Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

G.R. No.

185125 January 30, 2012 against whom the search warrant is issued, there Ombudsman found probable cause. Petitioner was
must be sufficient showing that the property is under asked to submit his counter affidavit. Multiple
Ruben Del Castillo petitioner’s control or possession. The records are extensions to submit were asked and granted but
vs. void of any evidence to show that petitioner owns the
instead of submitting a counteraffidavit petitioner
People of the Philippines nipa hut in question nor was it established that he
used the said structure as a shop. The RTC, as well eventually submitted a motion to quash. OSP filed a
(Presumption of Innocence) motion to suspend pendent lite and petitioner filed a
as the CA, merely presumed that petitioner used the
said structure due to the presence of electrical “Vigorous Opposition” against based on the "obvious
materials, the petitioner being an electrician by and fatal defect of the [i]nformation" in failing to allege
Pursuant to a confidential information that petitioner
Del Castillo was engaged in selling shabu, police profession. that the giving of unwarranted benefits and
officers headed by SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon, after advantages was done through manifest partiality,
conducting surveillance and test-buy operation at the The prosecution must prove that the petitioner had evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
house of petitioner, secured a search warrant from the knowledge of the existence and presence of the drugs Suspension was granted by the Sandiganbayan.
RTC. Upon arrival to the residence of Del Castillo to in the place under his control and dominion and the Hence, certiorari under Rule 65.
implement the search warrant, SPO3 Masnayon character of the drugs. With the prosecution’s failure
claimed that he saw petitioner run towards a small to prove that the nipa hut was under petitioner’s
structure, a nipa hut, in front of his house. Masnayon control and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt Issue:
chased him but to no avail, because he and his men as to his guilt. In considering a criminal case, it is
were not familiar with the entrances and exits of the critical to start with the law’s own starting perspective 1. Abuse of discretion by SB because there
place. They all went back to the residence of Del on the status of the accused — in all criminal was failure to allege in the information the
Castillo and requested his men to get a barangay prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge giving of unwarranted benefits and
tanod and a few minutes thereafter, his men returned laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable advantages.
with two barangay tanods who searched the house of doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that
2. WON lack of pre suspension hearing
petitioner including the nipa hut where the petitioner quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral
allegedly ran for cover. His men who searched the certainty that would convince and satisfy the invalidates the suspension order.
residence of the petitioner found nothing, but one of conscience of those who act in judgment, is
the barangay tanods was able to confiscate from the indispensable to overcome the constitutional Ruling:
nipa hut several articles, including four (4) plastic presumption of innocence.
packs containing white crystalline substance.
The test of the information s sufficiency is whether the
[G.R. NO. 172035 - July 4, 2012] crime is described in intelligible terms and with such
Thus, an information was filed against Del Castillo for particularity with reasonable certainty so that the
violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425 and accused is duly informed of the offense charged. In
was found guilty by the RTC and affirmed by the FERNANDO Q. MIGUEL, Petitioner, v. THE
particular, whether an information validly charges an
Court of Appeals. Petitioner filed with the Supreme HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.
offense depends on whether the material facts alleged
Court the petition for certiorari contending among in the complaint or information shall establish the
others that CA erred in finding him guilty beyond (Right to be heard) essential elements of the offense charged as defined
reasonable doubt of illegal possession of prohibited in the law. The raison d etre of the requirement in the
drugs, because he could not be presumed to be in Rules is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his
possession of the same just because they were found On May 29, 1996, then Vice Mayor Mercelita M. defense.34ςrνll
inside the nipa hut. Lucido and other local officials3 of Koronadal City,
South Cotabato filed a letter-complaint with the Office
of the Ombudsman-Mindanao In arguing against the validity of the information, the
Issue: (Ombudsman)4 charging the petitioner, among petitioner appears to go beyond the standard of a
Can petitioner Del Castillo be held liable for violation others,5 with violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, "person of common understanding" in appreciating
of Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425 by mere in connection with the consultancy services for the the import of the phrase "acting with evident bad faith
presumption that the petitioner has dominion and architectural aspect, the engineering design, and the and manifest partiality." A reading of the information
control over the place where the shabu was found? construction supervision and management of the clearly reveals that the phrase "acting with evident
Held: proposed Koronadal City public market bad faith and manifest partiality" was merely a
No. While it is not necessary that the property to be (project).6ςrνll continuation of the prior allegation of the acts of the
searched or seized should be owned by the person petitioner, and that he ultimately acted with evident
bad faith and manifest partiality in giving unwarranted from the Sandiganbayan, (ii) moved for dumating nalang dawn a police sa bahay niya and
benefits and advantages to his co-accused private reconsideration of the suspension order issued hinuli siya. 2 witnesses corroborated.
individuals. This is what a plain and non-legalistic against him, and (iii) filed a Reply to the OSP s
reading of the information would yield. Opposition to his plea for reconsideration.49 Given this
LC: guilty. CA affirmed this.
opportunity, we find that the petitioner s continued
demand for the conduct of an actual pre-suspension
Notably, in his petition, the petitioner would have us
hearing based on the same alleged "defect in the ISSUE:
believe that this elemental phrase was actually
information,"50 which we have found wanting has
omitted in the information35 when, in his reaction to
legally nothing to anchor itself on.
the OSP s comment, what the petitioner actually WON identification made by Sumulong during the
disputes is simply the clarity of the phrase s position, polic line up is inadmissible because Lara was without
in relation with the other averments in the information. Another reason that militates against the petitioner s counsel.
Given the supposed ambiguity of the subject being position relates to the nature of Section 13 of R.A. No.
qualified by the phrase "acting with evident bad faith 3019; it is not a penal provision that would call for a
and manifest partiality," the remedy of the petitioner, if liberal interpretation in favor of the accused public
at all, is merely to move for a bill of particulars and not official and a strict construction against the
for the quashal of an information which sufficiently State.51 The suspension required under this provision Contrary to Lara’s claim, that he was not provided
alleges the elements of the offense charged.36ςrνll is not a penalty, as it is not imposed as a result of with counsel when he was placed in a police line-up
judicial proceedings; in fact, if acquitted, the accused did not invalidate the proceedings leading to his
official shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the conviction. That he stood at the police line-up without
The pre-suspension order is valid.
salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during the assistance of counsel did not render Sumulong’s
his suspension.52ςrνll identification of Lara inadmissible. The right to
Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise
public officer against whom any criminal prosecution moment custodial investigation begins and being
Rather, the suspension under Section 13 of R.A. No.
under a valid information under this Act or under the made to stand in a police line-up is not the starting
3019 is a mere preventive measure
provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is point or a part of custodial investigation. As this Court
pending in court, shall be suspended from office. previously ruled in People v. Amestuzo:22
G.R. No. 199877 August 13, 2012

In Bedruz v. Sandiganbayan,45 the Court considered The contention is not meritorious. The guarantees of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, Sec. 12 (1), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, or the so-
the opposition of the accused (to the prosecution s
vs. called Miranda rights, may be invoked only by a
motion to suspend pendente lite) as sufficient to
ARTURO LARA y ORBISTA, Accused-Appellant. person while he is under custodial investigation.
dispense with the need to actually set the prosecution
s motion for hearing. The same conclusion was Custodial investigation starts when the police
reached in Juan v. People,46 where the Court investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
(Right to Counsel)
ruled:ςrαlαω unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular
suspect taken into custody by the police who starts
Nag withdraw yung group ng 230K pampasahod ng the interrogation and propounds questions to the
In the case at bar, while there was no pre-suspension San Sebastian Allied Services. Nung nag stop sa person to elicit incriminating statements. Police line-
hearing held to determine the validity of the intersection biglang may lumapit sa passenger side at up is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the
Informations that had been filed against petitioners, nanunutok ng baril and asked for the bag where the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution cannot
we believe that the numerous pleadings filed for and money was contained. Itinakbo nung isa, Bautista, yet be invoked at this stage. This was settled in the
against them have achieved the goal of this kaso nabaril siya at nakuha yung pera. One time yung case of People vs. Lamsing and in the more recent
procedure. The right to due process is satisfied nor witness, Sumulong, nakita si Lara naglalakad along case of People vs. Salvatierra. The right to be
just by an oral hearing but by the filing and the Pasig kasi tumawag siya ng police para arestohin. assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial
consideration by the court of the parties' pleadings, Line up was done for identification. Walang counsel investigation and cannot be claimed by the accused
memoranda and other position papers. yung accused during the line up. during identification in a police line-up because it is
not part of the custodial investigation process. This is
because during a police line-up, the process has not
In the present case, the petitioner (i) filed his Vigorous Defense: Plumber siya and on the alleged day he was
yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory
Opposition (to the OSP s Motion to Suspend Accused doing plumbing work at a house. On June 7, ma
and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is
Pendente Lite), and after receiving an adverse ruling
interrogated and who gives a statement in the course RTC the duty to decide the appeal "on the basis of the Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the
of the line-up.23(Citations omitted) entire record of the case and of such memoranda or Philippine Airlines, assigned at its Baguio City station.
briefs as may have been filed" upon the submission of It was alleged that he was involved in irregularities in
the appellate memoranda or briefs, or upon the the sales of plane tickets, the PAL management
G.R. No. 198753
expiration of the period to file the same. Hence, the notified him of an investigation to be conducted. That
dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal cannot be properly investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL’s
JOSE "PEPE" SANICO, Petitioner, premised on the failure to file the memorandum on Code of Conduct and Discipline, and the Collective
vs. appeal. Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND JENNIFER Airlines Employees’ Association (PALEA) to which
SON-TENIO, Respondents. Ramos pertained. A letter was sent by Ramos stating
Without doubt, the petitioner could reasonably expect
his willingness to settle the amount of P76,000. The
that his counsel would afford to him competent legal
findings of the Audit team were given to him, and he
(RIGHT TO COUNSEL) representation. The mere failure of the counsel to
refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also
observe a modicum of care and vigilance in the
stating that he was prevented from settling said
protection of the interests of the petitioner as the client
FACTS: amounts. He proffered a compromise however this did
– as manifested in the multiple defects and
not ensue. Two months after a crime of estafa was
shortcomings discovered in the petition for review –
charged against Ramos. Ramos pleaded not guilty.
Sanico and Baitquin were charged with trespassing was gross negligence in any language because the
Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’
and theft of minerals. They were acquitted with the defects were plainly avoidable by the simple
written admission and statement, to which defendants
trespassing charge but were found guilty of violation application of the relevant guidelines existing in
argued that the confession was taken without the
of the Philippine Mining Act. the Rules of Court. If the incompetence of counsel
accused being represented by a lawyer. Respondent
was so great and the error committed as a result was
Judge did not admit those stating that accused was
so serious that the client was prejudiced by a denial of
Accused filed a notice of appeal in the MCTC. RTC not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain
his day in court, the litigation ought to be re-opened to
ordered them to file a memo on appeal but they were silent and to have counsel. A motion for
give to the client another chance to present his case.
not able to file so the appeal was dismissed. reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was denied.
The legitimate interests of the petitioner, particularly
Hence this appeal.
the right to have his conviction reviewed by the RTC
New lawyer then filed an MR against the dismissal of as the superior tribunal, should not be sacrificed in the
appeal stating that the previous counsel was not able altar of technicalities.
Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct
to file memo on appeal because Sanico’s wife was
in making inadmissible as evidence the admission
sick with a debilitating disease and likewise the former G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989 and statement of accused.
counsel was also encountering a medical condition.
RTC denied MR. PR to CA but was also denied due
to non payment of docket; (-) proof of service etc. MR THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
but was denied by CA also. vs. Held:
HON. JUDGE RUBEN AYSON, Presiding over
Branch 6, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial
ISSUE: Region, Baguio City, and FELIPE Right Against Self-Incrimination
RAMOS, respondents.
WON the CA erred in holding against him his former The first right, against self-incrimination, mentioned in
counsel’s gross and inexcusable negligence, thereby (Right against self-incrimination) Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, is
depriving him of his right to have the conviction accorded to every person who gives evidence,
reviewed by the RTC. whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena,
175 SCRA 216; G.R. NO. 85215; 7 JUL 1989
in any civil, criminal, or administrative
RULING: proceeding. 14 The right is NOT to "be compelled to be
a witness against himself"
The failure to file the memorandum on appeal is a
ground for the RTC to dismiss the appeal only in civil The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled
cases. The same rule does not apply in criminal meaning. 15 It prescribes an "option of refusal to
cases, because Section 9(c), supra, imposes on the answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition
of inquiry." 16 It simply secures to a witness, whether intimidation or any other means which vitiates the free ARTEMIO VILLAREAL, Petitioner,
he be a party or not, the right to refue to answer any will; and to have evidence obtained in violation of vs.
particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer these rights rejected; and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
to which has a tendency to incriminate him for some
crime. However, 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 a) to refuse to be a witness; In February 1991, seven freshmen law students of the
disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the Ateneo Law joined Aquila Legis, one of which was the
court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify victim, Lenny. They were brought to Caloocan during
b) not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him
altogether. The witness receiving a subpoena must the initiation night. They were subjected to beating.
obey it, appear as required, take the stand, be sworn by such refusal;
During the rites, lenny received several blows, one
and answer questions. It is only when a particular sent him sprawling to the ground. He complained of
question is addressed to him, the answer to which c) to testify in his own behalf, subject to cross- difficulty of breathing. After an hour of sleep leny was
may incriminate him for some offense, that he may examination by the prosecution; shivering and saying incoherent mumblings. He was
refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional rushed to the hospital and was pronounced dead on
guaranty. arrival. 35 Aquilans were charged with a criminal case
d) WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse to answer a specific
for homicide.
question which tends to incriminate him for some
The right against self-incrimination is not self- crime other than that for which he is then prosecuted.
executing or automatically operational. It must be In 1993, trial court held 26 Aquilans quilty. Case for
claimed. If not claimed by or in behalf of the witness, the remaining 9 were held in abeyance but
the protection does not come into play. It follows that It is clear from the undisputed facts of this case that commenced a few weeks after.
the right may be waived, expressly, or impliedly, as by Felipe Ramos was not in any sense under custodial
a failure to claim it at the appropriate time. interrogation, as the term should be properly
understood, prior to and during the administrative CA set aside the ruling on conspiracy and modified
inquiry into the discovered irregularities in ticket sales the criminal liability of each according to participation.
In other words — unlike an ordinary witness (or a in which he appeared to have had a hand. The 19 acquitted because guilt beyond RD was not
party in a civil action) who may be compelled to testify constitutional rights of a person under custodial proven. 4 found guilty of slight PI. 2 were found guilty
by subpoena, having only the right to refuse to answer interrogation under Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 beyond RD for homicide.
a particular incriminatory question at the time it is put Constitution did not therefore come into play, were of
to him-the defendant in a criminal action can refuse to no relevance to the inquiry. It is also clear, too, that
testify altogether. He can refuse to take the witness In 2002, trial court reversed the findings against 5
Ramos had voluntarily answered questions posed to
stand, be sworn, answer any question. 34And, as the people on the basis of violation of their right against
him on the first day of the administrative investigation,
law categorically states, "his neglect or refusal to be a speedy trial. Hence, the petition before SC which
February 9, 1986 and agreed that the proceedings
were consolidated.
witness shall not in any manner prejudice or be used should be recorded, the record having thereafter been
against him." 35 marked during the trial of the criminal action
subsequently filed against him as Exhibit A, just as it ISSUE:
is obvious that the note (later marked as Exhibit K)
In fine, a person suspected of having committed a
crime and subsequently charged with its commission that he sent to his superiors on February 8,1986, the
Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion
in court, has the following rights in the matter of his day before the investigation, offering to compromise
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
his liability in the alleged irregularities, was a free and
testifying or producing evidence, to wit: dismissed the case against Escalona, Ramos,
even spontaneous act on his part. They may not be
Saruca, and Adriano for violation of their right to
excluded on the ground that the so-called "Miranda
1) BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or with speedy trial
rights" had not been accorded to Ramos.
the public prosecutor, for preliminary investigation),
but after having been taken into custody or otherwise RULING:
G.R. No. 151258 December 1, 2014
deprived of his liberty in some significant way, and on
being interrogated by the police: the continuing right We do not see grave abuse of discretion in the CAs
to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed
dismissal of the case against accused Escalona,
thereof, not to be subjected to force, violence, threat,
Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano on the basis of the
violation of their right to speedy trial. Since there is nothing in the records that would show
that the subject of this Petition includes accused
While we are prepared to concede that some of the Ampil, S. Fernandez, Cabangon, and De Vera, the
foregoing factors that contributed to the delay of the effects of this ruling shall be limited to accused
trial of the petitioners are justifiable, We nonetheless Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano.
hold that their right to speedy trial has been utterly
violated in this case.

The absence of the records in the trial court [was] due

to the fact that the records of the case were elevated
to the Court of Appeals, and the prosecutions failure
to comply with the order of the court a quo requiring it
to secure certified true copies of the same. What is
glaring from the records is the fact that as early as
September 21, 1995, the court a quo already issued
an Order requiring the prosecution, through the
Department of Justice, to secure the complete records
of the case from the Court of Appeals. The
prosecution did not comply with the said Order as in
fact, the same directive was repeated by the court a
quo in an Order dated December 27, 1995. Still, there
was no compliance on the part of the prosecution. It is
not stated when such order was complied with. It
appears, however, that even until August 5, 2002, the
said records were still not at the disposal of the trial
court because the lack of it was made the basis of the
said court in granting the motion to dismiss filed by
co-accused Concepcion.

It is likewise noticeable that from December 27, 1995,

until August 5, 2002, or for a period of almost seven
years, there was no action at all on the part of the
court a quo. Except for the pleadings filed by both the
prosecution and the petitioners, the latest of which
was on January 29, 1996, followed by petitioner
Sarucas motion to set case for trial on August 17,
1998 which the court did not act upon, the case
remained dormant for a considerable length of time.
This prolonged inactivity whatsoever is precisely the
kind of delay that the constitution frowns upon.

From the foregoing principles, we affirm the ruling of

the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 89060 that accused
Escalona et al.s right to speedy trial was violated.