People vs.

Dramayo
FACTS: Dramayo and Ecubin accompanied the deceased to the chief of
police to be witnesses on a robbery which took place on the house of the
deceased but they were then included as prime suspects. To prevent the
deceased on testifying for the robbery case, Dramayo with Ecubin invited 5
of their friends to a drinking session where they brought up the plan of
killing the deceased. The killing took place where only Dramayo and Ecubin
actually contributed to the killing. However, all 7 of them were accused of
murder, but 2 were utilized as state witnesses, 3 were acquitted for lack of
proof beyond reasonable doubt, and only Dramayo and Ecubin were
convicted, though the offense was charged to have been committed with
conspiracy. It was the contention of the defense that since the crime
charged involves conspiracy and the other accused were acquitted beyond
reasonable doubt, Dramayo and Ecubin should also be acquitted for lack of
proof beyond reasonable doubt.
DOCTRINE: Even if the other defendants in a crime charged with
conspiracy were acquitted, if moral certainty arisen in some of them as to
their culpability, the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE cannot come to their
rescue as it was sufficiently overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt
establishing moral certainty that they are guilty of the offense charged.
People vs. Holgado
FACTS: Holgado, a private person, was accused of slight illegal detention
for detaining Artemia in a house for 8 hours. When he was presented to the
court for arraignment, the judge asked him Do you have an attorney or
are you going to plead guilty?. He answered I dont have an attorney and
Im going to plead guilty. Judgment was rendered convicting him of
Kidnapping and Serious illegal detention.
DOCTRINES:
The INFORMATION CHARGES an offense of slight illegal detention on its
caption and the allegations on the information were ambiguous. The
conviction must only be for the offense he has pleaded since no
evidence was presented to prove a higher offense.

The courts duty if the defendant appears before them without a

COUNSEL is:
1. Inform him of his right to counsel before being arraigned.
2. Ask him if he desires the aid of a counsel
3. If yes but unable to employ one, must assign a counsel de officio
4. If he desires to procure his own counsel, he must be granted
reasonable time to do so.

Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan

FACTS: An employee of Makati Central Post Office disclosed to his chief a
group responsible for stolen mail matters in the post office. The chief then
sought the assistance of NBI resulting to the arrest of 3 out of 4 people to

be arrested, 2 were non employees while one was an employee of the post
office, Marcelo. NBI asked them to sign the envelops involved as a proof
that those were the envelops seized from them during the arrest. It was
the contention of the defense that the act of having them sign the
envelops without a counsel is against their RIGHT AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION.
DOCTRINE: Since the signing of the envelops was done during a custodial
investigation without the presence of a counsel, the petitioners admission
that the letters they signed were those seized from them is inadmissible as
testimonial evidence. However, the envelops can stand on their own and
admissible as they were the ones seized from the accused as an incident of
a valid arrest, thus, the envelops themselves are admissible in court.
People vs. Matos-Viduya
FACTS: The wife was accused of parricide for killing his lawyer husband.
She initially denied the allegations by executing 2 affidavits, one stating
that it was a result of a robbery by their former employee and another
person, and the other affidavit executed to include their driver as the other
robber who actually killed her husband. The wife then executed an
extrajudicial confession without the presence of her own counsel as she
said that the presence of the fiscal in that room is enough Andyan
naman si fiscal kaya hindi ko na kailangan ng abogado.
DOCTRINE: The EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION has no probative value
although it was executed with the presence of the fiscal for the latters
duty is to prosecute crimes and cannot pretend to be a defense counsel
even only during a custodial investigation. A counsel required for the
accused is one who will effectively undertake his clients defense without
any intervening conflict of interest. Hence, the extrajudicial confession
cannot be taken as evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Acquitted.
People vs. Declaro
FACTS: A charge of slight physical injury was filed against the accused as
a result of traffic accident. Another case was later filed for serious physical
injury. The first case was dismissed by Hon.Declaro granting the motion of
the counsel for the accused on ground of lack of interest on the part of the
prosecution. Due this, the second case was dismissed as well on the
ground of DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
DOCTRINE: Legal jeopardy attaches only:
1. Upon a valid complaint
2. Before a competent court
3. After arraignment
4. A valid plea having been entered
5. Defendant was acquitted or convicted, or case was dismissed or
terminated without express consent of the accused.

It has been held in numerous cases that dismissal is equivalent to acquittal

only if grounded on insufficiency of evidence or denial of speedy trial which
is not in this case. The dismissal in the first case was grounded on lack of
interest on part of the prosecution, thus, it is not equivalent to acquittal,
and such dismissal was with express consent of the accused, hence, the
second case cannot fall under double jeopardy. In the first place, the court
should have not dismissed the first case as the failure of the prosecution to
appear only happened once. The court should have given them another
day in court as how the accused is given the opportunity to be heard.

People vs. Hon.Gines

FACTS: 3 persons were charged for libel, but 1 was excluded having no
participation therein, and another accused is to be added in the then filed
information in lieu of the excluded person. There were postponements filed
by the complainant for medical reasons, i.e. separate days for operation of
both eyes for cataract and one for check-up abroad. Pending preliminary
investigation for the third accused who was supposed to be added in the
information, Hon. Gines dismissed the case for the denial of speedy trial for
the accused.
(NOTE: Dismissal of the charge for the third accused was proper as crime
already prescribed for not being filed for more than a year.)
DOCTRINES: The dismissal of the case for the 2 other accused due to
speedy trial was premature and erroneous. As settled, right to SPEEDY
TRIAL is relative, subject to reasonable delays and postponements. As in
this case, postponements by the prosecution were not capricious,
oppressive nor vexatious as they were done in good faith with justifiable
and meritorious reason satisfactorily proven by the prosecution to be true.
The case was dismissed 8 and a half months after the filing of the charges
which is not a lengthy duration to cause unnecessary delay denying
speedy trial. Hence, their invocation of speedy trial as a ground for
dismissal which, if given merit would be tantamount to acquittal, cannot be
appreciated. Due that, it would not fall under double jeopardy should the
case be ordered reopened.

requirement for public trial is satisfied if the accused could have his
friends, relatives and counsel present at the trial. Hence, right to public
trial was not violated in this case. And even if to consider it in violation of
their right to public trial, as held in another case by the SC, if accused
offered no objection to it during trial, his right is deemed waived.

Villareal vs. People

FACTS: 7 freshmen law students sought to enter a fraternity and, thus,
were subject to initiation rites. After the hours of initiation, Dizon and
Villareal asked the initiation rites to be reopened to add rounds of physical
pain to the neophytes. The head of the initiation rites refused initially but
due to the insistence of the 2, the rites was reopened.
After paddling one of the neophytes, Lenny, he could no longer walk. The
initiation rites ended. They ate dinner and slept. While they were sleeping,
they were roused by Lennys shivering and mumblings, they tried to help
him and brought him to the hospital when his condition worsened, but was
declared dead on arrival.
Charges for homicide were filed against 35 fraternity members. Villareal
and Dizon were convicted by the trial court for homicide, 4 were convicted
for slight physical injuries, 4 were dismissed for violation of right to speedy
trial, and others were acquitted for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

Garcia vs. Domingo

FACTS: Hon.Garcia held the trial for the 8 criminal actions in his chamber
rather than in a courtroom. During the conduct of all trials, the accused did
not complain about it, but when the promulgation of judgment is to come,
the accused filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with Hon.Domingo
against Hon.Garcia on the ground of denial of a public trial. Domingo
issued a restraining order to Garcia until further order causing the
promulgation of decision not rendered.
DOCTRINE: It does not transgress the right of the accused to PUBLIC
TRIAL when it was held in the chamber of the judge as there is no showing
that public was excluded. Also, as opined by J.Black in his masterly case,

Villareal died pending his petition; hence, his liability was extinguished.
Dizon appealed invoking his right to DUE PROCESS for being wrongfully
declared to have waived his right to present evidence. The trial court
set 5 dates for him to present evidence but he was asked to present it
at an earlier date because one of the accused did not present evidence
and only adopted the evidences of the other accused. He was unable
to present his evidence on the earlier date, then court declared it as
his waiver to present evident.
Sol.Gen. appealed the conviction of the 4 accused for only slight
physical injury.
Sol.Gen. assailed the dismissal of the other 4 accused grounded on
their right to SPEEDY TRIAL.

DOCTRINES:
The court should have considered the excuse of Dizons counsel
justified since counsel for another accused had made a last-minute
adoption of testimonial evidence that accelerated the succeeding trial
dates, and Dizon was not really scheduled to testify on that day. The
trial court should have only considered it as a waiver to present
evidence on one day and allowed him to present it on the other set
dates. Stripping off all the pre-assigned trial dates constitutes a denial
of right to due process. Nevertheless, it wont vacate the finding of the
guilt of the accused when facts had been adequately represented and
no procedural unfairness or irregularity has prejudiced the accused or

the prosecution, hence, the guilty verdict may still be upheld since it is
supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
The court, however, correctly dismissed the case of the 4 accused on
ground of speedy trial as their case has been dormant for a
considerable length of time. There had been no action on their case for
almost 7 years but the pleadings and one motion to set case for trial
which court did not act upon. This prolonged inactivity is precisely the
kind of delay that the constitution frowns upon. Though the delay of
the trial are justifiable, it is nonetheless clear that their right to speedy
trial has been violated in this case.

(NOTE: Dizon and all other 4 accused previously convicted of slight

physical injury were convicted for reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide. According to the medical records, the injuries are not fatal if
individually taken, thus not only Dizon contributed to the death of Lenny, it
was their collective act of inflicting injuries to him that caused his death.)
Tan Jr. v Gallardo
FACTS: Tan was convicted of frustrated murder and double murder of the
brother and uncle of mayor Larazabal. Petitioner seeks to annul the
judgment of judge Gallardos order in denying petitioners motion for
respondent judge to disqualify or inhibit himself from acting and hearing
upon their motion for new trial alleging bias and manifest impartiality on
the part of the judge. Petitioners assert that Judge kept improper contact
with the Larazabals; on occasion, received bottles of wine through the
stenographers and after an alleged meeting with mayor Larazabal, judge
amended his already prepared decision by changing the penalty from life
sentence to death.
DOCTRINE: A judge should strive to be at all times "wholly free,
disinterested, impartial and independent. Elementary due process requires
a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. A judge has both
the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty, of doing it in a manner
completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity.
Thus, it has always been stressed that judges should not only be impartial
but should also appear impartial. For "impartiality is not a technical
conception, It is a state of mind" and, consequently, the "appearance of
impartiality is an essential manifestation of its reality. It must be obvious,
therefore, that while judges should possess proficiency in law in order that
they can competently construe and enforce the law, it is more important
that they should act and behave in such a manner that the parties before
them should have confidence in their impartiality.