o Equipoise Rule: where the evidence in a
RULE 115: RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
*Right to Due Process
Requirements of Due Process are satisfied only if
the following conditions are present:
1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with
judicial power to hear and determine the matter
before it;
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the
person of the defendant or over the property
which is the subject of the proceedings;
3. Defendant must given the opportunity to be
heard;
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful
hearing.
In CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, DUE PROCESS
would require that the accused be informed as to
why he is proceeded against AND what charge he
has to meet.
*Rights of the Accused in Criminal Cases
They are not intended to enable the accused to
defeat the very ends of justice.
An accused being tried before a military tribunal
enjoys the specific constitutional safeguards
pertaining to criminal cases.
Section 1 (a)
To be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved beyond reasonable ground
o In all criminal prosecutions, the accused is
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
o The burden of proof is on the prosecution to
demonstrate guilt.
o All ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS constituting the
offense charged must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt; IN CASE OF
REASONABLE DOUBT, that the offenders
guilt has been shown, he is entitled to an
acquittal.
o Only if the JUDGE could arrive at a conclusion
that the crime has been committed, precisely by
the person on trial, under such an exacting test
should the sentence be one of conviction.
o Presumption of innocence can only be borne by
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
criminal case is evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the
scales in favor of the accused
Why is it in criminal case an accused enjoys this
presumption? Why does the law give the accused
the presumption of innocence?
The SC already answered that the reason is to make
the fight at least equal. In criminal cases, all the
resources are directed against the accused. It is the
accused versus People of the Philippines; so you are
fighting the government, and the government has all
the resources at its command (PNP, NBI, etc.); the
law will give certain presumptions in favor of the
accused.
Section 1 (b)
To be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.
This right requires that the question should state
the facts and circumstances constituting the crime
charges in such a way that a person of common
understanding may easily comprehend and be
informed of what it is about; to enable the person to
prepare his defense.
1. The accusation serves to furnish the accused
with such description of the charge against him
as will enable him to make his defense;
2. To avail himself in case of conviction or
acquittal, of the protection against a further
prosecution for the same cause;
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that
it may decide whether they are sufficient in law
to support a conviction.
o A judgment punishing the accused for an
offense of which he was not legally informed,
denies him due process of law.
An accused should know why he is there. It is
very awkward that he is charged without even
knowing what the charge is all about. That is
why there is an arraignment to make everything
formal.
 Can you waive the right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against an
accused?
NO. It cannot be waived because public interest is
involved in this right; the public having an interest
in seeing to it that no person is unlawfully deprived
of his life or liberty.
Section 1 (c)
Right to Counsel
To be present and defend in person and by counsel
at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment
to promulgation of the judgment.
The accused may, however, waive his presence
at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth
in his bail, unless his presence is specifically
ordered by the court for purposes of
identification.
The absence of the accused without justifiable
cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be
considered a waiver of his right to be present
thereat.
When an accused under custody escapes, he
shall be deemed to have waived his right to be
present on all subsequent trial dates until
custody over him is regained.
Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to
defend himself in person when it sufficiently
appears to the court that he can properly protect
his rights without the assistance of counsel.
Deprivation of the right to be heard and present
evidence:
Court has no power to sentence him
Sentence pronounced is void
May be collaterally attacked in habeas corpus
proceedings
Article 3 Section 12, (1) Phil. Constitution
Provides for the right to remain silent
Have independent and competent counsel
preferably of his own choice
Constitutional Requirement satisfied when:
1. Counsel is engaged by any one acting on
behalf of the person under investigation
2. Counsel is appointed by the court upon
petition of the said person or by someone
on his behalf
Absence of the counsel of the accused:
Judge may not hold trial of a criminal
case
Disregard will constitute a ground for
reversal of judgment of conviction
May the right to counsel during trial be waived?
Yes. It can be waived when the accused
voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of
the court and proceeds with his defense.
The accused may defend himself in
person only if the court is convinced that
he can properly protect his rights even
without the assistance of counsel.
Nonetheless, if in proper cases, the
accused preferred to defend himself
personally in the trial court:
He cannot be heard to complain
that he has not been assisted by
an attorney in the proceedings
May an accused defend himself without the
assistance of counsel?
Yes, but only when it sufficiently appears that
he can properly protect his right without the
assistance of counsel [Sec. 1(c)].
What is the rule if the accused makes an
extrajudicial confession?
Any extrajudicial confession made shall
be in writing
signed by
the person, detained or under
custodial investigation in the
presence of his counsel, or in the
latters absence, upon a valid
waiver, and in the presence of
any of the parents, older brothers
and sisters, his spouse, the
municipal mayor, the municipal
judge, district school supervisor,
or priest or minister of the gospel
as chosen by him; otherwise such
extrajudicial confession shall be
inadmissible as evidence in any
proceeding (Sec. 2(d) RA 7438)
Custodial Investigation
the stage where the police investigation is no
longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime
but has begun to focus on a particular suspect
 taken into custody by the police who carry out a
process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit
incriminating statements
Sec. 2(f) of RA 7438 expanded the meaning of
custodial investigation. It shall include the
practice of issuing an invitation to a person
who is investigated in connection with an
offense he is suspected to have committed,
without prejudice to the liability of the
inviting officer for any violation of law.
When do the rights in custodial investigation
attach?
The rights begin to operate at once as soon as
the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry
into an unsolved crime and direction is then
aimed upon a particular suspect who has been
taken into custody and to whom the police
would then direct interrogatory question which
tend to elicit incriminating statements.
It includes the practice of issuing an invitation
to a person who is investigated in connection
with an offense he is suspected to have
committed.
What is the importance of the right to counsel in
custodial investigation?
So vital that under existing law, in the absence
of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall
be conducted and the suspected person can only
be detained by the investigating officer in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 125 of
the Revised Penal Code. (Section 3c RA 7438)
The purpose of providing counsel to a person
under custodial investigation is to curb the
uncivilized practice of extracting a confession.
What are the rights of persons under Custodial
Investigation?
1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under
custodial investigation must be informed in a
language known to and understood by him of
the reason for the arrest and he must be shown
the warrant of arrest, if any; every other
warnings, information or communication must
be in a language known to and understood by
said person;
2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain
silent and that any statement he makes may be
used as evidence against him;
3. He must be informed that he has the right to be
assisted at all times and have the presence of an
independent and competent lawyer, preferably
of his own choice;
4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or
cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will
be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also
be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may
be appointed by the court upon petition of the
person arrested or one acting in his behalf;
5. That whether or not the person arrested has a
lawyer, he must be informed that no custodial
investigation in any form shall be conducted
except in the presence of his counsel or after a
valid waiver has been made;
6. The person arrested must be informed that, at
any time, he has the right to communicate or
confer by the most expedient means - telephone,
radio, letter or messenger - with his lawyer
(either retained or appointed), any member of
his immediate family, or any medical doctor,
priest or minister chosen by him or by any one
from his immediate family or by his counsel, or
be visited by/confer with duly accredited
national or international non-government
organization. It shall be the responsibility of the
officer to ensure that this is accomplished;
7. He must be informed that he has the right to
waive any of said rights provided it is made
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and
ensure that he understood the same;
8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his
right to a lawyer, he must be informed that it
must be done in writing AND in the presence of
counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the
waiver is void even if he insists on his waiver
and chooses to speak;
9. That the person arrested must be informed that
he may indicate in any manner at any time or
stage of the process that he does not wish to be
questioned with warning that once he makes
such indication, the police may not interrogate
him if the same had not yet commenced, or the
interrogation must have ceased if it has already
begun;
10. The person arrested must be informed that his
initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the
right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar
him from invoking it at any time during the
process, regardless of whether he may have
answered some questions or volunteered some
statements;
11. He must also be informed that any statement or
evidence, as the case may be, obtained in
violation of any of the foregoing, whether
inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part,
shall be inadmissible in evidence (People v.
Mahinay, G.R. No. 122485, Feb. 1, 1999).
Nemo Tenetur Seipsum Accusare- No one is
bound to incriminate or accuse himself
Right against self-incrimination was established on
the grounds of:

Requirements in order that an admission of guilt
of an accused during a custodial investigation be
admitted in evidence?
An admission of guilt during a custodial
investigation is a confession. To be admissible
in evidence, the confession must be voluntary,
made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel, express and in writing.
Section 1 (d)
1. Public policy- if the party were required to
testify, it would place the witness under the
strongest temptation to commit the crime of
perjury
2. Humanity- it would prevent the extortion of
confession by address.
The Constitutional foundation underlying the
privilege against self-incrimination is the respect a
government must accord to the dignity and integrity
to its citizens.

To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject
to cross-examination on matters covered by direct
examination. His silence shall not in any manner
prejudice him.
Right to testify as a witness
Subject to cross examination
Limited to matters covered by the direct
examination
Involuntary confessions had been rejected by all
courts not only on the ground of its unreliability but
also, and more importantly, on humanitarian
principles which abhor all forms of torture or
unfairness towards the accused in criminal
proceedings.
To be exempt from being a witness against
himself

Difference: Ordinary witness and accused in terms He cannot be compelled to testify or produce
of cross examination evidence in the criminal case in which he is the
accused, or one of the accused. He cannot be
Accused as Witness Ordinary Witness compelled to do so even by subpoena or other
Questions to be asked Cross-examiner is given process or order of the Court.
must be limited only to sufficient fullness and The main purpose of the privilege then is to
those covered or freedom to ask questions prohibit compulsory oral examination of
connected to matters that would test the prisoners before trial, or upon trial, for the
stated by the direct accuracy and truthfulness purpose of extorting unwilling confessions of a
examination of the witness, his crime.
freedom from interest or
bias, or the reverse.

Right to Remain Silent BELTRAN VS SAMSON AND JOSE

Shall not in any manner prejudice him
Writing is more than moving the body, or the hands,
or the fingers; writing is not purely mechanical act,
Section 1 (e) because it requires the application of intelligence
and attention
TO BE EXEMPT FROM BEING
COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST Writing means that the petitioner herein is to furnish
HIMSELF a means to determine whether or not he is the
falsifier, as the petition of the respondent fiscal
states.
US VS TAN TENG
Mr. Jsutice Holmes in the case of Holt v US said:
But the prohibition of compelling a man in a
criminal court to be a witness against himself, is a
prohibition of the use of physical or moral
compulsion, to extort communications from him,
not an exclusion of his body as evidence, when it
may be material. The objection, in principle, would
forbid a jury (court) to look at a person and compare
his features with a photograph, in proof. Moreover
we are not considering how far a court would go in
compelling a man to exhibit himself, for when he is
exhibited, whether voluntarily or by order, even if
the order goes too far, the evidence is material, is
competent.
US VS ONG SIU HONG
To force a prohibited drug from the person of an
accused is along the same line as requiring him to
exhibit himself before the court; or putting in
evidence papers and other articles taken from the
room of an accused in his absence; or, as in the Tan
Teng case, taking a substance from the body of the
accused to be used in proving his guilt. It would be
a forced construction of the paragraph of the
Philippine Bill of Rights in question to hold that any
article, substance, or thing taken from a person
accused of crime not be given in evidence. The
main purpose of this constitutional provision is to
prohibit testimonial compulsion by oral examination
in order to extort unwilling confessions from
prisoners implicating them in the commission if a
crime.
Right to against self-incrimination applies to
commutative testimony and not mechanical
testimony.
COMMUTATIVE TESTIMONY involves the use
of intelligence on the part of the accused or witness
i.e., handwriting, signature, similar incidents
involving the use of intelligence
The following are permissible: substance
from the body, morphine from mouth, put
on pants, physical exam, etc.
Can the right to be exempted from being
compelled to be a witness against himself be
waived? YES.
INSTANCES:
By the failure of the accused to invoke the
privilege at a proper time, that is, after the
incriminatory question is asked and before his
answer;
When the accused obeyed without protest the
order to show the tattooing he had on his hand
according to the witnesses;
By taking the stand and testifying as a witness;
Answering freely the incriminatory questions
put to him
Section 1 (f)
RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-
EXAMINE WITNESSES
SOURCE Article III, Section 14 (2) of the 1987
Constitution
CONFRONTATION the act of setting a witness
face-to-face with the accused so that the accused
may make any objection he has to the witness, and
the witness may identify the accused.
The right to meet the witnesses face to face is a
personal privilege. It may be waived expressly or
impliedly by ones conduct incompatible with his
assertion of the right to confront ones accusers.
EXPLANATION OF THE PROVISION to
ensure the accused the right to be tried, to meet the
witnesses face to face during trial, to give their
testimony in his presence, and to give the accused
an opportunity of cross examination.
Therefore, the prosecution also has the right to
cross-examine the witnesses of the defense,
including the accused if he elects to testify.
The court must have jurisdiction to permit the
privilege of cross-examination.

THREE PURPOSES OF CONFRONTATION
1. It ensures that the witness will give his testimony
under oath;
2. It forces the witness to submit to cross-
examination; which is the most essential purpose,
and
3. It enables the court to observe the demeanor of
the witness and assess his credibility.
EXCEPTIONS
The party may utilize as part of its evidence the
testimony of a witness:
a) who is deceased
b) out of the country,
c) cannot, with due diligence, be found in the
country
d) unavailable or unable to testify
e) given in another case or proceeding (judicial or
administrative), involving the same parties and
subject matter, where the adverse party already had
the opportunity to cross examine him
Section 1 (g)
To have compulsory process issued to secure the
attendance of witnesses and production of other
evidence in his behalf.
SOURCE
The 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14(2) Bill of
Rights
PURPOSE
To get the truth so that the guilty may be
punished.
Failure to issue subpoena to compel the
attendance of witness has been held to be a
deprivation of right of the accused to due
process.
IN RELATION TO RULE 21, RULES OF
COURT
Rule 21, Sec. 1Subpoena
Process directed to a person requiring him to attend
and to testify at the hearing or the trial of an action,
or at any investigation conducted by competent
authority, or for the taking of his deposition. It may
also require him to bring with him any books,
documents, or other things under his control, in
which case it is called a subpoena duces tecum.
2 types of subpoena:
Subpoena Ad Testificandum: process directed to a
person requiring him to attend and to testify at the
hearing or trial of an action, or at any investigation
conducted by competent authority, or for the taking
of his deposition. So you are required to appear
there and testify in court.
Subpoena Duces Tecum:process directed to a
person where it requires him to bring with him any
books, documents or other things under his control.
In other words, the interest lies upon the documents
or other effects under his custody.
Sec. 8 and 9Consequences if Witnesses
refused to appear after subpoena was issued to
him (without adequate cause or reason)
o In case of unjustified failure of the witness
to comply, the Court/Judge issuing the
subpoena, upon proof of service of such
subpoena and proof of witness failure to
attend, may issue warrant of arrest against
said witness.
o Declare/Cite said witness in contempt of
court for failure to obey the subpoena.

Section 1 (h)
To have speedy, impartial and public trial
Cases:
Lumanlaw vs Peralta
Flores vs People
People vs Modesto Tee
JOHN JOSEPH LUMANLAW y BULINAO vs.
Hon. EDUARDO B. PERALTA JR., in His
Capacity as Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court (Branch 13), Manila, G.R. No. 164953,
February 13, 2006, the Philippine Supreme Court
once again upheld the universal doctrine of
SPEEDY TRIAL by asserting that vexatious,
oppressive, unjustified and capricious delays in the
arraignment violates the constitutional right to
speedy trial and speedy case disposition,
particularly when the accused is detained. Under
such circumstances, MANDAMUS is a proper
remedy for relief from prolonged detention. Thus:
Right to Speedy Trial
Arraignment is a vital stage in criminal proceedings
in which the accused are formally informed of the
charges against them. [33] The proper conduct of
the arraignment is provided in Rule 116 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. A perusal of
the provision shows that arraignment is not a mere
formality, but an integral part of due process. [34]
Particularly, it implements the constitutional right of
the accused to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against them and their right to
speedy trial.
On this point, petitioner argues that, by respondents
failure to act expeditiously on his arraignment, his
right to speedy trial was violated. He points out the
fourteen postponements that resulted in his
intolerable detention for almost two years.
Moreover, he cites Section 2 of Supreme Court
Circular No. 38-98 (implementing Republic Act No.
8493, otherwise known as The Speedy Trial Act of
1998), which provides that arraignment shall be
held within thirty days from the date the court
acquired jurisdiction over the accused.
On the other hand, respondent counters that there
were no capricious and oppressive delays that
would justify a dismissal of the Information. The
Office of the Solicitor General points to the
participation of petitioner himself in the protracted
proceedings, such as his filing of a Motion for
Preliminary Investigation and his counsels absence
from one of the scheduled hearings. [35]
Flores v People 61 SCRA 331 (December 10, 1974)
"rights of the accused to a speedy trial"
Facts: Petitioners plea for their constitutional rights
to a speedy trial by certiorari where the proceeding
of the case for robbery against petitioners dragged
on for over a decade without any final judgment
rendered by the court. Petitioners sought for the
dismissal of the case due to inordinate delay in its
disposition. The People in its affirmative defense
raised the facts that the case was not properly
captioned, as the People of the Phils. against whom
it is filed was not a tribunal exercising judicial
functions and without the Court of Appeals being
made a part to the petition there are insufficient
facts to constitute a cause of action. Moreover, it
defends that the CA took all necessary steps to
complete the transcript of stenographic notes of the
original trial.
Issue: Whether or not the constitutional rights of
the accused to a speedy trial was violated.
Held: The court referred to previous jurisprudence
upholding the constitutional rights of the accused to
a speedy trial. It re-affirmed with emphasis that
such right is more significant than the procedural
defects pointed out by the People of the Philippines
that the CA should have been made party-
respondent to the petition. Technicalities should
always give way to the reality of the situation and
that in the absence of a valid decision the stage trial
was not completed and the accused should be
accorded with the right to contend that they had not
been accorded their right to be tried as promptly as
circumstances permit. Thus the SC finds merit to
dismiss the case against the petitioners.
PEOPLE v. MODESTO TEE, GR Nos. 140546-47,
2003-01-20
Facts:
When arraigned... appellant refused to enter a plea
The trial court entered a plea of not guilty for him...
duly convicted him of illegal possession of
marijuana and sentenced him to death.
Hence, this automatic review.
Appellant insists that the prosecution's unjustified
and willful delay in presenting witness Abratique
unduly delayed the resolution of his case. He points
out that a total of eight (8) scheduled hearings had
to be reset due to the failure or willful refusal of
Abratique to... testify against him.
Appellant now alleges that the prosecution
deliberately resorted to delaying the case to cause
him untold miseries.
On record, the trial court found that prosecution
witness Danilo G. Abratique failed to appear in no
less than eighteen (18) hearings,... No less than four
(4) warrants of arrest were issued against him to
compel him to testify.
Nothing on record discloses the reason for
Abratique's aforecited absences.
Appellant now stresses that the failure of Abratique
to appear and testify on twenty (20) hearing dates
violated appellant's constitutional[72] and statutory
right to a speedy trial.
Issues:
the alleged prejudice caused by the reopening of the
case and absences of the prosecution witness, on
appellant's right to speedy... trial
Ruling:
On The Alleged Violation of Appellant's
Substantive Rights
In the present case, although the absences of
prosecution witness Abratique totaled twenty (20)
hearing days, there is no showing whatsoever that
prosecution capriciously caused Abratique's
absences so as to vex or oppress appellant and deny
him his rights. On record, after
Abratique repeatedly failed to show up for the
taking of his testimony, the prosecution went to the
extent of praying that the trial court order the arrest
of Abratique to compel his attendance at trial. The
prosecution likewise tried to get the NBI to produce
Abratique as the... latter was in the Bureau's
custody, but to no avail. Eventually, the trial court
ordered the prosecution to waive its right to present
Abratique and rest its case on the evidence already
offered.
Nor do we find a delay of twenty (20) hearing days
to be an unreasonable length of time. Delay of less
than two months has been found, in fact, to be not
an unreasonably lengthy period of time.
Moreover, nothing on record shows that appellant
Modesto Tee objected to the inability of the
prosecution to produce its witness. Under the Rules,
appellant could have moved the trial court to require
that witness Abratique post bail to ensure that the
latter would testify when... required.
Appellant could have moved to have Abratique
found in contempt and duly sanctioned. Appellant
did neither. It is a bit too late in the day for
appellant to invoke now his right to speedy trial.
No persuasive reason supports appellant's claim that
his constitutional right to speedy trial was violated.
One must take into account that a trial is always
subject to postponements and other causes of delay.
But in the absence of a showing that delays were
unreasonable and... capricious, the State should not
be deprived of a reasonable opportunity of
prosecuting an accused.
Principles:
A speedy trial means a trial conducted according to
the law of criminal procedure and the rules and
regulations, free from vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delays.
The concept of speedy trial is necessarily relative. A
determination as to whether the right has been
violated involves the weighing of several factors
such as the length of the delay, the reason for the
delay, the conduct of the prosecution and the
accused, and the efforts... exerted by the defendant
to assert his right, as well as the prejudice and
damage caused to the accused.
The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only
when: (1) the proceedings are attended by
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays;... or
(2) when... unjustified postponements are asked for
and secured;... or (3) when without cause or
justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to
elapse without the party having his case tried.
(3) when without cause or justifiable motive a long
period of time is allowed to elapse without the party
having his case tried.
Section 1 (i)
To Appeal in all cases allowed and in a matter
prescribed in law.
Escarda, Marc Farrel
G.R. No. 185125 January 30, 2012
Ruben Del Castillo vs. People of the Philippines
Facts: Pursuant to a confidential information that
petitioner Del Castillo was engaged in selling
shabu, police officers headed by SPO3, after
conducting surveillance and test-buy operation at
the house of petitioner, secured a search warrant
from the RTC. Upon arrival to the residence of Del
Castillo to implement the search warrant, SPO3
Masnayon claimed that he saw petitioner run
towards a small structure, a nipa hut, in front of his
house. Masnayon chased him but to no avail,
because he and his men were not familiar with the
entrances and exits of the place. They all went back
to the residence of Del Castillo and requested his
men to get a barangay tanod and a few minutes
thereafter, his men returned with two barangay
tanods who searched the house of petitioner
including the nipa hut where the petitioner allegedly
ran for cover. His men who searched the residence
of the petitioner found nothing, but one of the
barangay tanods was able to confiscate from the
nipa hut several articles, including four (4) plastic
packs containing white crystalline substance.
Thus, an information was filed against Del
Castillo for violation of Section 16, Article III of
R.A. 6425 and was found guilty by the RTC and
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner filed
with the Supreme Court the petition for certiorari
contending among others that CA erred in finding
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
possession of prohibited drugs, because he could
not be presumed to be in possession of the same just
because they were found inside the nipa hut.
Issue: Can petitioner Del Castillo be held liable for
violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425 by
mere presumption that the petitioner has dominion
and control over the place where the shabu was
found?
Held: No. While it is not necessary that the
property to be searched or seized should be owned
by the person against whom the search warrant is
issued, there must be sufficient showing that the
property is under petitioners control or possession.
The records are void of any evidence to show that
petitioner owns the nipa hut in question nor was it
established that he used the said structure as a shop.
The RTC, as well as the CA, merely presumed that
petitioner used the said structure due to the presence
of electrical materials, the petitioner being an
electrician by profession.
The prosecution must prove that the
petitioner had knowledge of the existence and
presence of the drugs in the place under his control
and dominion and the character of the drugs. With
the prosecutions failure to prove that the nipa hut
was under petitioners control and dominion, there
casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. In
considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with
the laws own starting perspective on the status of
the accused in all criminal prosecutions, he is
presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the
contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. 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
act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence.
Escarda, Marc Farrel
Miguel v. Sandiganbayan 675 Scra
Facts: Municipal Mayor of Koronadal, Fernando
Q. Miguel, while in the performance of his official
functions, committing the offense in relation to his
office, taking advantage of his official position,
conspiring and confederating with the private acting
with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally
give unwarranted benefits and advantages to
himself, by inviting them to participate in the
prequalification of consultants to provide the
Detailed Architectural & Engineering Design and
Construction Supervision and Management of the
proposed Koronadal Public Market, without causing
the publication of said invitation in a newspaper of
general circulation, thereby excluding other
consultants from participating in said
prequalification.
A case was filed against Miguel for violation
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019. On motions
separately filed by two of the petitioners, the
Sandiganbayan ordered the Office of the Special
Prosecutor (OSP) to conduct a reinvestigation.
Miguel followed suit and orally moved for a
reinvestigation, which the Sandiganbayan likewise
granted. The Sandiganbayan gave the petitioner ten
(10) days within which to file his counter-affidavit
with the OSP.
Instead of submitting his counter-affidavit,
the Miguel asked the Sandiganbayan for a thirty-day
extension to submit his counter-affidavit. Shortly
before the expiry of the extension requested, Miguel
asked the OSP for an additional thirty-day period to
file his counter-affidavit. Despite the two extensions
asked and granted, the petitioner asked the OSP
anew for a twenty-day extension period.
After several extensions sought and granted,
the petitioner filed a Motion to Quash and/or
Reinvestigation for the criminal cases against him.
On February 18, 2003, the Sandiganbayan denied
the petitioners motion because of the pending OSP
reinvestigation this, despite the OSPs earlier
termination of the reinvestigation for the petitioners
continuous failure to submit his counter-affidavit.
Because of the failure, Sandiganbayan ruled against
Miguel and ordered his suspension.
Miguel then filed for a pre-suspension hearing. He
averred that there was lack of hearing before the
issuance of a suspension order.
Issue: Whether or not the information is valid.
Held: The information is valid. In deference to the
constitutional right of an accused to be informed of
the nature and the cause of the accusation against
him, Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure (Rules) requires, inter alia, that
the information shall state the designation of the
offense given by the statute and the acts or
omissions imputed which constitute the offense
charged. Additionally, the Rules requires that these
acts or omissions and its attendant circumstances
must be stated in ordinary and concise language and
in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is being
charged and for the court to pronounce judgment.
The test of the informations sufficiency is
whether the crime is described in intelligible terms
and with such particularity with reasonable certainty
so that the accused is duly informed of the offense
charged. In particular, whether an information
validly charges an offense depends on whether the
material facts alleged in the complaint or
information shall establish the essential elements of
the offense charged as defined in the law. The
raison detre of the requirement in the Rules is to
enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense.
In arguing against the validity of the information,
the petitioner appears to go beyond the standard of a
person of common understanding in appreciating
the import of the phrase acting with evident bad
faith and manifest partiality.
Escarda, Marc Farrel
People v. Rolando de Lara 678 Scra
Facts: Rosabella de Lemos was abducted by
Rolando de Lara, MagnoTamares, Carlito Villas,
and Eduardo Villas while on her way to the
procession. Gloria, the mother of Rosabella, who
was accompanying her served as a witness, because
her daughter was kidnapped in front of her.
Rosabella de Lemos said that she was brought to the
woods, where she was raped. After being raped, she
was brought to the authorities, however, she was
threatened that she will be killed if ever she
disagrees marrying her ex sweetheart Rolando de
Lara.
The side of Rolando however, said that they
eloped since they still love each other, and that they
had sex because of love, there was no threat or
kidnapping that took place because Rosabella de
Lemos went willingly with Rolando.
Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty of
rape and forcible abduction?
Held: Yes, Rolando de Lara is guilty of the crime
of forcible abduction with rape, while, Carlito Villas
and Eduardo Villas guilty of grave coercion. In like
manner, only Rolando de Lara should be made
liable for the amount of P50,000.00 which accused-
appellants were ordered to pay as indemnity and the
costs of the suit. In addition, he must likewise pay
complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as moral
damages. Moral damages is to be given in rape
cases even if there is neither allegation nor evidence
presented as basis therefor.
Considering that the judgment by the trial
court against Eduardo Villas had already become
final and executory on account of the withdrawal of
his appeal, the additional monetary award applies
only to those who pursued the appeal, i.e., Rolando
de Lara, Carlito Villas and MagnoTamares.
However, since this Court finds Eduardo Villas
guilty of grave coercion, which is a lesser offense,
the penalty imposed by the trial court must likewise
be modified as to him, pursuant to Rule 122, 11(a)
which provides that a judgment of an appellate
court which is favorable shall benefit an accused
who did not join the appeal taken by his co-accused.
Topic: Weigh and Sufficiency of Evidence
Sharmaine D. Escover
G.R. No. 128287 February 2, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RIZAL
ESPIRITU Y KINAO
Facts: Appellant Rizal Espiritu was convicted as
charged for the crime of murder and was sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetuaby the
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. The
conviction was based mainly on his confession and
the corroborating evidence of corpus delicti. His
extra-judicial confession stated that he and Fred
Malicdan killed Sato Sanad after being hired by
Gerald Alicoy to do so for the sum of P20,000.00.
Aside from describing the details of how he had his
cohort killed Sanad, during the ocular inspection, he
even pointed out the place where the killing had
been committed. And when he executed his extra-
judicial confession before the police and during the
preliminary investigation of the case before the city
prosecutor wherein he admitted his participation in
the said incident, he was assisted by Atty. Daniel
Mangallay. However, during the trial of the case,
the accused denied any participation in the killing of
Sanad. He also assailed the admissibility of his
extra-judicial confession. And, he claimed that Atty.
Mangallay was retained by Alfredo Kinao and not
by himself and that the said lawyer was unable to
advise or to explain to him the contents of his extra-
judicial confession before he signed it.
Issue: Whether or not the extra-judicial confession
of Espiritu is admissible as evidence.
Held: The Court ruled that appellant's contention
that Atty. Mangallay was retained not by the
appellant personally but by his uncle, Alfredo
Kinao, is not proof of counsel deprivation. The fact
remains that Kinao, in hiring the counsel, acted on
behalf of appellant. Besides, appellant did not object
when Atty. Mangallay represented him during the
investigations before the police and the city
prosecutor. In fact, he expressly acknowledged
Atty. Mangallay as his counsel.We must clarify that
the right to counsel does not mean that the accused
must personally hire his own counsel. The
constitutional requirement is satisfied when a
counsel is (1) engaged by anyone acting on behalf
of the person under investigation or (2) appointed
by the court upon petition of the said person or by
someone on his behalf.The assistance rendered to
appellant by Atty. Mangallay met the standards that
had been set in Deniegafor the purpose of
safeguarding the right of the accused against
involuntary confession. In the present case, the
counsel was vigilant in informing Espiritu of his
rights. He was clear in explaining to his client every
question propounded by the investigating officer.
And he was not negligent in relating to the appellant
the legal consequences of the latter's extra-judicial
confession.And as a consequence of the confession
of the appellant, his conviction became inevitable.
Such confession was evidence of a high order,
"since it is supported by the strong presumption that
no person of normal mind would deliberately and
knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by
truth and his conscience."
Topic: Inadmissibility of Evidence
Sharmaine D. Escover
G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. JUDGE
RUBEN AYSON AND FELIPE RAMOS
Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of
the Philippine Airlines, assigned at its Baguio City
station. It was alleged that he was involved in
irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, the PAL
management notified him of an investigation to be
conducted. That investigation was scheduled in
accordance with PAL's Code of Conduct and
Discipline, and the Collective Bargaining
Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines
Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos
pertained. A letter was sent by Ramos stating his
willingness to settle the amount of P76,000. The
findings of the Audit team were given to him, and
he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also
stating that he was prevented from settling said
amounts. He proffered a compromise however this
did not ensue. Two months after a crime of estafa
was charged against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not
guilty. Evidence by the prosecution contained
Ramos written admission and statement, to which
defendants argued that the confession was taken
without the accused being represented by a lawyer.
Respondent Judge did not admit those stating that
accused was not reminded of his constitutional
rights to remain silent and to have counsel. A
motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors
was denied. Hence this appeal.
Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct
in making inadmissible as evidence the admission
and statement of accused.
Held: No. Section 20 of the 1987 constitution
provides that the right against self-incrimination
(only to witnesses other than accused, unless what is
asked is relating to a different crime charged- not
present in case at bar). This is accorded to every
person who gives evidence, whether voluntarily or
under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil,
criminal, or administrative proceeding. The right is
not to "be compelled to be a witness against
himself. It prescribes an "option of refusal to
answer incriminating questions and not a
prohibition of inquiry." the right can be claimed
only when the specific question, incriminatory in
character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be
claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness
the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to
appear before the court at the time appointed, or to
refuse to testify altogether. It is a right that a witness
knows or should know. He must claim it and could
be waived. The rights of the accused include: 1) he
shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel,
and to be informed of such right; 2) nor force,
violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiates the free will shall be used against
him; 3) any confession obtained in violation of
these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence. The
individual may knowingly and intelligently waive
these rights and agree to answer or make a
statement. But unless and until such rights and
waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the
trial, no evidence obtained as a result of
interrogation can be used against him.
Topic: Effects of death in civil action
Sharmaine D. Escover
G.R. No. 151258 February 1, 2012
ARTEMIO VILLAREAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Facts: Seven Freshmen Law students of Ateneo de
Manila University School of Law have been
initiated by the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity on
February 1991. The initiation rites started when the
neophytes were met by some members of the
mentioned fraternity at the lobby of the Ateneo Law
School. They were consequently brought to a house
and briefed on what will be happening during the
days when they will be initiated. They were
informed that there will be physical beatings and
that the neophytes can quit anytime they want. They
were brought to another house to commence their
initiation.The neophytes were insulted and
threatened even before they got off the van.
Members of the fraternity delivered blows to the
neophytes as they alighted from the van. Several
initiation rites were experienced by the neophytes
like the Indian run, Bicol express and rounds. They
were asked to recite provisions and principles of the
fraternity and were hit every time they made a
mistake. Accused fraternity members, Dizon and
Villareal, asked the head of the initiation rites
(Victorino) to reopen the initiation. Fraternity
members subjected neophytes to paddling and
additional hours of physical pain. After the last
session of beatings, Lenny Villa could not walk.
Later that night, he was feeling cold and his
condition worsened. He was brought to the hospital
but was declared dead on arrival.Criminal case was
filed against 26 fraternity members and was
subsequently found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of homicide and penalized with
reclusion perpetua.On January 10 2002, CA
modified the criminal liability of each of the
accused according to individual participation. 19 of
the the accused were acquitted, 4 of the appellants
were found guilty of slight physical injuries, and 2
of the accused-appellants (Dizon and Villareal)
were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of homicide.Accused Villareal petitioned for
review on Certriori under Rue 45 on the grounds
that the CA made 2 reversible errors: first, denial of
due process and second, conviction absent proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, petitioner
Villareal died on 13 March 2011 and filed a Notice
of Death of Party on 10 August 2011.

Issue: Whether or not criminal liability for personal

penalties of the accused is extinguished by death

Held: Yes, criminal liability of the accused is

extinguished by death. The Court took note of
counsel for petitioners Notice of Death when it has
been received while the petition was pending
resolution. Personal penalties refer to the service of
personal or imprisonment penalties, while pecuniary
penalties refer to fines, costs, civil liability. Article
89 of the Revised Penal Code states that the
criminal liability of a convict for personal penalties
is totally extinguished by death of the convict. His
pecuniary penalty has been extinguished since the
death of the accused happened before his final
judgment. Therefore, the death of the petitioner for
both personal and pecuniary penalties including his
civil liability has ended. His petition has also been
dismissed and the criminal case against him has
been closed and terminated.