Feb 28, 2019 Transcribe
It can
00:00-00:17 MARCUS
Cannot comprehend
Sec 10 mandates that no law shall be passed
impairing the obligation of contracts. That
should be very clear. What the prohibition
envisions are laws passed by governmental law
making bodies like congress etc. The law relating
to the obligation and contracts does not prohibit
every change in existing laws. To form within the
prohibition, the change must impair the
obligation of the existing contract and the
impairment must be substantial. If konti lang,
then it does not fall within the prohibition in sec
10. Study Manila training Co vs. reyes cited in
bernas. The power of the legislature to change
its remedies and modes of procedure rests on
POLICE POWER. Then Pagtrangco Vs. Public
Service it was ruled by the SC that statutes
enacted for the regulation of public utilities
being a proper exercise of Police power are
applicable not only to those public utilities
coming into existence after the passage of the
law but likewise to those already established and
in operation. ABE VS FOSTER the SC held that in
upholding a statute granting the workers _____
which they do not have under the existing
contracts the court said that constitutional
guarantee of non-impairment is limited by the
exercise of the Police power of state in the
interest of public health, safety, morals and
general welfare. Jurisprudence established that
a valid exercise of a Police Power is superior to
the obligation of contracts.
The Sec 10 is nothing more than just an exercise
of the police power of the state. If we are going
to believe, well, follow the thinking of BERNAS,
with the acceptance of the superiority of Police
Power Bernas said, over contract, the contract
clause now has very limited usefulness.
even be removed from the constitution without
substantial laws.
What if there is no Sec 10 will the remedy
provided by sec 10 still be available that there
should be no law passed that would impair the
obligation of contracts?. ANS YES. On what
basis? POLICE POWER.
Sec 10 is simply based on the exercise of police
power by the state.
Bernas continued, the non-impairment clause is
a superstuity??? It has accomplice nothing
which the due process clause could not have
accomplished. And it has prevented nothing
which the due process clause could not have
prevented there has been a distinct
acknowledgement of the expansiveness of
POLICE POWER which the contract clause alone
cannot curtail. Any law which enlarges, abridges
or any manner changes the intention of the
parties necessarily impairs the contract itself.
THAT IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF how
may the obligation in a contract be impaired?
Study the case of La Insular vs Magchuca in this
case the court said to come under the
constitutional prohibition the law must effect a
change in the rights of the parties in reference to
each other and not a reference to non-parties.
A &B entered into a contract where there is an
obligation. In Magchuca, what Magchuca is
saying is that if the change is caused by a third
party like the govt, let say the govt imposes
additional levy or tax in the price of the cigar that
necessarily would change the transaction
between A and B, that is not covered by sec 10
because the change to the obligation is brought
about by a third party not by any of the two
parties involved in the contract. Thus if a law is
passed imposing a sales tax in the sale of cigar it
does not impair the obligation of the contract
entered into between by the 2 parties for the
sale of cigar from the other. What the law does
is to impose an obligation of the seller to one not
a party to the contract. Cited by Bernas.
The non-impairment clause is a limit in the
exercise of legislative power and not of judicial
or quasi-judicial power. Study Lim Vs Secretary
cited by bernas. Such that when a court nullifies
or interpret a contract in such a way to affect the
contractual relations of the parties of the
contract there is no impairment of the
obligation of the contract. Because it is the court
who caused the impairment and that is not
covered in the prohibition of impairment in sec
10.
We have studied in ART XII Sec 11 A reservation
clause, “neither shall any such franchise or right
granted except under the condition that it shall
be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal
by congress when the common good so
requires” So there is a reservation clause in all
franchises.
What if there is no reservation clause?
However, with or without a reservation clause
franchises are subject to alterations through a
reasonable exercise of Police Power. They are
also subject to alteration by the power to tax
which like police power cannot be contracted
away. So it is very clear that even there is no
reservation clause these franchises may be
impaired or the conditions may be changed in
the basis and that would still be constitutional
that would still be legal, on the basis of
reasonable exercise of police power.
Sec 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-
judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance
shall not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty.
Dito papasok ang Pauper Litigants. And there has
been three notable legislations implementing
sec 11.
RA 6033 an act requiring courts to give
preference to criminal cases where the party or
parties involve are indigents. 1969
RA 6034 an act providing transportation and
other allowances for indigent litigants.
RA 6035 an act requiring stenographers to give
free stenographic transcript of notes to indigent
and low income litigants and providing a penalty
for the violation thereof.
Stenographers are those who take note of what
transpires during the trial. Those notes are for
sale. You cannot get that for free you have to pay
it. However under RA 6035, stenographers are
required to give notes free to indigent litigants.
These are three of Legislative acts or laws that
implement Sec 11. Giving adequate legal
assistance to pauper litigants.
Who is an indigent? An indigent is one who has
no visible means of income or his income is
insufficient for the sustenance of his family.
Sec 12. (1) Any person under investigation for
the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed …
Immediately you take note that the wordings of
the concom, these rights are given to any person
under investigation for the commission of and
offense. Early on I am telling you this because
even the basis of the concom provides that these
persons before they are given these rights must
be under custodial investigation. They must be in
custody first. The beginnings of these
constitutional provisions is ased on two cases in
the US and those of which refer to person under
custodial investigation.

Sec 12 (1) has beginnings in the 1973

constitution. You already find it in the 1973
consti. But even then, says that any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense
does not say any person under custodial
investigation for an offense.

Sec 12 enumerates the rights of a person under

investigation for the commission of an offense.
The right to be informed of his right to remain
silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. Right to be
informed of his right that is already another
right. So immediately it says this person under
investigation already has a right to be informed
of his right to remain silent, right to be informed
of his right to counsel ant that he has right to
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. 00:17:06…
00:17-00:34
These rights cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel. In order to read
this right to be informed of your right to remain
silent, to be informed of your right to counsel,
you’d, it must be waive must be in writing and
in the oral and this waiver must be in the
presence of a counsel.
And paragraph 2
No torture force violence these are ….remedial
Legislation or constitutional rights based on
experiences during supposedly during the
marcosian rule… torture, force, violence, rights,
etc.
3.More importantly No. 3, any confession or
admission of pain with violation of this section
meaning 12, or section 17 hereof, you know,
right against self-incrimination shall be in
admissible and evidence against him. HIM here,
is the one giving permission, making the
admission or confession.
Then paragraph 4, the law shall provide for
penal instruction for violation on this section
and then the case supposed to be
rehabilitation, compensation and rehabilitation
of this case.
The 1987 constitution, separated revelation and
self-incrimination, it was supposed to be part of
section 20, then, part of the rights of a person
under investigation but in 1987 constitution,
created separate section just for the right
against self-incrimination. The expanded
provision meaning section 12 is based from the
US Supreme Court decisions in Escubedo vs
Illinois 1964 miranda vs arisona 1966 and we
have the constitutional convention in 1971. But
even before, the 1973 constitution place there
the principles involved in the escubedo and the
Miranda ruling. They were already part of the
jurisprudence, meaning to say, the Philippines
was already observing the right of a person
under investigation, even before it was placed
in the 1973 constitution by the 1971
constitutional convention.
Escubedo, as I background here, escubedo is a
fought of the right of a person under Custodial
investigation, right when the suspect has been
taken in the police custody. Miranda
enumerated the rights available to a person
under custodial investigation and which must
be made known y the suspect…. , otherwise the
evidence of obtained as the result of the
interview cannot be use against the … “ yung
mga mahihilig manood ng US tv series or
movies that is emphasize wherever there is an
arrest that is going to be made read him his
right ” that is very crucial to the US. It is also
crucial here in the Philippines, you know
binsahan mo ba? Values ng mga puti andun
Here in the Philippines, it is supposed to be
done. Exactly, the principle involve in section 12
par1.
Philippine jurisprudence as we have said
followed the Miranda and Escobedo doctrine
Section 12. What is a custodial investigation?
For background purposes, for our education, it
is nice to know what is meant by custodial
investigation. It is a time, when the
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into
an unsolved Crime but has begun to focus of
the particular Suspect. The suspect that has
been taken to the police custody and the police
carry out a process of interrogation that lends
itself to eliciting incriminating evidence.
“so talagang under custody, pinpointed na sya
yun, yung suspect” and he was already taken to
custody and he has been already interrogated
for his supposed participation in the crime.
Question. For whom to the right the available,
the rights under section 12, the rights are
available for any person under investigation
for the commission of one offense. This
constitutional rights extend only to testimonial
compulsion and not when the body of the
accused proposed to be examine as when he is
made to undergo a paraffin test.
But the rule applies a reenactment of a crime.
“im sure you have an idea what is a
reenactment of the crime”. A crime is the
committed there is a suspect and the police
leaves the suspect to the place where the crime
has committed and they make him reenact the
crime as if he was the one who did it. That is
unconstitutional
Because you are already telling everybody that
you have made up your mind, that this guy is
the one / you’re the one that committed the
crime.
This constitutional privilege has been defined as
a protection against testimonial compulsion but
extended to any evidence communicative in
nature acquired under circumstances of duress.
Thus, an act when the testimonial or passive
that would amount to disclosure of
incriminatory facts is covered by the inhibition
of the constitution, people vs olfice. Study that
carefully.
photos of reenactment are not admissible while
the accused was not provided with counsel.
Alright!
In people vs Cordono, a suspect - may verbal
confession to a radio announcer, these rights,
the right under the section 12 paragraph 1, do
not cover verbal confessions to a radio
announcer, “kasi civilian yan eh, hindi naman
police “ what it cover are confessions and
admissions to a government agent, like a
policeman. So in the case of people vs
ordono,the Sc said what the constitution bans is
compulsory. Disclosure of incriminating facts of
confessions. These rights re guaranteed to
preclude the rights against the coercion of the
states
As would lead the accused to admit something
false not to prevent him from freely and
voluntarily telling the truth. Alright.
On the other hand, people vs el nino, an
interview recorded on video showing the
accused on burning his guilt willingly and
publicly in the presence of the news men is
admissible, such confession does not form part
of custodial investigation as it was given to the
police officer but to media men. If it were oart
or if it would have been prohibited of section 12
then it would not be admissible. Alright. Next
question, when do the rights begin to be
available? “medyo may kaguluhan when the
rights begin to be available. But, to be safe, you
go to the language of section 12, which says
that these rights are available to a any person
under investigation. Kasi yung mga succeeding
cases that is supposed to interpret the
constitutional provision medyo nagkakalabuan.
Maraming nagsasabi na dapat sa custodial rin
ang investigation lang kailangan. Pwede lang
yan when the person is in custody that supreme
court cases that says ….No it Does not
necessary they have to under the police
custody. Alright. First of all is people vs mara I
think this is a cited by bernas
236 scra 565 1960-1994 case it follows
escubedo, in that the right begin to be available
only when the person is already in custody. The
supreme court said that the custodian
investigation involved in questioning etc etc etc.
so in people vs mara, it follows the escubedo
rulling, bago applicable yung section 12, the
person must be under custodian investigation.
Galman vs. Pomaran is an offshoot of Aquino –
Galman Assassination case 1983
After the assassination, Marcos created a fact-
finding commission
They call this the AGGRAVA fact finding
commission where no one is supposed to be
accused it was merely to fair out the truth of
what happened during the aquino-galman
assassination in NAIA
There were no prosecutors but there were
lawyers who were supposed to ask questions
and there were witnesses presented. One of the
witnesses presented is gen Ver. Now, so , in the
agrava commission the testimony of general ver
was taken down.
After the agrava hearing, a case was filed
against the policemen and soldiers including
gen ver
So in the sandiganbayan trial the prosecution,
so to present the stenographic notes of the
testimony of gen ver in the agrava commission
Ver wen to the sc and said that is not admissible
because I was not represented by a counsel
under sec 20 then that was the 1973 consti of
bill of rights
I should have been provided with a council
But SC sustained the contention of Gen Ver –
the provisions covered over the persons of sec
20 now sec 12 covered even persons not yet in
custody but already under investigation,
because the 1973 text did not speak of the
custodial investigation but only of person under
investigation.
Right
Then we go to the 1987 constitutional provision
debates, When tita cory created the
constitutional commission that drafted the
1987, of course there were debates and this
part of the Consti was debated upon.
And the records of the debates of 1987
constitutional commission, reveals that debates
manifest the intent to expand the coverage of
the right of situation when a person under
investigation Is not yet in custody. The intention
was to extend the guarantee the strict custodial
investigation of the escovedo variety to the
time immediately after including after the
policemen or the person making the
investigation had any suspect under custody
under custody provides the text of 1987
constitution preserved the phrase “person
under investigation” without the word
custodial.
00:34- 00:51 JOF
Without the word custodial. So that is again in
support of an interpretation that the provision
of section 12 does not need be the person in
order to avail of the rights under section 12
need not be under custodian investigation. And
then in People vs. Makeda, although this is
mainly an obiter dictum, an obiter dictum is
mainly an opinion of the justices or even the
court, it does not form part of the decision, so
it has no bearing in the case. It is mainly an
opinion, express under the facts of the case.
But in People vs. Makeda, there is an opinion or
Obliter Dictum, Justice Damide adverted to the
view in the Constitutional Commission that the
rights are available even to one who is not yet
in custody.
Read Tanenggee vs. People, Gr. No. 179448 -
2013, I am sure this is not cited by Bernas, were
the petitioner’s written statement is admissible
in evidence, it is also an interpretation of
section 12 but I have to caution you that is an
interpretation that will even confuse you more
as I said, I warned you, you go to the language
of section 12 in answering this kind of question
as to when the section 12 remain available.
Read that!!!!
G.R. No. 179448 June 26, 2013CARLOS L.
TANENGGEE,Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
Ponente: Del Castillo,J.
Facts:1. Five separate Information for estafa through
falsification of commercial documents were filed
against petitioner. 2. The said Information portray the
same mode of commission of the crime as in Criminal
Case No. 98-163806 but differ with respect to the
numbers of the checks and promissory notes involved
and the dates and amounts. 3. In the middle of
January 1998, two (2) Metrobank auditors conducted
an audit of the Commercio Branch for more than a
week. 4. Thereafter or on 26 January 1998, appellant
was asked by Elvira Ong-Chan, senior vice president of
Metrobank, to report to the Head Office on the
following day. 5. When appellant arrived at the said
office, he was surprised that there were seven other
people present: two senior branch officers, two bank
lawyers, two policemen (one in uniform and the other
in plain clothes), and a representative of the Internal
Affairs unit of the bank, Valentino Elevado. a.
Appellant claimed that Elevado asked him to sign a
paper in connection with the audit investigation; that
he inquired what he was made to sign but was not
offered any explanation; that he was intimidated to
sign and was threatened by the police that he will be
brought to the precinct if he will not sign; that he was
not able to consult a lawyer since he was not apprised
of the purpose of the meeting; and that just to get it
over with he signed the paper which turned out to be
a confession. b. After the said meeting, appellant
went to see Tan at his office but was unable to find
the latter. c. He also tried to phone him but to no avail.
d. He asserts that said written statement was taken in
violation of his rights under Section 12, Article III of the
Constitution, particularly of his right to remain silent,
right to counsel, and right to be informed of the first
two rights. Hence, the same should not have been
admitted in evidence against him.
Issue:Whether or not the written statement executed
by the appellant is admissible in evidence.
Held:
We find the Petition wanting in merit.
Petitioners written statement is admissible in However, it must be remembered that the right to
evidence. counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant
to protect a suspect during custodial investigation.
Thus, the exclusionary rule under paragraph (2),
Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to
The constitutional proscription against the
admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to
admissibility of admission or confession of guilt
those made in an administrative investigation.22
obtained in violation of Section 12, Article III of the
Constitution, as correctly observed by the CA and the
OSG, is applicable only in custodial interrogation.
Here, petitioners written statement was given during
an administrative inquiry conducted by his employer
in connection with an anomaly/irregularity he
Custodial interrogation means any questioning
allegedly committed in the course of his employment.
initiated by law enforcement authorities after a
No error can therefore be attributed to the courts
person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
below in admitting in evidence and in giving due
his freedom of action in any significant manner.
consideration to petitioners written statement as
Indeed, a person under custodial investigation is
there is no constitutional impediment to its
guaranteed certain rights which attach upon the
admissibility.
commencement thereof, viz: (1) to remain silent, (2)
to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice, and (3) to be informed of
the two other rights above.19In the present case, Petitioners written statement was given voluntarily,
while it is undisputed that petitioner gave an knowingly and intelligently.
uncounselled written statement regarding an
anomaly discovered in the branch he managed, the
following are clear: (1) the questioning was not
Petitioner attempts to convince us that he signed,
initiated by a law enforcement authority but merely
under duress and intimidation, an already prepared
by an internal affairs manager of the bank; and, (2)
typewritten statement. However, his claim lacks
petitioner was neither arrested nor restrained of his
sustainable basis and his supposition is just an
liberty in any significant manner during the
afterthought for there is nothing in the records that
questioning. Clearly, petitioner cannot be said to be
would support his claim of duress and intimidation.
under custodial investigation and to have been
deprived of the constitutional prerogative during the
taking of his written statement.
Moreover, "it is settled that a confession or admission
is presumed voluntary until the contrary is proved and
the confessant bears the burden of proving the
Moreover, in Remolona v. Civil Service
contrary."23Petitioner failed to overcome this
Commission,20we declared that the right to counsel
presumption. On the contrary, his written statement
"applies only to admissions made in a criminal
was found to have been executed freely and
investigation but not to those made in an
consciously. The pertinent details he narrated in his
administrative investigation." Amplifying further on
statement were of such nature and quality that only a
the matter, the Court made clear in the recent case of
perpetrator of the crime could furnish. The details
Carbonel v. Civil Service Commission:21
contained therein attest to its voluntariness. As
correctly pointed out by the CA:

As the trial court noted, the written statement (Exhibit
N) of appellant is replete with details which could only
be supplied by appellant. The statement reflects
spontaneity and coherence which cannot be
associated with a mind to which intimidation has been
applied. Appellants answers to questions 14 and 24
were even initialed by him to indicate his conformity
to the corrections made therein. The response to every
question was fully informative, even beyond the
required answers, which only indicates the mind to be
free from extraneous restraints.24
In People v. Muit,25it was held that "one of the indicia
of voluntariness in the execution of petitioners
extrajudicial statement is that it contains many
details and facts which the investigating officers could
not have known and could not have supplied without
the knowledge and information given by him."
Also, the fact that petitioner did not raise a whimper
of protest and file any charges, criminal or
administrative, against the investigator and the two
policemen present who allegedly intimidated him and
forced him to sign negate his bare assertions of
compulsion and intimidation. It is a settled rule that
where the defendant did not present evidence of
compulsion, where he did not institute any criminal or
administrative action against his supposed
intimidators, where no physical evidence of violence
was presented, his extrajudicial statement shall be
considered as having been voluntarily executed.26
Neither will petitioners assertion that he did not read
the contents of his statement before affixing his
signature thereon "just to get it over with" prop up the
instant Petition. To recall, petitioner has a masteral
degree from a reputable educational institution and
had been a bank manager for quite a number of years.
He is thus expected to fully understand and
comprehend the significance of signing an
instrument. It is just unfortunate that he did not
exercise due diligence in the conduct of his own
affairs. He can therefore expect no consideration for
it.
No suppression of evidence on the part of the
prosecution.
Petitioner claims that the prosecution should have
presented Tan in court to shed light on the matter. His
non-presentation created the presumption that his
testimony if given would be adverse to the case of the
prosecution. Petitioner thus contends that the
prosecution suppressed its own evidence.
Such contention is likewise untenable. The
prosecution has the prerogative to choose the
evidence or the witnesses it wishes to present. It has
the discretion as to how it should present its
case.29Moreover, the presumption that suppressed
evidence is unfavorable does not apply where the
evidence was at the disposal of both the defense and
the prosecution.30In the present case, if petitioner
believes that Tan is the principal witness who could
exculpate him from liability by establishing that it was
Tan and not him who signed the subject documents,
the most prudent thing to do is to utilize him as his
witness. Anyway, petitioner has the right to have
compulsory process to secure Tans attendance during
the trial pursuant to Article III, Section 14(2)31of the
Constitution. The records show, however, that
petitioner did not invoke such right. In view of these,
no suppression of evidence can be attributed to the
prosecution.
Petitioners denial is unavailing.
The Court is also not persuaded by the bare and
uncorroborated allegation of petitioner that the loans
covered by the promissory notes and the cashiers
checks were personally transacted by Tan against his
approved letter of credit, although he admittedly
never saw Tan affix his signature thereto. Again, this
allegation, as the RTC aptly observed, is not supported
by established evidence. "It is settled that denials
which are unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
evidence are negative and self-serving evidence. They
merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater
evidentiary value over the testimony of credible
witnesses who testified on affirmative
matters."32The chain of events in this case, from the
preparation of the promissory notes to the
encashment of the cashiers checks, as narrated by the
prosecution witnesses and based on petitioners own
admission, established beyond reasonable doubt that
he committed the unlawful acts alleged in the
Informations.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
23653 dated December 12, 2006 and September 6,
2007, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the minimum term of the
indeterminate sentence to be imposed upon the
petitioner should be four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional.SO ORDERED.
In Tanenggee, the investigation is
administrative, it is not even made by the
government officers or officials, it is a private
administrative case. And finally in People vs.
Domantay, People vs. Principe 1999 and 2002,
in both case cited already RA 7438, it is an act
of congress, it is a law that extended the
guarantee to situations in which an individual
has not been formally arrested but has been
merely invited for questioning. So now, you
have a constitutional commission, which says,
section 12 is applicable to even to person not in
custody and then in People vs. Domantay, and
then RA 7438 was enacted, which says that, the
right of a person against “to remain silent and
have a counsel” is available even before
custodial investigation. And this 7438 was cited
in People vs. Domantay and People Vs. Principe.
Now, you have a constitutional commission,
which says “right to remain silent and right to
counsel” is available even before custodial
investigation. You have RA 7438 a law enacted
by congress no longer a constitution division,
which says the same so again when you ask this
question, you may expound on the
constitutional commission which says that
these right are available even the person not
yet in custody and RA 7438 which says that this
right are available even before the custodial
investigation.
Another question, what rights are made
available, it is enumerated in Paragraph 1 of
section 12:
1. right to remain silent
2. right to counsel
3. and right to be informed of those rights
Or muuna sana iyong right to be informed kasi
iyon ang nauna sa constitutional commission.
Right to be informed of his right to remain silent
and right to counsel, tatlo.
Section 17 right against self-incrimination. Only
an accused have the absolute right to remain
silent. A person who is not an accuse may
assume the instance of silence only when ask an
incrimination question. In section 12 under
investigation has the right to refuse to answer
any question. What is the difference between
the 2?
Section 12, the person under investigation may
refuse to answer any question that is
profounded to him, under section 17, the right
against self-incrimination, only the accuse may
have such right to refuse to answer. The
accused may even refuse to go up on the
witness stand or by the fiscal to testify. Wala pa
yong question, pwede na siyang magrefuse
alright
this is different from a right of a witness against
self incrimination, because a witness, not only
an accuse, may incriminate himself. Even a
witness is susceptible in incriminating himself
on the witness stand, but the difference is, a
witness cannot refuse to go up the witness
stand, the witness can only refuse to answer
when he is asked incriminating question.
Pinatay mo ba? Of course that is incriminating
so he may refuse to answer that question but as
what we have said, examination are not done
that way, hindi naman tatanungin ng abogado
na magaling ah iyong kung pinatay mo o hindi,
ikaw ba ay nasaan nung araw na iyon, ikaw ba
ay kaliwete, eh kasi sa forensic examination eh
iyong stabbing o pagbaril eh ginawa ng isang
kaliwete, nasaan ka ba noong gabing iyan etc.
until nagiging mas mahigpit, humihigpit ng
humihigpit iyong leeg, hindi mo nalalaman eh
ikaw pala ay you have already admitted
authorship of the crime. So that’s clear? Sabi
niyo…
The counsel is made available, sabi nia, he must
be provided with one, the counsel is made
available to the person under investigation
must be competent and independent ,
preferably be of his choice, ayaw ko yan, gusto
ko yun, pwede siyang mamili, no pero wag
naman na lahat nalang na ipresenta sayo eh
ayaw mo, ibig sabihin eh umiiwas ka nalang no,
you are given a choice. Ibig sabihin, ang import
nito is the police, the state, cannot force you to
accept a counsel, you are given a choice so,
anong qualification ng counsel? Must be
competent of course independent minded and
then, preferably the choice of the person under
investigation.
In People vs. Mohelia?READ! It is cited in the
book of Bernas, it is a case where the lawyer
was provided the person under investigation
when he did not raise any objection against
the counsels appointment during the courses
of investigation, and subscribe to the veracity
of statement, he seemed to be assented to the
choice of that counsel. The right of the person
to be informed and implies obligation on the
part of the police or the investigator exclaimed
to his _______________.
Another question is when do the rights cease,
to be aware of it, you will notice that we have
asking questions. When does it begin, what are
the rights? When does it cease, the rights
under section 12, First, are available when the
inquiry is under control of police officers, the
criminal process prior to the filing of the
charges. Beyond that the rights are no longer
available. Person under investigation, these
rights are available to him but when he is no
longer under investigation, his rights are no
longer available. But does he still have rights?
Yes. Section 14 comes in to the picture.
Pagkatapos ng investigation, during the
investigation, section 12, pagkatapos ng
investigation, exit section 12 enter section 14
because these are already the rights of a person
under criminal prosecution. Maifile na iyong
information, tapos na iyong trabaho ng section
12, magtatrabaho naman iyong section 14.
After charges are filed, during the preliminary
investigation, section 14 and 17 and not section
12, apply. Section 12 likewise doesn’t apply to
person under preliminary investigation and
already charge in court for a crime for this are
already under the supervision of the court
Waiver of the rights
The rights under section 12 paragraph 1 may be
waived only if the waiver is in writing and done
in the presence of counsel. In People vs. Galid,
cited in Bernas, the implication of this rule is
that in localities where there are no lawyers,
the state must bring the individual to a place
where there is one. In so far as the waiver of
right is concern. Hindi pwedeng mawaived kung
hindi in writing and in the presence of a
counsel. Walang counsel eh edi dalhin mo kung
saan may counsel. Eh wala pa rin eh, eh hindi
pwedeng mawaive iyong rights niya, that is the
implication okay?
can ask for exclusion. But it is admissible against
the one who has violated the constitutional
provision. Inadmissible against the person
making the admission pero iyong pumilit sa
kanya na pulis para iadmit or inconfess pwede
gamitin iyong testimony or confession as an
evidence against the person who forced the
suspect to confess or admit.
This exclusionary rule under section 12 is
different from the exclusionary rule, Rules in
searches and seizure, article 2 and article 3
privacy of communication where evidence
obtain shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceedings, section 2 section 3 search and
seizure, section 2 and section 3 would be
privacy of communication merong exclusionary
rule din yan, evidence obtain shall be
inadmissible for any purpose or any
proceedings, mas matapang iyon.

Exclusionary rule, any contention or admission

of things in violation of section 12,

1. section 17, shall not be admissible in

evidence against him, him is the one making the
confession of admission. The accused. The
suspect. Illegal contention or admission is
inadmissible ____________that is the source of
confession or admission and it is he alone who
Christian (00:51:00 – 01:11:00)
Read: Gutang vs People. STUDY
Consti II case digest: DAVID GUTANG vs PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Rights of Suspects under Custodial Investigation
Giving Urine Samples
FACTS:
David Gutang, together with Noel Regala, Alex Jimenez
and Oscar de Venecia, Jr. was arrested by policemen in
connection with the enforcement of a search warrant in
his residence at Greenhills, San Juan. Several drug
paraphernalia, which later tested positive for marijuana
and methamphetamine hydrochloride, were seized along
with a small quantity of marijuana fruiting tops.
The four were brought to Camp Crame and were subjected
to a drug-dependency test and were asked to give a
sample of their urine to which they complied. Their urine
samples all tested positive for shabu.
De Venecia, Jr. voluntarily submitted himself for
treatment, rehabilitation and confinement. Gutang,
Regala and Jimenez pleaded not guilty. They were found
guilty of possession and use of prohibited drugs.
Gutang argued that the urine sample is inadmissible in
evidence because he had no counsel during the custodial
investigation when it was taken. In effect, it is an
uncounselled extra-judicial confession and a violation of
the Constitution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the urine samples taken were admissible
in evidence.
RULING:
The Court ruled that it was admissible. The right to counsel
begins from the time a person is taken into custody and
placed under investigation for the commission of crime.
Such right is guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
However, what the Constitution prohibits is the use of
physical or moral compulsion to extort communication
from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in
evidence, when it may be material to ascertain physical
attributes determinable by simple observation and not to
unearth undisclosed facts.
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 going against the proscription
against testimonial compulsion.
Section 13
This is about bail
Question: is bail available to everybody? In all cases?
Available to everybody. Except those who are charged of
reclusion perpetua and when the evidence of guilt is
strong.
Question: Can a person punished with reclusion perpetua
still post for bail?
YES. When the evidence of guilt is not strong.
Question: Can you find in Section 13 a basis for bail for
humanitarian reasons
None. So what is the basis of the Supreme Court to grant
bail to Juan Ponce Enrile.
2nd sentence the right to bail shall not be impaired even if
the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive shall
not be required.
Question: What is bail?
It is a mode short of confinement which would ensure the
attendance of the accused at his trial
The right to bail is corollary to the right to be presumed
innocent. It is a right of writ og habeas corpus. Another
means of immediately obtaining liberty.
In case the accused is charged with a capital offense a
hearing is mandatory for the purpose of ascertaining
whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.
The hearing for bail of Juan Ponce Enrile in the
Sandiganbayan is not yet terminated when he filed a case
before the Supreme Court in violation of this provision
that it is mandatory that there be a hearing for bail in
cases where the offense charged is capital offense.
The quantum of evidence (weight of evidence) needed to
deny the accused the right to bail must be strong
evidence.it means presumption guilt.
Read: Paderanga vs. CA. the person claiming the right to
bail must be under actual detention or under custody of
the law. Interpretation lang ito. Actual detention eh madali
lang ito. Under custody of the law is susceptible to
interpretation. (read book)
It does not necessarily be the person filling a bail have to
be under custody but he must be actual detention or at
least must be under the custody of the court. This means
that the court has taken over the jurisdiction over the
person.
Read: Government of Hong Kong vs Olalia. the right to
bail is available only to criminal proceedings have already
been abandoned. Pwede nang maadmit to bail ang person
under custody of administrable extradition proceedings.
Facts
Private respondent Muñoz was charged before Hong Kong
Court. Warrants of arrest were issued and by virtue of a
final decree the validity of the Order of Arrest was upheld.
The petitioner Hong Kong Administrative Region filed a
petition for the extradition of the private respondent. In
the same case, a petition for bail was filed by the private
respondent.
The petition for bail was denied by reason that there was
no Philippine law granting the same in extradition cases
and that the respondent was a high “flight risk”. Private
respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and was
granted by the respondent judge subject to the following
conditions:
1. Bail is set at Php750,000.00 in cash with the condition
that accused hereby undertakes that he will appear and
answer the issues raised in these proceedings and will at
all times hold himself amenable to orders and processes of
this Court, will further appear for judgment. If accused fails
in this undertaking, the cash bond will be forfeited in favor
of the government;
2. Accused must surrender his valid passport to this Court;
3. The Department of Justice is given immediate notice
and discretion of filing its own motion for hold departure
order before this Court even in extradition proceeding;
and
4. Accused is required to report to the government
prosecutors handling this case or if they so desire to the
nearest office, at any time and day of the week; and if they
further desire, manifest before this Court to require that
all the assets of accused, real and personal, be filed with
this Court soonest, with the condition that if the accused
flees from his undertaking, said assets be forfeited in favor
of the government and that the corresponding
lien/annotation be noted therein accordingly.
Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the said order but was
denied by the respondent judge. Hence, this instant
petition.
Issue
WON a potential extraditee is entitled to post bail
Ruling
A potential extraditee is entitled to bail.
Ratio Decidendi
Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail; that
there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law
providing that a potential extraditee has a right to bail, the
right being limited solely to criminal proceedings.
On the other hand, private respondent maintained that
the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights
extends to a prospective extraditee; and that extradition is
a harsh process resulting in a prolonged deprivation of
one’s liberty.
In this case, the Court reviewed what was held in
Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo
G. Purganan, Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 42,
and Mark B. Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario Batacan Crespo GR No.
153675 April 2007, that the constitutional provision on bail
does not apply to extradition proceedings, the same being
available only in criminal proceedings. The Court took
cognizance of the following trends in international law:
(1) the growing importance of the individual person in
public international;
(2) the higher value now being given to human rights;
(3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe these
universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations;
and
(4) the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the
individual under our fundamental law, on one hand, and
the law on extradition, on the other.
In light of the recent developments in international law,
where emphasis is given to the worth of the individual and
the sanctity of human rights, the Court departed from the
ruling in Purganan, and held that an extraditee may be
allowed to post bail.
Read: Comendador vs. De Villa. The right to bail has
traditionally not been recognized and available in court
martial proceedings in the military.
Comendador v. de Villa
B/GEN. JOSE COMENDADOR v. GEN. RENATO S. DE VILLA,
(G)
G.R. No. 93177, August 2, 1991
FACTS:
The petitioners are officers of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines facing prosecution for their alleged
participation in the failed coup d' etat that took place on
December 1 to 9, 1989.
January 14, 1990, a Pre-Trial Investigation (PTI) Panel had
been constituted pursuant to Office Order No. 16 to
investigate the petitioners.
January 30, 1990, the PTI Panel issued a uniform subpoena
individually addressed to the petitioners. The petitioners
acknowledged receipt of a copy of the charge sheet, sworn
statements of witnesses, and death and medical
certificates of victims of the rebellion. At the first
scheduled hearing, the petitioners challenged the
proceedings on various grounds, prompting the PTI Panel
to grant them 10 days to file their objections in writing
through a Motion for Summary Dismissal.
February 27,1990, the PTI Panel denied the motion and
gave the petitioners 5 days to submit their respective
counter-affidavits and the affidavits of their witnesses.
May 15, 1990, the petitioners manifested that they were
exercising their right to raise peremptory challenges
against the president and members of GCM No.14 by
invoking Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408. GCM No. 14 ruled,
however, that peremptory challenges had been
discontinued under P.D. No.39.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners can manifest the right to
peremptory challenge.
HELD:
Yes, the petitioners have the right to peremptory
challenge. The right to peremptory challenge was
originally provided under Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408
(Articles of War).
November 7,1972, when President Marcos promulgated
P.D. No. 39 (Governing the Creation, Composition,
Jurisdiction, Procedure, and other matters relevant to
military Tribunals). This decree disallowed the peremptory
challenge.
January 17,1981, President Marcos issued Proc. No. 2045
proclaiming the termination of the state of martial law
throughout the Philippines. With the termination of
martial law and the dissolution of the military tribunals
created there under, the reason for the existence of P.D.
No. 39 ceased automatically.
It is a basic canon of statutory construction that when the
reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases. Cessante
rationelegis, cessat ipsa lex. Applying these rules, we hold
that the withdrawal of the right to peremptory challenge
in P.D. No. 39 became ineffective when the apparatus of
martial law was dismantled with the issuance of
Proclamation No.2045, As a result, the old rule embodied
in Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 was automatically
revived and now again allows the right to peremptory
challenge.
Read: People vs Divina. This should answer the question
of whether after conviction in the trial court the
presumption to innocence terminated and the right to bail
terminates.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. TEODORO DIVINA y
DURO, accused-appellant.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of
Marikina City, Branch 272, in Criminal Case No. 2000-3147-MK, convicting
accused-appellant Teodoro Divina y Duro of the crime of rape; sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and ordering him to pay the
private complainant Rosalie Divina the amount of P50,000.00 as actual or
compensatory damages and P30,000.00 as moral damages.
The prosecution sought to establish that on the night of January 11,
2000, twenty-two year old Rosalie Divina was left alone in her house because
her husband was working overtime and her children were with her in-laws in
Montalban. At 9:00 p.m., while Rosalie was in her bedroom fixing her things,
accused-appellant, her husbands cousin, suddenly entered. He appeared
drunk and under the influence of drugs, and was carrying a fan knife. He
quickly approached Rosalie and kissed her on the neck. She could not shout
because accused-appellant pointed the knife at her.[2]
Accused-appellant began to slowly undress complainant, but she
fought back by repeatedly slapping him. He threatened to kill her, so she kept
silent. Accused-appellant removed her underwear and ordered her to lie
down on the floor. He then inserted his two fingers into her vagina. After
that, he inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her pain. She begged him
to stop and told him that her husband might see them in a situation that
neither of them can explain. This caused accused-appellant to stop and leave
the room. [3]
When complainants husband arrived, she immediately told him to
call a tricycle because his cousin was running after them.Thereafter, they
proceeded to Montalban. Later, she told her husband everything that
transpired and he was furious upon hearing her story. His instant reaction
was to suspect that she was having an affair with accused-
appellant. However, complainant assured him that there was nothing
between them.
Complainant went to the Marikina Police Station with her husband
and father-in-law in the afternoon of January 12, 2000 to report the incident
to SPO4 Nenita Abanes of the Womens and Childrens Concern
Unit.[4] Accused-appellant was invited to the police station for questioning
regarding the report of complainant. He was temporarily detained at the CIS
detention cell.[5]
On the other hand, accused-appellant denied the accusations against
him and claimed that complainant Rosalie Divina was his mistress since
September 1999. He alleged that on the night of January 11, 2000, while he
was at home, his wife informed him that complainant told her about her
affair with him.[6] Upon learning this, accused-appellant went to see
complainant to confront her. Several people saw him shouting at
complainant in front of her house, Walanghiya ka, inamin mo kahit hindi
tinatanong sa iyo at sinabi mo kahit anong mangyari, walang aamin! [7]
One of the defense witnesses, Crystalline Arcilla, testified that she
often saw accused-appellant and complainant in the house of another
neighbor named Madonna. Complainant told her that she and accused-
appellant were lovers. Since then, complainant would always ask her to
accompany them on their dates at the River Park and at the Quezon City
Memorial Circle. On these occasions, Crystalline witnessed the intimacy
between accused-appellant and complainant, as they frequently embraced
each other.
Crystalline also corroborated accused-appellants claim that he
confronted complainant on the night of January 11, 2000 at around 8:30
p.m. She testified that she saw him shouting in front of complainants
house. According to her, complainant was not alone in her room on the night
of the incident because she saw her with her mother-in-law, her two children
and a cousin.[8]
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial
thereafter ensued, and on September 11, 2000, the trial court rendered
judgment as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds the accused TEODORO
DIVINA y DURO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE
penalized under Article 266-A par. (1) of the Revised Penal Code as charged
against him and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA
there being no aggravating/qualifying circumstances in the commission
thereof. The accused is further ordered to pay the private complainant
Rosalie Divina the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS as
actual or compensatory damages and the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND
(P30,000.00) PESOS as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Hence, the instant appeal based on the following assignment of
errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND
INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE WHEN HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[10]
We are again confronted with two conflicting but equally plausible
versions of the same event. Complainant alleges that accused-appellant, her
husbands cousin, raped her while she was alone in her bedroom. Accused-
appellant denies this. He instead avers that he and complainant were lovers.
As in most rape cases, complainants testimony in this case is
uncorroborated. It is true that the lone testimony of the rape victim is
sufficient to sustain a conviction; [11] and that evidence is weighed, not
counted.[12] In each case, however, we must carefully evaluate the probative
value of the victims testimony and measure it against the evidence for the
defense.
In the case at bar, accused-appellants defense is corroborated by the
testimony of an apparently disinterested witness, Crystalline Arcilla. She
testified that she accompanied accused-appellant and complainant on their
dates. She also narrated how accused-appellant confronted complainant
when the latter told his wife about their illicit affair.
The court a quo describes the testimony of the private complainant
as frank and straightforward,[13] hence, sufficient to convict accused-
appellant of rape. We believe otherwise for the following reasons: (a) the
prosecution failed to refute the allegation of accused-appellant that he and
private complainant were lovers; (b) no witness was presented to rebut the
testimony of Crystalline Arcilla, who stated that she saw accused-appellant
shouting in front of private complainants house on the night of the incident;
(c) neither was the prosecution able to debunk accused-appellants claim that
it was common knowledge in their community that he might be the father of After his release solely on the basis of his frail health, Senator
one of private complainants children.[14] Moreover, the initial reaction of Juan Ponce Enrile immediately reported for work at the Senate.1
private complainants husband upon learning about the alleged rape is
contrary to ordinary human experience. A man whose wifes chastity has just
been violated is not expected to cast doubt on his wifes story and accuse her Until the end of his term on June 30, 2016, he actively and
of having an affair with the assailant. Rather, the natural reaction of such a publicly participated in the affairs of the Senate.2 The majority
man is to feel outrage for the tragedy that befell his wife and extreme anger maintains that his release on humanitarian grounds due to his
at his wifes rapist. Apparently, his reaction in this case was such because he
frail health still stands.3 This is a contradiction I cannot accept.
had been harboring suspicion of an ongoing affair between his wife and
accused-appellant, considering that the two have been the object of gossip
and rumor in their place.[15] With due respect to my esteemed colleagues, I maintain my
We are not unmindful of the general rule that the findings of the trial
dissent.
court regarding the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great
respect and even finality on appeal.[16] However, this principle does not The reversal of the Sandiganbayan Decision on its actions on the
preclude a reevaluation of the evidence to determine whether material facts
Motion to Fix Bail filed by petitioner is an unacceptable deviation
or circumstances have been overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial
court.[17] In the past we have not hesitated to reverse judgments of from clear constitutional norms and procedural precepts. Carving
conviction, where there were strong indications pointing to the possibility this extraordinary exception is dangerous. The ponencia opens
that the rape charge was false.[18] the opportunity of unbridled discretion of every trial court. It
erases canonical and textually based interpretations of our
All told, we are not morally convinced that accused-appellant raped Constitution. It undermines the judicial system and weakens our
private complainant. The prosecution was not able to establish accused-
resolve to ensure that we guarantee the rule of law.
appellants guilt by proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof
sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the
conscience of those who are to act in judgment. [19] To be sure, it is the
primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and
persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable
conclusion. What is required of it is to justify the conviction of the accused
with moral certainty.[20] Section 14
Upon the prosecutions failure to meet this test, acquittal becomes
the constitutional duty of the Court, lest its mind be tortured with the Section 12 muna habang iniimbestigahan. After nun layas
thought that it has imprisoned an innocent man for the rest of his life. [21]
na ang section 12 and then pasok an ang section 14. Why?
In our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not Because in section 14 it contains the rights of person
whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it
entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Where there is reasonable under criminal prosecution.
doubt as to the guilt of the accused, he must be acquitted even though his
innocence may be doubted since the constitutional right to be presumed
Second time to meet the words due process of law. First
innocent until proven guilty can only be overthrown by proof beyond
reasonable doubt.[22] time was under Section 1
This is not to say that accused-appellant was completely
innocent. There is serious doubt as to whether or not his sexual relation with What is the difference of the due process clause in
private complainant amounted to rape. In acquitting accused-appellant, we section 14 to section 1?
are guided by the principle that it is better to free a guilty man than to
unjustly keep in prison one whose guilt has not been proved by the required Under section 14 paragraph 1 = is
quantum of evidence. It is only when the conscience is satisfied that the specifically for criminal prosecution
crime has been committed by the person on trial that the judgment must be
for conviction.[23] Under section 1 = is due process of
law in general
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 272, in Criminal Case No. 2000-3147-MK,
finding accused-appellant Teodoro Divina y Duro guilty beyond reasonable Paragraph 2 of section 14 enumerates the rights of a
doubt of the crime of rape is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant is person under criminal prosecution
ACQUITTED of the charge of rape based on reasonable doubt. He is ordered
RELEASED unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause. 1. Presumed innocent until the contrary is proved
2. Right to be heard by himself and counsel
SO ORDERED.
3. To be informed of the nature and cost of
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur. negotiation
4. Speedy and impartial of the trial
5. Right to confrontation - Meet face to face
Read: Dissenting opinion of Justice Marivic Leonen about
6. Right to compulsory process
the right to bail of Juan Ponce Enrile. This was written by
7. Production of evidence in his behalf
Torres Tupaz. This will give you an idea of what granted
the right to bail to Juan Ponce Enrile. The last paragraph is an addition which is very important:
After arraignment, trial may proceed not withstanding the
DISSENTING OPINION absence of the accused provided that he has been duly
notified of the trial and his failure to appear is
LEONEN, J: unjustifiable. This is popularly known as trial in absencia.
Criminal due process clause of the bill of rights
presupposes that the penal law be applied to its
substantive requirement of due process. Criminal due
process is specifically applicable to criminal proceedings as
against due process in section 1 which treats due process
in general
Question: What is the difference of the due process
clause in section 1 and section 14
The right of the accused guaranteed under section 14 are
right in all criminal prosecutions.
Question: When do these rights become available to a
person?
Every step in the trial or in the criminal prosectution. From
arraignment to rendition promulgation of judgement.
Right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved
It is merely required the state to establish a prima facie
case after which the burden of proof shifts to the accused.
To establish a prima facie case means the power to prove
the acts that constitute the crime or the so-called
elements of the crime.
CARISMA1:11-1:28
Question: When do these rights become
available to a person?
Every stem in the trial or in the criminal
prosecution. From arraignment to the rendition
of judgement.
Right to presumption of innocence until the
contrary is proved. It is merely required to
establish a prima facie case until which the
burden of proof shifts to the accused.
To establish a prima facie case, means the power
to prove the act or acts that constitute the crime
of the so called elements of the crime. It is then
the duty of the accused to prove that the acts or
acts of innocents are not committed in criminal
intent.
Question: What is mean by establishing a prima
facie case?
Answer: To prove the act or acts that constitute
the crime of the so called elements of the crime.
Criminal Law 1 is merely definitions of crimes
etc. Crim Law 2 specifically goes to the individual
crimes under the RPC.
This elements of the crime must be alleged in the
criminal complaint or information because if not,
the prosecution cannot prove that during the
trial. Because it would be without basis. It is not
part of the accusation.
Now, all these elements enumerated under the
RPC must be proven one by one. Asfter it is
proven, then we say that the prosecution shall
have a satisfied the oprima facie case,
determination of prima facie case against the
accused. That is what is meant by that. And now,
it is the turn of the accused to prove that these
elements proven by the prosecution or
presented by the prosecution is not true or if it is
true he has valid defense like self defense.
Malanao vs People, Equipoise rule. What is the
Equipoise Rule? Provides that for the evidence of
the parties in a criminal case is evenly balanced.
The constitution of presumption of innocence
shall still be in favour the accused.
Does the preventive suspension pendentelite
violates the presumption of innocence?
No. it does not. Preventive suspension pendente
lite does not violate the presumption of
innocence because preventive suspension is not
a penalty. It is merely suspension of the accused
while the case is pending. It is provided under
the Anti Graft Corrupt Practices.
Right to be heard by himself or counsel. 3
Specific Rights.
1. Right to present evidence
2. Right to be present at the trial
3. Right to be assisted by counsel
4. Right to compulsory process to compel
the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.

Right to present evidence includes the right to
testify in one’s favour and right to be given time
to call witnesses. Right to be present at the trial,
the accused has an absolute right to be
personally present during the entire proceedings
from arraignment to sentence if he so desires.
Because of the new constitutional provision
allowing trial in absencia, the last paragraph Sec
14, par 2. The right of the accused to be present
may be waived except when his presence is
needed for purposes of identification.
The, another right would be the right to counsel.
The guarantee of the right to counsel serves to
minimize the imbalance in the adversary
system. It is said that our judicial system is
adversarial. Meaning, nagsasalpukan yung
prosecution at yung defense. There must be a
knowledgeable person to represent the accused
otherwise yung prosecution kasi, alam na nating
abogado yun e, tsaka nag aral pa yan kung oano
magprosecute. E kung walanmg abogado yung
accused, e di kinain na nya. Si in order to take the
balance the adversarial system, there has to be a
counsel.
Under the right to counsel in Sec 14, No. 2,
counsel need not be the one who is the choice of
the accused. The preference of choice of counsel
pertains more aptly and specifically to a person
under investigation under Sec 12 par 1 rather
than the one who is the accused in a criminal
prosecution.
Question: The counsel of a person under trial for
criminal prosecution must be one that is of his
choise need not be, the one that is given ha, but
if he is the one who hires his own counsel, than
that is his choice. But if it is a counsel given de
oficio, meaning to say given by the public, by the
court, then it need not be a counsel of his choice.
As have in Amion vs Judge Tiongson, exactly. The
accused cannot contend to the appointment of
the trial court judge to a counsel de officio
deprived him to his constitutional right to be
defended. The contention of the accused here is
under the Constitution, his counsel must be one
of his own choice. That is only in as far as
investigation is concerned under Sec 12 and not
to criminal prosecution under Sec 14 par 2.
Another question, at what point in a criminal
proceeding is the accused entitled to counsel?
The rights enumerated in Sec 14 is the rights in
all criminal prosecutions which covers period of
arraignment to rendition of judgement. The right
to counsel exists only during that period. Under
circumstances of Sec 12 however, the right to
counsel exists before arraignment.
The right to be informed on the nature and cause
of accusation against him. We are going over the
rights of accused as enumerated under Sec 15.
The right to be informed on the nature and cause
of acusation against him. Ito na yung
binabasahan ng information yung akusado. The
purpose is to inform the accused of the charge
against him. As will eneble him to make use of
defense, to avail himself of his conviction or
acquittal, for protection against further
accusation of the same cause and the facts
alleged so that they may decide whethet they
are sufficient in law. To support the conviction.
The accused must be informed of the facts that
are imputed to him. The information must
decrsibe the acts with sufficient particularity and
what is sufficient particularity? When elements
orovuded under the RPC are alleged. The right to
assail the sufficiency of information may be
waived by the accused if he fails tro object to ir
during the trial and the deficiency is cured by
competent evidence presented.
Example. Without the counsel for the defense,
notice it. One element of the crime alleged in the
information. So the accused through a counsel
was not able to object to the sufficieny of the
information because it is fatal. One element
missing in the information is fatal. Pero
nakalimutan ng counsel, trial. The prosecutrion,
again the defense counsel did not notice that the
prosecution was already presenting eveidence
to prove the elements that was not alleged in the
information. Meron ng pumasok doon sa
stenographic notes na proof of that element
which is supposed to be a no no, cannot be done
because it was not alleged in the informnation.
Byut when the defense counsel did nit object to
trhe presentation of that evidence by the
prosecution, then it was already proven. Later
on, when convicted, later on the accused cannot
say that the information was insufficiuent
because it failed to alleged one element of the
crime. There is already competent evuidence
that was presented that already cures the
deficiency of the information.
Another right would be the right to speedy
partial and public trial. The right to speedy public
trial prohibit unreasonable delays. The right may
be waived when the postponement of the trial is
consented and obtained by the accused himself
or by his counsel. It cannot be inferred from
mere failure of the accused to urge the trial if the
case. The remedy of the accused for violation of
his rights to speedy trial is dismissal of the case.
The dismissal for the violation oif the right to
speedy trial is equivalent to acquittal and is part
of the subsequent prosecution for the sake of …
Panay ang postponement of prosecution. Wag
yung defense ha. Yung prosecution ang palaging
humihingi ng walang witness, next na naman,
wala ding witness, mga limang beses na. The
counsel now of the accused will now manifest to
the court that the case be dismissed from the
ground of the right of accused to speedy trial.
That is substantive, the right to speedy trial is a
substantive right. Violation of which will lead to
dismissal of the case.
Then we have the speedy trial act of 1998, RA
8493.
The speedy trial act seems to be a law that is not
being used by defense counsels. Look at this,
under the speedy trial act of 1998, it provides
that the arraignment of the accused shall be held
within 3o days from the filing of the information.
The arraignment must ne held within 30 days
from the filing of the information. And after the
arraignment, the trial must commence within 30
days from arraignment. If you have time, go to a
court, go over the documents, the folio, the
records of one accused and look up on when trhe
case was filed, whenhe was arraigned, and when
was the first trial. And found out if RA 8493 is
being violated. Because a violation of this
provision, this provision must be strictly adhered
to, because a violation of this provision may lead
to the dismissal of the case, outright.
Under the new guidlenines issued by the SC, case
must be raffled of to a trial court 3 days after the
filing of the criminal information. The
arraignment must take place within 10 days from
the date of the raffle. The trial must take place
within 30 days after pre-trial conference. If the
accused is not brought to trial within the days
provided by the act, upon motion of the accused,
the information shall be dismissed. Sec 13 of the
law.
Then we have another right under Sec 14, the
right of public trial. A trial is when anyone
interested in observing the manner adjudged
conducted by the proceeding may be sought.
There is no ban on such attendance. His being as
an stranger of the litigants is of no moment.
Kaano ano mo yung akusado? Wala. Gusto ko
lang.
No relationship to the parties need not be shown
1:28-end : JUBI
No relationship to the parties need not be shown
I was once a favorite of an RTC judge in manila,
judge isaac puno brother of the former chief
justice. (personal story followed not included in
this transcribe)
doon sa manila noon wala pang mga sala ang
trial is conducted din office of the judge nandito
ang lamesa , andito ang
councel/defense/prosecutor / stenographer,
kapag may isang nagtetesify may isang silya dito
. ¼ of this room lang ang size.
Under those circumstances can any decision of
the court be assailed on the ground that it does
not, the trial conducted was a public trial
No it cannot be for as long as nobody was barred
from entering , dina bale kahit magsiksikan that
is still an open trial.
The right to confrontation means the right to
make the witnesses face to face
The right has a two fold purpose The right to
confrontation
1. To afford the accused an opportunity to
test the testimony of the witness by
cross examination
2. To allow the judge to observe the
deportment of the witness– the body
language of the witness (deportment)
So those are the two fold purpose of the right to
confrontation.
Testimony not subjected to cross-examination
must be excluded from consideration
A was presented and testified, for some reason
he (A) kept absenting himself form trial , there
was no occasion to cross examine him then his
testimony on direct examination maybe erased
from the records as if he did not testify at all.
There must right to confrontation the
truthfulness of the testimony must be tested,
The right of confrontation is not available during
preliminary investigation, this can be gleaned
section 12 no1 which does not mention the right
of confrontation as one of the guaranteed rights
during the investigation, however statutory right
confrontation is recognized during preliminary
investigation proper but not during preliminary
examination.
So we repeat, The right of confrontation is not
available during preliminary investigation as held
in the case of senator Jingoy Estrada, petitioner
vs bersamin et al.
It was held by the SC it is a fundamental principle
of the accused in a preliminary investigation has
no right to cross examine the witnesses which
the complainant may present sec 3 rule 112 of
rules of court provides that the respondent shall
only have the right to submit their counter
affidavit and to examine all other evidence
submitted by the complainant
So as held in this case and other previous cases
The right of confrontation is not available during
preliminary investigation
Dying declaration is an exemption for the
requisites of right of confrontation for the
admissibility.
Pedro was gunned down somebody went to help
him
Sino bumaril sayo –
si juan
Then pedro died.
That is an admissible evidence – it is a dying
declaration
Even if there is no cross examination it was a
dying declaration
Why is it that a dying declaration is given that
importance that it is admissible even if there is
no cross examination
Because it is presumed that a dying man does
not lie. That is a presumption, unless talagang
matigas ang kanyang sinungaling .
Reason why dying declaration is admissible.
2. When accused voluntarily waives his
right not to be present. Meaning – the
accused must undertake to appear in
court when required by the prosecution
or the purposes of identification when
he qualifiedly admits in open court that
he the person named is the defendant in
the trial (appeared in court)

In both instances –In the first even with due

Compulsary process another right under section
14
The right of the accused to the issuance by the
court to a compulsory process to secure the
attendance of the witnesses and production of
evidence on his behalf.
notice even if there is unjustifiably fails to appear
or 2nd voluntarily admits / undertake to appear
during the trial and admits whenever his name is
called it is him who was referred to.
In both instances, the accused must have been
arraigned. It is after arraignment , because trial
cannot proceed without arraignment

In the 1935 constitution, this right of compulsory Arraignment – part of the proceedings where the
process is only a right compel a witness to testify accused the criminal complaints and asked how
for the accused he pleads – guilty or not guilty.

In 1987 Consti may addition is it also a

compulsory process for the production of
evidence in his behalf -Documentary or any kind Where did we stop in our recit? sec 2 so we can
of evidence go 2-3 recit before we meet sec 14.

That is the diff of right to compulsory process sin

1935 and 1987 consti.

Trial in Absencia – read last paragraph of sec 14

par 2. It is a situation, where the trial of the
accused will proceed even if when he is absent
this situation of trial in absencia may occur in 2
instances

1. When accused despite notice

unjustifiably failed to appear ( usually
accused on bail, kapag trial na a notice is
sent a subpoena so he received it so he -
accused is notified failed without
justifiable reason, the trial will continue
- notwithstanding his absence)