Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SCOPE
When to avail?
Waiver
Either by direct or by failure to invoke it, provided the waiver is
certain and unequivocal and intelligently, understandingly and
willingly made.
One who under a subpoena duces tecum voluntarily surrenders
an incriminating paper which is put evidence against him.
the witness may be cross-examined and asked incriminating
questions on any matter he testified to on direct examination.
Held: The court held that the taking of a substance from his body
was not a violation of the said right. He was neither compelled to
make any admissions or to answer any questions. The substance
was taken from his body without his objection and was examined
by competent medical authority.
The prohibition of self-incrimination in the Bill of Rights is a
prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from him, and not an exclusion of his body as
evidence, when it may be material. It would be the same as if the
offender apprehended was a thief and the object stolen by him
may be used as evidence against him.
Beltran v. Samson
Issue: Whether the writing from the fiscal's dictation by Beltran for
the purpose of comparing the latter's handwriting and determining
whether he wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified,
constitutes evidence against himself within the scope and
meaning of the constitutional provision
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. Writing is something more than moving the body, or the
hands, or the fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical act, 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, as the petition of the respondent fiscal
clearly states. Except that it is more serious, we believe the present case is
similar to that of producing documents or chattels in one's possession. We
say that, for the purposes of the constitutional privilege, there is a similarity
between one who is compelled to produce a document, and one who is
compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting, for in both cases, the
witness is required to furnish evidence against himself. It cannot be
contended in the present case that if permission to obtain a specimen of the
petitioner's handwriting is not granted, the crime would go unpunished.
Considering the circumstance that the petitioner is a municipal treasurer, it
should not be a difficult matter for the fiscal to obtained genuine specimens
of his handwriting. But even supposing it is impossible to obtain specimen or
specimens without resorting to the means complained herein, that is no
reason for trampling upon a personal right guaranteed by the constitution.
CHAVEZ V. CA
Facts: Judgment of conviction was for qualified theft of a motor
vehicle(thunderbird car together with accessories). An information
was filed against the accused together with other accused, that they
conspired, with intent to gain and abuse of confidence without the
consent of owner Dy Lim, took the vehicle. All the accused plead not
guilty. During the trial, the fiscal grecia (prosecution) asked roger
Chavez to be the first witness. Counsel of the accused opposed.
Fiscal Grecia contends that the accused (Chavez) will only be an
ordinary witness not an state witness. Counsel of accused answer
that it will only incriminate his client. But the jugde ruled in favor of
the fiscal.
Petitioner was convicted.
ISSUE: Whether or not constitutional right of Chavez against self
incrimination had been violated to warrant writ of HC?
Purpose of bail:
To relieve an accused from the rigors of imprisonment until his
conviction and yet secure his appearance at the trial (Almeda v.
Villaluz, G.R. No. L-31665, August 6, 1975);
To honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven
beyond reasonable doubt;
To enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to
punishment prior to conviction.
Bail is Discretionary:
Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, admission to bail
is discretionary (Sec. 5);
Bail is cancelled:
Upon application of the bondsmen with due notice to the
prosecutor, upon surrender of the accused or proof of his
death;
Paderanga v. CA
FACTS: Miguel P. Paderanga was included in an amended information for
the crime of multiple murder as the mastermind.
Paderanga, through his counsel, filed a Motion for Admission of Bail
before a Warrant of Arrest could be issued by the lower court. Copies of
the motion were furnished to the State Prosecutor, the Regional
Prosecutors office and the Private Prosecutor.
The lower court proceeded to hear the application for bail, four of the
petitioners counsels appeared before the court but only Erlindo Abejo,
the Assistant Prosecutor of the Regional State Prosecutions Office
appeared.
Paderanga was unable to appear for the hearing due to an ailment that
needed medical attention. His counsel manifested that they were
submitting custody over the person of their client to the local chapter
president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and that, for purposes
of said hearing, he considered being in the custody of the law.
In the case, it may be conceded that Paderanga had indeed filed his
motion for admission to bail before he was actually and physically
placed under arrest. He may, however, at that point and in the factual
ambience therefore, be considered as being constructively and
legally under custody. Thus in the likewise peculiar circumstance
which attended the filing of his bail application with the trail court,
for purposes of the hearing thereof he should be deemed to have
voluntarily submitted his person to the custody of the law and,
necessarily, to the jurisdiction of the trial court which thereafter
granted bail as prayed for. In fact, an arrest is made either by actual
restraint of the arrestee or merely by his submission to the custody
of the person making the arrest. The latter mode may be exemplified
by the so-called house arrest or, in case of military offenders, by
being confined to quarters or restricted to the military camp area.
PEOPLE V. DONATO
Facts: Salas aka NPAs Ka Bilog was arrested and was charged for
rebellion. He was charged together with the spouses Concepcion.
Salas, together with his co-accused later filed a petition for the Writ
of Habeas Corpus. A conference was held thereafter to hear each
partys side. It was later agreed upon by both parties that Salas will
withdraw his petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus and that he will
remain in custody for the continued investigation of the case and
that he will face trial. The SC then, basing on the stipulations of the
parties, held to dismiss the habeas corpus case filed by Salas. But
later on, Salas filed to be admitted for bail and Judge Donato
approved his application for bail. Judge Donato did not bother
hearing the side of the prosecution. The prosecution argued that
Salas is estopped from filing bail because he has waived his right to
bail when he withdrew his petition or habeas corpus as a sign of
agreement that he will be held in custody.
ISSUE: Whether or not Salas can still validly file for bail.
HELD: The SC ruled that Salas did waive his right to bail when he
withdrew his petition for the issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The contention of the defense that Salas merely agreed to be in
custody and that the same does not constitute a waiver of his right to
bail is not tenable. His waiver to such right is justified by his act of
withdrawing his petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
GELACIO V. FLORES
FACTS: Juana Marzan-Gelacio filed two counts of rape against
Emmanuel Artajos before RTC, Branch 20, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, wherein
the respondent Judge Alipio Flores is the presider of the sala.
After going over the records of the case and the recommendation of the
1stAssistant Provincial Prosecutor Redentor Cardenas, the Judge
concluded that the evidence of guilt was weak but made a finding of
probable cause. Consequently he issued warrants of arrest with a
recommendation of P200,000.00 bail bond in both cases.
Gelacio through her private prosecutor filed an urgent motion to deny
bail. On a later date, the accuseds counsel filed a petition to reduce
bail bond to P100,000.00 for each case.
After a series of exchange motions by the counsels of Gelacio and
Artajos, and the Judges recalls of his previous orders, the Judge
ordered the grant of the Motion to reduce bail by the accused.
Gelacio through her counsel filed an Administrative Complaint against
the Judge for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Evident Partiality for
granting the bail without any hearing.
ISSUE: Whether or not a Judge can grant an accuseds petition for bail
without a hearing.
HELD: No. A judge cannot grant a petition for bail without a trial.
The procedural necessity of a hearing relative to the grant of bail
cannot be dispensed with especially in this case where the accused
is charged with a capital offense. Utmost diligence is required of trial
judges in granting bail especially in cases where bail is not a matter
of right. Certain procedures must be followed in order that the
accused would be present during trial. As a responsible judge,
respondent must not be swayed by the mere representations of the
parties; instead, he should look into the real and hard facts of the
case.
To do away with the requisite bail hearing especially in those cases
where the applicant is charged with a capital offense is to dispense
with this time-tested safeguard against arbitrariness. It must always
be remembered that imperative justice requires the proper
observance of indispensable technicalities precisely designed to
ensure it proper dispensation. In this regard, it needs be stressed
that the grant or the denial of bail in capital offenses hinges on the
issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong
and the determination of whether or not the evidence is strong is a
matter of judicial discretion which remains with the judge.
Held: No, the SC ruled that the judge exercised grave abuse of
discretion in granting the petition for bail.
There are two corollary reasons for the summary. First, the summary
of the evidence in the order is an extension of the hearing proper,
thus, a part of procedural due process wherein the evidence
presented during the prior hearing is formally recognized as having
been presented and most importantly, considered. The failure to
include every piece of evidence in the summary presented by the
prosecution in their favor during the prior hearing would be
tantamount to not giving them the opportunity to be heard in said
hearing, for the inference would be that they were not considered at
all in weighing the evidence of guilt. Such would be a denial of due
process, for due process means not only giving every contending
party the opportunity to be heard but also for the Court to consider
every piece of evidence presented in their favor. Second, the
summary of the evidence in the order is the basis for the judges
exercising his judicial discretion. Only after weighing the pieces of
evidence as contained in the summary will the judge formulate his
own conclusion as to whether the evidence of guilt against the
accused is strong based on his discretion.
INSEPERABILITY OF OFFENSES
where one offense is inseparable from another and
proceeds from the same act, they cannot be the
subject of separate prosecutions.