1

1. Crisologo case

Whether or not the accused was given due process of law and the insufficiency of the purely circumstantial
evidence presented to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence be in his favor.

No because where the accused is inflicted by infirmity, In this case deaf-mute, the presence of a qualified
interpreter in a sign language and any other means, whether in writing or otherwise, is indispensable in order to
protect the fundamental rights of the accused to due process of law. Here, no sign language expert or
representative ever arrived from arraignment until promulgation of decision.

2. Tubb case

Where accused is charged with the misappropriation of funds held by him in trust and w/ obligation to
return the same, under art 315 par 1 (b) of the RPC, he cannot be convicted of the crime of swindling by
means of false pretenses under par 2(a) of said article , without violating his constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him

Meaning, the court cannot convict an accused for different offense to that charged in the
information?

3. Pp. vs presiding judge

ISUE: Whether or not respondent Rodolfo Valdez, Jr..despite its waiver of his right to be present, can he
compelled by the trial court to be present during the trial of Criminal Case No. U-3439 so that he car, be
Identified by the witnesses for the prosecution

Held: yes because although the right to be present at trial may be waived, the accused may still be
compelled to appear during trial so that he can be identified by the witnesses of the prosecution

4. BORJA VS MENDOZA

issue: whether Borja should be arraigned first before the commencement of the trial?

Held: YES because otherwise, it would violate due process requirement that the accused be able to know why he
is indicted and what is the offense he is facing, and be convicted only upon the showing of a PBRD with full
opportunity to disprove the evidence.

In this case, records show that petitioner was not arraigned at all and was not represented by counsel
throughout the whole proceedings in the respondent city court and Although this right could be
waived, in this case, there was no waiver.
 2

5. Fiscal Gimenez vs Ramon Nazareno When Vega escaped the court lost jurisdiction daw! Bogo!

Issue: W/n the lower court is correct that when Vega escaped, the lower court lost jurisdiction to him

HELD: The lower court is wrong. The court acquires juriscdiction over the person upon arraignment. Such
jurisdiction once acquired is no lost upon instance of parties but continues until the case is terminated

When an accused under custody had been notified of the date of the trial and escapes, he shall be deemed to have
waived his right to be present on said date and all subsequent trial dates until custody is regained such is the case
of Vega in this case.

6. 6. Raul santos vs Narciso

Issue: W?n the identification without assistance of counsel during the course of police line up would be
inadmissible?

Held: No because during the line up there is no need for a counsel when the accused is not interrogated to extract
admission or interrogation. This is the situation present with Santos as he was not in fact interrogated for
extraction of admission or confession and he just remained silent until identified

7. Coros case ( entrapment )

Frame uo as defense is more difficult to prove than alibi because of the presumption that PUBLIC OFFICERS LIKE
NARCOM agents had performed their duty in aregular manner

Entrapment or the employment of ways and means of entrapping and catching an offender in flagrante is no bar
to prosecution and conviction, not being prohibited by law.

In this case, appellant Liquen, having been caught in flagrante as a result of buy bust operation, the police team
was not only authorized but obligated to arrest liquen even without a warrant of arrest.

8. BArgas Case

Issue: whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion when he ordered the
quashal of three (3) separate informations for libel against private respondents on the grounds
of prescription and violation of their right to speedy trial.

Held: No because clearly the prosecution failed to file comment on the accuseds MQ , despite
the admitted service of copy of the same and despite order of the respondent court to comment
on the said MQ. Moreover, the prosecution failed to file the said comment after asking for
several extensions of time to file it. Failure to file for more than 2 years is an unreasonable delay
 3

9. Beltran VS SAMSON

The fiscal under section 1687 of the Admin Code and the competent judge at the request of
the fiscal, MAY COMPEL WITNESSES TO BE PRESENT AT THE INVESTIGATION OF
ANY CRIME OF MISDEAMENOR. But this right must be exercised without prejudice to the
consti rights of the persons cited to appear.

The petitioner, in refusing to write down what the fiscal had to dictate him for the purpose of
verifying his handwriting and determining whether he had written certain documents alleged to
have been falsified, seeks protection- his consti privilege

ISSUE: W/N THE WRITING from the fiscal dictation by the petitioner for the purpose of
comparing the latters hand writing and determining w/ he wrote those docus supposed to be
falsified, CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIMSELF WITHIN THE SCOPE AND
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION UNDER EXAMINATION

Should a petition for a writ of prohibition be granted

HELD:

Yes. The right intended to be protected by the constitution that no man accused of crime shall be compelled to be
a witness against himself is so sacred and the pressure toward their relaxation so great when the suspicion of guilt
is strong but evidence obscure, that is the duty of the court to liberally construe the prohibition in favor of
personal rights and to refuse to permit any step tending toward their invasion.

Hence, there is a well established doctrine that the consti inhibition is directed not merely to giving of oral
testimony but embraces as well the giving of evidences by other means than by word or mouth, the divulging in
short , of any fact which the accused has a right to hold secret

In this case , the petitioner is compelled to perform a positive, testimonial act, to write and give a spicement of his
handwriting for the purpose of comparison. Unlike in case of Villaflor vs Summers, it was sought to exhibit
something already in existence, while in this case, the questions deals w/ something not yet in existence, and it is
precisely sought to compel the petitioner to make, prepare or produce by means, evidence nto yet in existence, in
short to create evidence which may incriminate him
4