Constitutional Law 2 Doctrines/1-Line Digest

1-B Constitutional Law 2
SECTION 12
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION,
DEFINITION
PEOPLE VS PAVILLARE G.R. The stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to stand in a police line-up has been held to be outside
NO. 129970, APRIL 5, 2000 the mantle of the right to counsel because it involves a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and is purely
investigatory in nature.
PEOPLE VS BANDULA, 232 The Constitution requires that the counsel assisting a person under investigation be independent and a legal
SCRA 566 officer of the municipality cannot qualify as an independent counsel.
NAVALLO VS The right to counsel could not be invoked during the COA audit since the procedure is not within the ambit of
SANDIGANBAYAN, 234 SCRA “custodial investigation” and a person may be subject to malversation of funds even in the absence of direct
175 proof of misappropriation as long as there is evidence of fund shortage, which the petitioner failed to explain
with convincing justification.
SEBASTIAN VS The fact-finding investigation relative to the missing postage stamps at the Postage Stock Section conducted by
GARCHITORENA G.R. NO. the Chief Postal Service Officer is not a custodial investigation but merely an administrative investigation.
114028, OCT. 18, 2000
OCA VS SUMULONG, 271 SCRA Custodial investigation has been defined as "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
316 been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any way.
PEOPLE VS ALMANZOR G.R. Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime
NO. 124918, JULY 11, 2002 but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and
propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements.
PEOPLE VS VALDEZ G.R. NO. The moment the police try to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information from a person suspected
129296, SEPT. 25, 2000 of having committed an offense, he should at the juncture be assisted by counsel unless he waives the right in
writing and in the presence of counsel.
PEOPLE VS MARRA, 236 SCRA It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a
565 particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating
statements that Custodial Investigation begins.
PEOPLE VS LABTAN, G.R. NO. Accused Orlando Labtan was denied of his right to a competent and independent counsel when questioned in the
127493, DEC. 8, 1999 Cagayan de Oro Police Station. The questioning was regarding his involvement in the killing of the jeepney
driver, thus, he was already subjected to custodial investigation without counsel.
MANUEL VS NC Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved
CONSTRUCTION, 282 SCRA 326 crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who had been taken into custody by the police to carry out a
process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements.
PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R. It is a matter of settled jurisprudence that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment.
NO. 137405, SEPT. 27, 2002
PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA Amboy Camat and Willie Del Rosario were accused of robbery with homicide and admitted to it in custodial
52 investigation. The Supreme Court ruled that the extrajudicial confession was obtained without advising accused
of their Constitutional rights and is, hence, inadmissible.
PEOPLE VS EVANGELISTA, 256 The inadmissibility of a confession given before a Miranda warning applies only when the investigation has
SCRA 611 ceased to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and has begun to focus on the guilt of a suspect and the
latter is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in a substantial way.
PEOPLE VS ANDAN, 269 SCRA When an accused talks to a mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer who interrogates him, his
95 uncounselled confession does not violate his constitutional rights.
PEOPLE VS ARTELLERO, G.R. “Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry
NO. 129211, OCTOBER 2, 2000 into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person as a suspect”; when the accused were
arrested as suspects to a particular crime, they are entitled to the rights stated in Article III Section 12 of the
Constitution.
PEOPLE VS DE JESUS, 213 Admissions obtained during custodial interrogations without the benefit of counsel although later reduced to
SCRA 345 writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the Constitution.
PEOPLE VS LEGASPI, G.R. NO. Neither constitutional rights under Art 3 of the constitution no their statutory rights under R.A. 7438 were
117802, APRIL 27, 2000 transgressed inasmuch as Legaspi and Franco were not yet singled out as perpetrators of crime as they were
merely invited for questioning and no custodial investigation occurred inasmuch as the query was merely a part
of the “general exploratory stage.”
RATIONALE
MIRANDA VS ARIZONA, 384 US A person must first be warned of his rights before he may knowingly and intelligently waive his rights. The
436 warning to be given is that: he has the right to remain silent; anything he says can and will be used against him in
a court of law; he has a right to an attorney, and if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for him;
only after these warnings are given may incriminating statements made by the person being taken to custody, be
used against him.
PEOPLE VS CANTON, G.R. NO. The need for a counsel during custodial investigation roots from the objective of prohibiting
148825, DECEMBER 27, 2000 incommunicado”interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere that would result in self-
incriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights.
INSTANCES OF CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATIONS
PEOPLE VS ISLA, 278 SCRA 47 The law does not distinguish between preliminary questions during custodial investigation, as any question asked
of a person while under detention, is considered as a question asked while under custodial investigation; thus the
suspect should be assisted by counsel, unless he waives his right, but the waiver should be made in writing and in
the presence of counsel.
PEOPLE VS SALAZAR, 266 A buy-bust operation has been considered as an effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. If
SCRA 607 carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves
PEOPLE VS CASIMIRO, G.R. judicial
Casimirosanction.
signed the receipt stating that marijuana was seized from him which is an equivalent of confession
NO. 146277, JUNE 20, 2002 without counsel and it is deemed inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS CASTRO, 274 SCRA Accused-appellant’s signature on the “Receipt of Property” is inadmissible as evidence as there is no showing
115 that he was assisted by counsel when he signed the same.
PEOPLE VS BOLANOS, 211 Appellant should have been informed of his constitutional rights under Art. 3 Sec. 12 of the 1987 Constitution
SCRA 262 before confessions can be admissible in evidence, and the glaring fact that the alleged confession obtained while
on board the police vehicle was the only reason for the conviction, this court has to deny the admissibility of the
confession.
PEOPLE VS LIM, 196 SCRA 809 Extrajudicial confession, without assistance of a counsel, is inadmissible except in cases with corpus delicto.
MIRANDA RIGHTS
SAFEGUARDED BY THE BILL
OF RIGHTS IN RELATION TO
CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATIONS:
PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS
MIRANDA VS ARIZONA, 384 US The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning
436 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, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to
secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.
PEOPLE VS MAHINAY, G.R. NO. Mahinay claims that his extrajudicial confession was in violation of his constitutional right to counsel but
122485, FEBRUARY 1, 1999 according to the testimony of an assisting lawyer in court, he was well informed of his constitutionally
guaranteed pre-interrogatory and custodial rights – it was explained to him in tagalog and there were documents
showing that it was reduced to writing which the accused signed in the presence of the assisting lawyer.
PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA Camat mugged two soldiers along Quirino avenue, and Camat’s extrajudicial confession cannot be admissible as
52 evidence if the prosecution has not proven that he was informed of his Miranda rights before he made said
confession.
DUTY OF AN OFFICER
DURING CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R. In ruling that death penalty was a proper penalty for the crime of rape committed by the accused, the Court rules
NO. 137405, SEPT. 27, 2002 that there is no higher evidence of guilt than the voluntary testimony of the accused himself.
PEOPLE VS SALCEDO, 273 Salcedo is convicted for murder because even though no attorney was present during his custodial investigation,
SCRA 473 thus making the same inadmissible as evidence, a competent witness was able to satisfy the court of his guilt.
WHEN THE RIGHTS OF

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
MAY BE INVOKED
PEOPLE VS LOVERIA, 187 SCRA Loveria committed Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide in Marikina, and the court held that
47 Loveria was not investigated when the complainant was in the process of identifying him, hence he cannot claim
that his right to counsel was violated because at that stage, he was not entitled to the constitutional guarantee
invoked.
SEBASTIAN VS The case of Sebastian vs. Garchitorena provides that the fact finding investigation relative to the missing postage
GARCHITORENA G.R. NO. stamps conducted by the Chief Postal Officer is not a custodial investigation, it is administrative.
114028, OCT. 18, 2000
PEOPLE VS TAN, 286 SCRA 207 A person cannot be convicted of a crime when he provides a confession before a police investigator upon
invitation and without the benefit of counsel, such confession is inadmissible and inadequate in the courts to
warrant a conviction.
THE RIGHT TO REMAIN

SILENT
PEOPLE VS BANDIN, 226 SCRA When an arrested person signs a Booking Sheet and Arrest Report at a police station, he does not admit the
299 commission of an offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance; The Booking Sheet is merely a
statement of the accused’s being booked and of the date which accompanies the fact of an arrest, such is not an
extrajudicial statement and cannot be the basis of a judgment of conviction.
PEOPLE VS LACBANES, 270 It is the police officers who confiscate articles from an accused who should sign the receipt, otherwise it would
SCRA 193 be a violation of the accused’s right to remain silent for it is tantamount to an extra-judicial confession.
PEOPLE VS MORICO, 246 SCRA It is a violation of one’s constitutional rights to be informed of the charges against him and his right to due
214 process when an accused is convicted of an offense not charged in the information.
PEOPLE VS ANG CHUN KIT, 251 Ang Chin Kit’s signature on the list of items confiscated from him is inadmissible in evidence as his right as a
SCRA 660 person under custodial investigation was violated since there was no showing that he was then assisted by
counsel.
PEOPLE VS LAMSING, 248 The right to counsel guaranteed in Art. III §12(1) of the Constitution does not extend to police lineups because
SCRA 471 they are not part of custodial investigations since at that point, the process has not yet shifted from the
investigatory to the accusatory and the accused’s right to counsel attaches only from the time that adversary
judicial proceedings are taken against him.
PEOPLE VS DE LAS MARINAS, The accused was the victim of a clever ruse, which in effect, was an extra-judicial confession to the commission
196 SCRA 504 of the offense when the police made him sign the Receipt for Property Seized.
PEOPLE VS CASTRO, 274 SCRA Mere denials cannot prevail against the positive identification of an accused as the seller of prohibited drugs and
115 in the prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, what is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.
PEOPLE VS ENRIQUEZ, 204 Appellant’s contention is unmeritorious because there was no need to present the testimony of the NARCOM
SCRA 674 informer as the same would merely be corroborative and cumulative when appellant signed his name without a
counsel hence not a denial of the due process right of the people.
THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL:

WHEN TO INVOKE
PEOPLE VS SUNGA, G.R. NO. A suspect was denied his right to counsel where the lawyer who assisted him in the execution of extrajudicial
126029, MARCH 29, 2003 admission before the police was the City Legal Officer.
PEOPLE VS LABTAN, G.R. NO. The lawyer must be present and able to advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first
127493, DEC. 8, 1999 question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession.
PEOPLE VS SAPAL, G.R. NO. Republic Act No. 7438. Section 2(a) of said law provides that "any person arrested, detained or under custodial
124526, MARCH 17, 2000 investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel."
PEOPLE VS LAMSING, 248 The right to counsel does not extend to police line ups because they are not part of custodial investigations.
SCRA 471
PEOPLE VS MAQUEDA, 242 The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel.
SCRA 565 Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in
whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS MACAM, 238 SCRA Accused Macan appealed the validity of the out-of-court identification through a police line up at the hospital
306 which was done without counsel. The Court upheld the validity since the prosecution did not present evidence
regarding such police line-up identification and appellants did not object to in-court identification made by
witnesses.
PEOPLE VS DE JESUS, 213 An interview with the arrested suspect is not a general inquiry but a custodial investigation.
SCRA 345
PEOPLE VS DIMAANO, 209 Police line-up is not part of the custodial inquest
SCRA 819
PEOPLE VS COMPIL, 244 SCRA Compil’s extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because he was immediately interrogated without a counsel’s
135 assistance. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation—when the investigating officer starts
to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from respondent/accused.
PEOPLE VS LOVERIA, 187 SCRA During the line-up, the defendant can’t invoke his right to counsel since the right to counsel of a person under
47 custodial investigation can’t be invoked until such time that the police investigation start questioning,
interrogating or exacting a confession from the person under investigation.
WHEN PRESENCE OF
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
PEOPLE VS RODRIGUEZ, 232 The assistance of counsel during custodial investigation is required upon the instance of confession of the
SCRA 227 accused, not only when one is about to put his confession in writing.
ESTACIO VS No custodial investigation could be conducted without a counsel and no waiver of right to remain silent and to
SANDIGANBAYAN, 183 SCRA 12 assistance to counsel shall be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel.
PEOPLE VS BANDULA, 232 Competent and independent counsel is required during custodial investigation.
SCRA 566
PEOPLE VS ISLA, 278 SCRA 47 Courts are not allowed to distinguish preliminary questioning and custodial investigation proper when applying
the exclusionary rule, any information or admission given by a person while in custody which may appear
harmless or innocuous at the time without the competent assistance of an independent counsel should be struck
down as inadmissible.
PEOPLE VS JIMENEZ, 204 SCRA Any confession or admission obtained in violation of the rights guaranteed in custodial investigations shall be
719 inadmissible, even if it be shown that the statements attributed to the accused were voluntarily made, or are
afterwards confirmed to be true by external circumstances.
PEOPLE VS CORTES, 323 SCRA In a criminal case where testimony is required, a presence of counsel is required since to determine whether if a
131 witness is competent, the trial court only has a singular opportunity to determine the truth to his testimony.
PEOPLE VS ROUS, 242 SCRA The fact that Atty. Datlag arrived shortly after the investigation of Laygo (accused) had begun and left before the
732 confession was concluded does not negate the validity and admissibility of said confession for the reason that
after the confession was put down in writing, accused-appellant and the investigating officer proceeded to the
office of Atty. Datlag and the latter then read the confession, conferred with Laygo and then advised Laygo to
sign the confession; thus it can be readily seen that the confession was voluntary and the signing thereof by
Laygo was done upon advice of counsel, therefore the constitutional requirements were fully complied with.
Moreover, the presence of Rolando's uncle, Tiburcio Laygo and the latter’s wife, Fely, clearly precluded the use
of coercion in extracting the confession.
PEOPLE VS ESPANOLA, 271 Appellants contend that the trial court erred when it ruled that the sworn statement of Jimmy Paquingan was
SCRA 689 voluntarily given by him though he refused to sign the same. an extra-judicial confession must be rejected where
there is doubt as to its voluntariness.
PEOPLE VS ZUELA, 325 SCRA Velarde gave an uncounselled extra-judicial statement without waiving right to counsel therefore it is
589 inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS MACABALANG, 508 It is settled that the signature of the accused in “Receipt of Property Seized”, being tantamount to admission of
SCRA 282 guilt, is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel.
EFFECTIVE AND VIGILANT

COUNSEL DEFINED
PEOPLE VS SUNGA, G.R. NO. The right to counsel involves more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom, but also efficient and
126029, MARCH 29, 2003 decisive legal assistance; a suspect is denied his right to counsel where the lawyer who assisted him was the City
Legal Officer.
PEOPLE VS VELARDE, G.R. NO. A mayor cannot be considered the independent lawyer and the right to counsel contemplates not just the mere
139333, JULY 18, 2002 presence of a lawyer but should be present in all stages.
PEOPLE VS CULALA, G.R. NO. The extra-judicial confession was not admissible because it was the municipal attorney who assisted the accused
83466, OCTOBER 13, 1999 and it has been held that a municipal attorney cannot be considered as an independent counsel as required by the
Constitution because as a legal officer of the municipality, his job is to provide legal assistance and support to the
mayor and the municipality so, it’s doubted that he can effectively undertake the defense of the accused without
running into conflict of interests.
PEOPLE VS GEROLAGO, 263 Gerolago implicated Ruado-Sy and Ativo as his co-accused in the crime of homicide in a sworn statement but
SCRA 143 this statement is void and has no legal effect because it was not made in the presence of a counsel; to waive such
right, it must also be done with the assistance of a counsel; Ruado-Sy and Ativo were acquitted.
PEOPLE VS PAULE, 261 SCRA Paule murdered somebody in Olongapo City, and the prosecution failed to discharge the state's burden of proving
649 with clear and convincing evidence that Paule enjoyed effective and vigilant counsel before he extrajudicially
admitted his guilt to the police authorities hence said admission cannot be admissible.
PEOPLE VS DELMO, G.R. NO. Danilo Lapiz was acquitted by the Court since his counsel was not present at the very start of his custodial
130078, OCT. 4, 2002 investigation and was called only when the accused was about to put his confession in writing.
PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R. No issue on effective and vigilant counsel in People v Dela Cruz
NO. 137405, SEPT. 27, 2002
PEOPLE VS LUCERO, 249 SCRA Lucero committed robbery with homicide in Quezon City, and the court held that Lucero’s confession cannot be
425 admissible since the prosecution did not prove that he was assisted by an effective and vigilant counsel during
the said confession.
PEOPLE VS ESPANOLA, 271 In the case of People vs. Espanola the SC held that a City Legal Officer can not qualify as independent counsel
SCRA 689 due to a conflict of interest. The City Legal officer provides legal interest and support to the mayor and the city,
which includes that duty to maintaining peace and order. Thus he is akin to a prosecutor who undoubtedly can
not represent the accused during custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS BACOR, G.R. NO. Retractions of confessions are generally unreliable and results to serious doubts on the credibility of the
122895, APRIL 30, 1999 testimony of the accused and is deemed as an alibi to escape the clutches of the justice.
PEOPLE VS SAHAGUN, 274 Confessions given without the benefit of an effective, vigilant and independent counsel are inadmissible in
SCRA 208 evidence.
PEOPLE VS TALIMAN, G.R. NO. A municipal mayor cannot be considered as an independent counsel of purposes of assisting a suspect during
109143, OCTOBER 11, 2000 custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS ESPIRITU, G.R. NO. The right to counsel does not mean that accused should hire his own counsel, it is satisfied when a counsel acts
128287, FEBRUARY 2, 1999 on behalf of an interested third person or is appointed by the court.
PEOPLE VS BARASINA, 229 Rejecting the accused claim that the extrajudicial statement cannot
SCRA 450 be utilized against him since a lawyer different from whom he chose assisted during the interrogation, the
Supreme Court held that the word “preferably” under Section 12 (1) does not convey that the choice of a lawyer
by the person under investigation is exclusive.
PEOPLE VS ALEGRIA, 190 SCRA Any confession obtained from a suspect in the absence of counsel and without his assistance shall be
122 inadmissible in evidence against him, except when accused categorically waived his right to counsel and such
waiver is made in writing and in the presence of counsel.
PEOPLE VS SUAREZ, 267 SCRA The presence of a lawyer, is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him
119 but, rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to
admit something false.
PEOPLE VS PAROJINOG, 203 The accused really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one, but
SCRA 473 when no objection was voiced by the accused throughout the proceedings of the investigation and afterwards
when he subscribed to its veracity before the fiscal, he is deemed to have acquiesced to the choice of the
investigators.
PEOPLE VS BAELLO, 224 SCRA Atty. Generoso conferred with the accused, warned the latter of the consequences of his confession and even
218 advised him not to make any; however, the accused insisted on going ahead with his confession, although he only
confessed to the robbery.
GALMAN VS PAMARAN, 138 The pleadings, annexes, oral arguments, manifestations and admissions of both counsel and the manner in which
SCRA 295 testimonies were taken failed to reveal adherence to due process.
PEOPLE VS JEREZ, 285 SCRA A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection
393 against the former's appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to
the veracity before the swearing officer.
PEOPLE VS RANIS, G.R. NO. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where the accused never raised any
129113, SEPT. 17, 2000 objection against the lawyer’s appointment during the course of the investigation, and the accused thereafter
subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer.
PEOPLE VS DUMALAHAY, 380 When the details narrated in an extrajudicial confession are such that they could not have been concocted by one
SCRA 37 who did not take part in the acts narrated, where the claim of maltreatment in the extraction by the confession is
unsubstantiated and where abundant evidence exists showing that the statement was voluntarily executed, the
confession is admissible against the defendant.
PEOPLE VS PAMON, 217 SCRA No in-custody investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person
501 arrested, by any person in his behalf or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by
someone in his behalf.
PEOPLE VS CABILES, 284 SCRA Appellant Cabiles's free will and volition in signing his confession will not cure the defect that it was made
199 without assistance of counsel. An uncounselled extrajudicial confession without a valid waiver of the right to
counsel, made in in writing and in the presence of counsel, is inadmissible in evidence
PEOPLE VS GALLARDO, 323 An effective counsel is one who does not prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.
SCRA 318
PEOPLE VS BASE, G.R. NO. The counsel should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.
109773, MARCH 30, 2000
PEOPLE VS OBRERO, G.R. NO. Jimmy Obrero gave an extrajudicial confession with the assistance of Atty. De los Reyes, who was also the
122142, MAY 17, 2000 station commander of the precinct he was taken into after being accused of robbery. The confession was held
inadmissible because he was not assisted by a competent and INDEPENDENT counsel.
CARIAGA VS PEOPLE, 626 The negligence of counsel generally binds the client unless the slapdash work of the counsel, where reckless or
SCRA 231 gross negligence is apparent, deprives the client of due process as it will result to the outright deprivation of the
client’s liberty, property or where the interest of justice so requires.
PEOPLE VS BASE, G.R. NO. To be an effective counsel "a lawyer need not challenge all the questions being propounded to his client” ; he
109773, MARCH 30, 2000 should only make sure that there be no questions asked that may coerce him to say something false and he should
never prevent an accused from freely telling the truth.
INDEPENDENCE
PEOPLE VS PORIO, 376 SCRA In order for a lawyer to be considered as competent and independent for the purpose of assisting an accused
596 during a custodial investigation, it is required that the lawyer be willing to safeguard the constitutional rights of
the accused rather than a meaningless recital of one’s constitutional rights.
COMPETENCE
PEOPLE VS SUELA, 373 SCRA A counsel who interviewed the accused for only five minutes, who simply listened nonchalantly to the answers
163 the accused gave during extrajudicial confession without explaining its consequences, and who was attending to
another task, is not the competent and independent counsel required under the Constitution.
ASSISTANCE AFTER START

OF CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
PEOPLE VS MATIGUNAS, 379 The right to confrontation was observed when complainant was presented on the witness stand and, after her
SCRA 56 testimony, the counsel for accused-appellant conducted his cross-examination.
PEOPLE VS SUELA, 373 SCRA An effective and vigilant counsel necessarily and logically requires that the lawyer be present and be able to
163 advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating
officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession; that he must properly explain the choices or options open
to appellant, his constitutional rights and what they entailed or the nature and the consequences of extra-judicial
confessions.
VALID CONFESSION WITH

COUNSEL
PEOPLE VS TABLON, 379 SCRA The fact that the appellant made the statement spontaneously without any kind of irregularity or duress made the
280 his extrajudicial confession valid since a dispute regarding an extrajudicial confession can be allayed when it is
shown that the confession has been made freely and voluntarily, without compulsion or inducement, or hope of
reward of any sort.
PEOPLE VS PRINCIPE, G.R. NO. The Constitution, R.A. No. 7438, and case law lay down four fundamental requirements for the admissibility of
135862, MAY 2, 2002 extrajudicial confessions in general, to wit: (a) the confession must be voluntary; (b) it must be made with the
assistance of competent and independent counsel; (c) the confession must be express; and (d) it must be in
writing. In this case, after accused-appellant was read his rights in Tagalog, he signified his intention to confess
his participation in the rape and killing of Arlene. He did this in the presence of his father and with the assistance
of Atty. Cesar Villar, who had been chosen by his father for him.
PEOPLE VS ORANZA, G.R. NO. Under rules laid down by the Constitution, existing laws and jurisprudence, a confession to be
127748, JULY 25, 2002 admissible must satisfy all four fundamental requirements, namely: (1) the confession must be
voluntary; (2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent
counsel; (3) the confession must be express; and (4) the confession must be in writing. All the above
requirements were complied with and therefore the extrajudicial confession of guilt is admissible in
PEOPLE VS CANICULA, G.R. evidence against him.
Canicula confessed extra-judicially with counsel that he boxed the victim four times until the said victim fell to
NO. 131802, AUGUST 6, 2002 the river but did not mention that he raped her therefore he is only guilty of homicide without the crime of rape.
CONFESSION WITHOUT
COUNSEL
PEOPLE VS CASIMIRO, G.R. Accused-appellant signed the receipt without the assistance of counsel, making it inadmissible as evidence,
NO. 146277, JUNE 20, 2002 despite the fact that the police issued such in accordance with their standard operating procedure in a buy-bust
operation to show what property was seized.
PEOPLE VS OCHATE, G.R. NO. An admission of guilt without counsel and being informed of his constitutional rights are inadmissible as
127154, JULY 30, 2002 evidence, even if the confessions are made to a barangay captain because the conversation was part of the
ongoing police investigation.
PEOPLE VS MENDEZ, G.R. NO. Records do not show the accused-appellants were assisted by counsel in the course of investigation, only the
147671, NOVEMBER 21, 2002 police investigators were present, thus creating irregularities entitled for acquittal.
PEOPLE VS LAUGA, 615 SCRA Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the case of the "bantay bayan," are
548 recognized by the local government unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at
the barangay level, therefore, any inquiry it makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar
as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights is concerned.
LUMANOG VS PEOPLE, 630 Joel’s questioning has already started even before had an assistance of counsel; the moment a police officer tries
SCRA 42 to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information from a suspect, the latter should, at juncture, be
assisted by counsel, unless he waives this right in writing and at the presence of counsel.
PEOPLE VS TUMACO, 610 SCRA Tuniaco murdered somebody in General Santos City, and Tuniaco’s confession was admissible since it met all
350 the requisites namely: a) voluntary; b) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; c)
express; and d) in writing.
PEOPLE VS BOKINGO, 655 The extrajudicial confession of Bokingco was inadmissible against him because he was not assisted at all by
SCRA 313 counsel during the time his confession was taken before a judge.
PEOPLE VS UY, 649 SCRA 236 Uy was convicted of robbery with homicide upon his confession to his uncle because when confession is made to
a competent witness, that person is able to testify as to the substance of what he heard even without the presence
of counsel.
FAILURE TO OBJECT TO
CONFESSION MADE
WITHOUT COUNSEL
PEOPLE VS GONZALES, G.R. Gonzales committed robbery with homicide in Davao Oriental, and the court held that the constitutional
NO. 142932, MAY 29, 2002 provision on custodial investigation does not apply to a spontaneous statement which was not elicited through
questioning by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner by his co-accused and hence such statement can
be admissible as evidence against Gonzales.
PEOPLE VS TAMAYO, G.R. NO. In the case of People vs. Tamayo the SC held that oral confession that was done before the barangay officer can
137856, JULY 30, 2002 be taken into consideration, this is because this was not done during custodial investigation, thus there is no need
for a lawyer.
PEOPLE VS SAMUS, G.R. NO. Confession made by the accused even without presence of a counsel is admissible in evidence if there is failure
135957, SEPT. 17, 2002 of objecting them during the trial.
PEOPLE VS AVENDANO, G.R. Failure to timely question the defect in the information is deemed a waiver of his objection thereto.
NO. 137407, JAN. 28, 2003
PEOPLE VS MOLE, G.R. NO. Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in
137366, NOV. 27, 2003 writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver,
and in the presence of any of the parents, older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the
municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such
extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in evidence in any proceeding, notwithstanding failure
to object by the defense of its admission.
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
PEOPLE VS MANRIQUEZ, G.R. A flawed waiver of rights renders extra judicial confessions null and inadmissible.
NO. 122510-511, MARCH 17,
2000
MAGTOTO VS MANGUERA, 63 A confession obtained from a person under investigation for the commission of an offense, who has not been
SCRA 4 informed of his right (to silence and) to counsel, is inadmissible in evidence if the same had been obtained after
the effectivity of the New Constitution on January 17, 1973 since the Constitution must be given a prospective
and not a retrospective effect.
PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA Absent any showing that the accused were duly advised of the mandatory guarantees under the Bill of Rights,
52 their extrajudicial confessions are inadmissible against them and cannot be used in support of their conviction.
PEOPLE VS ALEGRIA, 190 SCRA Written extra-judicial confession made by a person of limited education do not persuade that the accused was
122 fully and fairly informed of his rights in the sense that they were each painstakingly explained to him and he was
apprised of the effects of their waiver or forfeiture.
PEOPLE VS SABBAN, 360 SCRA A lawyer is an officer of the court and he has in his favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of his
630 sworn duties and responsibilities and so an executed sworn statement of an extra-judicial confession in the
presence of an executive director of the IBP can validly be admissible as evidence in court.
PEOPLE VS BARLIS, 231 SCRA Appelant voluntarily agreed to be assisted by no less than the Chairman of the Legal Aid Assistance Office of the
426 IBP-Quezon City Chapter, Atty. Confesor Sansano wherein a lawyer is an officer of the court and upon his
shoulders lies the responsibility to see to it that protection has been accorded the rights of the accused and that no
injustice to him has been committed and with the presence of Atty. Sansano, we believe that the rights of the
appellant were duly protected.
PEOPLE VS AGUSTIN, 240 SCRA The right to be informed carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain and
541 contemplates effective communication. Hence, it is doubtful for a suspect to understand his constitutional right if
he was informed in Tagalog and English when he could only understand Ilocano.
PEOPLE VS SAMOLDE, G.R. NO. The giving to a suspect of no more than a perfunctory recitation of his rights, signifying nothing more than a
128551, JULY 31, 2000 feigned compliance with the constitutional requirements, is considered as merely ceremonial and inadequate to
transmit meaningful information to the suspect, rendering any extrajudicial confession obtained invalid.
PEOPLE VS SEVILLA, G.R. NO. The right to be informed of one’s right contemplates the “transmission of meaningful information rather than just
124077, SEPT. 5, 2000 the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.” The right to be informed
consists of no less than effective communication which results in a full understanding of what is conveyed.
PEOPLE VS MULETA, G.R. NO. A confession obtained in violation of the rights of an accused cannot be used as evidence.
130189, JUNE 25, 1999
PEOPLE VS TIZON, G.R. NO. The right to be informed of one's constitutional rights during custodial investigation refers to an effective
133228, JULY 30, 2002 communication between the investigating officer and the suspected individual, with the purpose of making the
latter understand these rights such that information transmitted was effectively received and comprehended; the
Constitution requires that the person under investigation be "informed."
PEOPLE VS LLENARESES, 248 Appellant Llenaresas’s claim that he was not informed of his constitutional rights before the extraction of
SCRA 629 extrajudicial confession is contradicted by his own written confession and the testimony of police officers who
had directly participated in the custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS CAJARA, G.R. NO. Neither can the accused be convicted of qualified rape on the basis of the circumstance that the rape was
122498, SEPT. 27, 2000 committed in full view of the relatives of the victim within the third degree of consanguinity because this
qualifying circumstance was not pleaded in the Information or in the Complaint against the accused; thus, it is
fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information.
PEOPLE VS MANRIQUEZ, G.R. The right to be informed carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain,
NO. 122510-511, MARCH 17, and contemplates effective communication which results in the subject's understanding of what is conveyed.
2000
PEOPLE VS SAMOLDE, G.R. NO. Samolde was arrested for murder. Before he was interrogated, accused was given only a perfunctory recitation of
128551, JULY 31, 2000 his rights, which is inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect. Hence the confession is
inadmissible in trial.
WAIVER OF RIGHTS:
REQUISITES OF A VALID
WAIVER
PEOPLE VS TALIMAN, G.R. NO. The Constitution expressly provides that the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel hence the
109143, OCTOBER 11, 2000 defect was not cured even assuming that the right to counsel was orally waived during custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS GOMEZ, 270 SCRA Section 12(1), Article III, of the Constitution requires the assistance of counsel to a person under custody even
432 when he waives the right to counsel.
PEOPLE VS CABINTOY, 247 A waiver of the right to counsel is valid if it is in writing and done in the presence of counsel.
SCRA 442 An uncounselled confession and waiver could be subsequently validated by later signature of counsel but there
must be manifest intent to own and adopt retroactively their extrajudicial confession; extreme care must be
employed in examining the matter lest the constitutional right be eroded into an empty formality.
PEOPLE VS CORULLO, 289 Even before March 20, 1985 and the present Constitution, waiver by an accused of the assistance of a counsel
SCRA 481 during custodial must be done with the assistance of counsel, otherwise the confessions obtained from the
accused would be inadmissible.
PEOPLE VS OLIVAREZ, G.R. NO. Knowing full well that the arrest that they had conducted was illegal, the police interposed that Olivarez et were
77865, DECEMBER 4, 1998 only invited to the precinct. Nevertheless, the court found that the circumstances are actually in the nature of an
arrest designed for the purpose of conducting an investigation wherein the fruit of the poisonous doctrine applies.
PEOPLE VS RUELAN, 231 SCRA A confession is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved and the burden of proof is upon the person
650 making the confession.
PEOPLE VS SIMON, 234 SCRA Although the accused manifested during the custodial investigation that he waived his right to counsel, the
555 waiver was not made in writing and whatever admission may be extracted from him, is not allowable as
evidence.
MALACAT VS CA, 283 SCRA 159 Even assuming that petitioner admitted possession of the grenade during his custodial investigation by police
officer Serapio, such admission was inadmissible in evidence for it was taken in palpable violation of Section
12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution.
!Serapio conducted the custodial investigation on petitioner the day following his arrest when no lawyer was
present and Serapio could not have requested a lawyer to assist petitioner as no PAO lawyer was then available.
Thus, even if petitioner consented to the investigation and waived his rights to remain silent and to counsel, the
waiver was invalid as it was not in writing, neither was it executed in the presence of counsel.
PEOPLE VS BACOR, 306 SCRA By voluntarily executing his extrajudicial confession, which he did in the presence of and with the
522 assistance of counsel and after having been informed of his constitutional rights, accused-appellant
effectively waived his right to remain silent.
PEOPLE VS QUIDATO, G.R. NO. There was no presence of a counsel when Malita brothers gave their extra-judicial statements and these are
117160, OCTOBER 1, 1998 considered inadmissible in evidence even if they signed their affidavits the next day in the presence of a counsel.
MUST BE VOLUNTARY,
KNOWING, INTELLIGENT
PEOPLE VS NICOLAS, 204 SCRA Admissions made by accused-appellant during custodial investigation, as reflected in his sworn statement,
191 cannot be admissible in evidence for his statement before the Patrolman was given in gross violation of his
constitutional rights guaranteed under Article IV, section 20 of the 1973 constitution where confessions without
assistance of counsel is inadmissible.
PEOPLE VS AGUSTIN, 240 SCRA The right to information carries with it the obligation of the investigator to explain for the understanding of
541 accused, and even if the confession of an accused speaks the truth, if it was made without the assistance of
counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily
given.
EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSIONS: DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN ADMISSION AND
CONFESSION
LADIANA VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. According to Sec. 26 on the Revised Rules on Evidence, admission is the act, declaration or omission of a party
144293, DECEMBER 4, 2002 as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him, while Sec. 33 states that confession is the declaration
of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged.
PEOPLE VS MAQUEDA, 242 In a confession, there is acknowledgement of guilt by the accused while in admission, there is only an
SCRA 565 acknowledgment of facts or circumstances regarding the issue which has to be corroborated with other facts in
order to establish guilt.
REQUISITES FOR VALID

EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSION
PEOPLE VS DANO, G.R. NO. For an extrajudicial confession to be valid, it must be (a) voluntary, (b) made with the assistance of a competent
117690, SEPTEMBER 1, 2000 and in dependent counsel, (c) express, and (d) in writing.
PEOPLE VS PAGAURA, 267 Pagaura was in possession of Marijuana ,and the prosecution failed to prove that Pagaura was assisted by a
SCRA 17 lawyer during the interrogation and that a certain waiver that he signed was void since it was made without the
assistance of a lawyer.
PEOPLE VS CALVO, 269 SCRA A confession is not rendered involuntary merely because defendant was told that he should tell the truth or that it
676 would be better for him to tell the truth. For an accused’s confession to be inadmissible, the threats and promises
which the accused must prove must take the form of violence, intimidation, a promise of reward or leniency.
PEOPLE VS TAN, 286 SCRA 207 Herson Tan who was charged with highway robbery with murder was acquitted because his extrajudicial
confession which failed to meet the following requisites was inadmissible as evidence: (1) it must be voluntary,
(2) it must be made with assistance of competent and independent counsel, (3) it must be express, (4)it must be in
writing.
PEOPLE VS OLIVAREZ, G.R. NO. Olivarez committed robbery with homicide in Valenzuela, and the court held that Olivarez’s manifestation that he
77865, DECEMBER 4, 1998 did need assistance of a counsel was not a valid waiver since in order for a waiver of the right to counsel to be
valid, it must be made with the assistance or in the presence of counsel, therefore any statement he made is
inadmissible as evidence.
PEOPLE VS BASE, G.R. NO. For an extrajudicial confession to be valid it must be 1.) Voluntary, 2.) Made with the assistance of competent
109773, MARCH 30, 2000 counsel, 3.) Express, 4.) In Writing. But this rule is not a deterrent of an accused voluntarily and intelligently so
desires, but to protect the accused to admit things which are untrue.
PEOPLE VS CONTINENTE, G.R. A counsel should never prevent the accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth and whether it is an
NO. 100801-02, AUGUST 25, 2000 extrajudicial statement or testimony in open court, the intention is always to ascertain the truth of the facts and
evidences pertaining to a crime.
PEOPLE VS NAAG, 322 SCRA While accused-appellant was told what his rights were and answered in the affirmative when asked whether he
710 understood what he had been told, the crucial question is whether he effectively waived the effectuation of these
rights. We find that he did not and, therefore, his confession (Exh. O) is inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS FABRO, 277 SCRA A confession is defined in jurisprudence as a declaration made voluntarily and without compulsion or
19 inducement by a person, stating or acknowledging that he has committed or participated in the commission of a
crime.
In jurisprudence, no confession can be admitted in evidence unless it is given:
1. Freely and voluntarily, without compulsion, inducement or trickery;
2. Knowingly based on an effective communication to the individual under custodial investigation of his
constitutional rights; and
3. Intelligently with full appreciation of its importance and comprehension of its consequences.
PEOPLE VS SINOC, 275 SCRA A narration of events by the accused without his counsel present cannot be used against him.
357
PEOPLE VS ALICANDO, 251 Due process was not observed since the defendant was not informed oh his right to counsel upon making his
SCRA 293 extrajudicial confession to the police and so the trial court erred in admitting as evidence the T-shirt of the
accused with bloodstains in convicting him for rape with homicide since it is not only uncounselled confession
that is condemned as inadmissible but also evidence derived therefrom in cases of custodial interrogation where
the accused confessed to the crime without the benefit of counsel.
PEOPLE VS MANENG, G.R. NO. For an extrajudicial confession to be admissible as evidence, it must be satisfactorily shown that it was (1)
123147, OCT. 13, 2000 voluntary, and (2) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel.
!Details disclosed in the confession that could have been known only to the declarant indicate the voluntariness in
executing the same.
PEOPLE VS LLANES, G.R. NO. The extra-judicial confession was made by Roland Gamba after he was duly informed of his rights and after he
140268, SEPT. 18, 2000 was asked if he wanted to avail the services of a layer to which he answered in the affirmative.
PEOPLE VS DEANG, G.R. NO. When an accused is informed of his constitutional custodial rights and was represented by a counsel of his
128045, AUG. 24, 2000 choice, the extrajudicial confessions he made may be used as evidence admissible in court.
PEOPLE VS AVENDANO, G.R. With regard to the legality of the arrest and confinement of appellant, it was shown that upon arraignment,
NO. 137407, JAN. 28, 2003 appellant voluntarily entered a plea of "not guilty" without first questioning the legality of his arrest and by so
pleading, he has submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest wherein
such act amounted to a waiver of the right to question any irregularity in his arrest.
PEOPLE VS ESPANOLA, 271 The fact that appellant Paquingan did not sign his sworn statement casts serious doubt as to the voluntariness of
SCRA 689 its execution and therefore, it is inadmissible evidence.
PEOPLE VS NICOLAS, G.R. NO. The rule is that when the offended party has executed and subscribed to a complaint, the prosecution before the
135877, AUG. 22, 2002 court may be initiated by means of an information signed by the prosecutor alone.
PEOPLE VS SABALONES, 294 Extrajudicial confession, especially those which are adverse to the declarant’s interests are presumed voluntary,
SCRA 751 and in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that the declarant’s consent in executing the same has been
vitiated, such confession shall be upheld. It is binding only upon himself and not against his co-accused.
PEOPLE VS MAHINAY, 302 The Investigating offcier or his companions must do and observe the guidelines laid down by the courts at the
SCRA 455 time of making the arrest and again at the time of the custodial interrogation in accordance with the constitution.
PEOPLE VS LISING, 285 SCRA (Interlocking Confessions; an exception to the rule that an extrajudicial statement is evidence only against the
595 person making it) Where several extrajudicial statements had been made by several persons charged with an
offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said several confessions, and that the statements
are in all material respects identical, is confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendants and is admissible
against other persons implicated therein, which are admissible as circumstantial evidences against the person
implicated therein to show the probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime.
PEOPLE VS OBRERO, G.R. NO. The extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because it lacks the requisite of a competent and independent
122142, MAY 17, 2000 counsel. The counsel present during the custodial investigation, thought competent, cannot be said to be
independent since he was also the station commander in the police station.
PEOPLE VS CAPITLE, 639 SCRA An extrajudicial confession is admissible if it is (1) voluntary; (2) made with the assistance of a competent and
373 independent counsel; (3) express; and (4) in writing.
JESALVA VS PEOPLE, 640 SCRA The assailed statements herein were spontaneously made by petitioner and were not at all elicited through
253 questioning, hence it is admissible.
VOLUNTARINESS
PEOPLE VS SANTOS, 283 SCRA If the extrajudicial confession satisfies these constitutional standards, it is subsequently tested for voluntariness,
443 i.e., if it was given freely -- without coercion, intimidation, inducement, or false promises; and credibility, i.e., if
it was consistent with the normal experience of mankind.
PEOPLE VS ALVAREZ, G.R. NO. When a victim of rape says that she has been violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape
140388-91, NOV. 11, 2003 has been committed against her and so long as her testimony meets tha test of credibility, the accused may be
convicted on the basis thereof.
ASTUDILLO VS PEOPLE, 509 There is the presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime
SCRA 302 unless prompted by truth and conscience such that it is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved.
JESALVA VS PEOPLE, 640 SCRA Statements made spontaneously and voluntarily which were not elicited through questioning does not fall under
253 the constitutional procedure for custodial investigation.
PRESUMPTIONS
PEOPLE VS ALICANDO, 251 The arraignment of the accused cannot be presumed to be regularly conducted when life is at stake.
SCRA 293
PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA Absent any showing that appellants were dully advised of the mandatory guarantee under the Bill of Rights, their
52 confession made before Carino are inadmissible against them, and cannot be used I support of their conviction.
PEOPLE VS FIGUEROA, G.R. Any waiver of such rights should be in writing and made in the presence of a counsel, and such rights attach
NO. 134056, JULY 6, 2000 from the moment the investigation starts (i.e. when the investigating officers begin to ask question to elicit
information). The presumption of regularity does not prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence.
Admissions made contrary to Sec 12 are inadmissible even against third persons.
PEOPLE VS DANO, G.R. NO. The confession without counsel is inadmissible since a suspect’s confession, when taken without the assistance
117690, SEPTEMBER 1, 2000 of counsel without a valid waiver of such right regardless of the absence of coercion or the fact that it had been
voluntarily given, is inadmissible in evidence, even if it is the truth.
PEOPLE VS MANENG, G.R. NO. Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that
123147, OCT. 13, 2000 declarant's consent in executing the same has been vitiated, such confession will be sustained.
!Alibi is a weak defense against extrajudicial confessions made by the accused.
!The right to counsel does not mean that the accused must personally hire his own counsel. The constitutional
requirement is satisfied when a counsel is (1) engaged by anyone acting on behalf of the person under
investigation or (2) appointed by the court upon petition of the said person or by someone on his behalf.
PEOPLE VS VALLEJO, G.R. NO. Indeed, extrajudicial confessions are presumed to be voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive
144656, MAY 9, 2002 evidence showing that the declarantÊs consent in executing the same has been vitiated, the
PEOPLE VS SAHAGUN, 274 confession will be sustained.
Villareal’s extra-judicial confessions, without the benefit of an effective, vigilant and independent counsel, are
SCRA 208 inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS SABBAN, 360 SCRA The confession is admissible in court, considering that the accused Eduardo Sabban gave his statement to the
630 investigating officer in the presence of his counsel, who also signed the statement.
PEOPLE VS RANIS, G.R. NO. A failure of the accused to question the vigilance of his provided counsel and maltreatment from police officers
129113, SEPT. 17, 2000 casts doubt on the allegations, and confessions of the accused constitutes evidence of a high order of
voluntariness.
PEOPLE VS ROUS, 242 SCRA Confession obtained through coercion whether physical, mental or emotional is inadmissible.
732
PEOPLE VS PAROJINOG, 203 While the initial choice of a lawyer falls upon the police investigators in case the accused cannot afford the
SCRA 473 services of a counsel, he still has the final choice because he can reject the one given to him and ask for another
one AND that a confession made by him is admissible unless he successfully proves that he was intimidated,
forced or promised a reward or leniency.
PEOPLE VS MONTIERO, 246 A confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of
SCRA 786 normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience;
it is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat,
or promise of reward or leniency, and the evidence failed to show that the SPO coerced appellant to confess.
PEOPLE VS RUELAN, 231 SCRA Ruelan murdered somebody in Davao City, and by voluntarily executing his extrajudicial confession after having
650 been informed by Atty. Luz Cortez of his constitutional rights, and in the presence of and with the assistance of
said counsel, appellant Ruelan effectively waived his right to remain silent.
PEOPLE VS AQUINO, G.R. NO. The Court, in finding the accused guilty of rape with homicide, ruled that the confession made by the appellant
123550-51, JULY 19, 1999 Catap was presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved and the declarant bears the burden of proving
that his confession is involuntary.
PEOPLE VS TOLENTINO, 423 Tolentino was judged guilty of statutory rape after being positively identified in a police line-up. A police line-up
SCRA 448 is not considered custodial investigation and therefore there is no need for counsel.
PEOPLE VS DE VERA, G.R. NO. De Vera murdered somebody in Quezon City, and the court held that the prosecution has proved through
128966, AUG. 18, 1999 overwhelming evidence that De Vera’s right to counsel was not infringe hence De Vera’s statements are
admissible as evidence.
PEOPLE VS SANTOS, 283 SCRA There is no presumption of constitutionality which may be accorded to any extrajudicial confession until the
443 prosecution convincingly establishes the regularity of its taking and compliance with the constitution. In this case
the the extrajudicial confession was struck down because of the failure of the prosecution to show that the
accused was assisted by counsel during custodial investigation.
SANTOS VS SANDIGANBAYAN, When a confession be deliberately given with a full comprehension of its importance, there is no impediment to
G.R. NO. 71523-25, DECEMBER its admissibility as evidence, that no person will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator
8, 2000 of a crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience to confess his guilt.
PEOPLE VS MAGDAMIT, 279 Where there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by
SCRA 423 any improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is thus entitled to full faith
and credit.
PEOPLE VS AQUINO, G.R. NO. An accused cannot be presumed to have knowledge of the non-existence or insufficiency of the funds in the bank
130742, JULY 18, 2000 account of her co-accused at the time the latter issued post-dated checks since such legal presumption applies to
the drawer or issuer of the checks.
PEOPLE VS HERNANDEZ, 282 Testimonial and documentary evidence are given great weight by the court in rendering a criminal judgment.
SCRA 387
PEOPLE VS SABALONES, 294 Extrajudicial confessions, especially those which are adverse to the declarant’s interests are presumed voluntary,
SCRA 751 and in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that the declarant’s consent in executing the same has been
vitiated, such confession shall be upheld.
PEOPLE VS CALVO, 269 SCRA A confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of
676 normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience.
PEOPLE VS DEL ROSARIO, G.R. As officers of the court, lawyers who assist in the extrajudicial confession of an accused are presumed to perform
NO. 131036, JUNE 20, 2001 their sworn duties and responsibilities with regularity.
TO WHOM SUCH
CONFESSION CAN BE USED
AGAINST
PEOPLE VS LISING, 285 SCRA A man’s act, conduct and declarations wherever made, provided they be voluntary, are admissible against him,
595 for the reason that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth and it is his fault if they are not and an
extrajudicial statement having a confession is evidence only against the person making it.
SANTOS VS SANDIGANBAYAN, It is also to be noted that APPELLANTS' extrajudicial confessions were independently made without collusion,
G.R. NO. 71523-25, DECEMBER are identical with each other in their material respects and confirmatory of the other and hey are what is
8, 2000 commonly known as interlocking confession and constitute an exception to the general rule that extrajudicial
confessions/admissions are admissible in evidence only against the declarants thereof.
TAN VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. An admission or confession acknowledging guilt of an offense may be given in evidence only against the person
134298, AUGUST 26, 1999 admitting or confessing.
LAWYER GIVEN BY POLICE

INVESTIGATOR, VALID
CONFESSION
AQUINO VS PAISTE, 555 SCRA When the accused never raised any objection against the lawyer’s appointment during the course of the
255 investigation and the accused thereafter subscribed to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer,
the accused is deemed to have engaged such lawyer.
EXCEPTIONS: WHEN
CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATIONS MAY NOT
APPLY, PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
PEOPLE VS JUDGE AYSON, 175 Not every statement made to the police by a person involved in some crime is within the scope of the
SCRA 216 constitutional protection. If not made "under custodial interrogation," or "under investigation for the commission
of an offense," the statement is not protected.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
PEOPLE VS TAYLARAN, 108 If one voluntarily admits the crime and it was precisely because of this intent to admit he surrendered to the
SCRA 373 police, the constitutional safeguards under section 12 cannot be invoked.
AUDIT EXAMINATION
NAVALLO VS A person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial investigation.
SANDIGANBAYAN, 234 SCRA
175
KIMPO VS SANDIGANBAYAN, Petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of his constitutional rights when Sandiganbayan considered the
232 SCRA 53 questioned exhibits is untenable since said exhibits pertain to a report of audit examination performed in the
normal course of audit by the COA. Petitioner is not under custodial investigation under such time.
ADMINISTRATIVE
INVESTIGATION
MANUEL VS NC An administrative investigation is a type of investigation conducted by the employer and is not considered a
CONSTRUCTION, 282 SCRA 326 criminal investigation since it is not done by police officers; hence the information elicited from this type of
investigation is admissible in court.
REMOLONA VS CIVIL SERVICE While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact
COMMISSION, G.R. NO. 13747, remains that under existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel,
AUGUST 2, 2001 irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent’s capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests
on such body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel; The right to counsel is not always imperative
in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts
that merit disciplinary measure against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the
dignity of government service.
SEBASTIAN VS Post office employees were investigated. During interrogation, they submitted sworn statements, which
GARCHITORENA G.R. NO. prosecution later presented as evidence. Although not assisted by counsel, the statements are admissible as the
114028, OCT. 18, 2000 right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigation.
ESCLEO VS DURADO, AM NO. In administrative proceedings, the change of procedure is not a denial of due process since technical rules of
P-99-1312, JULY 31, 2002 procedure are not strictly applied unless he was completely denied of the opportunity to be heard.
NOT IN POLICE CUSTODY

PEOPLE VS TOBIAS, 266 SCRA When an admission was made before the accused's arrest (as he was only asked why he was holding a gun), the
229 constitutionally guaranteed rights of the accused did not yet come into operation, and the accused’s statement
becomes a confession as defined by the Rules of Evidence, which is admissible against the accused.
OCA VS SUMULONG, 271 SCRA Custody investigation is defined as questioning performed by law enforcement officers after a person has been
316 deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way; the Office of the Court Administrator does not fall
under the concept of enforcement authority contemplated in the constitutional provision.
POLICE LINE UP: GENERAL

RULE
PEOPLE VS PIEDAD, G.R. NO. A police line up is not necessary to identify the accused for as long as the accused is positively identified by the
131923, DEC. 5, 2002 witnesses as the perpetrator of the crime.
PEOPLE VS LAMSING, 248 The right to counsel does not extend to police line-ups investigation because they are not part of custodial
SCRA 471 investigation.
PEOPLE VS FRAGO, 232 SCRA If the accused, in the course of his identification in the police line-up, is not yet held to answer for a criminal
653 offense, he is therefore not deprived of his right to be assisted by counsel because the accusatory process had not
yet set in.
GAMBOA VS JUDGE CRUZ, 162 If the police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest, an accused is not yet entitled to counsel, however, if
SCRA 675 there would be an urge of the investigators to elicit admissions or confessions from the accused, he should be
entitled to counsel.
PEOPLE VS SALVATIERRA, 276 The right to counsel guaranteed in Art. III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution does not extend to police lineups
SCRA 55 because they are not part of custodial investigations. The reason for this is that at that point, the process has not
yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory; therefore the accused’s right to counsel attaches only from
the time that adversary judicial proceedings are taken against him.
DELA TORRE VS CA, 294 SCRA A police line-up is not considered part of any custodial inquest because it is conducted before that
196 stage is reached.
PEOPLE VS PAVILLARE, G.R. The inadmissibility of “custodial investigation” which starts when a person is taken into custody and is singled
NO. 129970, APRIL 5, 2000 out as a suspect and the police officers begin to ask questions regarding the suspect’s participation.
PEOPLE VS TIMPLE, 237 SCRA There is no need to afford the potential suspect that assistance of counsel as it has been held that police line-up is
52 not part of the custodial investigation, where the suspects had not yet been held then to answer for the criminal
offense which they were later charged and convicted.
PEOPLE VS DIMAANO, 209 Right to counsel is not required in police line-ups since the confrontation between the state and them had not yet
SCRA 819 begun.
PEOPLE VS LOVERIA, 187 SCRA Use of “I think” does not necessarily indicate uncertainty & failure to reveal at once the identity of the accused
47 does not necessarily affect much less impairs the credibility of the witness.
PEOPLE VS TOLENTINO, 423 The constitutional rights of the accused were not violated when he was made to join the police line up because a
SCRA 448 police line up was not part of a custodial inquest – the accused not being investigated but only the witness was in
the process of identifying him, his right to counsel is not violated and in addition, there is no law providing that a
police line up is essential to proper identification.
PEOPLE VS MARTINEZ, 425 The right to counsel attaches only when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information,
SCRA 525 confession or admission from the accused; when one is identified in a police line-up, he has not yet been held to
answer for the criminal offense, a police line-up os outside the mantle of protection of the right to counsel.
PEOPLE VS SULTAN, G.R. NO. Sultan committed carnapping with homicide in General Santos City, and the court, in applying the totality of
130594, JULY 5, 2000 circumstances test, held that his identification in the “police line-up” was not in violation of his constitutional
right to counsel.
PEOPLE VS ESCORDIAL, 373 Any identification of an uncounselled accused made in a police line-up, or in a show-up for that matter, after the
SCRA 585 start of the custodial investigation is inadmissible as evidence against him.
EXCEPTIONS
PEOPLE VS HATTON, 210 SCRA Aside from the fact that Ongue, the witness, could not positively identify the defendant as he made only fleeting
1 glances at him after the incident, it was shown that he was identified by the police as a suspect.
PEOPLE VS GARNER, 326 SCRA Garner committed the crime of carnapping in Angeles City, and the court held that the statements he made were
660 inadmissible as evidence since from the moment Garner was invited to the CIS office, he was clearly placed
under "custodial investigation" for there the questioning was never a "general inquiry into an unsolved crime" but
already focused on appellant as a "particular suspect”, hence he should have been informed of his Miranda rights
before being questioned.
PEOPLE VS TEEHANKEE, JR. Out of court identifications contaminate the integrity of in court identifications, but the courts have to use the
249 SCRA 54 totality of circumstances test where there consider the ff. factors: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the
criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior
description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5)
the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification
procedure. This mode was resorted to by the authorities for security purposes.
PEOPLE VS MENESES, 288 The mere assertion by a police officer that after an accused was informed of his constitutional right to remain
SCRA 95 silent and to counsel he readily admitted his guilt, does not make the supposed confession admissible when it is
not shown that the admissions of guilt were made with benefit of counsel.
SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS
PEOPLE VS BARRIENTOS, 285 The matter testified to was appellant’s spontaneous statement of having asked for the forgiveness of the offended
SCRA 221 party. It was a statement uttered by appellant, overheard by the Chief of Police Motalib Banding, that had not
been elicited from him through any questioning.
ARROYO VS CA, 203 SCRA 750 An accused cannot claim the right against self-incrimination when the admission was made to her husband in the
privacy of their conjugal home since the husband was not a peace officer nor an investigation officer conducting
a custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS ANDAN, 269 SCRA A spontaneous confession by the accused outside of any interrogation is considered admissible evidence in court.
95
PEOPLE VS DUMANTAY, 307 The rights guaranteed in Section 12(1) applied to accused since he was already under custodial investigation
SCRA 1 when he was brought to the Malasiqui police station as a suspect in slaying Jennifer Domantay and in any case,
his waiver of his right to counsel was void since it was neither put in writing nor made in the presence of
counsel.
PEOPLE VS MORADA, G.R. NO. The constitutional guarantees during custodial investigation do not apply to spontaneous statements not elicited
129723, MAY 19, 1999 through questioning by the authorities and given during an ordinary conversation or during media interviews,
whereby the suspect orally admits the commission of the crime. This does not, however, authorize the police to
obtain confessions they cannot otherwise obtain through media reporters who are actually acting for the police.
PEOPLE VS DANO, G.R. NO. The constitutional requirements on custodial investigation do not apply to spontaneous statements made in a
117690, SEPT. 1, 2000 voluntary manner whereby appellant orally admitted authorship of the crimes before the barangay captain, who is
neither a police officer nor a law enforcement agent.
PEOPLE VS ULIT, 423 SCRA 374 Improvident pleas of guilty to a capital offense on the part of the accused must be averted since by admitting his
guilt before the trial court, the accused would forfeit his life and liberty without having fully understood the
meaning, significance and the dire consequences of his plea.
MARKED MONEY
PEOPLE VS LINSANGAN, 195 Although he was not assisted by counsel when he initialed the P10-bills that the police found tucked in his waist,
SCRA 784 his right against self-incrimination was not violated for his possession of the marked bills did not constitute a
crime; the subject of the prosecution was his act of selling marijuana cigarettes.
BOOKING SHEETS
PEOPLE VS ANG CHUN KIT, 251 When an arrested person signs a booking sheet at a police station, he does not admit the confession of an offense
SCRA 660 nor confess to any incriminating circumstance since it is merely a statement of the accused’s being booked which
accompanies the fact of an arrest.
PARAFFIN TEST
PEOPLE VS GAMBOA, 194 Paraffin test conducted without the presence of the accused’s lawyer does not violate the right against self-
SCRA 372 incrimination.
WHEN BODY OF THE

ACCUSED IS EXAMINED
PEOPLE VS SINOC, 275 SCRA It must additionally be pointed out that apart from Sinoc’s protestations that his extrajudicial confession was the
357 result of torture and threats, no competent evidence exists on record to substantiate that claim. There must be a
medical examination to confirm such revelation.
PEOPLE VS PIEDAD, G.R. NO. The right to counsel accrues only after an investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and
131923, DEC. 5, 2002 commences an interrogation aimed at a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the
police would then propound questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements.
GUTANG VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. (exemption under the freedom from testimonial compulsion) The Constitution prohibits the use of physical or
135406, JULY 11, 2000 moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when
it may be material - an accused may validly be compelled to be photographed or measured, or his garments or
shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done, without running afoul
of the proscription against testimonial compulsion.
PEOPLE VS PAYNOR, 256 SCRA The rights of the accused were not infringed when he was stripped of his clothing by the police investigators and
611 later submitting his items as evidence. The constitutional protection refers to testimonial evidence and not
physical examination.
TAKING OF PICTURES
PEOPLE VS GALLARDE, 325 The taking of pictures of an accused without the assistance of his counsel is not a violation of his right against
SCRA 835 self-incrimination because the right only protects testimonial compulsion against the accused or that of the giving
of evidence against himself through a testimonial act.
INCIDENT LAWFUL TO
ARREST
PEOPLE VS ENRIQUEZ, 204 The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful.
SCRA 674
MARCELO VS Lito Marcelo and Ronnie Romero were found guilty of qualified theft before the Sandiganbayan. The signed
SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. letters presented as evidence were valid because these were seized incidental to a lawful arrest.
109242, JANUARY 26, 1999
THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE:

VIOLATION OF RIGHTS
PEOPLE VS SIMON, 234 SCRA Although appellant manifested during the custodial investigation that he waived his right to counsel, the waiver
555 was not made in writing and in the presence of counsel, hence whatever incriminatory admission or confession
may be extracted from him, either verbally or in writing, is not allowable in evidence.
PEOPLE VS HERMOSO, G.R. As a general rule, confession made without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence; however, if it
NO. 130590, OCT. 18, 2000 appears that the defense failed to object immediately when a witness was presented for prosecution or when
specific questions concerning the confession were asked, it is deemed that the accused has waived his right to
object to the inadmissibility of such witness’s testimony.
PEOPLE VS PINLAC, 165 SCRA Verbal admissions made during custodial investigation are inadmissible if the rights of the accused were violated.
675 The right of a person to be informed “implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to
explain and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding what is conveyed.”
PEOPLE VS BACAMANTE, 248 Extrajudicial confessions given without the benefit of an effective and vigilant counsel is inadmissible in court.
SCRA 47
PEOPLE VS ANDAN, 269 SCRA the following are not custodial investigations and confessions freely obtained here are admissible:
95 Meeting with the mayor which the accused freely sought and the accused spontaneously made the confessions
without the mayor’s prodding.
Confessions made to the media in answer to media’s questions even while in custody.
PEOPLE VS MONTES, G.R. NO. A confession to be admissible must satisfy all of four fundamental requirements: 1) the confession must be
117166, DEC. 13, 1998 voluntary; 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; 3) the
confession must be express; and 4) the confession must be in writing. Verbal admissions allegedly made by the
accused, at the time of their arrest and before the formal investigation, are inadmissible, both as violative of their
constitutional rights and as hearsay evidence.
PEOPLE VS SALCEDO, 273 Even if the extrajudicial confession of the accused was the truth and there was no coercion enforced, the failure
SCRA 473 of the police to afford to him his rights during a custodial investigation, even when waived, rendered the
confession inadmissible.
PEOPLE VS MACOY, 275 SCRA 1 Although we are in agreement with the accused-appellant that his extrajudicial confession, as testified upon by
Pat. Tumakay, was inadmissible, because it was taken during custodial investigation and without benefit of a
counsel, the other evidences of the prosecution fully sustains Macoy’s conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE VS ARCEO, 202 SCRA Librado subsequently denied having pointed to Pancho as his supplier. Librado's confession was thus
170 not only unfounded, but obtained in gross violation of his fundamental right to counsel.
PEOPLE VS ATREJENIO, G.R. The statement of Patrolman Fradejas is deemed inadmissible in evidence because he was able to obtain such
NO. 120160, JULY 13, 1999 information from the oral confession made by the accused which is violation of the latter’s constitutional rights
provided in Art. 3 Section 12(1) of the constitution.
TAN VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. Petitioner is not affected by the confession of the witness as any admission of guilt of an offense may be given in
134298, AUG. 26, 1999 evidence only against the person admitting or confessing.
PEOPLE VS BINAMIRA, 277 Binamira was not adequately informed of his constitutional right to engage a counsel of his own choic, and, and
SCRA 232 if the lawyer’s role is reduced to being a mere witness to the signing of a prepared document albeit indication
therein compliance with the accused’s constitutional rights, the constitutional standard is not met.
PEOPLE VS TURINGAN, 282 Alternative plea should be rejected since he was not denied of full opportunity to be heard.
SCRA 424
PEOPLE VS PAGAURA, 267 The evidence against the accused was inadmissible because one, he signed the waiver without the assistance of a
SCRA 17 counsel, not knowing its content because he was threatened by the police officers and there was no proof that a
lawyer assisted during the interrogation.
PEOPLE VS QUIDATO, G.R. NO. The affidavits obtained by the police are inadmissible in evidence even though they were voluntarily given
117401, OCT. 1, 1998 because they were made without counsel; it cannot be said that the right was waived because to waive it, if must
first be indicated in writing and in the presence of counsel.
PEOPLE VS SEQUINO, 264 SCRA Sequiño committed robbery with homicide in Cebu City, and the court held that no statement made during the
79 custodial investigation can be admissible since the police did not remind the accused of their right to remain
silent and to be assisted by counsel.
PEOPLE VS ALICANDO,, 251 Physical evidences gathered by the police were declared inadmissible as evidence since they were results of
SCRA 293 custodial interrogation where appellant verbally confessed to the crime without the benefit of counsel.
PEOPLE VS AGUSTIN, 240 SCRA Agustin was acquitted, the court refusing to use evidence against him because it was observed that his lawyer did
541 not fully apprise him of his rights in a way that he was able to fully understand the consequences of his
admission.
PEOPLE VS PAGLINAWAN, 324 Paglinawan was charged of murdering somebody in Butuan City, and the court held that Paglinawan should not
SCRA 97 be liable for the injuries which were proven to be suffered by some of the witnesses, since the case is about
murder and said injuries were not properly charged in the information, hence violating Paglinawan’s
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the offense charged against him.
PEOPLE VS ALEGRIA, 190 SCRA In the case of People vs. Algeria an extrajudicial confession made without the assistance of counsel is
122 inadmissible except with the accused waives them in writing and in the presence of counsel.
PEOPLE VS BRAVO, G.R. NO. Admission made during an “informal talk” prior to custodial investigation proper is not acceptable, any
13562 information or admission given by a person while in custody which may appear harmless at the time without the
competent assistance of an independent counsel is deemed as inadmissible as evidence.
PEOPLE VS BARIQUIT, G.R. NO. After an exhaustive perusal of the records, we find inadmissible the uncounselled extra-judicial admission of
122733, OCT. 2, 2000 accused-appellants, as well as the testimonies of the police officers pertaining thereto, for having been obtained
in clear violation of accused-appellantsÊ rights enshrined in the Constitution; Courts are not allowed to
distinguish between preliminary questioning and custodial investigation proper when applying the exclusionary
rule
PEOPLE VS MALIMIT, 264 SCRA Infractions of the so-called “Miranda rights” render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission
167 made during custodial investigation—the admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue
and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial
investigation (i.e. stolen wallet, ID, residence certificate, and keys from the accused).
PEOPLE VS RIVERA, 245 SCRA The right of the accused to cross-examine a witness is, however, not without limits but is subject to the rules on
421 the admissibility and relevance of evidence.
PEOPLE VS MENESES, 288 Though the it is pointed out that the accused had verbally admitted having committing the crime at the time of
SCRA 95 his arrest and during the investigation, mere assertions by a police office that after an accused was informed of
his constitutional right to remain silent and to counsel he readily admitted his guilt, does not make the supposed
confession admissible against the purported confessant.
PEOPLE VS FIGUEROA, G.R. In the absence of proof that the arresting officers, prior to in-custody questioning, informed the confessant of his
NO. 134056, JULY 6, 2000 constitutional rights, the extrajudicial statements made during custodial investigation, whether inculpatory or
exculpatory, are inadmissible and cannot be considered in the adjudication of a case.
PEOPLE VS PABURADA, G.R. The extrajudicial confession given by accused-appellant to SPO1 Garana is inadmissible in evidence for having
NO. 137118, DEC. 5, 2000 been taken without the assistance of counsel even if it speaks the truth and was given voluntarily.
PEOPLE VS LAPITAJE, G.R. NO. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
132042, FEB. 19, 2003 during an illegal warrantless arrest.
IMMUNITY AGAINST SELF-

INCRIMINATION
GALMAN VS PAMARAN, 138 Even if the Agrava Board is and administrave body, the proceedings are similar to that of criminal proceedings
SCRA 295 wherein all the herein private respondents could not have been compelled to give any statement whether
incriminatory or exculpatory and that they are also entitled to be admonished of their constitutional right to
remain silent, to counsel, and be informed that any and all statements given by them may be used against them
wherein the light of the first portion of Section 5 of P.D. 1886 and the awesome contempt power of the Board to
punish any refusal to testify or produce evidence, We are not persuaded that when they testified, they voluntarily
waived their constitutional rights not to be compelled to be a witness against themselves much less their right to
remain silent.
RE-ENACTMENTS
PEOPLE VS SUAREZ, 267 SCRA Pictures of the re-enactment depicting the accused’s role in the commission of the crime cannot be utilized as
119 evidence of his participation where such re-enactment was conducted without any lawyer assisting the counsel.
APPLICABILITY TO ALIENS
PEOPLE VS WONG CHUEN The mere fact that the counsels of one group of accused jointly represented the other accused did not deprive the
MING, 256 SCRA 182 former of their constitutional right to counsel where said counsels tried to present all the defenses available to
each of the accused and did not put in jeopardy such group’s constitutional right to counsel.
VERBAL CONFESSIONS
PEOPLE VS DENIEGO, 251 In all, under rules laid down by the Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence, a confession to be
SCRA 626 admissible must satisfy all of four fundamental requirements: 1) the confession must be voluntary 2) the
confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; 3) the confession must be
express and 4) the confession must be in writing.
PEOPLE VS BONOLA, 274 SCRA It is not material that appellant’s confession came in verbal form. Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution
238 does not distinguish between verbal and non-verbal confessions. So long as they are uncounselled, they are
inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS SUELA, 373 SCRA A refusal to answer is not an obstruction to an investigation; that the process of investigation could have been
163 "obstructed" should not concern the assisting counsel because his duty is to his clients and not to the prosecution
nor to the police investigators – the counsel should have informed his clients of their right to remain silent.
PEOPLE VS TABOGA, 376 SCRA The court did not err in admitting in evidence accused’s confession to a radio man because such did not form
500 part of custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS BALOLOY, G.R. NO. An extrajudicial confession made without the advice and assistance of counsel and hence inadmissible in
140740, APRIL 12, 2002 evidence could be treated as a verbal admission of the accused that could be established through the testimonies
of the persons who heard it or who conducted the investigation of the accused.
PEOPLE VS GUILLERMO, 420 S A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule
326 when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae is a startling occurrence; (2) the
statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern
the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
CO-ACCUSED NOT BOUND

PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA Amboy Camat and Willie Del Rosario were accused of robbery with homicide. Camat implicated Del Rosario in
52 his extra-judicial confession. An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not
admissible against his co-accused. As against the latter, the confession is hearsay.
WHO MAY RAISE THE

QUESTION
PEOPLE VS BALISTEROS, 237 A confession taken in violation of Sec 12 and 17 of Article III shall be inadmissible in evidence against the
SCRA 499 confessant and the objection can be raised only by the confessant whose right have been violated since such right
is personal in nature.
WHEN MUST THE

OBJECTION BE RAISED
PEOPLE VS SAMUS, G.R. NO. Having made no timely objection to a testimony before the trial court, an appellant cannot raise such question for
135957, SEPT. 17, 2002 the first time on appeal because as such a point the prosecution can no longer present additional evidence as
substitute for that which is claimed to be inadmissible.
PEOPLE VS MONTILLA, 285 “A plea is tantamount to foregoing an objection to the irregularity of one’s arrest.”
SCRA 703
PEOPLE VS SALVATIERRA, 276 Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of
SCRA 55 an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
GAMBOA VS JUDGE CRUZ, 162 Police line-up is not part of custodial investigation because the police officer has not started to ask questions
SCRA 675 designed to elicit information and/or confession. Presence of counsel is not yet required.
MACASIRAY VS PEOPLE, 291 Objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally offered, and in the case of documentary
SCRA 154 evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose
which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary
evidence may be made.
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
PEOPLE VS ESPIRITU, 302 SCRA The confession of Appellant Espiritu is admissible in evidence since it was shown that it was (1) voluntary and
533 (2) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel—it being enough that the counsel is (1)
engaged by anyone acting on behalf of the person under investigation or (2) appointed by the court upon petition
of the said person or by someone on his behalf.
PEOPLE VS LUMANDONG, 327 Anent the issue of admissibility of the extrajudicial confession of the appellant, this Court is guided by four
SCRA 650 fundamental requirements, namely: 1) the confession must be voluntary; 2) the confession must be made with the
assistance of competent and independent counsel; 3) the confession must be express; and 4) the confession must
be in writing.
!An extrajudicial confession will be struck for being involuntary if it had been obtained with the use of coercion,
intimidation, inducement or false promises.
RIGHTS AFTER CUSTODIAL

INVESTIGATION
PEOPLE VS ALICANDO, 251 The burden to prove that an accused waived his right to remain silent and the right to counsel before
SCRA 293 making a confession under custodial interrogation rests with the prosecution
PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN, 194 The receipt signed by de guzman stating that marijuana was seized from him is equates to a confession by him.
SCRA 191 This, being signed through force and intimidation when policemen pointed their guns at him, is inadmissible in
evidence as it was signed without the presence of a counsel and without him being informed of his constitutional
rights.
SECTION 14
DUE PROCESS
PEOPLE VS BORAS, G.R. NO. In consonance with the rights secured by section 14 of Article III of the Constitution, accused-appellant cannot
127495, DEC. 22, 2000 be convicted for the alleged rapes committed other than the one charged in the information, even if the victim
testified to other occasions of rape committed against her by the accused.
PEOPLE VS HORIO, G.R. NO. The retroactive application of procedural rules cannot adversely affect the rights of the offended party that have
137842, AUG. 23, 2002 become vested prior to the effectivity of said rules.
MILITARY TRIBUNAL
OLAGUER VS MILITARY, 150 Trial contemplated in the Constitution is trial by judicial process and military tribunals are not courts.
SCRA 144
TAN VS BARRIOS, 190 SCRA 685 There should be no retroactive nullification of final judgments, whether of conviction or acquittal, rendered by
military courts against civilians before the promulgation of the Olaguer decision unless when the convicted
person or the State shows that there was serious denial of the Constitutional rights of the accused.
PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE
UNITED STATES VS LULING, Accused alleges that Section 316 of Act No. 355 is unconstitutional because it says that certain facts only shall
324 PHIL 725 constitute prima facie proof of guilt; it is established in criminal law that every man is presumed innocent until
his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt but many States have established a different rule and have provided
that certain facts only shall constitute prima facie evidence.
PEOPLE VS MINGOA, 92 PHIL Mingoa committed malversation of public funds in Romblon, and the court held that Art. 217 of the RPC does
856 not violate the constitutional rights of the accused to be presumed innocent since Art. 217 just provides a
rebuttable presumption of guilt once certain facts are proved and that there was a rational connection between
said facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed in the article.
DUMLAO VS COMELEC, 95 The provision of Election Code that the filing of charges for the commission of crimes before a civil or military
SCRA 392 court shall be prima facie evidence of the commission of an act of disloyalty to the State was declared void as it
condemns before one is fully heard, in contravention of constitutional presumption of innocence.
PAMINTUAN VS PEOPLE, 234 Since Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 expressly provides that "mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or
SCRA 63 anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing," it
follows that the petitioner is presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the items found in her possession were
the proceeds of robbery or theft. The presumption is reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise
from the established fact of her possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft and this presumption
does not offend the presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law.
MARQUEZ VS COMELEC, 243 Marquez raised the constitutionality of the term “fugitive from justice” in relation to the constitutional right of
SCRA 538 the presumption of innocence, which was one of the enumerated grounds for disqualification under the Local
Government Code, and the court held that the said provision is constitutional since “flight from justice” is an
indication of guilt hence it is not the challenged disqualifying provision which overcomes the presumption of
innocence but rather the disqualified person himself who has proven his guilt.
HIZON VS CA, 265 SCRA 517 In Hizon vs. CA the SC ruled that the presumption of guilt based on the facts proves is not unconstitutional, the
finding of explosives, poisonous substances, and devices for electric fishing found in the boat will even lead a
reasonably prudent man to believe that the person was engaged in prohibited fishing.
PEOPLE VS CARANGUIAN, G.R. A witness can only testify to those information which he knows of his personal knowledge derived from his own
NO. 124514, JULY 6, 2000 perception, except as otherwise provided in the rules, else it is hearsay because it is based upon "third-hand"
information related to the witness by someone who heard it from others.
PEOPLE VS AQUINO, G.R. NO. When a testimony is capable of two inferences, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence of
130742, JULY 18, 2000 accused- appellant of the crime charged and the other consistent with her guilt as co principal in the commission
of the crime of estafa, the situation calls for the application of the equipoise rule; pursuant to which the Court has
to acquit accused-appellant because the prosecution’s evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and
therefor is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction
PEOPLE VS GUILLERMO, G.R. Even if the killing is deplorable, especially the manner in which it was done, the accused should not be loosely
NO. 111292, JULY 20, 2000 persecuted and condemned in the absence of the required quantum of proof.
PEOPLE VS BALACANO, G.R. The Constitution enshrines in the Bill of Rights the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until the
NO. 127156, JULY 31, 2000 contrary is proved, and to overcome the presumption, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must be
established by the prosecution.
PEOPLE VS MANSUETO, G.R. Even though an accused invokes the inherently weak defense of alibi, such defense acquires commensurate
NO. 135196, JULY 31, 2000 strength where no positive and proper identification has been made by the prosecution witnesses, as the
prosecution still has the onus probandi (burden of proof) in establishing the guilt of the accused.
SORIANO VS ANGELES, G.R. If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of one or more explanations, one of which is consistent
NO. 109920, AUGUST 31, 2000 with innocence and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.
PEOPLE VS FAJARDO, G.R. NO. Since appellant did not present Pamani, the person who was allegedly responsible for the recruitment, as a
128583, NOV. 22, 2000 witness to back up her claim, she risked the adverse inference and legal presumption that evidence would be
evidence adverse if produced.
RUEDA VS SANDIGANBAYAN, The prima facie evidence that public funds have been put to the personal use of a municipal treasurer is
G.R. NO. 129064, NOV. 29, 2000 obliterated by the fact that he did not receive the money and the Court must not reject arbitrarily an explanation
consistent with the presumption of innocence.
PEOPLE VS BAULITE, G.R. NO. In the case at bar because of reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused-appellant, they must be acquitted.
137599, OCT. 8, 2001 "Every accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved; that presumption is solemnly guaranteed by
the Bill of Rights. The contrary requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that degree of proof that produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Short of this, it is not only the right of the accused to be freed; it is even the
constitutional duty of the court to acquit them.
RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND TO

PRODUCTION IF EVIDENCE
MALIWAT VS CA, 256 SCRA 718 Although Maliwat was unable to adduce additional evidence that would establish his innocence, it was noted that
he had sought the postponements and cancellations of the hearings for no less than 40 times from the date of his
arraignment to the promulgation of judgment.
PEOPLE VS BUEMIO, 265 SCRA Both parties must be granted the right to be heard and to produce evidence that should be considered under the
582 circumstances of the case in accordance with due process.
PEOPLE VS RAMILLA, G.R. NO. Fernando was not denied his right to due process because he was afforded the opportunity to present evidence.
127485, JULY 19, 1999 His offer to change his plea from not guilty to guilty clearly meant he accepted the evidence against him and that
he had nothing with which to rebut it.
MARQUEZ VS Evidence cannot properly be weighed if not exhibited or produced before the court.14 Only after evidence is
SANDIGANBAYAN, 641 SCRA offered and admitted that the court can appreciate and evaluate it. The prosecution had already offered its
175 evidence on the
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
PEOPLE VS HOLGADO, 86 PHIL When a defendant appears without attorney, the court has four important duties to comply with: 1 — It must
752 inform the defendant that it is his right to have attorney before being arraigned; 2 — After giving him such
information the court must ask him if he desires the aid of an attorney; 3 — If he desires and is unable to employ
attorney, the court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him; and 4 — If the accused desires to procure an
attorney of his own the court must grant him a reasonable time therefor.
UNITED VS ASH, 413 US 300 A number of informants were asked to identify a number of suspects in connection with a bank robbery, such
identification was challenged by Respondent Ash because counsel was not present. An accused does not have the
right to counsel at a post indictment photographic lineup.
PEOPLE VS RIO, 201 SCRA 702 The right to a counsel does not only involve the act of the Court to inform the accused of such right and whether
he desires such aid or not, the Court should assign one counsel de oficio for him if he desires yet he is poor or
allow him to procure an attorney of his own within a reasonable time; such right should not cease upon the
conviction of an accused by a trial court.
SALAW VS NLRC, 202 SCRA 7 The right to counsel, a very basic requirement of substantive due process, has to be observed and cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
CARILLO VS PEOPLE, 229 SCRA Carillo claims he was deprived of his right to competent representation and his right to be heard due to the
386 incompetence and gross negligence of his lawyer. If Carillo had substantial doubts about the capability of his
counsel, he could have easily terminated his services and retained a new one or sought from the trial court the
appointment of counsel de officio. Courts deems that counsel proved to represent his client with reasonable
competence.
PEOPLE VS MACAGALING, 237 There is no denial of the right to counsel where a counsel de oficio was appointed during the absence of the
SCRA 299 accused’s counsel de parte pursuant to the court’s desire to finish the case as early as practicable under the
continuous trial system.
DE GUZMAN VS For the higher interest of justice and equity, the Court may grant new trial in case of the mistakes and negligence
SANDIGANBAYAN, 256 SCRA of his incompetent lawyer.
171
PEOPLE VS CUIZON, 256 SCRA The right to counsel is essentially denied if the counsel and the accused could not understand and communicate
329 with each other regarding his defense to the point that no memorandum was filed.
PEOPLE VS CABODOC, 263 While the accused under the Bill of Rights has the right to be heard by himself and counsel, such right may be
SCRA 187 waived just like any other personal right.
PEOPLE VS ECHEGARAY, 267 It is a rule that the client is bound by the negligence or mistakes of his counsel but the Supreme Court considered
SCRA 543 Atty. Vitug competent contrary to what the defense thought of him as the alleged errors committed by the
previous counsel could not have overturned the judgment of the conviction against the accused.
REYES VS CA, 267 SCRA 543 The negligence of the counsel must be so gross that it would become a prejudice to the client’s constitutional
right to be heard and to prove his innocence.
PEOPLE VS SERZO, 274 SCRA The right to a counsel is not violated when a court appoints a counsel for the accused, in cases where the choice
553 of the accused of his counsel de parte is waived or in any way not qualified as a counsel, and in this case, the
accused had been given ample time to secure a counsel of his choice but failed to do so.
DANS VS PEOPLE, 285 SCRA Marcos claims that she was not adequately represented by counsel at the trial due to the suspension from the
504 practice of law of her counsel of record but it appears from the records, however, that during the absence of Atty.
Coronel and sometime thereafter, she was still represented by other lawyers. In any event, at the time Atty.
Coronel and his replacements withdrew their respective appearances, all evidence had already been presented; it
is just that Marcos opted not to present any evidence for her defense, relying, perhaps, on what she perceived to
be glaringly weak prosecution evidence or it is not impossible or far-fetched that her refusal may have been due
to her indifference to or open defiance of the justice system.
AMION VS CHIONGSON, A.M. There is no denial of the right to counsel where a counsel de oficio was appointed during the absence
NO. RTJ-97-1371, JAN. 22, 1999 of the accusedÊs counsel de parte pursuant to the courtÊs desire to finish the case as early as
practicable under the continuous trial system
PEOPLE VS AMBRAY, G.R. NO. The qualifying circumstance that the victim is under 18 years old and that the offender is a common law spouse
127177, FEB. 25, 1999 of the victim’s mother was not alleged in the indictment in which he was arraigned thus imposing a penalty of
reclusion perpetua instead of death penalty, its qualified form and P50,000 each for indemnity and moral
damages.
PEOPLE VS BOLATETE, G.R. Although it was established that the accused is the step-father of the victim, the qualifying circumstance was not
NO. 127570, FEB. 25, 1999 alleged in the criminal complaints upon which the accused was arraigned and thus, this omission bars conviction
of rape in its qualified form which is punishable by death.
PEOPLE VS DELA CUESTA, G.R. There is a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape, on which he was arraigned, and be convicted
NO. 126134, MAR. 2, 1999 of qualified rape punishable by death.
PEOPLE VS LAKINDANUM, Rape was committed 10 o’clock in the morning on the 8
G.R. NO. 127123, MAR. 10, 1999 the minor testified showing discernment and stated the crime straightforward.
PEOPLE VS CANTOS, G.R. NO. The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on the accused because in order to warrant the imposition of
129298, APRIL 14, 1999 such, the concurrence of victim’s minority and her relationship with the offender is a special qualifying
circumstance that must be alleged in the information.
PEOPLE VS ALBA, G.R. NO. Accused contends that the charge of rape against him is too general, as a result of which he was not informed of
131858-59, APRIL 14, 1999 the nature and cause of the accusation against him in violation of due process, but this contention is untenable
because an information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts
or omissions constitutive thereof.
PEOPLE VS ONABIA, G.R. NO. Onabia was accused of rape, and the court held that even if some aggravating circumstances can be proved in
128288, APRIL 20, 1999 trial such as relationship, these circumstances cannot be considered if not included in the information filed
against Onabia.
PEOPLE VS BERNAS, G.R. NO. The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding
120420, APRIL 21, 1999 of standards of questions and objections, but it means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance
extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause of the defense and acts accordingly.
PEOPLE VS PEDRES, G.R. NO. None about right to counsel.
129533, APRIL 30, 1999
PEOPLE VS ACALA, G.R. NO. Rey Acala raped his minor daughter on three counts but the death penalty was not imposed because the special
127023-25, MAY 19, 1999 qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship must be both alleged and proved with certainty to be
appreciated however in this case, although it was clear that the victim was his daughter (relationship), her age
(minority) was not alleged in any of the complaints.
PEOPLE VS PUERTOLLANO, (There was no right to be heard in the case, it was about DP) In the case the SC said that the RTC wrongly
G.R. NO. 122423, JUNE 17, 1999 applied Section 11 of RA 7659 in relation to Paragraph 1 of Article 355, rape, of the RPC. The RA states that the
death penalty will be imposed if the person raped is below 18, and has a relation to the offender. The complaint
only stated that the victim was a minor. The information has to be explicit as to the age of the victim.
PEOPLE VS BONGHANOY, G.R. Even if relationship was duly proven during the trial, it cannot be taken into account since he would thereby be
NO. 124097, JUNE 17, 1999 denied his constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS LARENA, G.R. NO. Denial, like alibi, is a weak defense which becomes even weaker in the face of the positive identification of the
121205-09, JUNE 29, 1999 accused by the complaining witness.
PEOPLE VS NUNEZ, G.R. NO. In this case, accused’s counsel and the trial court led him to believe that his plea of guilty would be a mitigating
128875, JULY 8, 1999 circumstance in his favour when in fact it wouldn’t. However, it is a settled rule that a decision based on an
irregular plea may nevertheless be upheld where the judgment is supported by other adequate evidence on
record.
PEOPLE VS RAMILLA, G.R. NO. Accused’s right to due process is not violated for as long as he was given the opportunity to present evidence.
127485, JULY 19, 1999
PEOPLE VS SESBRENO, G.R. Appellant chose to be represented in this case by a competent member of the Bar, namely himself, even if there
NO. 121764, SEPT. 8, 1999 were other available counsel and so he is now estopped from claiming that the trial court violated his right to be
represented by his counsel of his own choice.
PEOPLE VS SANTOCLIDES, G.R. Where an accused was not duly represented by a member of the Philippine Bar during trial, even if the accused
NO. 109149, DEC. 21, 1999 was given an opportunity to be heard and the acting lawyer handled the case of the accused in a professional and
skillful manner, the judgment should be set aside and the case remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
PEOPLE VS SALONGA, G.R. NO. The constitutional right to counsel may be invoked only by a person under custodial investigation for an offense
131131, JUNE 21, 2001 and does not apply in this case where the accused-appellant’s extrajudicial confession was given to a private
person, and not to a police officer or law enforcer.
PEOPLE VS BAGAS, G.R. NO. The police line-up is not included in the custodial investigation as it is the witnesses who are asked questions
104383, JULY 12, 2001 during the line-up and since the inquiry has not yet shifted from investigatory to accusatory, the right to counsel
cannot be invoked by the accused.
PEOPLE VS LIWANAG, G.R. NO. Coupled with the presumption that counsel's performance was reasonable under the circumstances, as long as the
120468, AUGUST 15, 2001 trial was fair in that the accused was accorded due process by means of an effective assistance of counsel, then
the constitutional requirement that an accused shall have the right to be heard by himself and counsel is satisfied
wherein the only instance when the quality of counsel's assistance can be questioned is when an accused is
deprived of his right to due process.
PEOPLE VS BERNAS, 377 SCRA The defense counsel was lackadaisical, if not outrightly incompetent, and did not only fail to protect the rights of
391 his client but even advised him to plead guilty to the information that had failed to allege the essential elements
of qualified rape.
PEOPLE VS CARALIPIO, G.R. While the Constitution recognizes the right of the accused to competent and independent counsel of their own
NO. 137766, NOV. 27, 2002 choice, their option to secure the services of a private counsel is not absolute, such as when the insistence of the
accused in acquiring the services of counsel de parte was merely a strategy to prolong the proceedings of the
case.
SIA VS PEOPLE, 504 SCRA 507 We agree with herein respondent Lee when she said that petitioners were given ample time by the trial court to
get a counsel of their choice, but did not. ven if we were to extend the choice of a counsel to an accused in a
criminal prosecution, the matter of the accused getting a lawyer of his preference cannot be so absolute and
arbitrary as would make the choice of counsel refer exclusively to the predilection of the accused.
BRIONES VS PEOPLE, 588 SCRA An error or mistake committed by a counsel in the course of judicial proceedings is not a ground for new trial. In
362 People v. Mercado (397 SCRA 746 [2003]), we declared: It has been repeatedly enunciated that “a client is
bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and cannot be heard to complain that the result might
have been different if he proceeded differently.
VILLANUEVA VS PEOPLE, 644 If one has to suffer in prison, his/her guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt, availing all the remedies
SCRA 356 provided for under the law to protect her right – it is highly unjust for one to lose her liberty only because of the
gross negligence of her former counsel.
ABSENCE OF VIOLATION
PEOPLE VS AQUINO, G.R. NO. Accused’s contention that the police line-up was not objective and fair is untenable. A police line-up is not
129288, MARCH 30, 2000 indispensable for the proper and fair identification of offenders, the important consideration is for the victim to
positively declare that the persons charged were the malefactors.
VILLANUEVA VS PEOPLE, G.R. A member of the Bar can represent the petitioner without violating his constitutional right to counsel.
NO. 135098, APRIL 12, 2000
PRESENCE OF VIOLATION
PEOPLE VS NADERA, 324 SCRA It is discernible in (a) his refusal to cross-examine; (b) the manner in which he conducted cross-examination;
490 and, (c) his failure not only to present evidence for the accused but also to inform the accused of his right to do
so, if he desires.
CALLANGAN VS PEOPLE, 493 The omissions of petitioner’s counsel amounted to an abandonment or total disregard of her case. The rule that
SCRA 269 the negligence of counsel binds the client admits of exceptions: (1) counsel’s reckless or gross negligence
deprives client of due process of law, (2) its application results in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or
property or (3) where the interests of justice so require.
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
PEOPLE VS REGALA, 113 SCRA When a crime is not properly alleged in the body of the information, the fact that the crime of assault was
613 established by the evidence of the prosecution without any objection as the part of the accused can’t likewise
cure the aforestated defect in the information since it is a violation of his constitutional right to be informed of
the malice and cause of the accusations against him.
ENRILE VS SALAZAR, 186 As laid down in Hernandez doctrine, an information charging the petitioners with rebellion complexed with
SCRA 217 murder and multiple frustrated murder is clearly void ab initio and therefore, charges nothing.
PEOPLE VS TAGUBA, 229 SCRA Accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation agasint him and could only be
188 penalized for offenses stated in the information.
PEOPLE VS BARTE, 230 SCRA Considering that nowhere in the Information is it alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm, an accused cannot
401 be convicted of Murder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm under P.D. 1866, even if the prosecution has established
that accused-appellant was not legally issued any firearm to qualify the crime to Murder with Use of Unlicensed
Firearm, because it would violate a fundamental constitutional precept, i.e., that the accused shall have the right
to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS VITOR, 245 SCRA The testimony of children of sound mind is likewise to be more correct and truthful than that of older persons so
392 that once established that they have fully understood the character and nature of an oath, their testimony should
be given full credence
SABINIANO VS CA, 249 SCRA A mere signature or approval appearing on a voucher, check or warrant is not enough to sustain a finding of
24 conspiracy among public officials and employees charged with defraudation. Proof, not mere conjectures or
assumptions, should be proffered to indicate that the accused had taken part.
PEOPLE VS REYES, 242 SCRA The fact that there are only two complainants alleged in the information when in fact there should have been
264 more is not a violation of the right to be informed.
PEOPLE VS LEGASPI, 246 SCRA Appellants were charged with two separate informations but their conviction can only be limited to the crime
206 alleged or necessarily included in the allegations in the separate informations. What controls is the description of
the offense, as alleged in the information. While the trial court can hold a joint trial of two or more criminal cases
and can render a consolidated decision, it cannot convict the accused of a complex crime constitutive of the
various crimes alleged in the two informations. Thus, the accused were deprived of their constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.
PEOPLE VS RAMOS, 245 SCM A reading of the information clearly shows that accused-appellant was charged with the commission of
405 only one act of rape. He can, therefore, be convicted of only one crime of rape even if the evidence
shows that two separate acts of rape were committed.
PEOPLE VS NAMAYAN, 246 Even if it was proven that there were three acts of rape, there can be prosecution for only one since the
SCRA 646 information filed charges one offense only.
PECHO VS PEOPLE, 262 SCRA There is absolutely no merit in the petitioner’s claim that he could not be convicted of the said crime without
518 offending his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, as 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.
PEOPLE VS LAURENTE, 255 On the matter of the an accused right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, what determines
SCRA 543 the offense charged is not the characterization made by the prosecutor who prepared the information, but the
allegations in the indictment.
PEOPLE VS ROSARE, 264 SCRA Carnal knowledge of an insane woman is rape. There is lack of capacity to consent and it is presumed without
398 her consent.
PEOPLE VS EVANGELISTA, 256 In the event that the accused gives a confession without the benefit of being warned of his rights to remain silent
SCRA 611 and to counsel, the evidence will be inadmissible – this is the so-called “Miranda warnings” and it only applies
when the investigation has began to focus on the guilt of an accused and the latter has been taken into custody.
PEOPLE VS CRUZ, 259 SCRA From the victim’s testimony, accused succeeded in raping her in the past but not on April 25, 1991, accused
109 cannot be convicted for consummated rape on the basis of the testimony as the complaint specifically refers to
the offense committed on April 25; due process demands that the accused in a criminal case should be informed
of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial – to convict him for an offense not
alleged in the complaint will violate such right.
PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN, 265 De Guzman was accused of rape, and the court held that there can only be one conviction for rape if the
SCRA 228 information charges only one offense, even if the evidence shows three separate acts of sexual intercourse.
SALUD IMSON-SOUWEHA VS The Court ruled that the respondent in this case was not reprimanded by virtue of his alleged falsification since it
RONDEZ, 279 SCRA 258 would be in contravention of his fundamental right to be informed of the nature of the charge for which he is
being held to be accountable.
PEOPLE VS MANANSALA, 273 The decision of the trial court was reversed and Dante Manansala was acquitted because Considering the
SCRA 502 allegations in the complaint that the rape in this case was committed “by means of force, violence and
intimidation,” accused-appellant cannot possibly be convicted of qualified seduction without offense to the
constitutional rights of the accused to due process and to be informed of the accusation against him. That charge
does not include qualified seduction. Neither can qualified seduction include rape.
PEOPLE VS PALOMAR, 278 Palomar et al were found guilty of killing the dela Peña family however, even if the prosecution had actually
SCRA 114 proven four separate counts of murder, the Information charged only the complex crime of multiple murder
without specifying the participation of each accused in the killing of each victim; thus, the appellants cannot be
convicted of four counts of murder because to do so would contravene appellants’ right to “be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against them and if found guilty, to be penalized only for the offense specified
in the information or necessarily included in such offense.
PEOPLE VS ORTEGA, 276 SCRA In the case of People vs. Ortega the prosecution alleged in its information that Ortega assaulted and stabbed the
166 body of Ablola, but the evidence pointed to him only concealing the crime. The SC held that a person can not be
convicted of an offense which is not clearly charged in the complaint and the information.
PEOPLE VS ANTIDO, 278 SCRA If indeed purported victim were raped, she would not have stayed in accused’s house after said incident, as there
425 was no credible evidence that accused prevented victim from detaining her against her will and the relationship
of the accused and victim after the incidents raise serious doubts as to the commission of rape.
PEOPLE VS SADIOSA, 290 SCRA Right to be Informed; The main purpose of the requirement that the acts or omissions complained of as
92 constituting an offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language is to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged so that he could suitably prepare for his defense
PEOPLE VS VILLAMORE, G.R. The failure to state the age of the complainant in the information cannot be considered as a violation of the right
NO. 12444, OCT. 7, 1998 of the accused to be informed of the charge against him where it would be illogical not to assume that when
accused ravished the complainant, he was aware that his victim was a mere slip of a girl, unsophisticated and
defense-less.
There was a substantial compliance when the Order issued by the investigating judge, a copy of which was
attached in the record of the preliminary investigation, clearly stated that the complainant was nine years old.
PEOPLE VS ROSARE, 264 SCRA An incomplete information filed does not bar a case from pursuing.
398
PEOPLE VS LLAGUNO, 285 Accused Wilfredo (Boy) Llaguno and Judy Reyes pleaded not guilty to the charge but accused “Atis” was at
SCRA 124 large; hence, he was not arraigned. (note: there was no issue in the case on the right to be informed; I got this
from the FACTS of the case)
PEOPLE VS BUGAYONG, G.R. Accused cannot be said to have been deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against
NO. 126518, DEC. 2, 1998 him since despite the duplicitous nature of the information filed against him, which as a general rule, is defective
for charging more than one offense, he did not object to such defect.
PEOPLE VS MANALILI, 294 To convict an accused of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information (in this case:
SCRA 220 attempted robbery, multiple frustrated murder and qualified illegal possession of firearms used in multiple
murder) would be violative of his constitutional right.
PEOPLE VS DIMAPILIS, G.R. One accused of qualified rape cannot be meted the death penalty where the relationship between the accused and
NO. 128619, DEC. 17, 1998 the victim—the daughter of accused’s common-law spouse by the latter’s previous relationship with another man
—has not been properly alleged in the Information which erroneously referred to the victim as being, instead, the
“step-daughter” of the accused because a step-daughter is a daughter of one’s spouse by a previous marriage or
the daughter of one of the spouses by a former marriage.
PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN, 289 The essence of the plea of guilty in a criminal trial is that the accused admits his guilt freely, voluntarily, and with
SCRA 470 full knowledge of the consequences and meaning of his act, and with a clear understanding of the precise nature
of the crime or crimes charged in the complaint or information and a plea of guilty, when formally entered on
arraignment, is sufficient to sustain a conviction of any offense charged in the information without the
introduction of further evidence, the defendant himself having supplied the necessary proof by his plea of guilty.
PEOPLE VS QUITLONG, 292 The complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime
SCRA 360 charged.
PEOPLE VS PEREZ, G.R. NO. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and, consequently, a
122764, SEPT. 24, 1998 denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form punishable by
death, although the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in capital punishment was not
alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned.
PEOPLE VS RENIDO, 288 SCRA Appellant cannot be held liable for more than what he was charged with. There can only be a conviction for two
369 counts of rape because each of the two informations charges only one offense of rape, even if the evidence shows
that six separate acts of forcible sexual intercourse took place.
PEOPLE VS VENERABLE, 290 It is well-settled that if the information charges only one offense, even if the evidence shows three other acts of
SCRA 15 forcible intercourse, conviction for only one rape is proper.
PEOPLE VS LOZANO, G.R. NO. An accused cannot be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information; one
125080, SEPT. 25, 1998 has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to convict him of an offense
other than that charged in the complaint or information would be a violation of this constitutional right, even if
the evidence shows three separate acts of a crime. (Hornbook Doctrine)
PEOPLE VS PADILLA, G.R. NO. The minor inconsistencies in the rape victim’s testimonies are to be expected of a young girl who has been raped
126124, JAN. 20, 1999 and do not detract from the veracity of such testimony.
PEOPLE VS ACOSTA, G.R. NO. It is a violation of the right to be informed if an accused is convicted of qualified rape which the elements and
142726, OCTOBER 17, 2011 circumstances were not brought upon and informed to him because he was arraigned of a different crime of
simple rape.
PEOPLE VS DE LA PENA, G.R. The conviction of an accused of a crime in its qualified form, where the information failed to specify the
NO. 138358-59, NOV. 19, 2001 circumstance that qualified the crime, is a denial of his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation
against him.
PEOPLE VS ABINO, G.R. NO. Abino cannot be convicted of rape committed through intimidation as a result of his moral ascendancy, even if it
137288, DEC. 11, 2001 were proven beyond reasonable doubt since the Information was alleging rape of a woman who was “asleep and
unconscious.” Convicting him of rape done by intimidation violates his right “to be informed of nature and cause
of the accusation against him.”
PEOPLE VS TAN, G.R. NO. Accused can’t be convicted of a crime with which they were not charged since it is not the designation of the
116200-02, JUNE 21, 2001 offense in the information described by the prosecution that governs, rather it is the allegations
PEOPLE VS TAGANA, G.R. NO. The precise date of the commission of the offense need not be stated with particularity nor is time an essential
137608-09, JULY 6, 2001 ingredient of rape; however, so as to not to deprive the accused of his constitutional right to be informed of the
charges against him, the date must be stated as near to the actual date as the information will permit so as to
afford the defendant an opportunity to prepare an intelligent defense.
PEOPLE VS ALCALDE, G.R. NO. Included in the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is the correlative obligation to
139225, MAY 29, 2002 convey to the accused information in order to prepare for his defense.
PEOPLE VS MEJECA, G.R. NO. The use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of murder or homicide is a qualifying circumstance.
146425, NOV. 21, 2002 Following the well established rules pertinent to this issue, the imposition of capital punishment on accused-
appellant is improper absent the express allegation of such qualifying circumstance, otherwise it would violate
his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS ESURINA, 374 SCRA Testimony of a person as to his age, although a hearsay, is admissible as evidence of family tradition, it cannot be
429 considered as proof of age beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE VS TOGUD, 375 SCRA The judge must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension by the accused of his
291 plea of guilt.
PEOPLE VS ESPEJON, 377 SCRA There is no violation of the right to be informed on the basis of the prosecution’s failure to allege the specific
412 actual date of the rape since the exact date of the commission of the crime is not an essential element of rape, for
the gravemen of the offense is the fact of having had carnal knowledge of a woman by means of force or
intimidation.
PEOPLE VS LAVADOR, 377 Under Sec. 11 of RA 7659, the death penalty shall be imposed for the crime of rape if the victim is under
SCRA 424 eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
These must be jointly alleged in the information in order to afford the accused his right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him; otherwise the accused can only be convicted of the crime in its
simple form.
PEOPLE VS HERMANES, 379 Appellant's conviction of qualified rape violates his constitutional right to be properly informed of the
SCRA 190 nature and cause of accusation against him because only the elements of simple rape was established
by the prosecution.
PEOPLE VS PORTUGAL, 379 Minority was not included in the information. Therefore, the penalty of death cannot be imposed because it has
SCRA 212 been held that minority and relationship should both be alleged in the information in order to impose death
penalty.
PEOPLE VS BALUYA, 380 SCRA The accused is only liable for simple rape, considering that the seven attendant circumstances are in the nature of
533 special qualifying circumstances which, unlike generic aggravating circumstances which may be appreciated and
proved even if not alleged, cannot be considered as such unless so alleged in the information even if proved.
PEOPLE VS AROFO, 380 SCRA As a general rule, inconsistency between two statements of a witness should be determined, not by resort to
533 individual words and phrases alone, but by the whole impression or effect of what has been said or done.
PEOPLE VS CANA, G.R. NO. Complainant was below 12 years of age, even though there was no force or intimidation, carnal knowledge of the
139229, JUNE 6, 2002 woman is rape.
PEOPLE VS SORIANO, G.R. NO. The accused can only be held liable for the rape committed near the creek … because he cannot be convicted of a
135027, JULY 3, 2002 crime with which he has not been charged even if the evidence shows that he committed the same.
PEOPLE VS RADAM, G.R. NO. Although the rape of a girl under 18 years of age by the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother is punishable
138395, JULY 18, 2002 by death, this penalty cannot be imposed on appellant as a different relationship was alleged in the Information
and the victim’s minority was not proved by independent evidence.
PEOPLE VS ABALA, G.R. NO. Abala was accused of rape, and the court held that Abala cannot be convicted of qualified rape since only the
135858, JULY 23, 2002 qualifying circumstance of minority was alleged in the information even if the circumstance of relationship,
which was not alleged in the information, was also proven during trial.
PEOPLE VS ROMERO, G.R. NO. The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and ruled that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not
137037, AUG. 5, 2002 an indication of a fabricated charge.
PEOPLE VS MAGTIBAY, G.R. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of rape was affirmed because ot appears that there was no
NO. 142985, AUG. 6, 2002 allegation of the age and minority of the victim in the Information. The requisite for complete allegations on the
particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges
against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense, pursuant to the due process clause of the
Constitution.
PEOPLE VS MICLAT, G.R. NO. The prosecution proved that Miclat is the maternal uncle of his rape victim, which relationship falls within the
137024, AUG. 7, 2002 purview of the qualifying circumstance of “relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree of the
victim” however, only the minority of the victim was alleged in the information notwithstanding that the law
requires allegation of both the victim’s age and her relationship with appellant, and proof of both circumstances
beyond reasonable doubt at the trial hence, Miclat can only be held liable for simple rape and the death penalty
imposed by the trial court must be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE VS GUARDIAN, G.R. As a general rule, a complaint must charge only one offense, but it can charge for more than one offense if the
NO. 142900, AUG. 7, 2002 law provides a single punishment for various offenses.
PEOPLE VS OCAMPO, G.R. NO. While appellant admits that the complainant is her daughter and that there is evidence to show that the latter was
145303, AUG. 7, 2002 less than eighteen years of age when the crime was committed, her age was not alleged in the Information filed
against appellant thus the special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship cannot be appreciated
against him.
PEOPLE VS DEL AYRE, G.R. NO. The reason why the death penalty cannot be imposed, even for the second offense, is that the father-daughter
139788, OCT. 3, 2002 relationship of the parties was not alleged in the Information
PEOPLE VS CALISO, G.R. NO. Accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape and be imposed with the penalty of death when the information
131475, OCT. 14, 2002 merely charged him with simple rape and failed to specify the rape victim’s age at the time the crime was
committed.
PEOPLE VS BUADO, G.R. NO. An appellate court will not disturb the credence the trial court accorded to the testimonies of the witnesses unless
137341, OCT. 28, 2002 the trial court is shown to have overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded the facts and circumstances of significance
in the correct resolution of the case.
PEOPLE VS ALEMANIA, G.R. The conviction of an accused of a crime in its qualified form, where the information failed to specify the
NO. 146221, NOV. 13, 2002 circumstance that qualified the crime, is a denial of his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation
against him (and, consequently, a denial of due process).
PEOPLE VS TERIBLE, G.R. NO. It would be a denial of appellant’s constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him and,
140635, NOV. 18, 2002 consequently, a denial of due process if he is charged with rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A and be
convicted of the qualified form under paragraph 1 which is punishable with death although the same was not
alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned.
PEOPLE VS VICTOR, G.R. NO. The appellants, through their failure to move for quashal before arraignment, are deemed to have waived their
127904, DEC. 5, 2002 constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against them and are considered charged with the offenses of
illegal possession of firearms and multiple murder.
PEOPLE VS VELASQUEZ, 377 Under Rule 112, §7(3) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, requests for preliminary investigation must
SCRA 219 be made to the trial court within five days from the time the accused learns of the filing of complaint or
information.
PEOPLE VS LACHICA, G.R. NO. Finally, appellant relies on denial and alibi. Settled is the rule that such lines of defense in a criminal trial cannot
143677, MAY 9, 2002 take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party and it must be pointed out that the
circumstances of minority and relationship, as provided under paragraph 1 of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code as amended, must both be alleged in the information; otherwise, the penalty of death cannot be imposed.
PEOPLE VS SAJOLGA, G.R. NO. For the purpose of imposing death penalty, the accused must be informed of the qualifying circumstances of the
146684, crime with which he is charged.
PEOPLE VS RAMOS, G.R. NO. The denial of the right to be informed to the accused results to the violation of due process in criminal
142577, DEC. 27, 2002 proceedings.
PEOPLE VS MASCARINAS, G.R. In the instant case, the exact age of the victim should have been asserted. The term minority is too technical and
NO. 144034, MAY 28, 2002 therefore it must be stated because the age is what makes it qualified rape.
PEOPLE VS SANCHEZ, 375 An accused can be convicted only of as many offenses as are charged and proved.
SCRA 355
PEOPLE VS ABAYON, G.R. NO. An accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information since
142874, JULY 31, 2002 he has that right under the Constitution to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; it is
axiomatic that the accused can only be convicted for a crime duly charged and proved.
PEOPLE VS GAVINA, G.R. NO. The element of unconsciousness on the victim’s part was not alleged in the information filed for rape against
143237, OCT. 28, 2002 accused and therefore cannot be made the basis of conviction without violating appellant’s right to due process,
in particular to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS ORBITA, G.R. NO. The right to be informed includes the right to be informed clearly of how the decision has been reached by the
136591, JULY 11, 2002 court; a person charged with rape under the first paragraph of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, they can be
convicted of the second and third paragraph of the same article even if the information did not include the
victim’s mental status.
DADO VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall first be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
131421, NOV. 18, 2002 him.
SANTOS VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. Virgilio Santos was convicted of attempted rape with the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, but the latter
14761, JAN. 20, 2002 was not alleged. Any circumstance that would qualify or aggravate the crime charged must be specified in the
information. A penal statute, whether substantive or procedural, shall be given a retroactive effect if favorable to
the accused. Aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated.
PEOPLE VS BON, G.R. NO. But in criminal cases, speculation and probabilities can’t take the place of proof required to establish the guilt of
149199, JAN. 28, 2003 the accused beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion, no matter how strong, must not sway judgment.
PEOPLE VS LLANTO, G.R. NO. So as to afford fairness, “if the offender is merely a relation – not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, or guardian or
146458, JAN. 20, 2003 common law spouse of the mother of the victim – it must be alleged in the Information that he is ‘a relative by
consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third civil degree.’”
PEOPLE VS MIGRANTE, G.R. Special qualifying circumstances must be concurrently and simultaneously alleged in the information.
NO. 147606, JAN. 14, 2003
PEOPLE VS DY, G.R. NO. Accused-appellants were substantially informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them when
115326-37, JAN. 16, 2003 their counsel received a copy of the Prosecutor’s resolution maintaining the charge for rape and acts of
lasciviousness. The failure to read the complaint or information in a language or dialect known to them was
essentially a procedural infirmity that was eventually non-prejudicial to accused-appellants.
PEOPLE VS LAPITAJE, G.R. NO. In consonance with article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, rules are given retroactive effect if it is beneficial to the
132042, FEB. 19, 2003 accused.
PEOPLE VS OSTIA, G.R. NO. The trial court is also required to probe thoroughly into the reasons as well as the facts and circumstances for the
131804, FEB. 26, 2003 change of plea of the accused and his comprehension of his plea; explain to him the elements of the crime for
which he is charged as well as the nature and effect of qualifying circumstances, generic aggravating
circumstances and mitigating circumstances in the commission thereof; and inform him of the imposable penalty
and his civil liabilities for the crime for which he would plead guilty to. Merely reading and translating it to the
accused is not enough.
PEOPLE VS GANETE, G.R. NO. Since the relationship of the private complainant and the appellant was not alleged in the Information, the
142930, MARCH 28, 2003 appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape, to which the relationship of the accused with the victim is
substantial, otherwise he would be deprived of his right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him.
GARCIA VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. The Information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute and aver the acts or omissions
144785, SEPT. 11, 2003 constituting the offense because the real nature of the crime charged is determined by the facts alleged in the
Information and not by the title or designation of the offense contained in the caption of the Information. What
facts and circumstances are necessary to be alleged in the Information must be determined by reference to the
definition and essential elements of the specific crimes.
PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA, G.R. Since the preamble or caption, in the case at bar, states that Rogelio Villanueva is her father (referring
NO. 138364, OCT. 15, 2003 to Reseilleta), then it adequately informed the accused that his daughter was charging him of the acts
contained in the succeeding paragraph.
BURGOS VS An information for violation of RA3019 has been filed against petitioners but information only allege the
SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. allowance of petitioners of payment of certain amount of money despite knowing that survey instruments used
123144, OCT. 15, 2003 were not functional. Petitioners contend that information is not correct because the survey instruments were
functional thus they cannot be convicted of the crime. Court says information in itself is valid. It is only that the
Sandiganbayan erred in convicting them for an act that was not alleged therein which is paying the said amount
when the survey instruments are indeed operational.
PEOPLE VS ROTE, G.R. NO. The Court has consistently held that where the information merely alleged the minority of the victim but not the
146188, DEC. 11, 2003 fact of relationship with the accused, the latter is liable only for simple rape punishable with reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE VS RATA, G.R. NO. Where the prosecution fails to conjointly allege and prove the qualifying circumstances of minority and
145523-24, DEC. 11, 2003 relationship, the accused is liable only for the crime of simple rape in line with his right to be informed of the
case against him.
ANDAYA VS PEOPLE, 493 SCRA Preparation of a private document constitutes falsification when causing to appear that persons have participated
539 in any act or proceeding when in fact they did not.
PEOPLE VS ESTRADA, 583 Unfortunately for the People, the imprecision in the use of “OR” is the reality the case has to live with. To act
SCRA 302 contrary to this reality would violate Estrada’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against
him; the multiple transactions on several separate days that the People claims would result in surprise and denial
of an opportunity to prepare for Estrada, who has a right to rely on the single day mentioned in the Information.
PEOPLE VS ABELLA, 610 SCRA The qualifying circumstance that the accused knew of the mental disability of the offended party was not alleged
19 in the information, thus he may only be convicted of statutory or simple rape committed with the use of a deadly
weapon instead of qualified rape.
PEOPLE VS PANGILINAN, G.R. Pangilinan was accused of rape and sexual abuse, and the court held that the information filed against him
NO. 183090, NOV. 14, 2011 regarding sexual abuse was void for being violative of his constitutional right to be informed since it did not
contain the essential facts constituting the offense, but a statement of a conclusion of law.
RELATIONSHIP
PEOPLE VS CEPEDON, 542 S 550 Relationship as a qualifying circumstance may be alleged in layman’s terms like stating that the victim was the
younger sister of the appellant, and need not mention that the victim is a “relative within the second degree of
consanguinity” since the sister-brother relationship clearly falls in the second civil degree.
PEOPLE VS TALAN, G.R. NO. Talan claimed that the qualifying circumstance of relationship should not be considered and the Court agreed
177354, NOV. 14, 2009 because the qualifying circumstance of relationship must be specifically alleged in the information - the
information must clearly state that "the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim.
PEOPLE VS ESTRADA, 610 The Information must succinctly state that appellant Estrada is a relative within the 3rd civil degree by
SCRA 222 consanguinity or affinity of his rape victim; it is immaterial that Estrada admitted that the victim is his niece and
that “AAA” testified that appellant is her uncle.
PEOPLE VS CORPUZ, 577 SCRA The prosecution stated in the information that the relationship of AAA and BBB is one of step father and step
465 daughter, thus it should qualify the crime of rape. But during trial it was proven that this relation was non-
existent, because AAA and the mother of BBB were only common law spouses, this is also aggravating, but in
order for it to qualify it must be alleged in the information, in this case a different one was alleged.
PEOPLE VS REGINO, 582 SCRA While witnesses may be said to be interested by reason of their relationship with one of the parties, their
189 declarations should not be disregarded or rejected capriciously on the ground of apparent bias alone where they
are reasonable, consistent and supported by other facts and circumstances.
NATURE OF THE OFFENSE:

DIFFERENT OFFENSE, SAME
OFFENSE
PEOPLE VS PAGLINAWAN, 324 The prosecution must adduced proof to satisfy the requirements establishing this qualifying circumstance of
SCRA 97 premeditation. Mere presumptions and inferences are insufficient
PEOPLE VS PARAMIL, G.R. NO. The accused-appellants herein can only be convicted of, and penalized for, the crimes with which they were
128056-57, MAR. 31, 2000 charged or those necessarily included therein.
EVANGELISTA VS PEOPLE, G.R. To convict the accused of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information would be a violation
NO. 108135-36, AUG. 14, 2000 of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and charge against him.
PEOPLE VS PUZON, G.R. NO. The conviction of appellant for statutory rape absent any allegation in the information that the complainants were
123156-59, AUG. 29, 2000 below 12 years of age at the time of the rape, and not for rape through force or intimidation, which was the
method alleged - would violate the right of the appellant to be informed of the nature of the accusation against
him.
PEOPLE VS VALDESANCHO, While the date of commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime, the dates when the rapes were
G.R. NO. 137051-52, MAY 30, committed are nonetheless essential to the accused’s defense of alibi and thus, for failure of the prosecution to
2001 allege in the information and prove during trial the correct dates of the rapes allegedly committed against the
victim, the accused is deprived of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS DAWISAN, G.R. NO. There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only one offense, even if the evidence
122095, SEPT. 13, 2001 shows that more than one was in fact committed.
MAPAS VS PEOPLE, 544 S 85 Even if the information charged the accused with frustrated homicide, a finding of guilt for the lesser offense of
less serious physical injuries may be made considering that the latter offense is necessarily included in the
former, and since the essential ingredients of physical injuries constitute and form part of those constituting the
offense of homicide.
PACTOLIN VS As the courts has discoursed, no substantial right of Pactolin has been impaired nor has there been any violation
SANDIGANBAYAN, 554 S 136 of his right to due process because he had been adequately informed by the detailed litany of the charges leveled
against him in the information and had the occasion to confront witnesses against him and the opportunity to
question documents presented by the prosecution wherein under no circumstance in this case has his right to due
process been violated.
PEOPLE VS HU, 567 S 697 In offenses in which the number of victims is essential, failure of the prosecution to prove by convincing
evidence that the offense is committed against the minimum number of persons required by law is fatal to its
cause of action.
ABSENCE OF QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE
PEOPLE VS RONATO, G.R. NO. An accused must be informed of the cause and the nature of the accusation against him and in this case, since
124298, OCT. 11, 1999 abuse of superior strength qualifies the crime to murder, accused-appellant should have been apprised of this fact
from the beginning to prepare for his defense.
PEOPLE VS BAYRON, G.R. NO. This circumstance must, however, be alleged in the information because it is the nature of a qualifying
122732, SEPT. 7, 1999 circumstance. It was not alleged in this case, with the result that it can only be treated as a generic aggravating
circumstance.
PEOPLE VS ABELLA, G.R. NO. The Court emphasizes anew that in decreeing the death penalty under the aforequoted law, the information or
131847, SEPT. 22, 1999 complaint must specifically allege the qualifying circumstances that would justify the imposition of that extreme
penalty.
PEOPLE VS GALLO, G.R. NO. Absent a specific allegation that accused-appellant is the victim’s father; accused-appellant’s relationship to the
124736, SEPT. 29, 1999 victim, although proven during the trial, cannot be considered to be a qualifying circumstance.
PEOPLE VS PANIQUE, G.R. NO. The fact that complainant was below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime and that the
125763, OCT. 13, 1999 accused-appellant is her ascendant were not alleged in the information. The minority of the victim and her
relationship to the offender constitute a special qualifying circumstance which should be alleged in the
information and proved to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.
PEOPLE VS AGUINALDO, G.R. The qualifying circumstances introduced in RA 7659 must be included in the information for rape in order for it
NO. 130784, OCT. 3, 1999 to properly qualify the crime and justify the penalty prescribed by the law because it would be invalid to convict
the accused of a qualified crime without such qualifications included in the preliminary charges against the
accused.
PEOPLE VS TABION, G.R. NO. The accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to death, consistent with the Court's ruling in
132715, OCT. 20, 1999 People v. Ramosboth that the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be clearly alleged in
the information.
PEOPLE VS TORIO, G.R. NO. Torio was convicted of attempted rape. Being "the common-law spouse of the parent of a victim" coupled with
132216, NOV. 7, 1999 the minority of the victim is a special qualifying circumstance that would have called for the death penalty, but
neither was this alleged in the Information. Penalty for simple rape was applied.
PEOPLE VS ALFANTA, G.R. NO. As an ordinary aggravating circumstance, nighttime can be so considered provided it is duly proved although not
125633, DEC. 9, 1999 alleged in the information.
PEOPLE VS FLORES, G.R. NO. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him, and consequently, a
123599, DEC. 13, 1999 denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape only on which he was arraigned, and be convicted of
qualified rape punishable by death.
PEOPLE VS RAMON, G.R. NO. Qualifying circumstance must be properly impleaded in the indictment; if the circumstance is not impleaded but
130407, DEC. 15, 1999 proven then it would only be considered as an aggravating circumstance, to do otherwise would violate the right
of the accused to be informed of the charges against him.
PEOPLE VS VILLAR, 322 SCRA Although the circumstances to qualify simple rape to the heinous crime of rape, namely: (a) victim under 18
390 years old (the certificate of live birth – exhibit "A" was admitted by the defense), and (b) the offender being a
guardian, were duly proven in the present case, these circumstance cannot considered for purposes of imposing
the extreme penalty of death unless these were alleged in the information.
PEOPLE VS BERNALDEZ, 322 If no qualifying circumstance were alleged in the information, accused cannot be sentenced to death.
SCRA 762
PEOPLE VS FLORES, 322 SCRA Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict provided the following requisites are present, namely: (1) there is
779 more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived from are proven; and (3) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The
circumstantial evidence must constitute an unbroken chain of events so as to lead to a fair and reasonable
conclusion that points to the guilt of the accused.
PEOPLE VS PALANCO, 322 The accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape since the minority of the child and her relationship to the
SCRA 790 accused, which are elements needed to be prosecuted for qualified rape, were not alleged in the information.
PEOPLE VS BACULE, 323 SCRA While the prosecution did prove that appellant was the common-law spouse of the victim's parent, such fact was
734 not alleged in the information. The Court held that the failure to allege in the information the relationship
between the accused and the victim constituted a violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature
and cause of accusation against him. It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed must
be alleged in the complaint or information because the main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime
to be set out in an information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no
independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.
PEOPLE VS BARTOLOME, 323 To impose the death penalty on the basis of the relationship of the accused to the victim, which has not
SCRA 836 been alleged in the information, would violate JOHNNY's constitutional and statutory right to be
informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS BAYONA, 327 SCRA The accused is the father of the rape victim. The information failed to include the qualifying circumstance of
190 relationship therefore, the crime committed is simple rape and not qualified rape.
PEOPLE VS SIAO, 327 SCRA 231 Since the use of a deadly weapon increases the penalty as opposed to a generic aggravating circumstance which
only affects the period of the penalty, said fact should be alleged in the information, because of the accused’s
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS BAYZO, 327 SCRA The purpose on the rules of criminal procedure is to uphold the defendant’s right to be informed, and specifically
771 to, (1) To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make the
defense, (2) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the
same cause, (3) To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law
to support a conviction, if one should be had.
PEOPLE VS DE LOS SANTOS, Appellant was charged with a complex crime of multiple murders, multiple frustrated murders, and multiple
G.R. NO. 121906, AUG. 5, 2000 attempted murders. Victims sustained injuries either died or death was prevented creating the complex crime.
PEOPLE VS FRAGA, G.R. NO. The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on the accused for each count of rape because in order to
134130-33, APRIL 12, 2000 impose such penalty, there should be concurrence of victim’s minority and her relationship with the offender
which must be alleged in the information pursuant to the right of an accused to information as to the nature and
cause of accusation against him which in this case, the relationship was not alleged – it was only said that the
accused was the victims’ stepfather.
PEOPLE VS LICANDA, G.R. NO. The penalty for rape can be aggravated to death when the circumstance of filiation is present but this qualifying
134084, MAY 4, 2000 circumstance must be proven as alleged in the information.
PEOPLE VS SABREDO, G.R. NO. Sabredo was accused of rape, and the court held that Sabredo cannot be convicted of qualified rape since the
126114, MAY 11, 2000 information did not allege that offender and offended party were relatives within the third degree of
consanguinity even if it was proven during trial.
PEOPLE VS ALICANTE, G.R. The Court affirmed the imposition of death penalty upon the accused for conviction for the crime of rape
NO. 127026-27, MAY 31, 2000 qualified by minority of the victim and father-daughter relationship between the accused and the victim.
PEOPLE VS TRAYA, G.R. NO. The fact of the minority of the victim was not stated in the Information and only the relationship of the victim as
129052, MAY 31, 2000 the daughter of the offender was alleged therein. The rule is that the elements of minority of the victim and her
relationship to the offender must concur and the failure to allege one of these elements precludes the imposition
of the death penalty.
PEOPLE VS MAMAC, G.R. NO. The Information only charged Mamac with simple rape; it did not contain any allegation of relationship and
130332, MAY 31, 2000 minority nor the use of a deadly weapon; it did not charge Mamac with qualified rape and hence he cannot be
sentenced to death because the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender is a
special qualifying circumstance which should be alleged in the information to warrant imposition of the death
penalty.
PEOPLE VS DECENA, G.R. NO. In this case the SC said that it would be a denial of the right to be informed of the charges against him if he is
131843, MAY 31, 2000 charged with simple rape, then convicted of its qualified form which is punishable by death.
PEOPLE VS LOMIBAO, G.R. NO. Trial court wrongly relied on the qualifying circumstance of relationship to convict him of qualified rape since
135855, AUG. 3, 2000 said circumstance was not alleged in the information thus he can only be convicted of simple rape since even if
the relationship between Marissa and Lomibao were proven, failure to allege the said circumstance in the
information cannot change the nature of the crime.
PEOPLE VS CANONIGO, G.R. The seven attendant circumstances under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 are in the nature of special
NO. 133649, AUG. 4, 2000 qualifying circumstances which cannot be considered as such unless so alleged in the information even if proved.
PEOPLE VS CRUZ, G.R. NO. Qualifying circumstance must be properly pleaded in the indictment, and if it was not but proved, it will be
128346-48, AUG. 14, 2000 considered only as an aggravating circumstance.
PEOPLE VS WATIMAR, G.R. NO. Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same
121651-52, AUG. 16, 2000 cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim.
PEOPLE VS GABIANA, G.R. NO. Although the qualifying circumstance was proven, qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the
123543, AUG. 23, 2000 nature and cause of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS BANIHIT, G.R. NO. When the attendant circumstances are special qualifying circumstances and not ordinary aggravating
132045, AUG. 25, 2000 circumstances which merely increase the period of the penalty, they must be specifically pleaded or alleged with
certainty in the information.
PEOPLE VS GUTIERREZ, G.R. The circumstances provided for in the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of RA 7659, the attendance of any of
NO. 132772, AUG. 31, 2000 which would mandate the single indivisible penalty of death prescribed in Article 335 of the RPC, are in the
nature of qualifying circumstances which cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the Information.
PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA, G.R. Unlike a generic aggravating circumstance which may be proved even if not alleged, a qualifying aggravating
NO. 135330, AUG. 31, 2000 cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the information although it may be proved as a generic aggravating
circumstance if so included among those enumerated in the Code.
PEOPLE VS MELENDRES, G.R. The courts has consistently declared that the circumstances under the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of
NO. 133999-4001, AUG. 31, 2000 R.A. No. 7659, the attendance of which could mandate the imposition of the single indivisible penalty of death,
are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the information,
and even if proved, the death penalty cannot be imposed, unlike a generic aggravating circumstance which may
be proved even if not alleged, a qualifying aggravating cannot be proved as a generic aggravating circumstance if
so included among those enumerated in the Code.
PEOPLE VS MENDEZ, G.R. NO. The long-standing rule is that qualifying circumstance must be properly pleaded in the indictment. If the same
132546, JULY 5, 2000 are not pleaded but proved, they shall only be considered as aggravating circumstance.
PEOPLE VS ALARCON, G.R. NO. Where the fact of commission of rape “by two or more persons,” which partakes of the nature of a qualifying
133191-93, JULY 11, 2000 circumstance, was not alleged in the information, the mere fact that three were accused therein did not amount to
a specification of the qualifying circumstance in question and was insufficient for the purpose of complying with
the constitutional requirement that the accused be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
them.
PEOPLE VS BAYBADO, G.R. NO. In the case at bar, the Information failed to allege the minority of the complainant, hence, the trial court erred in
132136, JULY 14, 2000 appreciating this qualifying circumstance and in imposing the death penalty. Appellant can only be convicted of
simple rape punishable with reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE VS SURILLA, G.R. NO. The death penalty cannot be imposed when the qualifying circumstances are not alleged in the information for it
129164, JULY 24, 2000 would be violative of accused-appellant’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS CAMPANER, G.R. Qualifying Circumstances must not only be proved but also alleged in the Information in view of the accused’s
NO. 130500, JULY 26, 2000 right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; absent such finding, the penalty
provided by a trial court must be modified.
PEOPLE VS BALACANO, G.R. Failure to mention the relationship between the appellant and the young victim, step-father and step-daughter,
NO. 127156, JULY 31, 2000 respectively, necessarily excludes the crime from the coverage of RA 7659. To justify the imposition of the
supreme penalty of death, both the special qualifying circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship
to the offender must be alleged and proved.
PEOPLE VS VILLARAZA, G.R. The special qualifying circumstances of the victim’s minority and her relationship to the offender must be both
NO. 131848-50, SEPT. 5, 2000 alleged and proved in order to warrant the imposition of the capital punishment of death.
PEOPLE VS BANIGUID, G.R. The special qualifying circumstances of the victim’s minority and her relationship with the offender should be
NO. 137714, SEPT. 8, 2000 alleged and proved. The allegation in the information that complainant is the “minor daughter” of accused-
appellant is insufficient.
PEOPLE VS BALI-BALITA, G.R. Every element of the offense must be alleged. If charged of a crime in its qualified form the qualifying
NO. 134266, SEPT. 15, 2000 circumstance must be stated with certainty to enable a person of common understanding to be told of the acts or
omissions of which he is charged. Legal designation of the crime committed need not be specifically stated.
PEOPLE VS CAJARA, G.R. NO. The accused can’t be convicted of qualified rape on the bases of the circumstance that rape was committed in
122498, SEPT. 27, 2000 full view of the relatives of the victim within the 3
wasn’t pleaded in the information or in the complainant against the accused.
PEOPLE VS NOGAR, G.R. NO. The special qualifying circumstance of the relationship of accused-appellant with the victim has not at all been
133946, SEPT. 27, 2000 alleged in the Information for it to be considered in the imposition of a higher penalty (death penalty).
PEOPLE VS MAGTRAYO, G.R. The death penalty cannot be imposed because the relationship alleged in the information is different from what
NO. 133480-82, OCT. 4, 2000 was actually proven.
PEOPLE VS TAGUBA, G.R. NO. The Information did not allege any of the circumstances which would qualify the crime to murder. Hence,
112792-93, OCT. 6, 2000 appellant can only be convicted of the crime of homicide.
PEOPLE VS DE LA CUESTA, Courts cannot discredit a witness because there are gaps in her narration of facts, or because her narration was
G.R. NO. 133904, OCT. 5, 2000 presented not in a chronological manner and trial court cannot properly imposed death penalty.
PEOPLE VS ARVES, G.R. NO. The accused can be convicted only of the crime alleged in the information and duly proven during the trial.
134628, OCT. 13, 2000
PEOPLE VS BALDINO, G.R. NO. Though there is proof of the existence of the qualifying circumstance to prosecute the accused for qualified rape,
137269, OCT. 13, 2000 the failure to allege it in the information cannot convict him for the said offense.
PEOPLE VS BALTAZAR, G.R. The Court in a number of cases held that the relationship of the accused-appellant and the victim, and the
NO. 130610, OCT. 16, 2000 minority of the offended party must be specifically pleaded in the information in order to be properly appreciated
as a qualifying circumstance for the purpose of imposing the death penalty under R.A. 7659. Here, the
circumstances that would qualify the offense are (a) that the accused-appellant is the uncle of the victim, and (b)
that the latter is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape. However, since the three informations failed to
allege these circumstances, accused-appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape because he was not properly
informed of the charges against him.
PEOPLE VS FRANCISCO, G.R. Special qualifying circumstances indicated in the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of R.A. 7659
NO. 136252, OCT. 20, 2000 must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information; otherwise the death penalty
PEOPLE VS SARMIENTO, G.R. cannot be was
Sarmiento imposed
charged with statutory rape but was convicted of qualified rape due to relationship. Court says
NO. 134768, OCT. 25, 2000 that he cannot be convicted of qualified rape since the relationship of the accused to the victim was not alleged in
the information.
PEOPLE VS GALLARDE, 325 It is fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information as in the case
CRA 835 of rape with homicide, where in order to be convicted of murder in case the evidence fails to support the charge
of rape, the qualifying circumstance must be sufficiently alleged.
PEOPLE VS CRISPIN, 327 SCRA The right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him is a fundamental right of every accused which
167 may not be summarily done away with.
PEOPLE VS PARAMIL, G.R. NO. The facts state that car-napping ensued first but the victim resisted so was shot by one of the accused, thus, the
128056-57, MARCH 31, 2000 Court declared homicide and car-napping considering the circumstances attended for murder are not present.
PEOPLE VS GALLEGO, G.R. NO. When the rape is attended by the aggravating circumstance of “use of a deadly weapon”, the penalty becomes
130603, AUG. 15, 2000 reclusion perpetua to death, provided that such circumstance was alleged in the information and in this case, the
accused cannot be punished with a higher penalty even if it was proved that he used a deadly weapon (a knife)
because the same was not alleged.
PEOPLE VS TEJADA, G.R. NO. Not only did both informations fail to allege the fact of relationship between the accused and victim, the
126166, JULY 10, 2001 appreciation of such relationship is in itself legally flawed; the degree between them is already in the fourth civil
degree but the required degree of relationship is up to the third civil degree only.
PEOPLE VS LALINGJAMAN, Lalingjaman was accused of rape, and the court held that Lalingjaman cannot be convicted of qualified rape
G.R. NO. 132714, SEPT. 6, 2001 since the information did not allege the circumstance of relationship even if both minority, which was alleged in
the information, and relationship was proven during trial.
PEOPLE VS MERCADO, G.R. For the death to be imposable under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, both the minority of the victim
NO. 139904, OCT. 12, 2001 and her relationship to the offender should be specifically alleged in the Information.
ESTRADA VS All the essential elements of plunder can be culled and understood from its definition in Sec. 2, in relation to Sec.
SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 1, par. (d), and "pattern" is not one of them. It purports to do no more than prescribe a rule of procedure for the
148560, NOV. 19, 2001 prosecution of a criminal case for plunder. Being a purely procedural measure, Sec. 4 does not define or
establish any substantive right in favor of the accused but only operates in furtherance of a remedy.
PEOPLE VS MARAHAY, G.R. Carlito Marahay raped his daughters Mylene (14y/o) and Belinda (12 y/o) but the prosecution did not present the
NO. 120625-29, JAN. 28, 2003 certificates of live birth of both Mylene and Belinda or other similar authentic documents to prove their ages, not
even the victims’ mother or the victims themselves, or any other relative qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree were presented by the prosecution to establish the victims’ ages at the time the crimes were committed
because of such failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden, the qualifying circumstance of minority cannot
be appreciated in these cases.
PEOPLE VS MONTEMAYOR, The SC said that the trial court erred when it convicted the accused of rape with a deadly weapon, there has to be
G.R. NO. 124474, JAN. 28, 2003 use of the deadly weapon, and not mere possession, even if the qualifying circumstance is alleged in the
information.
PEOPLE VS DELIM, G.R. NO. Various testimonies with respect to minor, collateral or incidental matters do not impair the weight of testimony
142773, JAN. 28, 2003 to the prominent facts, and inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than
weaken the credibility of witnesses for they remove the suspicion of uncorroborated testimony.
PEOPLE VS ACOSTA, G.R. NO. The attendant aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is necessarily included in treachery. Hence,
140402, JAN. 28, 2003 the trial court erred in still appreciating abuse of superior strength apart from treachery, which warranted the
imposition of the death penalty.
PEOPLE VS CALOZA, G.R. NO. Qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crimes must be expressly and
138404-06, JAN. 28, 2003 specifically alleged in the complaint or information, otherwise the same will not be considered by the court even
if proved during the trial.
PEOPLE VS LAYOSO, G.R. NO. Alleged inconsistencies in witness testimonies are diminimis in nature and in no way destroy their
14773-76, JAN. 22, 2003 credibility. What is important is that the prosecution witnesses were consistent in relating the significant and
indispensable components of the principal occurrence of rape.
PEOPLE VS BALDOGO, G.R. The qualifying aggravating circumstance (of evident premeditation), like any other qualifying circumstance,
NO. 128106-07, JAN. 24, 2003 must be proved with certainty as the crime itself and the prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that after
deciding to commit the felony, the felon clung to his determination to commit the crime.
PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R. It is not the use of the words “qualifying” or “qualified by” that raises a crime to a higher category, but the
NO. 175954, DEC. 16, 2008 specific allegation of an attendant circumstance which adds the essential element raising the crime to a higher
category.
PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R. What is required is that the Information allege, specify or enumerate the attendant circumstances mentioned in
NO. 174371, DEC. 11, 2008 law to qualify the offense and does not need the words “aggravating/qualifying circumstance” to appear in the
information since these words are merely descriptive of the attendant circumstances and do not constitute an
essential element of the crime.
ANDRES VS PEOPLE, 588 SCRA While qualifying circumstances were proven at the trial, they cannot be appreciated because they were not
830 alleged in the Information as in this case where the information did not allege that the carnapping was committed
by means of violence against, or intimidation of, any person, or force upon things.
SAMBILON VS PEOPLE, 591 Case cannot be found.
SCRA 405
VALENZUELA VS PEOPLE, 596 The words “aggravating/qualifying,” or “aggravated by” need not be expressly stated, so long as the particular
SCRA 1 attendant circumstances are specified in the information.
DIFFERENCE OF
COMMISSION OF CRIME
PEOPLE VS CAPINPIN, G.R. NO. An accused cannot be convicted under paragraphs 2 or 3 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in an
118608, OCT. 30, 2000 information charging him with rape by the use of force or intimidation because none of these modes of
committing rape were alleged in the information.
NUMBER OF OFFENSES
PEOPLE VS TRESBALLES, G.R. There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only one offense, even if the evidence
NO. 126118, SEPT. 21, 1999 shows that more than one was in fact committed.
PEOPLE VS GERONA, G.R. NO. Even if the victim claims that she has been raped five times, the accused could only be convicted for one count of
126169, DEC. 21, 1999 rape where the information only charged a single offense—an accused cannot be held liable for more than what
he was indicted for.
PEOPLE VS PAMBID, G.R. NO. Failure to object to a court charge of two or more offenses or raise the issue of duplicity of offenses may not be
124453, MARCH 15, 2000 availed of when the same is not charged in the information (that the information itself does not charge the
accused with two or more offenses).
PEOPLE VS ALVERO, G.R. NO. The records disclosed that ELISEO actually committed more than three acts of rape. However, considering that
134536, APRIL 5, 2000 ELISEO was charged with only three counts of rape, the Court can only affirm the trial court's judgment of
conviction and its imposition of the death penalty for each of the three counts of rape alleged and proved.
PEOPLE VS GUIWAN, G.R. NO. A person cannot be convicted of five (5) counts of rape committed on other dates if the information against him
117324-8, APRIL 27, 2000 if the charge against him only consists of one rape.
PEOPLE VS SURILLA, G.R. NO. The trial court correctly imposed one sentence for one count of rape against accused-appellant since the
129164, JULY 24, 2000 information only charged him with one count of rape.
PEOPLE VS RAMA, 379 SCRA Julieto Rama argues that he could not be convicted of murder when he is charged with robbery with homicide.
477 An accused cannot be convicted of an offense higher than that with which he is charged in the complaint or
information or one which is necessarily included in the offense charged.
Where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component
offense, the accused can be convicted of the other.
PEOPLE VS CUYUGAN, G.R. Appellant can’t be convicted of a crime for which she was not charged, for that would violate appellant’s
NO. 146641, NOV. 18, 2002 constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against her.
PEOPLE VS MONTINOLA, 543 In a case where the accused admitted that the complainant was his daughter, the alternative circumstance of
SCRA 412 relationship shall apply and the Court may prescribe a higher or lower penalty depending on the presence of
other circumstances.
DATE OF COMMISSION OF
CRIME
PEOPLE VS NARITO, G.R. NO. The right to be informed is not violated when the time of the commission of the offense is different or is not
132058, OCT. 1, 1999 stated in the information unless the time is a material ingredient of the offense.
PEOPLE VS MAGBANUA, G.R. The date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy because in fact, the precise time when the rape takes
NO. 12888, DEC. 3, 1999 place has no substantial bearing on its commission. It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that
the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.
PEOPLE VS LADRILLO, G.R. Conviction of the accused should be set aside because the information, charging him with rape allegedly
NO. 124342, DEC. 8, 1999 committed “on or about the year 1990,” failed to specifically allege the exact date of the commission of the
crime, thus depriving him of the opportunity to fully defend himself.
PEOPLE VS FEROLINO, G.R. Where time or place or any other fact alleged is not an essential element of the crime charged, conviction may be
NO. 131730-31, APRIL 5, 2000 had on proof of the commission of the crime, even if it appear(s) that the crime was not committed at the precise
time or place alleged, or if the proof fails to sustain the existence of some immaterial fact set out in the
complaint, providing it appears that the specific crime charged was in fact committed prior to the date of the
filing of the complaint or information within the period of the statute of limitations, and at a place within the
jurisdiction of the court.
PEOPLE VS GIANAN, G.R. NO. The allegation in the information that accused committed multiple rape “sometime in November 1995 and some
135288-93, SEPT. 15, 2000 occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto” is not deemed a violation of the right to be informed as the date of the
commission of the offense is not the gravemen of rape.
PEOPLE VS TRELLES, G.R. NO. Nobelita Trelles is feebleminded and a mental retardate, thus she could not very well be expected to consistently
137659, SEPT. 19, 2000 impart accurate responses to questions repeatedly propounded to her. A mental retardate or a feebleminded
person is not, per se, disqualified from being a witness, her mental condition not being a vitiation of her
credibility. It is now universally accepted that intellectual weakness, no matter what form it assumes, is not a
valid objection to the competency of a witness so long as the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and
reasonable narrative of the matter testified to.
SUMBANG VS GENERAL The period of prescription therein decreed is the time that supervenes from the commission of the
COURT MARTIAL PRO — offense up to the time of arraignment.
REGION 6, G.R. NO. 140188,
AUG. 3, 2000
ARAMBULO VS LAQUI, G.R. The right for a speedy trial is only violated when unreasonable, vexatious, and oppressive delay without
NO. 138596, OCT. 12, 2000 participation or fault of the accused, petitioner is not without fault thus petition was denied.
PEOPLE VS TAGANA, G.R. NOS. Under the basic rules on criminal procedure, it is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the
137608-09, JULY 6, 2001 precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material incident of the offense, but the
act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was
committed as the information or complaint will permit, as shown in this instance where a variance of three (3)
years between the time set in the indictment and that established by evidence during the trial constitutes an error
so serious as to warrant a reversal of conviction on that score.
PEOPLE VS BIDOC, 506 SCRA The exact date of the commission is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the gravamen of the offense
481 is carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent.
PEOPLE VS CEREDON, 542 Dates alleged need not to be precise, it is sufficient the date stated is near as possible to the actual date.
SCRA 550
PEOPLE VS PASCUAL, 569 The precise time of commission is not an essential element of rape or the crime itself so the failure to specify the
SCRA 534 exact date when the rape happened does not make the information defective and that for as long as all the
essential elements of rape are there in the information, the accused is sufficiently informed of the nature and
cause of accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS AURE, 569 SCRA The date of rape alleged in the information (Nov. 7, 1999) is different from that which the RTC convicted the
836 accused for (Nov. 8, 1999) but this discrepancy is not a serious error that can reverse the decision; the date or
time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime because the gravamen of rape is
carnal knowledge through force and intimidation.
PEOPLE VS DIOCADO, G.R. NO. Diocado was accused of rape, and the court held that the exact time of the commission of the rape is not a ground
170567, NOV. 14, 2008 for acquittal once the prosecution has clearly established the sexual act between the rapist and the victim without
the latter’s consent.
PEOPLE VS CANARES, 579 Section 11 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that it is not necessary to state in the
SCRA 582 complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when the date of commission is a
material element of the offense, thus, an information for rape is not defective for failure to specify the exact date
of the commission of the act of rape.
PEOPLE VS ABOGANDA, 585 In rape cases, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its
SCRA 1 commission. The date or time the rape was committed is not an essential and it is sufficient that the date of
commission alleged is as near as possible to the actual date
PEOPLE VS JIMENEZ, 586 SCRA Jimenez raped his daughter but because of the failure of the prosecution to allege in the criminal informations the
580 aggravating/qualifying circumstance of parental relationship between AAA and the accused-appellant Jimenez,
he cannot be convicted of qualified rape for to do so would certainly be a denial of his right to be informed of the
charges against him however, this aggravating circumstance, which was duly proved during trial, may still be
considered by the courts in the award of damages.
PEOPLE VS LAZARO, 596 SCRA The exact date and time that rape is committed is not material, facts which are not determinative of the guilt of
587 the accused are not significant.
NO VIOLATION
PEOPLE VS ESCORO, 376 SCRA For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime
670 was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the
alleged crime, and when a bare denial, if unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot be given greater
evidentiary weight.
PEOPLE VS PASCUAL, 379 It has been held that the exact date or time of the commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime.
SCRA 235 Furthermore, the failure of the prosecution to specify the exact date or time when it was committed did not make
the information or complaint defective on its face.
PEOPLE VS CONDE, 380 SCRA Variance of a few months between the date set out in the information when the alleged crime was committed, and
159 that established by the evidence during the trial does not constitute an error so serious as to warrant reversal of
the judgment of conviction.
PEOPLE VS MIRANDA, G.R. NO. For alibi to prosper, the accused-appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was
142566, AUG. 8, 2002 committed and it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.
PEOPLE VS ROQUE, G.R. NO. Although the sisters accused their father of raping them several times within the interval of 1992 and in 1994,
130569, AUG. 14, 2002 there is no violation of the right to be informed to allow the accused to prepare for his defense since one of the
sisters stated in her sworn statement the she was raped by the father in September 1994 and she was more
specific in the criminal complain she filed before the MTC.
PEOPLE VS SEGOVIA, G.R. NO. In rape cases, the date of the commission of the crime is not an essential element of the crime and, as such, a
138974, SEPT. 29, 2002 difference of one 1 year or twelve 12 months is merely a matter of form and does not prejudice the rights of the
accused since the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy, it being sufficient that the or
information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual
commission.
PEOPLE VS CARALIPIO, G.R. Contrary to appellant’s claim, he was afforded the opportunity to secure counsel of his choice, but he failed to
NO. 137766, NOV. 27, 2002 obtain the services of a private lawyer during the period given him by the court and continued to rely on his
counsel de oficio for about 3 months without producing the private lawyer whose services he was insisting on.
PEOPLE VS CANTOMAYOR, The time of the commission of the crime assumes importance only when it creates serious doubt as to the
G.R. NO. 145522, DEC. 5, 2002 commission of the rape or the sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of conviction and there can be no
violation when the date or time of the offense is not stated with absolute accuracy.
PEOPLE VS SARAZAN, G.R. NO. Time and again, the courts have consistently ruled that when a woman, more so if a minor, states that she has
123269-72, JAN. 22, 2003 been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed for no woman, least of all a
child, would weave a tale of sexual assaults to her person, open herself to examination of her private parts and
later be subjected to public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice
for the wrong done to her and thus, when the testimonies of an accused are pitted against the positive testimony
of the rape victim who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and who
remains consistent, the rape victim is regarded as a credible witness, as in this case.
PEOPLE VS TAPERLA, G.R. NO. There is no evidence on record that the victim is a nymphomaniac, pervert or any condition that may justify the
142680, JAN. 16, 2003 sweetheart theory of the accused. No married woman with children would have sexual relations with a complete
stranger whom she had just met.
PEOPLE VS LIZADA, G.R. NO. The presentation by the prosecution, without objection on the part of the accused, of evidence of rape committed
143468-71, JAN. 24, 2003 two times a week from 1996 until 1998 (which includes September 15, 1998 and October 22, 1998) to prove the
charges lodged against him constituted a waiver by the accused of his right to object to any perceived infirmity
in, and in the amendment of, the aforesaid Informations to conform to the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
PEOPLE VS DY, G.R. NO. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation may not be waived. Indeed, the defense may
115326-37, JAN. 16, 2003 waive their right to enter a plea and let the court enter a plea of “not guilty” in their behalf. However, it becomes
altogether a different matter if the accused themselves refuse to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against them.
BATULANAN VS PEOPLE, 502 As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document, it is important to ascertain
SCRA 35 whether the offender is to be charged with falsification of a private document or with estafa.
PEOPLE VS CORPUZ, 482 SCRA The amendment of the information did not affect the crime committed by the appellant, that is, qualified rape. In
435 cases of incestuous rape, force or intimidation need not even be proven.
SOLEDAD VS PEOPLE, 644 The information and its preamble clearly stated all the necessary details of the offense committed. The
SCRA 258 Information sheet must be considered, not by sections or parts, but as one whole document serving one purpose
—to inform the accused why the full panoply of state authority is being marshalled against him.
TORRES VS PEOPLE, 655 SCRA A finding by the trial court affirmed by the appellate court shall be conclusive with the Supreme Court unless
720 shown that the trial court had disregarded or overlooked some fact or circumstance.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

PEOPLE VS SESBRENO, G.R. If the trial appeared lengthy, it was largely due to the number of witnesses presented, 13 for the prosecution and
NO. 121764, SEPT. 9, 1999 15 for the defense. Appellant’s conduct of his own trial contributed to time-consuming tussles in the lower court.
TAI LIM VS COURT OF Petitioner’s constitutional right to speedy trial has not been violated. A trial is always subject to reasonable delays
APPEALS, G.R. NO. 131483, OCT. and postponements, and in the absence of any showing that the same were capricious, the State should not be
26, 1999 deprived of a reasonable opportunity of prosecuting petitioner.
CONDE VS RIVERA, 45 PHIL 650 When a prosecuting officer, without good cause, secured postponement of the trial of a defendant against his
beyond a reasonable period of time, the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding of mandamus to compel a
dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.
NEPOMUCENO VS SEC. OF The prosecution’s failure to enter into trial or otherwise to present its evidence without valid excuse, and instead
NATIONAL DEFENSE, 108 SCRA asked for postponement repeatedly gives rise to the reasonable presumption that the prosecution counts with no
658 evidence to support conviction— therefore, dismissal of the case must reasonably follow and the accused’s right
to speedy trial is not violated.
PEOPLE VS GINES, 197 SCRA The right to a speedy trial is relative and could be subject to reasonable delays and postponement as long as the
481 absence or delays are not capricious, oppressive, nor vexatious.
ABADIA VS CA, 236 SCRA 676 The absence of any specific provision limiting the time within which records of general courts martial should be
forwarded to the appropriate reviewing authority and for the reviewing authority to decide on the case does not
deny private respondent — or any military personnel facing charges before the General Courts Martial, for that
matter — a judicial recourse to protect his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
GONZALES VS CA, 232 SCRA For the testimony to be credible, it is not mandatory that the evidence be established on record that witnesses
721 have good standing in the community as competence is distinguished from credibility, the former being
determined by art 820 of the new civil code while the latter does not require evidence of such good standing
because credibility depends on the convincing weight of his testimony in court
CADALIN VS POEA, 238 SCRA The constitutional right to "a speedy disposition of cases" is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings
721 but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including
judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. Hence, under the Constitution, any party to a case may demand expeditious
action on all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.
PEOPLE VS TAMPAL, 244 SCRA Though the dismissal of a case on the ground of failure to prosecute is a bar to further prosecution of the accused,
202 the fact that there was no violation of the right to speedy trial, there being good faith on the part of prosecutor for
failing to attend, cannot give rise to double jeopardy.
DACANAY VS PEOPLE, 240 A speedy trial is one "conducted according to the law of criminal procedure and the rules and regulations, free
SCRA 490 from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays." The primordial purpose of this constitutional right is to
prevent the oppression of an accused by delaying criminal prosecution for an indefinite period of time. Likewise,
it is intended to prevent delays in the administration of justice by requiring judicial tribunals to proceed with
reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal prosecutions.
!The main objection of respondent People of the Philippines to he separate trial asked by Petitioner is that such a
procedure would entail a repetitive presentation of evidence. A separate trial necessarily requires a repetition of
the presentation of the same evidence. But the resulting inconvenience and expense on the part of the
Government cannot be given preference over the right to speedy trial and the protection to a person's life, liberty
or property accorded by the Constitution.
GUERRERO VS CA, 257 SCRA Petitioner's silence would have to be interpreted as a waiver of his right to a speedy trial.
703
DIZON VS LOPEZ, 278 SCRA 483 The claim that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial is without basis even when the copy of the decision
was only furnished to him after 1 yr and 8 mo. The delay did not prejudice since the period to appeal or file a
motion for reconsideration begins only when he receives the copy of the judgement. Nonetheless, there were
certain factors that mitigate Lopez’ culpability and except for this incident her track record is unmarred. Failure
to decide on the case was brought about factors not within her control, and other personal problems. The court
reprimanded Lopez with a warning that repetition of the same acts complained will be dealt with more severity.
LUZARRAGA VS METEORO, Respondent violated the right of the accused to a speedy trial, as he was evidently remiss in the performance of
A.M. NO. 00-1572, AUG. 3, 2000 his duty to decide Civil Case No. 96-0013 promptly and expeditiously, considering that, it was on May 22, 1996
that said case was transferred to the RTC Branch presided by respondent, but it was only on January 8, 1997 that
he proceeded to receive the defendants' evidence, or after eight months.
SOLAR ENTERTAINMENT AND The power of the secretary of justice to review resolutions of his subordinates even after the information has
PEOPLE VS HON. HOW, G.R. already been filed in court is well settled.
NO. 140863, AUG. 22, 2000
DE ZUZURREGUI VS ROSETE, The trial court was reprimanded for violation of constitutional right to speedy and expeditious trial for the sole
G.R. A.M. NO. MTJ-02-1426 initiative of the defense’ request for reset of case.
PEOPLE VS DY, G.R. NO. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation may not be waived but it becomes a different
115326-37, JAN. 16, 2003 matter if the accused themselves refuse to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them,
thus the defense cannot hold hostage the court by their refusal to the reading of the complaint or information.
LUMANLAW VS PERALTA, 482 Because respondent failed to act swiftly on the accused’s arraignment, his right to a speedy trial was violated; an
SCRA 396 arraignment is not a mere formality, but an integral part of due process and should be held within thirty days
from the date the court acquired jurisdiction over the accused.
PADILLA VS APAS, 487 SCRA 29 Padilla was accused of Estafa, and the court held that since the prosecution, by repeated motions for
postponement, caused the delay of the proceedings from the time the information was filed (from which time the
test of the violation of the right to speedy trial is to be counted), the dismissal of the case, on motion of the
accused, amounts to acquittal.
PEOPLE VS HERNANDEZ, 499 The Court affirmed the decision of the CA and ruled that dismissal on the ground of the denial of accused’s right
SCRA 688 to a speedy trial will have the effect of acquittal that would bar further prosecution for the same offense. Factors
such as (1) length of delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) defendant’s assertion of his rights and (4) prejudice to the
defendant should be taken in consideration in determining whether or not the constitutional right to speedy trial
was violated.
UY VS ADRIANO, 505 SCRA 625 Petitioners' claim is dismissed because the passage of time alone, without a significant deprivation of liberty or
impairment of the ability to properly defend oneself, is not absolute evidence of prejudice and the right to a
speedy trial is not primarily intended to prevent prejudice to the defense caused by the passage of time.
BENARES VS LIM, 511 SCRA Petitioner Oscar Beñares was accused of estafa during the trial, the totality of the circumstances excuses the
100 delay occasioned by the late filing of the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence since the delay was not vexatious
or oppressive, it follows that petitioner’s right to speedy trial was not violated, consequently he cannot properly
invoke his right against double jeopardy.
GAAS VS MITMUG, 553 SCRA The right to speedy disposition of cases is only violated when the proceedings are attended by vexatious,
535 capricious and oppressive delays, the complaint was only acted upon 4 years after its submission, but there was
no invocation of speedy disposition, it was only invoked on appeal when the petitioner lost, thus there was no
delay.
ALBERT VS SANDIGANBAYAN, Although the conduct of an investigation may hold back the progress of a case, it is necessary so that the
580 SCRA 279 accused's right will not be compromised or sacrificed at the altar of expediency thus succeeding events are of a
valid and regular course of judicial proceedings as long as they are not considered as vexatious, capricious,
oppressive, or unjustified.
TAN VS PEOPLE, 586 SCRA 139 This right to a speedy trial may be defined as one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, its
"salutary objective" being to assure that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of a court
litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the
presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose.
TALLO VS PEOPLE, 588 SCRA The right to a speedy disposition of cases is considered violated only when the proceedings are attended by
520 vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not
sufficient.
OLBES VS BUEMIO, 607 SCRA In determining whether the accused has been deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the case and to a
336 speedy trial, four factors must be considered: (a) length of delay; (b) the reason for the delay; (c) the defendant’s
assertion of his right; and (d) prejudice to the defendant.
JACOB VS SANDIGANBAYAN, The dismissal of the criminal cases was unwarranted even though accused was prejudiced by the delay in the
635 SCRA 94 reinvestigation of the cases because under the circumstances, the State should not be prejudiced and deprived of
its right to prosecute the criminal cases simply because of the ineptitude or nonchalance of the Office of the
Ombudsman
RIGHT TO IMPARTIAL TRIAL
MATEO, JR. VS VILLALUZ, 50 Although a judge may not have been disqualified, nevertheless if it appears that a party was not given a fair and
SCRA 18 impartial trial because of the judge's bias or prejudice, the court will order a new trial, if it deems it necessary, in
the interest of justice.
PEOPLE VS CA, 262 SCRA 452 Judge Espina cannot be considered to adequately possess such cold neutrality of an impartial judge as to fairly
assess both the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution and the defense in view of his previous decision in a
Special civil Action wherein he enjoined the preliminary investigation at the Regional State Prosecutor’s Office
level against herein respondent.
MALIWAT VS CA, 256 SCRA 718 An accused is not denied due process and an opportunity to be heard when he himself had sought the
postponements and cancellations of the hearings of his case, in this case for no less than forty times, from the
date of arraignment to the promulgation of judgment, a fact that spanned almost a decade.
TABUENA VS The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" requirement of due process was certainly denied in the case at bar
SANDIGANBAYAN, 268 SCRA against Tabuena and Peralta when the court, with its overzealousness, assumed the dual role of magistrate and
332 advocate wherein time and again the Court has declared that due process requires no less than the cold neutrality
of an impartial judge and the responsibility of the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be
impartial, to give added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just otherwise such is a violation of the
due process of the people.
PEOPLE VS ADORA, 275 SCRA A trial court’s zealous regard for the propriety of questions propounded to witnesses during trial cannot be
441 equated with bias for a particular party. It is the duty of the trial judge to question a witness in order that his
judgment may rest upon a full and clear understanding of the facts.
COSEP VS PEOPLE, 290 SCRA Judges must not only be impartial, but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that
378 the decision will be just.
PEOPLE VS CASTILLO, 289 It was clearly premature on the part of the Sandiganbayan to make a determinative finding prior to the parties’
SCRA 213 presentation of their respective evidence that there was no bad faith and manifest partiality on the respondents’
part and undue injury on the part of the complainant.
PEOPLE VS VAYNACO, G.R. NO. The argument is without merit. Trial judges must be accorded a reasonable leeway in asking questions to
126286, MARCH 22, 1999 witnesses as may be essential to elicit relevant facts and to bring out the truth.
PEOPLE VS ESTRADA, G.R. NO. An intelligent determination of an accused’s capacity for rational understanding ought to rest on a deeper and
130487, JUNE 19, 2000 more comprehensive diagnosis of his mental condition than laymen can make through observation of his overt
behavior and once a medical or psychiatric diagnosis is made, then can the legal question of incompetency be
determined by the trial court; by this time, the accused’s abilities may be measured against the specific demands
a trial will make upon him and that a deprivation of such mental examination shall deny the defendant his right to
a fair trial.
IMPARTIALITY OF A JUDGE
SORIANO VS ANGELES, G.R. Mere suspicion that a judge is partial to one of the parties is not enough; there should be evidence to prove the
NO. 109920, AUG. 31, 2000 charge. There must be a showing of bias and prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial source resulting in an
opinion in the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.
ALMENDRA VS ASIS, A.M. An impartial judge is one who acts in bad faith, malice, revenge or other similar motive with regards to him
RTJ-1550, APRIL 6, 2000 arriving to a decision.
PEOPLE VS ZHENG BAI HUI, A severe examination by a trial judge of some of the witnesses for the defense in an effort to develop the truth
G.R. NO. 127580, AUG. 22, 2000 and to get at the real facts affords no justification for a charge that he has assisted the prosecution with an evident
desire to secure a conviction, or that he had intimidated the witnesses for the defense—it cannot be taken against
him if the clarificatory questions he propounded happen to reveal certain truths which tend to destroy the theory
of one party.
PEOPLE VS GENOSA, G.R. NO. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court took it solely upon itself to determine the sanity of Genosa. The trial
135981, SEPT. 29, 2000 judge does not have the specialized knowledge to determine a person's mental health. Without a medical expert,
he was denied a fair trial. Moreover, proof of insanity could have exempted appellant from criminal liability.
RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL

IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S. 237 An accused is entitled to a public trial, at least to the extent of having his friends, relatives and counsel present --
no matter with what offense he may be charged.
GARCIA VS DOMINGO, L-30104 A trial lasting for several weeks, held exclusively in chambers of the judge and not in court room open to the
public adversely affects an accused’s right to a free and impartial trial.
COMPULSORY PROCESS
FAJARDO VS GARCIA, 98 SCRA The right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses of his choice includes the right to
514 compulsory process to secure the production of evidence in his behalf but the service of written interrogatories is
completely different from the compulsory process that is established in the constitution.
PEOPLE VS YAMBOT, G.R. NO. Appellants must be afforded amplest opportunity to defend themselves before rendition of judgment. The
120350, OCT. 13, 2000 constitutional right of the accused to be heard on his defense is inviolate.
RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION,
TO CROSS-EXAMINE, OR TO
MEET WITNESS FACE TO
FACE
TAMPAR VS USMAN, 200 SCRA Sec. 7 of the special Rules of Procedure prescribed for Shari’a courts provides that if the plaintiff has no
652 evidence to prove his claim, the defendant shall take an oath and judgment shall be rendered in his favor by the
court and on the other hand, should the defendant refuse to take an oath, plaintiff may affirm his claim under oath
in which case judgment shall be rendered in his favor; this effectively deprives a litigant if his right to due
process as it denies a party to confront the witnesses against him and to cross-examine them.
PEOPLE VS DIGNO, 250 SCRA The right to cross-examine the witness is a personal one, which may be waived expressly or impliedly by
237 conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right to cross-examine. Thus where a party had the opportunity to
cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the
testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record.
PEOPLE VS MIYAKE, 279 SCRA There is no violation of the right to confrontation when the evidence offered by the prosecution was the decision
180 of the prior trial and not the testimony itself, even though such testimony is the basis of such decision.
PEOPLE VS NARCA, 275 SCRA Not being a part of the due process clause but a right merely created by law, preliminary investigation if held
696 within the statutory limitations cannot be voided. The preliminary investigation is not the venue for the full
exercise of the rights of the parties. This is why preliminary investigation is not considered as a part of trial but
merely preparatory thereto and that the records therein shall not form part of the records of the case in court.
Parties may submit affidavits but have no right to examine witnesses though they can propound questions
through the investigating officer.
!"Where death prevents cross-examination under such circumstances that no responsibility of any sort can be
ascribed to the plaintiff or the witness, it seems a harsh measure to strike out all that has obtained in the direct
examination." Besides, mere opportunity and not actual cross-examination is the essence of the right to cross-
examine. Appellants lost such opportunity when they sought the deferment of their cross-examination of
Elizabeth, and they only have themselves to blame in forever losing that right by reason of Elizabeth’s demise.
This Court held that the right to cross-examination “is a personal one which may be waived expressly or
impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had
the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to
cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to
remain in the record. Waiver of the right to cross-examine may take various forms. But the common basic
principle underlying the application of the rule on implied waiver is that the party was given the opportunity to
confront and cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take advantage of it for reasons attributable to
himself alone.”
PEOPLE VS QUIDATO, G.R. NO. It is hornbook doctrine that unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the
117401, OCT. 1, 1998 averments in their affidavits, the affidavits must be excluded from the judicial proceeding, being
PEOPLE VS CRISPIN, 327 SCRA inadmissible
An affidavit ofhearsay.
a witness who was not presented as one on the witness stand shall not be admissible in evidence.
167
PEOPLE VS LIBO-ON, G.R. NO. The right to confrontation was observed when complainant was presented on the witness stand and, after her
136737, MAY 23, 2001 testimony, the counsel for accused-appellant conducted his cross-examination.
CARRIAGA VS CA, G.R. NO. There is no rule in evidence to the effect that omission of certain particulars in a sworn statement would estop an
143561, JUNE 6, 2001 affiant from making an elaboration thereof or from correcting inaccuracies during the trial.
PEOPLE VS RIVERA, G.R. NO. In a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond
139180, JULY 31, 2001 reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be
established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld.
PEOPLE VS MONJE, G.R. The cross-examination of a witness is an absolute right of the party against whom he is called as part of due
146689, SEPT. 27, 2002 process because it is a tool to test the truth or falsity of the statements made by such witness.
VICTORINO VS PEOPLE, 509 The right to confront and cross-examine the opposing party’s witnesses is a personal one which may be waived
SCRA 483 expressly or impliedly; where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail
himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of
the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record.
HERRERA VS Herrera was accused of murder, and the court held that the rule of double jeopardy does not apply in this case
SANDIGANBAYAN, 579 SCRA 32 since one of the questioned informations filed against him was not valid hence Herrera was not placed in danger
of being convicted twice.
HO WAI PANG VS PEOPLE, G.R. The right to confrontation is essentially a guarantee that a defendant may cross-examine the witnesses of the
NO. 1716229, OCT. 19, 2001 prosecution, and in this case, even if the petitioner did not object the presentation of Cinco’s testimony without
an interpreter, the counsel of the petitioner was still able to cross-examine the witness and their credibility.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA, RIGHT

TO BE PRESENT
CARREDO VS PEOPLE, 183 Waiver of appearance and trial in absentia does not mean that the prosecution is thereby deprived of its right to
SCRA 273 require the presence of the accused for purposes of identification by its witnesses which is vital for the conviction
of the accused because the accused may waive his right but not his duty or obligation to the court.
PEOPLE VS RAVELO, 202 SCRA Ravelo et al were convicted of murder of Reynaldo Cabrera Gaurano and of frustrated murder of Joey Lugatiman
655 but Ravelo et al were not able to or did not present evidence on their behalf, nor were they themselves able to
confront the prosecution witnesses who testified against them except through a counsel de oficio appointed by
the trial judge; although they were given more than generous time and opportunity to exercise their constitutional
rights to testify and present evidence, they still failed to make use of their last opportunity and hence cannot
claim that they were denied of their rights.
PEOPLE VS RIVERA, 242 SCRA In the case the SC held that it is the RTC that when it comes to the credibility of the witnesses, the RTC’s finding
26 will take credence. Furthermore just because the victim is a Taiwanese national, this does not mean that she has
greater motive to fabricate rape because she can out run the shame that follows the admission of being raped.
PEOPLE VS TABAG, 268 SCRA Their escape should have been considered a waiver of their right to be present at their trial, and the inability of
115 the court to notify them of the subsequent hearings did not prevent it from continuing with their trial and by
escaping, placed themselves beyond the protection of the law.
PARADA VS VENERACION, 269 The requisites then of a valid trial in absentia are: (1) the accused has already been arraigned; (2) he has been
SCRA 371 duly notified of the trial; and (3) his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE
PEOPLE VS MORIAL, G.R. NO. Where there is independent evidence, apart from the accused’s alleged uncounselled confession, that the accused
129295, AUG. 15, 2001 is truly guilty, the latter nevertheless faces a conviction.
PEOPLE VS TULIN, G.R. NO. Philippines acquires jurisdiction over piracy cases for as long as any part of the crime was committed in
111709, AUG. 30, 2001 Philippine waters.
SECTION 21
DISMISSAL AT PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION, NO
JEOPARDY — ATTACHMENT
OF JEOPARDY
PEOPLE VS YLAGAN, 58 PHIL Under the foregoing provisions of law, defendant in a criminal prosecution is in legal jeopardy when placed on
851 trial under the following conditions: (1) In a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) upon a valid complaint or
information; (3) after he has been arraigned; and (4) after he has pleaded to the complaint of information and
(and since these were present in a previous prosecution, the Supreme Court held that the appelle has been once in
jeopardy for the offense for which she is now prosecuted.)
PEOPLE VS BALISACAN, Rule on double jeopardy is applicable even if accused fails to file brief or raise question of double jeopardy.
L-26376
CINCO VS SANDIGANBAYAN, Preliminary investigation is not a trial where double jeopardy attaches as it is not a trial of the case on the merits
202 SCRA 726 and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is
probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty therefor.
PEOPLE VS VERGARA, 221 For double jeopardy to attach there must be (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a court of competent
SCRA 560 jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (d) the accused has been convicted or acquitted or the
case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused.
NAVALLO VS There is no jeopardy where the court had no jurisdiction.
SANDIGANBAYAN, 234 SCRA
175
GALVEZ VS CA, 237 SCRA 685 Even if substitution was made before judgment, petitioners cannot validly claim double jeopardy for the simple
reason that no first jeopardy had as yet attached.
CUNANAN VS ARCEO, 242 Since the offense with which petitioner Cunanan is charged falls within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of
SCRA 88 the Sandiganbayan, and that the Regional Trial. Court of San Fernando, Pampanga had no jurisdiction over that
offense.
PEOPLE VS TAMPAL, 244 SCRA Legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3) after arraignment (4)
202 when a valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendant was acquitted or convicted , or the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.
PEOPLE VS MONTESA, 248 He seemed to have something in mind for the protection of the interest of the private respondents. Presumably,
SCRA 641 he thought that the arraignment which was immediately followed by the dismissal of the case would forever
foreclose, on the ground of double jeopardy, any reopening of the case.
DE LA ROSA VS CA, 253 SCRA The requisites that must occur for legal jeopardy to attach are: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a court of
499 competent jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (d) the accused has been convicted or
acquitted or the case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused (which may be made via
ORAL MOTION).
PEOPLE VS LEVISTE, 255 SCRA Petitioner cannot invoke his right against double jeopardy because his right to a speedy trial has not been violated
238 by the State.
PEOPLE VS CAWALING, 293 The requisites for double jeopardy are: (1) a first jeopardy has attached before another one; (2) the first jeopardy
SCRA 267 has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as that in the first while the first
jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) it was filed before a competent court; (c) after
arraignment; (d) valid plea has been filed; and (e) when the charged individual was acquitted or convicted, or the
case was dismissed.
CUDIA VS CA, 284 SCRA 173 In determining when the first jeopardy may be said to have attached, it is necessary to prove the existence of the
following: (a) Court of competent jurisdiction; (b) Valid complaint or information; (c) Arraignment; (d) Valid
plea; (e) The defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the
express consent of the accused.
TECSON VS SANDIGANBAYAN, Demetio Tecson, at the time Mayor of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, contends that his Sandiganbayan trial
G.R. NO. 123045, NOV. 16, 1999 amounts to double jeopardy since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had already cleared him of all charges. The
requisites for jeopardy to attach are not present at the hearings by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
DIMATULAC VS VILLON, G.R. When the state is deprived of due process in a criminal case by reason of grave abuse of discretion on the part of
NO. 127107, OCT. 12, 1999 the trial court, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case is void, hence double jeopardy can’t be
invoked by the accused.
PEOPLE VS MAQUILING, G.R. No double jeopardy would attach where the state is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case,
NO. 128986, JUNE 21, 1999 or where the dismissal of an information or a complaint is purely capricious or devoid of reason, or when there is
lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
PEOPLE VS NITAFAN, G.R. NO. “Double jeopardy connotes the concurrence of three requisites: (a) the first jeopardy must have attached prior to
707964-66, FEB. 1, 1999 the second, (b) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated, and (c) the second jeopardy must be for the
same offense as that in the first.”
“[T]he first jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3) after
arraignment, (4) when a valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendant was convicted or acquitted, or
the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.”
BINAY VS SANDIGANBAYAN, The first jeopardy never attached in the first place, the RTC not being a court of competent jurisdiction. There
G.R. NO. 120681, OCT. 1, 1999 can be no double jeopardy where the accused entered a plea in a court that had no jurisdiction.
LIMPANGOG VS COURT OF Court of appeals has no jurisdiction over an appeal of a trial court imposing an indeterminate sentence, if the
APPEALS, G.R. NO. 134229, same ruling also imposes reclusion perpetua.
NOVEMBER 26,1999
FLORES VS JOVEN, G.R. NO. The requisites that must be present for double jeopardy to attach are: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a
129874, DEC. 27, 2002 court of competent jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (d) the accused has been convicted
or acquitted or the case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused.
MIRNADA VS TULIAO, 486 The dismissal of the arraignment of the accused cannot make the bar the reinstatement of the criminal case since
SCRA 377 double jeopardy cannot be invoked where the accused has not been arraigned and it was upon his express motion
that it be dismissed.
CABO VS SANDIGANBAYAN, It is elementary that for double jeopardy to attach, the case against the accused must have been dismissed or
491 SCRA 264 otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid information
sufficient in form and substance and the accused pleaded to the charge. In the instant case, the original
information to which petitioner entered a plea of “not guilty” was neither valid nor sufficient to sustain a
conviction, and the criminal case was also neither dismissed nor terminated. Double jeopardy could not,
therefore, attach even if petitioner is assumed to have been unconditionally arraigned on the original charge.
ROMUALDEZ VS MARCELO, An order sustaining a motion to quash on grounds other than extinction of criminal liability or double
497 SCRA 89 jeopardy does not preclude the filing of another information for a crime constituting the same facts.
PEOPLE VS TERRADO, 558 Terrado was acquitted of the crime of carnapping. Mistakes ascribed to the trial court were not errors of
SCRA 84 jurisdiction, but errors of judgment that can be corrected by a petition for review on certiorari. Correction of an
erroneous acquittal may be allowed when the public respondent clearly showed/ acted without jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. But the petition the the Garcias was
merely a call for an ordinary review of the findings of the court which is against the constitutional right against
double jeopardy.
PEOPLE VS CA, 626 SCRA 352 No double jeopardy attaches by reason of the abbreviated nature of preliminary investigations, and as such, a
dismissal of the charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal.
TERMINATION OF
JEOPARDY, EXISTENCE, NON-
TERMINATION
BULAONG VS PEOPLE, 17 SCRA The defense of double jeopardy is available to the accused only where he was either convicted or acquitted or the
746 case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his consent.
BUSTAMANTE VS MACAREN, When the accused has been convicted and is actually serving his sentence, there is no need to re-open the case for
48 SCRA 155 it constitutes double jeopardy.
PEOPLE VS OBSANIA, L-24447 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 but the recent
ruling was where a criminal case is dismissed provisionally not only with the express consent of the accused but
even upon the urging of his counsel, there can be no double jeopardy if the indictment against him is revived by
the fiscal.
RIVERA, JR. VS PEOPLE, 189 Where there is a valid information and the accused has been arraigned, an order of dismissal issued by the court
SCRA 331 has the effect of a judgment of acquittal and double jeopardy attaches; however, this order of dismissal must be
written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him conformably
with the provisions of Rule 120, section 2 of the Rules of Court.
DIZON-PAMINTUAN VS Dizon-Pamintuan was accused of violating the Anti-Fencing law, and the court held that Dizon-Pamintuan was
PEOPLE, 234 SCRA 63 not in danger of double jeopardy if informations for robbery and theft was filed against her since these are
separate and different offenses from fencing.
COMELEC VS CA, 229 SCRA 48 Double jeopardy attached when the accused, charged in a valid complaint or information before a competent
court, is acquitted or convicted or the case is unconditionally dismissed without his express consent after he has
been arraigned and entered plea, otherwise, double jeopardy may still attach if: (1) when the ground is
insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution and (2) when the proceedings have been prolonged
unreasonably.
STATE PROSECUTORS VS In the absence of jurisdiction, double jeopardy will not set in, and it is thus settled that double jeopardy cannot be
MURO, 236 SCRA 505 invoked against this Court's setting aside of the trial court's judgment of dismissal or acquittal where the
prosecution which represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is denied due process.
PEOPLE VS BELLAFLOR, 233 Generally, protection against double jeopardy is not available where the dismissal of the case was effected at the
SCRA 196 instance of the accused and there are only two instances where double jeopardy will attach notwithstanding the
fact the case was dismissed with the express consent of the accused, (1)where the ground for the dismissal is
insufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution and (2) where the criminal proceedings have been unreasonably
prolonged in violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial, but none of these instances exists in the case thus
since Respondent Bellaflor had moved for the dismissal of the criminal case filed against him, the protective
mantle of double jeopardy does not cover him.
GUERRERO VS CA, 257 SCRA In this case the petitioner claims that a re-hearing would place him under double jeopardy, in this case there has
703 been no termination of the first jeopardy, thus he could not have been placed in double jeopardy.
TEODORO VS CA, 258 SCRA 603 Although an appeal does not vacate the judgment appealed from, it does prevent it from becoming final so that it
does not bar the trial court from acting on the appeal and imposing penalty warranted by the law and the
evidence and until that appeal is withdrawn, there is no decision of the lower court to serve or satisfy because
the appeal stayed the decision.
CUIDIA VS CA, 284 SCRA 173 If the complaint or information was insufficient because it was so defective in form or substance that the
conviction upon it could not have been sustained, its dismissal without the consent of the accused cannot be
pleaded; Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a defective indictment that is voluntarily
dismissed by the prosecution.
PEOPLE VS LISING, 285 SCRA It will be a violation of the accused’s constitutional right against double jeopardy to convict him of kidnapping
595 where he was already convicted of double murder arising from the very same act/offense.
PEOPLE VS ARANETA, G.R. NO. Where conspiracy is established, it matters not who among the accused actually shot and killed the victim.
125894, DEC. 11, 1998, 95 OG
4556
CUISON VS CA, 289 SCRA 159 The promulgation of only one part of the decision, i.e., the liability for civil indemnity, is not a bar to the
subsequent promulgation of the other part, the imposition of the criminal accountability.
PEOPLE VS CA, G.R. NO. No double jeopardy would attach where the state is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case,
128986, JUNE 21, 1999 or where the dismissal of an information or a complaint is purely capricious or devoid of reason, or when there is
lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
PEOPLE VS SERRANO, G.R. NO. The preclusion against appeal by the government from judgments of acquittal applies even though the accused
135451, SEPT. 30, 1999 did not raise the question of double jeopardy.
BARANGAN VS COURT OF The Court’s hands are tied by the constitutional mandate against double jeopardy and so acquittal must stand
APPEALS, G.R. NO. 123307, when it is proven that a valid complaint or information is filed against an accused, a court of competent
NOV. 29, 1999 jurisdiction has acquired jurisdiction over the person and the accused has been tried and acquitted for the case.
PEOPLE VS VELASCO, G.R. NO. The doctrine that "double jeopardy may not be invoked after trial" may apply only when the Court finds that the
127444, SEPT. 13, 2000 "criminal trial was a sham" because the prosecution representing the sovereign people in the criminal case was
denied due process and the court in People v. Bocar rationalized that the "remand of the criminal case for further
hearing and/or trial before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of the first jeopardy, and does not
expose the accused to a second jeopardy."
TUPAZ VS ULEP, G.R. NO. An accused is placed on double jeopardy if he is again tried for an offense for which he has been convicted,
127777, OCT. 1, 1999 acquitted or which the indictment against him was dismissed without his consent.
PEOPLE VS VERRA, G.R. NO. While it is true that the respondent joined the prosecution in praying for its dismissal, double jeopardy will still
134732 attach since the basis for the ruling was the insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution.
MERCIALES VS CA, 379 SCRA The acquittal of the accused by the court a quo was done without regard to due process of law, which makes it
345 null and void. It is as if there was no acquittal at all, therefore it cannot constitute a claim for double jeopardy.
POSO VS MIJARES, A.M. NO. From the lowering of the penalty to qualify the accused for probation, the authorization for temporary liberty on
RTJ-02-1693, AUG. 21, 2002 recognizance, and finally the grant of probation, the orders of respondent Judge arising from these proceedings
do not compel respectability and finality to constitute res judicata or even double jeopardy.
PEOPLE VS ALBERTO, G.R. NO. The three requisites before double jeopardy can be invoked are: (1) the first jeopardy must have attached prior to
132374, AUG. 22, 2002 the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the
same offense as that in the first, or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged
in the first information, or is an attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof; as to the first jeopardy, it
only arises (1) upon a valid indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3) after arraignment; (4) when a valid plea
has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was acquitted, convicted, or the case was dismissed; double
jeopardy cannot exist on the basis of a void dismissal order (e.g. trial court did not afford any opportunity to the
prosecution to be heard before it decided to dismiss the case, contrary to Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised
Rules of Court).
CONDRADA VS PEOPLE, G.R. Petitioner is not in danger of being twice put in jeopardy with the reinstatement of Criminal Case No. 10770
NO. 141646, FEB. 28, 2003 because the case was provisionally dismissed by the trial court upon his motion. Thus, the requirement that the
dismissal of the case must be without the consent of the accused is not present in this case and neither does the
case fall under any of the two exceptions (1:insufficiency of evidence to support the charge; 2: unreasonable
delay in violation of right to speedy trial).
PEOPLE VS ROMERO, G.R. NO. No violation of the right against double jeopardy even if the trial court approves the prosecution’s motion to re-
144156, MARCH 20, 2003 open the case after its earlier approval of the accused’s plea to the lesser offense of homicide where it has yet to
render a decision.
PEOPLE VS ESPINOSA, G.R. NO. To substantiate a claim for double jeopardy, the following must be demonstrated: (1) [A] first jeopardy must have
153714, AUG. 15, 2003 attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; (3) the second jeopardy
must be for the same offense, or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in
the first information, or is an attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof. And legal jeopardy attaches
only: (a) upon a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) [when] a valid plea
[has] been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the
accused.
ORIENTE VS PEOPLE, 513 SCRA Manuel Oriente attacked and killed Romulo Vallo. RTC promulgated a second decision to correct the penalty
348 imposed on the Oriente. This does not amount to double jeopardy as Courts have the inherent power to amend
formalities of their decisions to conform to law and justice.
PACOY VS CAJIGAL, 534 SCRA It is the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal or termination of the case that bars further
338 prosecution for the same offense or any attempt to commit the same or the frustrations thereof.
SUMMERVILLE VS EUGENIO, If the trial court’s order granting the withdrawal of the Information was committed with grave abuse of
529 SCRA 274 discretion, then the accused was not acquitted nor was there a valid and legal dismissal or termination of the case
— as such the fourth requisite on the conviction and acquittal of the accused in the dismissal of the case, without
the approval of the accused was not met and therefore, double jeopardy did not set in.
HERRERA VS In order for a case of double jeopardy to prosper all the requisites must be present, the absence of one would be a
SANDIGANBAYAN, 579 SCRA 32 fatal defect.
JAVIER VS SANDIGANBAYAN, Double jeopardy could not attach considering that the two cases remain pending before the Sandiganbayan and
599 SCRA 324 that the petitioner had pleaded to only one in the criminal cases against her.
CO VS LIM, 604 SCRA 702 The failure of the trial court judge to independently evaluate and assess the merits of the case against the accused
violates the complainant’s right to due process and constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
LEJANO VS PEOPLE, 639 SCRA A judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the accused under double jeopardy; to
760 reconsider such judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being punished for the crime of
which he has already been absolved.
BANGAYON VS BANGAYON, Though the trial court incorrectly overlooked the evidence against the petitioner, granting them demurrer to
G.R. NO. 172777, OCT. 19, 2011 evidence which resulted to the acquittal of the accused, such error is a mistake of judgment which cannot be
rectified by a petition for certiorari as double jeopardy had already set in.
GOODLAND VS CO, G.R. NO. An order granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence is a resolution of the case on the merits, and it amounts to
196685, DEC. 18, 2011 an acquittal. Generally, any further prosecution of the accused after an acquittal would violate the constitutional
proscription on double jeopardy.nIt is settled that a judgment of acquittal cannot be recalled or withdrawn by
another order reconsidering the dismissal of the case, nor can it be modified except to eliminate something which
is civil or administrative in nature. One exception to the rule is when the prosecution is denied due process of
law. Another exception is when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion in dismissing a criminal case by
granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence. If there is grave abuse of discretion, granting Goodland’s prayer is
not tantamount to putting Co and Chan in double jeopardy.
!However, the present case is replete with evidence to prove that the CA was correct in denying Goodland’s
certiorari on appeal.
RULE ON SUPERVENING
FACTS
MELO VS PEOPLE, 85 PHIL 766 "Where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes f or which the def endant is responsible,
which changes the character of the offense and, together with the facts existing at the time, constitutes
a new and distinct offense" (15 Am. Jur., 66), the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if
PEOPLE VS BULING, 107 PHIL indicted
Accused for
wasthe newguilty
found offense.
of less serious physical injuries and served sentence. A subsequent examination by a
712 different physician using X-ray showed that wounds inflicted would not heal on time, hence accused was charged
of serious physical injuries and was again sentenced to jail. This is double jeopardy because what happened here
is not a supervening event but a failure of the first physician to diagnose the injury.
SAME OFFENSES
PEOPLE VS TIOZON, 198 SCRA PD 1866 which punishes possession of firearms (qualified by the attendance of murder) and the article on
368 Murder/Homicide in the Revised Penal Code defines two distinct crimes, and as such, prior jeopardy as to one of
them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise from the same facts, as each crime
involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other.
LAMERA VS CA, 198 SCRA 186 Since the information were for separate offenses, one cannot be pleaded as a bar to the other under the rule of
double jeopardy, and as a rule, for double jeopardy to attach, the accused must have been arraigned.
GONZALES VS CA, 232 SCRA “Premature resort to the courts necessarily becomes fatal to the cause of action of the petitioner.”
667
PEOPLE VS TURDA, 233 SCRA Not all acts which constitute estafa necessarily establish illegal recruitment, for estafa is wider in scope and
702 covers deceits whether or not related to recruitment activities and more importantly, the element of damage,
which is essential in estafa cases, is immaterial in illegal recruitment.
PEOPLE VS MANUNGAS, 231 Accused- appellant is guilty of Estafa and Illegal Recruitment. A person who violates any of the provisions under
SCRA 1 Article 13(b) and Article 34 of the Labor Code can be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment and
estafa because illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not
necessary for a conviction while estafa is amalum in se where criminal intent of the accused is necessary for a
conviction.
PEOPLE VS DEUNIDA, 231 Deunida was accused of illegal possession of firearms (PD 1866) and murder, and the court held that Deunida
SCRA 520 was not placed in double jeopardy when he was also charged in another case with murder because the former
offense is a different offense punished by a special law while the latter offense is defined and penalized under the
Revised Penal Code.
PEOPLE VS FERNANDEZ, 239 There is no violation of the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy since the two Informations filed
SCRA 174 against the defendant charged two distinct and different offenses—murder and illegal possession of firearm.
PEOPLE VS QUIJADA, 259 SCRA Where the offenses charged are penalized either by different sections of the same statute or by different statutes,
191 the important inquiry relates to the identity of offenses charged such that the protection against double jeopardy
is available only where an identity is shown to exist between the earlier and the subsequent offenses charged.
PEOPLE VS BALLABARE, 264 Ballabare contends that he was placed in jeopardy when he was found guilty of murder and Illegal Possession of
SCRA 350 Firearms and Ammunition but the argument has no merit since Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition
does not absorb the crime of homicide or murder under the Revised Penal Code and therefore does not bar the
simultaneous or subsequent prosecution for the latter crime.
PEOPLE VS CALONZO, 262 In this case Calonzo was convicted on 5 counts of illegal recruitment, he was also convicted of estafa. Calonzo
SCRA 534 contends that this is double jeopardy, however conviction under the labour code does not preclude conviction
under other statues (Thus can be convicted for estafa).
PEOPLE VS BENEMERITO, 264 The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence of the parties in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the
SCRA 534 presumption of innocence should tilt in favor of the accused for which an offer of mere denial and claim that he
was the victim, fails to overcome the prosecution’s evidence, hence the rule is unavailable to him.
PEOPLE VS TOBIAS, 266 SCRA Where the victim was slain by the accused with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the accused may not be
229 convicted of two separate offenses but only that of illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form.
PEOPLE VS MANOYCO, 269 Accused in this case was convicted of estafa (RPC) and illegal recruitment in large scale (Labor Code) though it
SCRA 513 arose from the same offense, since elements of both were present.
PEOPLE VS TAN TIONG MENG, The presumption of innocence can be disproved by reasonable doubt established by the prosecution.
271 SCRA 125
PEOPLE VS SADIOSA, 290 SCRA The crime of illegal recruitment (Labor Code) is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is
92 not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is necessary for
conviction and so a person convicted under the Labor Code may also be convicted under the RPC.
PEOPLE VS SANCHEZ, 291 A person convicted for illegal recruitment may also be convicted for the crime of estafa since the former offense
SCRA 333 is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa
is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is an additional element for conviction.
PEOPLE VS SALEY, 291 SCRA Conviction for the various offenses under the Labor Code does not bar the punishment of the offender for estafa
715 since illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum offense where criminal intent is not necessary for conviction
while estafa is malum in se which requires criminal intent to warrant conviction.
PEOPLE VS JUEGO, G.R. NO. A conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar punishment for offenses punishable by other laws
123162, OCT. 13, 1998 and in this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted
separately of illegal recruitment and estafa under par. 2 (a), Art. 315, of The Revised Penal Code, as the offense
of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for
conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction.
PEOPLE VS GANADIN, G.R. NO. Case cannot be found.
129441, NOV. 27, 1998
PEOPLE VS BALASA, G.R. NO. Even if several cases arose out of the same scheme, if the fraudulent acts charged were committed against
106357, SEPT. 3, 1998 different persons, they do not constitute the same offense.
PALUAY VS CA, 293 SCRA 358 The question raised by the petition for annulment of judgment is a factual question that cannot be reviewed not
only because the decision of the trial court is now final but also because a review of such question at the instance
of the prosecution would violate the right of the accused against being placed in double jeopardy of punishment
for the same act.
PEOPLE VS MERCADO, 304 The Court reiterated the rule that a person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code can be
SCRA 504 convicted of violation of the Revised Penal Code provisions on estafa, provided the elements of the crime are
present.
PEOPLE VS YABUT, G.R. NO. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws.
115719, OCT. 5, 1999
PEOPLE VS ONG, 322 SCRA 38 Cases may be tried jointly if such are based on the same set of facts.
PEOPLE VS MERIS, G.R. NO. Accused is convicted of six counts of estafa and large-scale illegal recruitment stemming from seven
117145-50, MARCH 28, 2000 informations filed against her, containing the same allegations except as to name of complainants and amounts
involved. The complaints were consolidated.
PEOPLE VS LOGAN, G.R. NO. Offenders who have committed illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of the crime of
135030-33, JULY 20, 2001 illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code.
POTOT VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. A petitioner who has been placed in jeopardy for the crime of homicide, cannot be prosecuted anew for the same
143547, JUNE 26, 2002 offense, or any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first offense charged.
PEOPLE VS CA, 423 SCRA 605 Respondents Francisco and Pacao, accused with homicide and attempted murder, were found not guilty by the
Court of Appeals. Their acquittal must therefore be accorded finality in faithful adherence to the rule against
double jeopardy.
RAMISCAL VS Crimes committed by public officers and employees in relation to their offices defined and penalized under the
SANDIGANBAYAN, 499 SCRA Anti-Graft law do not exclude prosecution for felonies defined and penalized under RPC, and vice versa --- one
375 may be charged of violation of RA No.3079 in addition to a felony under the RPC for the same delictional act,
that is either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with or felony under the code.
PEOPLE VS COMILA, 517 SCRA A person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa—illegal recruitment being malum
153 prohibitum while estafa is malum in se.
DIAZ VS DAVAO, 520 SCRA 481 A single criminal act could give rise to multiple crimes and if there is a difference in the elements of the two
crimes then there will be no Double Jeopardy since the prohibition on Double Jeopardy refers to identity of
elements in the two crimes.
MERENCILLO VS PEOPLE, 521 There is no double jeopardy if a person is charged simultaneously or successively for violation of Section 3 of
SCRA 31 RA 3019 and the Revised Penal Code.
LAPASARAN VS PEOPLE, 578 The best arbiter of the issue of credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is the trial court.
SCRA 658
IVLER VS MODESTO, 635 SCRA Where both charges are derived from the consequences of one and the same vehicular accident (or act or quasi-
191 offenses), the second accusation places the appellant in second jeopardy for the same offense.
PEOPLE VS OCDEN, 650 SCRA There is no bar for the prosecution of the accused for both estafa and illegal recruitment even though they root
124 from one and the same offense since conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for
offenses punishable by other laws.
PEOPLE VS LALLI, G.R. NO. When an act or acts violate two or more different laws and constitute two different offenses, a prosecution under
195419, OCT. 12, 2011 one will not bar a prosecution under the other. The constitutional right against double jeopardy only applies to
risk of punishment twice for the same offense, or for an act punished by a law and an ordinance. The prohibition
on double jeopardy does not apply to an act or series of acts constituting different offenses.
NO APPEAL FROM
ACQUITTAL, INSTANCES OF
VOID ACQUITTAL
PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN, Once the court grants the demurrer, such order amounts to an acquittal; and any further prosecution of
376 SCRA 74 the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.
YUCHENGCO VS CA, 376 SCRA Private respondents have been acquitted by CA from charges of libel. Petitioner files a certiorari case to assail the
531 acquittal. Court says that acquittal cannot be appealed since it is final and doing so would trample upon the
constitutional right protecting people from double jeopardy. Moreover, certiorari can only be used when there is
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The case at bar involves a question of fact
and the appreciation of adduced evidence which the CA did without grave abuse of discretion.
SAN VICENTE VS PEOPLE, G.R. When the trial court issued an order to dismiss and granted demurrer to San Vicente who was charged with
NO. 132081, NOV. 26, 2002 homicide, it constituted an exception to the rule that the dismissal of a criminal case made with the express
consent of the accused or upon his own motion bars a plea of double jeopardy.
PEOPLE VS CA, G.R. NO. While it is true that double jeopardy will attach in case the prosecution appeals a decision acquitting the accused,
132396, SEPT. 23, 2002 it is likewise true that an acquittal rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction does not really acquit and therefore does not terminate the case.
PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN, One can be discharge as long as the Rules are sufficiently complied on State witnesses.
491 SCRA 185
PEOPLE VS CA, 516 SCRA 383 There are two recognized exceptions to the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy: (1) Where there has
been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial or (2) Where there has been a grave
abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances which in this case, neither of these was present.
PEOPLE VS LAGUIO, 518 SCRA It also basic that appeal in criminal cases throws the whole records of the case wide open for review by the
393 appellate court that is why any appeal from a judgment of acquittal necessarily puts the accused in double
jeopardy.
PEOPLE VS DUMLAO, 580 SCRA Dumalao was accused of violating the anti-graft and corruption law, and the court held that double jeopardy has
409 not yet set since the last element of double jeopardy — valid conviction, acquittal, dismissal or termination of the
case — has not been satisfied.
TIU VS CA, 586 SCRA 118 Settled is the ruled that only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, and the appeal of
petitioner Tiu cannot be granted since the accused in the case appealed was acquitted due to insufficiency of
evidence, otherwise, double jeopardy would attach.
PEOPLE VS DE GRANO, 588 A judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
SCRA 550 of Court, but only upon a clear showing by the petitioner that the lower court, in acquitting the accused,
committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but also grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, or to a denial of due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void, in which event,
the accused cannot be considered at risk of double jeopardy — the revered constitutional safeguard against
exposing the accused to the risk of answering twice for the same offense.
PEOPLE VS NAZARENO, 595 Nazareno et al were acquitted for violating Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
SCRA 438 Practices Act, the People filed for a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court however a judgment of acquittal
is final, no longer reviewable, immediately executory and the State may not seek its review without placing the
accused in double jeopardy.
PEOPLE VS DUCA, 603 SCRA In this case the CA acquitted Duca without giving the OSG the chance to file his comment, this deprived the state
159 of its right to refute the material allegations filed before the CA, thus the decision of acquittal is null and void.
MUPAS VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. An order granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal, however, an exception is that
189365, OCT. 12, 2011 when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in dismissing a criminal case by granting the
accused’s demurrer to evidence, its judgment is considered nugatory.
PARTIES
METROBANK VS MERIDIANO, Whenever a criminal case is prosecuted and the State is the offended party, the case must always be prosecuted
G.R. NO. 118251, JUNE 29, 2001 under the control and guidance of the State through its government prosecutors; Whenever there is an acquittal or
dismissal of a criminal case and the private complainant intends to question such an acquittal or dismissal, the
same must be undertaken by the State through the Solicitor General
ORDINANCE AND STATUTE

PEOPLE VS RELOVA, 148 SCRA A person who was charged for violating a City Ordinance for having installed a metering device to lower his
292 electric bills which was dismissed for prescription of the offense may not be charged again for theft of electric
power under the RPC.
APPLIED TO IMPEACHMENT
ESTRADA VS DESIERTO, G.R. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not
NO. 146710-15, G.R. NO. 146738, acting as such but stands in the same footing as any trespasser.
MARCH 2, 2001
ESTRADA VS DESIERTO, MR- Double jeopardy attaches only: (1) upon a valid complaint; (2) before a competent court; (3) after arraignment;
GR 146710-15 AND 146738, (4) when a valid plea has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case was
APRIL 3, 2001 dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused (petitioner failed to satisfy the fifth
requisite for he was not acquitted nor was the impeachment proceeding dismissed without his express consent)
PEOPLE VS LOGAN, G.R. NO. A person convicted under the Labor Code may also be convicted of offenses punishable by other laws.
135030-33, JULY 20, 2001

Constitutional Law 2 Doctrines/1-Line Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law 2 Doctrines/1-Line Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1-B Constitutional Law 2

WHEN THE RIGHTS OF

THE RIGHT TO REMAIN

THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL:

EFFECTIVE AND VIGILANT

ASSISTANCE AFTER START

VALID CONFESSION WITH

REQUISITES FOR VALID

LAWYER GIVEN BY POLICE

NOT IN POLICE CUSTODY

POLICE LINE UP: GENERAL

WHEN BODY OF THE

THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE:

IMMUNITY AGAINST SELF-

CO-ACCUSED NOT BOUND

WHO MAY RAISE THE

WHEN MUST THE

RIGHTS AFTER CUSTODIAL

RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND TO

NATURE OF THE OFFENSE:

RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

RIGHT TO IMPARTIAL TRIAL

RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL

TRIAL IN ABSENTIA, RIGHT

ORDINANCE AND STATUTE

You might also like