RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED Dumlao vs. Comelec (BARAMBANGAN)
Petitioners: ● Patricio Patricio Dumlao Dumlao – former Governor Governor of Nueva Nueva Vizcaya Vizcaya,, who has filed his Certificate of Candidacy for said position of Governor in the forthcoming elections of January 30, 1980 ● Romeo Romeo B. Igot – taxpayer, taxpayer, qualified qualified voter voter and and a member member of the the Bar ● Alfredo Alfredo Salapanta Salapantan, n, Jr. – taxpayer, taxpayer, qualifie qualified d voter voter and a residen residentt of San Miguel, Iloilo A Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order was filed by Patricio Dumlao, Romeo B. Igot and Alfredo Salapantan Jr., in their own behalf and all others allegedly similarly situated, seeking to enjo enjoin in resp respon onde dent nt Comm Commis issi sion on on Elec Electi tion ons s (COM (COMEL ELEC EC)) from from implemen implementing ting certain certain provision provisions s of Batas Pambansa Pambansa 51, 52, and 53 for being unconstitutional. unconstitutional. Dumlao Dumlao specifical specifically ly question questions s the constituti constitutional onality ity of Section Section 4 of Batas Pambansa (BP) 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 4, BP 52: “Section 4. Special Disqualification in addition to violation of Section 10 of Art. XIIC of the Constitution and disqualification disqualification mentioned in existing laws, which are hereby declared as disqualification for any of the elective officials enumerated in section 1 hereof. Any retired elective provincial, city of municipal official who has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected, shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired." Dumlao alleged that the aforecited provision is directed insidiously against him, and that the classificati classification on provided provided therein therein is based on "purely "purely arbitrary grounds and, therefore, class legislation." For their part, Igot and Salapantan, Jr. assail the validity of: 1.
“Section 7. Terms Terms of Office. Unless sooner removed for for cause, all local elective officials hereinabove mentioned shall hold office for a term of 6 years, which shall commence on the first Monday of March 1980" (BP 51)
2.
SECOND PARAGRAPH PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 4, BP 52: “Section 52: “Section 4. Any person person who has committed committed any act of disloyal disloyalty ty to the State, State, including acts amounting to subversion, insurrection, rebellion or other similar crimes, shall not be qualified to be a candidate for any of the offices covered by this Act, or to participate participate in any
Is Section 4 of BP 52 valid?
No. First paragraph of Section 4, BP 52 is valid. Second paragraph of Section 4, BP 52 is null and void. Exclus Exclusive ive is the consti constitut tution ional al provis provision ion that, that, in all criminal criminal prosecuti prosecutions, ons, the accused accused shall shall be presumed presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right right to be heard heard by himself himself and counse counsel. l. (Article (Article IV, Section 19, 1973 Constitution). An accusation, according to fundament fundamental al law, is not synonymo synonymous us with guilt. The challe challenge nged d provis proviso o contra contraven venes es the consti constitut tution ional al presumption of innocence, as a candidate is disqualified from running for public public office on the ground alone that charges charges have been filed against him before a civil civil or military tribunal. It condemns before one is fully heard. In ultima ultimate te effect effect,, except except as to the degree degree of proof, proof, no distinction is made between a person convicted of acts and disloyalty and one against whom charges have been filed for such acts, as both of them would be ineligible to run for public office. A person disqualified to run for public office on the ground that charges have been filed against him is virtually virtually placed in the same category category as a person already convicted of a crime with the penalty of arresto, which carries with it the accessory penalty of suspension of the right to hold office during the term of the sentence. (Article 44, RPC). And although the filing of charges is considered as but prima facie evidence, evidence, and therefore, therefore, may be rebutted, rebutted, yet, there is “clear and present danger” that because of the proxim proximity ity of the elect election ions, s, time time constr constrain aints ts will will prevent one charged with acts of disloyalty from offering contrary contrary proof proof to overcome overcome the prima facie evidence evidence against him. Additionally, Additionally, it is best that evidence pro and con of acts of disloyalty be aired before the Courts rather than before an administrative body such as the COMELEC. A highly possible possible conflict conflict of findings findings between two governmen governmentt bodies to the extreme detriment of a person charged will thereby be avoided. Furthermore, a legislative/administrative determination of guilt should not be allowed to be substituted for a judicial determination.
partisan political activity therein: provided, that a judgment of convictio conviction n for any of the aforemention aforementioned ed crimes shall be conclusive evidence of such fact and the filing of charges for the commissi commission on of such such crimes crimes before before a civil civil court court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact” (BP 52) 3.
Section Section 1 and Sectio Section n 6 of of BP 52. 52.
In addition to the said provisions, Igot and Salapantan, Jr. also questioned the accreditation of some political parties by the COMELEC, as authorized by BP 53, on the ground that it is contrary to Section 9(1), Art. XII(C) of the Constitut Constitution, ion, which provides provides that a "bona "bona fide candidate candidate for any public public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination."
Feeder International vs. CA (CABALANG)
PET: Feeder International International Line, Pte. Ltd. (by its agent:Feeder International(Phils.) International(Phils.) Inc.) RES: CA, Court of Tax Appeals, Commissioner of Customs May 31, 1991; J. Regalado
1. The M/T "ULU WAI" foreign foreign vessel of Honduran Honduran registry, registry, owned and operated operated by Feeder Feeder Internatio International nal Shipping Shipping Lines of Singapore, Singapore, left Singapore on May 6, 1986 carrying 1,100 metric tons of gas oil and oil and 1,000 met. tons of fuel oil consigned oil consigned to Far East Synergy Corporation of Zamboanga. 2. The vessel anchored at the vicinity of Guiuanon Island in Iloilo without without notifying the Iloilo customs authorities. The presence of the vessel only came to the knowledge of the Iloilo authorities by a civilian informer in the area. Thus, District Collector of Iloilo dispatched a Customs team. team .
WON PET WON PET are being deprived of property without due process of law in that its right to be presumed innocent was not recognized
3. The Customs team found out that the vessel did not have on on board the required ship and shipping documents, except for a clearance from the port authorities of Singapore clearing the vessel for "Zamboanga."
The Court finds no merit in the Petition. It must be here emphasized that a forfeiture proceeding under under tariff and customs customs laws is not penal in nature, nature, contrary to the argument advanced by herein petitioner. In People vs CFI Rizal : Rizal : It is quite quite clear clear that that seizur seizure e and forfeit forfeiture ure proceedin proceedings gs under under the tariff and customs laws are not criminal in nature as they do not result in the the conv convic icti tion on of the the offe offend nder er nor nor in the the impositio imposition n of the penalty As can be gleaned gleaned from of the Code, seizure proceedings, such as those instituted in this case, are purely civil and administrative in character, the main purpose of which which is to enforce enforce the administra administrative tive fines or forfeiture incident to unlawful importation. Thus, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required in order to justify the forfeiture of the goods. In addition, it bears mention that petitioner, which is a corporate entity, has no personality to invoke the right to be presumed innocent which right is available only to an individual who is an accused in a criminal case.
4. PET seeks the reversal of the decision of respondent respondent Court of Appeals dated May 8, 1990, 1990, affirming affirming the decision decision rendered rendered by responden respondentt Court of Tax Appeals (and Customs) which found the vessel M/T "ULU WAI" liable under Section 2530(a) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines Philippines . 5. PET contended that they were being deprived of property without due proces process s of law in that that its right to be presum presumed ed innocent innocent was was not recogn recognize ized d and the decisi decision on was was not supporte supported d by proof proof beyond beyond reasonable doubt.
People vs. Regulacion (DARIA)
The accused Alfredo Regulacion alias “Pidoy” was charged before the CFI of Samar with Murder. Judgement was rendered on the case whereby said accused was sentenced, under the charge aforesaid,
won there was a violation of
In a criminal case, the presumption of innocence can be overcome by the presumption of regularity when the latter is accompanied by strong evidence
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. From that sentence, the accused appealed to this court. The record of the case shows that at about 4pm of March 1966, the accused Alfredo Regulacion, Manuel Balanguit, Romualdo Acebuche, and the deceased Cayetano Sosing were drinking beer.
the rights of the accused [presumption of innocence]
After an hour, the group proceeded to the store of Genaro dela Cruz where they ordered another beer. In the course of their meal, Romualdo Acebuche asked to dance with the daughter of the accused but the accused demurred, saying that the girl did not know how to dance. However, deceased Cayetano butted in and insisted that the accused should allow the girl to dance saying “Oh Come on, let your daughter dance with him. Anyway, my nephew is already thru with your daughter and someday we will be in-laws”.
Besides, the testimony of Sgt. Lagrimas contradicts the declarations of other witness for the prosecution on vital material points as to render it unworthy of credence.
Hugo De la Cruz testifying for the prosecution declared that when the jeep stopped in front of the house of Balanguit. When he left, he heard several gun shots coming from the house of Balanguit. Antonio Baluyot, another witness declared that when Hugo de la Cruz left, the accused and his son Dolodoy, came inside and shot the deceased Cayetano several times.
Evident premeditation has not also been established because the meeting of the accused and the deceased in the house of Maniel Balinguit was a chance encounter and not purposely sought after.
The accused declared that upon entering the sala of the house of Balanguit, the deceased Cayetano drew his gun and shot him. So the accused also drew his gun and shot him. he claims that it is only self-defense. People vs. Ponciano, Mario, Rolando and Juanito all surnamed Lumague.. Early in the morning of July 25, 1977, Antonio A. Regalado, 39, a credit investigator of the Social Security System, was maliciously killed in the Marikit Sub. division, Marikina, Rizal. He had 36 wounds. As a result of the investigation, the four Lumague brothers, Ponciano, Jr., 27, Rolando, 25, Mario, 23, and Juanito 21, and their brother-in-law, Rodolfo de la Cruz, were charged with murder for the killing of Regalado. At about eleven o'clock in the evening of July 24, 1977, Regalado, with his friends, Roberto Asuncion, Gerardo A. Ducha, Lorenzo Gravador and Rogelio Bautista, had a drinking spree at the Havana Pub and Beerhouse . Shortly after midnight, the group left that place and, as it was curfew time,
As held in Joseph vs Villaluz, “after the prosecution has adduced evidence, the constitutional presumption of innocence must yield to what has been so amply and persuasively demonstrated”. It was incumbent on the accused who had admitted the killing to establish his case of self-defense instead of relying merely on the weakness of the prosecution. The fact that Sgt. Lagrimas did not find any weapon near the body of the deceased when he went to the house of Manuel Balinguit and did not stay long and did not conduct a thorough examination of the scene of the crime, propmting the trial judge to comment that the witness was inefficient.
Upon hearing this, the accused stood up in anger and threw a glass on Cayetano hitting him on his shoulders. After an hour, the accused insisted in to accompanying Romualdo Acebucho home. The accused, Manuel Balanguit and Romualdo Acebucho rode a jeep.
People vs. Lumague, Jr. (DATUIN)
supporting the guilt of the accused.
The crime committed, however, is only homicide not murder.
WON Ponciano, Mario and Rolando were denied of their right to be heard?
Yes. An Yes. An accused has the constitutional right "to be heard by himself and counsel" and the right "to testify as a witness in his own behalf ". The denial of such rights is a denial of due process, as held in People vs. Santiago,: “Due process of law in a criminal prosecution consists of a law creating or defining the offense, an impartial tribunal of competent jurisdiction. accusation in due form. notice and opportunity to defend, trial according to established procedure, and discharge unless found guilty (16A C.J.S. 617).
they decided to walk to Bautista’s house in the subdivision about a kilometer away and sleep there. While walking on the street in front of the shack occupied by the Lumague family and Pacunayen's house, Asuncion heard Ducha shouting that Bautista had been stabbed. When Asuncion looked behind, he noticed that Ducha and Bautista were running because they were being pursued by two persons.
The constitutional right of the accused to be heard in his defense is inviolate. "No court of justice under our system of government has the power to deprive him of that right." (Abriol vs. Homeres, 84 Phil. 525, 534). Fundamental fairness, which is the essence of due process, requires that the three accused should be allowed to testify on their defenses and to present additional evidence to prove their innocence.
Asuncion's impulse was to follow Bautista and Ducha but after taking a few steps, he turned around and looked at the place where he had left Regalado. He saw Mario Lumague beating Regalado on the back with a hoe (Exh. D). Asuncion was about two fathoms away. Regalado fell on the ground face down. Asuncion got a stone and threw it at Mario. Mario pulled Regalado to a dark grassy place near the lighted street. Four persons approached Regalado. Asuncion Identified three of them as the brothers Ponciano, Mario and Rolando Lumague. Ponciano hit Regalado many times with his fist and struck him on the back with an adobe stone.
There is prrof beyond reasonable doubt to convict Juanito.
Rolando also threw an adobe stone at the head of Regalado and boxed him many times. Juanito repeatedly stabbed Regalado. Rodolfo de la Cruz clobbered Regalado with a club ("pamalo") about two feet long. Then, Mario who was armed with a hoe turned his attention to Asuncion, Ducha and Bautista who fled upon his approach. Mario pursued them. He did not overtake them. Shortly thereafter, the five assailants left the place where they had assaulted Regalado. Asuncion approached Regalado who was bloodied all over but was still breathing. Asuncion directed Bautista to fetch a vehicle. Ducha went to the police station. "Then a taxicab passed by, Asuncion hailed it and placed Regalado inside the taxicab. He was brought to the E, Rodriguez Hospital but was already dead on arrival thereat
Defense counsel Galvan announced that he would present the accused as witnesses at the next hearing scheduled on February 24. That hearing was not held. The case was reset for March 14. No hearing was held on that date for reasons not shown in the record. The trial court in its decision explained that the defense waived its right to present further evidence after it failed to present such evidence in spite of numerious postponements and when defense counsel failed to appear in court despite due notice. The trial court convicted Ponciano, Rolando and Mario Lumague of murder, sentenced each of them to death and ordered them to pay solidarily to the heirs of Regalado an indemnity of thirty-two thousand pesos.
People vs. Holgado (DE VEYRA)
1. Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged in the court of First Instance of Romblon with slight illegal detention because according to the information, being a private person, he did "feloniously and without justifiable motive, kidnap
Whether or not the accused was deprived of his right to be
Yes. First, It must be noticed that in the caption of the case as it appears in the judgment above quoted, the offense charged is
and detain one Artemia Fabreag in the house of Antero Holgado for about eight hours thereby hours thereby depriving said Artemia Fabreag of her personal liberty. 2. follows:
On may 8, 1948, the day set for the trial, the trial court proceeded proceeded as
Court: Is this the case ready for trial? Fiscal: I am ready, your honor. Court: — to the accused. Q. do you have an attorney or are you going to plead guilty? — A. I A. I have no lawyer and I will plead guilty. Court: Arraign the accused. Note: Interpreter read the information to the accused in the local dialect after which he was asked this question. Q. What do you plead? — A. I A. I plead guilty, but I was instructed by one Mr. Ocampo. 3. Two days later, or on May 10, 1948, the trial court rendered the following following judgment: [Criminal Case No. V-118] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRISCO HOLGADO defendant-appellant. SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION SENTENCE The accused, Frisco Holgado, stands charged stands charged with the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention in detention in the following: INFORMATION That on or about December 11, 1947, in the municipality of Concepcion, Province of Romblon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused being a private individual, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and without justifiable motive, kidnap and detain one Artemia Fabreag in the house of Antero Holgado for about 8 hours thereby depriving said Artemia Fabreag of her personal liberty. Contrary to law.
heard by himself and counsel as enshrined in the Constitution.
named SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION while in the body of the judgment if is said that the accused "stands " stands charged with the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention." detention ." Under the circumstances, particularly the qualified plea given by the accused who was unaided by counsel, it was not prudent, to say the least, for the trial court to render such a serious judgment finding the accused guilty of a capital offense, and imposing upon him such a heavy penalty as ten years and one day of prision mayor to twenty years, without absolute any evidence to determine and clarify the true facts of the case. The proceedings in the trial court are irregular from the beginning. It is expressly provided in our rules of Court Rule 112, section 3, that: If the defendant appears without attorney, he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have attorney being arraigned., and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney, the Court must assign attorney de oficioto defend him. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring attorney. Under this provision, when a defendant appears without attorney, the court has four important duties to comply with: 1 — It must inform the defendant that it is his right to have attorney before being arraigned; 2 — After giving him such information the court must ask him if he desires the aid of an attorney; 3 — If he desires and is unable to employ attorney, the court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him; and 4 — If the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own the court must grant him a reasonable time therefor. Not one of these duties had been complied with by the trial court. The record discloses that said court did not inform the accused of his right to have an attorney nor did it ask him if he desired the aid of one. Furthermore, one of the great principles of justice guaranteed by our Constitution is that "no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law", and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by counsel . Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of the law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and, without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence. And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. It uneducated. It is for this reason that the right to be assisted
by counsel is deemed so important that it has become a constitutional right and it is so implemented that under our rules of procedure it is not enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his right to have an attorney, it is not enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that the court should assign one de oficio if he so desires and he is poor grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own.
Flores vs. Ruiz (JAVIER)
Petitioner: Crispin Flores Respondent: Hon. Jesus Ruiz (presiding judge) Ponente: De Castro Crispin Crispin Flores filed a petition petition for Habeas Corpus after Hon.Ruiz allegedly allegedly arrested arrested and detained detained him illegally. illegally. From the records, records, itappears thatFlores was detained detained in Provincial Provincial Jail of Cagayan because he was held guilty of indirect indirect contempt contempt for refusing refusing to vacate vacate the property property.. They failedto failedto redeemthe propertysold to the heirs of Leonardo Mandac in the auction sale. Petitioner, Petitioner, however, questions questions the legality legality of the proceedings for not having been assisted by counsel during the hearing of the motion for contempt, and for not having been duly duly informed informed of the contemptcharge contemptcharge by beingfurnished a copyof the motion, or properly "arraigned" before trial. Thus, petitioner claims to have been deprived due process of law which voided the proceedings against him Respondent denied such allegations and even quoted stenographic notes: "COURT: Is the defendant Crispin Flores in Court? (Interpreter calls out the name of Crispin Flores, and answered that he is present). (The Court addresses Crispin Flores). Q. Who is going to represent you in this case? A. I have a lawyer but he was not able to come. Q. Did you notify him? A. Yes, sir, but he was not able to come today. Q. Are you willing to go into trial in this case even in the absence of your lawyer? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do yon need the assistance of any lawyer? A. No more, anyway I can answer." Petitiner Petitiner alleged that when respondent respondent judge had learned that he was without counsel counsel,, he told told him(petitio him(petitioner)to ner)to deliverposse deliverpossessi ssionof onof thepremisesto thepremisesto theheirsof Mandac, and gave him ten days to carry out that mandate. In spite of the plan of petitioner petitioner that the hearing on that date be postponed postponed so that his counsel of record could appear appear for him or that a new counsel counsel would be hired hired to appearin his behalf, the responde respondent, nt, however however,, demurre demurred, d, and petiti petitioner oner was made to sign an underst understandi anding ng to deliverup deliverup thepremiseswithi thepremiseswithin n theperiod theperiod indicat indicatedby edby thejudgeon pain of being imprisoned.
WON WON Flor Flores es was denied denied due process
Yes, he was denied of his right to be heard. The right of the accused accused to counsel in criminal proceedings proceedings has never been considered subject to waiver. The practice has always been for the trial court to provide provide the accused with with a counsel de oficio, oficio, if he has no counsel counsel of his ownchoice,or ownchoice,or cannotaffordone."The cannotaffordone."The right to be heard heard would be be of little little avail ifit doesnot includethe right right to be heard heard by counsel counsel.. Even Even the most intell intelligen igentt or educate educated d man may have no skill skill in the science science of the law, law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and, without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish establish his innocence and this can happen more easily to personswho are ignorantor uneducated. uneducated. It is not enough for the court to apprise apprise an accused of his right right to have have an attorn attorney, ey, it is not enough enough to ask him whether whether he desires the the aid of an attorney, attorney, butit is essential essential that the court should assign one de oficio for him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own. own . In the case at bar, the petitioner petitioner does not appear to have been duly duly notif notified ied of the the cont contem empt pt char charge, ge, nor nor was was prope properly rly "arraigned," "arraigned," since he was not assisted by counsel during the hearing. The court constrained to hold that the proceedings proceedings on the contempt contempt charge has been vitiated by lack of due process, process, entitling petitioner to the writ of habeas corpus he seeks.
People vs. Crisologo (POJAS)
On 5 May 1976, 1976, a crimi criminal nal complai complaint nt was filed filed by the Statio Station n Commander with the Municipal Court of Magsaysay, Davao del Sur against the accused Zosimo Crisologo alias "Amang," a deaf-mute, for robbery and homicide alleged to have been committed on 1 May 1976 between ten to eleven o'clock o'clock in the evening evening in Calamagoy Calamagoy,, Poblacion Magsaysay, Davao del Sur. The arraignme arraignment nt was reset several several times times upon insistent insistent plea of defense counsel for a sign language expert to assist the accused. Apparently, after 5 years from the date of filing of the information, no sign language expert of representative ever arrived. accuse accused d throug through h a counse counsell de oficio oficio waived waived the reading reading of the informati information on and pleaded pleaded not guilty. guilty. Trial proceeded proceeded without any evidence being presented on his part. Finally, on 10 February 1986, without the services of an expert in sign language ever being utilized at any stage of the proceedi proceedings ngs,, the accused accused was was found found guilty guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide and sentenced to die by electr electrocu ocutio tion. n. Execut Executive ive clemen clemency cy was recomm recommend ended, ed, however, in view of the accused's infirmity and his nearly ten-year detention as a suspect.
Whether or not there was a violation of the accused’s rights.
[Right to criminal due process] Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation and right to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel.
Counsel Counsel for the accused accused and the Solicitor-Ge Solicitor-General neral now ask for the reversal of the judgment of conviction due to the failure of the trial court to safeguard the accused's right to due process of law and the insuffici insufficiency ency of the purely purely circumsta circumstantia ntiall evidence evidence presented presented to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Estrada vs. Petitioner: Joseph Ejercito Estrada Sandiganbayan (BARAMBANGAN) April 4, 2001: The Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandigan Sandiganbaya bayan n eight eight (8) separate separate informatio informations ns against against Estrada Estrada for the crime of plunder. April 1, 2001: Estrada filed an Omnibus Motion for the remand of the case to the Ombudsma Ombudsman n for preliminary preliminary investigation investigation with respect to specific specific charges in the information. April 25, 2001: Sandiganbayan, Third Division, issued a Resolution finding probable probable cause for the offense offense of plunder plunder that justifies justifies the issuance issuance of warrants for the arrest of the accused. June 14, 2001: Estrada moved to quash the Information filed against him on the grounds that RA 7080 or the Anti-Plunder Act:
I s R A 70 80 80 valid?
Yes. The The abse absenc nce e of a qual qualif ifie ied d inte interp rpre rete terr in sign sign language and of any other means, whether in writing or otherwise, to inform the accused of the charges against against him denied denied the accused his fundamental fundamental righ rightt to due due proc proces ess s of law. law. The accu accura racy cy and and fairness of the factual process by which the guilt or innocence of the accused was determined was not safeguarded. The accused could not be said to have enjoyed the right to be heard b y himsel himselff and counsel counsel,, and to be informed informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him in the proceedings where his life and liberty were at stake. Furthe Furtherm rmore ore,, upon upon being being asked asked who who killed killed the deceased, deceased, the accused accused allegedly allegedly admitted admitted to Pat. Pinto Pinto in sign sign langua language ge that that it was he by making making gestures gestures which which Pat. Pinto interpreted interpreted to mean that the accused had been stoned by the deceased, thus impe impell llin ing g the the accu accuse sed d to stab stab the the latt latter er.. This This confession, however, was not included in Pat. Pinto's affidavit as he allegedly forgot to tell the investigator of his right right to counse counsell before before interr interroga ogatio tion n and investiga investigation tion due to the difficulty difficulty in conveying the matter by sign language.
Yes. The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncert uncertain ainty ty is whethe whetherr the langu language age convey conveys s a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice. It must must be stress stressed, ed, howeve however, r, that that the “vague “vaguenes ness” s” doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute statute to be upheld-not upheld-not absolute absolute precision precision or mathematical exactitude, as petitioner seems to suggest. Flex Flexib ibil ilit ity, y, rath rather er than than meti meticu culo lous us spec specif ific icit ity y is permis permissib sible le as long long as the metes metes and bounds bounds of the statute statute are clearly clearly delineated delineated.. An act will not be held invalid merely because it might have been more explicit in its wordings wordings,, or detailed detailed in its provision. provision. Especially Especially where, where, becaus because e of the nature nature of the act, it would would be
1. 2. 3.
imposs impossibl ible e to provid provide e all the detail details s as in all other statutes.
Suffers Suffers from from the vice of vaguen vagueness; ess; Dispen Dispenses ses with with the “reaso “reasonab nable le doubt” doubt” standa standard rd in crimin criminal al prosecutions; Abolishe Abolishes s the element element of mens rea in crimes already already punish punishable able under the RPC
The charge is communicated to the accused during the arraig arraignme nment, nt, which which is an indisp indispens ensabl able e part part of the proceedings against him. On the importance of this step, the Court said: Nor is it only the due process that calls for the accused being duly arraigned. As noted, it is at that stage where, in the mode and manner required required by the Rules, Rules, an accuse accused d for the first first time time is grante granted d the opportuni opportunity ty to know the precise precise charge that confronts confronts him. It is imperative that he is thus made fully aware of possible possible loss of freedom, freedom, even of his life, life, depending depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him. At the very least then, he must be fully informed of why the prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized against him. An arraignment served that purpose. Thereafter, he is no longer in the dark. It is true, the complaint or information may not be worded worded with sufficien sufficientt clarity. clarity. He would would be in a much worse position though if he does not even have such an opportunity to plead the charge. With his counsel by his side, side, he is thus in a position position to enter his plea with full knowledge of the consequences. He is not even required to do so immediately. He may move to quash. What is thus evident is that an arraignment assures that he be fully acquainted with the nature of the crime imputed to him and the circumstance circumstances s under under which which it is allegedly allegedly committed. committed. It is thus a vital aspect aspect of the constitutio constitutional nal rights guaranteed him. It is not useless formality, much less an idle ceremony.
Estrada claims that all of the aforementioned grounds are clear violations of the fundamen fundamental tal rights rights of the accused accused to due process process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him because of its ambiguity in failing to define with precision certain words and phrases in many of its provisions. Specific Specific provisions provisions of the Anti-Plu Anti-Plunder nder Act claimed claimed by Estrada to have transgress transgressed ed constituti constitutional onal boundari boundaries es are Section Section 1(d), Section Section 2 and Section 4 of the said Act. (Kindly check these provisions, too long to post here.)
People vs. Brian Dee (CABALANG)
This case is really long. I included particular things that Sir might ask. PET: People of the Phils. RES: Bryan Dy and Giovan Bernardino January 29, 2002; J. Ynares-Santiago
1. AccusedAccused-appe appellan llants ts Bryan Bryan Dy and Giovan Bernardino Bernardino were charged charged with Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness in a complaint initiated by Gina Marie Mobley, an American national and an exchange student at the Chengdu University of Science and Technology in Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 2. That on January 12, 1994, in the City of Baguio, the the accused, actuated by lust with lewd design, design, did then and there willfully, willfully, unlawfully unlawfully and felonious feloniously ly kiss her, fondle her breast, breast, undress undress her and insert insert their fingers into her vagina, who was then unconscious by reason of the drugs employed on her by the accused, all against her will and without her consent, consent, thereby thereby inflictin inflicting g upon the latter moral shock, fright,
WON accused was deprived of their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them
Indeed, the defense may waive their right to enter a plea and let the court enter a plea of not guilty in their their behalf. behalf. However, it becomes altogether a different matter if the accused themselves refuse to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. The defense cannot cannot hold hold hostag hostage e the court court by their their refusa refusall to the reading of the complaint or information. Nonetheless, accused-appellants accused-appellants were substantially informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them when their counsel received a copy of the Prosecutor Prosecutors s resolution resolution maintaining maintaining the charge charge for rape and acts acts of lasci lascivio viousn usness ess.. The failure failure to read read the complaint or information in a language or dialect known to them was essential essentially ly a procedura procedurall infirmity that was eventually non-prejudicial to accused-appellants. accused-appellants. Not only did they receive a copy of the information, they likewise likewise participa participated ted in the trial, trial, cross-examined the
humiliati humiliation, on, dishonor dishonor and besmirched besmirched reputation reputation on the part of the complainant and her family. 3. Gina and her companion Helen Helen Tennican Tennican are both taking Biology Biology major and took Chinese Studies as an additional course. Both were enrolled at the Pacific Lutheran University at Tacoma, Washington, where Gina was a univer universit sity y schola scholar. r. Gina Gina and Helen Helen decide decided d to spend spend their their semestral break in the Philippines. 4. They went in Dau, Pampanga, Pampanga, where they were supposed to take a ride to Baguio City. While waiting, they went to a Shakeys Pizza Parlor near the termin terminal. al. Accus Accuseded-app appell ellant ants s Bryan Bryan and Giovan Giovan,, who who are brothers-i brothers-in-la n-law, w, were seated seated at the next table. table. Bryan Bryan recognize recognized d the two girls from the Angeles. Bryan and Giovan offered the girls a ride; they accepted the offer thinking that they could save some money. Both groups checked in Benguet Pines Tourist, 2 rooms for each group, opposite sides of the corridor. 5. Bryan Bryan and Giovan asked the girls out for some drinks drinks and dancing dancing at the Songs Jazz Bar along Session Road. After the Bar, Giovan then drove to a convenience store because they are thirsty. Both accused alighted alighted and returned returned after 10 minutes minutes with Giovan carrying carrying three plastic cups of Sprite or Seven-Up and Bryan, two cups and a plastic bag containing Chinese food. Gina was then about to finish her cola drink when she felt something gritty in it which stuck into her teeth; they were like small particles. 6. Returning to the hotel, Helen went went to their room and passed passed out; while Gina went out and walked to towards the boys’ room although she had no recollection of why she did so. Gina alleged that she was forced by Bryan, and that Bryan inserted his fingers into her vagina. 7. In order to prevent penetratio penetration, n, because because she was at that time a virgin, Gina slid down and did a fellatio fellatio or oral sex on him. him. As usual, usual, the accused had a different story. Bryan alleged that it was Gina who asked for the sex and it was on her own will to give him fellatio. But Bryan saw a brown-red liquid on Gina’s vagina and got turned off because of her period. 8. The following following morning, morning, Bryan and Giovani Giovani left early. early. Bryan wrote his phone number on a piece of paper to give to the girls, since he had promised to show them around Manila. 9. Gina woke up 3:00pm and remembered that check-out time at at the hotel was at 12:00 noon so she opened her purse to pay the room and found out that her money was missing. She called for the police, stated to the cops that she was robbed and molested. 10.Both girls were checked checked up. Gina was informed that there were were no lacerations in her vagina. Dr. Francisco Hernandez, a neuro-surgeon,
complainant and her witnesses and presented their own witnesses to debunk and deny the charges against them. The conduct of the defense, particularly their participation in the trial, clearly indicates that they were fully aware of the nature and cause of the accusations accusations against against them. them. Accused-appellants Accused-appellants are clearly estopped to question the alleged alleged invalidi invalidity ty of or infirmity infirmity in their their arraignme arraignment. nt. By actively actively participa participating ting in the trial of the case, they have effectively waived whatever procedural error there was in their arraignment. arraignment. In short, short, whatever whatever was the defect in their arraignment arraignment was substantially substantially cured by their own omission and subsequent actions.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the RTCt of Baguio City, in Criminal Case No. 12600-R, finding accused-appellant BRYAN FERDINAND FERDINAND DY and GIOVAN BERNARDINO guilty of Rape, and sentencing accused-appellant Bryan Dy to suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight years of prision mayor , as minimum, up to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal , as maxi maximu mum, m, is AFFI AFFIRM RMED ED.. The The said said deci decisi sion on,, inso insofa farr as accu accuse sedd-ap appe pell llan antt Giovan Bernardin Bernardinos os penalty penalty is concerne concerned, d, is MODIFIED MODIFIED in that he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion of reclusion perpetua.
as expert witness to corroborate Ginas testimony that she was drugged but no tests were done because there were no drug testing centers centers in Baguio. Defense argued that both girls could not have been drugged because they have not been medically examined for the presence of drugs in their system. 11.Trial Court rendered accused guilty of rape and acts of lasciviousness. Hence, Hence, this this petiti petition. on. Defen Defense se conten contended ded that that there there was was no valid valid arraignment since they were not furnished a copy of the complaint or information. Moreover, the complaint or information was not read in a dialect dialect or language language known to them. While they waived waived their right to enter a plea, they claim that they never waived their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.
Martin vs. Ver (DARIA)
This is a petition for habeas corpus filed by Eulalia Martin on behalf of her husband Pvt. Francisco Martin. Pvt. Martin was an enlisted man in the Philippine Army. When he was still in service, he allegedly sold two grenades to one Rogelio Cruz. One of the grenades exploded during a picnic in s causing the death of three persons and injuries to three others.
WON his consti right to speedy trial was denied
The criminal act imputed to the petitioner unfortunately resulted in the death of three persons and very serious injuries to three others whose testimony is vital to the preferment of charges and prosecution of the petitioner. It is therefore not unreasonable to heed the the claim of respondents respondents that the delay complained of was occasioned by the unavailability of witnesses, a claim which has not all been challenged or denied by the petitioner.
85th- Waste of Unlawful Disposition ofMilitary issued to Soldiers 97th- General Article Petitioner said that even assuming that the military authorities have jurisdiction to try and punish him even though he was already discharged from the military service, he denial to him of his consti right to speedy tiral (he having been confined from the date of his arrest on May 5, 1981 up to December 3, 1982 when he was formally charged) entitles him to be released on habeas corpus
Petitioner Henry Uy (and later through an amended complaint, his wife, Rosario Uy was included) had been engaged in manufacturing, delivering, delivering, and selling "fake" Marca Piña soy sauce. Orlando S. Bundoc, Intelligence Officer II of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB), applied for a search warrant4 for unfair competition, and seized were
The Supreme Court upheld the decision in People vs Orsal “The test of violation of the right to speedy trial has always been to begin counting delay from the time the information is filed, not before filing. The delay in the filing of information, which in the instant case has not been without without reasonable cause, is therefore not be reckoned with in determining whether there has been a denial of the right to speedy trial”
May 5, 1981, Pvt. Martin was arrested and confined (restricted to barracks) at For Bonifacio pursuant to Art. 70 of the Articles of War. The following year, he was discharged from the service effective May 5, 1982. On November 17, 91982, the instant petition was filed. The following month, he was charged for violation of the 85 th and 97th Articles of War
Uy vs. Adriano (DATUIN)
no such denial
WON Petitioners were denied of their right to a speedy
No. Martin v. Ver ,48the "balancing test" was to determine whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated. The four-fold factors, None of these elements, however, is either a necessary or sufficient condition; they are related and must be considered together with
fifty-five (55) bottles of label Marca Piña soy sauce. 5 Consequently, a criminal complaint was filed in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tarlac City on March 23, 1994, charging petitioner Henry Uy with violation of Article 189 (Unfair Competition) of the Revised Penal Code. Timeline of events: 1.1994- criminal complaint 2. 1995- preliminary investigation investigation with probable cause cause finding; arrest thereafter;Arraignment 3. a.1996 (February)- first witness of the prosecution atty. Estavillo testified. b. 1996 (October) Admin Order 104-96 that the RTC shall have jurisdiction over violations of Art 188-189 of RPC 4.Despite order, MTC continued Trial, 2nd witness presented by prosecution Gloria Tomboc of BFAD (bureau of food and drugs) 5. 1999- 3rd witness Alfredo Lomboy supervisor of Pinyakamasarap Corporation 6. Oct 12 1999, Atty Joselito Lim moved to withdraw as counsel for pet,, and new counsel: Balbasto and Associates 7. 2000- Pet: Motion fo leave to File Demurrer to Evidence - no evidence to prove offense, court denied 8. June 2000 - RTC ordered City Prosecutor to conduct prelim investigation. Fiscal found PC and filed information of violation against RPC. 9. Petitioners filed Motion to Quash Information alleging that their rights to due process and speedy trial has been violated. They said they never received a supoena (which prosecution said otherwise); They claim that delay was due to lackadaisical attitude of prosecutor in the case. Their life, liberty and property, not to mention their reputation, have been at risk as there has been no determination of the issue of whether or not to indict them. Thus, the case should be dismissed in order to free them from further capricious and oppressive dilatory tactics of the prosecution.
trial?
other relevant circumstances. A. Length of the Delay The length of delay is to some extent a "triggering mechanism." Until there is some delay, which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity to inquire into the other three factors. B. Reason for the delay Under Under Sectio Section n 9, Rule Rule 119 of the Revised Revised Rules Rules of Criminal Criminal Procedure, Procedure, the accused have the burden to prove prove the factual factual basis basis of the motion motion to quash quash the Informatio Information n on the ground of denial of their right to a speedy trial.52 They must demonstrate that the delay in the proceedings is vexatious, capricious, and oppressive; or is caused by unjust unjustifi ified ed postpo postponem nement ents s that that were were asked asked for and secured; or that without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the case being tried.53 On the other hand, the prosecution is required to present evidence evidence establis establishing hing that the delay delay was reasonably reasonably attributed attributed to the ordinary ordinary processes processes of justice, justice, and that petitione petitioners rs suffered suffered no serious serious prejudic prejudice e beyond beyond that which ensued after an inevitable and ordinary delay. 54
*A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defens defense e should should be weighe weighed d heavil heavily y agains againstt the prosecution.
Court denied. The records bear out the contention of petitioners that there had been a considerable delay in the trial in the MTC. Upon motion/agreement of petitioners and the prosecution, or because of the joint absences, the trial of the case was delayed for more than 11 months. 55 In its own instance, the MTC also reset some of the trial dates in order to correct mistakes in scheduling or because the witnesses were not duly notified, 56 thus, delaying the trial of the case for an additional seven months. Even petitioners contributed to the delay of more than five months – they or their former counsel were either absent or moved for postponements to attend another pending case or due to health concerns. 57 The delay of about 21 months, covering 15 re-settings, can be
attributed to the prosecution. However, except in five instances, when the trial was reset because the private prosecutor had to attend to some professional58 and personal matters,59 the delays were brought about because of the recent engagement of legal service,60 absence of the public prosecutor, 61 and unavailability of documents62 and witnesses. C. Petitioner’s assertion of the right The assertion of the right to a speedy trial is entitled to strong strong eviden evidentia tiary ry weigh weightt in determ determini ining ng whethe whether r defendant is being deprived thereof. Failure to claim the right will make it difficult to prove that there was a denial of a speedy trial. 74 Except in only one instance in this case, 75 the records are bereft of any evidence that petitioners, through counsel, have have bother bothered ed to raise raise their their object objection ion to the severa severall re-setting of the trial dates. Until the filing of the motion to quash in the RTC, they never contested the prosecutorial proceedin proceedings gs nor timely challenged challenged the pendency pendency of the case in the MTC. D. Prejudice to the petitioners Barker Test is employed:(1) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (2) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (3) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired. Of these, the most serious is the last, because the inability of a defendant to adequately prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system. Again, records failed to reveal that the delay in bringing petitioners to trial in a court of competent jurisdiction caused them any prejudice tantamount to deprivation of their right to a speedy trial. Petitioners in this case were not subjected to pretrial incarceration, oppressive or otherwise, thus eliminating the first Barker consideration bearing on prejudice. As to the minimization of anxiety and concern of the accused, there is no showing that petitioners suffered undue pressures in this respect. There is no factual basis for the claim of petitioners that we are not supplied with any specific allegation in the record, nor witnesses or evidence may become unavailable because of the delays in this case. To repeat, the claim of impairment of defense because of delay must be specific and not by mere conjecture.
Dismissed.
Aquino vs. Military Comm. #2 (DE VEYRA)
1. Following the proclamation of martial law in the Philippines, petitioner BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR was arrested on September 23, 1972, pursuant to General Order No. 2-A of the President for complicity in a conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country and to take over the Government. 2. He was detained at Fort Bonifacio in Rizal province. On September 25, 1972, he sued for a writ of habeas corpus in which he questioned the legality of the proclamation of martial law and his arrest and detention. detention . However, the petition was dismissed and dismissed and upheld the validity of martial law and the arrest and detention of petitioner. 3. When the proceedings before the Military Commission opened on August 27, 1973, petitioner questioned the fairness of the trial and announced that he did not wish to participate in the proceedings. proceedings . 4.
1. Whether or not civilians can be subjected to the jurisdiction of military tribunals. 2. Whether or not the absence of a preliminary investigation is a denial of due process.
Thereafter, he manifested his desire to withdraw the petition
. The following contentions were provided by petitioner in the course of the proceeding: ● Peti Petiti tione onerr challenges the jurisdiction of military commissions to try him, alone or together with others, for illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives, for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act and for murder. ● His constitu constitutional tional right right to due process process has been impaired impaired when when the anti-subversion charges filed against him with the military commission were not investigated preliminarily in preliminarily in accordance with Section 5 of the Anti-Subversion Act, but in the manner prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 39, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 77. ● He has the right to trial in absentia
3. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to the right to trial in absentia.
1. Respondent Military Commission No. 2 has been lawfully constituted and validly vested with jurisdiction to hear the cases against civilians, including the petitioner. Under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 3 of Article XVII of the new Constitution, had the authority to "promulgate proclamations, orders and decrees during the period of martial law essential to the security and preservation of the Republic, to the defense of the political and social liberties of the people and to the institution of reforms to prevent the resurgence of the rebellion or insurrection or secession or the threat thereof....." 7 Pursuant to the aforesaid Section 3 [1] and [2] of Article XVII of the Constitution, General Orders No. 8, dated September 27, 1972 (authorizing the creation of military tribunals), No. 12, dated September 30, 1972 (defining the jurisdiction of military criminals and providing for the transfer from the civil courts to military tribunals of cases involving subversion, sedition, insurrection or rebellion, etc.), and No. 39, dated November 7, 1972, as amended (prescribing the procedures before military tribunals), are now "part of the law of the land. "It need hardly be remarked that martial law lawfully declared," observed Winthrop, "creates an exception to the general rule of exclusive subjection to the civil jurisdiction, and renders offenses against the laws of war, as well as those of a civil character, triable, at the discretion of the commander, (as governed by a consideration for the public interests and the due administration of justice) by military tribunals." In the case at bar, pursuant to General Order No. 12, all "criminal cases involving subversion, sedition, insurrection or rebellion or those committed in furtherance of, on the occasion of incident to or in connection with the commission of said crimes" which were pending in the civil courts were ordered transferred to the military tribunals. Therefore, the guarantee of due process is not a guarantee of any particular form of tribunal in criminal cases. Due process of law does not necessarily means a judicial proceeding in the regular courts. 2. The Constitution "does not require the holding of preliminary investigations. investigations. The right exists only, if and when created by statute." 20 It is "not an essential part of due process of law." 21 The absence thereof does not impair the validity of a criminal information or affect the jurisdiction of the court over the case. 22 As a creation of the statute it can, therefore, be modified or amended by law. 3.
Under the present Constitution, it is now provided that
"after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified." As a general r ule, subject to certain exceptions, any constitutional or statutory right may be waived if such waiver is not against public policy. The personal presence of the accused from the beginning to the end of a trial for felony, involving his life and liberty, has been considered necessary and vital to the proper conduct of his defense. The "trend of modern authority is in favor of the doctrine that a party in a criminal case may waive irregularities and rights, whether constitutional or statutory, very much the same as in a civil case." There are, for instance, certain rights secured to the individual by the fundamental charter which may be the subject of waiver. The rights of an accused to defend himself in person and by attorney, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to a speedy and public trial, and to meet the witnesses face to face, as well as the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, are rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They are rights necessary either because of the requirements of due process to ensure a fair and impartial trial, or of the need of protecting the individual from the exercise of arbitrary power. And yet, there is no question that all of these rights may be waived. Considering the aforecited provisions of the Constitution and the absence of any law specifically requiring his presence at all stages of his trial, there appears, therefore, no logical reason why petitioner, although he is charged with a capital offense, should be precluded from waiving his right to be present in the proceedings for the perpetuation of testimony, since this right, like the others aforestated, was conferred upon him for his protection and benefit. It is also important to note that under Section 7 of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court (Deposition of witness for the prosecution) the "Failure or refusal on the part of the defendant to attend the examination or the taking of the deposition after notice hereinbefore provided, shall be considered a waiver " (Emphasis supplied.) Similarly, Presidential Decree No. 328 expressly provides that " ... the failure or refusal to attend the examination or the taking of the deposition shall be considered a waiver ." ." N VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the petitions for prohibition with preliminary injunction and setting aside the temporary restraining order issued on April 8, 1975, with costs against petitioner.
People vs. Sanchez Pet: People of the Phil
WON
We cannot sustain sustain appellant'sclaim appellant'sclaim thathe wasdenied theright
(JAVIER)
Res: Mayor Antonio Sanchez Accused-appellants were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of seven (7) counts of rape with homicide on seven counts and sentenced each one of them to suffer the penalty of seven reclusion perpetua. The prosecution's version of the events was based mainly on the recollections of its star witnesses Aurelio Centeno and Vicencio Vicencio Malabanan Malabanan — coconspiratorsturned coconspiratorsturned statewitnesses. statewitnesses. Bothadmittedhaving taken part in the abduction abduction of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez, Gomez, but denied any personal involvement in the rape of Eileen and the twin killings that followed. In this appeal, the pith of the assigned errors and the focus focus of theappellants'argumentsis the issueof witnesses witnesses Centeno Centeno and Malabanan's credibility, credibility, whose open-court open-court narrations served as principal principal basis for the trial court's rendition of a "guilty" verdict.
respondent’s right right to a fair fair trial was impaired
Appellants' claim that the publicity given to this case impaired their right to a fair trial
Estrada Plunder Trial (POJAS)
On 13 March March 2001, the Kapisanan Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster Brodkaster ng Pilipinas Pilipinas (KBP), an association representing duly franchised and authorized television and radio networks throughout the country, sent a letter requesting this Court to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial trial of the plunder plunder and other criminal criminal cases filed against against former President Joseph E. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order "to assure assure the public public of full full transp transpare arency ncy in the proceedi proceedings ngs of an unprecedented case in our history." Public int Public intere erest, st, the pet petiti ition on fur furthe therr ave averre rred, d, sho should uld be evi eviden dentt bearing in mind the right of the public to vital information affecting the nation. In effec effect, t, the peti petition tion seeks a re-ex re-examin amination ation of the 23rd October 1991 resolution of this Court in a case for libel filed by then President Corazon C. Aquino. Part of the resolution read: jgc jgc "Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendant’s right to due
to imparti impartial al trialdue trialdue toprejudici toprejudicialpublic alpublicity ity.. Itis true true that that theprint and broadcast broadcast media gave the case at bar pervasive publicity, publicity, just like all high profile and high stake criminal trials. Then and now, we rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible incompatible to a free press. To be sure, responsible responsible reporting enhance enhances s anaccused'srighttoa anaccused'srighttoa fair fair trialfor,as trialfor,as well well pointedout, pointedout, 'a resp respons onsib ible le pres press s has has always always been regar regarded ded as the the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the crimina criminall field field . . . . Thepressdoesnot simplypubli simplypublishinform shinformati ation on about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting subjecting the police, prosecutors, prosecutors, and judicial processes processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.' At best, appellant can only conjure possibility of prejudice on the part of the trial judge due to the barrage barrage of publici publicity ty that charact characteri erizedthe zedthe invest investiga igationandtrialof tionandtrialof thecase.To warranta warranta finding of prejudicial prejudicial publicity,there publicity,there mustbe allegation allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, influenced, not simply simply that they might be, by the barrageof barrageof publici publicity.In ty.In thecaseat bar,therecords bar,therecords do not show that the trial trial judge judge develope developed d actual actual bias against against appellant appellant as a consequence of theextensivemedia coverage coverage of the pre-trial pre-trial and trial trial ofhis case.The totality totality of circumstancesof circumstancesof the case does not prove that the trial judge judge acquired a fixed opinion as a result of prejudicial prejudicial publicity publicity which is incapable of change even by evidence presented during the trial. Appellant has the burden to prove this actual actual bias and he has not discharged the burden."
Whether or not the request should be granted in lieu of the right to public trial
No. An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him, more than anyone else, where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised in secret conclaves of long ago.
A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial; it only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit in the available seats, conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process. In the constitutional sense, a courtroom should have enough facilities for a reasonable number of the public to observe the proceedings, not too small as to render the
process as well as to the fair and orderly administration of justice, and considering further that the freedom of the press and the right of the peo people ple to inf inform ormati ation on may be ser served ved and sat satisf isfied ied by les less s distracting, degrading and prejudicial means, live radio and television coverage of court proceedings shall not be allowed. Video footages of court hearings for news purposes shall be restricted and limited to shots of the court courtroom room,, the judicial officers, officers, the parti parties es and their counsel taken prior to the commencement of official proceedings. No video shots or photographs shall be permitted during the trial proper.
openness negligible and not too large as to distract the trial participants from their proper functions, who shall then be totally free to report what they have observed during the proceedings. within the courthouse, the overriding consideration is still the paramount right of the accused to due process 17 which must never be allowed to suffer diminution in its constitutional proportions.
"Accordingly, in order to protect the parties’ right to due process, to prevent the distraction of the participants in the proceedings and in the last analysis, to avoid miscarriage of justice, the Court resolved to PROHIBIT live radio and television coverage of court proceedings. Video footages of court hearings for news purposes shall be limited and restricted as above indicated."cralaw indicated."cralaw People vs. Monje Accused-appellant: Accused-appellant: Fernando Monje y Rosario (BARAMBANGAN) On the evening of 24 April 1997 at around 9:00 o'clock, 15-year old Imee Diez Paulino asked permission from her mother to play bingo at the house of their their barangay barangay captain at Francisc Francisco o Homes, Homes, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Three (3) days later, Imee's lifeless body was found lying in the ricefields naked, except for her brassiere, with several injuries including a fractured fractured skull skull that caused caused massive brain hemorrhage. hemorrhage. The body was already in a state of decomposition. The medico-legal officer surmised that the injuries injuries on the skull were caused by fist blows or by a hard blunt blunt instrumen instrument. t. The genital examination examination disclosed disclosed that Imee was brutally raped before she was killed. killed. Her hymen was completely completely lacerated lacerated and there was a 2.5-centimeter laceration of the perineum. The medico-legal officer further opined that such laceration could not have been caused by an ordinary-sized penis but by a much bigger object forcibly inserted to the vagina. The blood clots in the vaginal area showed that Imee was still alive when the object was forced into her. During the wake, Michael Cordero, a tricycle driver plying the vicinity of Francisco Homes, told Maria Isabel Diez Paulino, mother of Imee, that in the evening of 24 April 1997 at around 11:00 o'clock he saw the victim back-riding with Fernando Monje with 3 other persons in the sidecar whom he did not know. From a distance of about 6 arms length he allegedly saw Imee, Monje, and the 3 unidentified persons alight from the tricycle and walk towards towards the ricefields. ricefields. At about about 1:00 o'clock the following following morning morning only Monje and his 3 companions returned to the tricycle. When placed on the witness stand Cordero identified the 3 companions of Monje as: 1.
Lordino Maglaya, also a tricycle driver;
Is Monje guilty of the crime of rape with homicide?
No. Monje is acquitted. To admini administe sterr by final final judgme judgment nt the dreade dreaded d lethal lethal inje inject ctio ion n on the the basi basis s of circ circum umst stan anti tial al evid eviden ence ce consisting mainly of the testimony of a witness who failed a nd nd r ef ef us use d t o r et et ur ur n t o c ou ou rt rt a nd nd s ub ub mi mi t t o cross-exa cross-examinat mination ion four times is judicial judicial tyranny tyranny of the highest highest order. order. But the right right to cross-exa cross-examine mine witnesses witnesses may be waived. It bears stressing that the cross-examination of a witness is an absolute absolute right, not a mere privile privilege, ge, of the party against whom he is called. With regard to the accused, it is a right guaranteed by the fundamental law as part of due process. process. Article III, Sec. 14, par. (2), of the 1987 Constitution specifically Constitution specifically mandates that "the accused shall enjoy the right to meet the witnesses face to face," and Rule 115, Sec. 1, par. (f), of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure enjoins enjoins that in all criminal prosecutions prosecutions the accused shall be entitled to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Cross-examination serves serves as a safeguard safeguard to combat combat unreliab unreliable le testimony, testimony, providing providing means means for discredi discrediting ting a witness' witness' testimony, testimony, and and is in the the natu nature re of an atta attack ck on the truth truth and a cc cc ur ur ac ac y of h is is t es es titim on ony . The pu rp rpo se se o f cross-examination, however, is not limited to bringing out a falsehoo falsehood, d, since since it is also a leading leading and searching searching inquiry of the witness for further disclosure touching the parti particu cula larr matt matter ers s deta detail iled ed by him him in his his dire direct ct
2. 3.
Christoph Christopher er Baustis Baustista, ta, a taxi driver; driver; Michae Michaell Castro Castro,, a bus conducto conductor, r, all reside residents nts of Francisc Francisco o Homes.
examination, and it serves to sift, modify, or explain what has been said, in order to develop new or old facts in a view view favora favorable ble to the crosscross-exa examin miner. er. The object object of cross-examination therefore is to weaken or disprove the case of ones adversary, and break down his testimony in chief, chief, test the recollec recollection, tion, veracity, veracity, accuracy, accuracy, honesty and bias or prejud prejudice ice of the witness, witness, his source source of inform informati ation, on, his motive motives, s, intere interest st and memory memory,, and exhibit the improbabilities of his testimony.
Another prosecution witness Jojit Vasquez testified that at about midnight of 24 April 1997 he eloped with Irene, sister of Imee, and they went to the vacant house of a certain Alvin situated also at Francisco Homes. At about 2:00 o'clock the followin following g morning, morning, 25 April April 1997, 1997, Monje Monje and Maglaya followed by Bautista and Castro arrived at the same house on board two 2 tricycles, but Bautista and Castro left after a short while. Monje appeared surprised, especially upon seeing Irene. At around 3:00 o'clock Jojit and Irene left the house and proceeded to Cubao where they boarded a bus for Pangasinan.
In other words, the ultimate purpose of cross-examination is to test test the truth or falsit falsity y of the statemen statements ts of a witness during direct examination. Unfortunately, Unfortunately, for the accused, accused, these these objective objectives s of cross-exa cross-examina mination tion were never never attained attained in this case because because of the continued continued failure and refusal of witness Cordero to appear for his cross-examination.
Monje denied complicity in the crime charged and pleaded for his acquittal. He claimed claimed that on 24 April 1997 at about about 9:00 o'clock o'clock in the evening evening he was already sleeping in his uncle's house in Francisco Homes, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. Bulacan. He further claimed claimed that he never never woke up until 6:00 o'clock the following morning.
How can the truth be ascertained cross-examination is not completed?
Quite significantly, these circumstances do not establish an unbroken chain of events events that would would show the complicity complicity of the accused accused in the rape-slay of victim Imee Paulino. Apparently, the case for the prosecution is woven principally around the testimony of witness Michael Cordero. It must be emphasized however that his testimony was not sufficiently tested on the crucible of cross-examination, specifically, that significant portion of his direct examination where he purportedly saw the accused and three (3) unidentified persons returning to the tricycle from the ricefield without the victim around 1:00 o'clock the following morning.
On 13 November 2000, after trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, of Malolos, Bulacan, acquitted Maglaya, Bautista and Castro but convicted Monje of the crime charged and sentenced him to death, and to indemnify the heirs of the victim P75,000.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages, plus costs.
PET: People of the Phils RES: Adelino RES: Adelino Bardaje
the
The basic rule is that the testimony of a witness given on direct direct examin examinati ation on should should be strick stricken en off the record record wher where e ther there e was was no adeq adequa uate te oppo opport rtun unit ity y for for cros crosss-ex exam amin inat atio ion. n. Of cour course se,, ther there e are are nota notabl ble e modifications to the basic rule which make its application essentially on a case-to-case basis. Thus, where a party had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail avail himself himself of it, he necessari necessarily ly forfeits his right to cross-examine and the testimony given by the witness on direct direct examinatio examination n will be allowed allowed to remain remain on record. But when the cross-examination is not or cannot be done or compl complete eted d due to causes causes attributa attributabl ble e to the party party offeri offering ng the witnes witness, s, or to the witness witness himself himself,, the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incompetent and inadmissible in evidence. The direct testimony of a witn witnes ess s who who dies dies befo before re the the conc conclu lusi sion on of the the cross-exa cross-examinat mination ion can be stricken only insofar as not covered by the cross-examination, and the absence of a witness is not enough to warrant striking of his testimony for failure to appear for further cross-examination where t he he w itit ne nes s h as as a lrlr ea ead y b ee ee n su ffff ic ici en en tltl y cross-examined , which is not true in the present case, or that the matter matter on which which further further cross-exam cross-examinat ination ion is sought is not in controversy.
After his initial cross-examination by defense counsel, witness Cordero fail failed ed and and refu refuse sed d to retu return rn to cour courtt for for the the cont contin inua uati tion on of his his cross-examination. In other words, except for his brief cross-examination which which had barely scratched scratched the surface, surface, so to speak, speak, and despite despite the insistence of the defense counsel to pursue his cross-examination and the repeated warnings from the trial court that it would be constrained to strike out and disregard his testimony should he fail to appear again, the witness stubbornly refused to return to court for his cross-examination.
People vs. Bardaje (CABALANG)
if
WON the accused
Consider Considering ing that this case involved involved a prosecutio prosecution n for a capital offense, the lower Court acted precipitously in not
August 29, 1980; J. Melecio-Herrera
1. The accuse accused d Adelin Adelino o Bardaj Bardaje e in this this case, case, after after trial, trial, has been convicted of Forcible Abduction with Rape, and sentenced to death. Marcelina Marcelina Cuizon Cuizon lodged lodged the following following complain complaintt with the CFI of Samar Samar against against Adelino Adelino and 5 others others namely, namely, Lucio Malate, Pedro Odal, Adriano Odal, Silvino Odal and Fidel Ansuas (hereinafter called the 5 OTHERS). 2. On Decemb December er 14-17, 14-17, 1965, 1965, Sta. Sta. Rita, Rita, Provin Province ce of Samar, Samar, the above-nam above-named ed accused, accused, conspirin conspiring, g, confederat confederating ing and helping helping one another, with lewd design, by means of force and intimidation, and at nighttime, feloniously drag one Marcelina Cuizon, Cuizon, a minor of 14 years years old, from the house of one Norma Fernandez and brought her to a faraway place and, accused Adelino Bardaje, by means of force and intimidati intimidation on forcibly forcibly had sexual sexual intercour intercourse se with her several several times while his co-accused were on guard. 3. Adelino Adelino was arrested arrested on December December 17th, 17th, and it was on December December 20th, when he signed the alleged confession. That the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstances that it was committed in an uninhabited place and with the aid of armed men, were present. Only Adelino stood in trial, 5 others were never arrested. 4. Decemb December er 15, ADELI ADELINO NO and the FIVE OTHER OTHERS S brough broughtt her to another another mountain, mountain, 6 kilometer kilometers s farther, farther, arriving arriving there past twelve twelve o'clock noon at the house of one called Ceferino who lived there with his wife and seven children (one is Nairita).
right to have compulsory process was deprived by CFI of Samar
having Narita brought to Court, by ordering her arrest if necessary ADELINO was deprived of his right "to have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses on his behalf." It may not be amiss to state then that just as in pleas of guilty where a grave offense is charged trial Judges have been enjoined to refrain from accepting them with alacrity but to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that an accused fully fully unders understan tands ds the import import of his plea, plea, so also, in prosecutio prosecutions ns for capital capital offenses, it behooves behooves the trial Courts to exercise greater care in safeguarding the rights of an accused. The trial Judge should also take a more active active role by means means of search searching ing questi questions ons in the examinatio examination n of witnesse witnesses s for the ascertain ascertaintmen tmentt of the truth truth and credib credibili ility ty of their their testim testimoni onies es so that that any judgment of conviction imposing the supreme penalty may rest on firm and unequivocal grounds. The life and liberty of an individual demand no less. WHEREFO WHEREFORE, RE, upon reasonabl reasonable e doubt, doubt, the judgment judgment appealed appealed from imposing imposing the death penalty, penalty, is reversed and the appellant, appellant, Adelino Bardaje, acquitted of the crime with which he is charged. His immediate release is ordered unless lie is held on other charges.
5. For his part, Adelino, aged 18, admitted having had carnal knowledge of Marcelina but denied having raped her. He claims that they eloped on December 14 to 17, 1965 as previously planned, they having been sweethearts since November 12, 1964. As such, they used to date in Tacloban and "anything goes". 6. ADELINO wanted to have Narita testify testify on his behalf, and a subpoena had been issued to her. But instead instead of taking taking effective steps to have Narita brought to Court, the lower court gave responsibility for Narita's attendance to the defense, expressly stating that, if the defense was not able to bring her to the Court, her testimony will be dispensed with. Hence, petition.
Borja vs. Mendoza Absence of arraignment (DARIA) Borja was accused of slight physical injuries in the city of Cebu. However he was not arraigned. Respondent Judge Senining proceeded with the trial in absentia and thereafter, in a decision promulgated on Aug. 18, 1976, found him guilty of such offense and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a period of 20 days of
WON YES petitioner’s consti right Arraignment is indispensable as the means “for was violated bringing the accused into court and notifying him of when he was the cause he is required to meet” not arraigned n criminal cases, there can be no fair hearing unless
arresto menor. The case was appealed to the CFI of Cebu presided by respondent Judge Mendoza. It was also alleged that without any notice to petitioner, and without requiring him to submit his memorandum, a decision on the appealed case was rendered on Nov. 16, 1976. The failure to arraign him is violative of his consti right to procedural due process more specifically of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and his right to be heard by himself and counsel.
the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by a counsel. The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by a counsel. The indispensable requisite for trial in absentia is that it should come after arraignment. The express mention in the present consti of the need for such a step emphasizes its importance in the procedural scheme to accord an accused due process. Without the accused having been arraigned, it becomes academic to discuss the applicability of the exception to the basic consti right that the accused should be heard by himself and counsel.
