People v Pepino

GR No 174471

Jan 12 2016

is the police lineup part of custodial investigation whereat the right to counsel available?

Ruling: No. The right to be assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation and cannot
be claimed by the accused during identification in a police lineup.

The right to counsel is a fundamental right and is intended to preclude the slightest coercion that would
lead the accused to admit something false. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of the
investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or
confessions or admissions from the accused. Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken
into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of the crime under investigation. As a
rule, a police lineup is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by
the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage.

Republic v Cayanan
GR No 181796

Nov 7 2017

did the issuance of the writ of amparo impair SPO2 Pascua’s right to the presumption of innocence?

No. The proceedings taken under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo are not akin or similar to those in
criminal prosecutions. In the former, the guilt or innocence of the respondents is not determined, and
no penal sanctions are meted. The proceedings only endeavor to give the aggrieved parties immediate
remedies against imminent or actual threats to life, liberty or security. The presumption of innocence is
never an issue. In the latter, the prosecution of the accused with due process of law is the object of the
proceedings. The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is always the starting point. Hence,
the need for the State to adduce proof beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.

Class v US
SCOTUS No 16-424

Feb 21 2018

does the guilty plea bar a criminal defendant from later appealing his conviction on the ground that the
statute of conviction violates the constitution?

Ruling: No. A guilty plea, by itself, does not bar a federal criminal defendant from challenging the
constitutionality of his statute of conviction on direct appeal. The Court recognized that a guilty plea
bars some antecedent constitutional violations related to events that occur prior to the entry of the
guilty plea. However, where the claim implicates “the very power of the State” to prosecute the
defendant, a guilty plea cannot by itself bar it.
Remulla v Sandiganbayan
GR No 218040

April 17 2017

is it mandatory for the accused to follow up his case before his right to its speedy disposition can be
recognized?

Ruling: No.

the Court has adopted the “balancing test" to determine whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial
and a speedy 'disposition of cases has been violated. As this test necessarily compels the courts to
approach such cases on an ad hoc basis, the conduct of both the prosecution and defendant are
weighed apropos the four-fold factors, to wit: (1) length of the delay; (2) reason for the delay; (3)
defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his right; and ( 4) prejudice to "defendant resulting from the
delay. None of these elements, however, is either a necessary or sufficient condition; they are related
and must be considered together with other relevant circumstances. These factors have no talismanic
qualities as courts must still engage in .a difficult and sensitive balancing process.

It is the duty of the prosecutor to expedite the prosecution of the case regardless of whether or not the
accused objects to the delay. the Court does not give great weight to the lack of objection over the delay
in this case because the Office of the Special Prosecutor miserably failed to defend the Ombudsman's
i1;1-action. The prosecution could not give an acceptable reason to justify the 9-year interval before the
case was filed in court. The proceedings were marred by the delay in the mechanical transfer of
documents and records. No steps were taken by the Ombudsman to ensure that the preliminary
investigation would be resolved in a timely manner. Clearly, the failure of the prosecution to justify the
9-year interval before the case was filed in court far outweighs the petitioner’s own inaction over the
delay.

People v Jugueta
GR No 202124

April 5 2016

will the reinvestigation place the accused in danger of double jeopardy?

Ruling: No. Such reinvestigation would not subject Estores and San Miguel to double jeopardy because
the same only attaches if the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy has attached before
the second; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same
offense as in the first. In turn, a first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a
competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the
accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent. In this case, the case against Estores and San Miguel was dismissed before they were
arraigned. Thus, there can be no double jeopardy to speak of.
People v Sabio
GR NO 228494-96

March 21 2018

will the petition for certiorari place Sabio in danger of double jeopardy?

Ruling: Yes. Generally, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory.25 The prosecution
cannot appeal the acquittal lest the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy be violated.26
However, the rule admits of two exceptional grounds that can be challenged in a certiorari proceeding
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court: ( 1) in a judgment of acquittal rendered with grave abuse of
discretion by the court; and (2) where the prosecution had been deprived of due process.

A cursory reading of the present petition for certiorari demonstrates a prodding to review the judgment
of acquittal rendered by the Sandiganbayan on account of grave abuse of discretion. However, though
enveloped on a pretext of grave abuse, the petition in actuality aims to overturn the decision of
Sandiganbayan due to perceived mistake in the appreciation of facts and evidence. Unfortunately for
the petitioner, the correction of this mistake does not fall within the ambit of Rule 65. In this case, the
prosecution was given adequate opportunity to present several witnesses and all necessary
documentary evidence to prove the guilt of Sabio. However, Sandiganbayan warranted the acquittal of
Sabio due to insufficiency of evidence engendering reasonable doubt on whether Sabio committed the
offenses charged. Petitioner failed to discharge the burden that Sandiganbayan blatantly abused its
discretion in acquitting Sabio such that it was deprived of its authority to dispense Justice.