals. through their respective counsel. except for a clearance from the port authorities of Singapore clearing the vessel for "Zamboan. is amply supported by substantial evidence. or at least an attempt thereof. Court of First Instance of Rizal. the Court of Appeals rendered its questioned decision affirming the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals. et al. has been committed with the use of the vessel M/T "ULU WAI. The presence of the vessel only came to the knowledge of the Iloilo authorities by information of the civilian informer in the area. Held: Yes. the vessel and its cargo were held and a Warrant of Seizure and Detention over the same was issued after due investigation. contrary to the argument advanced by Feeder International. The trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of the qualified plea of accused. Moreso the guarantees of our Constitution that "no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law". PEOPLE VS.L-2809. and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. finding the M/T "ULU WAI" guilty of violating Section 2530 (a) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (PD 1464). the Court of Tax Appeals issued its decision affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Customs. etc. the Court finds and so hold that the Government has sufficiently established that an illegal importation. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring attorney. Feeder International Line PTE Ltd. there having been an intent to unload. the vessel anchored at the vicinity of Guiuanon Island in Iloilo without notifying the Iloilo customs authorities. the Court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. Held: A forfeiture proceeding under tariff and customs laws is not penal in nature. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are in consonance with the findings of both the Collector and the Commissioner of Customs. as affirmed by the Court of Tax Appeals.R.100 M/T Gas Oil and 1. In the case of People vs.” This was violated. are entitled to great weight and are conclusive and binding upon this Court absent a showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Feeder International appealed to the Commissioner of Customs who rendered a decision dated 13 May 1987. the parties. The Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the elementary principle that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals. the Acting District Collector of Iloilo dispatched a Customs team on 19 May 1986 to verify the report. He pleaded guilty (without a counsel) and said that he was just instructed by Mr.) Inc. and whether the corporation can invoke the right to be presumed innocent. praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or a restraining order to enjoin the Commissioner from implementing his decision. seizure proceedings are purely civil and administrative in character. he did "feloniously and without justifiable motive. Considering. Issue: Whether a forfeiture proceeding is penal in nature. Ocampo was real and whether it had reference to the commission of the offense or to the making of the plea guilty.. and of the administrative and quasi-judicial bodies for that matter.. The penalty in seizure cases is distinct and separate from the criminal liability that might be imposed against the indicted importer or possessor and both kinds of penalties may be imposed. Feeder International's motion for reconsideration having been denied on 4 July 1990. the Supreme Court issued a resolution referring the disposition of the case to the Court of Appeals in view of the Court's decision in Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals. et al. Herein. therefore. On 25 June 1987. the main purpose of which is to enforce the administrative fines or forfeiture incident to unlawful importation of goods or their deliberate possession. holding therein that "seizure and forfeiture proceedings under the tariff and customs laws are not criminal in nature as they do not result in the conviction of the offender nor in the imposition of the penalty provided for in Section 3601 of the Code. Ocampo. kidnap and detain one Artemia Fabreag in the house of Antero Holgado for about eight hours thereby depriving said Artemia Fabreag of her personal liberty. filed a petition for review of the Court of Tax Appeals' decision with the Supreme Court. the Court made an exhaustive analysis of the nature of forfeiture proceedings. G. The Customs team found out that the vessel did not have on board the required ship and shipping documents. he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have attorney being arraigned. through its agent Feeder International (Phils. Acting on said information. it interposed the present petition. and (1-1) under the same Code and are hereby forfeited in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. No investigation was opened by the court on this matter in the presence of the accused and there is now no way of determining whether the supposed instruction is a good defense or may vitiate the voluntariness of the confession. Issue: Whether or Not there was any irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court. then filed its Motion to Dismiss and to Quash the Warrants of Seizure and Detention which the District Collector denied in his Order dated 12 December 1986. The record does not show whether the supposed instructions of Mr. Rule 112..000 M/T Fuel Oil are found guilty of violating Section 2530 (a). as amended. the District Collector issued his decision. Feeder International. while her cargo of 1. which no evidence was presented to indict the latter." In view thereof. HOLGADO [85 PHIL 752.Far East Synergy Corporation of Zamboanga. section 3 of ROC that : “If the defendant appears without attorney. On 17 March 1987. holding that final judgments or decrees of the Court of Tax Appeals are within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. As can be gleaned from Section 2533 of the code. that proceedings for the forfeiture of goods illegally imported are not criminal in nature since they do not result in the conviction of the wrongdoer nor in the imposition upon him of a penalty. Further. On 14 May 1986." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. 22 MAR 1950] Facts: Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged in the court of First Instance of Romblon with slight illegal detention because according to the information." thus warranting the forfeiture of said vessel and its cargo pursuant to the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code. The degree of proof required is merely substantial evidence which means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. (f). In the course of the forfeiture proceedings. being a private person.

S-1964 and Criminal Case No. Karelsen. 1993. Maria helping a friend butcher a pig for the town fiesta. withdrew for his own use and benefit the sum of $1. v. it must be described with certainty. Elvie was already in Grade 2 at the Barangay Minayutan Elementary School and living with her brothers in Minayutan. She already transferred to Minayutan. But above all. The court overruled the said demurrer and the accused was convicted. Laguna.satisfied with the fiscal's information that he had investigated Mr. Famy. Ocampo and found that the same had nothing to do with this case. What he did was to prove where he was on August 15 and 16. 2000. to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause. Held: Yes. 1993. Laguna where she was in Grade 2. the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstances necessary to 28 constitute the crime charged. 1994. He had no opportunity to defend himself on the rapes allegedly committed on the earlier dates. Nonetheless.S. alleging that the amount of the funds alleged does not appear in the complaint and neither does there appear a description of said funds in a manner that an intelligent person can identify them. or postmaster. place. was no longer living with them in Mabitac. 1993. In other words. 1994 and August 16. Facts: The defendant was accused of the crime of embezzlement while acting as postmaster and having in his charge public funds. facts must be stated. a description of the pieces of denominations of the money is absolutely Page 9 of 22 US vs KARELSEN . Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that no person shall be held liable for a criminal offense without due process of law. Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent. when the information alleged such rapes were committed on August 15 and 16. Without doubt. the informations in Criminal Case No. provides that in all criminal prosecutions. It further provides that in all criminal prosecutions. Similarly. so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction. cashier. This is plain denial of due process. 1994. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense. The accused interposed the defense of alibi. A complaint for the crime of embezzlement ought to state the description of the property embezzled with the same particularity as is required in a complaint for larceny. Article III. and circumstances. these must be set forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity of time. Issue: Whether Valdesancho was denied due process when he was convicted for rapes alleged committed August 15 and 16. 1994 as alleged in the information and in the prosecution's evidence. But in the case of larceny the property was in the possession of the owner. S-1965 charged the accused with rape committed against Elvie Basco on August 15. it is the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. while in embezzlement where the offense is committed by a person in the course of a long. In short. 30 May 2001 Facts: Two informations were filed against the accused Valdesancho for rape committed on August 15 and 16. continuous employment as a clerk. The said accused presented a demurrer to the said complaint. If personal property is the subject of the offense. Valdesancho GR 13705152. instead of August 15 and 16. the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. the defense convincingly showed that in August 1994. the trial court convicted the accused for allegedly raping Elvie on August 15 and 16. The entire evidence of the prosecution. not conclusions of law. 542). 1993. Contrary to the prosecution's evidence.000. If the descriptive terms used are sufficient in their common and ordinary acceptation to show with certainty to the common understanding of intelligent men what the property was and to fully identify it they will be sufficient. the victim. showed that Elvie was allegedly raped by the accused on said dates while living in the latter's house." In the cases at bar. who is daily receiving and disbursing large sums of money. All evidence of the prosecution tried to prove that the victim was raped by the accused on these dates.S. A less degree of certainly is required in the description of the of the offense when the facts which constitute it lie more particularly within the knowledge of the defendant. the accused was not given any chance to prove where he was on August 15 and 16. the trial court convicted the accused of two counts of rape committed on August 15 and 16. The rationale behind informing the accused in writing of the charges against him was explained by this Court as early 27 as 1904 in U. and he is presumed to know its particular description. the court should have seen to it that the accused be assisted by counsel especially because of the qualified plea given by him and the seriousness of the offense found to be capital by the court. He proved that on these dates he was in the town of Sta. if one should be had (United States vs. viz: "First. Despite the parties' evidence. including the testimony of Elvie. the description of property in such cases is subject to the rule that the law only requires such certainly as the nature of the property and the circumstances will permit. and third. People vs. names (plaintiff and defendant). as amended. To convict an accused for an offense not alleged in the complaint or information 26 violates such right. He also proved that on said dates. which took effect on December 1. Issue: Whether or not the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature of accusation against him was violated. Elvie. 1994. Cruikshank. 92 U. respectively. and in those cases in which its value is material the value must be stated. Such attitude of the court was wrong for the simple reason that a mere statement of the fiscal was not sufficient to overcome a qualified plea of the accused. to inform the court of the facts alleged. Held: No. and second. 1994 for the informations charged him with rapes on those specific dates. the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. gold currency of the United States. In order that this requirement may be satisfied.

benefits and privileges which the Constitution. Trial proceeded without any evidence being presented on his part. take his medicine.2000. A reading of the information which has been reproduced herein clearly makes out a case of bribery so that the petitioner cannot claim deprivation of the right to be informed. 1903. gold. Brgy Nancamaliran West. the petitioner undertook or promised to dismiss a criminal complaint pending preliminary investigation before him. shall receive all the rights. Fiscal. The absence of a qualified interpreter in sign language and of any other means. and he had supplied the other half. subparagraph (b) of Rep. 1997 read as follows: Criminal Case No.3019). the accused through a counsel de oficio waived the reading of the information and pleaded not guilty. as here. the accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and sentenced to die by electrocution. The complaints against accusedappellant filed on February 3. and by the seventh and eight George IV. 4 The basic constitutional infirmity alone in the conduct of the case against the accused is. Pangasinan.000. petitioner demanded Php. . that the act of dismissing the criminal complaint pending before petitioner was related to the exercise of the function of his office. the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty as a principal in violating the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R. Held: NO. and. who was an Asst. he could only stand by helplessly. belonging to the Post-Officce Department on the 1st day of April. In such a case.impossible. The accused could not be said to have enjoyed the right to be heard by himself and counsel. marked bill. etc. The petitioner. hence this instant petition. The evidence for the prosecution clearly and undoubtedly support. to know or to understand the nature and cause of the accusation against him. He is charged with embezzling “$1.” This allegation is in substance in the terms of his own accounts.64. Issue: Whether or not respondent cannot be convicted of bribery under the Revised Penal Code because to do so would be violative of as constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. After trial. under oath.00 of which was allegedly received. SORIANO VS SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: Tan was accused of qualified theft. laws. United States currency.. Tan reported it to the NBI which set up an entrapment. grade three pupil and a resident of Sitio Buenlag. Urdaneta. P2. without the services of an expert in sign language ever being utilized at any stage of the proceedings. just as it does to every person accused of a violation of the criminal law. enacted that “it shall be sufficient to allege embezzlement to be of money without specifying any particular coin or valuable security. PEOPLE VS CRISOLOGO Facts: On 6 April 1983. in our candid assessment. U-9184: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 1 The undersigned. for example. The entrapment succeeded and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. 11 years old. fatal to the judgment of conviction meted out against him. without knowing or understanding. Finally. Y FLORES for the crime of "RAPE". 1 The accuracy and fairness of the factual process by which the guilt or innocence of the accused was determined was not safeguarded. and. section 48. who daily embezzles sums of money for months is to be discharged from liability simply because the prosecution can not give a minute description by piece or denomination of all the money so misappropriated? England has taken advanced ground upon this question. and rules of practice provide. was assigned to investigate. In other words the physical infirmity of this appellant can in no sense lessen his rights under the Constitution. Tan was given a Php. regulations. in view of the accused’s infirmity and his nearly tenyear detention as a suspect. and all this in the teeth of the mandatory constitutional rights which apply to an unfortunate afflicted deafmute. In the absence of an interpreter it would be a physical impossibility for the accused. The prosecution showed that: the accused is a public officer. chapter 29. on 10 February 1986.000. or whatever may be coming to him. hereby accuses PEDRO FLORES. PEOPLE vs FLORES Facts: For automatic review before the Supreme Court is the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated April 7. a deaf-mute.000. and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him 2 in the proceedings where his life and liberty were at stake. Is it to be argued that a cashier. FILIPINA FLORES Y LAZO. if his accounts are correctly kept. and we fail to see how he can in any way misunderstand the allegation or be confused in making his defense under it. which may or may not constitute a crime.A. to inform the accused of the charges against him denied the accused his fundamental right to due process of law. alias "Pesiong" guilty of two counts of rape of his then 11 year old daughter and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death in each.00 which was allegedly solicited. in the proper administration of its laws. gold. Executive clemency was recommended. which is not the offense charged and is not likewise included in or is necessarily included in the offense charged. whether in writing or otherwise. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan. the only description which can be made is by a general statement of the amount which his books disclose. in consideration of P4. legal money of the United States. Held: Yes. committed as follows: Page 10 of 22 . In the course of the investigation.4000 from Tan as price for dismissing the case. this great and sovereign state must and will accord the means by which its citizens. Act 3019. Counsel for the accused and the Solicitor-General now ask for the reversal of the judgment of conviction due to the failure of the trial court to safeguard the accused’s right to due process of law and the insufficiency of the purely circumstantial evidence presented to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused Issue: Whether or not accused constitutional rights was violated due to lack of interpreter in the arraignment. which is for violation of Section 3. JR. if at all the offense of Direct Bribery.046. as amended. humble and afflicted though they may be. 1997 finding accused-appellant Pedro Flores Jr. however.” In the present case the books of the accused showed that he had the sum of $1.

21741 January 25. The following year. has been forced to respond to no less the five information for various crimes and misdemeanors. in the evening at Sitio Buenlag. "sexual abuse" not being an essential element or ingredient thereof.00 each. Thus. Pvt. Province of Pangasinan. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against further prosecution for the same cause. 11 years old. 1981. As such. The recital of facts in the criminal complaints simply does not properly charge rape. it is imperative that the complaint or information filed against the accused be complete to meet its objectives. to sustain a conviction. Tayabas. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. the above-named accused. and circumstances. Philippine organic and statutory law expressly guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to have a speedy trial. did then and there. i.R. 1981 causing the death of three persons. so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction if one should be had. unlawfully. formerly a municipal midwife in Lucena. Francisco Martin. On May 5.That on the 9th day of December 1996. by means of force and intimidation. by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom. committed as follows: That on the 28th day of December 1996. place. the complaint or information must allege that the accused had carnal knowledge of or sexual intercourse with the private complainant. Aurelia Conde. when he was still in the service. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Page 11 of 22 . criminally and feloniously sexually abuse the herein complaining witness FILIPINA FLORES Y LAZO. hereby accuses PEDRO FLORES. Martin was charged for violation of the 85th and 97th Articles of War. secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period of time. Martin was arrested and confined (restricted to barracks) at Fort Bonifacio pursuant to Article 70 of the Articles of War. has a right to a speedy trial in order that if innocent she may go free. 3. Issue: Whether or Not petitioner has been denied her right to a speedy and impartial trial. all against her will. Brgy. without good cause. and injuries to three others. Pangasinan. with deliberate intent and by means of force and intimidation. like all other accused persons. however. 1982. Issue: Whether or not the accusedappellant has been denied of the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him Held: Yes. grade three pupil and a resident of Sitio Buenlag. under oath. Held: Yes. and she has been deprived of that right in defiance of law. Nancamaliran West. seems as far away from a definite resolution of her troubles as she was when originally charged. For every crime is made up of certain acts and intent which must be set forth in the complaint or information with reasonable particularity of time. To inform the court of the facts alleged. he allegedly sold two grenades to one Rogelio Cruz at P50. even if duly proven. 1981. The essence of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse between a man and a woman under the circumstances enumerated in the penal code. Y FLORES. unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the complaint or information. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make the defense. Hence. In other words. CONDE VS. as in this instance for more than a year. Urdaneta. has appeared with her witnesses and counsel at hearings no less than on eight different occasions only to see the cause postponed. For an accused cannot be convicted of an offense. the above-named accused. ALIAS "PESYONG". has twice been required to come to the Supreme Court for protection. willfully. Criminal Case No. The petitioner claims that he has been denied his constitutional right of speedy trial because the charges against him were filed only about 1 year and 7 months after his arrest. an indictment must fully state the elements of the specific offense alleged to have been committed. Martin was an enlisted man in the Philippine Army. infra. Neither can accused-appellant be convicted of acts of lasciviousness or of any offense for that matter under our penal laws. Brgy Nancamaliran West. This right has the following objectives: 1. We lay down the legal proposition that. in the morning at Sitio Buenlag. 1982. The following month. no such allegation was made. the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information. an 11 years old and daughter of the herein accused with the use of sharp pointed bladed weapon and all against her will. Municipality of Urdaneta. where a prosecuting officer. Province of Pangasinan. willfully. December 3. Nancamaliran West. It is settled that what characterizes the charge is the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. Pvt. RIVERA G. 1924 Facts: Aurelia Conde. names (plaintiff and defendant). criminally and feloniously sexually abuse the herein complaining witness FILIPINA FLORES. The undersigned. after the passage of more than one year from the time when the first information was filed. he was discharged from the service effective as of May 5. On or about April 14.e. one of which exploded during a picnic in Laoag City on April 17. Pvt.. 2. On November 17. 1982 the instant petition was filed. The allegation that accusedappellant "sexually abuse[d]" the private complainant cannot thus be read to mean that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse with the private complainant. U-9185: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 2 The right cannot be waived for reasons of public policy. 11 years old. the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged. Pvt.. including Rogelio Cruz. and now. JR. did then and there. MARTIN vs GEN. unlawfully. No. or if he be restrained of his liberty. Brgy. FILIPINA FLORES Y LAZO. In the criminal complaints at bar. Municipality of Urdaneta. the accused being presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. FABIAN VER Facts: This is a petition for habeas corpus filed by Eulalia Martin on behalf of her husband.

In 1986. Guerrero and by Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez. Held: Section 8. the criminal act imputed to the petitioner unfortunately resulted in the death of three persons (including Rogelio Cruz who allegedly bought the hand grenades from the petitioner) and very serious injuries to three others whose testimony is vital to the preferment of charges and prosecution of the petitioner. but the case against him has yet to be tried. not before the filing.. The motion was adopted by Dacanay. the Sandiganbayan denied Dacanay's motion for reconsideration. a criminal complaint for economic sabotage through smuggling. The resolution was approved by Acting Special Prosecutor Jose Ferrer. In a resolution dated 6 August 1991. The delay in the filing of the information. the resolution issued by Prosecutors Gervacio and Kallos was reviewed by special Prosecutor Wilfredo Orencia. Kallos. the former President of NASUTRA. Gervacio and Robert E. On 6 January 1989. He submits that the trial judge failed to protect him from prejudicial publicity and disruptive influences which attended the prosecution of the cases. People vs Teehankee 3. On February 22. 33 L. the People of the Philippines filed a comment to Dacanay's motion for reconsideration and alleged that the parties should first await the resolution of the petition for certiorari filed by his coaccused Jose Unson with the Supreme Court. If an accused cannot be placed under arrest because he remains outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. the constitutional right of speedy trial is relative. with regard to the importation of raw sugar in 1983 and 1984 by NASUTRA. the Tanodbayan approved the resolution of the team of Special Prosecutors who investigated the case. On July 9. reason for the delay. and courts should consider such factors as length of the delay. The the accused blames the press for his conviction as he contends that the publicity given to his case impaired his right to an impartial trial. the Sandiganbayan denied Dacanay's motion. Dacanay was the vice-president of the National Sugar Trading Corporation (NASUTRA). a claim which has not at all been challenged or denied by the petitioner. the test of violation of the right to speedy trial has always been to begin counting the delay from the time the information is filed. On 14 October 1988. Issue: Whether Dacanay is entitled to a separate trial. 25 January 1995] Facts: In 1985. It found sufficient prima facie evidence against Dacanay and his co-accused to warrant the filing of an information with Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019. Page 12 of 22 . In a resolution dated 24 April 1991. Ed 2d 101: . Dacabat filed a motion to quash but he later withdrew the same. a resolution was issued by Special Prosecutors Margarito P. Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure explicitly states: "When two or more accused are jointly charged with any offense. and it is impossible to pinpoint a precise time in the judicial process when the right must be asserted or considered waived . it has been 8 years since the information against Dacanay was filed. On November 20. In the case at hand. It is therefore not unreasonable to heed the claim of respondents that the delay complained of was occasioned by the unavailability of witnesses. On April 23. The right to an impartial trial.. President Aquino even visited Hultman while she was still confined at the hospital).. Herein. The long delay has clearly prejudiced Dacanay. . is therefore not to be reckoned with in determining whether there has been a denial of the right to speedy trial. liberty or property accorded by the Constitution.. The corresponding information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. He postulates there was pressure on the trial judge for high-ranking government officials avidly followed the developments in the case (as no less than then Vice-President Estrada and then DOJ Secretary Drilon attended some of the hearings and. Dacanay's co-accused. As stated by the Supreme Court in a per curiam decision: "x. Dacanay vs. unless the court in its discretion upon motion of the fiscal or any accused orders separate trials for one or more accused. Dacanay filed a motion for reconsideration setting forth as grounds therefor his advanced age and the protection of his reputation. which in the instant case has not been without reasonable cause.. At best.. be entitled to a separate trial. and prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay. recommending the dismissal of the complaint against Dacanay and his co-accused for lack of sufficient evidence and the withdrawal of the information filed in court.Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has been denied of his constitutional right to speedy trial Held: No. who recommended its disapproval. the People of the Philippines opposed the said motion on the ground that a separate trial for Dacanay would entail a lengthy and repetitious proceeding.) At any rate. whether or not one has been denied speedy trial is not susceptible to precise quantification. This is particularly true in Dacanay's case where the prosecutors' opposition to the request for separate trial was based on the ground that the principal accused in the case. On June 6. who is now more than 73 years of age. Dacanay filed a motion for immediate and separate trial invoking his constitutional right to a speedy trial. was abroad and was not yet arrested. the motion for reconsideration filed by Unson and adopted by Dacanay was denied. filed a motion to quash the information in the Sandiganbayan." (People vs. a claim that a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial is subject to a balancing test. in determining whether defendant's right to a speedy trial has been denied . On 3 April 1991. the right to a speedy trial is a more vague and generically different concept than other constitutional rights guaranteed to accused persons and cannot be quantified into a specified number of days or months. Dacanay filed the petition for review on certiorari. as amended. 113 SCRA 226 at 236. the defendant's assertion or nonassertion of his right. A separate trial is in consonance with the right of an accused to a speedy trial as guaranteed to him by the 1987 Constitution. was filed with the Tanodbayan against the principal officers of the said corporation including Dacanay. The recommendation of Prosecutor Orencia was approved by Acting Special Prosecutor Jose F. People [GR 101302. Likewise. the Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash. taking into account the circumstances of each case. Orsal.. who are under arrest." The resulting inconvenience and expense on the part of the Government (due to a repetition of the presentation of the same evidence) cannot be given preference over the right to speedy trial and the protection to a person's life. they shall be tried jointly. As expressed in Barker vs. Jaime C. Wingo. with more reason should his co-accused. On December 12. consistent with reasonable delays. in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed. more specifically under Section 14(2) of Article III thereof.. On 10 October 1986. Jose Unson...

” Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order "to assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history. Further.The SC did not sustain the accused’s claim that he was denied the right to impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. For one. (249 SCRA 54). it is impossible to seal the minds of members of the bench from pre-trial and other off-court publicity of sensational criminal cases. directed the trial judge to proceed with the trial to speed up the administration of justice. Their mere exposure to publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their impartiality. Then and now. and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism. all the appellants relied on the defense of denial/alibi but positive identification by credible witnesses of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime. To be sure. People vs Sanchez SYNOPSIS Accused-appellants were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of seven (7) counts of rape with homicide on seven counts and sentenced each one of them to suffer the penalty of sevenreclusion perpetua. Both admitted having taken part in the abduction of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police. . No 01-4-03-Sc June 29. just like all high profile and high stake criminal trials. Sarino and. Parenthetically. prosecutors. Our judges are learned in the law and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-camera performances of parties to a litigation. our idea of a fair and impartial judge is not that of a hermit who is out of touch with the world. the accused should be the last person to complain against the press for prejudicial coverage of his trial. still later. for we accord great respect if not finality. At best. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. For another. NOT IMPAIRED BY PUBLICITY. demolishes the alibi. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting in the police. It is true that the print and broadcast media gave the case at bar pervasive publicity. The accused has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden. viz: “We cannot sustain appellant’s claim that he was denied the right to impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. x x x ” Re: Request For Live Tv Of Trial Of Joseph Estrada 360 SCRA 248 A. to the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses. responsible reporting enhances an accused’s right to a fair trial for. Estrada should be permitted by the court. by Senator Renato Cayetano and Attorney Ricardo Romulo. prosecutors. The SC had previously rejected this standard of possibility of prejudice and adopted the test of actual prejudice as we ruled that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity. but the SC. The defense’s documentary evidence consists mostly of newspaper clippings relative to the investigation of the case at bar and which appeared to cast doubt on his guilt. In this appeal. Then and now. The press cannot be fair and unfair to appellant at the same time. just like all hight profile and high stake criminal trials. the accused can only conjure possibility of prejudice on the part of the trial judge due to the barrage of publicity that characterized the investigation and trial of the case. The totality of circumstances of the case does not prove that the trial judge acquired a fixed opinion as a result of prejudicial publicity which is incapable of change even by evidence presented during the trial. There is no evidence showing that the trial judge allowed the proceedings to turn into a carnival. REMEDIAL LAW. gavelto-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality. The state of the art of our communication system brings news as they happen straight to our breakfast tables and right to our bedrooms. we rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. a responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration.M. and judicial processe to extensive public scrutiny and criticism. The records reveal he presented in court no less than 7 newspaper reporters and relied heavily on selected portions of their reports for his defense. as well pointed out. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day-to-day. as well pointed out. not simply that they might be. especially in the criminal field x x x . We have not installed the jury system whose members are overly protected from publicity lest they lose their impartiality. nothing in the conduct of the proceedings to stir any suspicion of partiality against the trial judge. whose open-court narrations served as principal basis for the trial court’s rendition of a “guilty” verdict. Jr. the pith of the assigned errors and the focus of the appellants’ arguments is the issue of witnesses Centeno and Malabanan’s credibility. — On appellant’s claim that the publicity given to this case impaired their right to a fair trial. In the case at bar." The request was seconded by Mr. . The prosecution’s version of the events was based mainly on the recollections of its star witnesses Aurelio Centeno and Vicencio Malabanan . by the barrage of publicity. 2001 Facts: The Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) sent a letter requesting the Court to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. Teehankee. the records do not show that the trial judge developed actual bias against appellant as a consequence of the extensive media coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his case. “a responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration. it would not be amiss to stress that the trial judge voluntarily inhibited himself from further hearing the case. Issue: Whether or Not live media coverage of the trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. Cesar N. we need only to revisit this Court’s pronouncements in People v. responsible reporting enhances an accused’s right to a fair trial for. Nor did he consent to or condone any manifestation of unruly or improper behavior or conduct inside the courtroom during the trial of the case at bar. To be sure. Finally. These news form part of our everyday menu of the facts and fictions of life. there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced. but denied any personal involvement in the rape of Eileen and the twin killings that followed. especially in the criminal field . we rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press.coconspirators turned state witnesses. The trial court’s impressions of the star witnesses for the State bind this Court. Page 13 of 22 . The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge who had the unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and to assess their credibility by the various indicia available but not reflected in the record. It’s true that the print and broadcast media gave the case at bar pervasive publicity. RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

Agreements were made therein: accused to remain under custody. Two months thereafter. as amended). Ergo. Issue: Whether or not Salas can still validly file for bail. it only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come.000. The SC then. the Page 14 of 22 . there was a waiver. Otherwise. PEOPLE VS.. A conference was held thereafter to hear each party’s side. The procedural necessity of a hearing relative to the grant of bail cannot be dispensed with especially in this case where the accused is charged with a capital offense. 1999 FACTS : Roderick Odiamar was charged with the rape of 15 year old Cecille Buenafe. Accused validly waived his right to bail in another case(petition for habeas corpus). Judge Flores issued an order denying the "Motion to Deny Bail" and reduce amount of bail.. After going over the records of the case and the recommendation of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Redentor Cardenas. Held: No. 2. basing on the stipulations of the parties. Vizcarra. (Sections 7 and 8. Atty. Consequently. Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved in a trial that is not lifted about its individual settings nor made an object of public’s attention and where the conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or influence but only be evidence and argument given in open court. Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge may validly grant bail to an accused charged with two counts of rape without bail hearing. PEOPLE v CABRAL 303 SCRA 361.. Salas. FLORES Facts: Ms.. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial. counsel for the accused. morals.00 bailbond in both cases. public order. Salacnib Baterina filed a Petition to Reduce Bailbond. together with his coaccused later filed a petition for the WoHC. within the courthouse. Judge Flores concluded that the evidence of guilt was weak but made a finding of a probable cause... It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be contrary to law.. When these rights race against one another. supra). Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. supra) 3. Jessie Emmanuel A. the overriding consideration is still the paramount right of the accused to due process which must never be allowed to suffer diminution in its constitutional proportions. sit in the available seats. The prosecution argued that Salas is estopped from filing bail because he has waived his right to bail when he withdrew his petition or habeas corpus as a sign of agreement that he will be held in custody. more than anyone else. conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process. or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. to wit: 1. The following duties of judges in case an application for bail is filed have been clearly and repeatedly spelled out during seminars conducted by the Philippine Judicial Academy. He was charged together with the spouses Concepcion.. Salas filed to be admitted for bail and Judge Donato approved his application for bail. Nevertheless. MARZAN-GELACIO VS. Complainant through her private prosecutor. public policy. 4. February 18. where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is demanded. A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised in secret conclaves of long ago. jurisprudence tells us that the right of the accused must be preferred to win... notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18...If the guilt of the accused is not strong. We hereby rule that the right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be waived. or good customs.. Judge Donato did not bother hearing the side of the prosecution. Atty. It also approves of media's exalted power to provide the most accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the proceedings to the public.. with a condition that they will submit themselves in the jurisdiction of the court. DONATO Facts: Salas aka NPA’s “Ka Bilog” was arrested and was charged for rebellion. he issued warrants of arrest with a recommendation of P200.In all cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion. Said petition for HC was dismissed. It was later agreed upon by both parties that Salas will withdraw his petition for the WoHC and that he will remain in custody for the continued investigation of the case and that he will face trial. whereas his codetainees Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion will be released immediately. held to dismiss the habeas corpus case filed by Salas. where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance.Where bail is a matter of discretion. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.. conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion. An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him. Juana Marzan Gelacio filed two (2) counts of rape against Emmanuel Artajos. The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press and the right to public information. the petition 5 should be denied. But later on. filed an Urgent Motion to Deny Bail. In a bid to secure temporary liberty. along with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial.Held: The propriety of granting or denying the instant petition involve the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information.. discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond (Section 19. Held: No.Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution. on the other hand.

MACARAIG. the law mandates the determination of whether proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is strong. who was then assigned at Sultan Kudarat Municipal Police Page 15 of 22 . THE SUMMARY SHOULD NECESSARILY BE A COMPLETE COMPILATION OR RESTATEMENT OF ALL THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING PROPER. Ampatuan (PO1 Ampatuan). 2. prejudice. the duties of the judge are as follows: 1. J. and convincing. A summary is defined as a comprehensive and usually brief abstract or digest of a test or statement. In other words. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution 4. PSSUPT. The grant of the bail is dependent on the evidence of the guilt which should which should be strong to justify denial. 2.” Section 7 Rule 4 of the Rules of court provides: “No person charged with a capital offense. the evidence thus far presented is not strong enough to warrant denial of the bail. Reasoning: Article III. the court’s order granting or denying bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. Presumption great exists when the circumstances testified to are such that the inference of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom is strong. the same will be considered defective in form and substance which cannot be sustained or be given a semblance of validity. “There is grave abuse of discretion where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. he had abused this discretion. and that he will probably be punished capitally if the law is administered. 29 June 2010 No. the judge quoted the medico legal report as not conclusion that rape was in fact committed consideration that the lacerations on the victim may have been weeks or months old when the medical examination was performed six days after the offense occurred. ISSUE: WON the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse in granting bail despite a showing by the prosecutor that there is strong evidence proving respondent’s guilt for the crime charged. Excessive bail shall not be required. DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO RAZON. The judge in concluding thus cited the fact that the girl went with the offender voluntarily and did not resist during the commission of the rape. when the evidence of guilt is strong. the test is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether it shows evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt. JR. In addition. If the guilt of the accused is not strong. MANILA. In the case of an application for bail. Otherwise the petition should be denied. that the accused is the guilty agent. Macaraig G. CO.: PARTIES: 1. CO YEE M. shall before conviction. Based on the duties. this determination is a matter of judicial discretion. Ampatuan v. DIRECTOR GEARY BARIAS. 182497 PONENTE: Perez. or personal hostility amounting to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of the law. shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of criminal prosecution. has been held to mean clear. PO1 Ampatuan. . clear.” In the case at bar.accused filed a motion for bail which was opposed by the petitioner. Regional Trial Court: Original petition for Habeas Corpus Supreme Court: Elevated to the Supreme Court by way of petition for certiorari under Rule 65 FACTS: Petitioner Nurhida Juhuri Ampatuan filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of her husband. Police Officer I Basser B. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its discretion 3. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. . or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. and convincing to an unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable probability of any other conclusion.” The People filed the appeal on the ground that while the judge had discretion on the grant of bail. discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond. be bailable by sufficient sureties. The petitioner alleged that on 14 April 2008. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation.The CA affirmed the decision saying that there was no abuse of discretion in this case. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. bail is discretionary and not a matter of right considering that the punishment for the offense is reclusion perpetua. strong evidence which leads a well guarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that an offense has been committed as charged. Proof evident or evident proof is this connection. By judicial discretion.. Consideration of the said factors and circumstances would have resulted in the denial of bail. The Lower court cannot exercise judicial discretion as to what pieces of evidence should be included in the summary.The lower court grated the motion on the ground that despite the crime alleged to have been committed is punishable by reclusion perpetua.R. 2. Otherwise. Section 13 of the Bill of Rights provides: “All persons. BRANCH 37. JR. clear. HELD: YES. The SC held that the CA and the lower court failed to mention and include some facts which are significant factors and circumstances which are strong. and POLICE CHIEF INSPECTOR AGAPITO QUIMSON NATURE: Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: 1. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. PETITIONERS: NURHIDA JUHURI AMPATUAN RESPONDENTS: JUDGE VIRGILIO V. HENCE.

On the same day. and Police Chief Inspector Agapito Quimson refused to release PO1 Ampatuan. Judicial discretion is called for in its issuance and it must be clear to the judge to whom the petition is presented that. for even if the detention is at its inception illegal. and not merely nominal or moral. again the writ will be refused. in fact. a sixty-four-year-old man. No. 15 April 2008. A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty. PO1 Ampatuan was charged with the administrative offense of grave misconduct for the alleged killing of Atty. Chief Inquest Prosecutor Nelson Salva ordered the release for further investigation of PO1 Ampatuan. Fundamentally. Dalaig. then the writ should be granted and the petitioner discharged. the filing of the application for the writ of habeas corpus. a court or judge must first inquire into whether the petitioner is being restrained of his liberty. No. He was then brought to the Provincial Director of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Maguindanao where he was restrained of his freedom without cause. 921 was issued by Police Director Edgardo E. Likewise. Jr. be no longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application. on 21 April 2008. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient. On 18 April 2008. the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing. What is to be inquired into is the legality of a person’s detention as of. Consequently. Alioden D. Habeas Corpus: judicial inquiry and discretion – In passing upon a petition for habeas corpus. should not be issued when the custody over the person is by virtue of a judicial process or a valid judgment. Plainly stated. inquest proceedings were conducted by the Manila Prosecutor’s Office. and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. Respondents for their part. as amended by R. If he is not. effective 19 April 2008. Jr. was asked by the Chief of Police to report to the Provincial Director of Shariff Kabunsuan. such as the instances mentioned in Section 4 of Rule 102. however. However. at the earliest. Razon.Station. Habeas corpus applies to any form of illegal or unlawful restraint of liberty – In general. PO1 Ampatuan was brought to the General Santos City Airport and was made to board a Philippine Airlines plane bound for Manila. ANSWER: No. Needless to state. the Chief of the PNP has the authority to place police personnel under restrictive custody during the pendency Page 16 of 22 . Dalaig. The writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. PERTINENT ISSUE: Whether or not the placement of PO1 Ampatuan under restrictive custody pursuant to Section 52 of Republic Act No. the petitioner is entitled to the writ. Manila. was killed at the corner of M. A press briefing was then conducted where it was announced that PO1 Ampatuan was arrested for the killing of two (2) Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Officials. Hence the petition for habeas corpus. 8551 is not an unlawful or illegal restraint on liberty – Under Section 52 of R. The next day. alleged that on the evening of 10 November 2007. Ermita. on 25 April 2008.. 8551. Inquiry into the cause of detention will proceed only where such restraint exists. par. 8551 (otherwise known as the “Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998”) constitutes a valid restraint of his liberty. The investigation conducted by the Manila Police District (MPD) Homicide Section yielded the identity of the male perpetrator as PO1 Ampatuan. ordered that PO1 Ampatuan be placed under restrictive custody. Macaraig denied the petition for habeas corpus and held that the placement of PO1 Ampatuan under restrictive custody pursuant to Section 52. in order to justify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus. Police Director General Avelino I. illegal restraint of liberty. Dalaig. placing PO1 Ampatuan under restrictive custody of the Regional Director. 6975. The Order was approved by the City Prosecutor of Manila. therefore.A. the petition should be dismissed. prima facie. It is only if the court is satisfied that a person is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty will the petition for habeas corpus be granted. on 21 April 2008.A. later identified as Atty. Restrictive custody under R. Upon landing at the Manila Domestic Airport. If an individual’s liberty is restrained via some legal process. PO1 Ampatuan was turned over to policemen of Manila and brought to Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim by Police Director Geary Barias and General Roberto Rosales. The writ. Judge Virgilio V. if otherwise. Acting on the orders of General Razon. NCRPO. SUPREME COURT RULINGS: PROPRIETY OF THE REMEDY OF HABEAS CORPUS The writ of habeas corpus applies only to cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty – The objective of the writ is to determine whether the confinement or detention is valid or lawful. it will not issue as a matter of course or as a mere perfunctory operation on the filing of the petition. and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. 4 of Republic Act No. However. the writ cannot be issued. Jr. No. it may. the City Prosecutor of Manila recommended that the case against PO1 Ampatuan be set for further investigation and that the latter be released from custody unless he is being held for other charges/legal grounds. the writ obtains immediate relief for those who have been illegally confined or imprisoned without sufficient cause. Alioden D. Special Order No. PO1 Ampatuan was brought to inquest Prosecutor Renato Gonzaga of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila due to the alleged murder of Atty. If it is. While habeas corpus is a writ of right. If the respondents are not detaining or restraining the applicant or the person in whose behalf the petition is filed. But Police Senior Superintendent Co Yee Co. the writ will be refused. the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether or not a particular person is legally held. is that the individual seeking such relief is illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or placed under some form of illegal restraint. PO1 Ampatuan was commanded to the MPD District Director for proper disposition. Del Pilar and Pedro Gil Streets. If the alleged cause is thereafter found to be unlawful. Acuña. Head of the COMELEC Legal Department. the restraint of liberty must be in the nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus.A. H. head of the Law Department of the COMELEC.. Thereafter. 8551 is unlawful or illegal for which the remedy of habeas corpus is proper. by reason of some supervening events. Meanwhile. The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary. The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ. is an actual and effective.

Vicente Eduardo. Worse. But they were not released to their parents.1982. Respondents make such a plea in line with their return that they had released the desaparecidos after nine days. Dizon v Eduardo G. L-59118 March 3. against such police personnel. evidence of release lies particularly within respondents' power. the 1987 Constitution which was overwhelmingly ratified on February 2. He also posed several questions to the Court. at best.1987 expressly mandated the creation Page 17 of 22 . Eduardo Dizon and their daughter. Diokno claimed that signatures of the detainees on their release papers were falsified. Respondents denied petitioners' allegation of falsification of the detainees' signatures on their release papers. This Court has held that a restrictive custody and monitoring of movements or whereabouts of police officers under investigation by their superiors is not a form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty. then Provincial Commander Col. when they broke the supposed bargain by failing to report as he says they agreed to. Release is an affirmative defense and "each party must prove his own affirmative allegations. With respect to Eduardo Dizon. claiming that the same were signed in their presence and asked for dismissal of the petition. 22 years and a former architecture student. But their return begs the question. The Solicitor General. He concluded that they were markedly different from the signatures on their supposed release certificates. such constitutes a valid argument for his continued detention. by then Solicitor General Estelito P. there are grounds for grave doubts about the alleged release of the detainees. 4. Teddy Carian for interrogation and investigation without assistance of counsel. he took no steps to look for them. The respondents did not release the detainees to their parents though the latter had been visiting them and. disputed Diokno's conclusions about the falsity of the detainees' signatures on the release certificates and questions the reliability of the specimen signatures used. on behalf of their son.of a grave administrative case filed against him or even after the filing of a criminal complaint. have they in fact discharged that burden in this case? 3. Where. compounded by the irregularities and failure of respondents to follow the prescribed procedure in effecting the release for purposes of authentication and to produce and furnish the parents upon request copies of the release certificates need thorough investigation. Teehankee Facts: Eduardo Dizon. Juan Dizon and Soledad Ramos. Diokno noted particularly the very poor line quality of Dizon's signature on the release certificate when compared to the speed and freedom of his signature on his voter's application form. Respondent Carian did not report the supposed releases to the Ministry of Defense or General Eduardo 3. He knew that the probability of the detainees' keeping their supposed bargain was remote. nor does it have the means and facilities to conduct such investigation of the grave charges at bar as well as of the whereabouts and fate of the desaparecidos. Respondent Carian's command could not readily furnish copies of the detainees' release certificates to their parents when the latter asked for them. then the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the alleged release is shifted to the respondents. Given that PO1 Ampatuan has been placed under restrictive custody. and Isabel Ramos. Ratio: 1. to release the detainees. then Regional Commander of the area. Carian also claimed to release them under the pretext that they would act as spies for the military. holding office at Camp Olivas. 1. Moreover. reinvestigation by the CHR Case remanded to CHR for further investigation. Mendoza. Sta. It is neither actual nor effective restraint that would call for the grant of the remedy prayed for. Restrictive custody is. however. Carian. The two had been arrested with others by the military. as counsel for the petitioners.” The Court also noted that the respondents did not follow the prescribed standard procedure for releasing detainees. and Col. where the standard and prescribed procedure in effecting the release has not been followed. and then claimed by the military to have been released after nine days. Gen. disappeared during Martial Law. Jose Diokno. and submitted the supporting affidavits of the men assigned with respondent Carian's Provincial Headquarters. Isabel Ramos. 1988 C. Pampanga under the jurisdiction of respondents Brig. detained in the military camp. Ana. The general rule in a number of cases that the release of a detained person renders the petition for habeas corpus moot and academic.R. More. what relief may the Court grant petitioners? Held: respondents. a 30 year old businessman." just as the burden of proof of self-defense in a killing rests on the accused. respondents insisted that the detainees were indeed released on September 24. 1981. Court can’t grant petitioners’ relief. Petitioners' charges of falsification of the detainees' alleged signatures on the certificates of release. 3. The application for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus had been filed by petitioners. inherent or delegated. Issues: 1. Since the basis of PO1 Ampatuan’s r estrictive custody is the administrative case filed against him. Carian had no authority. No. J. invoked the United Nations General Assembly Resolution to stop the practice of enforced disappearances.1981. in fact Dizon's father was in the camp on the very day he was supposedly released. It is not a trier of facts. nominal restraint which is beyond the ambit of habeas corpus. they do not continue to be missing persons or desaparecidos. and verified by respondent. They were detained by the respondents at the PC Stockade at San Fernando. but nevertheless refuse or are unable to produce their bodies. his remedy is within such administrative process. he took no precautions to insure compliance. Pampanga without warrant of arrest or Presidential Order of Arrest. in turn. If respondents have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that they released the detainees. 2. Teddy Carian at. Do petitioners have the burden in law of proving that the detainees are still detained by respondents or does the burden shift to respondents of proving that they did release the detainees? 2. He submitted specimens of Dizon’s signatures and compared it to signatures on documents that respondents themselves submitted. who had been visiting them. who were arrested by Philippine Constabulary of the Pampanga PC Command then led by respondent Provincial Commander Col. In the return of the writ filed on behalf of respondents on January 5. It is a permissible precautionary measure to assure the PNP authorities that the police officers concerned are always accounted for. If respondents have not satisfied the Court that they released the detainees. Respondent Col. No. and were never seen or heard from by anyone since then. If the release of the detainees is an established fact and not in dispute. Yet. adding that "it is not possible to make any comparison of signatures for the purpose of determining genuineness on the basis of xerox copies. grave in nature. 2. respectively. The Court issued the writ of habeas corpus on December 29.

Rule 102 of the Rules of Court . Once a person detained is duly charged in court. Eight years later.of the Commission on Human Rights. TAN TENG G. he may no longer question his detention through a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. SR. Luis argued that although it appears from Jimmy’s birth certificate that his parents. A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is a special proceeding governed by Rule 102 of the Revised Rules of Court. provincial attorney of Agusan del Sur was granted land through free patent.” . . the Regional Trial Courts have no power to release such alien on bail even in habeas corpus proceedings because there is no law authorizing it. The Bureau of Immigration issued Warrant of Deportation which resulted in the apprehension and detention of Jimmy at the Bureau of Immigration Bicutan Detention Center. Fiscal Brocoy proceeded to conduct the preliminary examination of the complainant and his witnesses without the presence of accused because the summon was erroneously served. and. Luis alleged that while Jimmy represents himself as a Filipino citizen. the Board of Commissioners (Board) reversed said dismissal. because only the citizenship of Carlos appears to be handwritten while all the other entries were typewritten. Likewise. Associate Commissioner Linda L. Paredes v. to file a Motion before the trial court to quash the Warrant of Arrest. No. US VS. the filing of the application for the writ of habeas corpus. all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. Fiscal found a prima facie case against Paredes. The defense of prescription of the offense charged in the information should be pleaded in the criminal action otherwise it would be deemed waived. are Filipinos. Jimmy filed a petition for habeas corpus before the RTC but dismissed the same. 1991 Facts: In January 1976. Whether the crime may still be prosecuted and penalized should be determined in the criminal case not in a special proceeding of habeas corpus. the document seems to be tampered. the writ cannot be issued. Paredes was elected Governor of Agusan del Sur and the free patent was reverted back to public domain. If it is. The Constitution vested the Commission on Human Rights with broader powers than its predecessor committee. at the earliest. fixed by the Sandiganbayan for his provisional liberty. 7081 September 7. The objective of the writ is to determine whether the confinement or detention is valid or lawful. Paredes was charged with perjury by the provincial fiscal requested by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur. Paredes. What is to be inquired into is the legality of a person’s detention as of. The term "court" in this context includes quasijudicial bodies of governmental agencies authorized to order the person’s confinement. be no longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application. His motion for reconsideration was denied.R. Issue: Whether or not the petition for habeas corpus should be dismissed? Held: Yes. the court should then suspend the trial and order the fiscal to conduct a PI. Issue: 1. holding that Carlos’ election of Philippine citizenship was made out of time and directed the preparation and filing of the appropriate deportation charges against Jimmy. on its own or on complaint by any party. January 28. and/or the Information on grounds provided by the Rules. persuade. it may. Information was filed and warrant of arrest was issued against Paredes. The remedy is to demand that PI be conducted before entering his plea. Then the corresponding Charge Sheet was filed against Jimmy.A. The settled rule is that the writ of habeas corpus will not issue where the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in custody of an officer under a process issued by the court which has jurisdiction to do so 2. alleging that the warrant for her husband’s arrest was void because the preliminary investigation was void. GO. A former Mayor of Agusan filed a criminal complaint charging Attorney Paredes with having violated section 3(a) of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act (R. His remedy would be to quash the information and/or the warrant of arrest duly issued. Habeas corpus would not lie after the Warrant of commitment was issued by the Court on the basis of the Information filed against the accused. A petition for habeas corpus was filed by the wife of Paredes. VS RAMOS Facts: These petitions stemmed from the complaint-affidavit for deportation initiated by Luis T. Go alleging that the latter is an illegal and undesirable alien. No. that the crime charged in the information against him had already prescribed. He refused to post bail in “protest against the injustice to him as Governor”. WON the crime had already prescribed. 1912 Page 18 of 22 . Ramos against Jimmy T. like the Deportation Board of the Bureau of Immigration. WON the warrant of arrest was void because the preliminary investigation was conducted w/o notice to the accused. However. On appeal. Hence the case was referred here. Ruling: 1. the CA granted the petition. Land Inspector of the District Land Office in Agusan del Sur. When an alien is detained by the Bureau of Immigration for deportation pursuant to an order of deportation by the Deportation Board. Sandiganbayan G. 3019) because he allegedly used his office as Provincial Attorney to influence. The Board issued a Decision ordering the apprehension and deportation of Jimmy. for even if the detention is at its inception illegal. that is. the cancellation of his bail cannot be assailed via a petition for habeas corpus.000. to favorably indorse his free patent application. The accused may file a bail bond of P20. The writ of habeas corpus should not be allowed after the party sought to be released had been charged before any court. Carlos and Rosario Tan. Not void. and induce Armando Luison.R. such as to investigate. or to ask for an investigation/reinvestigation of the case. 89989. assailing validity of the preliminary investigation that it was conducted without his notice. The absence of a preliminary investigation does not affect the court’s jurisdiction over the case nor impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective. So it is explicitly provided for by Section 14. Malenab-Hornilla dismissed the complaint for deportation against Jimmy. In the meantime. pending his deportation to China. charging him of violating provisions of The Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. Jimmy’s personal circumstances and other records indicate that he is not so. 2. . by reason of some supervening events. such as the instances mentioned in Section 4 of Rule 102.

Subsequent to the date of the filing of the application for habeas corpus. The CFI ruled in favor of the petitioner. 654. but prior to the date of the trial and of the judgment in the case. and in the case at bar writing means that the petitioner herein is to furnish a means to determine whether or not he is the falsifier. SAMSON 53 PHIL 570 G. Except that it is more serious. MEKIN VS. The lower court held that the results show that the disease that the victim had acquired came from the defendant herein. there is a similarity between one who is compelled to produce a document. HELD: No. The prohibition of self-incrimination in the Bill of Rights is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him. criminals may succeed in evading the hand of justice. Wolfe. 654 is an ex post facto law which affects the petitioner’s right to the writ of habeas corpus. but such cases are accidental and do not constitute the raison d' etre of the privilege. The defendant alleged that the said evidence should be inadmissible because it was taken in violation of his right against self-incrimination. It would be the same as if the offender apprehended was a thief and the object stolen by him may be used as evidence against him. refused to write a sample of his handwriting as ordered by the respondent Judge. Several days later. or Page 19 of 22 Issue: Whether or not the writing from the fiscal's dictation by the petitioner for the purpose of comparing the latter's handwriting and determining whether he wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified. It might be true that in some cases . for the purposes of the constitutional privilege. for the illegal imprisonment. He was neither compelled to make any admissions or to answer any questions. Writing is something more than moving the body. Held: The court ordered the respondents and those under their orders desist and abstain absolutely and forever from compelling the petitioner to take down dictation in his handwriting for the purpose of submitting the latter for comparison. against his will. we believe the present case is similar to that of producing documents or chattels in one's possession. writing is not a purely mechanical act. The policeman took a portion of the substance emitting from the body of the defendant and turned it over to the Bureau of Science. the Philippine Commission promulgated Act No. The substance was taken from his body without his objection and was examined by competent medical authority. BELTRAN VS. The results showed that the defendant was suffering from gonorrhea. Issue: Whether or not the physical examination conducted was a violation of the defendant’s rights against selfincrimination. He was found to have the same symptoms of gonorrhea. as the petition of the respondent fiscal clearly states. dated March 4. for in both cases. 1903. and confinement of petitioner by the respondent as warden of said prison. Pacomio was suffering from a disease called gonorrhea. a seven-year-old girl. Such disease was transferred by the unlawful act of carnal knowledge by the latter. and having been enacted subsequent to petitioner's right to the writ of habeas corpus this appeal should not be entertained. the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself. S. This constitutional privilege exists for the protection of innocent persons. 32025 Facts: Beltran. United States Volunteers for entering the service of the enemy in violation of the laws and was found guilty and sentenced by military commission. that is no reason for trampling upon a personal right guaranteed by the constitution. It is contended by counsel for this petitioner that Act No. judge of the Court of First Instance. for the purpose of extorting unwilling confessions or declarations implicating them in the commission of a crime. it should not be a difficult matter for the fiscal to obtained genuine specimens of his handwriting. by the provisions of which an appeal in habeas corpus proceedings may be taken from the judgment of the Court of First Instance to this court. for a writ of habeas corpus against George N. NO. because it requires the application of intelligence and attention. Considering the circumstance that the petitioner is a municipal treasurer. The prohibition contained in section 5 of the Philippine Bill that a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. and one who is compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting. detention. which the latter should have gotten in the first place. the decision of this court having previously been that no appeal would lie in such a case in the absence of a statute authorizing it. Tan Teng was called to appear in a police line-up and the victim identified him. It cannot be contended in the present case that if permission to obtain a specimen of the petitioner's handwriting is not granted. and not an exclusion of his body as evidence. constitutes evidence against himself within the scope and meaning of the constitutional provision under examination. He was then stripped of his clothing and was examined by a policeman. ISSUE: Whether or not Act No. the crime would go unpunished. Held: No.R. He also argued that such an act will make him furnish evidence against himself. and punishes such action. Warden of Bilibid Prison. B. Petitioner was discharged from Thirtyseventh Infantry. The main purpose of the provision of the Philippine Bill is to prohibit compulsory oral examination of prisoners before trial. Ambler. Pacomio told her sister about what had happened and reported it to the police. Tan Teng was gambling near the house of the victim and it was alleged that he entered her home and threw the victim on the floor and place his private parts over hers. WOLFE FACTS: Application was made by Frank Mekin to the Hon. or the hands. when it may be material. or upon trial. The petitioner in this case contended that such order would be a violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination because such examination would give the prosecution evidence against him. as a defendant for the crime of Falsification. An ex post facto law has been defined as one — (a) Which makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done criminal. 654 is in the nature of an ex post facto law.Facts: The defendant herein raped Oliva Pacomio. We say that. is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the defendant's own lips. an admission of his guilt. The court held that the taking of a substance from his body was not a violation of the said right. But even supposing it is impossible to obtain specimen or specimens without resorting to the means complained herein. or the fingers.

However. such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal. that what actually transpired was a summary execution and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the ABRITG. the Ombudsman filed amended informations before the Sandiganbayan. alters the situation of a person to his 44 disadvantage. 7975. However. and is intended as furnishing the means for the correction of errors.(b) Which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when committed.A. Constitutional Law.) The case nearly does not come within this definition. 8249 is not a penal law. or (b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed. an organized crime syndicate involved in bank robberies. The proceeding is one instituted by himself for his liberty and not by the Government to punish him for his crime. they did not qualify under said requisites. They contend that the said law limited the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or ore of the “principal accused” are government officals with Salary Grade 27 or higher. 128096. 42 8249. or (c) Which damages the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed. R. as regards the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.A. Said panel found the incident as a legitimate police operation. 595. Ex post facto law. and punishes such action. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations or those that define crimes and provide for their punishment. a review board modified the panel’s finding and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six respondents including herein petitioner. (g) deprives a person accussed of crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled. This character of proceeding is entirely distinct from the criminal proceedings under which the prisoner has been tried and convicted. G. This Court added two more to the list. charged as accessories. or (d) Which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant. In Calder v. namely: (f) that which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful. R. After a reinvestigation. including Section 7 which provides that the said law shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof. Petitioner questions the constitutionality of Section 4 of R. .A.A. but clearly a procedural Page 20 of 22 301 SCRA 298. There is nothing ex post facto in R. an ex post facto law is one — (a) which makes an act done criminal before the passing of the law and which was innocent when committed.A. 20 JAN 1999] Facts: Eleven persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang. 654. Thus. (Black. were slain by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG). relates to a habeas corpus proceeding. 8249. 7975. The doctrine of ex post facto laws refers only to the criminal law. its mode of appeal and other procedural matters. Among those included in the ABRITG were petitioners and petitionerintervenors. a member of the Criminal Investigation Command. or a proclamation of 45 a amnesty. It is distinctly a civil proceeding. charged as principal. It gives him. Bull.R. 43 (e) Every law which. or PNP officials with rank of Chief Superintendent or higher. where petitioner was charged only as an accessory. The accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. or (c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed. has been declared by the Court as not a penal law. pending resolution of their motions. the benefit of the appeal. the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 2 of R. 8249 was approved amending the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word “principal” from the phrase “principal accused” in Section 2 of R. LACSON SECRETARY VS. 7975. in relation to the offense or its consequences. It would be a sufficient answer to the contention of the petitioner that Act No. provides retroactive effect of penal laws. NO. The possibility that the judge of the Court of First Instance may commit error in his favor and wrongfully discharge him appears to be the only foundation for the claim.A. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto formed a panel of investigators to investigate the said incident. Held: No. and as such is provided for and regulated in the Code of Civil Procedure. asserting that under the amended informations. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. (d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and recieves less or different testimony that the law required at the time of the commission of the offense on order to convict the defendant. Issues: (2) Whether or not said statute may be considered as an ex-post facto statute. R. generally. EXECUTIVE Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes. nor can it be seen in what way the act in question alters the situation of petitioner to his disadvantage.A. and herein petitionerintervenors. It is a new suit brought by petitioner to enforce a civil right which he claims as against those who are holding him in custody under the criminal process. allowing an appeal. as well as the Government.

A. In case of CPP. Subversive Organizations besides the CPP. 27 DEC 1972] through writing under oath. Membership renders aid and encouragement to the organization. and Fraud.) Assumed judicial magistracy by pronouncing the guilt of the CPP without any forms of safeguard of a judicial trial. the following requisites must be present: 1. Section 4 prohibits acts committed after approval of the act. Furthermore. Before the enactment of the statute and statements in the preamble. PEOPLE VS. NOS. the statute is PROSPECTIVE in nature.) It created a presumption of organizational guilt by being members of the CPP regardless of voluntariness.statute. dismissing the information of subversion against the following: 1. It is an act to outlaw the CPP and similar associations penalizing membership therein. The EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIL justifies the limitation to the exercise of “Freedom of Expression and Association” in this matter. Held: The court holds the VALIDITY Of the Anti-Subversion Act of 1957. assembly and association. has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. It is the substitution of judicial determination to a legislative determination of guilt. it must be proven that the organization purpose is to overthrow the present Government of the Philippines and establish a domination of a FOREIGN POWER. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent “people power” revolution and was forced into exile. Manglapus. Section 8 allows the renunciation of membership to the CCP (2) Whether or Not RA1700 violates freedom of expression. The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the TRIAL COURT. the continued pursuance of its subversive purpose. in his deathbed. the retroactive application of R. Why is membership punished. Not being a penal law. 2. The Act’s focus is on the conduct not person. In addition to proving circumstances/ evidences of subversion. Judge Simeon Ferrer is the Tarlac trial court judge that declared RA1700 or the Anti-Subversive Act of 1957 as a bill of attainder. Section 9 declares the constitutionality of the statute and its valid exercise under freedom if thought.L-32613-14. careful investigations by the Congress were done. 2. one which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. The statute VS.) the statute is applied retroactively and reach past conduct. The declaration of that the CPP is an organized conspiracy to overthrow the Philippine Government should not be the basis of guilt. The court set basic guidelines to be observed in the prosecution under RA1700.) Nilo Tayag and 5 others. The members of the subversive organizations before the passing of this Act is given an opportunity to escape liability by renouncing membership in accordance with Section 8.) The Congress usurped the powers of the judge 2. This declaration is only a basis of Section 4 of the Act. But President Corazon Aquino. Section 6 provides for penalty for furnishing false evidence. Membership to this organizations. The Anti Subversive Act of 1957 was approved 20June1957. the statute simply declares the CPP as an organized conspiracy for the overthrow of the Government for purposes of example of SECTION 4 of the Act. It punishes without the benefit of the trial. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional. Craft. 2. Thus. This is the element of MEMBERSHIP with KNOWLEDGE that is punishable. it must be shown that membership was acquired with the intent to further the goals of the organization by overt acts. Marcos. This is the required proof of a member’s direct participation.) Feliciano Co for being an officer/leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) aggravated by circumstances of contempt and insult to public officers. The trial court is of opinion that 1. The court further stresses that whatever interest in freedom of speech and association is excluded in the prohibition of membership in the CPP are weak considering NATIONAL SECURITY and PRESERVATION of DEMOCRACY. subversion by a band and aid of armed men to afford impunity. inciting. Marcos. applies the principle of mutatis mutandis or that the necessary changes having been made. The court did not make any judgment on the crimes of the accused under the Act. Membership makes himself party to its unlawful acts. Section 4 provided that affiliation with full knowledge of the illegal acts of the CPP is punishable. the following elements must also be established: 1. Section 7 provides for 2 witnesses in open court for acts penalized by prision mayor to death. for being members/leaders of the NPA. to be UNLAWFUL. subversion and other illegal means. groups. (A bill of attainder relatively is also an ex post facto law. Attended by Aggravating Circumstances of Aid or Armed Men. 3. not only by force and violence but also by deceit. It defined the Communist Party being although a political party is in fact an organized conspiracy to overthrow the Government. Membership is willfully and knowingly done by overt acts. A bill of attainder is solely a legislative act.) The statute specifies persons. The Act applies not only to the CPP but also to other organizations having the same purpose and their successors. In order for a statute be measured as a bill of attainder. instigating people to unite and overthrow the Philippine Government.) In the case at bar. . Section 5 states that due investigation by a designated prosecutor by the Secretary of Justice be made prior to filing of information in court. Facts: Hon. considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various Page 21 of 22 Issues: (1) Whether or not RA1700 is a bill of attainder/ ex post facto law. FERRER [48 SCRA 382. Membership is willfully and knowingly done by overt acts. and for other purposes. petitioner respondent (Part 1) Facts: Former President Ferdinand E. It declares that the CPP is a clear and present danger to the security of the Philippines.

dictate that the President can do anything which is not forbidden in the Constitution (Corwin. Although the constitution outlines tasks of the president. inevitable to vest discretionary powers on the President (Hyman. the power of control over all executive departments. may only be impaired by a court order. Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to order the respondents to issue them their travel documents and prevent the implementation of President Aquino’s decision to bar Marcos from returning in the Philippines. 6. it does not define what is meant by “executive power” although in the same article it touches on exercise of certain powers by the President. According to the Marcoses. Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. “the executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. public safety and health. Petition dismissed. liberty. such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied. (Art.. i. Ratio: Separation of power dictates that each department has exclusive powers. Page 22 of 22 . this list is not defined & exclusive. The supervening events that happened before her decision are factual. supra at 153). 4. 2. such act deprives them of their right to life. It is proven that there are factual bases in her decision. 7. failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos leaders channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries aboard a chartered plane of a Lebanese arms dealer. Petitioner questions Aquino’s power to bar his return in the country. Article 3 of the constitution. according to Theodore Roosevelt. subject to certain exceptions. Petitioner also claimed that the President acted outside her jurisdiction. the question for the court to determine is whether or not there exist factual basis for the President to conclude that it was in the national interest to bar the return of the Marcoses in the Philippines. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. the appointing power to grant reprieves.directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward. In that context. He also questioned the claim of the President that the decision was made in the interest of national security. Sec. property without due process and equal protection of the laws.e. The request of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel. or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present one. commutations and pardons… (art VII secfs. 1. bureaus and offices. the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. The President must take preemptive measures for the self-preservation of the country & protection of the people. American President) and that the president has to maintain peace during times of emergency but also on the day-to-day operation of the State. the power to execute the laws. She has residual & discretionary powers not stated in the Constitution which include the power to protect the general welfare of the people. 2. Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return. has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Marcos and his family. 5. in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution. According to Section 1. She has to uphold the Constitution. They also said that it deprives them of their right to travel which according to Section 6. 14-23). The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They’re flexible depending on the circumstances. She is obliged to protect the people. Issue: 1. 3. 4-5 of the Constitution). For issue number 2. promote their welfare & advance national interest. Aquino barred Marcos from returning due to possible threats & following supervening events: 1. Whether or not. II. Residual powers. This is to prove that they can stir trouble from afar Honasan’s failed coup Communist insurgency movements secessionist movements in Mindanao devastated economy because of accumulated foreign debt plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies Decision: No to both issues. 2.” However.