Consti 2feb 282019.docx

Feb 28, 2019 Transcribe 00:00-00:17 MARCUS Cannot comprehend Sec 10 mandates that no law shall be passed impairing the obligation of contracts. That should be very clear. What the prohibition envisions are laws passed by governmental law making bodies like congress etc. The law relating to the obligation and contracts does not prohibit every change in existing laws. To form within the prohibition, the change must impair the obligation of the existing contract and the impairment must be substantial. If konti lang, then it does not fall within the prohibition in sec 10. Study Manila training Co vs. reyes cited in bernas. The power of the legislature to change its remedies and modes of procedure rests on POLICE POWER. Then Pagtrangco Vs. Public Service it was ruled by the SC that statutes enacted for the regulation of public utilities being a proper exercise of Police power are applicable not only to those public utilities coming into existence after the passage of the law but likewise to those already established and in operation. ABE VS FOSTER the SC held that in upholding a statute granting the workers _____ which they do not have under the existing contracts the court said that constitutional guarantee of non-impairment is limited by the exercise of the Police power of state in the interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Jurisprudence established that a valid exercise of a Police Power is superior to the obligation of contracts. The Sec 10 is nothing more than just an exercise of the police power of the state. If we are going to believe, well, follow the thinking of BERNAS, with the acceptance of the superiority of Police Power Bernas said, over contract, the contract

clause now has very limited usefulness. It can even be removed from the constitution without substantial laws. What if there is no Sec 10 will the remedy provided by sec 10 still be available that there should be no law passed that would impair the obligation of contracts?. ANS YES. On what basis? POLICE POWER. Sec 10 is simply based on the exercise of police power by the state. Bernas continued, the non-impairment clause is a superstuity??? It has accomplice nothing which the due process clause could not have accomplished. And it has prevented nothing which the due process clause could not have prevented there has been a distinct acknowledgement of the expansiveness of POLICE POWER which the contract clause alone cannot curtail. Any law which enlarges, abridges or any manner changes the intention of the parties necessarily impairs the contract itself. THAT IS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF how may the obligation in a contract be impaired? Study the case of La Insular vs Magchuca in this case the court said to come under the constitutional prohibition the law must effect a change in the rights of the parties in reference to each other and not a reference to non-parties. A &B entered into a contract where there is an obligation. In Magchuca, what Magchuca is saying is that if the change is caused by a third party like the govt, let say the govt imposes additional levy or tax in the price of the cigar that necessarily would change the transaction between A and B, that is not covered by sec 10 because the change to the obligation is brought about by a third party not by any of the two parties involved in the contract. Thus if a law is

passed imposing a sales tax in the sale of cigar it does not impair the obligation of the contract entered into between by the 2 parties for the sale of cigar from the other. What the law does is to impose an obligation of the seller to one not a party to the contract. Cited by Bernas.

shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

The non-impairment clause is a limit in the exercise of legislative power and not of judicial or quasi-judicial power. Study Lim Vs Secretary cited by bernas. Such that when a court nullifies or interpret a contract in such a way to affect the contractual relations of the parties of the contract there is no impairment of the obligation of the contract. Because it is the court who caused the impairment and that is not covered in the prohibition of impairment in sec 10.

RA 6033 an act requiring courts to give preference to criminal cases where the party or parties involve are indigents. 1969

We have studied in ART XII Sec 11 A reservation clause, “neither shall any such franchise or right granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by congress when the common good so requires” So there is a reservation clause in all franchises. What if there is no reservation clause? However, with or without a reservation clause franchises are subject to alterations through a reasonable exercise of Police Power. They are also subject to alteration by the power to tax which like police power cannot be contracted away. So it is very clear that even there is no reservation clause these franchises may be impaired or the conditions may be changed in the basis and that would still be constitutional that would still be legal, on the basis of reasonable exercise of police power. Sec 11. Free access to the courts and quasijudicial bodies and adequate legal assistance

Dito papasok ang Pauper Litigants. And there has been three notable legislations implementing sec 11.

RA 6034 an act providing transportation and other allowances for indigent litigants. RA 6035 an act requiring stenographers to give free stenographic transcript of notes to indigent and low income litigants and providing a penalty for the violation thereof. Stenographers are those who take note of what transpires during the trial. Those notes are for sale. You cannot get that for free you have to pay it. However under RA 6035, stenographers are required to give notes free to indigent litigants. These are three of Legislative acts or laws that implement Sec 11. Giving adequate legal assistance to pauper litigants. Who is an indigent? An indigent is one who has no visible means of income or his income is insufficient for the sustenance of his family.

Sec 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed … Immediately you take note that the wordings of the concom, these rights are given to any person under investigation for the commission of and offense. Early on I am telling you this because even the basis of the concom provides that these persons before they are given these rights must

be under custodial investigation. They must be in custody first. The beginnings of these constitutional provisions is ased on two cases in the US and those of which refer to person under custodial investigation. Sec 12 (1) has beginnings in the 1973 constitution. You already find it in the 1973 consti. But even then, says that any person under investigation for the commission of an offense does not say any person under custodial investigation for an offense. Sec 12 enumerates the rights of a person under investigation for the commission of an offense. The right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. Right to be informed of his right that is already another right. So immediately it says this person under investigation already has a right to be informed of his right to remain silent, right to be informed of his right to counsel ant that he has right to counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. 00:17:06…

00:17-00:34 These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. In order to read this right to be informed of your right to remain silent, to be informed of your right to counsel, you’d, it must be waive must be in writing and in the oral and this waiver must be in the presence of a counsel.

And paragraph 2 No torture force violence these are ….remedial Legislation or constitutional rights based on experiences during supposedly during the marcosian rule… torture, force, violence, rights, etc. 3.More importantly No. 3, any confession or admission of pain with violation of this section meaning 12, or section 17 hereof, you know, right against self-incrimination shall be in admissible and evidence against him. HIM here, is the one giving permission, making the admission or confession. Then paragraph 4, the law shall provide for penal instruction for violation on this section and then the case supposed to be rehabilitation, compensation and rehabilitation of this case. The 1987 constitution, separated revelation and self-incrimination, it was supposed to be part of section 20, then, part of the rights of a person under investigation but in 1987 constitution, created separate section just for the right against self-incrimination. The expanded provision meaning section 12 is based from the US Supreme Court decisions in Escubedo vs Illinois 1964 miranda vs arisona 1966 and we have the constitutional convention in 1971. But

even before, the 1973 constitution place there the principles involved in the escubedo and the Miranda ruling. They were already part of the jurisprudence, meaning to say, the Philippines was already observing the right of a person under investigation, even before it was placed in the 1973 constitution by the 1971 constitutional convention.

Escubedo, as I background here, escubedo is a fought of the right of a person under Custodial investigation, right when the suspect has been taken in the police custody. Miranda enumerated the rights available to a person under custodial investigation and which must be made known y the suspect…. , otherwise the evidence of obtained as the result of the interview cannot be use against the … “ yung mga mahihilig manood ng US tv series or movies that is emphasize wherever there is an arrest that is going to be made read him his right ” that is very crucial to the US. It is also crucial here in the Philippines, you know binsahan mo ba? Values ng mga puti andun Here in the Philippines, it is supposed to be done. Exactly, the principle involve in section 12 par1. Philippine jurisprudence as we have said followed the Miranda and Escobedo doctrine Section 12. What is a custodial investigation? For background purposes, for our education, it is nice to know what is meant by custodial investigation. It is a time, when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved Crime but has begun to focus of the particular Suspect. The suspect that has been taken to the police custody and the police

carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminating evidence. “so talagang under custody, pinpointed na sya yun, yung suspect” and he was already taken to custody and he has been already interrogated for his supposed participation in the crime.

Question. For whom to the right the available, the rights under section 12, the rights are available for any person under investigation for the commission of one offense. This constitutional rights extend only to testimonial compulsion and not when the body of the accused proposed to be examine as when he is made to undergo a paraffin test. But the rule applies a reenactment of a crime. “im sure you have an idea what is a reenactment of the crime”. A crime is the committed there is a suspect and the police leaves the suspect to the place where the crime has committed and they make him reenact the crime as if he was the one who did it. That is unconstitutional Because you are already telling everybody that you have made up your mind, that this guy is the one / you’re the one that committed the crime. This constitutional privilege has been defined as a protection against testimonial compulsion but extended to any evidence communicative in nature acquired under circumstances of duress. Thus, an act when the testimonial or passive that would amount to disclosure of incriminatory facts is covered by the inhibition of the constitution, people vs olfice. Study that carefully.

photos of reenactment are not admissible while the accused was not provided with counsel. Alright! In people vs Cordono, a suspect - may verbal confession to a radio announcer, these rights, the right under the section 12 paragraph 1, do not cover verbal confessions to a radio announcer, “kasi civilian yan eh, hindi naman police “ what it cover are confessions and admissions to a government agent, like a policeman. So in the case of people vs ordono,the Sc said what the constitution bans is compulsory. Disclosure of incriminating facts of confessions. These rights re guaranteed to preclude the rights against the coercion of the states As would lead the accused to admit something false not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. Alright. On the other hand, people vs el nino, an interview recorded on video showing the accused on burning his guilt willingly and publicly in the presence of the news men is admissible, such confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was given to the police officer but to media men. If it were oart or if it would have been prohibited of section 12 then it would not be admissible. Alright. Next question, when do the rights begin to be available? “medyo may kaguluhan when the rights begin to be available. But, to be safe, you go to the language of section 12, which says that these rights are available to a any person under investigation. Kasi yung mga succeeding cases that is supposed to interpret the constitutional provision medyo nagkakalabuan. Maraming nagsasabi na dapat sa custodial rin ang investigation lang kailangan. Pwede lang yan when the person is in custody that supreme

court cases that says ….No it Does not necessary they have to under the police custody. Alright. First of all is people vs mara I think this is a cited by bernas

under sec 20 then that was the 1973 consti of bill of rights

236 scra 565 1960-1994 case it follows escubedo, in that the right begin to be available only when the person is already in custody. The supreme court said that the custodian investigation involved in questioning etc etc etc. so in people vs mara, it follows the escubedo rulling, bago applicable yung section 12, the person must be under custodian investigation.

But SC sustained the contention of Gen Ver – the provisions covered over the persons of sec 20 now sec 12 covered even persons not yet in custody but already under investigation, because the 1973 text did not speak of the custodial investigation but only of person under investigation.

Galman vs. Pomaran is an offshoot of Aquino – Galman Assassination case 1983

Then we go to the 1987 constitutional provision debates, When tita cory created the constitutional commission that drafted the 1987, of course there were debates and this part of the Consti was debated upon.

After the assassination, Marcos created a factfinding commission They call this the AGGRAVA fact finding commission where no one is supposed to be accused it was merely to fair out the truth of what happened during the aquino-galman assassination in NAIA There were no prosecutors but there were lawyers who were supposed to ask questions and there were witnesses presented. One of the witnesses presented is gen Ver. Now, so , in the agrava commission the testimony of general ver was taken down. After the agrava hearing, a case was filed against the policemen and soldiers including gen ver So in the sandiganbayan trial the prosecution, so to present the stenographic notes of the testimony of gen ver in the agrava commission Ver wen to the sc and said that is not admissible because I was not represented by a counsel

I should have been provided with a council

Right

And the records of the debates of 1987 constitutional commission, reveals that debates manifest the intent to expand the coverage of the right of situation when a person under investigation Is not yet in custody. The intention was to extend the guarantee the strict custodial investigation of the escovedo variety to the time immediately after including after the policemen or the person making the investigation had any suspect under custody under custody provides the text of 1987 constitution preserved the phrase “person under investigation” without the word custodial.

00:34- 00:51 JOF Without the word custodial. So that is again in support of an interpretation that the provision of section 12 does not need be the person in order to avail of the rights under section 12 need not be under custodian investigation. And then in People vs. Makeda, although this is mainly an obiter dictum, an obiter dictum is mainly an opinion of the justices or even the court, it does not form part of the decision, so it has no bearing in the case. It is mainly an opinion, express under the facts of the case. But in People vs. Makeda, there is an opinion or Obliter Dictum, Justice Damide adverted to the view in the Constitutional Commission that the rights are available even to one who is not yet in custody. Read Tanenggee vs. People, Gr. No. 179448 2013, I am sure this is not cited by Bernas, were the petitioner’s written statement is admissible in evidence, it is also an interpretation of section 12 but I have to caution you that is an interpretation that will even confuse you more as I said, I warned you, you go to the language of section 12 in answering this kind of question as to when the section 12 remain available. Read that!!!!

same mode of commission of the crime as in Criminal Case No. 98-163806 but differ with respect to the numbers of the checks and promissory notes involved and the dates and amounts. 3. In the middle of January 1998, two (2) Metrobank auditors conducted an audit of the Commercio Branch for more than a week. 4. Thereafter or on 26 January 1998, appellant was asked by Elvira Ong-Chan, senior vice president of Metrobank, to report to the Head Office on the following day. 5. When appellant arrived at the said office, he was surprised that there were seven other people present: two senior branch officers, two bank lawyers, two policemen (one in uniform and the other in plain clothes), and a representative of the Internal Affairs unit of the bank, Valentino Elevado. a. Appellant claimed that Elevado asked him to sign a paper in connection with the audit investigation; that he inquired what he was made to sign but was not offered any explanation; that he was intimidated to sign and was threatened by the police that he will be brought to the precinct if he will not sign; that he was not able to consult a lawyer since he was not apprised of the purpose of the meeting; and that just to get it over with he signed the paper which turned out to be a confession. b. After the said meeting, appellant went to see Tan at his office but was unable to find the latter. c. He also tried to phone him but to no avail. d. He asserts that said written statement was taken in violation of his rights under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, particularly of his right to remain silent, right to counsel, and right to be informed of the first two rights. Hence, the same should not have been admitted in evidence against him.

G.R. No. 179448 June 26, 2013CARLOS L. TANENGGEE,Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.

Issue:Whether or not the written statement executed by the appellant is admissible in evidence.

Ponente: Del Castillo,J.

Held:

Facts:1. Five separate Information for estafa through falsification of commercial documents were filed against petitioner. 2. The said Information portray the

We find the Petition wanting in merit.

Petitioners written statement is admissible in evidence.

The constitutional proscription against the admissibility of admission or confession of guilt obtained in violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, as correctly observed by the CA and the OSG, is applicable only in custodial interrogation.

Custodial interrogation means any questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner. Indeed, a person under custodial investigation is guaranteed certain rights which attach upon the commencement thereof, viz: (1) to remain silent, (2) to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, and (3) to be informed of the two other rights above.19In the present case, while it is undisputed that petitioner gave an uncounselled written statement regarding an anomaly discovered in the branch he managed, the following are clear: (1) the questioning was not initiated by a law enforcement authority but merely by an internal affairs manager of the bank; and, (2) petitioner was neither arrested nor restrained of his liberty in any significant manner during the questioning. Clearly, petitioner cannot be said to be under custodial investigation and to have been deprived of the constitutional prerogative during the taking of his written statement.

Moreover, in Remolona v. Civil Service Commission,20we declared that the right to counsel "applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation." Amplifying further on the matter, the Court made clear in the recent case of Carbonel v. Civil Service Commission:21

However, it must be remembered that the right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect during custodial investigation. Thus, the exclusionary rule under paragraph (2), Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation.22

Here, petitioners written statement was given during an administrative inquiry conducted by his employer in connection with an anomaly/irregularity he allegedly committed in the course of his employment. No error can therefore be attributed to the courts below in admitting in evidence and in giving due consideration to petitioners written statement as there is no constitutional impediment to its admissibility.

Petitioners written statement was given voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.

Petitioner attempts to convince us that he signed, under duress and intimidation, an already prepared typewritten statement. However, his claim lacks sustainable basis and his supposition is just an afterthought for there is nothing in the records that would support his claim of duress and intimidation.

Moreover, "it is settled that a confession or admission is presumed voluntary until the contrary is proved and the confessant bears the burden of proving the contrary."23Petitioner failed to overcome this presumption. On the contrary, his written statement was found to have been executed freely and consciously. The pertinent details he narrated in his statement were of such nature and quality that only a perpetrator of the crime could furnish. The details contained therein attest to its voluntariness. As correctly pointed out by the CA:

As the trial court noted, the written statement (Exhibit N) of appellant is replete with details which could only be supplied by appellant. The statement reflects spontaneity and coherence which cannot be associated with a mind to which intimidation has been applied. Appellants answers to questions 14 and 24 were even initialed by him to indicate his conformity to the corrections made therein. The response to every question was fully informative, even beyond the required answers, which only indicates the mind to be free from extraneous restraints.24

In People v. Muit,25it was held that "one of the indicia of voluntariness in the execution of petitioners extrajudicial statement is that it contains many details and facts which the investigating officers could not have known and could not have supplied without the knowledge and information given by him."

Also, the fact that petitioner did not raise a whimper of protest and file any charges, criminal or administrative, against the investigator and the two policemen present who allegedly intimidated him and forced him to sign negate his bare assertions of compulsion and intimidation. It is a settled rule that where the defendant did not present evidence of compulsion, where he did not institute any criminal or administrative action against his supposed intimidators, where no physical evidence of violence was presented, his extrajudicial statement shall be considered as having been voluntarily executed.26

Neither will petitioners assertion that he did not read the contents of his statement before affixing his signature thereon "just to get it over with" prop up the instant Petition. To recall, petitioner has a masteral degree from a reputable educational institution and had been a bank manager for quite a number of years. He is thus expected to fully understand and comprehend the significance of signing an

instrument. It is just unfortunate that he did not exercise due diligence in the conduct of his own affairs. He can therefore expect no consideration for it.

No suppression of evidence on the part of the prosecution.

Petitioner claims that the prosecution should have presented Tan in court to shed light on the matter. His non-presentation created the presumption that his testimony if given would be adverse to the case of the prosecution. Petitioner thus contends that the prosecution suppressed its own evidence.

Such contention is likewise untenable. The prosecution has the prerogative to choose the evidence or the witnesses it wishes to present. It has the discretion as to how it should present its case.29Moreover, the presumption that suppressed evidence is unfavorable does not apply where the evidence was at the disposal of both the defense and the prosecution.30In the present case, if petitioner believes that Tan is the principal witness who could exculpate him from liability by establishing that it was Tan and not him who signed the subject documents, the most prudent thing to do is to utilize him as his witness. Anyway, petitioner has the right to have compulsory process to secure Tans attendance during the trial pursuant to Article III, Section 14(2)31of the Constitution. The records show, however, that petitioner did not invoke such right. In view of these, no suppression of evidence can be attributed to the prosecution.

Petitioners denial is unavailing.

The Court is also not persuaded by the bare and uncorroborated allegation of petitioner that the loans

covered by the promissory notes and the cashiers checks were personally transacted by Tan against his approved letter of credit, although he admittedly never saw Tan affix his signature thereto. Again, this allegation, as the RTC aptly observed, is not supported by established evidence. "It is settled that denials which are unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving evidence. They merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters."32The chain of events in this case, from the preparation of the promissory notes to the encashment of the cashiers checks, as narrated by the prosecution witnesses and based on petitioners own admission, established beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the unlawful acts alleged in the Informations.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23653 dated December 12, 2006 and September 6, 2007, respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence to be imposed upon the petitioner should be four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional.SO ORDERED.

custody and then in People vs. Domantay, and then RA 7438 was enacted, which says that, the right of a person against “to remain silent and have a counsel” is available even before custodial investigation. And this 7438 was cited in People vs. Domantay and People Vs. Principe. Now, you have a constitutional commission, which says “right to remain silent and right to counsel” is available even before custodial investigation. You have RA 7438 a law enacted by congress no longer a constitution division, which says the same so again when you ask this question, you may expound on the constitutional commission which says that these right are available even the person not yet in custody and RA 7438 which says that this right are available even before the custodial investigation.

Another question, what rights are made available, it is enumerated in Paragraph 1 of section 12: 1. right to remain silent 2. right to counsel 3. and right to be informed of those rights

In Tanenggee, the investigation is administrative, it is not even made by the government officers or officials, it is a private administrative case. And finally in People vs. Domantay, People vs. Principe 1999 and 2002, in both case cited already RA 7438, it is an act of congress, it is a law that extended the guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has been merely invited for questioning. So now, you have a constitutional commission, which says, section 12 is applicable to even to person not in

Or muuna sana iyong right to be informed kasi iyon ang nauna sa constitutional commission. Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and right to counsel, tatlo.

Section 17 right against self-incrimination. Only an accused have the absolute right to remain silent. A person who is not an accuse may assume the instance of silence only when ask an incrimination question. In section 12 under

investigation has the right to refuse to answer any question. What is the difference between the 2? Section 12, the person under investigation may refuse to answer any question that is profounded to him, under section 17, the right against self-incrimination, only the accuse may have such right to refuse to answer. The accused may even refuse to go up on the witness stand or by the fiscal to testify. Wala pa yong question, pwede na siyang magrefuse alright this is different from a right of a witness against self incrimination, because a witness, not only an accuse, may incriminate himself. Even a witness is susceptible in incriminating himself on the witness stand, but the difference is, a witness cannot refuse to go up the witness stand, the witness can only refuse to answer when he is asked incriminating question. Pinatay mo ba? Of course that is incriminating so he may refuse to answer that question but as what we have said, examination are not done that way, hindi naman tatanungin ng abogado na magaling ah iyong kung pinatay mo o hindi, ikaw ba ay nasaan nung araw na iyon, ikaw ba ay kaliwete, eh kasi sa forensic examination eh iyong stabbing o pagbaril eh ginawa ng isang kaliwete, nasaan ka ba noong gabing iyan etc. until nagiging mas mahigpit, humihigpit ng humihigpit iyong leeg, hindi mo nalalaman eh ikaw pala ay you have already admitted authorship of the crime. So that’s clear? Sabi niyo…

The counsel is made available, sabi nia, he must be provided with one, the counsel is made available to the person under investigation must be competent and independent ,

preferably be of his choice, ayaw ko yan, gusto ko yun, pwede siyang mamili, no pero wag naman na lahat nalang na ipresenta sayo eh ayaw mo, ibig sabihin eh umiiwas ka nalang no, you are given a choice. Ibig sabihin, ang import nito is the police, the state, cannot force you to accept a counsel, you are given a choice so, anong qualification ng counsel? Must be competent of course independent minded and then, preferably the choice of the person under investigation.

In People vs. Mohelia?READ! It is cited in the book of Bernas, it is a case where the lawyer was provided the person under investigation when he did not raise any objection against the counsels appointment during the courses of investigation, and subscribe to the veracity of statement, he seemed to be assented to the choice of that counsel. The right of the person to be informed and implies obligation on the part of the police or the investigator exclaimed to his _______________.

Another question is when do the rights cease, to be aware of it, you will notice that we have asking questions. When does it begin, what are the rights? When does it cease, the rights under section 12, First, are available when the inquiry is under control of police officers, the criminal process prior to the filing of the charges. Beyond that the rights are no longer available. Person under investigation, these rights are available to him but when he is no longer under investigation, his rights are no longer available. But does he still have rights? Yes. Section 14 comes in to the picture. Pagkatapos ng investigation, during the investigation, section 12, pagkatapos ng

investigation, exit section 12 enter section 14 because these are already the rights of a person under criminal prosecution. Maifile na iyong information, tapos na iyong trabaho ng section 12, magtatrabaho naman iyong section 14.

After charges are filed, during the preliminary investigation, section 14 and 17 and not section 12, apply. Section 12 likewise doesn’t apply to person under preliminary investigation and already charge in court for a crime for this are already under the supervision of the court

Waiver of the rights The rights under section 12 paragraph 1 may be waived only if the waiver is in writing and done in the presence of counsel. In People vs. Galid, cited in Bernas, the implication of this rule is that in localities where there are no lawyers, the state must bring the individual to a place where there is one. In so far as the waiver of right is concern. Hindi pwedeng mawaived kung hindi in writing and in the presence of a counsel. Walang counsel eh edi dalhin mo kung saan may counsel. Eh wala pa rin eh, eh hindi pwedeng mawaive iyong rights niya, that is the implication okay?

Exclusionary rule, any contention or admission of things in violation of section 12, 1. section 17, shall not be admissible in evidence against him, him is the one making the confession of admission. The accused. The suspect. Illegal contention or admission is inadmissible ____________that is the source of confession or admission and it is he alone who

can ask for exclusion. But it is admissible against the one who has violated the constitutional provision. Inadmissible against the person making the admission pero iyong pumilit sa kanya na pulis para iadmit or inconfess pwede gamitin iyong testimony or confession as an evidence against the person who forced the suspect to confess or admit.

This exclusionary rule under section 12 is different from the exclusionary rule, Rules in searches and seizure, article 2 and article 3 privacy of communication where evidence obtain shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceedings, section 2 section 3 search and seizure, section 2 and section 3 would be privacy of communication merong exclusionary rule din yan, evidence obtain shall be inadmissible for any purpose or any proceedings, mas matapang iyon.

Christian (00:51:00 – 01:11:00) Read: Gutang vs People. STUDY Consti II case digest: DAVID GUTANG vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Rights of Suspects under Custodial Investigation

Giving Urine Samples

However, what the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material to ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple observation and not to unearth undisclosed facts. An accused may validly be compelled to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done without going against the proscription against testimonial compulsion.

FACTS: David Gutang, together with Noel Regala, Alex Jimenez and Oscar de Venecia, Jr. was arrested by policemen in connection with the enforcement of a search warrant in his residence at Greenhills, San Juan. Several drug paraphernalia, which later tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine hydrochloride, were seized along with a small quantity of marijuana fruiting tops. The four were brought to Camp Crame and were subjected to a drug-dependency test and were asked to give a sample of their urine to which they complied. Their urine samples all tested positive for shabu. De Venecia, Jr. voluntarily submitted himself for treatment, rehabilitation and confinement. Gutang, Regala and Jimenez pleaded not guilty. They were found guilty of possession and use of prohibited drugs. Gutang argued that the urine sample is inadmissible in evidence because he had no counsel during the custodial investigation when it was taken. In effect, it is an uncounselled extra-judicial confession and a violation of the Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether or not the urine samples taken were admissible in evidence.

Section 13 This is about bail Question: is bail available to everybody? In all cases? Available to everybody. Except those who are charged of reclusion perpetua and when the evidence of guilt is strong. Question: Can a person punished with reclusion perpetua still post for bail? YES. When the evidence of guilt is not strong. Question: Can you find in Section 13 a basis for bail for humanitarian reasons None. So what is the basis of the Supreme Court to grant bail to Juan Ponce Enrile. 2nd sentence the right to bail shall not be impaired even if the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive shall not be required. Question: What is bail? It is a mode short of confinement which would ensure the attendance of the accused at his trial The right to bail is corollary to the right to be presumed innocent. It is a right of writ og habeas corpus. Another means of immediately obtaining liberty.

RULING: The Court ruled that it was admissible. The right to counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody and placed under investigation for the commission of crime. Such right is guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

In case the accused is charged with a capital offense a hearing is mandatory for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. The hearing for bail of Juan Ponce Enrile in the Sandiganbayan is not yet terminated when he filed a case before the Supreme Court in violation of this provision

that it is mandatory that there be a hearing for bail in cases where the offense charged is capital offense. The quantum of evidence (weight of evidence) needed to deny the accused the right to bail must be strong evidence.it means presumption guilt. Read: Paderanga vs. CA. the person claiming the right to bail must be under actual detention or under custody of the law. Interpretation lang ito. Actual detention eh madali lang ito. Under custody of the law is susceptible to interpretation. (read book) It does not necessarily be the person filling a bail have to be under custody but he must be actual detention or at least must be under the custody of the court. This means that the court has taken over the jurisdiction over the person. Read: Government of Hong Kong vs Olalia. the right to bail is available only to criminal proceedings have already been abandoned. Pwede nang maadmit to bail ang person under custody of administrable extradition proceedings.

3. The Department of Justice is given immediate notice and discretion of filing its own motion for hold departure order before this Court even in extradition proceeding; and 4. Accused is required to report to the government prosecutors handling this case or if they so desire to the nearest office, at any time and day of the week; and if they further desire, manifest before this Court to require that all the assets of accused, real and personal, be filed with this Court soonest, with the condition that if the accused flees from his undertaking, said assets be forfeited in favor of the government and that the corresponding lien/annotation be noted therein accordingly. Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the said order but was denied by the respondent judge. Hence, this instant petition.

Issue WON a potential extraditee is entitled to post bail

Facts Ruling Private respondent Muñoz was charged before Hong Kong Court. Warrants of arrest were issued and by virtue of a final decree the validity of the Order of Arrest was upheld. The petitioner Hong Kong Administrative Region filed a petition for the extradition of the private respondent. In the same case, a petition for bail was filed by the private respondent. The petition for bail was denied by reason that there was no Philippine law granting the same in extradition cases and that the respondent was a high “flight risk”. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and was granted by the respondent judge subject to the following conditions: 1. Bail is set at Php750,000.00 in cash with the condition that accused hereby undertakes that he will appear and answer the issues raised in these proceedings and will at all times hold himself amenable to orders and processes of this Court, will further appear for judgment. If accused fails in this undertaking, the cash bond will be forfeited in favor of the government; 2. Accused must surrender his valid passport to this Court;

A potential extraditee is entitled to bail.

Ratio Decidendi Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail; that there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings. On the other hand, private respondent maintained that the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective extraditee; and that extradition is a harsh process resulting in a prolonged deprivation of one’s liberty. In this case, the Court reviewed what was held in Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo G. Purganan, Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 42, and Mark B. Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario Batacan Crespo GR No. 153675 April 2007, that the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings, the same being

available only in criminal proceedings. The Court took cognizance of the following trends in international law:

(1) the growing importance of the individual person in public international; (2) the higher value now being given to human rights; (3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations; and (4) the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on extradition, on the other.

In light of the recent developments in international law, where emphasis is given to the worth of the individual and the sanctity of human rights, the Court departed from the ruling in Purganan, and held that an extraditee may be allowed to post bail. Read: Comendador vs. De Villa. The right to bail has traditionally not been recognized and available in court martial proceedings in the military. Comendador v. de Villa B/GEN. JOSE COMENDADOR v. GEN. RENATO S. DE VILLA, (G) G.R. No. 93177, August 2, 1991

FACTS: The petitioners are officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines facing prosecution for their alleged participation in the failed coup d' etat that took place on December 1 to 9, 1989. January 14, 1990, a Pre-Trial Investigation (PTI) Panel had been constituted pursuant to Office Order No. 16 to investigate the petitioners. January 30, 1990, the PTI Panel issued a uniform subpoena individually addressed to the petitioners. The petitioners acknowledged receipt of a copy of the charge sheet, sworn statements of witnesses, and death and medical

certificates of victims of the rebellion. At the first scheduled hearing, the petitioners challenged the proceedings on various grounds, prompting the PTI Panel to grant them 10 days to file their objections in writing through a Motion for Summary Dismissal. February 27,1990, the PTI Panel denied the motion and gave the petitioners 5 days to submit their respective counter-affidavits and the affidavits of their witnesses. May 15, 1990, the petitioners manifested that they were exercising their right to raise peremptory challenges against the president and members of GCM No.14 by invoking Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408. GCM No. 14 ruled, however, that peremptory challenges had been discontinued under P.D. No.39.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners can manifest the right to peremptory challenge.

HELD: Yes, the petitioners have the right to peremptory challenge. The right to peremptory challenge was originally provided under Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 (Articles of War). November 7,1972, when President Marcos promulgated P.D. No. 39 (Governing the Creation, Composition, Jurisdiction, Procedure, and other matters relevant to military Tribunals). This decree disallowed the peremptory challenge. January 17,1981, President Marcos issued Proc. No. 2045 proclaiming the termination of the state of martial law throughout the Philippines. With the termination of martial law and the dissolution of the military tribunals created there under, the reason for the existence of P.D. No. 39 ceased automatically. It is a basic canon of statutory construction that when the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases. Cessante rationelegis, cessat ipsa lex. Applying these rules, we hold that the withdrawal of the right to peremptory challenge in P.D. No. 39 became ineffective when the apparatus of martial law was dismantled with the issuance of Proclamation No.2045, As a result, the old rule embodied

in Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 was automatically revived and now again allows the right to peremptory challenge.

Read: People vs Divina. This should answer the question of whether after conviction in the trial court the presumption to innocence terminated and the right to bail terminates.

PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. TEODORO

One of the defense witnesses, Crystalline Arcilla, testified that she often saw accused-appellant and complainant in the house of another neighbor named Madonna. Complainant told her that she and accusedappellant were lovers. Since then, complainant would always ask her to accompany them on their dates at the River Park and at the Quezon City Memorial Circle. On these occasions, Crystalline witnessed the intimacy between accused-appellant and complainant, as they frequently embraced each other. Crystalline also corroborated accused-appellants claim that he confronted complainant on the night of January 11, 2000 at around 8:30 p.m. She testified that she saw him shouting in front of complainants house. According to her, complainant was not alone in her room on the night of the incident because she saw her with her mother-in-law, her two children and a cousin.[8]

THE

When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial thereafter ensued, and on September 11, 2000, the trial court rendered judgment as follows:

DIVINA y

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds the accused TEODORO DIVINA y DURO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE penalized under Article 266-A par. (1) of the Revised Penal Code as charged against him and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA there being no aggravating/qualifying circumstances in the commission thereof. The accused is further ordered to pay the private complainant Rosalie Divina the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS as actual or compensatory damages and the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00) PESOS as moral damages.

DURO, accused-appellant. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: This is an appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 272, in Criminal Case No. 2000-3147-MK, convicting accused-appellant Teodoro Divina y Duro of the crime of rape; sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and ordering him to pay the private complainant Rosalie Divina the amount of P50,000.00 as actual or compensatory damages and P30,000.00 as moral damages. The prosecution sought to establish that on the night of January 11, 2000, twenty-two year old Rosalie Divina was left alone in her house because her husband was working overtime and her children were with her in-laws in Montalban. At 9:00 p.m., while Rosalie was in her bedroom fixing her things, accused-appellant, her husbands cousin, suddenly entered. He appeared drunk and under the influence of drugs, and was carrying a fan knife. He quickly approached Rosalie and kissed her on the neck. She could not shout because accused-appellant pointed the knife at her.[2] Accused-appellant began to slowly undress complainant, but she fought back by repeatedly slapping him. He threatened to kill her, so she kept silent. Accused-appellant removed her underwear and ordered her to lie down on the floor. He then inserted his two fingers into her vagina. After that, he inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her pain. She begged him to stop and told him that her husband might see them in a situation that neither of them can explain. This caused accused-appellant to stop and leave the room. [3] When complainants husband arrived, she immediately told him to call a tricycle because his cousin was running after them.Thereafter, they proceeded to Montalban. Later, she told her husband everything that transpired and he was furious upon hearing her story. His instant reaction was to suspect that she was having an affair with accusedappellant. However, complainant assured him that there was nothing between them.

SO ORDERED.[9] Hence, the instant appeal based on the following assignment of errors: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES. II THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE WHEN HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[10] We are again confronted with two conflicting but equally plausible versions of the same event. Complainant alleges that accused-appellant, her husbands cousin, raped her while she was alone in her bedroom. Accusedappellant denies this. He instead avers that he and complainant were lovers. As in most rape cases, complainants testimony in this case is uncorroborated. It is true that the lone testimony of the rape victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction; [11] and that evidence is weighed, not counted.[12] In each case, however, we must carefully evaluate the probative value of the victims testimony and measure it against the evidence for the defense.

Complainant went to the Marikina Police Station with her husband and father-in-law in the afternoon of January 12, 2000 to report the incident to SPO4 Nenita Abanes of the Womens and Childrens Concern Unit.[4] Accused-appellant was invited to the police station for questioning regarding the report of complainant. He was temporarily detained at the CIS detention cell.[5]

In the case at bar, accused-appellants defense is corroborated by the testimony of an apparently disinterested witness, Crystalline Arcilla. She testified that she accompanied accused-appellant and complainant on their dates. She also narrated how accused-appellant confronted complainant when the latter told his wife about their illicit affair.

On the other hand, accused-appellant denied the accusations against him and claimed that complainant Rosalie Divina was his mistress since September 1999. He alleged that on the night of January 11, 2000, while he was at home, his wife informed him that complainant told her about her affair with him.[6] Upon learning this, accused-appellant went to see complainant to confront her. Several people saw him shouting at complainant in front of her house, Walanghiya ka, inamin mo kahit hindi tinatanong sa iyo at sinabi mo kahit anong mangyari, walang aamin! [7]

The court a quo describes the testimony of the private complainant as frank and straightforward,[13] hence, sufficient to convict accusedappellant of rape. We believe otherwise for the following reasons: (a) the prosecution failed to refute the allegation of accused-appellant that he and private complainant were lovers; (b) no witness was presented to rebut the testimony of Crystalline Arcilla, who stated that she saw accused-appellant shouting in front of private complainants house on the night of the incident; (c) neither was the prosecution able to debunk accused-appellants claim that

it was common knowledge in their community that he might be the father of one of private complainants children.[14] Moreover, the initial reaction of private complainants husband upon learning about the alleged rape is contrary to ordinary human experience. A man whose wifes chastity has just been violated is not expected to cast doubt on his wifes story and accuse her of having an affair with the assailant. Rather, the natural reaction of such a man is to feel outrage for the tragedy that befell his wife and extreme anger at his wifes rapist. Apparently, his reaction in this case was such because he had been harboring suspicion of an ongoing affair between his wife and accused-appellant, considering that the two have been the object of gossip and rumor in their place.[15] We are not unmindful of the general rule that the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are generally accorded great respect and even finality on appeal.[16] However, this principle does not preclude a reevaluation of the evidence to determine whether material facts or circumstances have been overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial court.[17] In the past we have not hesitated to reverse judgments of conviction, where there were strong indications pointing to the possibility that the rape charge was false.[18] All told, we are not morally convinced that accused-appellant raped private complainant. The prosecution was not able to establish accusedappellants guilt by proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who are to act in judgment. [19] To be sure, it is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion. What is required of it is to justify the conviction of the accused with moral certainty.[20] Upon the prosecutions failure to meet this test, acquittal becomes the constitutional duty of the Court, lest its mind be tortured with the thought that it has imprisoned an innocent man for the rest of his life. [21] In our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Where there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, he must be acquitted even though his innocence may be doubted since the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can only be overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[22] This is not to say that accused-appellant was completely innocent. There is serious doubt as to whether or not his sexual relation with private complainant amounted to rape. In acquitting accused-appellant, we are guided by the principle that it is better to free a guilty man than to unjustly keep in prison one whose guilt has not been proved by the required quantum of evidence. It is only when the conscience is satisfied that the crime has been committed by the person on trial that the judgment must be for conviction.[23] WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 272, in Criminal Case No. 2000-3147-MK, finding accused-appellant Teodoro Divina y Duro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the charge of rape based on reasonable doubt. He is ordered RELEASED unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Read: Dissenting opinion of Justice Marivic Leonen about the right to bail of Juan Ponce Enrile. This was written by Torres Tupaz. This will give you an idea of what granted the right to bail to Juan Ponce Enrile. DISSENTING OPINION LEONEN, J:

After his release solely on the basis of his frail health, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile immediately reported for work at the Senate.1 Until the end of his term on June 30, 2016, he actively and publicly participated in the affairs of the Senate.2 The majority maintains that his release on humanitarian grounds due to his frail health still stands.3 This is a contradiction I cannot accept. With due respect to my esteemed colleagues, I maintain my dissent. The reversal of the Sandiganbayan Decision on its actions on the Motion to Fix Bail filed by petitioner is an unacceptable deviation from clear constitutional norms and procedural precepts. Carving this extraordinary exception is dangerous. The ponencia opens the opportunity of unbridled discretion of every trial court. It erases canonical and textually based interpretations of our Constitution. It undermines the judicial system and weakens our resolve to ensure that we guarantee the rule of law.

Section 14 Section 12 muna habang iniimbestigahan. After nun layas na ang section 12 and then pasok an ang section 14. Why? Because in section 14 it contains the rights of person under criminal prosecution. Second time to meet the words due process of law. First time was under Section 1 What is the difference of the due process clause in section 14 to section 1? Under section 14 paragraph 1 = is specifically for criminal prosecution Under section 1 = is due process of law in general Paragraph 2 of section 14 enumerates the rights of a person under criminal prosecution 1. Presumed innocent until the contrary is proved 2. Right to be heard by himself and counsel 3. To be informed of the nature and cost of negotiation 4. Speedy and impartial of the trial 5. Right to confrontation - Meet face to face 6. Right to compulsory process 7. Production of evidence in his behalf The last paragraph is an addition which is very important: After arraignment, trial may proceed not withstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified of the trial and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. This is popularly known as trial in absencia.

Criminal due process clause of the bill of rights presupposes that the penal law be applied to its substantive requirement of due process. Criminal due process is specifically applicable to criminal proceedings as against due process in section 1 which treats due process in general Question: What is the difference of the due process clause in section 1 and section 14 The right of the accused guaranteed under section 14 are right in all criminal prosecutions. Question: When do these rights become available to a person? Every step in the trial or in the criminal prosectution. From arraignment to rendition promulgation of judgement. Right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved It is merely required the state to establish a prima facie case after which the burden of proof shifts to the accused. To establish a prima facie case means the power to prove the acts that constitute the crime or the so-called elements of the crime.

CARISMA1:11-1:28 Question: When do these rights become available to a person?

Answer: To prove the act or acts that constitute the crime of the so called elements of the crime. Criminal Law 1 is merely definitions of crimes etc. Crim Law 2 specifically goes to the individual crimes under the RPC. This elements of the crime must be alleged in the criminal complaint or information because if not, the prosecution cannot prove that during the trial. Because it would be without basis. It is not part of the accusation. Now, all these elements enumerated under the RPC must be proven one by one. Asfter it is proven, then we say that the prosecution shall have a satisfied the oprima facie case, determination of prima facie case against the accused. That is what is meant by that. And now, it is the turn of the accused to prove that these elements proven by the prosecution or presented by the prosecution is not true or if it is true he has valid defense like self defense. Malanao vs People, Equipoise rule. What is the Equipoise Rule? Provides that for the evidence of the parties in a criminal case is evenly balanced. The constitution of presumption of innocence shall still be in favour the accused.

Every stem in the trial or in the criminal prosecution. From arraignment to the rendition of judgement.

Does the preventive suspension pendentelite violates the presumption of innocence?

Right to presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved. It is merely required to establish a prima facie case until which the burden of proof shifts to the accused.

No. it does not. Preventive suspension pendente lite does not violate the presumption of innocence because preventive suspension is not a penalty. It is merely suspension of the accused while the case is pending. It is provided under the Anti Graft Corrupt Practices.

To establish a prima facie case, means the power to prove the act or acts that constitute the crime of the so called elements of the crime. It is then the duty of the accused to prove that the acts or acts of innocents are not committed in criminal intent. Question: What is mean by establishing a prima facie case?

Right to be heard by himself or counsel. 3 Specific Rights. 1. Right to present evidence 2. Right to be present at the trial 3. Right to be assisted by counsel 4. Right to compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.

Right to present evidence includes the right to testify in one’s favour and right to be given time to call witnesses. Right to be present at the trial, the accused has an absolute right to be personally present during the entire proceedings from arraignment to sentence if he so desires. Because of the new constitutional provision allowing trial in absencia, the last paragraph Sec 14, par 2. The right of the accused to be present may be waived except when his presence is needed for purposes of identification. The, another right would be the right to counsel. The guarantee of the right to counsel serves to minimize the imbalance in the adversary system. It is said that our judicial system is adversarial. Meaning, nagsasalpukan yung prosecution at yung defense. There must be a knowledgeable person to represent the accused otherwise yung prosecution kasi, alam na nating abogado yun e, tsaka nag aral pa yan kung oano magprosecute. E kung walanmg abogado yung accused, e di kinain na nya. Si in order to take the balance the adversarial system, there has to be a counsel. Under the right to counsel in Sec 14, No. 2, counsel need not be the one who is the choice of the accused. The preference of choice of counsel pertains more aptly and specifically to a person under investigation under Sec 12 par 1 rather than the one who is the accused in a criminal prosecution. Question: The counsel of a person under trial for criminal prosecution must be one that is of his choise need not be, the one that is given ha, but if he is the one who hires his own counsel, than that is his choice. But if it is a counsel given de oficio, meaning to say given by the public, by the court, then it need not be a counsel of his choice. As have in Amion vs Judge Tiongson, exactly. The accused cannot contend to the appointment of the trial court judge to a counsel de officio deprived him to his constitutional right to be defended. The contention of the accused here is

under the Constitution, his counsel must be one of his own choice. That is only in as far as investigation is concerned under Sec 12 and not to criminal prosecution under Sec 14 par 2. Another question, at what point in a criminal proceeding is the accused entitled to counsel? The rights enumerated in Sec 14 is the rights in all criminal prosecutions which covers period of arraignment to rendition of judgement. The right to counsel exists only during that period. Under circumstances of Sec 12 however, the right to counsel exists before arraignment. The right to be informed on the nature and cause of accusation against him. We are going over the rights of accused as enumerated under Sec 15. The right to be informed on the nature and cause of acusation against him. Ito na yung binabasahan ng information yung akusado. The purpose is to inform the accused of the charge against him. As will eneble him to make use of defense, to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal, for protection against further accusation of the same cause and the facts alleged so that they may decide whethet they are sufficient in law. To support the conviction. The accused must be informed of the facts that are imputed to him. The information must decrsibe the acts with sufficient particularity and what is sufficient particularity? When elements orovuded under the RPC are alleged. The right to assail the sufficiency of information may be waived by the accused if he fails tro object to ir during the trial and the deficiency is cured by competent evidence presented. Example. Without the counsel for the defense, notice it. One element of the crime alleged in the information. So the accused through a counsel was not able to object to the sufficieny of the information because it is fatal. One element missing in the information is fatal. Pero nakalimutan ng counsel, trial. The prosecutrion, again the defense counsel did not notice that the prosecution was already presenting eveidence to prove the elements that was not alleged in the information. Meron ng pumasok doon sa

stenographic notes na proof of that element which is supposed to be a no no, cannot be done because it was not alleged in the informnation. Byut when the defense counsel did nit object to trhe presentation of that evidence by the prosecution, then it was already proven. Later on, when convicted, later on the accused cannot say that the information was insufficiuent because it failed to alleged one element of the crime. There is already competent evuidence that was presented that already cures the deficiency of the information. Another right would be the right to speedy partial and public trial. The right to speedy public trial prohibit unreasonable delays. The right may be waived when the postponement of the trial is consented and obtained by the accused himself or by his counsel. It cannot be inferred from mere failure of the accused to urge the trial if the case. The remedy of the accused for violation of his rights to speedy trial is dismissal of the case. The dismissal for the violation oif the right to speedy trial is equivalent to acquittal and is part of the subsequent prosecution for the sake of … Panay ang postponement of prosecution. Wag yung defense ha. Yung prosecution ang palaging humihingi ng walang witness, next na naman, wala ding witness, mga limang beses na. The counsel now of the accused will now manifest to the court that the case be dismissed from the ground of the right of accused to speedy trial.

days from arraignment. If you have time, go to a court, go over the documents, the folio, the records of one accused and look up on when trhe case was filed, whenhe was arraigned, and when was the first trial. And found out if RA 8493 is being violated. Because a violation of this provision, this provision must be strictly adhered to, because a violation of this provision may lead to the dismissal of the case, outright. Under the new guidlenines issued by the SC, case must be raffled of to a trial court 3 days after the filing of the criminal information. The arraignment must take place within 10 days from the date of the raffle. The trial must take place within 30 days after pre-trial conference. If the accused is not brought to trial within the days provided by the act, upon motion of the accused, the information shall be dismissed. Sec 13 of the law. Then we have another right under Sec 14, the right of public trial. A trial is when anyone interested in observing the manner adjudged conducted by the proceeding may be sought. There is no ban on such attendance. His being as an stranger of the litigants is of no moment. Kaano ano mo yung akusado? Wala. Gusto ko lang. No relationship to the parties need not be shown

That is substantive, the right to speedy trial is a substantive right. Violation of which will lead to dismissal of the case. 1:28-end : JUBI Then we have the speedy trial act of 1998, RA 8493. The speedy trial act seems to be a law that is not being used by defense counsels. Look at this, under the speedy trial act of 1998, it provides that the arraignment of the accused shall be held within 3o days from the filing of the information. The arraignment must ne held within 30 days from the filing of the information. And after the arraignment, the trial must commence within 30

No relationship to the parties need not be shown

I was once a favorite of an RTC judge in manila, judge isaac puno brother of the former chief justice. (personal story followed not included in this transcribe) doon sa manila noon wala pang mga sala ang trial is conducted din office of the judge nandito

ang lamesa , andito ang councel/defense/prosecutor / stenographer, kapag may isang nagtetesify may isang silya dito . ¼ of this room lang ang size.

during the investigation, however statutory right confrontation is recognized during preliminary investigation proper but not during preliminary examination.

Under those circumstances can any decision of the court be assailed on the ground that it does not, the trial conducted was a public trial

So we repeat, The right of confrontation is not available during preliminary investigation as held in the case of senator Jingoy Estrada, petitioner vs bersamin et al.

No it cannot be for as long as nobody was barred from entering , dina bale kahit magsiksikan that is still an open trial. The right to confrontation means the right to make the witnesses face to face The right has a two fold purpose The right to confrontation 1. To afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of the witness by cross examination 2. To allow the judge to observe the deportment of the witness– the body language of the witness (deportment) So those are the two fold purpose of the right to confrontation. Testimony not subjected to cross-examination must be excluded from consideration

It was held by the SC it is a fundamental principle of the accused in a preliminary investigation has no right to cross examine the witnesses which the complainant may present sec 3 rule 112 of rules of court provides that the respondent shall only have the right to submit their counter affidavit and to examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant So as held in this case and other previous cases The right of confrontation is not available during preliminary investigation Dying declaration is an exemption for the requisites of right of confrontation for the admissibility. Pedro was gunned down somebody went to help him Sino bumaril sayo –

A was presented and testified, for some reason he (A) kept absenting himself form trial , there was no occasion to cross examine him then his testimony on direct examination maybe erased from the records as if he did not testify at all.

si juan

There must right to confrontation the truthfulness of the testimony must be tested,

That is an admissible evidence – it is a dying declaration

The right of confrontation is not available during preliminary investigation, this can be gleaned section 12 no1 which does not mention the right of confrontation as one of the guaranteed rights

Even if there is no cross examination it was a dying declaration

Then pedro died.

Why is it that a dying declaration is given that importance that it is admissible even if there is no cross examination Because it is presumed that a dying man does not lie. That is a presumption, unless talagang matigas ang kanyang sinungaling . Reason why dying declaration is admissible.

Compulsary process another right under section 14 The right of the accused to the issuance by the court to a compulsory process to secure the attendance of the witnesses and production of evidence on his behalf.

2. When accused voluntarily waives his right not to be present. Meaning – the accused must undertake to appear in court when required by the prosecution or the purposes of identification when he qualifiedly admits in open court that he the person named is the defendant in the trial (appeared in court) In both instances –In the first even with due notice even if there is unjustifiably fails to appear or 2nd voluntarily admits / undertake to appear during the trial and admits whenever his name is called it is him who was referred to. In both instances, the accused must have been arraigned. It is after arraignment , because trial cannot proceed without arraignment

In the 1935 constitution, this right of compulsory process is only a right compel a witness to testify for the accused

Arraignment – part of the proceedings where the accused the criminal complaints and asked how he pleads – guilty or not guilty.

In 1987 Consti may addition is it also a compulsory process for the production of evidence in his behalf -Documentary or any kind of evidence

Where did we stop in our recit? sec 2 so we can go 2-3 recit before we meet sec 14.

That is the diff of right to compulsory process sin 1935 and 1987 consti. Trial in Absencia – read last paragraph of sec 14 par 2. It is a situation, where the trial of the accused will proceed even if when he is absent this situation of trial in absencia may occur in 2 instances 1. When accused despite notice unjustifiably failed to appear ( usually accused on bail, kapag trial na a notice is sent a subpoena so he received it so he accused is notified failed without justifiable reason, the trial will continue - notwithstanding his absence)