SEC 12

MIRANDA V. ARIZONA

GAMBOA V. CRUZ-

PEOPLE V. JUDGE AYSON-

PEOPLE V. PINLAC-

PEOPLE V. BOLANOS-

PEOPLE V. ANDAN-

NAVALLO V. SANDIGANBAYAN-

PEOPLE V. DY-

PEOPLE V. ALICANDO- Robbery with Homicide- Rape Kahzie Mae Penecilla minor T-shirt and Pillow-
bloodstains- Accused is a butcher- uncounselled confession pointing to an evidence which shall be
inadmissible

1) The arraignment of appellant is null and void- SEC 1 RULE 116- The records fo not reveal that the
Information against the appellant was read IN THE LANGUAGE or DIALECT known to him. (It was written
in the English Language)

2) The PLEA of GUILT made by the appellant is null and void- SEC 3 RULE 116- When the accused pleads
guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a SEARCHING INQUIRY- Trial judge did not ask the
appellant when he was arrested, who arrested him, how and where he was interrogated, whether he
was medically examined before and after his interrogation.

a) the voluntariness of the plea

b) the full comprehenesion of the consequences of the plea

3) Some prosecution evidence, offered independently of the plea of guilt of the appellant, were
inadmissible, yet, were considered by the trial court convicting the appellant.- UNCOUNSELLED
CONFESSION

* The burden to prove than an accused waived his right to remain silent and the right to counsel before
making a confession under custodial interrogation rests with the prosecution.

The Decision convicting accused Arnel Alicando of the crime is ANNULLED.

DE CASTRO V. PEOPLE

four counts of estafa through falsification of a commercial document-administrative investigation as an

employee of the BPI Family Savings Bank is not custodial investigation

She broke down bank when depositors Matuguina and Cornejo confronted he about her crimes.

The Court AFFIRMS the decision.

PEOPLE V. GALLARDE

murder
The taking of pictures of an accused even without the assistance of counsel, being a purely mechanical
act, is not a violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The essence of the right
against self-incrimination is TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION, giving of evidence against himself through
testimonial act.

1) a woman charged with adultery may be compelled to submit to physical examination to determine
her pregnancy

2) an accused may be compelled to submit to physical examination and to have a substance taken from
his body for medical determination as to whether he was sufferring from gonorrhea which was
conracted by his victim

3) to expel morphine from his mouth

4) to have the outline of his foot traced to determine its identity with bloody footprints

5) to be photographed or measure, or his garments or shoes removed or replaced

6) to move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done.

PEOPLE V. SAMUS

a) Confession to the media while in police custody

Malabanan- there were already reporters

Bitos- ambush interview

There was conflicting testimonies and an absence of testimony from any of the media persons who
allegedly interviewed appellant- uncertainty and vagueness about how they questioned and led him to
his confession ( Although it is inadmissible, the objection of the appellant was too late)

b) The picture of a pair of earrings together with the turnover receipt, which appellant identified during
his testimony is admissible:

The appellant did not question or object to the admissibility of the former's testimony. Worse, the
latter's counsel freely cross-examined the witness without any reservations.

The Decision is AFFIRMED.

LADIANA V. PEOPLE

homicide

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT which sufficiently established petitioner's responsibility for the death of the victim
is admissible. A counter-affidavit voluntarily presented by the accused during the preliminary
investigation, even if made without the assistance of counsel, may be used as evidence against the
affiant.

The admission was done during the PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION- an inquiry or a proceeding to
determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.

and not in a CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.

The counter-affidavit is NOT an EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION- acknowledgment of guilt, it is only an

ADMISSION- statement of fac not directly involving an acknowledgement of guilt or of the criminal
intent to commit the offense with which one is charged.
The petitioner admits shooting the victim which eventually led to the latter's death but denied having
done it with any criminal intent. In fact, he claims he did it in self-defense.

His counsel affirmed that the petitioner made such statements under oath.

Petition DENIED.

PEOPLE V. MACAM-

PEOPLE V. ESCORDIAL

Robbery with Rape

The accused was arrested without a warrant.(ART 3, SEC 2)

While it cannot be denied that accused was deprived of his right to be informed of his rights to remain
silent and to have competent and independent counsel, he has not shown that, as a result of his
custodial interrogation, the police obtained any statement from him- whether inculpatory or
exculpatory- which was used in evidence against him.

He was already under custodial investigation when the out-of-court identifications were conducted by
the police- a certain Ramie pointed the accused (same same People v. Macam)

SHOW-UP and LINE-UP- out-of-court identification

critical confrontations of the accused by the prosecution- needs presence of counsel- might well settle
the accused's fate and reduce the trial itself to a mere formality. Haist failed to object na naman ano ba
naman yan? kawawa client oh!

The inadmissibility of these out-of-court identifications does not render the in-cour identification of
accused- appellant inadmissible for being the fruits of the poisonous tree

Appellant ACQUITTED.

PEOPLE V. AMESTUZO

Robbery in band with double rape

PEOPLE V. TEEHANKEE- Admissibility and reliability of out-of-court identifications:

1) witness' opportunity to view he criminal at the time of the crime

2) witness' degree of attention at that time

3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness

4) the level of certainty of any prior description given by the witness

5) the length of time between the crime and the identification

6) the suggestiveness of the identification process

In the case, it failed to comply number 6- improperly suggestive. Even before complainants had the
opportunity to view accused- appellant face-to-face when he was brought out of the detention cell to be
presented to them for identification, the police made an announcement that he was one of the suspects
in the crime and that he was the one pointed to by accused Ampatin as one of culprits.
The fact that the information came to the knowledge of the complainants prior to their identification
based on their own recall of the incident detracts from the spontaneity of their subsequent
identification and therefore, its objectivity.

alibi- overtime work

"Magturo ka ng tao kahit sino"

The Decision convicting Albino Bagas is REVERSED and is ACQUITTED.

AQUINO V. PAISTE

estafa

Whether the amicable settlement executed in the NBI is admissible as evidence

RA 7438

has extended to which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been invited for
questioning. Custodial investigation shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is
investigated in connected with an offense he is suspected to have committed. '

The accused signed an AMICABLE AGREEMENT which essentially waived her right to counsel.

1) She was provided with counsel, in the person of Atty. Uy.

2) Petitioner made much of the fact that Atty. Uy was not presented as witness- e may privileged
communication nga

3) Petitioner never raised any objection against Atty. Gordon Uy's appointment during the time she was
in the NBI and thereafter, when she signed the amicable settlement.

4) When petitioner engaged Atty. Uy as her lawyer, she undoubtedly executed the amicable settlement.

5) Even granting arguendo that the amicable settlement is in the nature of an admission, the document
petitioner signed would still be admissible since none of her constitutional rights were violated.

Petition is DENIED.

RA 7438

SEC 13- RIGHT TO BAIL

BASCO V. RAPATALO

SEC 6 RULE 114- fixing the amount or price of bail

SEC 8 RULE 114- whatever evidence presented for or against the accused's provisional release will be
determined at the hearing.

1) The judge granted the petition for bail based on the prosecution's declaration not to oppose the
petition.

2) The absence of objection from the prosecution is never a basis for granting bail to the accused.

HERRAS TEEHANKEE V. DIRECTOR of PRISONS- treason cases and collaboration with the enemy
1) In capital cases when the prosecutor does not oppose petition for release on bail, the court should, as
a general rule, in the proper exercise of its discretion, grant the release after the approval of the bail
which it should fix for the purpose

2) But if the court has reasons to believe that the special prosecutor's attitude is not justified, it may ask
him questions to ascertain the strength of the state's evidence or to judge the adequacy of the amount
of bail

3) When, however, the special prosecutor refuses to answer any particular question on the ground that
the answer may involve a disclosure imperiling the success of the prosecution or jeopardizing the public
interest, the court may not compel him to do so, if and when he exhibits a statement to that effect of
the Solicitor General, who, as head of the Office of Special Prosecutors, is vested with the direction and
control of the prosecution, and may not, even at the trial, be ordered by the court to present evidence
which he does not want to introduce- provided that shall refusal shall not prejudice the rights of the
defendant or detainee

DUTIES OF THE TRIAL JUDGE: 1) Notify 2) Hearing 3) Decide 4) Discharge [NHDD]

Judge is REPRIMANDED

PEOPLE V. JUDGE DONATO

Rodolfo Salas- Commander Bilog rebellion

WON the righ to bail may, under certain circumstances, be denied to a person who is charged with an
otherwise bailable offense, and whether such right may be viewed.

EO 187- restoring ART 135, the original penalty for rebellion, prision mayor and a fine not to exceed
P20,000, was restored.

When the penalty is lower than reclusion perpetua- MATTER of RIGHT

Individual freedom is too basic, too transcendental and vital in a republican state to be derived upon
mere general principles and abstract consideration of public safety.

The respondent, in agreeing to remain in legal custody even during the pendency of the trial of his
criminal case, he has expressly waived his right to bail.

ART 6 CC- Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals
or good customs, or prejudicial o a third person with a right recognized by law.

WAIVER- voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known existing legal right,
advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which except for such waiver the party would have enjoyed.

COMMONWEALTH V. PETRILLO

Rights guaranteed to one accused of a crime fall naturally into two classes

a) those in which the state, as well as the accused, is interested- may not be waived.

b) those which are personal to the accused, which are in the nature of personal privileges- may be
waived.

SEC 12 ART 3- These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel

The orders in granting bail is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.

PEOPLE V. Agustin FORTES

rape of a young girl

The accused through his counsel de oficio, informed the court that he was waiving his right to bail.

The accused's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial court promulgated its decision convicting the accused of the crime charged.

BEFORE CONVICTION bail is either a matter of right or of discretion.

Bail must not be granted to the accused during the pendency of his appeal from the judgment of
conviction.

Decision AFFIRMED.

BGen. Jose COMENDADOR V. Gen. Renato DE VILLA

officers of AFP0- failed cou d'etat

violation of Articles of War-mutiny-conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman-various crimes in

relation to ART 248-murder

The right to bail is not available to the members of the armed forces.

Pre-trial investigation is directory and not mandatory.

BAYLON V. JUDGE SISON-RTC Dagupan

Alicia Baylon- City prosecutor of Dagupan City

double murder

Judge was guilty of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion.

Application for bail shall follow the 3-day motion rule. In the case, the prosecution was only given one
day to prepare its opposition. What's worse is that there is a two non0working days between the filing
and the hearing of the petition. During the controverted hearing, the prosecution, which was not even
duly represented, was not given the opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt of the accused was
strong.

Judicial discretion must be exercised regularly, legally and within the confines of procedural due process,
after evaluaion of the evidence submitted by the prosecution.

BORINAGA V. TAMIS- even where the prosecutor refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the
application to grant and fix bail, the court may ask the prosecution such questions as would ascertain
the strength of the People's evidence or judge the adequacy vel non of the amount of bail. The error
committed by the respondent judge in granting bail cannot be corrected by the mere failure of the
prosecution to file a motion for cancellation thereof or a clarification of his order.

a. It does not contain the requisite SUMMARY of the evidence presented by the parties and necessary to
support the grant of bail- Petition for bail was granted merely based on the joint counter-affidavit of the
accused, and possibly of a witness, and the position paper of the accused.
b. No chance to CROSS-EXAMINE the accused on their counter-affidavit. Mere affidavits or recitales of
their contents are not suffiicient since they are mere hearsay evidence.

1. The accused were charged with double murder- punishable by RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH

2. NO BAIL was recommended in the INFORMATION which was filed on the bases of the sworn
statements of several eyewitnesses to the incident, thus constituting clear and strong evidence of the
guilt of all the accused.

3. At the time of the application for bail, there was still PENDING a REINVESTIGATION of the case being
conducted by the Office of the City Prosecutor. Any resultant delay caused by the conduct thereof is
naturally and logically attributable to them.

4. Guileful setting of the hearing of the petition for bail on Dec 23, when the same was file only on Dec
21 which was a Saturday, readily casts doubt on the good faith in and the regularity of the procedure
adopted by the defense.

MANOTOC V. CA

Trans-Insular Management, Inc. and the Manotoc Securities, Inc.- estafa

Does a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionally released on bail have an unrestricted RIGHT
TO TRAVEL?

The sureties become invested with full authority over the person of the principal and have the right to
prevent the principal from leaving state. If the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from
leaving the state, more so then has the court from which the sureties merely derive such right, and
whose jurisdiction over the person of the principal remains unaffected despite the grant of bail to the
latter.

Miguel PANDERANGA- former mayor of Gingoog Ciy V. CA

multiple murder-members of the Bucag family- only one out of 8 was apprehended, tried and eventually
convicted-escape

Prosecutor Abejo announced that he was waiving any further presentation of evidence.

1. SEC 1 RULE 114- the same cannot be posted before custody over him has been acquired by the
judicial authorities, either by his lawful arrest or voluntary surrender.

The aforesaid resolution and omnibus order of RTC granting bail to petitioner Miguel Paderanga are
hereby REINSTATED.

GOVT' US V. JUDGE PURUGANAN

GOVT' HONGKONG V. HON. OLALIA

OSG V. DE CASTRO

order in the habeas corpus proceedings- restrained deportartion of Gao Yuan for 17 days- blatant
disregard of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940
on their way to a vacation in Canada- prevented her from boarding flight- in response to a letter from
the Consul General of China- alleged that Gao Yuan was a fugitive from justice and charged with
embezzlement by Chinese police and requested her arrest and deportation to China.

petition for the writ of habeas corpus- she was not charged with any crime at the time she left China in
2001 and no travel restrictions had been imposed on her- petition for asylum as a political refugee.

return of the writ- summary deportation

discharge the custody- filed her cash bond- Bi refused to release- no BI clearance

provisional release for the duration of the TRO

nursing mother to a 17-month old child

Once a person detained is duly charged in court(including BI), he may no longer question his detention
through a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus- remedy would be to quash the information

When the petition was filed by James Mahshi, a charge sheet and deportation order has already been
filed against Gao Yuan whose liberty was already by virtue of a lawful process- respondent's court no
longer had jurisdiction over the petition for habeas corpus and it was error for respondent to order Gao
Yuan's release upon filing of a cash bond and take full responsibility for the release and custody of Gao
Yuan.

used an expired Chinese passport- merely wanted as a witness in a case

Dapat kasi he applied for bail instead of petition for habeas corpus.

SEC 37 Philippine Immigration Act- any alien under arrest in a deportation proceeding may be released
under bond or under such other conditions as may be imposed by the Commissioner of Immigration.
The courts do not administer immigration laws.

De Castro SUSPENDED.

ENRILE V. SANDIGANBAYAN

RULE 114, RULES OF COURT

PEOPLE V. SENERIS

Pilar Angeles de Pimentel-parricide- principal by inducement-kill her husband

testimony of a prosecution witness in the said criminal case who dies before completion of his cross-
examination- Mario Nemenio- shot dead by Integrated National Police patrols- echosly escaping from
prison

Admit and consider in deciding the case the testimony of the deceased witness excluding only the
portion concerning the aggravating circumstance of price or reward which was not covered by the cross-
examination.

I.

1) Right to confrontation

a) to secure the opportunity of cross-examination

b) to obtain the benefit of the moral impact of the courtroom atmosphere as it affects the witness'
demeanor
2) Until such cross-examination has been finished, the testimony of the witness cannot be considered as
complete and may not be allowed to form part of the evidence. However, the right to cross-examine is
lost wholly or in part through the fault of the cross- examiner, then the testimony on direct examination
may be taken into account.

3) The direct testimony of a witness who dies before conclusion of the cross- examination can be
stricken only insofar as not covered by the cross-examination and absence of a witness is not enought to
warrant striking his testimony for failure to appear for further cross-examination where the witness has
already been sufficiently cross-examined.

4) where the death or illness prevents cross-examination under such circumstances that no
responsibility of any sort can be attributed to either the witness of his party, it seems harsh measure to
strike out all that has been obtained on the direct examination.

II.

1) Lufhansa German Airlines- unjustified failure to present witness, Seneris- death of witness

There was no finding nor any showing that the killing of the witness of petitioner by its own agent was
ill-motivated.

2) There was no waiver of her right of cross-examination.

III.

The respondent's counsel had already rigorously and extensively cross-examined Mario Nemenio on all
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS of parricide whar remained was merely the cross-examination on the price or
reward which is merely an aggravating circumstance.

Mary Helen ESTRADA V. PEOPLE

estafa- Junimar Bermundo- employment in Japan with the accused

petitioner jumped bail while trial was pending- waiver her right to present evidence

said address is a vacant lot and subject person is unknown to her neighbors.

Petitioner's counsel never notified the court of any change in her address when it was wrong from the
very beginning- it is clear that they were given all the opportunities to be heard.

Promulgation in absenia is valid provided:

a) the judgment be recorded in the criminal docket

b) that a copy thereof be served upon the accused or counsel.

PASCUA V. CA

Petition for habeas corpus is DENIED.