ARREST:

- SEC 6. WHEN WARRANT OF ARREST MAY ISSUE xxx

o BY THE MUNCIPAL TRIAL COURT xxx THE JUDGE MAY ISSUE A WARRANT OF ARREST
IF HE FINDS AFTER AN EXAMINATION IN WRITING AND UNDER OATH OF THE
COMPLAINANT AND HIS WITNESSES IN THE FORM OF SEARCHING AND QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS, THAT A PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS AND THAT THERE IS A NECESSITY
OF PLACING THE RESPONDENT UNDER IMEMDIATE CUSOTDY IN ORDER NOT TO
FRUSTRATE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
- Judge’s options:
1. Dismiss the case if the evidence in record clearly fails to establish probable cause
2. If he finds a prob casue then issue a warrant
3. In cases of doubts as to the existence of probable cause, order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence within five days
- the Constitution requires is that the issuing judge must satisfy himself first with the criteria in finding
probable cause. And to satisfy himself doesn't mean to he is required to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses.

The Constitution mandates that he shall:

(1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the
existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or
(2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and require
the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the
existence of probable cause

- Article III Sec 2: no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the
judge after ezamination under oath or affirmation of the complaintant and the witnesses he may
produce.
- RULE 113 SECTION 5 OFFICER OR PRIVATE EPRSON MAY ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT
a. When his presence the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing or is attemting
to commit the crime
b. When an offense gas just been committed and he has a probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
- VALID WARANTLESS ARREST
o Crime should have been just committed
o Officer’s exercise of discretion is limited by the standard of probable cause

- Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

- The Right to Counsel

- Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect
in the commission of the crime under investigation.47 As a rule, a police lineup is not part of the
custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be
invoked at this stage. The right to be assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation
and cannot be claimed by the accused during identification in a police lineup
- The guarantees of Sec. 12(1 ), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, or the so-called Miranda rights, may be
invoked only by a person while he is under custodial investigation. Custodial investigation starts when
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
- Sec. 2 of RA 7438 provides that custodial investigation 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 x x x

BAIL
 - Right to bail is only extended only to those persons who have been arrested, detained, or otherwise
deprived of their freedom
- A person is considered to be in the custody of the law:
- when he is arrested either by virtue of warrant of arrest or by warrantless arrest
- when he has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to the proper
authorities
- In the foregoing facts, petitioner can be considered as being constructively and legally under custody
- Through his lawyers, he expressly submitted to physical and legal control over his person:
- firstly, by filing the application for bail with the trial court
- secondly, by furnishing true information of his actual whereabouts;
- thirdly, by unequivocally recognizing the jurisdiction of the said court.
- for purposes of the hearing thereof he should be deemed to have voluntarily submitted his person to the
custody of the law and, necessarily, to the jurisdiction of the trial court
- · an arrest is made either by:
- - 1. actual restraint of the arrestee or 2. merely by his submission to the custody of the person
making the arrest. The latter mode may be exemplified by the so-called "house arrest" or, in case of
military offenders, by being "confined to quarters" or restricted to the military camp area.
- Bail as a matter of right – due process and presumption of innocence.
- Article III, Sec. 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. This right is safeguarded by the constitutional
right to be released on bail.
-
- The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at trial and so the amount of bail
should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when so required, but no higher than what
may be reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.
-
- Bail as a matter of discretion
- Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and repeted in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure to wit:

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

- Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such
a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is
required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind

Rights of Accused During

Custodial Investigation

The rights of persons under custodial investigation are enshrined in Article III, Section 12 of the 1987
Constitution, which provides:

Sec. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent 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.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the
free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 hereof (right
against self-incrimination) shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
- (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violation of this section as well as
compensation for the rehabilitation of victims of tortures or similar practices, and their families.

SEC. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or under Custodial Investigation; Duties

of Public Officers.

a. Any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be
assisted by counsel.
- b. Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains
or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a
language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and
 independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer private
with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the
services of his own counsel, he must be provided by with a competent and independent counsel
- f. As used in this Act, custodial investigation 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
- SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies.
- This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties
in all cases, be it civil or administrative in nature, as well as all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-
judicial. In this accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious action to all officials who are tasked
with the administration of justice.[21]

It must be noted, however, that the right to speedy disposition of cases should be understood to be a
relative or flexible concept such that a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not be
sufficient.[22] Jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed violated only when the proceedings are
attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the
trial are asked for and secured; or even without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is
allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Demurrer to the evidence40 is "an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence
which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain
the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiencyof the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court,
in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether
there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. x x x
Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight or
amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action demanded according to the circumstances. To be
considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove: (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise
degree of participation therein by the accused."41 Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court must
evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.42

"The grant or denial of a demurrer to evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling on
the matter shall not be disturbed in the absence of a grave abuse of such discretion."43 As to effect, "the grant
of a demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal and cannot be appealed because it would place the accused
in double jeopardy. The order is reviewable only by certiorariif it was issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting tolack or excess of jurisdiction."44 When grave abuse of discretion is present, an order granting a
demurrer becomes null and void.

As a general rule, an order granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal. There are
certain exceptions, however, as when the grant thereof would not violate the constitutional proscription on
double jeopardy

To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have
attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second
jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid
indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered; and (e)
the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused

No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for punishment for the same offense. The rule of double jeopardy has
a settled meaning in this jurisdiction. It means that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is
terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the
latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense. This principle is founded upon the law of
reason, justice and conscience.27ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The constitutional protection against double jeopardy shields one from a second or later prosecution for the
same offense. Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution declares that no person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, providing further that if an act is punished by a law and an
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Following the above constitutional provision, Section 7, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court found it apt to
stipulate:

SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. - When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or
the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent
jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to
sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused
or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to
commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included
in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.

For double jeopardy to attach then, the following elements in the first criminal case must be present:

(a) The complaint or information or other formal charge was sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction;

(b)The court had jurisdiction;

(c)The accused had been arraigned and had pleaded; and

(d)He was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express
consent of the accused

EX POST FACTO

"A law passed after the occurrence of a fact or commission of an act, which restrospectively changes the legal co
nsequences orrelations of such fact of deed. By Art. 1 Sec. 10 of U.S. Const., the states are forbidden to pass 'any
ex post facto law.' Most all state constitutions contain similar prohibitions against ex post facto laws.

"An 'ex post facto law' is defined as a law which provides for the infliction of punishment upon a person for an
act done which, when it was committed, was innocent; a law which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than
when it was committed; a law that changes the punishment or inflicts a greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime when it was committed: a law that changes the rules of evidence and receives less
or different testimony than was required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the
offender; a law which, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty or the
deprivation of a right which, when done,
was lawful; a law which deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection to which they havebecome
entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of the proclamation of
amnesty; every law which, inrelation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his di
sadvantage.