1

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

SECTION 12
(1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right
to be informed of his right to remain silent and
to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
the free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil
sanctions for violations of this section as well
as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims
of torture or similar practices, and their families.
SECTION 13
All persons, except those charged with
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or
be released on recognizance as may be
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail
shall not be required.
SECTION 14
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public
trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to
have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding
the absence of the accused: Provided, that he

has been duly notified and his failure to appear

is unjustifiable.
SECTION 17
No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.
SECTION 19
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological,
or degrading punishment against any prisoner
or detainee or the use of substandard or
inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.
SECTION 21
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction
or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act.

CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS

Criminal due process requires that the accused
be tried by:
1.

impartial court

2.

in accordance with the procedure

prescribed by law
with proper observance of all the rights
accorded to him under the Constitution
and applicable statutes

3.

Right to preliminary investigation is PURELY

STATUTORY but to deny the accuseds claim to
a preliminary investigation would be to deprive
him of the full measure of his right to due
process.
It is a part of the guarantee of freedom and fair
play which are birthrights of all who live in our
country (Salonga v. Pao)
In Salanga v. Pao
CONSTI2ISAGANICRUZ/pamdenhil

2
- the citizens right to be free not only from
arbitrary arrest and punishment but also from
unwarranted and vexatious prosecution.

- it is imperative upon the fiscal or the judge to

relieve the accused from the pain of going
through a trial once it is ascertained that the
evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie
case or that no probable cause exists to form a
sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.
The accused has a right to complain if the judge
has a personal or pecuniary interest in the
outcome of the case.
In Galman v. Sandiganbayan

- The courts of the land under its aegis are courts

of law and justice and equity. They would have
no reason to exist if they were allowed to be
used as mere tools of injustice, deception, and
duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth,
instead of repositories of judicial power whose
judges are sworn and committed to render
impartial justice to all alike who seek
enforcement or protection of a right or the
prevention or redress of a wrong, without fear or
favour and removed from the pressures of
politics and prejudice.

It is against not all compulsion but TESTIMONIAL

COMPULSION ONLY
It also applies to the compulsion for the
production of documents, papers and chattels
that may be used as evidence against the
witness
EXCEPTION: When the State has a right to inspect
the same, such as the books of accounts of
corporations, under the police power
It is not only available in criminal prosecutions but
also in all other governmental proceedings,
including civil actions and administrative or
legislative investigations.
It may be claimed not only by the person accused
of the offense but by any witness to whom an
incriminating question is addressed.
SCOPE
As long as the question will tend to incriminate,
the witness is entitled to the privilege but he may
not refuse to answer provided the question is
relevant and allowed even if the answer may tend
to embarrass him or subject him to civil liability.
EXCEPTIONS:

A mistrial may be declared if it is shown that the

proceedings were held under such circumstances
as would prevent the accused from freely making
his defence or the judge from freely arriving at his
decision.
Due process of law is also denied where a
person is imploded for violation of a law,
administrative regulation or municipal ordinance
not previously published.

1. Past criminality when the witness can no

longer be prosecuted as where the crime has
already prescribed or he has already been
acquitted or convicted thereof.
2. Previous immunity grant he may not refuse
to answer if he had been immune under a
validly enacted statute.
WHEN AVAILABLE

In People v. Veridiano

- The Supreme Court held that the law became

effective 15 days from the date of release, which
is considered the date of publication.

SELF - INCRIMINATION
It is based on humanitarian and practical
considerations
Humanitarian: to prevent the State with all its
coercive powers from extracting from the suspect
testimony that may convict him
Practical: A person subject to such compulsion is
likely to perjure himself for his own protection

Ordinary witness: Only when the incriminating

questions is asked, since the witness has no way of
knowing in advance the nature or effect of the
question to be put to him
Accused: He can refuse at the beginning and
altogether to take the stand as a witness for the
prosecution, on the reasonable assumption that the
purpose of his interrogation will to be incriminate
him.
In Chavez v. CA

- A person accused occupies a different tier of

protection from an ordinary witness. Whereas an
ordinary witness may be compelled to take the
witness stand and claim the privilege as each
question requiring an incrimination answer is
CONSTI2ISAGANICRUZ/pamdenhil

3
shot at him. An accused may altogether refuse
to take the witness stand and refuse to answer
any and all questions. For in reality, the purpose
of calling an accused as a witness for the People
would be to incriminate him.

- The rule positively intends to prohibit the

certainly inhuman procedure of compelling a
person to furnish missing evidence necessary for
his conviction.
WAIVER
The right against self-incrimination may be
waived, either directly or by a failure provided the
waiver is CERTAIN AND UNEQUIVOCAL AND
INTELLIGENTLY, UNDERSTANDINGLY, AND
WILLINGLY MADE.

- Prior to questioning, the person must be warned

that 1) he has a right to remain silent, that 2) any
statement he does make may be used as
evidence against him, and 3) that he has a right
to the presence of an attorney, either retained or
appointed.

- The defendant may waive effectuation of

these rights, provided the waiver is made
voluntarily, knowingly, intelligently.

- If however, the accused indicates in any

manner and at any stage of the process that
he wishes to consult with an attorney before
speaking, there can be no questioning.

- If the individual is alone, and indicates in any

manner that he does not wish to be
interrogated, the police may not question him.
In People v. Buscato

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
It means any questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way

- The physical, mental, and moral coercion

exerted upon the accused rendered the
confessions inadmissible as contrary to the right
against self-incrimination.
In People v. Bagasala, Justice Fernando declared:

R.A. 7438 custodial investigation includes the

practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offence he is
suspected to have committed, without prejudice to
the liability of the inviting officer for any violation
of law.

- It should be impressed on police officials that the

Extrajudicial confession to be admissible, must

be:

The right of the person under investigation to

competent and independent counsel, preferably
of his own choice to be provided free if he
cannot afford a counsel de parte may be waived
so long as:

1. voluntary
2. with assistance of counsel
3. must be in writing
4. must be expressed

imperative requirements of truth and humanity

condemn the utilisation of force and violence to
extract confessions from unwilling victims. A
desirable end cannot, however, be attained by
unconstitutional means.

1. he does it in writing
2. in the presence of his counsel who has
presumably advised him

In Miranda v. Arizona

In People v. Macam

- The prosecution may not use statements,

- The right to counsel attached upon the start of

whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming

from custodial interrogation of the defendant
unless it demonstrates the use of procedural
safeguards effective to secure the privilege
against self-incriminations.

- Procedural safeguards: are devised to inform

accused-persons of their right of silence and to
assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it.

the investigation (i.e., when the investigating

officer starts to ask questions to elicit
information, confessions or admissions from the
accused)

- The counsel guarantee was intended to assure

the assistance of of counsel at the trial,
inasmuch as the accused was confronted with
both the intricacies of the law and the advocacy
of the public prosecutor
CONSTI2ISAGANICRUZ/pamdenhil

4
- After the start of the custodial investigation, any
identification of an uncounseled accused made
in a police line-up is inadmissible. (but in
Gamboa case and De la Torre v. CA, SC held
that the right to counsel is not available during a
police line-up as this is not considered part of the
custodial investigation)
In People v. Compil, according to Justice Belosillo:

- Right to counsel began when interrogation starts

- The operative act is when the police
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into
an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a
particular suspect who has been taken into
custody by the police to carry out a process of
interrogation that lends itself to eliciting
incriminatory statements.
In People v. Lucero

- The Constitution requires not just any kind of

counsel but effective and vigilant counsel.
In People v. Serzo, Justice Artemio V. Panganiban
observed:

- The right to counsel is not unlimited.

- The right to counsel of an accused is guaranteed
by our Constitution, our laws, and Rules of
Court.

- During custodial investigation, arraignment,

trial, and even on appeal, the accused is given
the option to be represented by a counsel of his
choice but when he neglects or refuses to
exercise this option, the court shall appoint for
him.
EXCEPTION: when the refusal to exercise the
option is due dilatory tactics, to trifle with the Rules
or to prejudice the equally important rights of the
State and the offended party to speedy and
adequate justice.

is lower without prejudice to the right of the

claimant to seek other remedies under existing
laws.

BAIL
Bail is the security given for the release of a
person in the custody of the law , furnished by
him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his
appearance before any court as may be required
Only persons under detention may petition for bail
because the purpose of bail is to secure their
provisional release. But any person in custody
who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail
with any court in the province, city, or municipality
where he is held (Rule 114 of Rules of Court)
Even if the crime imputed to the accused is
punishable by reclusion perpetual, he is still
entitled to bail if the evidence of guilt is not strong.
The burden of proof to prove the guilt beyond
reasonable doubt being with the prosecution.
In People v. Cortez,

- Where the accused is convicted of a capital

offence or of an offence punishable by reclusion
perpetual, his bail shall be canceled and he shall
be placed in confinement pending the resolution
of his appeal.
Hearing on the petition for bail is required to
satisfy due process, it may be summary in nature
or held in the course of the trial itself. Separate
hearing is not indispensable.
Mere probability of escape does not warrant
denial of right to bail; remedy is to increase the
bail, provided it is not excessive. But after
conviction in the RTC, the accused may be
denied bail if there is risk of his absconding.
RULE 114, SEC 6 OF RULES OF COURT the
judge, in fixing a reasonable amount of bail, should
consider primarily but nor exclusively, the:

R.A. 7309 victims of unjust imprisonment,

arbitrary or illegal detention, or of violent crimes
may file a claim for damages with the Board of
Claims under the Department of Justice.

1. financial ability of the accused to give bail

for victims of unjust imprisonment or detention:

award shall be not more than P1,000 for each
month of imprisonment

4. the character and reputation of the accused

in all other cases: shall not exceed P10,000 or

the expenses incurred for hospitalisation, medical
treatment, loss of wage, loss of support or other
expenses directly related to the injury, whichever

7. the probability if his appearing at the trial

2. nature and circumstances of the offence

3. the penalty for the offence charged

5. his age and health

6. the weight of the evidence against him

8. the forfeiture of other bonds by him

CONSTI2ISAGANICRUZ/pamdenhil

5
9. the fact that he was a fugitive from justice when
arrested
10.the pendency of other cases in which he is
under bond
In Yap v. CA,

- Bail is not intended as a punishment nor as in

satisfaction of civil liability which should
necessarily await the judgment of the appellate
court.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
Accusation is not synonymous with guilt.
It is the responsibility if the prosecution to
e s t a b l i s h t h e d e f e n d a n t s g u i l t b e y o n d
reasonable doubt; otherwise he is entitled to
acquittal.
In People v. Sunga,
Although the defence of the appellant was weak,
he nevertheless could not be convinced because of
the constitutional presumption of innocence. The
evidence of the prosecution was weaker.
In Dumlao Case,

- A person disqualified to run for public office on

the ground that charges have been filed against
him is virtually placed in the same category as a
person convicted of a crime with the penalty of
arresto, which carries with it the accessory
penalty of suspension of the right to hold
officering the term of the sentence.

- And although the filing of charges is considered

as but prime facie evidence, and therefore, may
be rebutted, yet, there is clear and present
danger that because of the proximity of the
elections, time constraints will prevent one
charged with acts of disloyalty, from offering
contrary proof to overcome the prima facie
evidence against him.
In People v. Tempongko

example:
unexplained flight
guilt

may lead to an inference of

failure on the part of the accused to explain his

possession of stolen property may give rise to the
reasonable presumption that it was he himself
who had stolen able presumption that it was he
himself who had stolen it.
The constitutional presumption will not apply as
long as there is some rational connection
between the fact proved and the ultimate fact
presumed, and the inference of one fact from
proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as
to be purely arbitrary mandate.
In People v. Mirantes,

- The evidence of the prosecution must be strong

enough to pierce the shield of this presumptive
innocence and to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

- Where the evidence of the prosecution is

insufficient to overcome this presumption,
necessarily, the judgment of conviction of the trial
court must be set aside. The onus probandi on
the prosecution is not discharged by casting
doubts upon the innocence of an accused, but by
eliminating all reasonable doubts as to his guilt.
In People v. Arciaga,

- No inference of guilt may be drawn against an

accused for his failure to make a statement of
any sort. The neglect or refusal of the accused
shall not in any manner prejudice or be used
against him.
In People v. Resano,

- Failure or refusal of the accused to testify may

prejudice him if the prosecution has already
established a prima facie case against him.
Duty to apprise the accused of the right to be
silent rests not with the court but with the
defense counsel.

- The ambiguous evidence of the prosecution

cannot justify our condemning the appellant to
prison for the rest of his life where there are
whispers of doubt that he is guilty.
The constitutional presumption of innocence may
be overcome by contrary presumptions
based
on the experience of human conduct.

RIGHT TO BE HEARD
Such a right is indispensable in any criminal
prosecution where the stakes are the liberty or
even the life of the accused, who must for this
reason be given a chance to defend himself.
CONSTI2ISAGANICRUZ/pamdenhil

6
1) Assistance of counsel
Right to counsel now begins from the time a
person is taken into custody and placed under
investigation for the commission of a crime. This
right becomes all the more important when he is
already on trial and confronted by a skilled and
experienced prosecutor.

The acts or omissions complained of as acts

constituting the offense must be stated in
ordinary and concise language without
repetition, not necessarily in the terms of the
statute defining the offence, but in such form as to
enable a person of common understanding to
know what offense is intended to be charged, and
enable the court to pronounce proper judgment.

The intricacies of courtroom procedure are not

within the knowledge of the ordinary layman, let
alone who is ignorant and unlettered.

The description and not the designation of the

offense is controlling. It should be the crime
alleged in the information.

The right of the accused to counsel in criminal

proceedings has never even considered subject
to waiver. A counsel de officio should still, despite
the objection of such accused, be appointed by
the court to represent him.

VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE the law should

be clear in defining the words used in a statute with
such reasonable specifity as to sufficiently inform
the ordinary individual of its meaning and thus
enable him to avoid violation of its provision.

In People v. Holgado, Chief Justice Moran

declared:

In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, through Justice

Belosillo

- In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing

- The vagueness doctrine merely requires a

unless the accused be given an opportunity to be

heard by counsel. The right to be heard would be
of little avail if it does not include the right to be
heard by counsel.

reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to

be upheldnot absolute precision or
mathematical exactitude, as petitioner seems to
suggest. Flexibility rather than meticulous
specifity is permissible as long as the metes and
bounds of the statute are clearly delineated.

- It is not enough for the Court to apprise an

accused of his right to have an attorney, it is not
enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of
an attorney, but it is essential that the court
should assign one de officio for him if he so
desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable
time to procure an attorney of his own.
The duty of the court is not ended with such
appointment, it should also see to it that the
counsel does his duty by the defendant. Counsel
de officio should not merely make the motions of
defending the accused but exert his utmost
efforts as if he were representing a paying client.

The charge is communicated to the accused

during the arraignment, which is an
indispensable part of the proceedings against
him.
Arraignment where the accused enter his plea
with full knowledge, together with his counsel. It
assures that the accused is fully acquainted with
the nature of the crime imputed to him and the
circumstances under which it is allegedly
committed.

The right to be silent and to the assistance of the

counsel may be waived during a custodial
investigation.

THE TRIAL

The right to counsel does not cease after trial

but continues even where the case is appealed.

The new Bill of Rights provides that it also be

impartial as an added guaranty of due process of
law.

NATURE & CAUSE OF ACCUSATION

The defendant is entitled to know the nature and
cause of the accusation against him so he can
adequately prepare for his defense.

Cold neutrality of an impartial judge to ensure

that justice is done to the defendant, the judge
must not only be impartial but must appear to be
impartial.
In People v. Opida,

- Convictions are based not on the mere

appearance or the past of the accused but on his
actual commission of the crime, to be
CONSTI2ISAGANICRUZ/pamdenhil

7
ascertained with the pure objectivity of the true
judge who must uphold the law for all without
favour or malice and always with justice.

be examined in the light of surrounding

circumstances such as the unavailability of
witnesses.

Publicity of trial necessary to prevent abuses

that may be committed by the court to the prejudice
of the defendant. People have a right to attend the
proceedings not only because of their interest in
the case, but to to ensure that constitutional
safeguards are being observed.

In Aquino v. Military Commission No. 2,

- Sec 14(2) of 1987 Philippine Constitution: After

exception: rape trials, where the presence of

people may inhibit testimony and embarrass some
of the parties.

arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding

the absence of the accused provided that he has
been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustified.

Right to be present is a personal right and may

be validly waived

Speedy trial one free from vexatious,

capricious, and oppressive delays and is intended
to relieve the accused of needless anxieties and
inconveniences before sentence is pronounced
upon him.

- Sec 7 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court

In Conde v. Rivera,

In People v. Presiding Judge and People v.

Macaraeg

where a prosecuting officer, without good cause,

secures postponements of the trial of a defendant
against his protest beyond a reasonable period of
time, as in this instance for more than a year, the
accused is entitled to relief by a:
1. proceeding in mandamus to compel a
dismissal of the information or
2. writ of habeas corpus if he is restrained of
his freedom and wants to obtain freedom
In Padilla v. Apas,

- The repeated postponements of the prosecution

caused the delay of the proceedings from the
time the information was filed, from which the
test of the right to a speedy trial is counted, the
dismissal of the case, amounts to an acquittal.

and PD No. 28: the failure or refusal on the part

of the defendant to attend the examination or the
taking of the deposition after notice has been
provided shall be considered a waiver.

- the presence of the accused may be required if it

is necessary for purposes of identification, where
the prosecution intends to introduce witnesses
who will identify him.
In People v. Dichoso,
speedy justice is as much a prerogative of an
accused as of complainant
1) Trial in Absentia Section 14(2) of the 1987
Philippine Constitution provides that: after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding
the absence of the accused provided that he
has been duly notified and his failure to appear
is unjustifiable.
Requisites:

In Amberti v. CA,

a. accused has already been arraigned

- Speed is not the objective of the trial. Careful

b. he has been duly notified of the trial

and deliberate consideration for the

administration of justice, a genuine respect for
the rights of all parties and the requirements of
procedural due process.

- The ends of justice and fairness would be

served thereby are more important than a race
to end the trial.
In Martin v. Ver,

- The right to a speedy trial which begins from the

filing of the information, cannot be quantified into
a specified number of days or months but must

c. his failure to appear is unjustified

In People v. Salas,

- The purpose of the rule is to speed up the

disposition of criminal cases.

- Fugitive is now deemed to have waived such

notice precisely because he has escaped , and
its also this escape that makes his failure to
appear at his trial unjustified.

- Sec 19: The defendants escape will be

considered a waiver of this right and the inability
of the court to notify him of the subsequent
CONSTI2ISAGANICRUZ/pamdenhil

8
hearings will not prevent it from continuing with
his trial. He will be deemed to have received due
notice. By escaping, he has placed himself
beyond the pale, and the protection, of the law.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA does not abrogate the
provisions of the Rules of Court regarding forfeiture
of the bail bond if the accused fails to appear at his
trial.

THE RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION

intends to secure the accused in the right to be
tried, so far as facts provable by witnesses are
concerned by only such witnesses as meet him
face to face at the trial, who give their testimony
in his presence, and give to the accused an
opportunity of cross-examination.
to prevent conviction of the accused upon
deposition or ex parte (with respect to the interest
of one side only) affidavits, and particularly to
preserve the right of the accused to test the
recollection of the witness in the exercise of the
right of cross-examination.

- the presence of the witnesses at the trial will

enable the court to observe his demeanour and
gauge the credibility of his testimony.
except: dying declaration testimony of the
witness against the accused is subject to crossexamination by defence counsel
Depositions and ex parte affidavits
inadmissible as evidence unless the persons
making them are presented in court for examination
on their statements by the judge and the accused.
Considered as hearsay and excluded by the Rules
of Court.
In Talino v. Sandiganbayan

- where the several co-accused are given a

separate trial, the evidence given against them
at the other trial where they had no opportunity
to cross-examine the witnesses is not admissible
against them
In People v. Serenes,

- If a prosecution witness dies before his crossexamination can be completed, his direct
testimony cannot be stricken off the record
provided the material points of his direct
testimony had been covered on cross.

COMPULSORY PROCESS
must be invoked DURING THE TRIAL. Failure to
do so constitutes a waiver that cannot be rectified
or undone on appeal.
The accused is entitled to the:
issuance of subpoena and subpoena duces
tetum for the purpose of compelling the
attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence that he may need for his defense. Failure
to obey the process is punishable as contempt of
court; if necessary, the witness may be arrested
so he can give the needed evidence.
conditional examinations in exceptional
circumstances, if the expected testimony is
material, of any witness who is so sick or infirm as
to afford reasonable ground for believing that he
will not be able to attend the trial, or resides more
than 100 kms from the place of trial and has no
means to attend the same or other analogous
circumstances that would prevent him from
attending the trial.

PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS
Mere fines and imprisonment are not violative of
Sec 19 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution . To be
so, penalty must be inhuman, barbarous and
shocking to the conscience.
EXAMPLE: garote, thumbscrew, the rack, burning
at the stake, crucifixion.
Torture a cruel punishment because it involves
a deliberate design to increase the suffering of the
prisoner in a manner so flagrant and oppressive as
to revolt the moral sense of the community.
*In People v. Dionisio through Justice J.B.L. Reyes,
- what evils should be corrected as pernicious to
the body politic, anyhow correction should be done,
is a matter primarily addressed to the discretion of
the legislative department, not the courts.
This prohibition is not addressed not only to the
legislature but also to the judge who, in the
determination of the fine to be imposed, must
take into account the financial condition of the
convict to prevent the fine from becoming
excessive and also discriminatory.

CONSTI2ISAGANICRUZ/pamdenhil

9
But where an unforeseeable accident adds to the
suffering of the convict to a valid penalty, does
not become cruel or unusual.

Requisites that constitute double jeopardy:

a. valid complaint or information
b. filed before a competent court

EXAMPLE: a mechanical failure in the electric

chair prevented the execution of the petitioner and
another execution was scheduled by the warden,
convict protested that he was being subjected to a
cruel and unusual punishment as he would again
be required to undergo the psychological strain of
preparing for his death.
In Echagaray v. Sec of Justice and People v.
Tongko,

- any infliction of pain in lethal injection is merely

incidental in carrying out the death penalty and
does not fall within the constitutional proscription
against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment.
Commission on Human Rights especially
entrusted with the enforcement of prohibition in Sec
19(2), which to be really effective, must be provided
with teeth through the enactment of a law
imposing necessary sanctions upon those violating
the rule.
Appropriations should also be provided for the
improvement if the facilities of penal institutions

DOUBLE JEOPARDY
res judicata in prison grey
The right against double jeopardy prohibits the
prosecution again of any person for a crime
which he has previously been acquitted or
convicted.
RULE 117, Sec 7. Former conviction or acquittal;
double jeopardy. When an accused has been
convicted or acquitted, or the case against him
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent by a court of competent
jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or
other formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction and after the
accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction
or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the
case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the
offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the
same or frustration thereof, or for any offense
which necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charged in the former
complaint or information.

c. to which the defendant had pleaded

d. of which he had been previously acquitted or
convicted or which was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent
A. Complaint or Information
A prosecution based on an invalid complaint or
information cannot lead to a valid judgment and
hence will not place the accused under jeopardy.
Where the original information is defective and
the case is dismissed on the motion of the
accused, it may be validly renewed with the filing
of a corrected information.
But if without the express consent of the accuses,
the information is dismissed on the ground that it
is defective when it is not so in fact, another
prosecution bases on the same allegation will
constitute double jeopardy.
B. Competent Court
A person charged before a court without
jurisdiction cannot plead double jeopardy when
tried anew for the same offense by a competent
court, as the first prosecution never placed him in
jeopardy.
Double jeopardy requires valid previous
proceedings
Where a court martial and civil court have
concurrent jurisdiction, a decision by one court
will bar another prosecution for the same offence
in the other court.
C. Valid Plea
A defendant is never placed under jeopardy until
after he shall have pleaded to the charge
against him during the arraignment.
D. Termination of the Case
acquittal executory upon rendition and entitles
the accused to immediate release
judgment of conviction appealable within 15
days but becomes final if the convict starts serving
his sentence even before the expiration of this
period. Therefore, it can no longer be set aside by
the court to order a new trial or impose a new
sentence.
GENERAL RULE: A dismissal with the expressed
consent of the accused will not bar another
prosecution for the same offense, as the said
CONSTI2ISAGANICRUZ/pamdenhil

10
consent is considered a waiver of his right
against double jeopardy.
* * t h e c o n s e n t t o b e e ff e c t i v e m u s t b e
EXPRESSED, and this excludes mere silence or
failure of the accused to object to the dismissal.

- But the government cannot appeal from an

acquittal or for the purpose of increasing or

modifying a penalty even if the decision be not in
accordance with the law.

2) Crimes Covered

In People v. Pilpa,

- the oral manifestation at the hearing of the

defense counsel of the accused that he had no

objection to the dismissal of the case was
equivalent to a declaration of conformity to its
dismissal or to an express consent to its
termination within Sec 9 Rule 117.

If the 4 elements of double jeopardy are

present, the accused may not be prosecuted
anew for the original offense charged, or for any
attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof,
or for any offense which necessary includes or is
necessary included in the offense charged in the
original complaint or information.

1) Appeal of Prosecution
the prosecution can appeal where the accused is
deemed to have waived or is estopped from
invoking his right against double jeopardy

In People v. Besa,

But the defense of double jeopardy will be

available to the accused where the dismissal of
the charges against, even with his express
consent, was based on:

The effect of prosecuting first the lesser offence

where a larger offence has been committed and
could be prosecuted would be to split the larger
offense into its lesser parts, thus bringing the man
into jeopardy for each of such parts. The State in
electing to prosecute the first one, waives, in
legal effect, all the others.

a. insufficiency of the evidence of prosecution

a) Doctrine of Supervening event

b. denial of his right to speedy trial

c. erroneous dismissal
these dismissal are considered in the nature an
acquittal. they cannot be appealed by the
prosecution and will bar another prosecution of the
defendant for the same offense
In People v. City Court of Silay re: erroneous
dismissal

- However erroneous the order of the respondent

Court is, and although a miscarriage of justice
resulted from said order, such error cannot not
be righted because of the timely plea of double
jeopardy.

Appealable cases:
a. grant of motion to quash filed before the
defendant makes his plea

The accused may be prosecuted for another

offence if a subsequent development changes the
character of the first indictment under which he
may have already been charged or convicted.
EXAMPLE: A person convicted of physical injuries
may still be prosecuted for homicide if the victim
dies later.
Rule 117, Sec 7, of the Rules of Court
additionally provides that, the conviction of the
accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution
for an offense which necessarily includes the
offense charged in the former complaint or
information under any of the following instances:
a. The graver offence developed due to
supervening facts arising from the same act
or omission constituting the same charge

b. accused is acquitted without giving the

prosecution its day in court, denial of due
process may be appealed

b. The facts constituting the graver charge

became known or were discovered only
after filing of the former complaint or
information

c. order of dismissal or an acquittal made with

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction

c. The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was

made without the consent of the prosecutor

d. when case was dismissed on the ground of

delay which was found to have been caused by
the defense itself

Sec 1(f) Rule 116: The private offended party

shall be required to appear at the arraignment
for purposes of plea bargaining, determination of
civil liability, and other matters requiring his
presence. In case of failure of the offended party
to appear despite due notice, the court may
CONSTI2ISAGANICRUZ/pamdenhil
allow the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a
lesser offense which is necessarily included in
the offense charged with the conformity of the
trial prosecutor alone. (cir. 1-89)

11
and of the offended party except as provide in
Sec 1(f) of Rule 116

based upon the same act or set of acts. (law and

law)

b) Inseparable Offenses
Where one offence is inseparable from another
and proceeds from the same act, they cannot be
the subject of separate prosecution.
EXAMPLE: A person indicted for smoking opium
cannot be charged also with possessing opium

Second: The constitutional protection against

double jeopardy is available although the prior
charged under the ordinance be different from the
offences charged subsequently under a national
statute such as the Revised Penal Code, provided
that both offenses spring from the same act or set
of acts. (law and ordinance)

However, it is possible for one act to give rise to

several crimes, in which case separate
prosecutions for each crime may be filed,
provided the elements of the several crimes
are not identical.
EXAMPLE: A person who while driving without
license is involved in an accident may be
prosecuted both for damage and violation of the
Motor Vehicles Law.
In Perez v. CA,

- A plea of double jeopardy cannot be accorded

merit where two indictments are perfectly distinct

in point of law, however closely they may appear
to be connected in fact.

- Where two different laws (or articles of the same

code) define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one

of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the
other, although both offences arise from the
same facts, if each crime involves some
important act which is not an essential element
of the other.

ACT VIOLATING LAW & ORDINANCE

The Constitution says that if an act is punished
by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act.
EXAMPLE: A person convicted of Jutting under a
municipal ordinance may not again be charged with
the same act under the provisions of Art 195 of the
Revised Penal Code punishing the same act
TWO KINDS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY UNDER
THE BILL OF RIGHTS: (Yap v. Lutero and People
v. Relova)
First: The constitutional protection against double
jeopardy is not available where the second
prosecution is for an offence that is different from
the offense charged in the first or prior prosecution,
although the first and second offenses may be
CONSTI2ISAGANICRUZ/pamdenhil