GUILLERMO T. DOMONDON v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 166606, November 29, 2005
DOCTRINE:
The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only when: 1) the proceedings are attended by vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delays; 2) when unjustified postponements are asked for and secured; 3) when
without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case
tried.
FACTS:
Subsequent investigations determined that petitioners Philippine National Police (PNP) Director for
Comptrollership Guillermo Domondon, and Sr. Superintendent Van Luspo, together with other PNP officers,
conspired with one another in approving without budgetary basis, the release of P5,000,000 and P15,000,000,
for the procurement of CCIE for the use of PNP personnel of the CRECOM, causing to be issued checks with
an aggregate amount of P20,000,000 for payment of ghost purchases of the aforesaid CCIE items.
On May 4, 1994, an information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging petitioners Domondon and
Luspo, and the other PNP officers, with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Their arraignment was reset for several times, hence, petitioners filed on December 3, 2003 a motion to
dismiss claiming that the failure to arraign them within the period set under Republic Act (RA) No. 8493 or the
Speedy Trial Act of 1998 have resulted in denial of their rights to speedy trial.
On September 13, 2004, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioners motion to dismiss and on January 11, 2005,
dismissed petitioners motion for reconsideration.
Hence, the instant petition raising the sole issue of whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of
discretion in denying petitioners motion to dismiss.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners motion to
dismiss.
RULING:
The petition lacks merit.
While the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 sets the time limit for the arraignment and trial of a case, these however do
not preclude justifiable postponements and delay when so warranted by the situation. Section 2 of SC Circular
38-98 provides that the period of the pendency of a motion to quash, or for a bill of particulars, or other causes
justifying suspension of arraignment, shall be excluded.
Thus in People v. Tee, we held that the right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only when: 1) the proceedings
are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; 2) when unjustified postponements are asked
for and secured; 3) when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without
the party having his case tried.

A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved, therefore, would not be sufficient. In the application of the
constitutional guarantee of the right to speedy disposition of cases, particular regard must also be taken of the
facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.
In Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan, the Court emphasized that:
“The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the
proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of
the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed
to elapse without the party having his case tried. Equally applicable is the balancing test used to determine
whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that
matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed, and such factors as
length of the delay, reason for the delay, the defendants assertion or non-assertion of his right, and prejudice
to the defendant resulting from the delay, are considered.”
In justifying the denial of petitioners motion to dismiss, the Sandiganbayan reasoned that although the
scheduled arraignments were postponed several times, they were however postponed for valid reasons. The
respondent court cited a number of justifiable causes of postponements, thus:
“One of the postponements was due to the request of one of the accused to reset the arraignment since the
counsel of record is not available on the scheduled date. To proceed with the arraignment despite the noted
absence of one of the counsels would result in inequity on one of the accused-movants co-defendants.
Another postponement, as pointed out by the accused-movants, was the time given by the Court to allow the
prosecutor to file an opposition to Brizuelas Bill of Particulars. The comment made by accused-movants is
discriminatory and unjust. They claim that the delay caused by the filing of a motion for bill of particulars by a
co-accused should not be attributable to them as they did not join the same, and consequently such is a
violation of their right to speedy trial. They have forgotten that they themselves had caused a long delay in this
case by filing a motion for reinvestigation and the petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Honorable
Supreme Court, which is, if such reasoning is to be followed, to the detriment of the other accused in this
case.”
We find no reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the respondent court. A careful examination
of the records would show that the postponements were caused by numerous pending motions or petitions.
The delays caused by the filing and resolution of these motions and petitions cannot be categorized as
vexatious, capricious or oppressive. Hence, the dismissal of petitioners motion to dismiss must be upheld.

PEREZ vs. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 164763, February 12, 2008
DOCTRINE:
While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the
fact remains that under existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by
counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of respondent’s capacity to represent himself, and no
duty rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel.38
Thus, the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are

conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public
officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.
FACTS:
An audit team conducted a cash examination on the account of Perez, who was then the acting municipal
treasurer of Bohol. Perez was absent on the first scheduled audit and he was apprised of the on-going audit.
The following day, the audit team counted the cash contained in the safe of petitioner in his presence which
amounted to P21,331.79. The findings was embodied in the Report of Cash Examination Perez was supposed
to have on hand P94,116.36, incurring a shortage of P72,784.57.
Perez was required to produce the amount of P72,784.57. Perez verbally explained that part of the money was
used to pay for the loan of his late brother, another portion was spent for the food of his family, and the rest for
his medicine.
On January 16, 1989, petitioner remitted to the Office of the Provincial Treasurer P25,000. This was followed
by remittances of P35,000.00, P2,000.00 and P2,784.00.
An administrative case was filed against Perez. Petitioner again remitted the amount of P8,000.00 fully
restituting his shortage in the amount of P72,784.57. Later, Perez was charged before the Sandiganbayan with
malversation of public funds which found that said fund was appropriated and converted by the said accused
to his own personal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of the government in the aforementioned
amount.
Perez entered a plea of "not guilty." Pre-trial was initially set but the Sandiganbayan dispensed with pre-trial
and allowed the prosecution to present its witness. The defense presented evidence through petitioner Zenon
R. Perez himself, denying the contents of his first Answer15 to the administrative case filed against him by the
audit team. He claimed it was prepared without the assistance of counsel and that at the time of its preparation
and submission, he was not in peak mental and physical condition, having been stricken with diabetes mellitus.
He then revoked his Answer dated February 22, 1989 and filed his second Answer dated March 2, 1989.17 In
the latter, he vehemently denied that he incurred a cash shortage P72,784.57.
On September 24, 2003, the Sandiganbayan rendered a judgment of conviction. On January 13, 2004,
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration23 which was denied with finality.
ISSUE:
W/N petitioner’s first Answer of February 22, 1989 should not have been given probative weight because it
was executed without the assistance of counsel.
RULING:
There is no law, jurisprudence or rule which mandates that an employee should be assisted by counsel in an
administrative case. On the contrary, jurisprudence is in unison in saying that assistance of counsel is not
indispensable in administrative proceedings.
The right to counsel, which cannot be waived unless the waiver is in writing and in the presence of counsel, is

June 25. JURADO GR No. Bautista. The textiles were to be manufactured into car covers for exportation. with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service. and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel. The assistance of lawyers. Maglei Enterprises Co. Dizon reported that the subject CBW . Maglei imported various textile materials which were then transferred to the said warehouse. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient. a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel. The ordinary citizen is not that helpless that he cannot validly act at all except only with a lawyer at his side. or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. FACTS: Sometime in 1992. Particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured. is not indispensable. who was then the Chief of the Warehouse Inspection Division.37 While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding. The legal profession was not engrafted in the due process clause such that without the participation of its members. As part of the evaluation of Magleis application. M-1467 located at 129 J.38 Thus. OMBUDSMAN vs. 1992. It is not an absolute right and may be invoked or rejected in a criminal proceeding and.. capricious. the fact remains that under existing laws. 2008 DOCTRINE: Speedy disposition is a relative and flexible concept. CBW Supervisor Baliwag conducted an inspection of Magleis compliance with structural requirements. and oppressive delays. Subsequently. in an administrative inquiry.a right afforded a suspect or accused during custodial investigation. filed before the Bureau of Customs for the operation of a Customs Bonded Warehouse (CBW)-Manufacturing Warehouse. adopted the recommendation of Baliwag. irrespective of the nature of the charges and of respondent’s capacity to represent himself. on July 8 and 22. Respondent Jurado. and (iii) There is a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases when the proceedings are attended by vexatious. MMBWD Senior Storekeeper Account Officer Dizon was tasked by MMBWD Chief Mendoza to check and verify the status of Magleis CBW. By virtue of such authority. Caloocan City. Maglei was finally granted the authority to establish and operate CBW No. (ii) The Balancing test is used to determine of what constitutes a violation of the right of speedy disposition of cases. 1992. the safeguard is deemed ignored or violated. the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees. without such representation.39 There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a party in a non-litigation proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that. Then he indorsed the papers of Maglei to the Chief Mendoza of the Miscellaneous Manufacturing Bonded Warehouse Division (MMBWD). with more reason. while desirable. 154155 August 6. he shall not be bound by such proceedings. Baliwag submitted a report recommending approval of the application.

Further investigation revealed that Magleis shipment of textile materials disappeared. More importantly. Cuyos and Medina for prosecution under the Tariff and Customs Code. 1997.was existing and operating. the appellate court ratiocinated: it is quite clear that it took the Ombudsman almost six (6) years to decide that a case be filed against Petitioner. Only a small signboard bearing the name Maglei Enterprises Company was posted inconspicuously in the corner of the lot. Jurado as. In ruling in favor ofJurado. We do not agree that Jurado. what was reported located at the site was a School of the Divine Mercy. the Administrative Adjudication Bureau (AAB) of the OMB rendered judgment finding respondent Jurado administratively liable. it was discovered that the purported CBW of Maglei did not exist at the alleged site in Caloocan City. on August 16. the OMB dismissed the criminal complaint for falsification of public documents and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R. 11 1992. FFB submitted its report and recommended That criminal charges for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and Section 3081 of the Tariff and Customs Code be filed against the certain officials including respondent Jurado October 17. the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB) of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) recommended that the Resolution of the Bureau of Customs be reversed and forwarded to case to Fact Finding Bureau (FFB) for further fact-finding investigation. We cannot fault Jurado for invoking violation of his right to speedy disposition of his case. Deputy Commissioner for Assessment and Operation. Respondents motion for reconsideration of his suspension was likewise denied by the Ombudsman. A careful reading of said 1st Indorsement undoubtedly shows that Petitioner invited attention to the inspectors (Supervisor Baliwag) qualified recommendation. Such duty belongs to other personnel/officers. First of all. 1996.A. Under such circumstances. After Petitioner made the indorsement. 1999. August 2. However. On the other hand. ISSUES: 1. On February 13.WON Jurado was negligent in the performance of his duty . the Ombudsman conducted the investigation on the complaint. 1999. he CA reversed and set aside the questioned decision and resolution of the OMB. the OMB approved the above recommendation. upon further verification by the Bureau of Customs.) No. 3019 and Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code filed against respondent. September 29. under attendant facts and circumstances can be held liable for negligence. On Appeal. Rather. he no longer had any participation nor was he under obligation or duty to make a re-inspection. penalizing him with suspension for six (6) months without pay. without proof of the materials being exported or the corresponding taxes being paid. Bureau of Customs initiated a complaint against Dizon. Aug.WON Jurado’s right to speedy trial was violated 2. did not have the duty to make inspection on the alleged warehouse. Secondly. After receiving a copy of the resolution. 1997.

like the right to speedy trial. and oppressive delays. Jurado was not included as one of the parties charged with violation of the Tariff and Customs Code. The original complaint filed by the Bureau of Customs. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is defined as moral certainty.RULING: 1. capricious. arbitrary and oppressive delays which render rights nugatory. On the other hand. With respect to respondent. Simply put. The Balancing Test In determining whether or not the right to the speedy disposition of cases has been violated. a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. or when without cause or justifiable motive. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. and oppressive delays because he was not made to undergo any investigative proceeding prior to the report and findings of the FFB. respondent was neither investigated nor charged. capricious. prior to the report and recommendation by the FFB that Jurado be criminally and administratively charged. Further. capricious or oppressive. there were no vexatious. it is a flexible concept. or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured. the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual administratively liable as provided by Rule 133. Jurado administratively liable for neglect of duty The dismissal of criminal charges will not necessarily result in the dismissal of the administrative complaint based on the same set of facts. and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay. 2. this Court has laid down the following guidelines: (1) the length of the delay. That respondent was charged only in 1997 while the subject incident occurred in 1992. The quantum of evidence in order to sustain a conviction for a criminal case is different from the proof needed to find one administratively liable.No violation of respondents right to speedy disposition of cases. The assertion of respondent that there was a violation of his right to the speedy disposition of cases against him must necessarily fail. Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides that for criminal cases. respondent had no case to speak of he was not made the subject of any complaint or made to undergo any investigation. is not necessarily a violation of his right to the speedy disposition of his case. The time it took the Ombudsman to complete the investigation can hardly be considered an unreasonable and arbitrary delay as to deprive respondent of his constitutional right to the speedy disposition of his case. Rule 133. It bears stressing that although the Constitution guarantees the right to the speedy disposition of cases. Section 5 of the Rules of Court is substantial evidence. Verily. There was no inordinate delay amounting to a violation of respondents constitutional rights. Due regard must be given to the facts and circumstances surrounding each case. respondent can still be held administratively liable despite the dismissal of the criminal charges against him. (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused. The right to a speedy disposition of a case. What the Constitution prohibits are unreasonable. The record is clear that prior to 1997. . (2) the reasons for such delay. conviction is warranted only when the guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. there is nothing in the records to show that said period was characterized by delay which was vexatious. or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious.

or recommend investigation and disciplinary proceedings against his subordinate Baliwag after the anomaly was discovered. 206661-77 and 209634 for Violation of BP 22 was filed against petitioner William Co. 206655-59. and diligence which the circumstances warrant. No. and there being no motion for reconsideration filed. skill. In the absence of Uy and the private counsel. the delay should be considered in view of the entirety of the proceedings. Co then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court. Uy. dismissed for lack of merit on May 23. respondent was negligent in overseeing that the duties and responsibilities of the WID were performed with utmost responsibility.a. Co’s motion for reconsideration was. (b) reason therefor. subsequently.R. (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it.Neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a task expected of him. NEW PROSPERITY PLASTIC PRODUCTS. XU QUING HE vs. 2004. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. however. 2014] DOCTRINE: Rights of the Accused – Speedy Trial Rule 115 (h) In determining whether the accused's right to speedy trial was violated. FACTS: Respondent New Prosperity Plastic Products. the appealed Decision REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. 2005. which were raffled to the MeTC Branch 49 of Caloocan City. 2005. the dismissal became final and executory on March 20. through counsel. denied on December 16. Clearly. 171096 which was also dismissed on February 13. represented by private complainant Elizabeth Uy in Criminal Case Nos. institute.k. The Decision of the Ombudsman in OMB-ADM-0-97-0656 finding respondent guilty of neglect of duty is REINSTATED. Wherefore. Respondent was likewise negligent when he failed. signifying disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. On March 17. [G. 2006.R. and (d) prejudice caused by such delay. respondent failed to exercise the degree of care. . It was. By merely acquiescing to the report and recommendation of his subordinate without verifying its accuracy. No. 183994 June 30. which was docketed as G. 2006. On July 2. 2003 in open court pursuant to Section 8. the cases were provisionally dismissed on June 9. filed a Motion to Revive the Criminal Cases that was granted on October 14. WILLIAM CO a. The factors to balance are the following: (a) duration of the delay. to initiate. 2005. 2004 and denied Co’s motion for reconsideration. Co filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO)/writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) before the RTC of Caloocan City challenging the revival of the criminal cases. as supervisor.

The factors to balance are the following: (a) duration of the delay. ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of the criminal cases against petitioner on the ground of denial of his right to speedy trial constitutes final dismissal of these cases. 2002 until the initial trial on June 9. contending that the motion raised the same issues already resolved with finality by this Court in G." Wherein. (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it. When the court subsequently denied Uy’s motion for reconsideration on November 16. In spite of this. Paragraph 2. which. and (d) prejudice caused by such delay. Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure mandating that the entire trial period should not exceed 180 days from the first day of trial. this present petition with prayer for TRO/WPI. the delay should be considered in view of the entirety of the proceedings. 2003 Order provisionally dismissing Criminal Case Nos. capricious and oppressive" delay. there was already a "vexatious. 171096. Uy opposed the motion. Co contends that the MeTC lost its jurisdiction over the cases and cannot reacquire jurisdiction over the same based on a mere motion because its revival would already put him in double jeopardy. Co failed to show any evidence that the alleged "vexatious. capricious and oppressive" delay in the trial was attended with malice or that the same was made without good cause or justifiable motive on the part of the prosecution. 206661-77 and 209634 should be considered as a final dismissal on the ground that his right to speedy trial was denied. after all. annulling and setting aside the Orders dated September 4. 2006 and November 16. He reasons out that from his arraignment on March 4. No. in determining whether the accused's right to speedy trial was violated. do not exist in a vacuum. 2006 and directing the MeTC Branch 50 to proceed with the trial of the criminal cases. 2003. Co filed a "Motion for Permanent Dismissal" on July 13. and that particular . (b) reason therefor. Hence. On January 28. Co then filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. Surely. 2006. Uy filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC of Caloocan City. 206655-59.R. 2006 granting Co’s motion. As the dismissal is deemed final. as aforesaid. RULING: No. Judge Esteban V. 206661-77 and 209634 were re-raffled after the inhibition of Judge Ortiz. Co argues that the June 9. 2006. 206655-59. RTC acted favorably on the petition. mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not suffice as the realities of everyday life must be regarded in judicial proceedings which. This Court has emphasized: "‘speedy trial’ is a relative term and necessarily a flexible concept.Before the MeTC Branch 50 where Criminal Case Nos. which is in violation of Section 6 of Republic Act 8493 (Speedy Trial Act of 1998) and Section 2. Gonzaga issued an Order dated September 4. 2008. dismissed the petition and denied his motion for reconsideration.

No.000. after consultation with the public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused." The Supreme Court denies the petition. right to counsel is one of the most sacrosanct rights available to the accused. set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial. the justice or judge shall. section 2: Continuous trial until terminated. set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so as to ensure speedy trial. The time limitations provided under this section and the preceding section shall not apply where special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court provide for a shorter period of trial. except those subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure. A deprivation of the right to counsel strips the accused of an equality in . In criminal cases involving persons charged of a crime. or where the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed six (6) months imprisonment. The court shall. As such. Rule 119. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of trial. It may be postponed for a reasonable period of time for good cause. IBANEZ vs PEOPLE G.R. or a fine of One thousand pesos (P1. irrespective of other imposable penalties. Rule22 of the Rules of Court. Trial once commenced shall continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated. Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial. 2016 DOCTRINES: The right to be assisted by counsel is an indispensable component of due process in criminal prosecution. January 27. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of trial. postponements. we cannot deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals. except as otherwise authorized by the Supreme Court. "While the Court recognizes the accused's right to speedy trial and adheres to a policy of speedy administration of justice. Additional Notes Section 6 of Republic Act 8493 (Speedy Trial Act of 1998): Time Limit for Trial. 190798.00) or both. after consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel. except as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 3.regard must be given to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.

he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record. Gregorio Caneda. Pantua). Manzano's right to cross-examine the witnesses. Undaunted. in turn. 2003. Caneda conducted the cross-examination of Ruth and even expressed his desire to continue with the cross-examination of said witness on the next scheduled hearing. In her stead. Atty. The petitioners also asserted that they were deprived of their constitutional right to counsel. 2002. This prompted the trial court to issue the corresponding warrants for their arrest and the bonds posted by them for their provisional liberty were ordered confiscated in favor of the government. were charged with the crime of frustrated homicide. the arrest of Ronald and enjoining the NBI and PNP to answer why warrants of arrest against Boyet and David remain unimplemented. Ronald and Bobot were assisted by Atty. Since then. the right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly. hitting and stabbing Rodolfo M. All the petitioners entered a plea of not guilty to the crime charged. Atty. Juan Sindingan (Atty. trial on the merits immediately. 2005. Despite the continued absence of his clients. be it criminal or civil in nature. Emilio appeared with the assistance of Atty. Caneda of his designation as counsel de oficio for the petitioners. (Atty. Manzano appeared for the petitioners. Ronald. On November 5. Atty. The trial court then appointed Atty. one of the petitioners. After posting their bail bond at P24. In the pre-trial conference that followed. Caneda religiously attended the succeeding hearings. However. Atty. is a fundamental right which is part of due process. Pantua's designation was recalled upon her manifestation that she had previously assisted Rodolfo in initiating the present case. Pantua (Atty. the petitioners together with their co-accused. Antonio Manzano (Atty. where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it. Thereafter. As a result. Sindingan). of the Public Attorney's Office. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision but this was denied in an Order25 dated October 11. At his arraignment. With his help. Atty. Caneda appeared for the petitioners but Bobot and Emilio did not show up. or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers. FACTS: This case is an appeal on the decision of the CA affirming with modifications the decision of the RTC which convicted petitioners of the crime of frustrated homicide. Per the trial court's Order23 dated February 10. Manzano withdrew as petitioners' counsel de oficio. 2004. On the same date. Atty. the petitioners elevated their case to the CA. . Emilio was. Atty.000. they were required to submit their respective memoranda in thirty (30) days. Teresita C. Atty. However. Arraignment of Ronald and Bobot was held on May 9. However. Simply put. Boyet Ibañez (Boyet) and David Ibañez (David). by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of crossexamination. Manzano).00 each. Salvacion. who was then appointed by the trial court as counsel de oficio for all the accused. After termination of pretrial on April 23. Manzano was informed that the trial for the presentation of prosecution evidence was set on June 18. Sindingan handled the cross-examination of another prosecution witness. 2003. Atty. who was selected as their counsel de oficio only for that occasion. Sindingan has been representing the petitioners. Atty. Ma. Jr. absented himself from the same hearing. Atty. For allegedly stoning. After both parties had rested their case. the trial court relieved Atty. Thus. the trial court appointed the petitioners' current counsel de oficio. Thereafter. Lebria (Rodolfo). 2002. 2007. as well as the presentation of evidence for the defense. 2003. Ronald. The RTC's Ruling The RTC accorded more weight to the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses over the declarations of the defense. Atty. 2003. the case was deemed submitted for decision.arms resulting in the denial of a level playing field. Both Rodolfo and PO2 Sulit completed their respective testimonies during the June 18. Atty. The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation. Likewise. They faulted the trial court for totally disregarding their claim that Rodolfo was the aggressor and for not recognizing that Bobot was merely acting in self-defense when Rodolfo was stabbed. upon his request. Caneda) as the new counsel de oficio of the petitioners. arraigned on December 10. 2003 hearing. Bobot and Emilio were released on bail. Sindingan submitted the Memorandum for the petitioners while no memorandum was ever filed by the prosecution. In the hearing of September 17. an accused without counsel is essentially deprived of a fair hearing which is tantamount to a grave denial of due process. Bibiano Colasito. Mere opportunity and not actual cross-examination is the essence of the right to cross-examine. During the arraignment. was designated as the petitioners' counsel de oficio. all three petitioners finally appeared before the trial court on May 5. Manzano failed to appear at the said hearing despite prior notice. the RTC issued an order for the waiver the Atty.

x x x. for its part. the Court. 2009.000. adopted the following provisions: Rule 115. . the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.00 as temperate damages and P30. considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions that may arise. 2010 Comment on the instant petition.00 as moral damages to Rodolfo. Respondent's Contention The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). 2003 trial court hearing during which Rodolfo and PO2 Sulit gave their testimonies. It provides: SEC. from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The appellate court sentenced the petitioners to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correctional. the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: xxxx (c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings. SEC. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. Still. disputed the petitioners' claim that they were deprived of their constitutional right to counsel. the petitioners insisted that they were denied of their right to counsel when their counsel de oficio failed to appear on the June 18.In all criminal prosecutions. the OSG pointed out that since the beginning of the proceedings in the trial court until the filing of the present petition before this Court. x x x xxxx Rule 116 of the same Rules makes it mandatory for the trial court to designate a counsel de oficio for the accused in the absence of private representation. the court may appoint any person. SEC. Simply put. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel.The court. The CA also found it proper to award P15. 6. as minimum. Section 14 of the Constitution which states that: Section 14. the court must assign a counsel de officio to defend him. A deprivation of the right to counsel strips the accused of an equality in arms resulting in the denial of a level playing field. by reason of their experience and ability. . As a consequence. Thus. their motion was denied in the Resolution26 of December 28. the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he desires to have one. three (3) counsel de oficio were appointed and represented the petitioners and to which designation the latter did not raise any protest. The OSG opined that the trial court judge made sure that the petitioners were adequately assisted by a counsel de oficio when they failed to engage the services of a lawyer of their own choice. The right to be assisted by counsel is an indispensable component of due process in criminal prosecution. But in localities where such members of the bar are not available.The CA's Ruling The CA agreed with the trial court's judgment of conviction but modified the penalty imposed. The petitioners sought a reconsideration of the CA's decision. the petitioners argued that they were divested of the opportunity to cross-examine the said two prosecution witnesses.Before arraignment.000. Guided by the constitutionally guaranteed right of an accused to counsel and pursuant to its rule-making authority. 1. Appointment of counsel de officio. (2) In all criminal prosecutions. to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. In their May 5. As such. the OSG recommended the dismissal of the petition. Rights of accused at the trial. 7. right to counsel is one of the most sacrosanct rights available to the accused. an accused without counsel is essentially deprived of a fair hearing which is tantamount to a grave denial of due process. shall appoint as counsel de officio such members of the bar in good standing who. in promulgating the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. . On the basis of this ratiocination and as a last ditch effort to be exculpated. Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in person or has employed counsel of his choice. . to defend the accused. and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. can competently defend the accused. Petitioner's Contention The right invoiced by the petitioners is premised upon Article III. resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability.

to quote: The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation. . Moreover. as in the instant case. their counsel de oficio actively participated in the proceedings before the trial court including the direct and cross-examination of the witnesses. the bail bond posted for his provisional liberty was ordered confiscated in favor of the government. However. Thus. especially so where. the right is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly. 2001 Doctrine EQUIPOISE RULE. did not show up despite prior notice. for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty. or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers. 2003 hearing nor did their counsel de oficio subsequently seek a reconsideration of the June 18. et al. be it criminal or civil in nature. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino. the petitioner must be declared innocent and set free. 2003 Order. was merely exercising a judicial prerogative. one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt. 2003 hearing. Such is the scenario in the present case where the reason why Rodolfo and PO2 Sulit were not subjected to cross-examination was not because the petitioners were not given opportunity to do so. and does not suffice to produce a conviction. the petitioners' counsel de oficio omitted to mention that in the June 18. thoroughly explained the meaning and substance of right to cross-examine as an integral component of due process with a colatilla that the same right may be expressly or impliedly waived. Further. Going by the records. the party having the burden of proof loses. Noticeably. No proof was presented by the defense showing that the exercise of such discretion was either despotic or arbitrary.35 As previously stated. neither did the petitioners interpose any objection to the presentation of testimony of the prosecution witnesses during the June 18. one of the accused. And in this case. Ronald comes to this Court asserting the very right he seemingly waived and abandoned for not attending the scheduled hearing without justifiable cause. there is no indication that any of the counsel de oficio had been negligent in protecting the petitioners' interests. by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of crossexamination. when he issued the June 18. Nor does such absence warrant the nullification of the entire trial court proceedings and the eventual invalidation of its ruling. PEOPLE GR No. it was during said hearing when the trial court declared that the cross-examination of the said two prosecution witnesses was deemed waived. In People v. the Court held that the fact that a particular counsel de oficio did not or could not consistently appear in all the hearings of the case. RULING: The Court held that there was no denial of right to counsel as evinced by the fact that the petitioners were not only assisted by a counsel de oficio during arraignment and pre-trial but more so. is a fundamental right which is part of due process. the needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found lacking. Under this rule. As a matter of fact. the Court is not persuaded that the absence of the counsel de oficio in one of the hearings of this case amounts to a denial of right to counsel. The case of Savory Luncheonette v. where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. Briefly stated. is effectively a denial of the right to counsel. there is no showing that the several appointed counsel de oficio in any way neglected to perform their duties to the appellant and to the trial court and that the defense had suffered in any substantial sense therefrom. the trial court judge. As aptly found by the CA. Ironically.ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners were deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel. where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it. he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations. TIN vs. the petitioners were duly represented by a counsel de oficio all throughout the proceedings except for one hearing when their court appointed lawyer was absent and Rodolfo and PO2 Sulit presented their testimonies. 2003 Order. the counsel de oficio kept on attending the trial court hearings in representation of the petitioners despite the latter's unjustified absences. Mere opportunity and not actual cross-examination is the essence of the right to cross-examine. 126480 August 10. In sum. Thus. Ronald. Manalo.

in the exercise of its sound discretion. Aurora Jose was never presented to testify on the veracity of said letter. petitioner replied through her counsel. RULING NO. But it has striking and obvious similarities to Mia Chan’s specimen signatures. Petitioner appealed with the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court’s decision. that she was the one who extended the loan and accepted the jewelries. This list was signed by petitioner as evidence of her receipt of the said jewelries. Petitioner testified that the real parties to the loan were Dr. The signature appearing in the receipt. The same is true of letters. Santiago. The differences and similarities are so obvious to the eye. For. She brought with her the amount of P450. Note that even Mia Chan received certain payments from Dr. This prompted Dr. Hence. this petition. 1984. the handwriting of a person is characteristic of the person himself. Santiago and her daughter-in-law. They do not show. Her Motion for Reconsideration was denied.00 and demanding payment. In the present case. however. A private certification is hearsay where the person who issued the same was never presented as a witness. Once admitted. A list of the jewelries was typewritten by a helper of the petitioner.000. order a party to write or sign his signature as a basis for comparison. The letter also stated that no jewelries were received as collateral for the loan. She initially asked for P250.000. however. On May 5. A conviction in this case for estafa depends on three facts: (1) that accused was the one who extended the loan.00. not Mia Chans. However. ISSUE W/NOT petitioner may be held liable for estafa. much less its contents. petitioner told her that the jewelries were already sold. any other writing of that person may be admitted in evidence for the purpose of comparison with the writing in dispute. reveals that: First. apparently differs from the specimen signatures provided by petitioner Maria Tin in open court. and (3) that the loan was for an indefinite term.00 to settle her loan. A careful review of the records. When a writing in issue is claimed on the one hand and denied upon the other to be the writing of a particular person. They are hearsay evidence. the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the signature in Exhibit A was the petitioners. She merely introduced them to one another and it was Mia Chan who signed the acknowledgment receipt and who actually received the pieces of jewelry. Dr. Santiago has an unsettled obligation of P220.000. private complainant Dr. The court may. Santiago went to the pawnshop to redeem her jewelry. a certain Viring . This the prosecution did not do. the genuineness of other offered writings alleged to be the work of the same writer becomes a question for the trier of fact who may. Third.000. Francisca Santiago testified that she and Aurora Jose went to Madys Pawnshop owned by petitioner to pawn some pieces of jewelry. 1984. They could not be casually disregarded. 1993.FACTS At the trial.00 but petitioner offered only P220. be assisted in this task by experts. Second. the trial court rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty of ESTAFA. but need not. On March 2. Petitioner did not deny that she received payments and made demands for payment from private complainant. confirming that Dr. (2) that accused was the one who received the pieces of jewelry as collateral for the loan she extended. Santiago to consult her lawyer. It was erroneous for the Court of Appeals to consider in evidence the letter which a certain Aurora Jose sent to Fiscal Jumino. Mia Chan. On February 1. who wrote to Maria Tin asking her to allow Dr. Santiago to redeem the pieces of jewelry.

9 other accused remained at large RTC ruling: In convicting the accused-appellants. Under this rule. It was not touched upon during the testimony of the private complainant nor listed in the list of exhibits for the prosecution. . Further. Devincio. Fourth. 2002) pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Any allegation of violation of rights during custodial investigation is relevant and material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from the accused becomes the basis of their conviction. PEOPLE VS VICENTE LUGNASIN and DEVINCIO GUERRERO G. 1999 along the SLEX. Elemer. No. one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt. since it was private complainant who asserted that the loan was for an indefinite term under the so-called white-paper system of the pawnshop. Santiago. hence deemed inadmissible in evidence. the RTC found Cordero to be a careful. Fifth. That admission is one against self-interest. truthful and candid witness. deserves weighty consideration and could not be ignored. 267 of the RPC of the person of Nicassius Cordero for the purpose of extorting money for his safe release from detention and was released in the evening of April 24. and her failure undermines the case for the prosecution. These instances only prove that a person who received payments from another is not necessarily the person who extended the loan. the party having the burden of proof loses.R. where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates. Said exhibit was not properly identified or introduced as evidence at the trial. FACTS: (OCTOBER 15. Both made no stipulation during their respective pre-trial conferences except for their identities and the jurisdiction of the court. which the witness could not have volunteered if not the truth. Mia Chan’s admission. Excelso. The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations. that she was the one who extended the loan and received the jewelries. It was marked as an exhibit upon mere manifestation of counsel. When arraigned both accused-appellants Vicente (November 5. amounting to an incriminatory statement. In this she failed.also received payment from Dr. And in this case. Exhibit M-2[25] which the Court of Appeals considered proof that petitioner was in possession of the jewelry. Faced with two conflicting versions. the petitioner must be declared innocent and set free. the needed quantum of proof to convict the accused of the crime charged is found lacking. Rogelio and 5 other unidentified individuals for the crime of kidnapping under Art. 1999) DOJ filed an information against Vicente. Tito. deserves serious scrutiny. 2001) and Devincio (March 6. 208404. and does not suffice to produce a conviction. 2016 DOCTRINE: There is no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused during custodial investigation since neither one executed an extrajudicial confession or admission. February 24. Briefly stated. for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty. we are guided by the equipoise rule. she had the burden of proving that fact as true.

v. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea. we likewise uphold the following ruling of the CA: With respect to appellant Devincio’s argument that his rights under RA 7438 were violated while he was under custodial investigation. An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. At any rate. as stated in people vs. People on this Court’s treatment of an accused’s belated allegation of the illegality of his warrantless arrest: At the outset. Thereafter. thereby curing any defect in his arrest. there was no objection raised as to the irregularity of his arrest. that accused-appellant Devincio raised none of these issues anytime during the course of his trial. CA ruling: Affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. the illegal arrest if an accused is not sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. Jr. ISSUE: WON their rights under 7438 were violated RULING: As the CA has already pointed out. Addressing accused-appellant Devincio’s claim that his rights under RA 7438. and appellant Devincio (or appellant Vicente. As regards accused-appellant Devincio’s argument that his rights under RA 7438 were violated. The RTC also pointed out that Cordero was able to identify both accused-appellants as he saw their faces before he was blindfolded. aside from his bare-faced clai. It will not even negate the validity of the conviction of the accused. it is apparent that petitioner raised no objection to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. In the present case. These issues were raised for the first time on appeal before the CA. Detaining and Investigating Officers and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof’ were violated. we affirm the ruling of the CA and quote Miclat. he has offered no evidence to sustain such claim. the CA pointed out that he neither offered any evidence nor executed an extrajudicial confession or admission for such allegation.whose story was supported by the evidence submitted. at the time of petitioner’s arraignment. jurisprudence dictates that petitioner is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court. It added that this was in contrast to the accusedappellants’ bare denial of their participation in the kidnapping. otherwise. In effect. from death penalty to reclusion Perpetua without the possibility of parole. Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting. the objection is deemed waived. for that matter) has not executed an extrajudicial confession or admission for. entitled “an act defining certain rights of person arrested. buluran and Valenzuela: There is no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused during custodial investigation since neither one . Considering this and his active participation in the trial of the case. he actively participated in the proceedings before the trial court. he is deemed to have waived any perceived defect in his arrest and effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court trying his case.

1988. 1988. On October 27. On March 27.executed an extrajudicial confession or admission. PEDRO was confined a the PGH. Meanwhile. Paguiran was disposed not to do so. and the accused afforded the opportunity to be heard by himself and counsel. Thus. his cousins. he cosented and the petitioners paid his "lawyer's fees. October 4. 1984. Shortly thereafter. on September 22. 1988. the herein private respondents Roberto Telan and Spouses Vicente and virginia Telan followed suit by setting up their own eatery within the same lot. but since Atty. PEDRO set up business enterprises such as a vulcanizing shop and an eatery. the records show that appellant Cielito Buluran opted to remain silent during custodial investigation. The case was dismissed. PEDRO TELAN broke his hip while he was getting off from a passenger jeepney. CA G. the DBP and the Spouses VICENTE and VIRGINIA TELAN filed a suit at the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan." In the meantime.R. there would be a grave denial of due process.00 a month. PEDRO and ANGELINA informed Atty. it may still be recalled. On June 7. Palma" to handle their case. from September 5. Isabela to evict PEDRO TELAN's family from the lot. PEDRO and ANGELINA asked another person to sign for them. 1984. Apparently VICENTE and VIRGINIA had executed a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage with Sia over the said lot shared by PEDRO and ANGELINA. PEDRO and his spouse ANGELINA received a Notice to Vacate. Paguiran that they wanted to appeal the case. Having no counsel to assist them in their appeal. 1986. ROBERTO TELAN was able to secure a Certificate of Title in his name over the contested lot which made them file a complaint denominated as Accion Publiciana against petitioners. There is no reason why the rule in criminal cases has to be different from that in civil cases. PEDRO and ANGELINA hired the services of Atty. The preeminent right to due process of law applies not only to life and liberty but also to property. Otherwise. 95026. the right of an accused person to be assisted by a member of the bar is immutable. Antonio Paguiran to defend them in the suit. SPOUSES TELAN vs. FACTS: Petitioner Pedro transferred his residence to the other side of the national highway on a lot owned by Luciano Sia where he rented 750 square meters for P50. Angelina asked "Atty. At this point. 1991 DOCTRINE: In criminal cases. . on August 5. In fact. No. the lower court awarded the possession of the property in question to ROBERTO and Spouses VICENTE and VIRGINIA TELAN. 1988 up to October 2. even if the judgment had become final and executory. Any allegation of violation of rights during custodial investigation is relevant and material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from the accused becomes the basis of their conviction. All the while.

On September 12. Palma. 1990 by the spouses PEDRO and ANGELINA TELAN with an Urgent Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction. "Atty." turned out to be fake? The Affidavit of the petitioner PEDRO TELAN. when somebody in the Isabela Provincial Capitol at Ilagan informed PEDRO TELAN immediately verified the facts. The petitioners were not aware of the dismissal of their appeal. They only came to know about it on May 1990. Palma. RULING: YES.. to file an appeal brief within the reglementary period. 1990. pursuant to Section 1 (f). specially so when as a consequence. A client is generally bound by the action of his counsel in the management of a litigation even by the attorney's mistake or negligence in procedural technique. There is no reason why the rule in criminal cases has to be different from that in civil cases. 389-90 for Estafa against "Atty. in the case of an on-going litigation. it may still be recalled. This was followed by the filing of Criminal Case No.Meanwhile. The Petition for Review on certiorari before this Court was filed on October 18. 1989. or property is subjected to restraint or in danger of loss. ISSUE: Whether or not the representation of the petitioner by a fake lawyer amounts to a deprivation of his right to counsel and hence a lack of due process. it is a right that must be exercised at every step of the way. In criminal cases. even if the judgment had become final and executory. Palma" in the Roll of Attorneys with the Bar Confidant's Office. Palma" could no longer be found. PEDRO in verifying the existence of "Atty. and the accused afforded the opportunity to be heard by himself and counsel. Thus. the sworn Petition. the presiding judge of the lower court issue the Writ of Demolition for the enforcement of the decision. But how can there be negligence by the counsel in the case at bar when the "lawyer". who is in danger of losing his house in which he and his family live and in which he has established a modest means of livelihood. liberty. 389-90 more than sufficiently establish the existence of an Ernesto .." 15 By now PEDRO had realized that "Atty. Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. Otherwise. life. The right to counsel in civil cases exists just as forcefully as in criminal cases. the Certifications of the Bar Confidant's Office and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The right to counsel is absolute and may be invoked at all times. with the lawyer faithfully keeping his client company. The preeminent right to due process of law applies not only to life and liberty but also to property. the right of an accused person to be assisted by a member of the bar is immutable. There can be no fair hearing unless a party. "Atty. the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution which considered the appeal interposed by petitioners as abandoned and dismissed "for failure . We hold that they had not been accorded due process of law because they lost their to appeal when deprived of the right to counsel. Palma" was a fake. on December 28. More so. there would be a grave denial of due process. is given the right to be heard by himself and counsel. and the submitted records of Criminal Case No.

and gave the names of the other persons involved in the crime. 2013 DOCTRINE: 1) Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. Nabilgas also executed a handwritten confession implicating the appellants and Zaldy in the crime. (4) the level of certainty . given by the witness. At the NBI Main Office. (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time.Trial on the merits ensued thereafter. The accused all pleaded not guilty on arraignment. (3) the accuracy of any prior description. and. (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time. June 10. Cavite to execute the operation. as the persons responsible for the robbery at WSC and for the killing of Rex. the EJ confession must satisfy the following requirements: "(1) the confession must be voluntary. The RTC found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.” FACTS: On July 23. tied the hands of Zaldy Gabao. courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors. viz. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. The NBI officers recovered firearms from both Cachuela and Ibañez. an employee of WSC and killed Rex Dorimon. (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification. 2004. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face-to-face with the witness for identification. 2) To be admissible. Zaldy pointed to the appellants.: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime. courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors. During trial. Melvin Nabilgas approached them and told them that he had been sent by Cachuela and Ibañez to look for buyers of firearms.Palma who misrepresented himself as a lawyer. As explained in the case of People vs Algarme: “Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. The NBI formed an entrapment team and proceeded to Bacoor. Ibanez allegedly robbed the Weapons System Corporation (WSC). (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. viz.R.: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime. The NBI received an information from an asset that the group of Cachuela was involved in the robbery of WSC and in the killing of one of its employees. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose x x x In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. Excepted from the conviction was Nabilgas whom the RTC acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt. given by the witness. Nabilgas and Zaldy. Nabilgas surrendered to the police. and subsequently died there during the trial. (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face-to-face with the witness for identification. The NBI conducted a follow-up operation on Cachuela and Ibañez on two separate occasions. (3) the accuracy of any prior description. the company’s gunsmith. JOSE ARMANDO CERVANTES CACHUELA G. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. The prosecution filed an Information for robbery with homicide before the RTC against the appellants. preferably of the confessant's choice. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose x x x In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects. during a police line-up. The appellants filed an appeal with the CA. Zaldy died. and that Cachuela had been looking for prospective buyers of firearms. (3) it must be express. 191752. and (4) it must be in writing. Upon their arrival. No. (2) it must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel. The CA affirmed the decision of RTC. The police introduced themselves and told Nabilgas that they were conducting an entrapment operation against the suspects of the robbery at WSC. ISSUE: W/N the out of court identification made by Zaldy and the extrajudicial confession made by Nabilgas are admissible in evidence HELD: 1) As to the out-of-court identification Zaldy did not testify in court since he was brought to the National Center for Mental Health.

Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. i.” In the present case. identified the appellants as the persons involved in the robbery of WSC and in the killing of Rex. it is necessary that: (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself. such as the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification. Go ascertained whether Nabilgas’ confession was made voluntarily. and during its existence. x x x It begins when there is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and the investigation has started to focus on a particular person as a suspect.” Further. At any rate. or omission of another. "A custodial investigation is understood x x x as x x x any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. Melita Go. (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification. during a police line-up. An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator under Section 30. Go did not disclose that she was a lawyer when she was called to assist him. the length of time between the crime and the identification. and whether the lineup was confined to persons of the same height and built as the appellants. was acquitted by the trial court due to insufficiency of evidence to prove his participation in the crime. (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. to prove that Nabilgas conspired with the appellants in committing the crime charged. she merely represented herself to be a mere witness to the confession. the extrajudicial confession of Nabilgas was not corroborated by a witness who was present at the time the written confession was made. were provided by the very same agency investigating Nabilgas – the NBI itself. does not apply in the present case since there was no other piece of evidence presented. Nabilgas’ extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence against the appellants in view of the res inter alios acta rule. Atty. . she was assigned the task despite Nabilgas’ open declaration to the agency’s investigators that he already had a lawyer in the person of Atty. The absence of an independent in-court identification by Zaldy additionally justifies our strict treatment and assessment of Lino’s testimony. Conspiracy cannot be presumed and must be shown as distinctly and conclusively as the crime itself. aside from the extrajudicial confession. Lino merely stated that Zaldy. and whether there had been the possibility of prior or contemporaneous improper insinuations on Zaldy regarding the appearance of the appellants. an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is not admissible against his or her co-accused because it is considered as hearsay against them. This rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act. preferably of the confessant's choice. the EJ confession must satisfy the following requirements: "(1) the confession must be voluntary. Thus. Nabilgas was already under custodial investigation by the authorities when he executed the alleged written confession. Donardo Paglinawan. This exception. however. who were the persons in the line-up with the appellants (if there were indeed other persons included in the line-up). (2) it must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel. declaration.demonstrated by the witness at the identification. The services of Atty. Consequently. the lawyer who acted in Nabilgas’ behalf. in order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators..e. (b) the admission relates to the common object. how this line-up had been conducted. The SC ruled that Nabilgas’ confession was not made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel. Nabilgas. and. 2) As to the extrajudicial confession The SC held that Nabilgas’ extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence. In addition. This provision states that the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy. in fact. Paglinawan confirmed this fact when he stated that he was already representing Nabilgas at the time his client made the alleged confession. To be admissible. and (4) it must be in writing. Nabilgas also testified that Atty. Lino likewise did not indicate who accompanied Zaldy before and during the line-up. (3) it must be express. There was also nothing in the records to show that Atty. No way exists for the courts to evaluate the factors used in determining the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identifications. when the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting a confession from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense. may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Lino’s failure to state relevant details surrounding the police line-up is a glaring omission that renders unreliable Zaldy’s out-of-court identification. The SC held that. and the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. and whether he fully understood the nature and the consequence of his extrajudicial confession and its impact on his constitutional rights. Lino did not state when the line-up took place. and (c) it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.

PEOPLE vs BALOLOY (GR No. Guilt may be established through circumstantial evidence provided that the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance. According to him. Zamboanga del Sur. in this automatic review. Aurora. 140740. The one who caused its discovery was accused-appellant Juanito Baloloy himself. The constitutional provision on custodial investigation does not apply to a spontaneous statement. the trial court should have acquitted him. He concludes that his extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence. the two failed to inform him of his constitutional rights before they took it upon themselves to elicit from him the incriminatory information. 2. not elicited through questioning by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having committed the crime. The Trial court found JUANITO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide. While these rights may be waived. Hence. with the inadmissibility of his alleged extrajudicial confession and the apparent contradiction surrounding the prosecution’s evidence against him. Consequently. freely and voluntarily given in an ordinary manner. Whether or not the Court gravely erred in admitting the alleged confession of the accused- . FACTS: JUANITO voluntarily narrated to Ceniza that he raped GENELYN in a spontaneous answer. JUANITO asserts that the prosecution miserably failed to establish with moral certainty his guilt. on the evening of 3 August 1996. and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. and that his conviction on mere circumstantial evidence be set aside. ISSUES: 1. 12 April 2002) DOCTRINES: 1. the dead body of an 11-year-old girl Genelyn Camacho was found. who claimed that he had caught sight of it while he was catching frogs in a nearby creek. 3. the prosecution failed to show that he effectively waived his rights through a written waiver executed in the presence of counsel. He points to the contradicting testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution concerning the retrieved rope owned by him. JUANITO maintains that the trial court violated Section 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution when it admitted in evidence his alleged extrajudicial confession to Barangay Captain Ceniza and Judge Dicon. he seeks that his alleged confession be disregarded for having been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. Neither can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a suspect in the commission of a crime before he is placed under investigation. At the waterfalls of Barangay Inasagan. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. (2) the inferences are based on proven facts.

2. not elicited through questioning by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits having committed the crime. as they erase doubts that such testimonies have been coached or rehearsed. “Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. Judge Dicon’s claim that no complaint has yet been filed and that neither was he conducting a preliminary investigation deserves scant consideration. However. 2.appellant to witnesses Brgy. the court gravely erred in convicting the accused based on mere circumstantial evidence. Captain Luzviminda Ceniza and Judge Dicon as evidence against the accused. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. The fact remains that at that time JUANITO was already under the custody of the police authorities. the police officers. or by his submission to the person making the arrest. and it is made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested. there is merit in JUANITO’s claim that his constitutional rights during custodial investigation were violated by Judge Dicon when the latter propounded to him incriminating questions without informing him of his constitutional rights. In the instant case. while it is true that JUANITO’s extrajudicial confession before Judge Dicon was made without the advice and assistance of counsel and hence inadmissible in evidence. RULING: 1. JUANITO voluntarily narrated to Ceniza that he raped GENELYN in a spontaneous answer. It is settled that at the moment the accused voluntarily surrenders to. JUANITO’s defense of alibi is futile because of his own admission that he was at the scene of the crime. On account of the inadmissibility of the accused’s alleged confession. It has been held that the constitutional provision on custodial investigation does not apply to a spontaneous statement.” At any rate. it could however be treated as a verbal admission of the accused. a denial that is unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is a negative and self-serving evidence. freely and voluntarily given in an ordinary manner. which could be established through the testimonies of the persons who heard it or who conducted the investigation of the accused. Alibi is a defense that places an accused at the relevant time of a crime in a place other than the scene involved and so removed therefrom as to render it impossible for him to be the guilty party. which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Minor inconsistencies and honest lapses strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses. Likewise. the custodial investigation is deemed to have started. What matters is that the testimonies of witnesses agree on the essential fact that JUANITO was the owner of the black rope and the perpetrator of the crime. Guilt may be established through circumstantial evidence provided that the following requisites concur: (1) . Neither can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a suspect in the commission of a crime before he is placed under investigation. or is arrested by.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. to bring only Leonardo and Edwin Morial into custody and not to include Abion. Responding to his cries. arrived at Barangay Cagnituan the next day. proceeded to the bedroom. run towards his grandmother's garden. His hand swelled. The three accused stayed in the house for about 10 minutes after the killing the victims. Paula fell and was stabbed by Edwin Morial with a small. vs. and later heard the crushing sound of a stone against flesh. (2) the inferences are based on proven facts. The police found Edwin and Leonardo Morial in the house of Nonelito Abion and invited the two to the police station. Benjamin disclosed to the officers his three suspects. the police officers. After examining the victims' wounds. and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. rushed to his house. Paula's common-law husband. Gabriel also saw Paula Bandibas' grandson." Gabriel heeded Benjamin's advice. LEONARDO MORIAL alias CARDING and NONELITO ABION* alias NOLY. He revealed to Benjamin that he witnessed Paula's killing and that the three accused were the perpetrators. Benjamin's neighbors. they departed and headed towards the nearby houses. As the accused was effectively deprived of his right to counsel during custodial investigation. Benjamin Morial. Albert laid flat on the ground with two stones near his head. 1996. 2001 DOCTRINE: When the extra-judicial confession was subsequently signed in the presence of counsel it did not cure its constitutional defects. Albert Bandibas (3 years old). A . Morial informed the officers that P11. When there was no answer he raced to the house. Edwin was advised to tell the truth so he would not be killed. sharp. No.000. He shouted for help. The police arrived and investigated. He found the clothes all topsy-turvy and the box where he and Paula hid their money was turned upside down. where they were turned over to SPO4 Andres Fernandez. Gabriel Guilao hurried to Benjamin's house. including barangay kagawads. pointed weapon. 129295. who was in Barangay Maria Clara when the incident took place. Leonardo Morial stood outside the house. FACTS: On January 6. He asked his neighbors to help search for Albert. heading straight to the bedroom. Benjamin requested someone to report the incident to the police. Southern Leyte. nothing else was missing. plaintiff-appellee.00 was missing from the moneybox. Someone then struck his left hand with a pistol. around 6:30 pm at Benjamin Morial's house in Barangay Cagnituan. Other than the cash. Gabriel Guilao saw Nonelito Abion slapped Paula Bandibas' neck. Maasin. who had many relatives in Cagnituan because he knew that the Abions were "most feared". defendants-appellants. he refused to admit his alleged participation in the killings. however. EDWIN MORIAL. along with Morial. He advised them. Nevertheless. the accused in this case.there is more than one circumstance. who was found shortly some 50 meters from the house. Benjamin called out Paula's name when he was a few meters from the house.R. Outside the house. Benjamin advised Gabriel not to tell anyone about what he knew for fear that they would all be killed since the Abions were "saturated in their place. Thereafter. his extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence against him. Edwin and Leonardo were allegedly tortured. Benjamin saw Paula lying on the floor with a cut in her neck. August 15. G.

Leonardo replied in the positive and signed the document in the presence of Atty. to suffer the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. Atty. the three accused pleaded not guilty. He also instructed the police that. Aguilar's office. Leonardo said he did not know any of the lawyers mentioned. Leonardo Morial told SPO4 Fernandez that he had no money to pay for the services of counsel. ISSUE: Whether Leonardo Morila’s extra-judicial confession was valid since his counsel was not present during the custodial investigation RULING: Leonardo Morial's extra-judicial confession is invalid since he was effectively deprived of his right to counsel during the custodial investigation. Midway into the investigation. When a policeman attempted to box him again. 1996. Aguilar asked Leonardo if he was willing to answer the questions in his absence. Leonardo's interrogation lasted one and a half to two hours. Aguilar had a short conference with him. Leonardo and his policeman escort arrived at Atty. he knew very well that the suspect had already admitted that Leonardo and his . According to Atty. Aguilar. SPO4 Fernandez then contacted Atty.m. Tobias Aguilar. After being introduced to Leonardo. Leonardo was bent on revealing what really happened. to which Leonardo Morial consented. Aguilar's leaving by claiming that when the lawyer left. the accused and the document containing the confession should be brought to his office for "further examination. Aguilar asked the investigator that he be given leave as he had a very important engagement. On January 9. Aguilar arrived. SPO4 Fernandez informed him that there are many lawyers in their municipality and named some of them. SPO4 Fernandez thus volunteered to obtain a lawyer for the suspect." Atty. Leonardo said he was willing to answer the questions voluntarily.policeman in uniform boxed and gaged him.. SPO4 Fernandez conducted the investigation in Cebuano. Aguilar was in the police station for less than thirty minutes from the start of the interrogation. the Regional Trial court rendered a decision convicting all the three accused for the crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced Leonardo Morial and Nonelito Abion to suffer the supreme penalty of death by lethal injection." Atty. after the written confession had been prepared. Leonardo told him that he was not harmed by the police officer. Upon arraignment. after the police investigator had asked "all the material points. Aguilar asked him whether he understood its contents and whether he was willing to sign it. Thereafter. Atty. The lawyer then studied the document to determine whether its contents conformed to the answers given by the accused in his presence. He propounded questions to Leonardo with reference to the document. He asked Leonardo if he was willing to answer the questions that may be propounded by the police investigator and warned him that the statements that he may give might be used in evidence against him. due to his minority. The investigator agreed to the lawyer's request. Atty. Atty. and Edwin Morial. A policeman informed him that they were going to contact a lawyer to assist him during the investigation. At about 1:30 or 2:00 p. Aguilar and the policeman-escort. An accused under custodial interrogation must continuously have a counsel assisting him from the very start thereof. After trial. Atty. Before leaving. SPO4 Fernandez cannot justify Atty. Leonardo's statements were then reduced into writing. Aguilar asked the accused whether he was maltreated while he was away and examined the suspect's body for contusions or abrasions. The three accused were charged with robery with homicide. Leonardo finally admitted that Nonelito Abion and Edwin Morial were responsible for the death of Paula Bandibas. Leonardo was also boxed and gaged.

threat. If it were true that Atty. violence. he could have terminated the same to be continued only until as soon as his schedule permitted. No. Tobias' nonchalant behavior during the custodial investigation that the Constitution abhors and which this Court condemns. Tobias.R. for preliminary investigation). Appallingly. intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free will. and by his abrupt departure before the termination of the proceedings." Neither can he be described as the "vigilant and effective" counsel that jurisprudence requires. Tobias had to attend to matters so pressing that he had to abandon a client undergoing custodial investigation. can hardly be the counsel that the framers of the 1987 Constitution contemplated when it added the modifier "competent" to the word "counsel. Tobias before the termination of the custodial investigation." referring to the three accused's respective participation in the crime. 1. it is Atty. he even asked his client whether he was willing to answer questions during the lawyer's absence. 2) AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT [Or during preliminary investigation before a Judge] [Sec. The records also disclose that Atty. AYSON G. no custodial investigation shall be conducted. 85215 DOCTRINE: A person suspected of having committed a crime and subsequently charged with its commission in court. PEOPLE vs. His casual attitude subverted the very purpose for this vital right. Rule .companions committed the crime. has the following rights in the matter of his testifying or producing evidence. not to be subjected to force. not even before the custodial investigation started." Furthermore. and to have evidence obtained in violation of these rights rejected. but after having been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his liberty in some significant way. Neither can Atty. detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel." An effective and vigilant counsel "necessarily and logically requires that the lawyer be present and able to advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession. This he failed to do. Section 2(a) of RA 7438 requires that "[a]ny person arrested. and on being interrogated by the police: a) b) c) d) e) the continuing right to remain silent and to counsel. by his "coming and going" during the custodial investigation. For even as the person under custodial investigation enjoys the right to counsel from its inception. to wit: 1) BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or with the public prosecutor. Aguilar rationalize his abandoning his client by saying that he left only after the latter had admitted the "material points. Precisely." The last paragraph of Section 3 of the same law mandates that "[i]n the absence of any lawyer. "in every phase of the investigation. Tobias never informed appellant of his right to remain silent. Atty. by his failure to inform appellant of the latter's right to remain silent." The right of Leonardo Morial to counsel was therefore completely negated by the precipitate departure of Atty. and to be informed thereof. so does he enjoy such right until its termination — indeed. advising the suspect in the meantime to remain silent.

It follows that the right may be waived. to the PAL Management that he is willing to settle the irregularities in his collection. the right can be claimed only when the specific question. W. Section 12. It must be claimed. RULING: 1. 2) nor force.. the right against self-incrimination was violated 2. Ramos’ lawyers objected to the presentation of Exhibit A because the alleged admission was taken without Ramos being represented by his lawyers.O. incriminatory in character. 2.N the rights of the accused in custodial investigation apply to persons under preliminary investigation or already charged in court. this petition for certiorari against respondent Judge.examined as any other witness. and to be informed of such right." It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry. 3. No. to testify in his own behalf. No. Rules of Court] — a) b) c) d) to refuse to be a witness. threat.O." FACTS: Felipe Ramos. Thus. ISSUE: 1. misappropriated the proceeds of his collection. intimidation. expressly. information was filed against Ramos charging him with Estafa. then he "may be cross.e.115. Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides “any person under investigation[custodial investigation/interrogation] for the commission of an offense"-1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The right against self-incrimination is not selfexecuting or automatically operational. W. W.O. violence. to refuse to answer a specific question which tends to incriminate him for some crime other than that for which he is then prosecuted. is actually put to the witness. as by a failure to claim it at the appropriate time.N the rights of persons in custodial investigation were violated. However. subject to cross-examination by the prosecution. Ramos made a statement. not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal. in a handwritten note (Exhibit A). whether he be a party or not. or impliedly. a ticket freight clerk of Philippine Airlines (PAL). Thereafter. i. * he may testify but if he does testify. Judge Ayson granted the objection and refused to admit Exhibit A. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be .N. one the answer to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime. which was in violation of his right against self-incrimination. WHILE TESTIFYING*." It simply secures to a witness. the right to refuse to answer any particular incriminatory question. Section 17.

The right of the defendant in a criminal case "to be exempt from being a witness against himself' signifies that he cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence in the criminal case in which he is the accused. on the strength of the right against selfincrimination VILLAFLOR vs. would have a tendency to incriminate him for the crime with which he is charged. his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be used against him. distinct from that of which he is accused. SUMMERS 44 Phil 62 (1920) DOCTRINE: The constitutional guaranty. right against self-incrimination still apply.used against him. in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled among others1) to be exempt from being a witness against himself. No. Rule 115] Rules of Court. or one of the accused. then he "may be cross. However. or even for himself.1. and 3) any confession obtained in violation of x x (these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence. However. or the evidence he will produce. Ramos was not under custodial investigation 3.” Custodial interrogation/[investigation] is meant "any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. however. It must however be made clear that if the defendant in a criminal action be asked a question which might incriminate him. Under the [Sec. He cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order of the Court. ) The rights above exist only in "custodial interrogations. He cannot be required to be a witness either for the prosecution." or "in-custody interrogation of accused persons." He may not on cross-examination refuse to answer any question on the ground that the answer that he will give. that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. but for some other crime. but if he offers himself as a witness he may be crossexamined as any other witness. is limited to a prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. he may testify but if he does testify." In this case. The . or for a co-accused. because he is no longer under custodial investigation.examined as any other witness. not for the crime with which he is charged. and 2) to testify as witness in his own behalf. he may decline to answer that specific question.

and constitutional provisions. or to submit . particularly of a woman. Pedro Concepcion. Judge of First Instance. can be invaded by exposure to another's gaze. Thereupon she was found in contempt of court and was ordered to be imprisoned in Bilibid Prison until she should permit the medical examination required by the court. while it is brought to our notice that a judge of the same court has held on an identical question as contended for by the attorney for the accused and petitioner. No accused person should be afraid of the use of any method which will tend to establish the truth. an ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible. "To compel any one. are then provided not to protect the guilty but to protect the innocent. As Mr. Criminal procedure. No rule is intended to be so rigid as to embarrass the administration of justice in its endeavor to ascertain the truth. It is extremely abhorrent to one's sense of decency and propriety to have to decide that such inviolability of the person.Botsfordsaid. to lay bare the body. FACTS: In a criminal case pending before the CFI of Manila. On this case coming on for trial before the Hon. But no evidence of physical facts can for any substantial reason be held to be detrimental to the accused except in so far as the truth is to be avoided in order to acquit a guilty person. the court ordered the defendant Villaflor. vs. EMETERIA VILLAFLOR andFLORENTINO SOUINGCO are charged with the crime of adultery. As we view it. The trial judge in the instant case has held with the fiscal. to submit her body to the examination of one or two competent doctors to determine if she was pregnant or not. on a proper showing and under an order of the trial court. Counsel for petitioner argues that such bodily exhibition is an infringement of the constitutional provision. For instance. The accused refused to obey the order on the ground that such examination of her person was a violation of the constitutional provision relating to selfincrimination. to use torture to make the defendant admit her guilt might only result in inducing her to tell a falsehood. the representative of the city fiscal contends that it is not an infringement of the constitutional provision. The sole legal issue arising from the facts is whether the compelling of a woman to permit her body to be examined by physicians to determine if she is pregnant. providing that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. petitioner herein. ISSUE: WON compelling a woman to be examined by physicians to determine if she is pregnant violates her right against self-incrimination. upon the petition of the assistant fiscal for the city of Manila. Obviously a stirring plea can be made showing that under the due process of law clause of the Constitution every person has a natural and inherent right to the possession and control of his own body. the rules of evidence.corollary to the proposition is that. Perhaps the best way to test the correctness of our position is to go back once more to elementals and ponder on what is the prime purpose of a criminal trial. and especially a woman. the object of having criminal laws is to purge the community of persons who violate the laws to the great prejudice of their fellow men. Justice Gray in Union Pacific Railway Co. violates that portion of the Philippine Bill of Rights and that portion of the Code of Criminal Procedure which find their origin in the Constitution of the United States. under the facts before us. RULING: No.

and therefore legal. without lawful authority. the admission or confession made by a person under investigation cannot be admitted in evidence. nevertheless. and such a tendency to degrade the witness in public estimation does not exempt him from the duty of disclosure. The corollary to the proposition is that. L-59378. that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.R. even superior to the complete immunity of a person to be let alone is the interest which the public has in the orderly administration of justice. The costs shall be taxed against. Although the order of the trial judge. an ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible. The proviso is that torture or force shall be avoided. No. The writ of habeas corpus prayed for is hereby denied. an assault. Absent such affirmative showing. it should. Fully conscious that we are resolving a most extreme case in a sense. we must nevertheless enforce the constitutional provision in this jurisdiction in accord with the policy and reason thereof. undeterred by merely sentimental influences. February 11. Unfortunately. 1986 DOCTRINE: It is the obligation of the investigating officer to inform a person under investigation of his right to remain silent and to counsel. Whether facts fall within or without the rule with its corollary and proviso must. be understood as subject to the limitations herein mentioned. FACTS: Upon receiving complaints from concerned citizens regarding the illegal sale of prohibited drugs by one alias . Indeed. questions which are put to them. is an indignity. the petitioner. be decided as cases arise. Once again we lay down the rule that the constitutional guaranty. NICANDRO G. of course. PEOPLE vs." Conceded. no objection to the physical examination being made by the family doctor of the accused or by doctor of the same sex can be seen. is limited to a prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination.to the touch of a stranger. so it is the duty of the prosecution to affirmatively establish compliance by the investigating officer with his said obligation. and a trespass. Between a sacrifice of the ascertainment of truth to personal considerations. all too frequently the modesty of witnesses is shocked by forcing them to answer. It is a reasonable presumption that in an examination by reputable and disinterested physicians due care will be taken not to use violence and not to embarrass the patient any more than is absolutely necessary. without any mental evasion. as well suggested by the same court. law and justice cannot hesitate. and yet. between a disregard of the public welfare for refined notions of delicacy. which on first impression is a shock to one's sensibilities. acceding to the request of the assistant fiscal for an examination of the person of the defendant by physicians was phrased in absolute terms. on a proper showing and under an order of the trial court.

the trial court convicted the accused as aforesaid and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P20. depending upon the education. (See People vs. and (o) Article I.) In other words. The informant bought marijuana from Nelia Nicandro using the marked bills and after the transaction the police immediately nabbed Nicandro.. Short of this.g. e. as it cannot truly be said that the person has been "informed" of his rights. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed of such right. Pat. it must be presumed to contemplate the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. threat. Article IV of the Constitution. intimidation. This reliance is assailed as violative of Section 20 of Article IV of the Constitution which reads: “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. After trial. ISSUES: THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING PROBATIVE VALUE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF ALL POLICE OF OFFICERS WHICH ARE HEARSAY.“Nel”. it would not be sufficient for a police officer just to repeat to the person under investigation the provisions of Section 20. No force. as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act). 122 SCRA 312: People VS. in relation to Section 2(e). Now. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. the trial court relied partly on her alleged oral admission declaraciones custodial investigation. After the complaints and reports were verified to be true. In convicting the appellant. what the person under interrogation may or may not do. Joves.” When the Constitution requires a person under investigation "to be informed" of his right to remain silent and to counsel. Joves declared that he informed the accused her constitutional rights upon commencing with the investigation. As a rule. which allegedly the accused verbally admitted when she was under custodial investigation. Suffice it to say that a simpler and more lucid explanation is needed where the subject is unlettered . The police frisked Nicandro and found the marked bills and marijuana flowering tops wrapped in a piece of newspaper. (1).000. She was charged violation of Section 4. and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding what is conveyed. therefor. he must also explain their effects in practical terms. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING PROSECUTION EVIDENCE WHICH WERE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION PETITION OF ACCUSED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.00. 95 SCRA 2. who testified that he saw the accused sell marijuana cigarettes to the unnamed police informant. an entrapment with the informant acting as the buyer of marijuana was organized. RULING: Numerous factors combine to make the appeal meritorious. The prosecution relied principally on Pat. Article II. Joves. Ramos. violence. there is a denial of the right. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. the degree of explanation required will necessary vary. and in a language the subject fairly understands. as testified to by Pat. (m). of Republic Act 6425. intelligence and other relevant personal circumstances of the person under investigation. (f). He is not only duty-bound to tell the person the rights to which the latter is entitled. officers of the Drug Enforcement Unit of Police Station 5 placed Commodore Pension House at Ermita under surveillance. since the right "to be informed" implies comprehension. Caguioa. the right of a person under interrogation "to be informed" implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain.

he did not say. The prosecution did not show that the accused's acquaintance with Tagalog was such that he could fully understand the questions posed to him. wherein the petitioner complains that the respondent judge ordered . 53 Phil 570 DOCTRINE: We say that. without which there could be no intelligent waiver of said rights. the crime would go unpunished. in People vs. that is no reason for trampling upon a personal right guaranteed by the constitution. What specific rights he mentioned to appellant. for the purposes of the constitutional privilege. Neither did he state the manner in which the appellant was advised of her constitutional rights so as to make her understand them. it should not be a difficult matter for the fiscal to obtained genuine specimens of his handwriting. This constitutional privilege exists for the protection of innocent persons. SAMSON GR No. in People vs. for the reason that the prosecution failed to show that those rights were explained to him. so it is the duty of the prosecution to affirmatively establish compliance by the investigating officer with his said obligation. he informed appellant of her constitutional rights when she was under custodial investigation. there being no showing by the prosecution that there was sufficient compliance with the constitutional duty to inform the accused of his rights to silence and to counsel. but such cases are accidental and do not constitute the raison d' etre of the privilege. OTHER CASES CITED: Thus. the Court sustained the rejection by the trial court of the extrajudicial admission made by the accused during custodial investigation. for in both cases. supra. Considering the circumstance that the petitioner is a municipal treasurer. Absent such affirmative showing. 32025. according to Exhibit A. although he had been apprised of his constitutional rights to silence and to counsel. Similarly. the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself. As it is the obligation of the investigating officer to inform a person under investigation of his right to remain silent and to counsel. there is a similarity between one who is compelled to produce a document. such that it could not be said that "the apprisal was sufficiently manifested and intelligently understood" by the accuse. FACTS: This is a petition for a writ of prohibition. Ramos. the Court ruled that the verbal admission of the accused during custodial investigation was inadmissible. the accused —a native of Samar— was interrogated in Tagalog. BELTRAN vs. and one who is compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting. Joves. It might be true that in some cases criminals may succeed in evading the hand of justice. In said case. Caguioa. But even supposing it is impossible to obtain specimen or specimens without resorting to the means complained herein.According to Pat. It cannot be contended in the present case that if permission to obtain a specimen of the petitioner's handwriting is not granted. This is particularly significant in the instant case because appellant is illiterate and cannot be expected to be able to grasp the significance of her right to silence and to counsel upon merely hearing an abstract statement thereof. the admission or confession made by a person under investigation cannot be admitted in evidence.

Olvis.him to appear before the provincial fiscal to take dictation in his own handwriting from the latter. there is a similarity between one who is compelled to produce a document. Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides that "no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. and which may identify him as the falsifier. 154 SCRA 513. (Yan lang talaga ang facts) ISSUE: Whether 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. because it requires the application of intelligence and attention. On 7 August 1998. 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. 148220 .June 15. constitutes evidence against himself within the scope and meaning of the constitutional provision under examination. and jurisprudence. rules. we believe the present case is similar to that of producing documents or chattels in one's possession. • Where the evidence to aid this investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and technology. Petitioner also denied physical contact with respondent’s mother. And we say that the present case is more serious than that of compelling the production of documents or chattels. Writing is something more than moving the body. RULING: Yes. evidence which does not exist. the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself. We say that. The order was given upon petition of said fiscal for the purpose of comparing the petitioner's handwriting and determining whether or not it is he who wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified. FACTS: On 14 May 1998. or the hands. then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba ("respondent"). by means of the act of writing. support and damages against petitioner. HERRERA VS. because here the witness is compelled to write and create. such evidence should be considered subject to the limits established by the law. for the purposes of the constitutional privilege. represented by his mother Armi Alba. filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition. especially of illegitimate children. 2005 DOCTRINE: • Section 17. as the petition of the respondent fiscal clearly states." • The privilege of right against self-incrimination applies only to evidence that is "communicative" in essence taken under duress (People vs. or the fingers. petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim where he denied that he is the biological father of respondent. ALBA GR No. writing is not a purely mechanical act. and one who is compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting. 1987) • The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of children. for in both cases. Except that it is more serious. . is without prejudice to the right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses.

Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings. not an exclusion of evidence taken from his body when it may be material. Summers. Halos described the process for DNA paternity testing and asserted that the test had an accuracy rate of 99. 86 Phil. and the court can compel a woman accused of adultery to submit for pregnancy test (Villaflor vs. irrelevant and the coercive process to obtain the requisite specimen…. a DNA analysis expert.D. 244). 154 SCRA 513. 735). The appellate court stated that petitioner merely desires to correct the trial court’s evaluation of evidence. contrary to the belief of respondent in this action. Thus. 23 Phil. 145). He asserted that "under the present circumstances. appeal is an available remedy for an error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. we quote relevant portions of the trial court’s 3 February 2000 Order with approval: Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a paternity case. Ong Siu Hong." . Supra).." On 18 July 2000. 1987). unconstitutional. Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination. RULING: Section 17. Olvis. 41 Phil. respondent presented the testimony of Saturnina C. Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability. an order by the judge for the witness to put on pair of pants for size was allowed (People vs. In her testimony. the substance emitting from the body of the accused was received as evidence for acts of lasciviousness (US vs. Finally. As such. the DNA test [he] is compelled to take would be inconclusive. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. 62). To support the motion. Ph. On 29 November 2000. a defendant can be required to submit to a test to extract virus from his body (as cited in People vs. the trial court granted respondent’s motion to conduct DNA paternity testing on petitioner. Tan Teng. This privilege applies only to evidence that is "communicative" in essence taken under duress (People vs. Otadora. The appellate court also stated that the proposed DNA paternity testing does not violate his right against self-incrimination because the right applies only to testimonial compulsion. Olvis. In an Order dated 3 February 2000. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication (testimonial evidence) from a defendant. petitioner filed before the appellate court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner ignores our earlier pronouncements that the privilege is applicable only to testimonial evidence. which the appellate court denied in its Resolution dated 23 May 2001. ISSUE: • Whether or not the proposed DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination. the appellate court pointed out that petitioner can still refute a possible adverse result of the DNA paternity testing. Again. Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides that "no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.9999% in establishing paternity. Halos." Petitioner asserts that obtaining samples from him for DNA testing violates his right against self-incrimination. 36 Phil. morphine forced out of the mouth was received as proof (US vs. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the 3 February 2000 Order. the appellate court issued a decision denying the petition and affirming the questioned Orders of the trial court. Dr. respondent and Armi Alba. since the gist of the privilege is the restriction on "testimonial compulsion. will not violate the right against self-incrimination.

R. like the right to speedy trial. Petitioner filed a Petition for Mandamus under Rule 65. and oppressive delays. Thus. but an integral part of due process. SP-98-88759. and jurisprudence. A perusal of the provision shows that arraignment is not a mere formality. and the jail warden’s failure to bring him to court. LUMANLAW vs. such evidence should be considered subject to the limits established by the law. especially of illegitimate children. his arraignment was postponed a total of 14 times for various reasons. or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. From the time of his arrest in 2002 up to the filing of the instant Petition in 2004. FACTS: Petitioner Lumanlaw was charged with illegal possession of a dangerous drug in November 2002. rules.57 Where the evidence to aid this investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and technology. capricious.34 Particularly. 164953. the trial judge’s unavailability. such as the absence of petitioner’s counsel. [T]he right to a speedy disposition of a case. SO ORDERED. He was detained in the Manila City Jail by virtue of a Commitment Order. PERALTA JR G.33 The proper conduct of the arraignment is provided in Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Both Motions were denied by respondent judge. We AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 November 2000 in CA-G. is without prejudice to the right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses. No. WHEREFORE. February 13. We also AFFIRM the Orders dated 3 February 2000 and 8 June 2000 issued by Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. These postponements resulted in his detention for almost two years. 2006 DOCTRINES: Arraignment is a vital stage in criminal proceedings in which the accused are formally informed of the charges against them. without the benefit of an arraignment.The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of children. . arguing that respondent’s failure to act expeditiously on his arraignment violated his right to speedy trial and justified the dismissal of the charge against him. we DISMISS the petition. 59766.R. it implements the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them and their right to speedy trial. SP No. or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured. on the ground that his right to speedy trial had been violated. he filed two Motions to Dismiss the Information against him. is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious.

or unjustified. As an administrator. A prudent and resolute judge can conduct an arraignment as soon as the accused is presented before the court. Delays in the disposition of cases erode the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary. oppressive. capricious. ensuring their understanding of those charges. the problem could have easily been averted by efficient court management. the high tribunal was astonished that the lower court could not complete this simple but fundamental stage in the proceedings. the trial court had unreasonably failed to conduct the arraignment of petitioner. so as to expedite the proceedings. for almost two years. Although the deferment of the arraignment until the accused was presented was justified. This course of action became more compelling in the instant case when the accused himself requested the appointment. For this reason alone. and obtaining their plea to the charges. without legal basis. at most. An arraignment takes. The foremost cause for the lengthy delay was the repeated failure of the jail wardens to bring petitioner to court. This Court reviewed the reasons for the postponements in the case and found that the violation of petitioner’s right to speedy trial was manifest. It would have been more prudent for the judge to have appointed a counsel de oficio for purposes of arraignment only. one should consider if the delays were vexatious. given the length and the unreasonableness of a majority of the delays. but have to contend with the realities of everyday life. respondent failed to assert his authority actively. The absence of petitioner’s counsel de parte during arraignment was not a valid reason to postpone it. He allowed the listlessness of the parties. The Court held that.ISSUE: Whether there was a violation of the right to speedy trial. RULING: The right of the accused to speedy trial was deemed violated because. The 30-day period for an arraignment provided in the Speedy Trial Act is not absolute. Judges should be more deliberate in their actions and make full use of their authority to expedite proceedings. As further aggravation. and the jail wardens to dictate the pace of the proceedings. and bring it into disrepute. the decision of respondent to deny the request was unreasonable. his staff. Rather than merely making mathematical calculations of periods that have elapsed between stages. and generally attributable to his inflexibility as regards contingencies. lower its standards. ten minutes of the court’s business and does not normally entail legal gymnastics. respondent judge should have supervised his clerk of court to ensure a timely service of the produce orders on the wardens of the Manila City Jail. It saw in the fourteen postponements a lack of earnest effort on the part of respondent to conduct the arraignment as soon as the court calendar allowed. diligence and dedication can prompt their personnel to be more diligent and efficient in the performance of official duties. Judges who set the pace for greater efficiency. he did not exert any effort to expedite the arraignment even after petitioner had filed two urgent Motions to Dismiss. under the given circumstances. Judicial proceedings do not exist in a vacuum. It consists simply of reading to accused persons the charges leveled against them. Thus. .

Malajacan with the CA which was dismissed by the same court on the ground that pre-trial investigation for the charges against the respondent was already ongoing before a Pre-Trial and Investigation (PTI) Panel of the Judge Advocate General’s Office (JAGO). all existing charges against him were dismissed and a new charge was filed with the General Court Martial (GCM) No. 1992 dismissing the charges. RULING: 1. Malajacan’s arraignment on April 22. 1992. • GCM decided in favor of Lt. 1 of the Constitution which mandates the “duty of the Courts of Justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch of the government. 8 for violation of 96th AW for having allegedly been involved in a series of conferences with other military officers for purposes of overthrowing the government.” Moreover. including those in the military and covers the periods before.ABADIA vs. 1991 finding no evidence of direct participation by Lt. Murder and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman. Abadia filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of ROC to annul and set aside CA’s decision. No. NO.R. the absence of of rules and regulations mandating a reasonable period within which the appropriate appellate military authority should act in a case subject to mandatory review is no excuse for denial of a substantive right. more than 2 years before his arraignment. • On May 27. Section 16. 94th and 97th Articles of War (AW) for Mutiny. carrying with it the penalty of dismissal from service. including those in the military and covers the periods before. Malajacan in the December 1989 coup. Col. WON the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over the case because the law itself provides no time frame for the proper military officers to review the Court Martial’s dismissal. a charge sheet was filed against Lt. Col. Col. Malajacan by the office of the Judge Advocate General alleging violations of the 67th. respectively. • The Quezon City Prosecutor eventually came out with a resolution dated February 4. . • On March 7. • On January 30. He was detained for 9 months in the ISG Detention Center in Fort Bonifacio. during and after the trial. 1991. ISSUES: 1. Sec. 1992. a petition for habeas corpus was filed by Lt. Marcelino Malajacan was arrested in connection with the December 1989 coup attempt. YES. III of the Constitution extends the right to a speedy disposition of cases to cases “before all judicial. Col. during and after the trial. FACTS: • On April 27. 1992. Col. 136 of RPC (Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Rebellion or Insurrection) and the 96th AW in relation to 94th thereof. Col. 1990. Malajacan and dropped the last remaining charge.” • On June 11. Makati. 38 of AW. General Lisandro Abadia. 1992. WON the right to speedy trial extends to the military. PTI Panel came out with a Resolution dated May 27.” This protection extends to all citizens. AFP Chief of Staff. quasijudicial and administrative bodies. The Bill of Rights provisions were crafted to expand substantive fair trial rights and to protect citizens from procedural machinations which tend to nullify those rights. He contended that the offense was supposed to have been committed between August and November 1989. The right to speedy disposition of cases extends to all citizens. Art. • 3 months after these charges were filed. he entered a special motion to dismiss the case on grounds of prescription under Art. affording broader protection than Section 14(2) which guarantees merely the right to speedy trial. Petitioners cannot seek shelter in the absence of specific rules relating to review of cases dismissed by military tribunals in violating the right of the accused to a speedy trial and in justifying his continued confinement. • On May 29. CA ordered petitioners Lt. VIII. Malajacan. General Arturo Enrile and Commanding General of Phil. petitioner Lt. • Consequently. 2. It recommended that the latter be charged with violation of Art. 1994 DOCTRINE: Right to speedy trial. September 23. 105597. The procedural gap in the rules cannot be called upon to ascertain whether certain substantive rights have been or are being denied in the meantime. Army “to produce the person of Lt. he filed a second petition for habeas corpus before CA assailing his continued detention despite the dismissal of all the charges against him. That is not the spirit ordained by inclusion of the 2nd paragraph of Art. 2. private respondent Lt. Col. CA G. Maj. Gen. • Upon Lt. 1991.

2001 DOCTRINE: 1) Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. He likewise contends that the testimony of his 13-year old daughter vis--vis his whereabouts on the night of the felony should have been given full faith and credit as against the testimony of Centeno and Malabanan. And since Justice Martinez had retired earlier on February 2. While accusedappellants Antonio Sanchez. 2001 to herein ponente for  study and preparation of the appropriate action. ordering each of them to pay the amount of (P700. George Medialdea. SANCHEZ G. 121039-15. 1999 decision. vs. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual bias and he has not discharged the burden.M. 99-8-09 promulgated by the Court on February 15. Mayor Antonio Sanchez avers that he is a victim of trial and conviction by publicity and that the principal witnesses Aurelio Centeno and Vicencio Malabanan presented by the prosecution are lacking in credibility. Rogelio Corcolon and Pepito Kawit guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide. maintain that prosecution witnesses Centeno and Malabanan have been sufficiently impeached by prior inconsistent statements allegedly pertaining to material and crucial points of the events at issue. 1999 that the OSG filed its Comment thereto. Lastly. . Mayor Sanchez seeks the reconsideration of the amount of the gargantuan damages awarded on the ground that the same have  no factual and legal bases. October 18. and additionally. Baldwin Brion. not simply that they might be. Not only that. FACTS:  Before us is a motion for reconsideration of our January 25. No. Zoilo Ama. they assert that independent and disinterested witnesses have destroyed the prosecutions version of events. it was only on December 6. Baldwin Brion and Pepito Kawit seasonably filed their respective motions for reconsideration. In the case at bar. Accused-appellants Zoilo Ama. 1999. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day-to-day. by the barrage of publicity. in their motion for reconsideration. Martinez. there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced.R. The totality of circumstances of the case does not prove that the trial judge acquired a fixed position as a result of prejudicial publicity which is incapable of change even by evidence presented during the trial. affirming in the judgment of finding accused-appellants Mayor Antonio Sanchez. Their mere exposure to publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their impartiality.000. 2) In Martelino et al. the motions for reconsideration filed by accused-appellants was assigned by raffle only on September 18.. Alejandro et al. Zoilo Ama. and Pepito Kawit.00) to the heirs of the two victims as additional indemnity.PEOPLE vs. 2000. Luis Corcolon. In his motion for reconsideration. in accordance with A. No. we 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. Baldwin Brion. penned by Justice Antonio M. 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. gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality Our judges are learned in the law and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-camera performances of parties to a litigation.

just like all high profile and high stake criminal trials. and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism. “we 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. “It is true that the print and broadcast media gave the case at bar pervasive publicity. To be sure.” Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. Their mere exposure to publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their impartiality. Then and now. Alejandro et al. especially in the criminal field The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police.. Jr. vs. 2) the witnesses presented were credible RULING: 1) No. as well pointed out. Furthermore. ((People vs. appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court and the appellate courts will respect these findings considering that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question. Teehankee. responsible reporting enhances an accuseds right to a fair trial for. a responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration. having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Mendoza) . citing the case of Martelino et al. prosecutors. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day-to-day. gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality Our judges are learned in the law and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on-camera performances of parties to a litigation.ISSUE: WON 1) There was trial by publicity.. not simply that they might be.” 2) It is hornbook doctrine in criminal jurisprudence that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses. we rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. by the barrage of publicity. there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced. citing the case of People vs.