You are on page 1of 13


 Probable Cause is a reasonable ground of

 DEFINITION: presumption that a matter is, or may be, well
 Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the
order that he may be bound to answer for the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary
commission of an offense. caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an
 HOW EFFECTED: honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so.
 an arrest is effected by an actual restraint of the  The term does not mean "actual and positive
person to be arrested or by his voluntary cause" nor does it import absolute certainty.
submission to the custody of the person making  It is merely based on opinion and reasonable
the arrest. belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not
 Application of actual force, manual touching of require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient
the body, physical restraint or a formal evidence to procure a conviction.
declaration of arrest is not, required. It is enough  It is enough that it is it believed that the act or
that there be an intent on the part of one of the omission complained of constitutes the offense
parties to arrest the other and an intent onthe part charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the
of the other to submit, under the belief and reception of evidence of the prosecution in
impression that submission is necessary. 12 support of the charge.
 WARRANTLESS ARREST  Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
 Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A is the existence of such facts and circumstances that
peace officer or a private person may, without a would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person
warrant, arrest a person: to believe that an offense was committed by the
 (a) When, in his presence, the person to be person sought to be arrested.41
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or  This must be distinguished from the prosecutor’s
is attempting to commit an offense; finding of probable cause which is for the filing of
 (b) When an offense has in fact just been the proper criminal information.
committed and he has personal knowledge of  Probable cause for warrant of arrest is determined to
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has address the necessity of placing the accused under
committed it; and custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.42
 (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner  BASIS
who has escapes from a penal establishment or  The need to find probable cause is dictated by the Bill
place where he is serving final judgment or of Rights which protects "the right of the people to be
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable
has escaped while being transferred from one searches and seizures of whatever nature . . ." 20 An
confinement to another. arrest without a probable cause is an unreasonable
 JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON seizure of a person, and violates the privacy of
 It has been held that where after the filing of the persons which ought not to be intruded by the
complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the State.21
accused is issued by the trial court and the accused  Probable cause to warrant arrest is not an
either voluntarily submitted himself to the court or opaque concept in our jurisdiction. Continuing
was duly arrested, the court thereby acquires accretions of case law reiterate that they are
jurisdiction over the person of the accused.12 facts and circumstances which would lead
 The voluntary appearance of the accused, a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his believe that an offense has been committed
person, is accomplished either by his pleading to by the person sought to be arrested.22
the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or 
other pleadings requiring the exercise of the  JUDGE V. PROSECUTOR:
court's jurisdiction thereover, appearing for  DUTY OF JUDGE
arraignment, entering trial) or by filing bail.  Webb v. De Leon,[49]
 On the matter of bail, since the same is intended  the judge just personally reviews the initial
to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused, as determination of the investigating prosecutor
a rule the same cannot be posted before custody finding a probable cause to see if it is
of the accused has been acquired by the judicial supported by substantial evidence.[50]
authorities either by his arrest or voluntary  However, in determining the existence or
surrender.13 non-existence of probable cause for the
arrest of the accused, the judge should not
WITH A WARRANT rely solely on the said report.[51] The judge
should consider not only the report of the
 When warrant of arrest may issue. (a) By the Regional investigating prosecutor but also the
Trial Court. Within ten (10) days from the filing of the affidavit/affidavits and the documentary
complaint or information, the judge shall personally evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting of the accused and his witnesses, as well as
evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the the transcript of stenographic notes taken
evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable during the preliminary investigation, if any,
cause. submitted to the court by the investigating
prosecutor upon the filing of the

 The JUDGE shall:  The constitutional provision does not mandatorily

 (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting require the judge to personally examine the
documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the complainant and her witnesses. Instead, he may
existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, opt to personally evaluate the report and
issue a warrant of arrest; or supporting documents submitted by the
 (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, prosecutor or he may disregard the prosecutors
he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the report and require the submission of supporting
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid affidavits of witnesses.
him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
 The Judge does not have to personally examine
probable cause.
the complainant and his witnesses. The
Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a
**PROBABLE CAUSE commissioner for the taking of the evidence.
However, there should be a report and necessary
documents supporting the Fiscals bare supporting evidence, other than the
certification. All of these should be before the prosecutors bare report, upon which to legally
Judge. sustain his own findings on the existence (or
nonexistence) of probable cause to issue an
 What the Constitution underscores is the arrest order. This responsibility of determining
exclusive and personal responsibility of the personally and independently the existence or
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the nonexistence of probable cause is lodged in him
existence of probable cause. In satisfying by no less than the most basic law of the
himself of the existence of probable cause for the land. Parenthetically, the prosecutor could ease
issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not the burden of the judge and speed up the
required to personally examine the complainant litigation process by forwarding to the latter not
and his witnesses. Following established doctrine only the information and his bare resolution
and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate finding probable cause, but also so much of the
the report and the supporting documents records and the evidence on hand as to enable
submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of His Honor to make his personal and separate
probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a judicial finding on whether to issue a warrant of
warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he arrest.[25]
finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
fiscal's report and require the submission of  Lastly, it is not required that
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in the complete or entire records of the case during
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of the preliminary investigation be submitted to and
probable cause. examined by the judge.[26] We do not intend to
 PEOPLE V. INTING unduly burden trial courts by obliging them to
 First, the determination of probable cause is a examine the complete records of every case all
function of the Judge. It is not for the Provincial the time simply for the purpose of ordering the
Fiscal or Prosecutor nor for the Election arrest of an accused. What is required, rather, is
Supervisor to ascertain. Only the Judge and the that the judge must have sufficient supporting
Judge alone makes this determination. documents (such as the complaint, affidavits,
 Second, the preliminary inquiry made by a counter-affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses
Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. It merely or transcripts of stenographic notes, if any) upon
assists him to make the determination of which to make his independent judgment or, at
probable cause. The Judge does not have to the very least, upon which to verify the findings of
follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. By the prosecutor as to the existence of probable
itself, the Prosecutors certification of probable cause. The point is: he cannot rely solely and
cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits entirely on the prosecutors recommendation, as
the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and Respondent Court did in this case
all other supporting documents behind the
Prosecutors certification which are material in  Section 5(a) of Rule 112, grantsthe trial court three options
assisting the Judge to make his determination. upon the filing of the criminal complaint or information. He
 And third, Judges and Prosecutors alike should may:
distinguish the preliminary inquiry which  a) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly
determines probable cause for the issuance of a failed to establish probable cause;
warrant of arrest from the preliminary  b) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause;
investigation proper which ascertains whether the or
offender should be held for trial or released. Even  c) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence
if the two inquiries are conducted in the course of within five days from notice in case of doubt on the
one and the same proceeding, there should be existence of probable cause.28
no confusion about the objectives.The  EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL DETERMINATION
determination of probable cause for the warrant  In a criminal prosecution, probable cause is
of arrest is made by the Judge. The preliminary determined at two stages.
investigation proper -- whether or not there is  The first is at the executive level, where
reasonable ground to believe that the accused is determination is made by the prosecutor during
guilty of the offense charged and, therefore, the preliminary investigation, before the filing of
whether or not he should be subjected to the the criminal information.
expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial -- is  The second is at the judicial level, undertaken by
the function of the Prosecutor.[12] the judge before the issuance of a warrant of
 HO VS. PEOPLE  The executive determination of probable cause is one
made during preliminary investigation. It is a function that
 First, as held in Inting, the determination of properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a
probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose broad discretion to determine whether probable cause
different from that which is to be made by the exists and to charge those whom he believes to have
judge. Whether there is reasonable ground to committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be
believe that the accused is guilty of the offense held for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-
charged and should be held for trial is what the judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal
prosecutor passes upon. The judge, on the other case must be filed in court. Whether or not that function
hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor,
should be issued against the i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment
accused, i.e. whether there is a necessity for of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter
placing him under immediate custody in order not that the trial court itself does not and may not be
to frustrate the ends of justice.[24] Thus, even if compelled to pass upon.
both should base their findings on one and the  The judicial determination of probable cause, on the
same proceeding or evidence, there should be no other hand, is one made by the judge to ascertain whether
confusion as to their distinct objectives. a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused.
 Second, since their objectives are different, the The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence
judge cannot rely solely on the report of the submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under
prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. Obviously and judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced
understandably, the contents of the prosecutors to issue the arrest warrant.44 [Emphasis ours]
report will support his own conclusion that there  The difference is clear: The executive determination of
is reason to charge the accused of an offense probable cause concerns itself with whether there is
and hold him for trial. However, the judge must enough evidence to support an Information being
decide independently. Hence, he must have filed. The judicial determination of probable cause, on
the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest municipal judge during a preliminary
should be issued. investigation. The investigating judge must:
 a warrant can issue only if the judge is satisfied after an  1.Have examined in writing and under oath the
examination in writing and under oath of the complainant complainant and his witnesses by searching
and the witnesses, in the form of searching questions and questions and answers;
answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a
necessity of placing the respondent under immediate  2.Be satisfied that a probable cause exists; and
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
BY A REGIONAL TRIAL COURT  3.That there is a need to place the respondent
under immediate custody in order not to frustrate
 The judge must make a personal determination of the the ends of justice.
existence or non-existence of probable cause for the
arrest of the accused. The duty to make such NOT MANDATORY/ AUTOMATIC TO ISSUE WARRANT OF
determination is personal and exclusive to the issuing ARREST
judge. He cannot abdicate his duty and rely on the  Even if the judge finds probable cause, it is not mandatory
certification of the investigating prosecutor that he had for him to issue a warrant of arrest.
conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with  He must further determine the necessity of placing
law and the Rules of Court, as amended, and found the respondent under immediate custody in order
probable cause for the filing of the Information. not to frustrate the ends of justice.[6]
 It is improper for a municipal judge to issue a warrant
 WHEN INJUNCTION WILL NOT LIE of arrest without any finding that it was necessary to
place the accused in immediate custody to prevent
 It is an established doctrine that injunction will not lie
frustration of the ends of justice
to enjoin a criminal prosecution because public
interest requires that criminal acts be immediately  RULE 113
 Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A
investigated and prosecuted for the protection of peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
 (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
 However, it is also true that various decisions of this arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense;
Court have laid down exceptions to this rule, among  (b) When an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of
which are: facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
 a. To afford adequate protection to the  (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
constitutional rights of the accused who has escaped from a penal establishment or
 b. When necessary for the orderly place where he is serving final judgment or
administration of justice or to avoid temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
oppression or multiplicity of actions has escaped while being transferred from one
 c. When there is a pre-judicial question confinement to another.
which is sub[-]judice  An arrest without a warrant of arrest, under Section 5
 d. When the acts of the officer are paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of
without or in excess of authority Court, as amended, is justified when the person
 e. Where the prosecution is under an arrested is caught in flagranti delicto, viz., in the
invalid law, ordinance or regulation act of committing an offense; or when an offense
 f. When double jeopardy is clearly has just been committed and the person making
apparent the arrest has personal knowledge of the facts
 g. Where the court has no jurisdiction indicating that the person arrested has committed
over the offense it.
 h. Where there is a case of persecution
rather than prosecution  THE RATIONALE BEHIND LAWFUL ARRESTS,
 i. Where the charges are manifestly WITHOUT WARRANT
false and motivated by the lust for
 j. When there is clearly no prima facie  To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be
case against the accused and a motion arrested and searched for the evidence and
to quash on that ground has been tokens of his crime without a warrant, would be to
denied leave society, to a large extent, at the mercy of
 [k.] Preliminary injunction has been the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most
issued by the Supreme Court to prevent depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in
the threatened unlawful arrest of many instances.
 Section 5(b), Rule 113, it will be noted, refers to
INFERIOR COURTS arrests without warrant, based on "personal
 EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT/APPLICANT AND knowledge of facts" acquired by the arresting officer
WITNESS or private person.
 Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.  It has been ruled that "personal knowledge of facts,"
 (b) By the Municipal Trial Court. If the municipal in arrests without warrant must be based
trial judge conducting the preliminary upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or
investigation is satisfied after an examination in reasonable grounds of suspicion 9
writing and under oath of the complainant and his  The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the
witnesses in the form of searching questions and absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the
answers, that a probable cause exists and that suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably
there is a necessity of placing the respondent guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual
under immediate custody in order not to frustrate facts, i.e., supported by circumstances
the ends of justice, he shall issue a warrant of  A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on
arrest. probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of
the peace officers making the arrest. 11
 there are three (3) conditions that must concur for  Jurisprudence which dictates that appellant, having
the issuance of the warrant of arrest by the voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, is
deemed to have waived his right to question the validity of
his arrest, thus curing whatever defect may have attended  PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION BY THE OMBUDSMAN
his arrest.
 The legality of the arrest affects only the jurisdiction of
the court over his person. Appellants warrantless  The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
arrest therefore cannot, in itself, be the basis of his Ombudsman (Ombudsman Rules of
acquittal. Procedure),[34] specifically Section 2 of Rule II, states:
 Evaluation. Upon evaluating the complaint, the
JOHN DOE WARRANT investigating officer shall recommend whether it
may be:
 a) dismissed outright for want of palpable
 a John Doe warrant satisfies the requirements so long as merit;
it contains a descriptio personae such as will enable the
 b) referred to respondent for comment;
officer to identify the accused.
 c) indorsed to the proper government office
 the warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed party is
or agency which has jurisdiction over the
void, "except in those cases where it contains a
description personae such as will enable the officer to
identify the accused."  d) forwarded to the appropriate officer or
 John Doe search warrants should be the exception and official for fact-finding investigation;
not the rule. The police should particularly describe the  e) referred for administrative adjudication; or
place to be searched and the person or things to be  f) subjected to a preliminary investigation.
seized, wherever and whenever it is feasible. The police  Thus, the Ombudsman need not conduct
should not be hindered in the performance of their duties, a preliminary investigation upon receipt of a
which are difficult enough of performance under the best complaint. Should investigating officers find a
of conditions, by superficial adherence to technicality or far complaint utterly devoid of merit, they may
fetched judicial interference. recommend its outright dismissal. Moreover, it is
also within their discretion to determine
whether or not
preliminary investigation should be
 A.M. NO. 02-1-18-SC
 R.A. 9344
 Custodial interrogation is the questioning initiated by law
 RA 7438 enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
 "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated any significant way.[21]
in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed, without prejudice to the liability of the  A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or a proceeding
"inviting" officer for any violation of law to determine whether there is sufficient ground to
 an invitation to attend a hearing and answer some engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
questions, which the person invited may heed or committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty
refuse at his pleasure, is not illegal or constitutionally thereof and should be held for trial.[22]
 Under certain circumstances, however, such an  It is well-settled that the foregoing legal formalities
invitation can easily assume a different required by the fundamental law of the land apply only
appearance. to extra-judicial confessions or admissions obtained
 Thus, where the invitation comes from a during custodial investigations.[19] Indeed, the rights
powerful group composed predominantly of enumerated in the constitutional provision exist only in
ranking military officers issued at a time custodial interrogations, or in-custody interrogation of
when the country has just emerged from accused persons.[20]
martial rule and when the suspension of the  a person undergoing preliminary investigation cannot
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus has not be considered as being under custodial investigation.
entirely been lifted, and the designated
interrogation site is a military camp, the  The import of the distinction between custodial
same can be easily taken, not as a strictly interrogation and preliminary investigation relates to the
voluntary invitation which it purports to be, inherently coercive nature of a custodial interrogation
but as an authoritative command which one which is conducted by the police authorities. Due to
can only defy at his peril the interrogatory procedures employed by police
authorities, which are conducive to physical and
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (LEGIT NA) psychological coercion, the law affords arrested persons
constitutional rights to guarantee the voluntariness of their
confessions and admissions, and to act as deterrent from
*CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS coercion by police authorities.

 There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION

waived even by the accused himself, but the right of
appeal is not one of them. This right is granted solely for
the benefit of the accused. He may avail of it or not, as he  DEFINITION
pleases. He may waive it either expressly or by  Custodial interrogation means any questioning
implication. When the accused flees after the case has initiated by law enforcement authorities after a
been submitted to the court for decision, he will be person is taken into custody or otherwise
deemed to have waived his right to appeal from the deprived of his freedom of action in any
judgment rendered against him significant manner.
 The settled rule is that when an accused pleads to the  Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial
charge, he is deemed to have waived the right to stage when the investigation is no longer a general
preliminary investigation and the right to question any inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus
irregularity that surrounds it on a particular person as a suspect
 custodial investigation commences when a person is
taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect
in the commission of a crime under investigation of law, that he has the right to the presence of an
and the police officers begin to ask questions on attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one
the suspect's participation therein and which tend will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he
to elicit an admission so desires.
 NOTES  Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded
 a person under custodial investigation is guaranteed to him throughout the interrogation.
certain rights which attach upon the commencement  After such warnings have been given, and such
thereof, viz: (1) to remain silent, (2) to have competent opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly
and independent counsel preferably of his own and intelligently waive these rights and agree to
choice, and (3) to be informed of the two other rights answer questions or make a statement.
above.19  But unless and until such warnings and waiver are
 an accused who is on board the police vehicle on demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence
the way to the police station is already under custodial obtained as a result of interrogation can be used
investigation, and should therefore be accorded his against him.
rights under the Constitution.
 right to counsel "applies only to admissions made INVESTIGATION
in a criminal investigation but not to those made
in an administrative investigation."  ARTICLE III, SECTION 12
 The purpose of providing counsel to a person  (1). Any person under investigation for the
under custodial investigation is to curb the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
uncivilized practice of extracting confession even informed of his right to remain silent and to have
by the slightest coercion as would lead the competent and independent counsel, preferably of his
accused to admit something false. own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
 What is sought to be avoided is the evil of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
extorting from the very mouth of the person cannot be waived except in writing and in the
undergoing interrogation for the commission presence of counsel.
of an offense, the very evidence with which  (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or
to prosecute and thereafter convict him. any other means which vitiate the free will shall be
 These constitutional guarantees have used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
been made available to protect him from incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
the inherently coercive psychological, if are prohibited.
not physical, atmosphere of such  (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation
investigation. of this or Section 17 shall be inadmissible in evidence
 The right to counsel attaches the moment an against him.
investigating officer starts to ask questions to  It is required that the suspect in custodial interrogation
elicit information on the crime from the suspected must be given the following warnings:
offender. It is at this point that the law requires  (1) He must be informed of his right to remain silent;
the assistance of counsel to avoid the pernicious  (2) He must be warned that anything he says can and
practice of extorting forced or coerced will be used against him; and
admissions or confessions from the person  SELF
undergoing interrogation.  (3) He must be told that he has a right to counsel, and
 In other words, "the moment there is a move that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to
or even urge of said investigators to elicit represent him
admissions or confessions or even plain  Art. III, 12(1) requires that counsel assisting
information which may appear innocent or suspects in custodial interrogations be
innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he competent and independent.
should then and there be assisted by  Independent counsel required by Art. III,
counsel, unless he waives the right, but the 12(1) cannot be a special counsel, public or
waiver shall be made in writing and in the private prosecutor, municipal attorney, or
presence of counsel counsel of the police whose interest is
admittedly adverse to the accused.
**MIRANDA RIGHTS  Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary,
and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing
the declarants consent in executing the same has
 The Miranda doctrine requires that:
been vitiated, such confession will be sustained.
 (a) any person under custodial investigation has the
 There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced
right to remain silent;
confessions treated in this constitutional provision:
 (b) anything he says can and will be used against him
 (1) those which are the product of third degree
in a court of law;
methods such as torture, force, violence, threat,
 (c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being
intimidation, which are dealt with in paragraph 2
questioned and to have his counsel present when
of 12, and
being questioned; and
 (2) those which are given without the benefit of
 (d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be
Miranda warnings, which are the subject of
provided before any questioning if he so desires.
paragraph 1 of the same 12.
 In the Miranda case, the Federal Supreme Court made it
clear that what is prohibited is the "incommunicado
interrogation of individuals in a police dominated CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION/ NON- OBSERVANCE
atmosphere, resulting in self- incriminating statements
without full warnings of constitutional rights."  Confessions and admissions in violation of
 The State's right to prosecute criminals may be a great Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution are
right but, as Lord Chancellor Sankey observed, it is not inadmissible in evidence against the declarant and
permissible "to do a great right by doing a little wrong". more so against third persons
 The Miranda ruling does not mean that the police should
stop a person who enters a police station and states that  This is so even if such statements are gospel
he wishes to confess to a crime. It does not affect truth and voluntarily given.
volunteered statements of guilt by persons not in police
custody.  Such statements are useless except as
 He (the accused) must be warned prior to any evidence against the very police authorities who
questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that violated the suspect's rights.
anything he says can be used against him in a court
 It is always incumbent upon the prosecution to prove at  In People v. Bacamante 17, the term "effective and
the trial that prior to in-custody questioning, the confessant vigilant counsel" was explained thus:
was informed of his constitutional rights.  necessarily and logically [requires] that the lawyer
 The presumption of regularity of official acts does be present and able to advise and assist his
not prevail over the constitutional presumption of client from the time the confessant answers the
innocence. first question asked by the investigating officer
until the signing of the extrajudicial confession.
RIGHT TO BE HEARD Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain that the
confession is made voluntarily and that the
person under investigation fully understands the
 In criminal cases where the imposable penalty may be nature and the consequence of his extrajudicial
death, as in the present case, the court is called upon to confession in relation to his constitutional rights.
see to it that the accused is personally made aware of the A contrary rule would undoubtedly be
consequences of a waiver of the right to present evidence. antagonistic to the constitutional rights to remain
In fact, it is not enough that the accused is simply warned silent, to counsel and to be presumed innocent.
of the consequences of another failure to attend the  In People v. dela Cruz 18, an effective counsel was
succeeding hearings. The court must first explain to the characterized as:
accused personally in clear terms the exact nature and  one who can be made to act in protection of his
consequences of a waiver. [accused's] rights, and not by merely going
 the waiver of the right to present evidence in a through the motions of providing him with anyone
criminal case involving a grave penalty is not who possesses a law degree.
assumed and taken lightly  to be an effective counsel, a lawyer need not
 an invalid waiver of the right to present evidence and challenge all the questions being propounded to his
be heard does not per se work to vacate a finding of client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to
guilt in the criminal case or to enforce an automatic stop an accused from saying anything which might
remand of the case to the trial court incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our
Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as
RIGHT TO COUNSEL;WAIVER would lead the accused to admit something false. The
counsel, however, should never prevent an accused
 The rights to remain silent and to counsel may be waived from freely and voluntarily telling the truth
by the accused provided that the constitutional
requirements are complied with. It must appear clear that
the accused was initially accorded his right to be informed
of his right to remain silent and to have a competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. In  However, the foregoing rule is not intended to deter to the
addition, the waiver must be in writing and in the presence accused from confessing guilt if he voluntarily and
of counsel. If the waiver complies with the constitutional intelligently so desires, but to protect him from admitting
requirements, then the extrajudicial confession will be what he is being coerced to admit although untrue. To be
tested for voluntariness,[31] i. e., if it was given freely- an effective counsel, a lawyer need not challenge all the
without coercion, intimidation, inducement, or false questions being propounded to his client.
promises; and credibility,[32] i.e., if it was consistent with  The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an
the normal experience of mankind. accused from saying anything which might incriminate
 A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged him; but, rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to
by the accused where he never raised any objection preclude the slightest coercion on the accused to
against the former's appointment during the course of the admit something false. The counsel should never
investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling
veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. 11 the truth.
 It stresses the need to accord the accused, under the
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial investigation,
an informed judgment on the choices explained to him by
a diligent and capable lawyer.143
 the right of a person under investigation "to be  An effective and vigilant counsel necessarily and
informed" implies a correlative obligation on the part logically requires that the lawyer be present and able
of the police investigator to explain, and contemplates to advise and assist his client from the time the
an effective communication that results in confessant answers the first question asked by the
understanding of what is conveyed. Short of this, investigating officer until the signing of the
there is a denial of the right. extrajudicial confession.
 Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain that the
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DE OFICIO IN THE confession is made voluntarily and that the person
ABSENCE OF RETAINED COUNSEL/COUNSEL OF under investigation fully understands the nature and
RECORD the consequence of his extrajudicial confession in
 The choice of counsel by the accused in a criminal relation to his constitutional rights. A contrary rule
prosecution is not a plenary one. If the chosen counsel would undoubtedly be antagonistic to the
deliberately makes himself scarce, the court is not constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel and to
precluded from appointing a de oficio counsel, which it be presumed innocent.144
considers competent and independent, to enable the trial  The right to counsel has been written into our Constitution
to proceed until the counsel of choice enters his in order to prevent the use of duress and other undue
appearance. Otherwise, the pace of a criminal prosecution influence in extracting confessions from a suspect in a
will be entirely dictated by the accused, to the detriment of crime.
the eventual resolution of the case  The lawyer’s role cannot be reduced to being that of
a mere witness to the signing of a pre-prepared
COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL confession, even if it indicated compliance with the
 DEFINITION constitutional rights of the accused. The accused is
 that he is willing to fully safeguard the constitutional entitled to effective, vigilant and independent
rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who counsel.145 Where the prosecution failed to discharge
would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and the State’s burden of proving with clear and
meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional convincing evidence that the accused had enjoyed
rights. effective and vigilant counsel before he extrajudicially
 NOTE: admitted his guilt, the extrajudicial confession cannot
 The right to counsel is a fundamental right and be given any probative value.
contemplates not a mere presence of the lawyer
beside the accused.
NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract
constitutional principle.
 What controls is not the title of the information or the  As a rule, therefor, it would not be sufficient for a
designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in police officer just to repeat to the person under
the information. investigation the provisions of Section 20, Article IV of
 In other words, it is the recital of facts of the the Constitution. He is not only duty-bound to tell the
commission of the offense, not the nomenclature of person the rights to which the latter is entitled; he
the offense, that determines the crime being charged must also explain their effects in practical terms, e.g.,
in the information. what the person under interrogation may or may not
 the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not do, and in a language the subject fairly understands.
from the caption or preamble of the information, or from  In other words, the right of a person under
the specification of the provision of law alleged to have interrogation "to be informed" implies a
been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by correlative obligation on the part of the police
the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or investigator to explain, and contemplates an
information. effective communication that results in
 Every element of the offense must be stated in the understanding what is conveyed. Short of this,
information. What facts and circumstances are necessary there is a denial of the right, as it cannot truly be
to be included therein must be determined by reference to said that the person has been "informed" of his
the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. rights. Now, since the right "to be informed"
 The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in implies comprehension, the degree of
the information is to inform the accused of the nature explanation required will necessary vary,
of the accusation against him so as to enable him to depending upon the education, intelligence and
suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is that other relevant personal circumstances of the
the accused has no independent knowledge of the person under investigation. Suffice it to say that a
facts that constitute the offense simpler and more lucid explanation is needed
 The raison detre of the requirement in the Rules is to where the subject is unlettered.
enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense.
PERSON DETAINED OF RIGHTS  When petitioner was Identified by the complainant at the
police line-up, he had not been held yet to answer for a
 it is settled that one's right to be informed of the right to criminal offense.
remain silent and to counsel contemplates the  The police line-up is not a part of the custodial
transmission of meaningful information rather than just the inquest, hence, he was not yet entitled to counsel.
ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract  Thus, it was held that when the process had not yet
constitutional principle. shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory as
 It is not enough for the interrogator to merely repeat to when police investigation does not elicit a confession
the person under investigation the provisions of the accused may not yet avail of the services of his
Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution; the lawyer
former must also explain the effects of such provision  The stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to
in practical terms — e.g., what the person under stand in a police line-up has been held to be outside the
interrogation may or may not do — and in a language mantle of protection of the right to counsel because it
the subject fairly understands. involves a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and is
 The right to be informed carries with it a correlative purely investigatory in nature. 13
obligation on the part of the police investigator to  It has also been held that an uncounseled
explain, and contemplates effective communication identification at the police line-up does not preclude
which results in the subject's understanding of what is the admissibility of an in-court identification.
conveyed. Since it is comprehension that is sought to  Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation;
be attained, the degree of explanation required will hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution
necessarily vary and depend on the education, cannot yet be invoked at this stage.
intelligence, and other relevant personal
circumstances of the person undergoing investigation. CONFESSIONS DIFFERENTIATED FROM ADMISSION
 In further ensuring the right to counsel, it is not
enough that the subject is informed of such right; he REQUIREMENTS FOR CONFESSION TO BE VALID AND
should also be asked if he wants to avail of the same ADMISSIBLE
and should be told that he could ask for counsel if he
so desired or that one could be provided him at his
request. If he decides not to retain a counsel of his EXCEPTIONAL CASES ON UNCOUNSELED
choice or avail of one to be provided for him and, CONFESSIONS NOT HELD TO BE EXCLUDED
therefore, chooses to waive his right to counsel, such
waiver, to be valid and effective, must still be made  it has been held that the constitutional procedures on
with the assistance of counsel, who, under prevailing custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous
jurisprudence, must be a lawyer statement, not elicited through questioning by the
 Admittedly, accused is deemed to have waived his right authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby
to question the irregularities attending his arrest for appellant orally admitted having committed the crime. 35
his failure to raise the same at the opportune time, i.e.,  What the Constitution bars is the compulsory
before he entered his plea. disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. The
 Whenever a protection given by the Constitution is waived rights under Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude
by the person entitled to that protection, the presumption is the slightest use of coercion by the state as would
always against the waiver. lead the accused to admit something false, not to
 Consequently, the prosecution must prove with prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the
strongly convincing evidence to the satisfaction of this truth.
Court that indeed the accused willingly and voluntarily  [A]ppellant's [oral] confessions to the newsmen are
submitted his confession and knowingly and not covered by Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the
deliberately manifested that he was not interested in Constitution.
having a lawyer assist him during the taking of that  The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the
confession. relation between a private individual and another
 When the Constitution requires a person under individual. It governs the relationship between the
investigation "to be informed" of his right to remain silent individual and the State. The prohibitions therein are
and to counsel, it must be presumed to contemplate the primarily addressed to the State and its agents.
transmission of meaningful information rather than just the  the constitutional guarantees during custodial investigation
do not apply to spontaneous statements not elicited
through questioning by the authorities and given during  (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or
ordinary conversation or during media interviews, whereby of guilt,[9]
the suspect orally admits the commission of the crime.  (b) during trial whenever necessary for identification
 Our ruling in that case does not, however, authorize purposes,[10] and
the police to obtain confessions they cannot otherwise  (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a
obtain through media reporters who are acting for the light offense, in which case the accused may appear
police by counsel or representative.[11]
 At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is
RIGHT TO TRIAL required and cannot be waived.
 As pointed out in Borja v. Mendoza,[12] in an opinion by
Justice, later Chief Justice, Enrique Fernando, there can
TRIAL be no trial in absentia unless the accused has been
 An accused's right to "have a speedy, impartial, and public
trial" is guaranteed in criminal cases by Section 14 (2) of CONCEPT OF SPEEDY TRIAL
Article III of the Constitution. This right to a speedy trial
may be defined as one free from vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays, its "salutary objective" being to assure  Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that
that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and "All persons shall have the right to speedy disposition of
expense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
guilt determined within the shortest possible time administrative bodies."
compatible with the presentation and consideration of  Castañeda,
whatsoever legitimate defense he may  the Court called on courts to be the last to set an
interpose. Intimating historical perspective on the evolution example of delay and oppression in the administration
of the right to speedy trial, we reiterate the old legal of justice and it is the moral and legal obligation of the
maxim, "justice delayed is justice denied." This oft- courts to see to it that the criminal proceedings
repeated adage requires the expeditious resolution of against the accused come to an end and that they be
disputes, much more so in criminal cases where an immediately discharged from the custody of the law.
accused is constitutionally guaranteed the right to a  Exhaustively explained in Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, an
speedy trial.
accuseds right to speedy trial is deemed violated only
The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy
disposition of the case against him was designed to when the proceeding is attended by vexatious,
prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal
prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and capricious, and oppressive delays.
to prevent delays in the administration of justice by  In determining whether petitioner was deprived of this
mandating the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch
in the trial of criminal cases. Such right to a speedy trial right, the factors to consider and balance are the
and a speedy disposition of a case is violated only when
the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and following:
oppressive delays. The inquiry as to whether or not an
accused has been denied such right is not susceptible by  (a) duration of the delay;
precise qualification. The concept of a speedy disposition  (b) reason therefor;
is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible
concept.  (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it; and

 In determining whether the accused has  (d) prejudice caused by such delay.
been deprived of his right to a speedy
disposition of the case and to a speedy
trial, four factors must be considered: (a)
length of delay; (b) the reason for the  It must be noted, however, that the right to speedy
delay; (c) the defendant's assertion of disposition of cases should be understood to be a relative
his right; and (d) prejudice to the or flexible concept such that a mere mathematical
defendant. x x x. reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient.
 Jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed
Closely related to the length of delay is violated only when the proceedings are attended by
the reason or justification of the State for vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when
such delay. Different weights unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for
 and secured; or even without cause or justifiable
 motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse
 should be assigned to different reasons without the party having his case tried.23
or justifications invoked by the State. x x

TRIAL IN ABSENTIA  In Barker v. Wingo, the United States Supreme Court

was confronted for the first time with two rigid approaches
 Under Section 21, Rule 11411 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, the defendant’s absence merely on speedy trial as ways of eliminating some of the
renders his bondsman potentially liable on its bond
(subject to cancellation should the bondsman fail to uncertainty which courts experience protecting the right. [47]
produce the accused within 30 days); the defendant  fixed-time period
retains his standing and, should he fail to surrender, will
be tried in absentia and could be convicted or  which holds the view that the Constitution
 Indeed, the 30-day period granted to the bondsman to requires a criminal defendant to be offered a trial
produce the accused underscores the fact that mere
within a specified time period.[48]
non-appearance does not ipso facto convert the
accused’s status to that of a fugitive without  the demand-waiver rule
 Art. III, 14(2) of the Constitution authorizing trials in  which provides that a defendant waives any
absentia allows the accused to be absent at the trial but
not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit: consideration of his right to speedy trial for any
should be weighted less heavily but
period prior to which he has not demanded nevertheless should be considered
since the ultimate responsibility for such
trial. Under this rigid approach, a prior demand is
circumstances must rest with the
a necessary condition to the consideration of the government rather than with the
defendant. Finally, a valid reason, such
speedy trial right.[49] as a missing witness, should serve to
justify appropriate delay.
 The fixed-time period was rejected because there is  The defendants responsibility to assert
his right.
no constitutional basis for holding that the speedy trial
 The strength of his efforts will be
can be quantified into a specific number of days or affected by the length of the delay, to
some extent by the reason for the
months.[50] The demand-waiver rule was likewise delay, and most particularly by the
personal prejudice, which is not
rejected because aside from the fact that it is always readily identifiable, that he
inconsistent with this Courts pronouncements on experiences.
 The more serious the deprivation, the
waiver of constitutional rights,[51] it is insensitive to a more likely a defendant is to
complain. The defendants assertion of
right which we have deemed fundamental.[52] his speedy trial right, then, is entitled to
strong evidentiary weight in determining
whether the defendant is being deprived
BALANCING TEST of the right.
 We emphasize that failure to assert
 The Court went on to adopt a middle ground: the right will make it difficult for a
defendant to prove that he was
the balancing test, in which the conduct of both the denied a speedy trial.
 Prejudice to the defendant.
prosecution and defendant are weighed.[53]  Prejudice, of course, should be
 Mr. Justice Powell, ponente, explained the concept, assessed in the light of the interests
of defendants which the speedy trial
thus right was designed to protect.
 This Court has identified three such
 A balancing test necessarily compels courts interests:
 (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial
to approach speedy trial cases on an ad
hoc basis.  (ii) to minimize anxiety and
concern of the accused; and
 We can do little more than identify some of the  (iii) to limit the possibility that the
defense will be impaired.
factors which courts should assess in determining  Of these, the most serious is the last,
whether a particular defendant has been deprived because the inability of a defendant
adequately to prepare his case skews
of his right. the fairness of the entire system. If
witnesses die or disappear during a
 Though some might express them in different delay, the prejudice is obvious. There is
also prejudice if defense witnesses are
ways, we identify four such factors: Length of
unable to recall accurately events of the
delay, the reason for the delay, the distant past. Loss of memory, however,
is not always reflected in the record
defendants assertion of his right, and because what has been forgotten can
rarely be shown.[54] (Emphasis supplied)
prejudice to the defendant.  suspicion and often, hostility. His financial
 FACTORS: resources may be drained, his association is
 The length of the delay curtailed, and he is subjected to public obloquy.
 is to some extent a triggering
 Until there is some delay which is
presumptively prejudicial, there is no  AQUINO
necessity for inquiry into the other
factors that go into the  [a] trial of any kind or in any court is a matter of
balance. Nevertheless, because of the
serious importance to all concerned and should not be
imprecision of the right to speedy
trial, the length of delay that will treated as a means of entertainment[, and t]o so treat
provoke such an inquiry is
necessarily dependent upon the it deprives the court of the dignity which pertains to it
peculiar circumstances of the
case. To take but one example, the and departs from the orderly and serious quest for
delay that can be tolerated for an truth for which our judicial proceedings are
ordinary street crime is considerably
less than for a serious, complex formulated.
conspiracy charge.
 The reason the government assigns to  The observation that [m]assive intrusion of
justify the delay.
 Here, too, different weights should be representatives of the news media into the trial itself
assigned to different reasons. A can so alter and destroy the constitutionally necessary
deliberate attempt to delay the trial in
order to hamper the defense should be atmosphere and decorum stands.
weighted heavily against the  ESTRADA
government.  It held that [t]he propriety of granting or denying the
 A more neutral reason such as instant petition involve[s] the weighing out of the
negligence or overcrowded courts constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and
the right to public information, on the one hand, and charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Corollary
the fundamental rights of the accused, on the other thereto, conviction must rest on the strength of the
hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to prosecutions evidence and not on the weakness of the
control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial defense
trial.  The burden of proof placed on the Prosecution arises from
the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that
RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION no less thanthe Constitution has guaranteed. Conversely,
as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of proof,
 The right of a party to confront and cross-examine that he must then be acquitted and set free should the
Prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence
opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or
in his favor. In other words, the weakness of the defense
civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative put up bythe accused is inconsequential in the
proceedings for as long as the Prosecution has not
tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right discharged its burden of proof in establishing the
which is part of due process.[133] This right, however, has commission of the crime charged and in identifying the
accused as the malefactor responsible for it.
always been understood as requiring not necessarily an
actual cross-examination but merely an opportunity to
exercise the right to cross-examine if desired.[134] What is
proscribed by statutory norm and jurisprudential precept is  Once again we lay down the rule that the constitutional
guaranty, that no person shall be compelled in any
the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine.[135] criminal case to be a witness against himself, is limited to
 There is a great deal of difference between the face-to- a prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-
face confrontation in a public criminal trial in the presence incrimination. The corollary to the proposition is that, an
of the presiding judge and the cross-examination of a ocular inspection of the body of the accused is
witness in a foreign place outside the courtroom in the permissible. The proviso is that torture of force shall be
absence of a trial judge avoided. Whether facts fall within or without the rule with
 The main and essential purpose of requiring a witness its corollary and proviso must, of course, be decided as
to appear and testify orally at a trial is to secure for cases arise.
the adverse party the opportunity of cross-
examination. "The opponent", according to an  Thir right constured as the right to remain completely silent
eminent authority, "demands confrontation, not for the
idle purpose of gazing upon the witness, or of being may be availed of by the accused in a criminal case;
gazed upon by him, but for the purpose of cross  Petitioner, as accused, occupies a different tier of
examination which cannot be had except by the direct protection from an ordinary witness. Whereas an ordinary
and personal putting of questions and obtaining witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and
immediate answers." There is also the advantage of claim the privilege as each question requiring an
the witness before the judge, and it is this – it enables incriminating answer is hot at him, an accused may
the judge as trier of facts "to obtain the elusive and altother refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to
incommunicable evidence of a witness' deportment answer any all questions.
while testifying, and a certain subjective moral effect  this right of the accused is extended to respondents in
is produced upon the witness. It is only when the administrative investigations but only if they partake of the
witness testifies orally that the judge may have a true nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal
idea of his countenance, manner and expression, proceeding. In Galman vs. Pamaran,26 the Court reiterated
which may confirm or detract from the weight of his the doctrine in Cabal vs. Kapuanan (6 SCRA 1059) to
testimony. Certainly, the physical condition of the illustrate the right of witnesses to invoke the right against
witness will reveal his capacity for accurate self-incrimination not only in criminal proceedings but also
observation and memory, and his deportment and in all other types of suit
physiognomy will reveal clues to his character. These
can only be observed by the judge if the witness
testifies orally in court  The constitutional right of an accused against self-
 The right of confrontation, on the other hand, is held to
apply specifically to criminal proceedings and to have a incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral
twofold purpose: (1) to afford the accused an opportunity compulsion to extort communications from the accused
to test the testimony of witnesses by cross-examination,
and (2) to allow the judge to observe the deportment of and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may
witnesses.23 The Court explained in People v.
Seneris24 that the constitutional requirement "insures that be material. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the
the witness will give his testimony under oath, thus
deterring lying by the threat of perjury charge; it forces the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his
witness to submit to cross-examination, a valuable guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand ofcounsel is
instrument in exposing falsehood and bringing out the
truth; and it enables the court to observe the demeanor of not required. (People vs. Olvis, 238 Phil. 513 [1987]) The
the witness and assess his credibility."25
 As the right of confrontation is intended "to secure the essence of the right against selfincrimination is testimonial
accused in the right to be tried as far as facts provable by
witnesses as meet him face to face at the trial who give compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against himself
their testimony in his presence, and give to the accused an through a testimonial act.
opportunity of cross-examination,"26 it is properly viewed
as a guarantee against the use of unreliable testimony in  The right against self-incrimination, when applied to a
criminal trials. In the American case of Crawford v.
Washington,27 the US Supreme Court had expounded on criminal trial, is contained in this terse injunction – no
the procedural intent of the confrontation requirement,
person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. In other words, he may not be required to take
INNOCENCE the witness stand. He can sit mute throughout the
 The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal proceedings. His right to counsel is expressed in the same
case is a basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by
procedural rules which place on the prosecution the laconic style: he shall enjoy the right to be heard by
burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense
court[14] The amount should be high enough to assure the
himself and counsel. This means inversely that the presence of the accused when required but no higher than
is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.
criminal prosecution cannot proceed without having a
 A bail application does not only involve the right of the
counsel by his side. These are the traditional rights of the
accused to temporary liberty, but likewise the right of
accused in a criminal case. They exist and may be
the State to protect the people and the peace of the
invoked when he faces a formal indictment and trial for a
community from dangerous elements. These two
criminal offense. But since Miranda vs Arizona 384 US
rights must be balanced by a magistrate in the scale
436, the law has come to recognize that an accused
of justice, hence, the necessity for hearing to guide
needs the same protections even before he is brought to
his exercise of jurisdiction
trial. They arise at the very inception of the criminal

process – when a person is taken into custody to answer
 GUIDELINES IN BAIL FIXING, which may be summarized
to a criminal offense. For what a person says or does as follows:
 (1) ability of the accused to give bail;
during custodial investigation will eventually be used as  (2) nature of the offense;
 (3) Penalty for the offense charged;
evidence against him at the trial and, more often than not,
 (4) character and reputation of the accused;
will be the lynchpin of his eventual conviction. His trial  (5) health of the accused;
 (6) character and strength of the evidence;
becomes a parody if he cannot enjoy from the start the  (7) probability of the accused appearing in trial;
 (8) forfeiture of other bonds;
right against self-incrimination and to counsel.  (9) whether the accused was a fugitive from justice
 It was never intended to hamper the traditional law- when arrested; and
 (10) if the accused is under bond for appearance at
enforcement function to investigate crime involving trial in other cases.14
 But, at bottom, in bail fixing, "the principal factor
persons not under restraint considered, to the determination of which most
BAIL other factors are directed, is the probability of
DEFINITION the appearance of the accused, or of his flight
to avoid punishment." 15
 "the security required and given for the release of a person  Of importance then is the possible penalty that
who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear before may be meted. Of course penalty depends to a
any court in which his appearance may be required as great extent upon the gravity of offense.
stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance”
 Bail is the security required by the court and given by the
accused to ensure that the accused appears before the
proper court at the scheduled time and place to answer  1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of
the charges brought against him or her. It is awarded to discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the
the accused to honor the presumption of innocence until application for bail or require him to submit his
his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and to enable recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules
him to prepare his defense without being subject to of Court as amended)
punishment prior to conviction
 2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a
 RULES! hearing of the application for bail regardless of
 only those persons who have been either arrested, whether or not the prosecution refuses to present
detained or otherwise deprived of their liberty will ever evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is
have occasion to seek the benefits of said provision. strong for the purpose of enabling the court to
 Therefore, in narrow cases involving special exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7 and 8, supra)
appearances, an accused can invoke the
 3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong
processes of the court even though there is
based on the summary of evidence of the
neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of
the law. However, if a person invoking the special
jurisdiction of the court applies for bail, he must  4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge
first submit himself to the custody of the law. the accused upon the approval of the bailbond
 If we allow the granting of bail to persons not in (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be
the custody of the law, it is foreseeable that many denied.[39]
persons who can afford the bail will remain at
large, and could elude being held to answer for  RULES ON AVAILABILITY OF BAIL TO AN ACCUSED:
the commission of the offense if ever he is proven  1. Admission to bail is a matter of right at any stage of
guilty the action where the charge is not for a capital offense
 But in order that a person can invoke the or is not punishable by reclusion perpetua; [Sec. 3,
constitutional precept, it is not necessary that he Rule 114, 1985 Rules on Crim. Procedure
should wait until a formal complaint or information is  2. Regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution,
filed against him. no bail shall be allowed if the accused is charged with
 From the moment he is placed under arrest, detention a capital offense or of an offense punishable
or restraint by the officers of the law, he can claim this by reclusion perpetuaand the evidence of guilt is
guarantee of the Bill of Rights, and this right he strong; [Idem].
retains unless and until he is charged with a capital  3. Even if a capital offense is charged and the
offense and evidence of his guilt is strong. evidence of guilt is strong, the accused may still be
 The purpose of bail is to secure one's release and it would admitted to bail in the discretion of the court if there
be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free. Thus, `bail are strong grounds to apprehend that his continued
is the security required and given for the release of a confinement will endanger his life or result in
person who is in the custody of the law.' (Rule 110, section permanent impairment of health, [De la Rama vs.
1), and evidently the accused do not come within its People's Court, 43 O.G. No. 10, 4107 (1947)] but only
purview. before judgment in the regional trial court; and
 The purpose for bail is to guarantee the appearance of the  4. No bail shall be allowed after final judgment, unless
accused at the trial,[13] or whenever so required by the the accused has applied for probation and has not
commenced to serve sentence, [Section 21, Rule 114, order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or
1985 Rules of Court] the penalty and offense being prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
within the purview of the probation law."

 "(a) That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist,  From the moment he is placed under arrest, or is detained
or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime or restrained by the officers of the law, he can claim the
aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration; guarantee of his provisional liberty under the Bill of Rights,
 (b) That the accused is found to have previously and he retains his right to bail unless he is charged with a
escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or capital offense, or with an offense punishable with
has violated the conditions of his bail without valid reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence
justification; of his guilt is strong.
 (c) That the accused committed the offense while on
probation, parole, or under conditional pardon; WHEN ALLOWED EVEN IF “DISCRETION”
 (d) That the circumstances of the accused or his case
indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or  This national commitment to uphold the fundamental
 (e) That there is undue risk that during the pendency human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of
of the appeal, the accused may commit another every person has authorized the grant of bail not only to
crime." those charged in criminal proceedings but also to
extraditees upon a clear and convincing showing:
RIGHT TO BAIL (WHEN A MATTER OF RIGHT AND WHEN  (1 ) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a
A MATTER OF DISCRETION) danger to the community; and
 (2 ) that there exist special, humanitarian and
compelling circumstances.39
 It is a matter of right when the offense charged is  that all persons shall before conviction be bailable except
punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua. when charge is a capital offense and the evidence of guilt
To that extent the right is absolute. is strong. the general rule, therefore, is that all persons,
 Upon the other hand, if the offense charged is punishable whether charged or not yet charges, are, before their
by reclusion perpetua bail becomes a matter of conviction, entitled to provisional release on bail, the only
discretion. It shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is exception being where the charge is a capital offense and
strong. The court's discretion is limited to determining the evidence of guilt is found to be strong.
whether or not evidence of guilt is strong. But once it is  At the hearing of the application for bail, the burden of
determined that the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail showing that the case falls within the exception is on
also becomes a matter of right. . . . the prosecution, according to Rule 110, section 7.
 The clear implication therefore, is that if an accused  The determination of whether or not the evidence of
guilt is strong is, as stated in Herras Teehankee case,
who is charged with a crime punishable by reclusion a matter of judicial discretion.
 This discretion, by the very nature of things, may
perpetua is convicted by the trial court and sentenced rightly be exercise only after the evidence is
submitted to the court at the hearing.
to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a matter of
 Neither under the old nor under the new
right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on Rules is there any specific provision defining
what kind of hearing it should be, but in the
the part of the court. In such a situation, the court two cases cited at the footnote hereof it was
stated that the hearing should be summary
would not have only determined that the evidence of or otherwise in the discretion of the court.
 "By 'summary hearing,' this Court added, "we
guilt is strong — which would have been sufficient to
mean such brief and speedy method of
deny bail even before conviction — it would have receiving and considering the evidence of
guilt as is practicable and consistent with the
likewise ruled that the accused's guilt has been purpose of the hearing which is merely to
determine the weight of the evidence for
proven beyond reasonable doubt. Bail must not then purposes of bail.
be granted to the accused during the pendency of his  On such hearing, the court does not sit
to try the merits or to enter into any nice
appeal from the judgment of conviction. inquiry as to the weight that ought to be
 The arraignment of an accused is not a prerequisite to the allowed to the evidence for or against
conduct of hearings on his petition for bail. A person is accused, nor will it speculate on the
allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his outcome of the trial or on what further
liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. [64] An evidence may be therein offered and
accused need not wait for his arraignment before filing a admitted.' (8 C.J.S. 93, 94.)
petition for bail.  The course of the inquiry may be left to
the discretion of the court which may
 For when bail is a matter of right, an accused may confine itself to receiving such evidence
as has reference to substantial matters,
apply for and be granted bail even prior to
avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in
arraignment. the examination and cross-examination
of witnesses and reducing to a
 The ruling in Lavides also implies that an application reasonable minimum at the amount of
corroboration particularly on details that
for bail in a case involving an offense punishable are not essential to the purposes of the
by reclusion perpetua to death may also be heard
 In Borinaga v. Tamin[3] a clear guideline on the exercise of
even before an accused is arraigned judicial discretion in hearing petitions for bail -
 x x x (w)hile the determination of whether or not
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO BAIL evidence of guilt is strong is a matter of judicial
 right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can discretion, this discretion by the nature of things may
be waived. It is a right which is personal to the accused rightly be exercised only after the evidence is
and whose waiver would not be contrary to law, public submitted to the court at such hearing. Whether the
motion for bail of an accused who is in custody in a
summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial
the prosecution must be given an opportunity to
present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence
that it may desire to introduce before the court may
resolve the motion for bail. If the prosecution should
be denied of such an opportunity, there would be a
violation of procedural due process, and the order of
the court granting bail should be considered void on
that ground x x x (E)ven where the prosecutor refuses
to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to
grant and fix bail, the court may ask the prosecution
such questions as would ascertain the strength of the
states evidence or judge the adequacy of the amount
of bail x x x


 double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are

present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second;
(2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a
second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A
first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment;
(b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d)
when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the
accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
 For a claim of double jeopardy to prosper, the following
requisites must concur:
 (1) there is a complaint or information or other formal
charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
 (2) the same is filed before a court of competent
 (3) there is a valid arraignment or plea to the charges;
 (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted or the case
is otherwise dismissed or terminated without his
express consent.28

 It is the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the

dismissal or termination of the case that bars further
prosecution for the same offense or any attempt to commit
the same or the frustration thereof; or prosecution for any
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charged in the former complaint or
 the proscription against double jeopardy only envisages
appeals based on errors of judgment, but not errors of
 Jurisprudence recognizes two grounds where double
jeopardy will not attach, these are:
 (i) on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction;[21] and/or
 (ii) where there is a denial of a partys due
process rights