This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Gamboa vs Cruz FACTS Petitioner alleges that on 19 July 1979, at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning, he was arrested for vagrancy, without a warrant of arrest. He was brought to Precinct 2, Manila, where he was booked for vagrancy and then detained therein together with several others. The following day, during the lineup of five detainees, including petitioner, complainant pointed to petitioner and said, "that one is a companion." After the Identification, the other detainees were brought back to their cell but petitioner was ordered to stay on. While the complainant was being interrogated by the police investigator, petitioner was told to sit down in front of her. An information for robbery was filed against the petitioner. He was arraigned and hearings were held. Subsequently, the prosecution formally offered its evidence and then rested its case. On 14 July 1980, petitioner, by counsel, instead of presenting his defense, manifested in open court that he was filing a Motion to Acquit or Demurrer to Evidence. He filed said Motion predicated on the ground that the conduct of the line-up, without notice to, and in the absence of, his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due process. The respondent court issued an order denying the Motion to Acquit. ISSUE WON the assailed order is violative of the petitioner’s rights to counsel and to due process. HELD The Court finds no merit in the contentions of petitioner. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e. when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused. At such point or stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation, for the commission of an offense. This Court has consistently held that no custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel, engaged by the person arrested, or by any person in his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself, or by anyone in his behalf, and that, while the right may be waived, the waiver shall not be valid unless made in writing and in the presence of counsel. Given the clear constitutional intent in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, to extend to those under police investigation the right to counsel, this occasion may be better than any to remind police investigators that, while the Court finds no real need to afford a suspect the services of counsel during a police line-up, the moment there is a move or even an urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. On the right to due process, the Court finds that petitioner was not, in any way, deprived of this substantive and constitutional right, as he was duly represented by a counsel. He was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense; only that he chose not to, and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. 2. People vs Macam FACTS In a criminal case, Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque, together with Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro and Eugenio Cawilan, Jr., were
accused of Robbery with Homicide as defined and penalized under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. It was alleged that they conspired to rob the residence of the offended party, their loot valued in the total amount of P454,000.00, more or less, and by reason of the crime of Robbery, said accused, killed one Leticia Macam, and others sustained serious physical injuries. Another case was filed against Eugenio Cawilan, Sr. for violation of the AntiFencing Law. Upon being arraigned, all the accused pleaded "not guilty" to the crimes charged. After the prosecution had presented its evidence, accused Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro and Eugenio Cawilan, Jr., assisted by their respective counsels, changed their plea from "not guilty" to "guilty". Consequently, a separate judgment of conviction was rendered. The trial proceeded with respect to Eugenio Cawilan, Sr. and appellants. Of the latter, only Danilo Roque testified. The trial court rendered its judgment finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. ISSUE WON there was violation of Sec. 12, Art. III of the Constitution HELD The Court previously held that the right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information, confessions or admissions from the accused. As a result of the changes in patterns of police investigation, today's accused confronts both expert adversaries and the judicial system well before his trial begins. It is therefore appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even before the trial. The law enforcement machinery at present involves critical confrontations of the accused by the prosecution at pre-trial proceedings "where the result might well settle the accused's fate and reduce the trial itself to a mere formality." A police line-up is considered a "critical" stage of the proceedings. After the start of the custodial investigation, any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. This is particularly true in the case at bench where the police officers first talked to the victims before the confrontation was held. The circumstances were such as to impart improper suggestions on the minds of the victims that may lead to a mistaken identification. Appellants were handcuffed and had contusions on their faces. However, the prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellant's identification at the police line-up. Hence, the exclusionary sanctions against the admission in evidence of custodial identification of an uncounseled accused can not be applied. On the other hand, appellants did not object to the in-court identification made by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses, who made the identification of appellants at the police line-up at the hospital, again identified appellants in open court. Appellants did not object to the in-court identification as being tainted by the illegal line-up. In the absence of such objection, the prosecution need not show that said identifications were of independent origin. 3. People vs Ayson FACTS Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines (PAL), assigned at its Baguio City station. Having alleged irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, the PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted into the matter of February 9, 1986. On the day before the investigation, Ramos gave to his superiors a handwritten notes which stated his willingness to settle the alleged irregularities in a certain amount. At the investigation conducted by the PAL Branch Manager in Baguio City, in the presence other PAL employees, Ramos was informed of the finding of the Audit Team. Ramos' answers were to the effect that he had not indeed made disclosure of the tickets mentioned in the Audit Team's findings, that the proceeds had been "misused" by him, that although he had planned on paying back the money, he had been prevented from
"perhaps (by) shame. About two months later. the day before the investigation. The private prosecutors made a written offer of evidence which included "the above mentioned statement of Ramos. When the Constitution requires a person under investigation "to be informed" of his right to remain silent and to counsel. that Ramos had voluntarily answered questions posed to him on the first day of the administrative investigation. he must also explain their effects in practical terms The Court finds that the evidence for the prosecution failed to prove compliance with these constitutional rights. is the extra-judicial confession of the accused. by custodial interrogation is meant "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. These rights exist only in "custodial interrogations. they found the firearm of the deceased on the chair where the accused was alegedly seated. In the vehicle where the suspect was riding. Sgt. was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer. Policemen Mallari submitted his final report regarding this incident. It was alleged that Sato thereafter went to the Makati Police Station to report the robbery. He has taken them as applying to the same juridical situation. Several footprints were found in the backyard. 2 . They then inquired about the circumstances of the incident and were informed that the deceased had a drinking spree with the deceased and one Cluadio Magtibay the other night till wee hours the following day. Her statements were introduced in evidence. threat. these correspond to the impressions of the soles of Pinlac's shoes One of the victim’s maid revealed that she saw Pinlac enter the house of Sato at seven o'clock in the evening. without having been apprised of his constitutional rights and without the assistance of counsel. They may not be excluded on the ground that the so-called "Miranda rights" had not been accorded to Ramos. they boarded Bolanos and Magtibay on the police vehicle and brought them to the police station. Being already under the custodial investigation while on board the patrol jeep on the way to the police station where formal investigation may have been conducted. and proferred a "compromise to pay on staggered basis. Sato where his wife works as a cook wherein at those times he could have unknowingly left his fingerprints." except Exhibits A (Ramos’ answers during the investigation) and K (his handwritten notes). he has grossly erred." and trial thereafter ensued. and to be informed of such right. as this Court has already stated. and any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence." or "in-custody interrogation of accused persons. He is not only dutybound to tell the person the rights to which the latter is entitled. The respondent judge admitted all the exhibits "as part of the testimony of the witnesses who testified in connection therewith and for whatever they are worth. HELD Numerous factors combine to make the appeal meritorious. just as it is obvious that the note (Exhibit K) that he sent to his superiors on February 8. an information was filed against Felipe Ramos charging him with the crime of estafa. Subsequently. ISSUE Whether or not the acts of the policemen constitute a violation of the accused's constitutional right." And. although she did not see him leave thereafter. which was allegedly obtained thru force. Later on. the objection was that "said document. After said accused entered a plea of not guilty." Respondent Judge has misapprehended the nature and import of the disparate rights set forth in Section 20. invited him to the police station. Considering the clear requirements of the Constitution with respect to the manner by which confession can be admissible in evidence." that he was still willing to settle his obligation. accused Bolanos admitted that he killed the deceased because he was abusive. violence and intimidation. thus he is acquitted. torture. nor force. which is now being assailed as violative of the Constitution. The trial court rendered its now assailed decision finding the accused guilty as charged. He requested some policemen to repair to his residence to investigate. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him.1986. It was when the police investigators had already reached his residence that he learned about the death of Osamu. violence. The only evidence furnished by the police authorities were merely circumstantial evidence regarding the fingerprints of the accused found in the window stabs of the maid's quarters and in the kitchen cabinet in the house of Mr. In so doing. the accused was not assisted by counsel and his alleged waiver was made without the assistance of counsel. HELD The acts of the policeman violated the constitutional rights of the accused. besides appellant's conviction was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Ramos entered a plea of "Not Guilty. intimidation. which appears to be a confession. the record having thereafter been marked during the trial (Exhibit A). 5. he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. they saw the deceased Oscar Pagdalian lying on a improvised bed full of blood with stab wounds. too. It is clear that Ramos was not in any sense under custodial interrogation prior to and during the administrative inquiry into the discovered irregularities in ticket sales in which he appeared to have had a hand. was a free and even spontaneous act on his part. the cases proceeded to trial. No direct evidence or testimony of any eyewitness was presented Identifying the accused as the perpetrator of the crime charged. 1986 and agreed that the proceedings should be recorded. offering to compromise his liability in the alleged irregularities. But this was satisfactorily explained by the accused to the effect that aside from being a frequent visitor in the house of Mr. The record of the case is also replete with evidence which was not satisfactorily rebutted by the prosecution. ISSUE WON the rights of Ramos granted by the constitution during his custodial investigation were violated HELD Section 20 states that whenever any person is under investigation for the commission of an offense. Flores extracted the extrajudicial confession of Pinlac. They then apprehended the accusd-appellant. The only evidence presented by the prosecution which could have been fatal. Sato. Bulacan and upon arrival. the policemen went to Taguig and. Balagtas. Police detectives took photographs from different angles of the scene of the crime. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. The defendant's attorneys filed "Objections/Comments to Plaintiff s Evidence". It is also clear. Furthermore. Detective Samson opined that the killer made his entry by removing the panels of jalousies at the rear of the house and that fingerprints were lifted from the victim's house. Hence. finding Pinlac thereat. but most especially during the time when he was arrested and ordered to reenact. 4. People vs Bolanos FACTS Two policemen (Alacantara and Dayao) testified that they proceeded to the scene of the crime of Marble Supply. it would not be sufficient for a police officer just to repeat to the person under investigation the provisions of the Constitution. appellant should have been informed of his Constitutional rights under Article III. and the glaring fact that the alleged confession obtained while on board the police vehicle was the only reason for the convtiction. People vs Pinlac FACTS The accused was charged in two different Informations of the crimes of robbery against two different Japanese nationals. ISSUE WON the trial court erred in admitting in evidence his extra-judicial confession. that the accused was maltreated and tortured for seven (7) solid hours before he signed the prepared extra-judicial confession. Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution. Afterwards. February 9.doing so. the Court acquitted the accused. the Court has no recourse but to reverse the subject judgment under review.
Some prosecution evidence. the New People's Army. taking into consideration Executive Order No. of the 1987 Constitution. except those charged with a capital offense or an offense which.D. which is a bailable offense under Section 13 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution. as amended. was restored. however. both substantive and procedural. the original penalty for rebellion. Thus. He pleaded not guilty during arraignment. the allegation of his having been "pressured" to sign the Examination Report prepared by Dulguime appears to be belied by his own testimony. if he so desired. At the time the Information was filed. It was alleged that the crime was committed against a four-year old child." which has been since defined as 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. A warrant of arrest was issued.483." Private respondent filed with the court below a Motion to Quash the Information. It was alleged that the accused. In sum. It is not only the uncounselled confession that is condemned as inadmissible. Instead of asking for a reconsideration.D. of the Revised Penal Code. and the inadmissible evidence considered by the trial court. People vs Alicando FACTS The records reveal that appellant Arnel Alicando was charged with the crime of rape with homicide in an Information. In the case at bar. ISSUE made by the appellant is likewise null and void. He was. was filed. by imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death on those who promote. and the National Democratic Front.62. 1606 took effect creating the Sandiganbayan and conferring on it original and exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by public officers embraced in Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. to the damage and prejudice of the Government. granted private respondent's petition for bail. People vs Donato FACTS Private respondent Rodolfo Salas. Nos. 1996. The matter was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman which held otherwise. fixed the bail bond. Article III. prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20. they were in military custody following their arrest. It also set the case for reception of evidence for the appellant. An audit examiner himself can hardly be deemed to be the law enforcement officer contemplated in the above rule. P. Special Prosecutor opined that since Navallo had already been arraigned before the case was transferred to the Sandiganbayan. which herein petitioner opposed on the ground that since rebellion became a capital offense under the provisions of P. maintain. Respondent Judge. The trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to death. Appellant adopted the autopsy report as his documentary evidence to prove that the proximate cause of Khazie Mae's death was asphyxia by strangulation. Section 3 of Rule 116 provides that the plea of guilt must be based on a free and informed judgment." A person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial investigation. In any case. Neither did he present any writing showing that appellant waived his right to silence and to have competent and independent counsel despite the blatant violation of appellant's constitutional right. The pillow and the T-shirt with the alleged bloodstains were evidence derived from the uncounselled confession illegally extracted by the police from the appellant. among others. Navallo vs Sandiganbayan FACTS An information charging petitioner with having violated Article 217. the accused was found guilty as charged. 1996. ISSUE Whether the right to bail may be granted to the private respondents WON the trial court erred in imposing death penalty upon Alicando HELD HELD The Court finds that the Decision of the trial court sentencing the appellant to death is shot full of errors. the Court cannot send the appellant to die in the electric chair on the basis of the procedural irregularities committed by. a petition for habeas corpus for private respondent and his co-accused was filed with this Court which was dismissed on the basis of the agreement of the parties under which herein private respondent "will remain in legal custody and will face trial before the court having custody over his person. Department of Justice. 187. but also evidence derived therefrom. It was alleged that they were among the leaders of the Communist Party of the Philippines. ISSUE WON petitioner was under custodial investigation when he signed the certification prepared by State Auditing Examiner Leopoldo Dulguime. yet. were considered by the trial court in convicting the appellant. Right to Bail 8. before final conviction. He failed to account such amount during an audit and to restitute despite demands by the office of the Provincial Auditor.00. 7. Meanwhile.6. Well-settled is the rule that such rights can be invoked only when the accused is under "custodial investigation. The questions of the trial court failed to show the voluntariness of the plea of guilt of the appellant nor did the questions demonstrate appellant's full comprehension of the consequences of his plea. 942 and 1834 and restoring to full force and effect Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code as it existed before the amendatory decrees. Accused was not deprived of his constitutional rights under Section 12. but the same was denied. 942 and 1834. The trial court ordered the prosecution to present its evidence. later released on provisional liberty upon the approval of his property bail bond. After the trial. paragraph 4. Navallo was finally arrested. misappropriated to his benefit the public funds he was holding in trust in the total sum of P16.000. private respondent filed a petition for bail. Presidential Decree No. The arraignment of the appellant is null and void. were inadmissible. offered independently of the plea of guilt of the appellant. the RTC should continue taking cognizance of the case. the trial court allowed his uncounselled confession to flow into the records and illicitly used it in sentencing him to death. The plea of guilt The Court agrees with the respondent court that bail cannot be denied to the private respondent for he is charged with the crime of rebellion. On 15 November 1984. under the law at 3 . The RTC transferred the case and transmitted its records to the Sandiganbayan. He was arraigned with the assistance of a counsel of the PAO. On 5 June 1987 the President issued Executive Order No. be entitled to bail as a matter of right. alias "Commander Bilog"." or is "in custody investigation. Appellant pleaded guilty. and his co-accused were charged for the crime of rebellion. PO3 Tan did not even have the simple sense to reduce the all important confession of the appellant in writing. the records do not reveal that the Information against the appellant was read in the language or dialect known to him. Section 3. provides that all persons in custody shall. who is the Collecting and Disbursing Officer of the Numancia National Vocational School. Nos. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. Respondent judge denied petitioner’s supplemental motion for reconsideration. HELD The Court sees no merit in the petition. In the case at bar. or head a rebellion the accused is no longer entitled to bail as evidence of his guilt is strong. A day after the filing of the original information. which amended Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code. 187 repealing. but accused still then could not be found.
docketed as SEC Case No. Nos. National security considerations should also impress upon this Honorable Court that release on bail of respondents constitutes a damaging precedent. however. that Section 13. petitioner. In due course. He also faces seven (7) counts of the offense of conspiracy to defraud. Inc. Inc. Nos. 201 of Hong Kong. Cap. Ltc Jacinto Ligot applied for bail. The petition relative to the Manotoc Securities. Inc. 1982. waived his right to bail for having agreed to remain in legal custody. 001826. This guaranty requires equal treatment only of persons or things similarly situated and does not apply where the subject of the treatment is substantially different from others.. the Court finds no abuse of judicial discretion in their having denied petitioner's motion for permission to leave the country." in violation of Section 9 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. is punishable by reclusion perpetua. The RTC. and the consent of his surety to the proposed travel. Said request was also denied. The Court agrees with Petitioner that private respondent has. the NBI agents arrested and detained him. who was then in the United States. Inc. 1989. The appellate court rendered a decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit. the duration thereof. 95020 has traditionally not been recognized and is not available in the military. After considering the petition and the answer thereto filed by the president and members of GCM No. 9. The trial court rendered judgment. Inc. All other insurgent elements carry out their activities outside of and against the existing political system. that he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance. 10. corresponding criminal charges for estafa were filed by the investigating fiscal. This Court rendered a Decision granting the petition of the DOJ and sustaining the validity of the Order of Arrest against private respondent. 4 . Together with his co-stockholders. He acts as president of the former corporation. Petitioner thus filed a petition before the Court of Appeals seeking to annul the orders and the communication-request of the SEC denying his leave to travel abroad. 1980. respectively. The DOJ then forwarded the request to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which. when evidence of guilt is strong. stating as ground his desire to go to the United States. ISSUE Securities. The charges against them are violation of Articles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny). both trial judges denied the same. petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion for permission to leave the country.14. Judge Maximiano C. came home. They cannot say they have been discriminated against because they are not allowed the same right that is extended to civilians. relative to his business transactions and opportunities. Inc. the SEC requested the Commissioner of Immigration not to clear petitioner for departure. This much was suggested in Arula. was suspected to be a fake. As petitioner has failed to satisfy the trial courts and the appellate court of the urgency of his travel. Jr. but the application was denied by GCM No. he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. he filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the appointment of a management committee for Manotoc A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. is one of the two principal stockholders of Trans-Insular Management. Branch 19. The DOJ received from the Hong Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional arrest of private respondent.. 1980. filed with the RTC an application for the provisional arrest of private respondent. 95020 and 97454 are officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines facing prosecution for their alleged participation in the failed coup d' etat that took place on December 1 to 9. Manotoc. 11. The argument that denial from the military of the right to bail would violate the equal protection clause is not acceptable. as an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill of Rights. six of its clients filed six separate criminal complaints against petitioner and one Raul Leveriza. That same day. Article III of the Constitution granting the right to bail to all persons with the defined exception is applicable and covers all military men facing court-martial proceedings. The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. When a Torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities. The respondent Judge then clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting bail to the private respondent. Pending disposition of SEC Case No. Government of HK vs Olalia FACTS Private respondent Muñoz was charged before the Hong Kong Court with three (3) counts of the offense of "accepting an advantage as agent. The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision declaring the Order of Arrest void. Asuncion issued an order granting provisional liberty to Ligot. and for Trans-Insular Management. Manila issued an Order of Arrest against private respondent. Manotoc vs CA FACTS Ricardo L. 001826 was granted and a management committee was organized and appointed.R. Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law. The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing. in turn. are allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by the government for the discharge of their duties and responsibilities and are paid out of revenues collected from the people. Jr. Aside from structural peculiarity. of Manotoc Securities. Comendador vs de Villa FACTS These four cases have been consolidated because they involve practically the same parties and related issues arising from the same incident. ISSUE Does a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally released on bail have an unrestricted right to travel? HELD WON the petitioners have the right to bail HELD The right to bail invoked by the private respondents in G. Following the "run" on stock brokerages. AW 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) and AW 94 (Various Crimes) in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder).. It appears that petitioner likewise wrote the Immigration Commissioner a letter requesting the recall or withdrawal of the latter's memorandum dated February 4. Inc. In all cases.14. and the Manotoc Securities. The petitioners in G. it is vital to note that mutinous soldiers operate within the framework of democratic system.R. declaring. If the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason. He thereupon filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for provisional liberty and a writ of preliminary injunction. where we observed that "the right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the right to bail does not exist. penalized by the common law of Hong Kong. as president and vice-president. A memorandum to this effect was issued on February 4. Rule 114.the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail. On March 1. The unique structure of the military should be enough reason to exempt military men from the constitutional coverage on the right to bail. petitioner has been admitted to bail.
the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. with alleged violations of Republic Act No. 1979. ISSUE WON a prospective extraditee may be granted bail HELD This Court previously held that the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings. After hearing. resolved to dismiss the petition and to lift the TRO issued ten days earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision. Mr. both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue. there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases. Petitioners pray for issuance of a TRO enjoining respondent court from rendering a decision in the two criminal cases before it. that Antonio de los Reyes. Galman vs Sandiganbayan FACTS Assassination of former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino. on the other hand. the Court resolved by nine-to-two votes 11 to issue the restraining order prayed for. It does not apply to extradition proceedings because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal. is part of the procedural due process constitutionally guaranteed by the fundamental law. as well as Section 4. 911) prescribes a ten-day period for the prosecutor to resolve a case under preliminary investigation by him from its termination. This Court cannot ignore the following trends in international law: (1) the growing importance of the individual person in public international law who.D. or on December 12. Marcos stated that evidence shows that Galman was the killer. it can not be disregarded or ignored completely. Jr." the constitutional provision on bail quoted above. accusing him of graft and corrupt practices in the conduct of his office as then Secretary of Public Information. 3 (e) and Sec. 3019. It is "available only in criminal proceedings. including substantial compliance with the time limitation prescribed by the law for the resolution of the case by the prosecutor. Thus.Meanwhile. charging petitioner. applies only when a person has been arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. The Investigation Report. Likewise. It certainly can not be assumed that the law has included a provision that is deliberately intended to become meaningless and to be treated as a dead letter. petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. His resignation was accepted by President Ferdinand E. it became publicly known that petitioner had submitted his resignation as Minister of Public Information. Presidential Security Command (PSC).. (3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations. The long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation by the Tanodbayan in the instant case is violative of the constitutional right of the accused to due process. Aquino could have shot him. Thus. the Philippines should see to it that the right to liberty of every individual is not impaired. Clearly. He was killed from his plane that had just landed at the Manila International Airport. Order was issued denying the petition for bail. " while the chairman's minority report would exclude nineteen of them. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law governing the conduct of preliminary investigation. The Tanodbayan referred the complaint of Antonio de los Reyes to the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) for fact-finding investigation. criminal charges against Tatad were filed. with absolute impunity. and two months after." and recommended appropriate legal action on the matter. otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Only difference between the two reports is that the majority report found all the twenty-six private respondents above-named in the title of the case involved in the military conspiracy. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. For his part. ANTONIO L. in the 20th century. filed a formal report with the Legal Panel. former Head Executive Assistant of the then Department of Public Information (DPI) and Assistant Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Broadcasts. on the other. As suggested by the use of the word "conviction. The Court also granted petitioners a five-day period to file a reply to respondents' separate comments and respondent Tanodbayan a three-day period to submit a copy of his 84-page memorandum for the prosecution. allowing private respondent to post bail. CANTERO is also liable under Sec. the presumption lies in favor of human liberty. on one hand. HELD The long delay in resolving the case under preliminary investigation can not be justified on the basis of the facts on record." yet. has gradually attained global recognition. alleging that the dismissal did not indicate the legal ground for such action and urging 5 . the Court sees no justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases. The complaint repeated the charges embodied in the previous report filed by complainant before the Legal Panel. 13. The law (P. who was then Secretary and Head of the Department of Public Information. and that the military escorts gunned him down in turn. and the law on extradition. holding that there is no Philippine law granting bail in extradition cases and that private respondent is a high "flight risk. considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases. Subsequently. in the same case. respectively. No. not a communist plot. 5 of RA 3019. Only the soldiers in the staircase with Sen. 7 of RA 3019. petitioner filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the extradition of private respondent. Antonio de los Reyes filed a complaint with the Tanodbayan against the petitioner. Then Pres. After all. The fact is that both majority and minority reports were one in rejecting the military version stating that "the evidence shows to the contrary that Rolando Galman had no subversive affiliations. Criminal Due Process 12." Private respondent’s motion for reconsideration was granted. The military investigators reported within a span of three hours that the man who shot Aquino (whose identity was then supposed to be unknown and was revealed only days later as Rolando Galman) was a communist-hired gunman. His brain was smashed by a bullet fired point-blank into the back of his head by an assassin. Presidential Security Command (PSC). President was constrained to create a Fact Finding Board to investigate due to large masses of people who joined in the ten-day period of national mourning yearning for the truth. On the other hand. If bail can be granted in deportation cases. Five years later. Marcos.a petition for bail which was opposed by petitioner. the Court by the same nine-to-two-vote ratio in reverse. ISSUE WON the prosecution's long delay in the filing of these cases with the Sandiganbayan had deprived petitioner of his constitutional light to due process and the right to a speedy disposition of the cases against him. that Ninoy's assassination was the product of a military conspiracy. justice and freedom. While this period fixed by law is merely "directory. Under these treaties. Tatad vs Sandiganbayan FACTS The petition alleges. TATAD have violated Sec. private respondent filed. But ten days later. and (4) the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law. (2) the higher value now being given to human rights in the international sphere. The same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for a new 5-day period counted from receipt of respondent Tanodbayan's memorandum for the prosecution (which apparently was not served on them). provided that former Min.
1980. Malacañang wanted dismissal to the extent that a prepared resolution was sent to the Investigating Panel. if the accused are charged in court and subsequently acquitted. is also a taxpayer. not a source of wonder that President Marcos would want the case disposed of in a manner consistent with his announced theory thereof which. in the case at bar where the people and the world are entitled to know the truth. Petitioner Dumlao specifically questions the constitutionality of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. A void judgment is." Our Penal Code penalizes "any executive officer who shall address any order or suggestion to any judicial authority with respect to any case or business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice. Only the First Lady and Presidential Legal Assistant Justice Lazaro were with the President. is to fill the public posts." and that "the prosecution in the AquinoGalman case and the Justices who tried and decided the same acted under the compulsion of some pressure which proved to be beyond their capacity to resist. no evidence at all that the assignment was indeed by virtue of a regular raffle. has taken his oath to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the land. declaring them innocent and totally absolving them of any civil liability. the instant case had become moot and academic. except the uncorroborated testimony of Justice Pamaran himself. All acts and all claims flowing out of it are void. It was. petitioners filed their motion to admit their second motion for reconsideration alleging that respondents committed serious irregularities constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage of justice and gross violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the sovereign people of the Philippines to due process of law. The Court then said that the then President (code-named Olympus) had stage-managed in and from Malacañang Palace "a scripted and predetermined manner of handling and disposing of the AquinoGalman murder case.. deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth. same Court majority denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. A conference was held in an inner room of the Palace. and a resident of San Miguel. Petitioner. guided only the Constitution and their own conscience and honor. Dumalo vs COMELEC FACTS The Petition alleges that petitioner. In this case. instead of in a civilian jail. The partiality of Sandiganbayan betrayed by its decision: That President Marcos had wanted all of the twenty-six accused to be acquitted may not be denied. decided that the presiding justice. Romeo B. Respondents submitted that with the Sandiganbayan's verdict of acquittal. (First Division) would personally handle the trial." Impartial court is the very essence of due process of law. Igot. presumably to escape notice by the visitors in the reception hall waiting to see the President. is a taxpayer. All of the acts of the respondent judge manifest grave abuse of discretion on his part amounting to lack of jurisdiction which substantively prejudiced the petitioner. Jr. the cases must now be tried before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor. Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been resolved ahead. By it no rights are divested. Although no restraining order was issued anew. "nobody was looking for these persons because they said Marcos was in power. "This is the evil of one-man rule at its very worst. Its bias and partiality in favor of the accused was clearly obvious. Pres. under our system of government. and the integrity of our judicial system is at stake. they may claim the benefit of the doctrine of double jeopardy and thereby avoid another prosecution if some other witnesses shall appear when President Marcos is no longer in office. Marcos expressed his thanks to the group and uttered 'I know how to reciprocate'. comments. More so was there suppression of vital evidence and harassment of witnesses. The custody of the accused and their confinement in a military camp. Thereafter. Alfredo Salapantan. No double jeopardy attaches. serve no majority nor minority but serve only the public interest as they see it in accordance with their oath of office. Petitioner. such a procedure would be a better arrangement because. The conferees were told to take the back door in going to the room where the meeting was held. It neither binds nor bars anyone. mag moro-moro na lamang kayo. including the Sandiganbayan's. is a former Governor of Nueva Vizcaya. Also predetermined the final outcome of the case" of total absolution of the twenty-six respondentsaccused of all criminal and civil liability. In rendering its decision. More so. Courts' Resolution of acquittal was a void judgment for having been issued without jurisdiction. in legal effect. 6 . Presumption of Innocence 14. Respondents accused must now face trial for the crimes charged against them before an impartial court with an unbiased prosecutor with all due process.' and that on their way out of the room Pres. Justice Pamaran. The evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. Hence. would clear his name and his administration of any suspected guilty participation in the assassination. Herrera. Marcos came up with a public statement aired over television that Senator Aquino was killed not by his military escorts. Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera (made his expose 15 months later when former Pres. With the declaration of nullity of the proceedings. Marcos told them 'Okay. and after an agreement was reached. Pres. The monitoring of proceedings and developments from Malacañang and by Malacañang personnel. the Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential directive. The courts would have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of injustice. therefore. Malacañang Conference planned a scenario of trial where the former President ordered then that the resolution be revised by categorizing the participation of each respondent. petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the abrupt dismissal of their petition and lifting of the TRO enjoining the Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision had been taken cognizance of by the Court which had required the respondents'. a qualified voter. Said Section 4 provides for disqualification of any retired elective provincial or municipal official who has received retirement benefits and 65 years of age from running for the same elective local office which he has retired. Patricio Dumlao. The assignment of the case to Presiding Justice Pamaran. HELD Petitioners' second motion for reconsideration is granted and ordering a re-trial of the said cases which should be conducted with deliberate dispatch and with careful regard for the requirements of due process. was no longer around) affirmed the allegations in the second motion for reconsideration that he revealed that the Sandiganbayan Justices and Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by Marcos to whitewash the Aquino-Galman murder case. at the same time. respondent Sandiganbayan should not have precipitately issued its decision of total absolution of all the accused pending the final action of this Court. therefore. The disappearance of witnesses two weeks after Ninoy's assassination. a qualified voter and a member of the Bar who. no judgment at all.that the case be set for a full hearing on the merits that the people are entitled to due process. Iloilo. who has filed his certificate of candidacy for said position of Governor in the forthcoming elections of January 30. respondent Sandiganbayan issued its decision acquitting all the accused of the crime charged. This criminal collusion as to the handling and treatment of the cases by public respondents at the secret Malacañang conference (and revealed only after fifteen months by Justice Manuel Herrera) completely disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan and voided ab initio its verdict. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. The record shows that the then President misused the overwhelming resources of the government and his authoritarian powers to corrupt and make a mockery of the judicial process in the Aquino-Galman murder cases. There was no double jeopardy. Justices and judges must ever realize that they have no constituency. However. ISSUE Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his rights as an accused. but by a communist hired gun. According to J. The function of the appointing authority with the mandate of the people. During the conference. as such.
the COMELEC dismissed the petition. A letter of demand required the petitioner to produce the missing amount but he was able to pay only P10. Jr. The balance was demanded in another letter. The 7 . A final letter of demand for the total deficiency of P50. The proper remedy of the petitioner is to pursue the disqualification suit in a separate proceeding. it is best that evidence pro and con of acts of disloyalty be aired before the Courts rather than before an administrative body such as the COMELEC. which carries with it the accessory penalty of suspension of the right to hold office during the term of the sentence. in all criminal prosecutions. is not synonymous with guilt. a legislative/administrative determination of guilt should not be allowed to be substituted for a judicial determination. In ultimate effect. however. A warrant issued by said court for his arrest. The Court itself. time constraints will prevent one charged with acts of disloyalty from offering contrary proof to overcome the prima facie evidence against him. as a candidate is disqualified from running for public office on the ground alone that charges have been filed against him before a civil or military tribunal. State of California. 7160). The omission is understandable since the COMELEC dismissed outrightly the petition for quo warranto on the basis instead of Rule 73 of the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Oversight Committee. The above facts are not denied by the petitioner. The challenged proviso contravenes the constitutional presumption of innocence. it is claimed.159.A. therefore. 16. Unfortunately. petitioners igot and Salapantan. An accusation. When there clearly is no obscurity and ambiguity in an enabling law. The demand not having been met. thus a Transfer of Accountabilities was effected between the petitioner and his successor. he received collections. as defined by the IRR. on the ground of the candidate's disqualification under Section 40(e) of the Local Government Code. and prohibition from running against those who were convicted of crimes constituting disloyalty to the State. was filed by petitioner with the COMELEC. a petition for cancellation of respondent's certificate of candidacy. in fact. and thereby ineligible from holding on to. They also question the accreditation of some political parties by respondent COMELEC.823. An administrative rule or regulation can neither expand nor constrict the law but must remain congruent to it. This was subsequently reduced by P12. however. A person disqualified to run for public office on the ground that charges have been filed against him is virtually placed in the same category as a person already convicted of a crime with the penalty of arresto. 15. On 08 May 1992. to the extent that it confines the term "fugitive from justice" to refer only to a person (the fugitive) "who has been convicted by final judgment.08. according to the fundamental law. The Certificate of Turnover revealed a shortage in the amount of P72. to the extreme detriment of a person charged. A highly possible conflict of findings between two government bodies. Before the May 1992 elections. That law states that fugitive from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad is disqualified from running for any elective local position.S.07 was sent to the petitioner. ISSUE WON private respondent who. Petitioner's subsequent recourse to this Court from the 08th May 1992 resolution of COMELEC was dismissed without prejudice. to the filing in due time of a possible post-election quo warranto proceeding against private respondent. on the ground that it is contrary to section 9(1)Art. at the time of the filing of his certificate of candidacy (and to date). not being a trier of facts. ISSUE WON the petitioner’s right to be presumed innocent is violated HELD The Court is convinced that the facts as established point unmistakably to the petitioner's guilt of the offense charged. XIIC of the Constitution. no distinction is made between a person convicted of acts of disloyalty and one against whom charges have been filed for such acts. County of Los Angeles. It condemns before one is fully heard. as both of them would be ineligible to run for public office. is said to be facing a criminal charge before a foreign court and evading a warrant for his arrest comes within the term "fugitive from justice" contemplated by Section 40(e) of the Local Government Code and.His designation as Acting Supervising Cashier was terminated. He was found guilty as charged. a defeated candidate for the elective position for the elective position in the May 1992 elections filed this petition praying for the reversal of the resolution of the Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") which dismissed his petition for quo warranto against the winning candidate. The Court believes and thus holds that Article 73 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991. U. Corpuz vs People FACTS As Supervising Accounting Clerk in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Nueva Vizcaya. there is "clear and present danger" that because of the proximity of the elections." is an inordinate and undue circumscription of the law.067. HELD The Court is called upon. an elective local office. for being allegedly a fugitive from justice. Furthermore. which provides that a "bona fide candidate for any public office shall be it. Marquez vs COMELEC FACTS Bienvenido Marquez.For their part. from any form of harassment and discrimination. the petitioner was designated Acting Supervising Cashier in the said Office. except as to the degree of proof. private respondent is a "fugitive from justice" as such term must be interpreted and applied in the light of the Court's opinion. Fugitive from justice. is thus constrained to remand the case to the COMELEC for a determination of this unresolved factual matter.596. disqualified from being a candidate for. assail the validity of the statutory provisions providing for terms of office of local elective officials. and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. an information for malversation of the said amount was filed against him with the respondent court. and therefore. has yet to be served on private respondent on account of his alleged "flight" from that country. disbursed funds and made bank deposits and withdrawals pertaining to government accounts.50. refers to a person who has been convicted by final judgment. the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. the COMELEC did not make any definite finding on whether or not. in its resolution held that a pre-proclamation controversy is no longer viable at this point of time and should be dismissed. It is averred that at the time private respondent filed his certificate of candidacy. to resolve the conflicting claims of the parties on the meaning of the term "fugitive from justice as that phrase is so used under the provisions of Section 40(e) of the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. Additionally. ISSUE WON there has been violation of the petitioners’ right to be presumed innocent HELD Explicit is the constitutional provision that. The Court.51 through the payment to the petitioner of temporarily disallowed cash items and deductions from his salary before his dismissal from the service. a criminal charge against him for ten (10) counts of insurance fraud or grand theft of personal property was still pending before the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District. will thereby be avoided. that he is not guilty of the charge because the shortage imputed to him was malversed by other persons. it must merely be made to apply as it is so written. And although the filing of charges is considered as but prima facie evidence. yet. He insists. in this petition for certiorari. may be rebutted. In this capacity.
the offense charged is named SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION while in the body of the judgment if is said that the accused "stands charged with the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. People vs Agbayani FACTS After appropriate preliminary investigation. what is worse. in the instant case. it is only in this appeal that appellant raised the issue of the failure of the trial court to inform him of the right to counsel. coupled with said counsel's extensive cross-examination. It is true that the transcript of the stenographic notes of the proceedings of 22 December 1994 and the order issued by the trial court after the conclusion of said proceedings only state that the court appointed de oficio counsel with the consent of the said accused. Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of the law. entered a plea of not guilty. 18. and actually degrading [to] the administration of justice. His consent to be assisted by counsel de oficio. appellant was represented by Atty. The court arraigned the accused. At his arraignment. the trial court held her in direct contempt of court. Besides. Right to Be Heard by Himself and Counsel 17. and sworn to before Asst. City Prosecutor was filed against appellant with the Regional Trial Court. Samuel Baldado and Edwin de la Cruz as counsel de oficio. the trial court appointed two de oficio counsel who assisted the appellant at his arraignment. without counsel. to grant him reasonable time to procure or assign an attorney de oficio. the two formally entered their appearance. Interpreter read the information to the accused in the local dialect after which he was asked this question. ISSUE WON the right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel was violated HELD Not one of these duties set forth by Sec. a complaint for rape signed by EDEN. It must be added. That is not a preliminary requirement to the filing of an information for malversation as long as the prima facie guilt of the suspect has already been established. shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. that the accused who was unaided by counsel pleaded guilty but with the following qualification: "but I was instructed by one Mr. may even be considered a waiver of his right to question the alleged failure of the trial court to inform him of his right to counsel. At no time did he previously raise it in the trial court despite ample opportunity to do so. During these hearings. appellant. The equipoise rule invoked by the petitioner is applicable only where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced." The facts alleged in said information are not clear as to whether the offense is named therein or capital offense of "kidnapping and serious illegal detention" as found by the trial judge in his judgment. as the petitioner contends. a fatal omission. EDEN caused the trial of the case to be terminated upon filing an affidavit of desistance. The trial court's order states that said de oficio counsel were "duly appointed by the Court with the consent of the accused. The trial court failed to inquire whether or not the accused was to employ an attorney. he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence." The trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of this qualification.absence of a post-audit is not. particularly in the rules of procedure. The precise time the two counsel de oficio were appointed is not disclosed in the record either. Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation 19. The record discloses that said court did not inform the accused of his right to have an attorney nor did it ask him if he desired the aid of one. upon demand by any duly authorized officer. After the trial. Ocampo. this does not mean that the trial court failed to inform appellant of such right. and. the presumptions that the law has been obeyed and official duty has been regularly performed by the trial court stand. Since the accused-appellant pleaded guilty and no evidence appears to have been presented by either party. His conviction must be affirmed." In the formation filed by the provincial fiscal it is said that he "accuses Frisco Holgado of the crime of slight illegal detention. Pecho vs People FACTS 8 . There is no such equipoise here." On rebuttal. the prosecution had EDEN back on the witness stand. And this is a denial of fair hearing in violation of the due process clause contained in our Constitution. he kidnapped and detained one Artemia Fabreag in the house of Antero Holgado for about eight hours thereby depriving her of her personal liberty. They do not categorically disclose that the trial informed appellant of his right to counsel of his own choice. Rule 112 had been complied with by the trial court. the question was so framed that it could have been construed by the accused as a suggestion from the court that he plead guilt if he had no attorney. During the trial. People vs Holgado FACTS Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged with slight illegal detention because according to the information. She retracted her affidavit of desistance and claimed that she had signed it under coercion by her mother and elder sister. At the recorded portion of the arraignment aspect of the proceedings on 22 December 1994. the trial judge must have deduced the capital offense from the facts pleaded in the information. No investigation was opened by the court on this matter in the presence of the accused and there is now no way of determining whether the supposed instruction is a good defense or may vitiate the voluntariness of the confession. This obviously means that the appointment had taken place earlier. It must be noticed that in the caption of the case as it appears in the judgment above quoted. Arturo Temanil of the Public Attorney's Office. the court imposed the penalty of death upon the accused. reasoning that her "intentional falsehood" was "offensive to its dignity and a blatant disrespect to the Court. Not only did such a question fail to inform the accused that it was his right to have an attorney before arraignment. assisted by Attys. As she declared in open court that what she said in her previous testimony and sworn statement were not true. in which case the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused. The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the petitioner with his nebulous claims of persecution and conspiracy. In the instant case. one of whom extensively cross-examined the first witness for the prosecution. The court should have seen to it that the accused be assisted by counsel specially because of the qualified plea given by him and the seriousness of the offense found to be capital by the court. but. 3. ISSUE WON the lower court failed to apprise him of his right to have counsel of his own choice HELD The assigned error does not persuade this Court. the court was informed by the accused that he had no lawyer and he would plea guilty.310. however. However. and subscribed. The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable. being a private person. assisted by her sister Fedelina Agbayani." Since appellant has miserably failed to show that he was not informed of his right to counsel.87 to the prejudice of the public whose confidence he has breached. The record does not show whether the supposed instructions was real and whether it had reference to the commission of the offense or to the making of the plea guilty. The presumed innocence of the accused must yield to the positive finding that he malversed the sum of P50.
Borja vs Mendoza Thomas N. 21. Attempted estafa through falsification of public and commercial documents is included in the offense charged. RA No. A reading of the information which has been reproduced herein clearly makes out a case of bribery so that the petitioner cannot claim deprivation of the right to be informed. Because Tan was hard put to raise the required amount only P2. No. Assistant Solicitor General De la Cruz and Solicitor Holgado-Marcilla disagreed with the petitioner and asserted that the rule on double jeopardy cannot be successfully invoked in this case considering that no new information for estafa through falsification of public document was filed against the petitioner. a special law. This notwithstanding respondent Judge Senining proceeded with the trial in absentia and thereafter. (4) for the same offense or an attempt to or frustration thereof as that charged in the new information. we held that the information in this case "can also be considered as charging two offenses”. HELD FACTS There is absolutely no merit in the petitioner's claim that he could not be convicted of the said crime without offending his right to be informed without offending his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Moreover. 3019. names (plaintiff or defendant). Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent. be convicted of the complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of official and commercial documents. as general law. is necessarily included in the latter. they being conclusions of law. there must be such new information and the accused must be able to show that (1) he has been previously brought to trial. to be convicted only on a showing that his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt with full opportunity to disprove the evidence against him. the Office of the Solicitor General joins the petitioner in the latter's plea for his acquittal for insufficiency of evidence. The entrapment succeeded and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan.000. found him guilty of such offense. the case was reset for The judgment of the Sandiganbayan is modified in that the petitioner is deemed guilty of bribery as defined and penalized by Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. It was shown that after one postponement due to his failure to appear. percentage. otherwise. these must be set forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity of time.A No. so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction. in its November 14 decision modified the appealed judgment of the Sandiganbayan and held the petitioner guilty of the complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of official and commercial documents although the petitioner was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R. nevertheless. to inform the court of the facts alleged. An equally fatal defect in the proceeding had before respondent Judge Senining was that notwithstanding its being conducted in the absence of petitioner. in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party. It has the following objectives: First. Soriano vs Sandiganbayan The jurisdictional infirmity imputed to respondent Judge Romulo R. he could not be convicted anymore of attempted estafa through falsification of official and commercial documents. for himself or for any other person. Senining of the City of Cebu which was not remedied by respondent Judge Rafael T. wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer. 3019 provided that directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift.00 from Tan as the price for dismissing the case. place. (It is because the said section penalizes only consummated offenses and the offense charged in this case was not consummated — he could. Petitioner claims that the failure to arraign him is violative of his constitutional right to to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and of his right to be heard by himself and counsel.) Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that after having been acquitted of the violation of Section 3(e) of R.00 in bills were marked by the NBI which had to supply onehalf thereof. an offense punishable under the Revised Penal Code. An incorrect caption is not a fatal mistake. ISSUE WON Section 14(2).A. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense. Moreover. Mendoza of the Court of First Instance of Cebu in this certiorari proceeding was the absence of an arraignment of petitioner Manuel Borja. It was then alleged that without any notice to petitioner and without requiring him to submit his memorandum. 9 . which is necessarily included in the crime charged. or benefit. (For double jeopardy to exist. the sentence to be imposed in such a case is to be in accordance with a valid law. The case was docketed and assigned for investigation to the petitioner who was then an Assistant City Fiscal. (3) upon a valid complaint or information sufficient in form and substance. he could be validly convicted of both or either of the offenses charged and proved. The petitioner claims that he cannot be convicted of bribery under the Revised Penal Code because to do so would be violative of as constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Article III of the Constitution on the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. After trial the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding the accused guilty as charged. What determines the real nature and cause of accusation against an accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the information or complaint and not the caption or preamble of the information or complaint nor the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated. And since the petitioner failed to object before trial to such duplicity. ISSUE WON there has been violation of the constitutional rights of the accused HELD The Constitution requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be informed as to why he was indicted and what penal offense he has to face. Thereafter.000. Tan reported the demand to the National Bureau of Investigation which set up an entrapment. a decision on the appealed case was rendered. present. and third. In the course of the investigation the petitioner demanded P4. and that (5) the case has been dismissed or terminated without his consent or after he had pleaded to the information but therefore judgment was rendered. ISSUE WON the right of the petitioner to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations against him was violated HELD The petition is highly impressed with merit. the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime. (2) in a court of competent jurisdiction. and circumstances. who was accused of slight physical injuries. to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause.) Nevertheless. he was convicted. It follows then that an accused may be convicted of a crime which although not the one charged. share. Arraignment is an indispensable requirement in any criminal prosecution.FACTS Supreme Court. second. 3019. the constitutional provision on double jeopardy would be violated for both crimes arose from the same overt act. Tan was accused of qualified theft in a complaint. 20. an appeal was duly elevated to the Court of First Instance of Cebu presided by respondent Judge Mendoza. if one should be had. In order that this requirement may be satisfied facts must be stated: not conclusions of law. in a decision promulgated. In short.
or (3) when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Aurelia Conde.93 kilograms of marijuana was the result of an illegal search and hence. who argues that there is really no conflict between the right of the people to public information and the freedom of the press. ISSUE WON there was prejudice caused by the reopening of the case and absences of the prosecution witness on appellant’s right to speedy trial HELD A speedy trial means a trial conducted according to the law of criminal procedure and the rules and regulations. Right to Speedy. has twice been required to come to the Supreme Court for protection. Respondent Court of First Instance considered the appeal taken by the petitioner as waiver of the defects in the proceedings in the respondent City Court. Tee was accordingly acquitted of the charge. however. The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only when: (1) the proceedings are attended by vexatious. with cost against the respondent fiscal. did not stop the filing of the appropriate charges against appellant. and oppressive delays. Nor do the Court finds a delay of twenty (20) hearing days to be an unreasonable length of time. the offended party herself. inadmissible in evidence against him. capricious. In one criminal case. but to no avail. and oppressive delays. Tee could have moved to have Abratique found in contempt and duly sanctioned. formerly a municipal midwife in Lucena. and oppressive delays. the City Prosecutor of Baguio City charged Tee with illegal possession of marijuana. nothing on record shows that Tee objected to the inability of the prosecution to produce its witness. respondent City Court set the promulgation of the decision. commentaries and the rules to bolster his position. seems as far away from a definite resolution of her troubles as she was when originally charged. that if there is a clash between these rights. or (2) when unjustified postponements are asked for and secured. has appeared with her witnesses and counsel at hearings no less than on eight different occasions only to see the cause postponed. as one of the petitioners. 40. appellant could have moved the trial court to require that witness Abratique post bail to ensure that the latter would testify when required. Only one witness testified. The prosecution likewise tried to get the NBI to produce Abratique as the latter was in the Bureau’s custody. the Memorandum in support of the appeal unmistakably raised as error the absence of petitioner at the arraignment and cited jurisprudence. and compelled to dance attendance on courts while investigations and trials are arbitrarily postponed without her consent. after Abratique repeatedly failed to show up for the taking of his testimony. by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom. and now. has a right to a speedy trial in order that if innocent she may go free. like all other accused persons. Precisely. the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information. Tee refused to enter a plea. after the passage of more than one year from the time when the first information was filed.hearing. the absence of an arraignment can be invoked at anytime in view of the requirements of due process to ensure a fair and impartial trial. on the other. Tayabas. ISSUE WON her right to speedy. He now stresses that the failure of Abratique to appear and testify on twenty (20) hearing dates violated appellant’s constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial. the trial court agreed with Tee that the taking of the 336. The Court is thus under a moral and legal obligation to see that these proceedings come to an end and that the accused is discharged from the custody of the law. the appeal itself is tantamount to questioning those defects. the prosecution could have settled upon the appropriate information. Tee moved to quash the search warrant on the ground that it was too general and that the NBI had not complied with the requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant. When that date came. capricious. Impartial and Public Trial 22. Eventually. it must be resolved in favor of the right of the people and the press because the 10 . capricious. It is a bit too late in the day for appellant to invoke now his right to speedy trial. on the one hand. and the charges now pending before the justice of the peace of Lucena. On record. Nor did the appeal to the Court of First Instance presided by respondent Judge Mendoza possess any curative aspect. Under the Rules. Thereupon. Where a prosecuting officer. The trial court entered a plea of not guilty for him. as in this instance for more than a year. although the absences of prosecution witness Abratique totaled twenty (20) hearing days. Specifically. However. The prosecution moved to "amend" the foregoing charge sheet considering that subject marijuana were seized in two (2) different places. A separate amended information was likewise filed. respondent Judge allowed the prosecution to present its evidence invoking Letter of Instruction No. Tee insists that the prosecution’s unjustified and willful delay in presenting witness Abratique unduly delayed the resolution of his case. there is no showing that prosecution capriciously caused Abratique’s absences so as to vex or oppress appellant and deny him his rights. People vs Tee FACTS A raid conducted by operatives of the NBI and PNP NARCOM at premises allegedly leased by Modesto Tee and at his residence yielded huge quantities of marijuana. free from vexatious. Dismissed from her humble position. In an information. secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period of time. although his bondsmen were notified. and. the right of the accused to a fair trial. the trial court found that the prosecution’s evidence was more than ample to prove his guilt in the other case and convicted him of illegal possession of marijuana and sentenced him to death. are ordered dismissed. impartial. and could have prepared the case for a trial free from vexatious. Conde vs Rivera FACTS Aurelia Conde. without good cause. the trial court ordered the prosecution to waive its right to present Abratique and rest its case on the evidence already offered. to be not an unreasonably lengthy period of time. without petitioner being present. The writ prayed for shall issue and the Provincial Fiscal of Tayabas shall abstain from further attempts to prosecute the accused pursuant to informations growing out of the facts set forth in previous informations. is palpably and openly unjust to her and a detriment to the public. 23. In Re: Request for Live Radio and TV Coverage (Estrada Plunder Case) FACTS This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision denying petitioners' request for permission to televise and broadcast live the trial of former President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan. The motion was filed by the Secretary of Justice. in fact. 24. and three documents were offered in evidence after which the prosecution rested its case. Delay of less than two months has been found. The trial court denied the motion to quash the search warrant and ordered appellant’s arraignment. could have attended to the formal preliminary examination. Moreover. In the present case. Trial on the merits then ensued. The pendency of said motion. has been forced to respond to no less than five informations for various crimes and misdemeanors. He did neither. and she has been deprived of that right in defiance of law. or if he be restrained of his liberty. the prosecution went to the extent of praying that the trial court order the arrest of Abratique to compel his attendance at trial. In fact. By the use of reasonable diligence. and public trial is violated HELD Philippine organic and statutory law expressly guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to have a speedy trial. Tayabas.
For the purpose of recording the proceedings. The possibility that judgment will be rendered by the popular tribunal before the court of justice can render its own will be avoided. No. as much as of those in favor of. Right of Confrontation 25. Nor is the statement of Presa a dying declaration or a deposition in a former trial or shown to be a part of the preliminary examination. but actually not needed and never made. Although we are faced with the alternative of being unable to utilize the statements of the witness now deceased. witnesses. ISSUE The Court finds that the respondent court did not consider the testimony given by Ulat in convicting the petitioner. Basilio. who his accusers are and must be given a chance to cross-examine them on their charges. televised trials .00. consistent with the dignity and solemnity of the proceedings. and a patrol of the Constabulary under the leadership of sergeant Presa. The master film shall be deposited in the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office for historical preservation and exhibition pursuant to law. as the repository of sovereignty. to meet the witnesses face to face. and that live media coverage is a safeguard against attempts by any party to use the courts as instruments for the pursuit of selfish interests. or even prevent. which says that "In all criminal prosecutions the defendant shall be entitled: . concerns that those taking part in the proceedings will be playing to the cameras and will thus be distracted from the proper performance of their roles -. whose signature was identified. The proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to confrontation is therefore inapplicable.will be addressed since the tapes will not be released for public showing until after the decision of the cases by the Sandiganbayan. In lieu of live TV and radio coverage of the trial. That is also the reason why ex parte affidavits are not permitted unless the affiant is presented in court and hearsay is barred save only in the cases allowed by the Rules of Court. when Genaro Basilio. court personnel. A second reason for the prohibition is that a tribunal may have before it the department and appearance of the witness while testifying. 26. the just determination of the cases can be minimized. fastened his carabao valued at P150 in his corral. The cases were tried jointly for all the accused until after the prosecution had rested. except such portions thereof as the Sandiganbayan may decide should not be held public. The possibility that parallel trials before the bar of justice and the bar of public opinion may jeopardize. at which one of them. .which. Alejandro Macadangdang and petitioner Talino asked for separate trials. while the other accused continued defending themselves in the original proceedings.will be allayed. he found the gate to the corral open and that the carabao had disappeared. They then presented their evidence at such trials. many important purposes for preserving the record of the trial can be served by audio-visual recordings without impairing the right of the accused to a fair trial. ISSUE FACTS WON the right of confrontation was violated Doroteo Natividad on the afternoon of October 22. The trial shall be recorded in its entirety. through falsification of the supporting papers to authorize the illegal payments. "That in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right . and by the Constabulary as the one seen in the possession of the accused. . By delaying the release of the tapes. the Sandiganbayan rendered its decision in all the four cases finding Talino. section 15 (5). before the justice of the peace. Apolinario Mendoza. On the other hand. as evidence HELD Appellant's argument is predicated on the provision of the Philippine Bill of Rights which says. by delaying the release of the tapes for broadcast. The sworn statement of Presa was not made by question and answer under circumstances which gave the defense an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Only later will they be available for public showing. cameras will be inconspicuously installed in the courtroom and the movement of TV crews will be regulated. as in poison pen letters sent by persons who cannot stand by their libels and must shroud their spite in secrecy. Consequently. is the concern of those opposed to. on four government vehicles. On the following morning when he went to look after the animal. 11 . given in a former action between the same parties relating to the same matter. the Court has resolved to order the audio-visual recording of the trial. Estrada reiterates his objection to the live TV and radio coverage of his trial on the ground that its allowance will violate the sub judice rule and that. . Macadangdang Ulat and Renato Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged while absolving the other defendants for insufficient evidence. the mere necessity alone accepting the statement will not suffice. Pio Ulat gave damaging testimony against the petitioner. concerns about the regularity and fairness of the trial -. that scattered in all directions. are entitled to information. When the ladrones saw the Constabulary. and Placido de Chavez leading the carabao. In fine. This decision is now challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it violates his right of confrontation as guaranteed by the Constitution. which were allowed.people. the Constabulary found this carabao tied in front of the house of one Pedro Monterola. based on his experience with the impeachment trial. In due time. No accusation is permitted to be made against his back or in his absence nor is any derogatory information accepted if it is made anonymously. were charged in four separate informations with estafa through falsification of public documents for having allegedly conspired to defraud the government in the total amount of P26. encountered the accused Lazaro Javier. much of the problem posed by real time TV and radio broadcast will be avoided. The part of that decision finding Talino guilty made no mention of Ulat at all but HELD The right of confrontation is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the person facing criminal prosecution who should know. representing the cost of repairs claimed to have been undertaken. of the Code of Civil Procedure and relied upon by the prosecution in the lower court is also inapplicable. live media coverage will only pave the way for so-called "expert commentary" which can trigger massive demonstrations aimed at pressuring the Sandiganbayan to render a decision one way or the other. US vs Javier WON the lower court erred in admitting the sworn statement of sergeant Presa. Exhibit B was improperly received in evidence in the lower court. Talino vs Sandiganbayan FACTS The petitioner. Presa's statement again is not the testimony of a witness deceased. the exception provided by section 298.523." and the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. yet if there has been no opportunity for crossexamination and the case is not one coming within one of the exceptions. On the following day. to be confronted at the trial by and to cross-examine the witnesses against him. it may be assumed. 8. The carabao was identified by Doroteo Natividad as the one which had been taken from his corral. ISSUE WON the contention of the petitioners has merit HELD The Court finds no reason to alter or in any way modify its decision prohibiting live or real time broadcast by radio or television of the trial of the former president. or judges -. after the Sandiganbayan shall have promulgated its decision in every case to which the recording pertains. Former President Joseph E. like the dying declaration. in fairness. At the same time. Thus.whether as counsel. He reported the matter to the Constabulary. ." Confrontation is essential because crossexamination is essential. now deceased. along with several others. relating in detail his participation in the questioned transactions. 1915.
found the defendant guilty of the offense of abusos deshonestos. US vs Tan Teng FACTS Tan Teng was charged with the crime of rape. is limited to a prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. or the fingers. 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 simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the defendant's own lips. an admission of his guilt. The sister at once put on foot an investigation to find the Chinaman. Whether facts fall within or without the rule with its corollary and proviso must. refused to write a sample of his handwriting as ordered by the respondent Judge. as defined and punished under article 439 of the Penal Code." but that was not the respondent court speaking. He also argued that such an act will make him furnish evidence against himself. at or about the time he was arrested. ISSUE 27. ISSUE WON 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. is not testimony but his body his body itself. The defendant was not present at first.confined itself to the petitioner's own acts in approving the questioned vouchers as proof of his complicity in the plot to swindle the government. The petitioner makes much of the statement in the Comment that the petitioner's guilt could be deduced "from the evidence for the prosecution and from the testimony of Pio Ulat. The court ordered Villaflor to submit her body to the examination of one or two competent doctors to determine if she was pregnant or not. the trial court could not and did not consider Ulat's testimony in determining the petitioner's part in the offenses. The writ of habeas corpus prayed for is hereby denied. for the purpose of extorting unwilling confessions or declarations implicating them in the commission of a crime. ISSUE WON the right of the petitioner against self-incrimination was violated HELD The prohibition contained in section 5 of the Philippine Bill that a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. was not admissible in evidence as proof of the fact that he was suffering from gonorrhea. That to admit such evidence was to compel the defendant to testify against himself. because it does not call upon the accused as a witness — it does not call upon the defendant for his testimonial responsibility. Wigmore says that evidence obtained in this way from the accused. of course. Emeteria Villaflor and Florentino Souingco are charged with the crime of adultery. it should. for the purpose of disclosing his identity. Right Against Self-incrimination The accused was not compelled to make any admission or answer any questions. The doctrine contended for by appellant would prohibit courts from looking at the fact of a defendant even. the sister of Olivia discovered that the latter was suffering from a venereal disease known as gonorrhea. writing is not a purely mechanical act. 28. the judge. " As it was not done. Its main purpose is to prohibit compulsory oral examination of prisoners before trial. After hearing the evidence. Writing is something more than moving the body. Oliva was called upon to identify the one who had abused her. Indeed. and the mere fact that an object found upon his body was examined seems no more to infringe the rule invoked than would the introduction of stolen property taken from the person of a thief. committed against Oliva Pacomio. or the hands. 12 . be understood as subject to the limitations herein mentioned. Such an application of the prohibition under discussion certainly could not be permitted. WON the compelling of a woman to permit her body to be examined by physicians to determine if she is pregnant violates the right against self-incrimination HELD The constitutional guaranty. which the latter should have gotten in the first place. The petitioner in this case contended that such order would be a violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination because such examination would give the prosecution evidence against him. Beltran vs Samson FACTS Beltran. HELD The court ordered the respondents and those under their orders desist and abstain absolutely and forever from compelling the petitioner to take down dictation in his handwriting for the purpose of submitting the latter for comparison. can not violate the privilege granted under the Philippine Bill. The corollary to the proposition is that. or upon trial. the respondent court even expressed the wish that Ulat had been presented as rebuttal witness in the separate trial of the petitioner as there would then have been "no impediment to the use of his testimony against the other accused. Mr. that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. as a defendant for the crime of Falsification. an ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible. later he arrived and Oliva identified him at once as the one who had attempted to violate her. Several days after the commission of the crime. 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. She was found in contempt of court and was ordered to be committed to Bilibid Prison until she should permit the medical examination required by the court. Upon this information the defendant was arrested and taken to the police station and stripped of his clothing and examined. be decided as cases arise. as the petition of the respondent fiscal clearly states. It was at the time of this discovery that Oliva related to her sister what happened upon the morning of the 15th of September. acceding to the request of the assistant fiscal for an examination of the person of the defendant by physicians was phrased in absolute terms. nevertheless. a girl 7 years of age. Such an inspection of the bodily features by the court or by witnesses. The result of the examination showed that the defendant was suffering from gonorrhea. the said testimony was inadmissible against the petitioner because he "did not cross examine Ulat and was not even required to be present when the latter was testifying. The proviso is that torture of force shall be avoided. Although the order of the trial judge. 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. In fact. A number of Chinamen were collected together. and therefore legal. That was the Solicitor General's analysis. As far as the Sandiganbayan was concerned. and sentenced him to be imprisoned. In the court below the defendant contended that the result of the scientific examination made by the Bureau of Science of the substance taken from his body. because it requires the application of intelligence and attention. 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. The policeman took a portion of the substance emitting from the body of the defendant to be examined. Villaflor vs Summers FACTS In a criminal case pending before the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. constitutes evidence against himself within the scope and meaning of the constitutional provision under examination. 29. against his will.
but such cases are accidental and do not constitute the raison d' etre of the privilege. the fiscal." The trial court branded him "a self-confessed culprit". ISSUE WON the petitioner’s right against self-incrimination was violated HELD So it is then that this right against self-incrimination is "not merely a formal technical rule the enforcement of which is left to the discretion of the court". pleaded not guilty. to follow the language of another American decision. With his assertion that he was entitled to the relief demanded consisting of perpetually restraining the respondent Board from compelling him to testify as witness for his adversary and his readiness or his willingness to put a bond. In an administrative hearing against a medical practitioner for alleged malpractice. It could thus clearly appear that no possible objection could be legitimately raised against the correctness of the decision now on appeal.Except that it is more serious. ISSUE WON the decision of the lower court must be sustained HELD The appeal apparently proceeds on the mistaken assumption by respondent Board and intervenors-appellants that the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination should be limited to allowing a witness to object to questions the answers to which could lead to a penal liability being subsequently incurred. directly or indirectly. Thereupon. stands for a belief that while crime should not go unpunished and that the truth must be revealed. to await the judicial disposition of the matter upon Pascual posting a bond. and one who is compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting. for in both cases. The court had to say that "Roger Chavez does not offer any defense. 31. it should not be a difficult matter for the fiscal to obtained genuine specimens of his handwriting. stating that if there should be any question that is incriminating then that is the time for counsel to interpose his objection and the court will sustain him if and when the court feels that the answer of this witness to the question would incriminate him. that is no reason for trampling upon a personal right guaranteed by the constitution. of grave abuse of discretion for failure to respect the constitutional right against self-incrimination. Because. the Court believes the present case is similar to that of producing documents or chattels in one's possession. all the accused. Therefore. Considering the circumstance that the petitioner is a municipal treasurer. Pressure which operates to overbear his will. unless he chooses to take the witness stand — with undiluted. who was the respondent in such malpractice charge. It might be true that in some cases criminals may succeed in evading the hand of justice. the crime would go unpunished. compel the person proceeded against to take the witness stand without his consent. whether physical or mental. it secures to a defendant a valuable and substantive right. occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary witness. for a writ of prohibition. Pascual then alleged that in thus ruling to compel him to take the witness stand. was for qualified theft of a motor vehicle. The Board of Examiners. Pascual would be called upon to testify as such witness. The lower court ordered that a writ of preliminary injunction issue against the respondent Board commanding it to refrain from hearing or further proceeding with such an administrative case. in reality." If that were all there is then it becomes diluted. It cannot be contended in the present case that if permission to obtain a specimen of the petitioner's handwriting is not granted. relying on the constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself. it is fundamental to our scheme of justice. took note of such a plea. on the ground that it will incriminate his client. It was alleged therein that at the initial hearing of an administrative case for alleged immorality." This rule may apply even to a codefendant in a joint trial. Pascual. is the protection against "any disclosures which the witness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might be so used. there is a similarity between one who is compelled to produce a document. it is his right to forego testimony. the purpose of calling an accused as a witness for the People would be to incriminate him. 1965 with the Court of First Instance of Manila an action for prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction against the Board of Medical Examiners. unless in the meantime he could secure a restraining order from a competent authority. 30. the administrative proceeding against him. As a matter of fact. This constitutional privilege exists for the protection of innocent persons. along with other rights granted an accused. together with its accessories worth P22. The constitutional guarantee." Petitioner. He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft. disable him from making a free and rational choice. he prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction and after a hearing or trial. precluding as it does all resort to force or compulsion. Compulsion as it is understood here does not necessarily connote the use of violence. the court may not extract from a defendant's own lips and against his will an admission of his guilt. which could result in forfeiture or loss of a privilege. People vs Estoista 13 . Nor may a court as much as resort to compulsory disclosure. Jr. the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself. to remain silent. But even supposing it is impossible to obtain specimen or specimens without resorting to the means complained herein. The trial opened with the following dialogue among the court. Upon arraignment. as accused. it is mandatory. So is moral coercion "tending to force testimony from the unwilling lips of the defendant. at the same time stating that at the next scheduled hearing. made of record his objection. The counsel of Chavez objected. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. it may be the product of unintentional statements. The Court let Chavez take the witness stand. It is true that one aspect of such a right. The rule positively intends to avoid and prohibit the certainly inhuman procedure of compelling a person "to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction. genuine will. except the three Does who have not been identified nor apprehended. For. consistently with the self-incrimination clause. The constitutional guarantee protects as well the right to silence. and the counsel of the accused. Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each question requiring an incriminating answer is shot at him. respondent Board of Medical Examiners cannot. and accused may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions. filed on February 1. counsel for complainants announced that he would present as his first witness Pascual. unfettered exercise of his own free. of facts usable against him as a confession of the crime or the tendency of which is to prove the commission of a crime. his testimony as witness for the prosecution establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. the Board of Examiners was guilty.00. or impair his capacity for rational judgment would in our opinion be sufficient. The prosecution presented as its first ordinary witness Roger Chavez. For the purposes of the constitutional privilege. Pascual vs Board of Medical Examiners FACTS Arsenio Pascual. current judicial opinion places equal emphasis on its identification with the right to privacy. being quasi-criminal in character. It is likewise of interest to note that while earlier decisions stressed the principle of humanity on which this right is predicated. at the very least. Prohibited Punishment 32. such desirable objectives should not be accomplished according to means or methods offensive to the high sense of respect accorded the human personality.200. Chavez vs CA FACTS The indictment in the court below — the third amended information — upon which the judgment of conviction herein challenged was rendered. through counsel.
he carried the gun for the only purpose of using it.A. considering the degree of malice of the defendant. The constitutionality of an act of the legislature is not to be judged in the light of exceptional cases. Father and son lived in the same house. 4 is cruel and unusual HELD The Court believes that confinement from 5 to 10 years for possessing of carrying firearm is not cruel or unusual. 6425 as amended by R. 33. ammunition therefor. On the other hand. who held a legal permit for it. had carnal knowledge of Erlinda Dollente. The firearms with which the appellant was charged with having in his possession was a rifle and belonged to his father. the accused escaped from jail and was tried in absentia. 4. Ciriaco Dollente and Carmelita Lureta. People vs Obsania FACTS Barely a day after the occurence of the alleged crime. the defendant took a shot at a wild rooster and hit Diragon Dima a laborer of the family who was setting a trap for wild chicken and whose presence was not perceived by the accused. with the recommendation that the imprisonment herein imposed be reduced to six months. ISSUE WON the Court will proceed to automatically review her death sentence HELD The 1987 Constitution prohibits the imposition of the death penalty unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes Congress so provides. person. However. and her parents. Bruno Estoista. After arraignment. If imprisonment from 5 to 10 years is out of proportion to the present case in view of certain circumstances. inter alia. most courts that have addressed the issue state in one or two sentences that lethal injection clearly is a constitutional form of execution.A. A point to consider in this connection is the meaning of the word "possesses. No. degrading and inhuman punishment. an appellant may withdraw his appeal not because he is guilty but because of his wrong perception of the law. authorizes the dismissal of an appeal when the appellant jumps bail. 8177 required that the manual shall be confidential and its distribution shall be limited to authorized prison personnel. having due regard to the prevalent conditions which the law proposes to suppress or curb. 8177. it is ordered that copy of this decision be furnished to the President. Indeed. anything is cruel which is calculated to give pain or distress. In death penalty cases. amending section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code. 34. After the case was remanded to the 14 . and it is to meet such a situation as this that courts are advised to make a recommendation to the Chief Executive for clemency or reduction of the penalty. the 14-year old victim. is to go unpunished. directly traceable in large measure to promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons. temporary or harmless. and even the very security of the Government. automatic review is mandatory. for this reason. 1996. with fatal consequences. HELD Any infliction of pain in lethal injection is merely incidental in carrying out the execution of death penalty and does not fall within the constitutional proscription against cruel. Nor should the Court be influenced by the seeming repudiation of its jurisdiction when a convict escapes. On December 13. Away from his father's sight and control. and since punishment imports pain or suffering to the convict. No court has found lethal injections to implicate prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights. accordingly. Congress reimposed the death penalty in cases involving the commission of heinous crimes.A. "In a limited sense. This concern cannot be diluted. thru the Secretary of Justice. Erlinda Dollente. 81177 fall within the constitutional proscription against cruel. degrading and inhuman punishment. From a spot in the plantation 100 to 120 meters from the house. not the necessary suffering involved in any method employed to extinguish life humanely. in it pertinent provision is directed against any person who possesses any firearm. 1993." It goes without saying that this word was employed in its broad sense as to include "carries" and "holds. ISSUE Whether or not the death penalty as restored in R. as in fact he did. Motions were then filed by the petitioner. it may be said that all punishments are cruel. tall weeds and second growth trees. 4. etc. ISSUE WON the penalty — from 5 to 10 years of imprisonment and fines — provided by Republic Act No. It remains automatic and does not depend on the whims of the death convict. the Court convicted petitioner Leo Echegaray y Pilo for the crime of rape of the 10 year-old daughter of his commonlaw spouse and imposed upon him the death penalty for the said crime. 8177 and directed the Bureau of Corrections to prepare the Lethal Injection Manual." The cruelty against which the Constitution protects a convicted man is cruelty inherent in the method of punishment. No. Small transgressors for which the heavy net was not spread are like small fishes. The second paragraph of Section 19 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement R. It continues to be mandatory. Numerous federal and state courts of the United States have been asked to review whether lethal injections constitute cruel and unusual punishment. the law is not to be declared unconstitutional for this reason. bound to be caught. application of the law to its full extent would be too harsh and. The trial court found her guilty as charged and imposed on her the death penalty. on the roadside in the ricefields while she was alone on her way to barrio San Raymundo. This revived the procedure by which this Court reviews death penalty cases pursuant to the Rules of Court. has no application to cases where the death penalty has been imposed. Esparas was charged with violation of R. But of course the Constitution does not mean that crime. People vs Esparas FACTS Josefina A. a little distance from a 27-hectare estate belonging to the family which was partly covered with cogon grass. In fact.FACTS Prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Lanao for homicide through reckless imprudence and illegal possession of firearm under one information. the appellant was acquitted of the first offense and found guilty of the second for which he was sentenced to one year imprisonment. in crimes that shock the conscience. alleging that Willy Obsania. casual. Nothing less than life is at stake and any court decision authorizing the State to take life must be as error-free as possible. and leaves this Court without any option. The rampant lawlessness against property. Section 8 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court which. There is more wisdom in our existing jurisprudence mandating our review of all death penalty cases. Pursuant to the provisions of the said law. armed with a dagger. filed in the municipal court of Balungao. The sentence imposed by the lower court is much below the penalty authorized by Republic Act No. Pangasinan a complaint for rape with robbery. 759 for importing into the country twenty (20) kilograms of "shabu". the Secretary of Justice promulgated the Rules and Regulations to Implement R. The power is more of a sacred duty which we have to discharge to assure the People that the innocence of a citizen is our concern not only in crimes that slight but even more. The judgment is therefore modified so as to sentence the accused to imprisonment for five years. Double Jeopardy 35. Echegaray vs Secretary of Justice FACTS On June 25. regardless of the wish of the convict and regardless of the will of the court. Republic Act No." Appellant’s holding or carrying of his father's gun was not incidental. justify imprisonment which in normal circumstances might appear excessive.A. Congress had seen it fit to change the mode of execution of the death penalty from electrocution to lethal injection and passed Republic Act No.A.
Gimenez. contending that the complaint was fatally defective for failure to allege "lewd designs" and that the subsequent information filed by the fiscal which averred "lewd designs" did not cure the jurisdictional infirmity. At his de oficio counsel's petition. b) a competent court.Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for further proceedings. docketed as Criminal Case No. 36. Sensing that they were outnumbered. had the dismissal been anchored on the motion to dismiss. upon being arraigned." punishable under Article 153 of the Revised Penal Code instead of "grave threats. 5204. however. The fiscal brought the instant appeal. Irked by this incident. and later re-raffled to Branch 5 stationed in Cebu City presided over by respondent Judge Celso M. "disturbance of public performance." under Article 282 of the same penal code. Angie. (c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge. petitioners have now resorted to the instant petition. 5204. entered a plea of guilty. The cases were jointly tried and the Municipal Trial Court. Said testimony. The prosecution appealed to the Court of Appeals ISSUE WON the appeal would constitute double jeopardy HELD It is settled that the existence of a plea is an essential requisite to double jeopardy. with an additional averment that the offense was committed "with lewd designs". The municipal trial court thus did not violate the rule on double jeopardy when it set aside the order of dismissal for the reception of further evidence by the prosecution because it merely corrected its error when it prematurely terminated and dismissed the case without giving the prosecution the right to complete the presentation of its evidence. To this charge the accused. he was allowed to present evidence to prove mitigating circumstances. "grave threats and oral defamation. And he further stated that after the incident he surrendered himself voluntarily to the police authorities. therefore — as the court a quo recognized in its decision — had the effect of vacating his plea of guilty and the court a quo should have required him to plead a new on the charge. Mabuyo followed the Nissan Patrol until it entered the back gate of Rattan Originals. or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent The MTC decision dismissing the case is not an acquittal from the charge considering that no finding was made as to the guilt or innocence of the petitioners. 5213. if the indictment against him is revived by the fiscal. ISSUE WON the municipal trial court's dismissal of the criminal case against petitioners precludes a subsequent reconsideration or reversal of such dismissal as the same would violate petitioners' right against double jeopardy HELD For double jeopardy to be validly invoked by petitioners. that he acted in complete self-defense. 1990 a petition with the Regional Trial Court. 5213. acting on a motion of the spouses Paulin and Jose Bacho. herein petitioners. petitioners filed on July 31. At the hearing of Criminal Case No. Mabuyo filed a. there can be no double jeopardy with respect to the appeal herein. The court a quo rendered a decision acquitting the accused. Dr. allegedly pointed their guns at Mabuyo while Jose Bacho. It follows that in effect there having been no standing plea at the time the court a quo rendered its judgment of acquittal. Not satisfied with the resolution. acted as back-up. We must untangle this jurisprudential maze and fashion out in bold relief a ruling not susceptible of equivocation. and forthwith his counsel moved for the dismissal of the case. 37." was filed against private respondent Mabuyo. In doing so. Subsequently. and (d) the defendant was acquitted. Hence. Paulin vs Gimenez FACTS The petition before us arose from an incident when the jeep ridden by private respondent and Barangay Captain Castro Belme Mabuyo was overtaken by the Nissan Patrol ridden by herein petitioners. the defendants would not have been entitled to protection against double jeopardy. This particular aspect of double jeopardy — dismissal or termination of the original case without the express consent of the defendant — has evoked varied and apparently conflicting rulings from this Court. this Court held that where a criminal case is dismissed provisionally not only with the express consent of the accused but even upon the urging of his counsel. dismissed Criminal Case No. Rule 113. or convicted. "Motion for Reconsideration. who dismissed the petition. Mabuyo instructed one of the barangay tanods to call the police in Talisay and the rest to block the exit of the spouses and their lone companion. the following requisites must have been obtained in the original prosecution: a) a valid complaint or information. In the case at bar. It follows then that the decision of respondent regional trial court sustaining that of the court of origin cannot be said to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion. it is true. they were brought to the police station. (b) a competent court. In the present case." was filed against the spouses Paulin and Bacho. a searching extended review of the pertinent cases is imperative. and d) the defendant was acquitted. Ramon Paulin. he was assisted by counsel. the accused had first entered a plea of guilty. or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him. the court a quo was a competent tribunal with jurisdiction to hear the case. Later. in the course of being allowed to prove mitigating circumstances. In essence. the assistant provincial fiscal filed an information for rape against the accused. The complaint filed with the municipal court in the case at bar was valid. 15 . the following requisites must have obtained in the original prosecution: (a) a valid complaint or information. while Mabuyo was investigating some problems of his constituents. a companion of the spouses. This was not done. A complaint for. The court a quo granted the motion and ordered dismissal of the action. the spouses put their guns down and upon the arrival of the police officers." of the said dismissal order which the court granted in a resolution. the original case was dismissed without the proper information having been filed. which was later docketed as Criminal Case No. To paraphrase. 5204. or convicted. embodying the allegations of the above complaint. but the same was denied in another resolution. the only remaining and decisive question is whether the dismissal of the case was without the express consent of the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. Ramon Paulin and his wife. there can be no double jeopardy under section 9. petitioners vigorously sought the setting aside of the resolution in Criminal Case No. Hence. however. In order that the protection against double jeopardy may inure in favor of an accused. it appearing that the proper charge should have been. Still not contented. the record shows that the accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. he testified. The accused testified to the effect that he stabbed the deceased in self-defense because the latter was strangling him. he was informed that it belonged to and was driven by petitioner Dr. ISSUE WON the present appeal would place the accused in double jeopardy HELD The Court answered in the negative. c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge. People vs Basicalan FACTS Aurelio Balisacan was charged with homicide. smothering the former with dust. The accused admits that the controverted dismissal was ordered by the trial judge upon his motion to dismiss. A complaint for "grave threats. Inquiring from a nearby security guard as to who owns the Nissan Patrol.
HELD It was similarly fallacious for the lower court to have shared the notion that private respondent is in danger of being convicted twice for the same criminal act. on the apprehension that she is in danger of being condemned for an identical offense." This is complemented by Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. No trial was held after the arraignment because complainant Father Tibudan requested the transfer of the hearing to another date. by a court of competent jurisdiction. Rizal. it clearly acted without due process of law. ISSUE Whether or not the respondent is in danger of being convicted twice under same criminal act. after invoking their right to a speedy trial. and of falsification in Criminal Case No. as afore-stated. Twenty-seven days later. In the instant case. In doing so. 1971. and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. When these three conditions are present. by a court of competent jurisdiction. On October 28. Pineda. and after the defendant had pleaded to the charge. Naval sold the subject realty on August 12.850. alleged that he attacked Miguel Viajar by then hurling the latter with a stone. both of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal of the Seventh Judicial District stationed at Pasig. a circumstance recognized under Section 2(h) Rule 117 of the Old Rules as suggested in the motion to quash. the court was informed that Father Tibudan was sick. Upon the request of Father Tibudan the case was reset. (b) before a competent court. therefore. she sought the quashal of the latter charge on the supposition that she is in danger of being convicted for the same felony. (d) a valid plea having been entered. In order that legal jeopardy may exist. He cited the ruling that a provisional dismissal with the conformity of the accused lacks the impress of finality and. People vs Pineda FACTS When Consolacion Naval. The acquittal. The dismissal of a criminal case upon motion of the accused because the prosecution was not prepared for trial since the complainant and his witnesses did not appear at the trial is a dismissal equivalent to an acquittal that would bar further prosecution of the defendant for the same offense. and thus can not constitute a proper basis for a claim of former jeopardy. therefore. People vs Adil FACTS The first criminal complaint filed against respondent Fama Jr. Her first attempt in this respect did not spell success but the Honorable Gregorio G. The court denied the motion to dismiss. the corresponding title was issued in her name but she allegedly disposed of the half portion of the property to nine other persons. moved for the dismissal of the case and. 38. The counsel for petitioners Esmeña and Alba opposed the cancellation of the hearing. When the case was called on that date. Respondent judge on his own volition provisionally dismissed the case. During arraignment. was separately accused of having committed the crime of estafa in Criminal Case No. private respondent Consolacion Naval moved to quash the information for falsification. so. 39. (c) after arraignment. The petitioners did not expressly manifest their conformity to the provisional dismissal. Hence. The mere filing of two informations charging the same offense is not an appropriate basis for the invocation of double jeopardy since the first jeopardy has not yet set in by a previous conviction. The use of the word "provisional" would not change the legal effect of the dismissal. It is this perception. along with the denial of the motion for re-evaluation therefrom which the People impugns via this special civil action for certiorari. it is necessary that he had previously been (1) convicted or (2) acquitted. the petition is granted. hitting Viajar on the right cheek. upon a valid complaint or information. 1975. is no acquittal at all. that is. the dismissal placed them in jeopardy. Esmeña and Alba filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of double jeopardy. therefore. he should ask. that the former case against him for the same offense has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. the acquittal or conviction of the accused or the dismissal or termination of the case without his express consent constitutes res judicata and is a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged. the dismissal would still place them in jeopardy. the case could be revived without the filing of a new information. Even if the petitioners. thereby inflicting physical injuries which would have required and will require medical attendance for a period from 5 to 9 days barring complication as per medical certificate of the physician hereto attached. Article IV Bill of Rights) of the Constitution which provides that "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. premised. or on August 17. From all indications it appears that the estafa case has not yet been terminated. or for any offense which necessarily includes or is included therein. And for lack of this fundamental prerequisite. Esmena vs Pogoy FACTS Petitioners Generoso Esmeña and Alberto Alba and their coaccused were charged with grave coercion for having allegedly forced Reverend Father Tomas Tibudan to withdraw the sum of five thousand pesos from the bank and to give that amount to the accused because the priest lost it in a game of cards.Furthermore. ISSUE Whether or not revival of the case would place the accused in double jeopardy since the provisional dismissal of the case without their consent was in effect an acquittal HELD The rule on double jeopardy is found in section 22. The case was continued as to the fifth accused who did not appear at the hearing. If the defendant wants to exercise his constitutional right to a speedy trial. 15795 before Branch 19. the herein private respondent. an application for registration under the Land Registration Act was submitted by Consolacion wherein she stated that she owned the same lot and that it was unencumbered. but for the trial of the case. the fiscal lost his record of the case. They invoked the right of the accused to have a speedy trial.00. Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment. its action is perforce null and void. 15796 before Branch 21. In order that a defendant may successfully allege former jeopardy. upon a valid complaint or information. consented to it. 16 . being a nullity for want of due process. or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof. For those reasons. Respondent judge provisionally dismissed the case as to the four accused who were present because it has been dragging all along. Subsequently. because this plea is understood to presuppose that the other case against private respondent has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without her express consent. Presiding Judge of Branch 21 was persuaded to the contrary thereafter on the belief that the alleged falsification was a necessary means of committing estafa. among other things. or (3) in jeopardy of being convicted of the offense charged. the fiscal filed a motion for the revival of the case. 40. the accused entered a plea of not guilty. acquittal or termination of the case without the consent of the accused. About two years later. there should be (a) a valid complaint or information (b) before a court of competent jurisdiction and (c) the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded to the complaint or information. the petitioners were placed in jeopardy by the provisional dismissal of the grave coercion case. 1969 to Edilberto Ilano who made a partial payment of P130. His arrest was ordered. and after the defendant had pleaded to the charge . Hence. the court a quo decided the case upon the merits without giving the prosecution any opportunity to present its evidence or even to rebut the testimony of the defendant. not for the dismissal. the scheduled hearing was cancelled.
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. and "architecturally concealed inside the walls of the building" owned by the private respondent. Alfredo Fama. On the other hand. and (2) no authority therefor had been obtained from the Superintendent of the Batangas City Electrical System or the District Engineer. Assistant City Fiscal of Batangas City filed before the court an information against Manuel Opulencia for violation of Ordinance No. ISSUE WON the subsequent criminal case must be dismissed to prevent double jeopardy HELD Now. Branch 11. paragraph (1). and 5). 766. where the accused was charged with physical injuries and after conviction the injured dies. 2). The orders herein complained of are hereby set aside and respondent court is ordered to proceed with the trial and judgment thereof according to law. provided that both offenses spring from the same act or set of acts. he would be in double jeopardy. People. The only issue We are to resolve here is whether or not the additional allegation of deformity in the information in Case No. cannot hold. What is controlling then in the instant case is Melo vs. The second sentence of Article IV (22) embodies an exception to the general proposition: the constitutional protection. In an order. 5241 constitutes a supervening element which should take this case out of the ruling in People vs. complainant Viajar filed a letter-complaint with the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo charging Atty. 17 . Silva cited by respondent court. hitting him on the lower right eye which would heal from five (5) to nine (9) days barring complications but leaving a permanent scar and deforming on the right face of said Miguel Viajar. if the subsequent case were to be prosecuted. That the taking be done without the consent of the owner. The respondent Judge granted the accused's Motion to Quash and ordered the case dismissed. the charge of homicide against the same accused does not put him twice in jeopardy. searched and examined the premises of the Opulencia Carpena Ice Plant and Cold Storage owned and operated by Manuel Opulencia. equipped with a valid search warrant. in which it was held the rule of identity does not apply." During the subsequent investigation. a grave error correctible by certiorari for respondent court to have dismissed Criminal Case No. this time for theft of electric power under Article 308 in relation to Article 309..Meanwhile. claiming that since he was already charged and pleaded not guilty in the first case. 4). 1. the Acting City Fiscal of Batangas City filed before the Court of First Instance of Batangas. Fourteen days later. The accused Manuel Opulencia pleaded not guilty to the above information. It was. although both the first and second offenses may be based upon the same act or set of acts. In contrast. the case was set for hearing. Raul Fama and herein respondent Margarito Fama. The police discovered that electric wiring. filed an urgent motion to defer proceedings in the other criminal case No. In the peculiar circumstances of this case. 3). in the allegation of the petitioner "designed purposely to lower or decrease the readings of electric current consumption in the electric meter of the said electric [ice and cold storage] plant. alleging he attacked and threw pieces of stone at Miguel Viajar. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance. therefore. alleging that he had been previously acquitted of the offense charged in the second information and that the filing thereof was violative of his constitutional right against double jeopardy. 41. In Silva. when the second offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution. The first sentence of Article IV (22) sets forth the general rule: the constitutional protection against double jeopardy is not available where the second prosecution is for an offense that is different from the offense charged in the first or prior prosecution. That the taking be accomplished without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. On 2 February 1976. Fama Jr. Before he could be arraigned thereon. another information against Manuel Opulencia. People vs Relova FACTS Members of the Batangas City Police together with personnel of the Batangas Electric Light System. The Municipal Court did not act on said motion. That the personal property (taken) belongs to another. whether or not there is actually a deformity on the face of Viajar is a question of fact that has to be determined by the trial court. the court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription. Batangas City. Opulencia filed a Motion to Quash. That the taking be done with intent of gain. but only against respondent Fama Jr. against double jeopardy is available although the prior offense charged under an ordinance be different from the offense charged subsequently under a national statute such as the Revised Penal Code. without the necessary authority from the city government. the Fiscal filed an information. The Constitution provides that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Series of 1974. Manuel Opulencia admitted in a written statement that he had caused the installation of the electrical devices "in order to lower or decrease the readings of his electric meter. with serious physical injuries arising from the same incident alleged above. the plea of double jeopardy of private respondent Fama Jr. 5241. to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent Thus. devices and contraptions had been installed. for serious physical injuries. After conducting a preliminary investigation. Theft of electricity under the RPC can be effected even without illegal or unauthorized installations of any kind. Instead. of the Revised Penal Code. These electric devices and contraptions were. That personal property be taken. Jr. ISSUE WON the dismissal of the case on the ground of double jeopardy was proper HELD Only two elements are needed to constitute an offense under this City Ordinance: (1) that there was such an installation. however. 5241. and in view of the postponements asked by the Fiscal in order to await the resolution of the issue of double jeopardy. for the simple reason that in such case there is no possibility for the accused during the first prosecution. 85 Phil. the offense of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code has quite different essential elements: 1). he filed a motion to dismiss the information upon the grounds that the crime there charged had already prescribed and that the civil indemnity there sought to be recovered was beyond the jurisdiction of the Batangas City Court to award. expert evidence is not needed for anyone to understand that the scar or deformity that would be left by a wound on the face of a person cannot be pre-determined. there was no question that the extent of the damage to property and physical injuries suffered by the offended parties therein were already existing and known when the prior minor case was prosecuted..
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.