1-B Constitutional Law 2

SECTION 12
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION,
DEFINITION
PEOPLE VS PAVILLARE G.R.
NO. 129970, APRIL 5, 2000
The stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to stand in a police lin
e-up has been held to be outside
the mantle of the right to counsel because it involves a general inq
uiry into an unsolved crime and is purely
investigatory in nature.
PEOPLE VS BANDULA, 232
SCRA 566
The Constitution requires that the counsel assisting a person under in
vestigation be independent and a legal
officer of the municipality cannot qualify as an independent counsel.
NAVALLO VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, 234 SCRA
175
The right to counsel could not be invoked during the COA audit since
the procedure is not within the ambit of
custodial investigation and a person may be subject to malversation of
funds even in the absence of direct
proof of misappropriation as long as there is evidence of fund shorta
ge, which the petitioner failed to explain
with convincing justification.
SEBASTIAN VS
GARCHITORENA G.R. NO.
114028, OCT. 18, 2000
The fact-finding investigation relative to the missing postage stamps at the Pos
tage Stock Section conducted by
the Chief Postal Service Officer is not a custodial investigation but merely an
administrative investigation.
OCA VS SUMULONG, 271 SCRA
316
Custodial investigation has been defined as "questioning initiated by law enforc
ement officers after a person has
been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any wa
y.
PEOPLE VS ALMANZOR G.R.
NO. 124918, JULY 11, 2002
Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no longer a gene
ral inquiry into an unsolved crime
but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police
who starts the interrogation and
propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements.
PEOPLE VS VALDEZ G.R. NO.
129296, SEPT. 25, 2000
The moment the police try to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain info
rmation from a person suspected
of having committed an offense, he should at the juncture be assisted
by counsel unless he waives the right in
writing and in the presence of counsel.
PEOPLE VS MARRA, 236 SCRA
565
It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolv
ed crime and begins to focus on a
particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody or otherwise dep
rived of his freedom of action in any

significant way, and the police carries out a process of interrogation

s that lends itself to eliciting incriminating
statements that Custodial Investigation begins.
PEOPLE VS LABTAN, G.R. NO.
127493, DEC. 8, 1999
Accused Orlando Labtan was denied of his right to a competent and independent co
unsel when questioned in the
Cagayan de Oro Police Station. The questioning was regarding his invol
vement in the killing of the jeepney
driver, thus, he was already subjected to custodial investigation without counse
l.
MANUEL VS NC
CONSTRUCTION, 282 SCRA 326
Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer
a general inquiry into an unsolved
crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who had been taken into cus
tody by the police to carry out a
process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements.
PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R.
NO. 137405, SEPT. 27, 2002
It is a matter of settled jurisprudence that qualifying circumstances must be pr
operly pleaded in the indictment.
PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA
52
Amboy Camat and Willie Del Rosario were accused of robbery with homic
ide and admitted to it in custodial
investigation. The Supreme Court ruled that the extrajudicial confession was obt
ained without advising accused
of their Constitutional rights and is, hence, inadmissible.
PEOPLE VS EVANGELISTA, 256
SCRA 611
The inadmissibility of a confession given before a Miranda warning app
lies only when the investigation has
ceased to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and has begun
to focus on the guilt of a suspect and the
latter is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in a substanti
al way.
PEOPLE VS ANDAN, 269 SCRA
95
When an accused talks to a mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement off
icer who interrogates him, his
uncounselled confession does not violate his constitutional rights.
PEOPLE VS ARTELLERO, G.R.
NO. 129211, OCTOBER 2, 2000
Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investiga
tion is no longer a general inquiry
into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person
as a suspect; when the accused were
arrested as suspects to a particular crime, they are entitled to the
rights stated in Article III Section 12 of the
Constitution.
PEOPLE VS DE JESUS, 213
SCRA 345
Admissions obtained during custodial interrogations without the benefit
of counsel although later reduced to
writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the Constit
ution.
PEOPLE VS LEGASPI, G.R. NO.
117802, APRIL 27, 2000
Neither constitutional rights under Art 3 of the constitution no their

statutory rights under R.A. 7438 were

transgressed inasmuch as Legaspi and Franco were not yet singled out
as perpetrators of crime as they were
merely invited for questioning and no custodial investigation occurred inasmuch
as the query was merely a part
of the general exploratory stage.
RATIONALE
MIRANDA VS ARIZONA, 384 US
436
A person must first be warned of his rights before he may knowingly
and intelligently waive his rights. The
warning to be given is that: he has the right to remain silent; anything he says
can and will be used against him in
a court of law; he has a right to an attorney, and if he cannot a
fford an attorney, one will be provided for him;
only after these warnings are given may incriminating statements made by the per
son being taken to custody, be
used against him.
PEOPLE VS CANTON, G.R. NO.
148825, DECEMBER 27, 2000
The need for a counsel during custodial investigation roots from the
objective of prohibiting
incommunicadointerrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere
that would result in selfincriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights.
INSTANCES OF CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATIONS
PEOPLE VS ISLA, 278 SCRA 47 The law does not distinguish between preliminary que
stions during custodial investigation, as any question asked
of a person while under detention, is considered as a question asked while under
custodial investigation; thus the
suspect should be assisted by counsel, unless he waives his right, but the waive
r should be made in writing and in
the presence of counsel.
PEOPLE VS SALAZAR, 266
SCRA 607
A buy-bust operation has been considered as an effective mode of appr
ehending drug pushers. If
carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, a
buy-bust operation deserves
judicial sanction.
PEOPLE VS CASIMIRO, G.R.
NO. 146277, JUNE 20, 2002
Casimiro signed the receipt stating that marijuana was seized from him
which is an equivalent of confession
without counsel and it is deemed inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS CASTRO, 274 SCRA
115
Accused-appellants signature on the Receipt of Property is inadmissible as
evidence as there is no showing
that he was assisted by counsel when he signed the same.
PEOPLE VS BOLANOS, 211
SCRA 262
Appellant should have been informed of his constitutional rights under
Art. 3 Sec. 12 of the 1987 Constitution
before confessions can be admissible in evidence, and the glaring fact that the
alleged confession obtained while
on board the police vehicle was the only reason for the conviction, this court h
as to deny the admissibility of the
confession.

PEOPLE VS LIM, 196 SCRA 809 Extrajudicial confession, without assistance of a co

unsel, is inadmissible except in cases with corpus delicto.
MIRANDA RIGHTS
SAFEGUARDED BY THE BILL
OF RIGHTS IN RELATION TO
CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATIONS:
PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS
MIRANDA VS ARIZONA, 384 US
436
The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpat
ory, stemming from questioning
initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken i
nto custody or otherwise deprived of his
freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the
use of procedural safeguards effective to
secure the Fifth Amendment s privilege against self-incrimination.
PEOPLE VS MAHINAY, G.R. NO.
122485, FEBRUARY 1, 1999
Mahinay claims that his extrajudicial confession was in violation of h
is constitutional right to counsel but
according to the testimony of an assisting lawyer in court, he was w
ell informed of his constitutionally
guaranteed pre-interrogatory and custodial rights it was explained to him in tag
alog and there were documents
showing that it was reduced to writing which the accused signed in the presence
of the assisting lawyer.
PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA
52
Camat mugged two soldiers along Quirino avenue, and Camats extrajudicial confessi
on cannot be admissible as
evidence if the prosecution has not proven that he was informed of h
is Miranda rights before he made said
confession.
DUTY OF AN OFFICER
DURING CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R.
NO. 137405, SEPT. 27, 2002
In ruling that death penalty was a proper penalty for the crime of rape committe
d by the accused, the Court rules
that there is no higher evidence of guilt than the voluntary testimony of the ac
cused himself.
PEOPLE VS SALCEDO, 273
SCRA 473
Salcedo is convicted for murder because even though no attorney was present duri
ng his custodial investigation,
thus making the same inadmissible as evidence, a competent witness was able to s
atisfy the court of his guilt.
WHEN THE RIGHTS OF
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
MAY BE INVOKED
PEOPLE VS LOVERIA, 187 SCRA
47
Loveria committed Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide in Mari
kina, and the court held that
Loveria was not investigated when the complainant was in the process of identify
ing him, hence he cannot claim
that his right to counsel was violated because at that stage, he was

not entitled to the constitutional guarantee

invoked.
SEBASTIAN VS
GARCHITORENA G.R. NO.
114028, OCT. 18, 2000
The case of Sebastian vs. Garchitorena provides that the fact finding investigat
ion relative to the missing postage
stamps conducted by the Chief Postal Officer is not a custodial investigation, i
t is administrative.
PEOPLE VS TAN, 286 SCRA 207 A person cannot be convicted of a crime when
he provides a confession before a police investigator upon
invitation and without the benefit of counsel, such confession is inad
missible and inadequate in the courts to
warrant a conviction.
THE RIGHT TO REMAIN
SILENT
PEOPLE VS BANDIN, 226 SCRA
299
When an arrested person signs a Booking Sheet and Arrest Report at a
police station, he does not admit the
commission of an offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance;
The Booking Sheet is merely a
statement of the accuseds being booked and of the date which accompanies the fact
of an arrest, such is not an
extrajudicial statement and cannot be the basis of a judgment of conviction.
PEOPLE VS LACBANES, 270
SCRA 193
It is the police officers who confiscate articles from an accused who should sig
n the receipt, otherwise it would
be a violation of the accuseds right to remain silent for it is tantamount to an
extra-judicial confession.
PEOPLE VS MORICO, 246 SCRA
214
It is a violation of ones constitutional rights to be informed of the
charges against him and his right to due
process when an accused is convicted of an offense not charged in the informatio
n.
PEOPLE VS ANG CHUN KIT, 251
SCRA 660
Ang Chin Kits signature on the list of items confiscated from him is inadmissible
in evidence as his right as a
person under custodial investigation was violated since there was no s
howing that he was then assisted by
counsel.
PEOPLE VS LAMSING, 248
SCRA 471
The right to counsel guaranteed in Art. III 12(1) of the Constitution does not ex
tend to police lineups because
they are not part of custodial investigations since at that point, th
e process has not yet shifted from the
investigatory to the accusatory and the accuseds right to counsel attac
hes only from the time that adversary
judicial proceedings are taken against him.
PEOPLE VS DE LAS MARINAS,
196 SCRA 504
The accused was the victim of a clever ruse, which in effect, was an extra-judic
ial confession to the commission
of the offense when the police made him sign the Receipt for Property Seized.
PEOPLE VS CASTRO, 274 SCRA
115

Mere denials cannot prevail against the positive identification of an accused as

the seller of prohibited drugs and
in the prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs
, what is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of the corpus delicti as evidence.
PEOPLE VS ENRIQUEZ, 204
SCRA 674
Appellants contention is unmeritorious because there was no need to pre
sent the testimony of the NARCOM
informer as the same would merely be corroborative and cumulative when appellant
signed his name without a
counsel hence not a denial of the due process right of the people.
THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL:
WHEN TO INVOKE
PEOPLE VS SUNGA, G.R. NO.
126029, MARCH 29, 2003
A suspect was denied his right to counsel where the lawyer who assis
ted him in the execution of extrajudicial
admission before the police was the City Legal Officer.
PEOPLE VS LABTAN, G.R. NO.
127493, DEC. 8, 1999
The lawyer must be present and able to advise and assist his client from the tim
e the confessant answers the first
question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudici
al confession.
PEOPLE VS SAPAL, G.R. NO.
124526, MARCH 17, 2000
Republic Act No. 7438. Section 2(a) of said law provides that "any person arrest
ed, detained or under custodial
investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel."
PEOPLE VS LAMSING, 248
SCRA 471
The right to counsel does not extend to police line ups because they are not par
t of custodial investigations.
PEOPLE VS MAQUEDA, 242
SCRA 565
The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made
with the assistance of counsel.
Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down,
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in
whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS MACAM, 238 SCRA
306
Accused Macan appealed the validity of the out-of-court identification
through a police line up at the hospital
which was done without counsel. The Court upheld the validity since th
e prosecution did not present evidence
regarding such police line-up identification and appellants did not obj
ect to in-court identification made by
witnesses.
PEOPLE VS DE JESUS, 213
SCRA 345
An interview with the arrested suspect is not a general inquiry but a custodial
investigation.
PEOPLE VS DIMAANO, 209
SCRA 819
Police line-up is not part of the custodial inquest
PEOPLE VS COMPIL, 244 SCRA
135

Compils extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because he was immediate

ly interrogated without a counsels
assistance. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigationwhen
the investigating officer starts
to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from res
pondent/accused.
PEOPLE VS LOVERIA, 187 SCRA
47
During the line-up, the defendant cant invoke his right to counsel sin
ce the right to counsel of a person under
custodial investigation cant be invoked until such time that the police
investigation start questioning,
interrogating or exacting a confession from the person under investigation.
WHEN PRESENCE OF
COUNSEL IS REQUIRED
PEOPLE VS RODRIGUEZ, 232
SCRA 227
The assistance of counsel during custodial investigation is required up
on the instance of confession of the
accused, not only when one is about to put his confession in writing.
ESTACIO VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, 183 SCRA 12
No custodial investigation could be conducted without a counsel and no waiver of
right to remain silent and to
assistance to counsel shall be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel.
PEOPLE VS BANDULA, 232
SCRA 566
Competent and independent counsel is required during custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS ISLA, 278 SCRA 47 Courts are not allowed to distinguish preliminary qu
estioning and custodial investigation proper when applying
the exclusionary rule, any information or admission given by a person
while in custody which may appear
harmless or innocuous at the time without the competent assistance of an indepen
dent counsel should be struck
down as inadmissible.
PEOPLE VS JIMENEZ, 204 SCRA
719
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of the rights guaran
teed in custodial investigations shall be
inadmissible, even if it be shown that the statements attributed to t
he accused were voluntarily made, or are
afterwards confirmed to be true by external circumstances.
PEOPLE VS CORTES, 323 SCRA
131
In a criminal case where testimony is required, a presence of counsel is require
d since to determine whether if a
witness is competent, the trial court only has a singular opportunity to determi
ne the truth to his testimony.
PEOPLE VS ROUS, 242 SCRA
732
The fact that Atty. Datlag arrived shortly after the investigation of Laygo (acc
used) had begun and left before the
confession was concluded does not negate the validity and admissibility
of said confession for the reason that
after the confession was put down in writing, accused-appellant and th
e investigating officer proceeded to the
office of Atty. Datlag and the latter then read the confession, confer
red with Laygo and then advised Laygo to
sign the confession; thus it can be readily seen that the confession
was voluntary and the signing thereof by

Laygo was done upon advice of counsel, therefore the constitutional re

quirements were fully complied with.
Moreover, the presence of Rolando s uncle, Tiburcio Laygo and the latters wife, F
ely, clearly precluded the use
of coercion in extracting the confession.
PEOPLE VS ESPANOLA, 271
SCRA 689
Appellants contend that the trial court erred when it ruled that the
sworn statement of Jimmy Paquingan was
voluntarily given by him though he refused to sign the same. an extra-judicial c
onfession must be rejected where
there is doubt as to its voluntariness.
PEOPLE VS ZUELA, 325 SCRA
589
Velarde gave an uncounselled extra-judicial statement without waiving ri
ght to counsel therefore it is
inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS MACABALANG, 508
SCRA 282
It is settled that the signature of the accused in Receipt of Property Seized, bei
ng tantamount to admission of
guilt, is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of
counsel.
EFFECTIVE AND VIGILANT
COUNSEL DEFINED
PEOPLE VS SUNGA, G.R. NO.
126029, MARCH 29, 2003
The right to counsel involves more than just the presence of a lawye
r in the courtroom, but also efficient and
decisive legal assistance; a suspect is denied his right to counsel where the la
wyer who assisted him was the City
Legal Officer.
PEOPLE VS VELARDE, G.R. NO.
139333, JULY 18, 2002
A mayor cannot be considered the independent lawyer and the right to
counsel contemplates not just the mere
presence of a lawyer but should be present in all stages.
PEOPLE VS CULALA, G.R. NO.
83466, OCTOBER 13, 1999
The extra-judicial confession was not admissible because it was the municipal at
torney who assisted the accused
and it has been held that a municipal attorney cannot be considered as an indepe
ndent counsel as required by the
Constitution because as a legal officer of the municipality, his job is to provi
de legal assistance and support to the
mayor and the municipality so, its doubted that he can effectively undertake the
defense of the accused without
running into conflict of interests.
PEOPLE VS GEROLAGO, 263
SCRA 143
Gerolago implicated Ruado-Sy and Ativo as his co-accused in the crime
of homicide in a sworn statement but
this statement is void and has no legal effect because it was not made in the pr
esence of a counsel; to waive such
right, it must also be done with the assistance of a counsel; Ruado-Sy and Ativo
were acquitted.
PEOPLE VS PAULE, 261 SCRA
649
Paule murdered somebody in Olongapo City, and the prosecution failed to discharg
e the state s burden of proving

with clear and convincing evidence that Paule enjoyed effective and vi
gilant counsel before he extrajudicially
admitted his guilt to the police authorities hence said admission cannot be admi
ssible.
PEOPLE VS DELMO, G.R. NO.
130078, OCT. 4, 2002
Danilo Lapiz was acquitted by the Court since his counsel was not pr
esent at the very start of his custodial
investigation and was called only when the accused was about to put his confessi
on in writing.
PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R.
NO. 137405, SEPT. 27, 2002
No issue on effective and vigilant counsel in People v Dela Cruz
PEOPLE VS LUCERO, 249 SCRA
425
Lucero committed robbery with homicide in Quezon City, and the court held that L
uceros confession cannot be
admissible since the prosecution did not prove that he was assisted b
y an effective and vigilant counsel during
the said confession.
PEOPLE VS ESPANOLA, 271
SCRA 689
In the case of People vs. Espanola the SC held that a City Legal Officer can not
qualify as independent counsel
due to a conflict of interest. The City Legal officer provides legal interest an
d support to the mayor and the city,
which includes that duty to maintaining peace and order. Thus he is a
kin to a prosecutor who undoubtedly can
not represent the accused during custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS BACOR, G.R. NO.
122895, APRIL 30, 1999
Retractions of confessions are generally unreliable and results to seri
ous doubts on the credibility of the
testimony of the accused and is deemed as an alibi to escape the clutches of the
justice.
PEOPLE VS SAHAGUN, 274
SCRA 208
Confessions given without the benefit of an effective, vigilant and in
dependent counsel are inadmissible in
evidence.
PEOPLE VS TALIMAN, G.R. NO.
109143, OCTOBER 11, 2000
A municipal mayor cannot be considered as an independent counsel of p
urposes of assisting a suspect during
custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS ESPIRITU, G.R. NO.
128287, FEBRUARY 2, 1999
The right to counsel does not mean that accused should hire his own counsel, it
is satisfied when a counsel acts
on behalf of an interested third person or is appointed by the court.
PEOPLE VS BARASINA, 229
SCRA 450
Rejecting the accused claim that the extrajudicial statement cannot
be utilized against him since a lawyer different from whom he chose
assisted during the interrogation, the
Supreme Court held that the word preferably under Section 12 (1) does not convey t
hat the choice of a lawyer
by the person under investigation is exclusive.
PEOPLE VS ALEGRIA, 190 SCRA
122

Any confession obtained from a suspect in the absence of counsel and

without his assistance shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him, except when accused categorically
waived his right to counsel and such
waiver is made in writing and in the presence of counsel.
PEOPLE VS SUAREZ, 267 SCRA
119
The presence of a lawyer, is not intended to stop an accused from saying anythin
g which might incriminate him
but, rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the sligh
test coercion as would lead the accused to
admit something false.
PEOPLE VS PAROJINOG, 203
SCRA 473
The accused really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for
him and ask for another one, but
when no objection was voiced by the accused throughout the proceedings
of the investigation and afterwards
when he subscribed to its veracity before the fiscal, he is deemed t
o have acquiesced to the choice of the
investigators.
PEOPLE VS BAELLO, 224 SCRA
218
Atty. Generoso conferred with the accused, warned the latter of the c
onsequences of his confession and even
advised him not to make any; however, the accused insisted on going ahead with h
is confession, although he only
confessed to the robbery.
GALMAN VS PAMARAN, 138
SCRA 295
The pleadings, annexes, oral arguments, manifestations and admissions of both co
unsel and the manner in which
testimonies were taken failed to reveal adherence to due process.
PEOPLE VS JEREZ, 285 SCRA
393
A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused wher
e he never raised any objection
against the former s appointment during the course of the investigation and the
accused thereafter subscribes to
the veracity before the swearing officer.
PEOPLE VS RANIS, G.R. NO.
129113, SEPT. 17, 2000
A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accus
ed where the accused never raised any
objection against the lawyers appointment during the course of the inve
stigation, and the accused thereafter
subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer.
PEOPLE VS DUMALAHAY, 380
SCRA 37
When the details narrated in an extrajudicial confession are such that they coul
d not have been concocted by one
who did not take part in the acts narrated, where the claim of maltreatment in t
he extraction by the confession is
unsubstantiated and where abundant evidence exists showing that the sta
tement was voluntarily executed, the
confession is admissible against the defendant.
PEOPLE VS PAMON, 217 SCRA
501
No in-custody investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the pr
esence of counsel engaged by the person

arrested, by any person in his behalf or appointed by the court upon petition ei
ther of the detainee himself or by
someone in his behalf.
PEOPLE VS CABILES, 284 SCRA
199
Appellant Cabiles s free will and volition in signing his confession w
ill not cure the defect that it was made
without assistance of counsel. An uncounselled extrajudicial confession w
ithout a valid waiver of the right to
counsel, made in in writing and in the presence of counsel, is inadmissible in e
vidence
PEOPLE VS GALLARDO, 323
SCRA 318
An effective counsel is one who does not prevent an accused from freely and volu
ntarily telling the truth.
PEOPLE VS BASE, G.R. NO.
109773, MARCH 30, 2000
The counsel should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling
the truth.
PEOPLE VS OBRERO, G.R. NO.
122142, MAY 17, 2000
Jimmy Obrero gave an extrajudicial confession with the assistance of A
tty. De los Reyes, who was also the
station commander of the precinct he was taken into after being accus
ed of robbery. The confession was held
inadmissible because he was not assisted by a competent and INDEPENDENT counsel.
CARIAGA VS PEOPLE, 626
SCRA 231
The negligence of counsel generally binds the client unless the slapdash work of
the counsel, where reckless or
gross negligence is apparent, deprives the client of due process as it will resu
lt to the outright deprivation of the
clients liberty, property or where the interest of justice so requires.
PEOPLE VS BASE, G.R. NO.
109773, MARCH 30, 2000
To be an effective counsel "a lawyer need not challenge all the ques
tions being propounded to his client ; he
should only make sure that there be no questions asked that may coerce him to sa
y something false and he should
never prevent an accused from freely telling the truth.
INDEPENDENCE
PEOPLE VS PORIO, 376 SCRA
596
In order for a lawyer to be considered as competent and independent
for the purpose of assisting an accused
during a custodial investigation, it is required that the lawyer be willing to s
afeguard the constitutional rights of
the accused rather than a meaningless recital of ones constitutional rights.
COMPETENCE
PEOPLE VS SUELA, 373 SCRA
163
A counsel who interviewed the accused for only five minutes, who simply listened
nonchalantly to the answers
the accused gave during extrajudicial confession without explaining its conseque
nces, and who was attending to
another task, is not the competent and independent counsel required under the Co
nstitution.
ASSISTANCE AFTER START
OF CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION

PEOPLE VS MATIGUNAS, 379

SCRA 56
The right to confrontation was observed when complainant was presented
on the witness stand and, after her
testimony, the counsel for accused-appellant conducted his cross-examination.
PEOPLE VS SUELA, 373 SCRA
163
An effective and vigilant counsel necessarily and logically requires th
at the lawyer be present and be able to
advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the
first question asked by the investigating
officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession; that he must properly
explain the choices or options open
to appellant, his constitutional rights and what they entailed or the nature and
the consequences of extra-judicial
confessions.
VALID CONFESSION WITH
COUNSEL
PEOPLE VS TABLON, 379 SCRA
280
The fact that the appellant made the statement spontaneously without any kind of
irregularity or duress made the
his extrajudicial confession valid since a dispute regarding an extrajudicial co
nfession can be allayed when it is
shown that the confession has been made freely and voluntarily, without compulsi
on or inducement, or hope of
reward of any sort.
PEOPLE VS PRINCIPE, G.R. NO.
135862, MAY 2, 2002
The Constitution, R.A. No. 7438, and case law lay down four fundamental requirem
ents for the admissibility of
extrajudicial confessions in general, to wit: (a) the confession must
be voluntary; (b) it must be made with the
assistance of competent and independent counsel; (c) the confession mus
t be express; and (d) it must be in
writing. In this case, after accused-appellant was read his rights in Tagalog, h
e signified his intention to confess
his participation in the rape and killing of Arlene. He did this in the presence
of his father and with the assistance
of Atty. Cesar Villar, who had been chosen by his father for him.
PEOPLE VS ORANZA, G.R. NO.
127748, JULY 25, 2002
Under rules laid down by the Constitution, existing laws and jurisprud
ence, a confession to be
admissible must satisfy all four fundamental requirements, namely: (1)
the confession must be
voluntary; (2) the confession must be made with the assistance of com
petent and independent
counsel; (3) the confession must be express; and (4) the confession must be in w
riting. All the above
requirements were complied with and therefore the extrajudicial confessi
on of guilt is admissible in
evidence against him.
PEOPLE VS CANICULA, G.R.
NO. 131802, AUGUST 6, 2002
Canicula confessed extra-judicially with counsel that he boxed the victim four t
imes until the said victim fell to
the river but did not mention that he raped her therefore he is only guilty of h
omicide without the crime of rape.
CONFESSION WITHOUT

COUNSEL
PEOPLE VS CASIMIRO, G.R.
NO. 146277, JUNE 20, 2002
Accused-appellant signed the receipt without the assistance of counsel,
making it inadmissible as evidence,
despite the fact that the police issued such in accordance with their
standard operating procedure in a buy-bust
operation to show what property was seized.
PEOPLE VS OCHATE, G.R. NO.
127154, JULY 30, 2002
An admission of guilt without counsel and being informed of his const
itutional rights are inadmissible as
evidence, even if the confessions are made to a barangay captain beca
use the conversation was part of the
ongoing police investigation.
PEOPLE VS MENDEZ, G.R. NO.
147671, NOVEMBER 21, 2002
Records do not show the accused-appellants were assisted by counsel in
the course of investigation, only the
police investigators were present, thus creating irregularities entitled for acq
uittal.
PEOPLE VS LAUGA, 615 SCRA
548
Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the
case of the "bantay bayan," are
recognized by the local government unit to perform functions relating to the pre
servation of peace and order at
the barangay level, therefore, any inquiry it makes has the color of a state-rel
ated function and objective insofar
as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights is concerned.
LUMANOG VS PEOPLE, 630
SCRA 42
Joels questioning has already started even before had an assistance of counsel; t
he moment a police officer tries
to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information from a
suspect, the latter should, at juncture, be
assisted by counsel, unless he waives this right in writing and at the presence
of counsel.
PEOPLE VS TUMACO, 610 SCRA
350
Tuniaco murdered somebody in General Santos City, and Tuniacos confessio
n was admissible since it met all
the requisites namely: a) voluntary; b) made with the assistance of a
competent and independent counsel; c)
express; and d) in writing.
PEOPLE VS BOKINGO, 655
SCRA 313
The extrajudicial confession of Bokingco was inadmissible against him b
ecause he was not assisted at all by
counsel during the time his confession was taken before a judge.
PEOPLE VS UY, 649 SCRA 236 Uy was convicted of robbery with homicide upon his co
nfession to his uncle because when confession is made to
a competent witness, that person is able to testify as to the substance of what
he heard even without the presence
of counsel.
FAILURE TO OBJECT TO
CONFESSION MADE
WITHOUT COUNSEL
PEOPLE VS GONZALES, G.R.
NO. 142932, MAY 29, 2002

Gonzales committed robbery with homicide in Davao Oriental, and the co

urt held that the constitutional
provision on custodial investigation does not apply to a spontaneous s
tatement which was not elicited through
questioning by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner by his co-accused
and hence such statement can
be admissible as evidence against Gonzales.
PEOPLE VS TAMAYO, G.R. NO.
137856, JULY 30, 2002
In the case of People vs. Tamayo the SC held that oral confession that was done
before the barangay officer can
be taken into consideration, this is because this was not done during custodial
investigation, thus there is no need
for a lawyer.
PEOPLE VS SAMUS, G.R. NO.
135957, SEPT. 17, 2002
Confession made by the accused even without presence of a counsel is admissible
in evidence if there is failure
of objecting them during the trial.
PEOPLE VS AVENDANO, G.R.
NO. 137407, JAN. 28, 2003
Failure to timely question the defect in the information is deemed a waiver of h
is objection thereto.
PEOPLE VS MOLE, G.R. NO.
137366, NOV. 27, 2003
Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or un
der custodial investigation shall be in
writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latte
rs absence, upon a valid waiver,
and in the presence of any of the parents, older brothers and sister
s, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the
municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel
as chosen by him; otherwise, such
extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in evidence in any pr
oceeding, notwithstanding failure
to object by the defense of its admission.
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
PEOPLE VS MANRIQUEZ, G.R.
NO. 122510-511, MARCH 17,
2000
A flawed waiver of rights renders extra judicial confessions null and inadmissib
le.
MAGTOTO VS MANGUERA, 63
SCRA 4
A confession obtained from a person under investigation for the commis
sion of an offense, who has not been
informed of his right (to silence and) to counsel, is inadmissible in evidence i
f the same had been obtained after
the effectivity of the New Constitution on January 17, 1973 since the Constituti
on must be given a prospective
and not a retrospective effect.
PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA
52
Absent any showing that the accused were duly advised of the mandator
y guarantees under the Bill of Rights,
their extrajudicial confessions are inadmissible against them and cannot be used
in support of their conviction.
PEOPLE VS ALEGRIA, 190 SCRA
122
Written extra-judicial confession made by a person of limited education

do not persuade that the accused was

fully and fairly informed of his rights in the sense that they were each painsta
kingly explained to him and he was
apprised of the effects of their waiver or forfeiture.
PEOPLE VS SABBAN, 360 SCRA
630
A lawyer is an officer of the court and he has in his favor the presumption of r
egularity in the performance of his
sworn duties and responsibilities and so an executed sworn statement o
f an extra-judicial confession in the
presence of an executive director of the IBP can validly be admissible as eviden
ce in court.
PEOPLE VS BARLIS, 231 SCRA
426
Appelant voluntarily agreed to be assisted by no less than the Chairman of the L
egal Aid Assistance Office of the
IBP-Quezon City Chapter, Atty. Confesor Sansano wherein a lawyer is an
officer of the court and upon his
shoulders lies the responsibility to see to it that protection has been accorded
the rights of the accused and that no
injustice to him has been committed and with the presence of Atty. Sa
nsano, we believe that the rights of the
appellant were duly protected.
PEOPLE VS AGUSTIN, 240 SCRA
541
The right to be informed carries with it a correlative obligation on
the part of the investigator to explain and
contemplates effective communication. Hence, it is doubtful for a suspect to und
erstand his constitutional right if
he was informed in Tagalog and English when he could only understand Ilocano.
PEOPLE VS SAMOLDE, G.R. NO.
128551, JULY 31, 2000
The giving to a suspect of no more than a perfunctory recitation of
his rights, signifying nothing more than a
feigned compliance with the constitutional requirements, is considered a
s merely ceremonial and inadequate to
transmit meaningful information to the suspect, rendering any extrajudicial conf
ession obtained invalid.
PEOPLE VS SEVILLA, G.R. NO.
124077, SEPT. 5, 2000
The right to be informed of ones right contemplates the transmission of meaningful
information rather than just
the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
principle. The right to be informed
consists of no less than effective communication which results in a full underst
anding of what is conveyed.
PEOPLE VS MULETA, G.R. NO.
130189, JUNE 25, 1999
A confession obtained in violation of the rights of an accused cannot be used as
evidence.
PEOPLE VS TIZON, G.R. NO.
133228, JULY 30, 2002
The right to be informed of one s constitutional rights during custodi
al investigation refers to an effective
communication between the investigating officer and the suspected indivi
dual, with the purpose of making the
latter understand these rights such that information transmitted was effectively
received and comprehended; the
Constitution requires that the person under investigation be "informed."
PEOPLE VS LLENARESES, 248

SCRA 629
Appellant Llenaresass claim that he was not informed of his constitutio
nal rights before the extraction of
extrajudicial confession is contradicted by his own written confession
and the testimony of police officers who
had directly participated in the custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS CAJARA, G.R. NO.
122498, SEPT. 27, 2000
Neither can the accused be convicted of qualified rape on the basis
of the circumstance that the rape was
committed in full view of the relatives of the victim within the thi
rd degree of consanguinity because this
qualifying circumstance was not pleaded in the Information or in the
Complaint against the accused; thus, it is
fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint o
r information.
PEOPLE VS MANRIQUEZ, G.R.
NO. 122510-511, MARCH 17,
2000
The right to be informed carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of
the police investigator to explain,
and contemplates effective communication which results in the subject s understa
nding of what is conveyed.
PEOPLE VS SAMOLDE, G.R. NO.
128551, JULY 31, 2000
Samolde was arrested for murder. Before he was interrogated, accused was given o
nly a perfunctory recitation of
his rights, which is inadequate to transmit meaningful information to
the suspect. Hence the confession is
inadmissible in trial.
WAIVER OF RIGHTS:
REQUISITES OF A VALID
WAIVER
PEOPLE VS TALIMAN, G.R. NO.
109143, OCTOBER 11, 2000
The Constitution expressly provides that the waiver must be in writing and in th
e presence of counsel hence the
defect was not cured even assuming that the right to counsel was orally waived d
uring custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS GOMEZ, 270 SCRA
432
Section 12(1), Article III, of the Constitution requires the assistance
of counsel to a person under custody even
when he waives the right to counsel.
PEOPLE VS CABINTOY, 247
SCRA 442
A waiver of the right to counsel is valid if it is in writing and done in the pr
esence of counsel.
An uncounselled confession and waiver could be subsequently validated by later s
ignature of counsel but there
must be manifest intent to own and adopt retroactively their extrajudi
cial confession; extreme care must be
employed in examining the matter lest the constitutional right be eroded into an
empty formality.
PEOPLE VS CORULLO, 289
SCRA 481
Even before March 20, 1985 and the present Constitution, waiver by an
accused of the assistance of a counsel
during custodial must be done with the assistance of counsel, otherwis
e the confessions obtained from the

accused would be inadmissible.

PEOPLE VS OLIVAREZ, G.R. NO.
77865, DECEMBER 4, 1998
Knowing full well that the arrest that they had conducted was illegal, the polic
e interposed that Olivarez et were
only invited to the precinct. Nevertheless, the court found that the circumstanc
es are actually in the nature of an
arrest designed for the purpose of conducting an investigation wherein the fruit
of the poisonous doctrine applies.
PEOPLE VS RUELAN, 231 SCRA
650
A confession is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved and the bu
rden of proof is upon the person
making the confession.
PEOPLE VS SIMON, 234 SCRA
555
Although the accused manifested during the custodial investigation that
he waived his right to counsel, the
waiver was not made in writing and whatever admission may be extracte
d from him, is not allowable as
evidence.
MALACAT VS CA, 283 SCRA 159 Even assuming that petitioner admitted possessi
on of the grenade during his custodial investigation by police
officer Serapio, such admission was inadmissible in evidence for it wa
s taken in palpable violation of Section
12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution.
Serapio conducted the custodial investigation on petitioner the day fol
lowing his arrest when no lawyer was
present and Serapio could not have requested a lawyer to assist petitioner as no
PAO lawyer was then available.
Thus, even if petitioner consented to the investigation and waived his rights t
o remain silent and to counsel, the
waiver was invalid as it was not in writing, neither was it executed in the pres
ence of counsel.
PEOPLE VS BACOR, 306 SCRA
522
By voluntarily executing his extrajudicial confession, which he did in
the presence of and with the
assistance of counsel and after having been informed of his constituti
onal rights, accused-appellant
effectively waived his right to remain silent.
PEOPLE VS QUIDATO, G.R. NO.
117160, OCTOBER 1, 1998
There was no presence of a counsel when Malita brothers gave their e
xtra-judicial statements and these are
considered inadmissible in evidence even if they signed their affidavits the nex
t day in the presence of a counsel.
MUST BE VOLUNTARY,
KNOWING, INTELLIGENT
PEOPLE VS NICOLAS, 204 SCRA
191
Admissions made
by accused-appellant during custodial investigation, as
reflected in his sworn statement,
cannot be admissible in evidence for his statement before the Patrolma
n was given in gross violation of his
constitutional rights guaranteed under Article IV, section 20 of the 1973 consti
tution where confessions without
assistance of counsel is inadmissible.
PEOPLE VS AGUSTIN, 240 SCRA

541
The right to information carries with it the obligation of the invest
igator to explain for the understanding of
accused, and even if the confession of an accused speaks the truth,
if it was made without the assistance of
counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of
coercion or even if it had been voluntarily
given.
EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSIONS: DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN ADMISSION AND
CONFESSION
LADIANA VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO.
144293, DECEMBER 4, 2002
According to Sec. 26 on the Revised Rules on Evidence, admission is the act, dec
laration or omission of a party
as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him, while Sec. 33 states
that confession is the declaration
of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged.
PEOPLE VS MAQUEDA, 242
SCRA 565
In a confession, there is acknowledgement of guilt by the accused whi
le in admission, there is only an
acknowledgment of facts or circumstances regarding the issue which has
to be corroborated with other facts in
order to establish guilt.
REQUISITES FOR VALID
EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSION
PEOPLE VS DANO, G.R. NO.
117690, SEPTEMBER 1, 2000
For an extrajudicial confession to be valid, it must be (a) voluntary, (b) made
with the assistance of a competent
and in dependent counsel, (c) express, and (d) in writing.
PEOPLE VS PAGAURA, 267
SCRA 17
Pagaura was in possession of Marijuana ,and the prosecution failed to
prove that Pagaura was assisted by a
lawyer during the interrogation and that a certain waiver that he signed was voi
d since it was made without the
assistance of a lawyer.
PEOPLE VS CALVO, 269 SCRA
676
A confession is not rendered involuntary merely because defendant was told that
he should tell the truth or that it
would be better for him to tell the truth. For an accuseds confession to be inadm
issible, the threats and promises
which the accused must prove must take the form of violence, intimidation, a pro
mise of reward or leniency.
PEOPLE VS TAN, 286 SCRA 207 Herson Tan who was charged with highway robbe
ry with murder was acquitted because his extrajudicial
confession which failed to meet the following requisites was inadmissible as evi
dence: (1) it must be voluntary,
(2) it must be made with assistance of competent and independent counsel, (3) it
must be express, (4)it must be in
writing.
PEOPLE VS OLIVAREZ, G.R. NO.
77865, DECEMBER 4, 1998
Olivarez committed robbery with homicide in Valenzuela, and the court held that
Olivarezs manifestation that he

did need assistance of a counsel was not a valid waiver since in order for a wai
ver of the right to counsel to be
valid, it must be made with the assistance or in the presence of co
unsel, therefore any statement he made is
inadmissible as evidence.
PEOPLE VS BASE, G.R. NO.
109773, MARCH 30, 2000
For an extrajudicial confession to be valid it must be 1.) Voluntary,
2.) Made with the assistance of competent
counsel, 3.) Express, 4.) In Writing. But this rule is not a deterrent of an acc
used voluntarily and intelligently so
desires, but to protect the accused to admit things which are untrue.
PEOPLE VS CONTINENTE, G.R.
NO. 100801-02, AUGUST 25, 2000
A counsel should never prevent the accused from freely and voluntarily
telling the truth and whether it is an
extrajudicial statement or testimony in open court, the intention is always to a
scertain the truth of the facts and
evidences pertaining to a crime.
PEOPLE VS NAAG, 322 SCRA
710
While accused-appellant was told what his rights were and answered in the affirm
ative when asked whether he
understood what he had been told, the crucial question is whether he effectively
waived the effectuation of these
rights. We find that he did not and, therefore, his confession (Exh. O) is inadm
issible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS FABRO, 277 SCRA
19
A confession is defined in jurisprudence as a declaration made volunta
rily and without compulsion or
inducement by a person, stating or acknowledging that he has committed or partic
ipated in the commission of a
crime.
In jurisprudence, no confession can be admitted in evidence unless it is given:
1. Freely and voluntarily, without compulsion, inducement or trickery;
2. Knowingly based on an effective communication to the individual und
er custodial investigation of his
constitutional rights; and
3. Intelligently with full appreciation of its importance and comprehension of i
ts consequences.
PEOPLE VS SINOC, 275 SCRA
357
A narration of events by the accused without his counsel present cannot be used
against him.
PEOPLE VS ALICANDO, 251
SCRA 293
Due process was not observed since the defendant was not informed oh
his right to counsel upon making his
extrajudicial confession to the police and so the trial court erred i
n admitting as evidence the T-shirt of the
accused with bloodstains in convicting him for rape with homicide since it is no
t only uncounselled confession
that is condemned as inadmissible but also evidence derived therefrom in cases o
f custodial interrogation where
the accused confessed to the crime without the benefit of counsel.
PEOPLE VS MANENG, G.R. NO.
123147, OCT. 13, 2000
For an extrajudicial confession to be admissible as evidence, it must
be satisfactorily shown that it was (1)

voluntary, and (2) made with the assistance of a competent and independent couns
el.
Details disclosed in the confession that could have been known only to the decla
rant indicate the voluntariness in
executing the same.
PEOPLE VS LLANES, G.R. NO.
140268, SEPT. 18, 2000
The extra-judicial confession was made by Roland Gamba after he was duly informe
d of his rights and after he
was asked if he wanted to avail the services of a layer to which he answered in
the affirmative.
PEOPLE VS DEANG, G.R. NO.
128045, AUG. 24, 2000
When an accused is informed of his constitutional custodial rights and
was represented by a counsel of his
choice, the extrajudicial confessions he made may be used as evidence admissible
in court.
PEOPLE VS AVENDANO, G.R.
NO. 137407, JAN. 28, 2003
With regard to the legality of the arrest and confinement of appellan
t, it was shown that upon arraignment,
appellant voluntarily entered a plea of "not guilty" without first que
stioning the legality of his arrest and by so
pleading, he has submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, th
ereby curing any defect in his arrest wherein
such act amounted to a waiver of the right to question any irregularity in his a
rrest.
PEOPLE VS ESPANOLA, 271
SCRA 689
The fact that appellant Paquingan did not sign his sworn statement casts serious
doubt as to the voluntariness of
its execution and therefore, it is inadmissible evidence.
PEOPLE VS NICOLAS, G.R. NO.
135877, AUG. 22, 2002
The rule is that when the offended party has executed and subscribed to a compla
int, the prosecution before the
court may be initiated by means of an information signed by the prosecutor alone
.
PEOPLE VS SABALONES, 294
SCRA 751
Extrajudicial confession, especially those which are adverse to the declarants in
terests are presumed voluntary,
and in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that the declarants consent i
n executing the same has been
vitiated, such confession shall be upheld. It is binding only upon himself and n
ot against his co-accused.
PEOPLE VS MAHINAY, 302
SCRA 455
The Investigating offcier or his companions must do and observe the g
uidelines laid down by the courts at the
time of making the arrest and again at the time of the custodial interrogation i
n accordance with the constitution.
PEOPLE VS LISING, 285 SCRA
595
(Interlocking Confessions; an exception to the rule that an extrajudici
al statement is evidence only against the
person making it) Where several extrajudicial statements had been made
by several persons charged with an
offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said several co

nfessions, and that the statements

are in all material respects identical, is confirmatory of the confess
ion of the co-defendants and is admissible
against other persons implicated therein, which are admissible as circu
mstantial evidences against the person
implicated therein to show the probability of the latter s actual participation
in the commission of the crime.
PEOPLE VS OBRERO, G.R. NO.
122142, MAY 17, 2000
The extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because it lacks the requi
site of a competent and independent
counsel. The counsel present during the custodial investigation, thought
competent, cannot be said to be
independent since he was also the station commander in the police station.
PEOPLE VS CAPITLE, 639 SCRA
373
An extrajudicial confession is admissible if it is (1) voluntary; (2) made with
the assistance of a competent and
independent counsel; (3) express; and (4) in writing.
JESALVA VS PEOPLE, 640 SCRA
253
The assailed statements herein were spontaneously made by petitioner an
d were not at all elicited through
questioning, hence it is admissible.
VOLUNTARINESS
PEOPLE VS SANTOS, 283 SCRA
443
If the extrajudicial confession satisfies these constitutional standards, it is
subsequently tested for voluntariness,
i.e., if it was given freely -- without coercion, intimidation, inducement, or f
alse promises; and credibility, i.e., if
it was consistent with the normal experience of mankind.
PEOPLE VS ALVAREZ, G.R. NO.
140388-91, NOV. 11, 2003
When a victim of rape says that she has been violated, she says in effect all th
at is necessary to show that rape
has been committed against her and so long as her testimony meets th
a test of credibility, the accused may be
convicted on the basis thereof.
ASTUDILLO VS PEOPLE, 509
SCRA 302
There is the presumption that no person of normal mind would delibera
tely and knowingly confess to a crime
unless prompted by truth and conscience such that it is presumed to be voluntary
until the contrary is proved.
JESALVA VS PEOPLE, 640 SCRA
253
Statements made spontaneously and voluntarily which were not elicited through qu
estioning does not fall under
the constitutional procedure for custodial investigation.
PRESUMPTIONS
PEOPLE VS ALICANDO, 251
SCRA 293
The arraignment of the accused cannot be presumed to be regularly conducted when
life is at stake.
PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA
52
Absent any showing that appellants were dully advised of the mandatory guarantee
under the Bill of Rights, their
confession made before Carino are inadmissible against them, and cannot be used

I support of their conviction.

PEOPLE VS FIGUEROA, G.R.
NO. 134056, JULY 6, 2000
Any waiver of such rights should be in writing and made in the pres
ence of a counsel, and such rights attach
from the moment the investigation starts (i.e. when the investigating
officers begin to ask question to elicit
information). The presumption of regularity does not prevail over the c
onstitutional presumption of innocence.
Admissions made contrary to Sec 12 are inadmissible even against third persons.
PEOPLE VS DANO, G.R. NO.
117690, SEPTEMBER 1, 2000
The confession without counsel is inadmissible since a suspects confession, when
taken without the assistance
of counsel without a valid waiver of such right regardless of the absence of coe
rcion or the fact that it had been
voluntarily given, is inadmissible in evidence, even if it is the truth.
PEOPLE VS MANENG, G.R. NO.
123147, OCT. 13, 2000
Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary, and, in the absence o
f conclusive evidence showing that
declarant s consent in executing the same has been vitiated, such confession wil
l be sustained.
Alibi is a weak defense against extrajudicial confessions made by the accused.
The right to counsel does not mean that the accused must personally
hire his own counsel. The constitutional
requirement is satisfied when a counsel is (1) engaged by anyone acti
ng on behalf of the person under
investigation or (2) appointed by the court upon petition of the said person or
by someone on his behalf.
PEOPLE VS VALLEJO, G.R. NO.
144656, MAY 9, 2002
Indeed, extrajudicial confessions are presumed to be voluntary, and, in
the absence of conclusive
evidence showing that the declarants consent in executing the same has
been vitiated, the
confession will be sustained.
PEOPLE VS SAHAGUN, 274
SCRA 208
Villareals extra-judicial confessions, without the benefit of an effectiv
e, vigilant and independent counsel, are
inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS SABBAN, 360 SCRA
630
The confession is admissible in court, considering that the accused Ed
uardo Sabban gave his statement to the
investigating officer in the presence of his counsel, who also signed the statem
ent.
PEOPLE VS RANIS, G.R. NO.
129113, SEPT. 17, 2000
A failure of the accused to question the vigilance of his provided counsel and m
altreatment from police officers
casts doubt on the allegations, and confessions of the accused constit
utes evidence of a high order of
voluntariness.
PEOPLE VS ROUS, 242 SCRA
732
Confession obtained through coercion whether physical, mental or emotional is in

admissible.
PEOPLE VS PAROJINOG, 203
SCRA 473
While the initial choice of a lawyer falls upon the police investigat
ors in case the accused cannot afford the
services of a counsel, he still has the final choice because he can reject the o
ne given to him and ask for another
one AND that a confession made by him is admissible unless he success
fully proves that he was intimidated,
forced or promised a reward or leniency.
PEOPLE VS MONTIERO, 246
SCRA 786
A confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by the str
ong presumption that no person of
normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted
by truth and his conscience;
it is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a re
sult of violence, intimidation, threat,
or promise of reward or leniency, and the evidence failed to show that the SPO c
oerced appellant to confess.
PEOPLE VS RUELAN, 231 SCRA
650
Ruelan murdered somebody in Davao City, and by voluntarily executing his extraju
dicial confession after having
been informed by Atty. Luz Cortez of his constitutional rights, and in the prese
nce of and with the assistance of
said counsel, appellant Ruelan effectively waived his right to remain silent.
PEOPLE VS AQUINO, G.R. NO.
123550-51, JULY 19, 1999
The Court, in finding the accused guilty of rape with homicide, ruled that the c
onfession made by the appellant
Catap was presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved and
the declarant bears the burden of proving
that his confession is involuntary.
PEOPLE VS TOLENTINO, 423
SCRA 448
Tolentino was judged guilty of statutory rape after being positively identified
in a police line-up. A police line-up
is not considered custodial investigation and therefore there is no need for cou
nsel.
PEOPLE VS DE VERA, G.R. NO.
128966, AUG. 18, 1999
De Vera murdered somebody in Quezon City, and the court held that th
e prosecution has proved through
overwhelming evidence that De Veras right to counsel was not infringe
hence De Veras statements are
admissible as evidence.
PEOPLE VS SANTOS, 283 SCRA
443
There is no presumption of constitutionality which may be accorded to
any extrajudicial confession until the
prosecution convincingly establishes the regularity of its taking and compliance
with the constitution. In this case
the the extrajudicial confession was struck down because of the failur
e of the prosecution to show that the
accused was assisted by counsel during custodial investigation.
SANTOS VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
G.R. NO. 71523-25, DECEMBER
8, 2000
When a confession be deliberately given with a full comprehension of its importa

nce, there is no impediment to

its admissibility as evidence, that no person will deliberately and knowingly co
nfess himself to be the perpetrator
of a crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience to confess his guilt.
PEOPLE VS MAGDAMIT, 279
SCRA 423
Where there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal witness fo
r the prosecution was actuated by
any improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his test
imony is thus entitled to full faith
and credit.
PEOPLE VS AQUINO, G.R. NO.
130742, JULY 18, 2000
An accused cannot be presumed to have knowledge of the non-existence or insuffic
iency of the funds in the bank
account of her co-accused at the time the latter issued post-dated checks since
such legal presumption applies to
the drawer or issuer of the checks.
PEOPLE VS HERNANDEZ, 282
SCRA 387
Testimonial and documentary evidence are given great weight by the court in rend
ering a criminal judgment.
PEOPLE VS SABALONES, 294
SCRA 751
Extrajudicial confessions, especially those which are adverse to the declarants i
nterests are presumed voluntary,
and in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that the declarants consent i
n executing the same has been
vitiated, such confession shall be upheld.
PEOPLE VS CALVO, 269 SCRA
676
A confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by the str
ong presumption that no person of
normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted
by truth and his conscience.
PEOPLE VS DEL ROSARIO, G.R.
NO. 131036, JUNE 20, 2001
As officers of the court, lawyers who assist in the extrajudicial confession of
an accused are presumed to perform
their sworn duties and responsibilities with regularity.
TO WHOM SUCH
CONFESSION CAN BE USED
AGAINST
PEOPLE VS LISING, 285 SCRA
595
A mans act, conduct and declarations wherever made, provided they be v
oluntary, are admissible against him,
for the reason that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth an
d it is his fault if they are not and an
extrajudicial statement having a confession is evidence only against the person
making it.
SANTOS VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
G.R. NO. 71523-25, DECEMBER
8, 2000
It is also to be noted that APPELLANTS extrajudicial confessions were independe
ntly made without collusion,
are identical with each other in their material respects and confirmat
ory of the other and hey are what is
commonly known as interlocking confession and constitute an exception t
o the general rule that extrajudicial

confessions/admissions are admissible in evidence only against the declarants th

ereof.
TAN VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO.
134298, AUGUST 26, 1999
An admission or confession acknowledging guilt of an offense may be given in evi
dence only against the person
admitting or confessing.
LAWYER GIVEN BY POLICE
INVESTIGATOR, VALID
CONFESSION
AQUINO VS PAISTE, 555 SCRA
255
When the accused never raised any objection against the lawyers appoint
ment during the course of the
investigation and the accused thereafter subscribed to the veracity of
his statement before the swearing officer,
the accused is deemed to have engaged such lawyer.
EXCEPTIONS: WHEN
CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATIONS MAY NOT
APPLY, PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
PEOPLE VS JUDGE AYSON, 175
SCRA 216
Not every statement made to the police by a person involved in some
crime is within the scope of the
constitutional protection. If not made "under custodial interrogation," or "unde
r investigation for the commission
of an offense," the statement is not protected.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
PEOPLE VS TAYLARAN, 108
SCRA 373
If one voluntarily admits the crime and it was precisely because of
this intent to admit he surrendered to the
police, the constitutional safeguards under section 12 cannot be invoked.
AUDIT EXAMINATION
NAVALLO VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, 234 SCRA
175
A person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial investigation.
KIMPO VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
232 SCRA 53
Petitioners contention that he was deprived of his constitutional rights
when Sandiganbayan considered the
questioned exhibits is untenable since said exhibits pertain to a repo
rt of audit examination performed in the
normal course of audit by the COA. Petitioner is not under custodial investigat
ion under such time.
ADMINISTRATIVE
INVESTIGATION
MANUEL VS NC
CONSTRUCTION, 282 SCRA 326
An administrative investigation is a type of investigation conducted by
the employer and is not considered a
criminal investigation since it is not done by police officers; hence
the information elicited from this type of
investigation is admissible in court.
REMOLONA VS CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, G.R. NO. 13747,
AUGUST 2, 2001

While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to

a criminal proceeding, the fact
remains that under existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry
may or may not be assisted by counsel,
irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondents capacity to repr
esent himself, and no duty rests
on such body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel; The right to
counsel is not always imperative
in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to
determine whether there are facts
that merit disciplinary measure against erring public officers and employees, wi
th the purpose of maintaining the
dignity of government service.
SEBASTIAN VS
GARCHITORENA G.R. NO.
114028, OCT. 18, 2000
Post office employees were investigated.
During interrogation, they su
bmitted sworn statements, which
prosecution later presented as evidence. Although not assisted by counse
l, the statements are admissible as the
right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigation.
ESCLEO VS DURADO, AM NO.
P-99-1312, JULY 31, 2002
In administrative proceedings, the change of procedure is not a denial
of due process since technical rules of
procedure are not strictly applied unless he was completely denied of the opport
unity to be heard.
NOT IN POLICE CUSTODY
PEOPLE VS TOBIAS, 266 SCRA
229
When an admission was made before the accused s arrest (as he was only asked why
he was holding a gun), the
constitutionally guaranteed rights of the accused did not yet come int
o operation, and the accuseds statement
becomes a confession as defined by the Rules of Evidence, which is admissible ag
ainst the accused.
OCA VS SUMULONG, 271 SCRA
316
Custody investigation is defined as questioning performed by law enforc
ement officers after a person has been
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way; the Office
of the Court Administrator does not fall
under the concept of enforcement authority contemplated in the constitutional pr
ovision.
POLICE LINE UP: GENERAL
RULE
PEOPLE VS PIEDAD, G.R. NO.
131923, DEC. 5, 2002
A police line up is not necessary to identify the accused for as long as the acc
used is positively identified by the
witnesses as the perpetrator of the crime.
PEOPLE VS LAMSING, 248
SCRA 471
The right to counsel does not extend to police line-ups investigation
because they are not part of custodial
investigation.
PEOPLE VS FRAGO, 232 SCRA
653
If the accused, in the course of his identification in the police li
ne-up, is not yet held to answer for a criminal

offense, he is therefore not deprived of his right to be assisted by counsel bec

ause the accusatory process had not
yet set in.
GAMBOA VS JUDGE CRUZ, 162
SCRA 675
If the police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest, an accused is not y
et entitled to counsel, however, if
there would be an urge of the investigators to elicit admissions or
confessions from the accused, he should be
entitled to counsel.
PEOPLE VS SALVATIERRA, 276
SCRA 55
The right to counsel guaranteed in Art. III, Section 12(1) of the Con
stitution does not extend to police lineups
because they are not part of custodial investigations. The reason for this is t
hat at that point, the process has not
yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory; therefore the ac
cuseds right to counsel attaches only from
the time that adversary judicial proceedings are taken against him.
DELA TORRE VS CA, 294 SCRA
196
A police line-up is not considered part of any custodial inquest beca
use it is conducted before that
stage is reached.
PEOPLE VS PAVILLARE, G.R.
NO. 129970, APRIL 5, 2000
The inadmissibility of custodial investigation which starts when a person is tak
en into custody and is singled
out as a suspect and the police officers begin to ask questions regarding the su
spects participation.
PEOPLE VS TIMPLE, 237 SCRA
52
There is no need to afford the potential suspect that assistance of counsel as i
t has been held that police line-up is
not part of the custodial investigation, where the suspects had not yet been hel
d then to answer for the criminal
offense which they were later charged and convicted.
PEOPLE VS DIMAANO, 209
SCRA 819
Right to counsel is not required in police line-ups since the confrontation betw
een the state and them had not yet
begun.
PEOPLE VS LOVERIA, 187 SCRA
47
Use of I think does not necessarily indicate uncertainty & failure to reveal at on
ce the identity of the accused
does not necessarily affect much less impairs the credibility of the witness.
PEOPLE VS TOLENTINO, 423
SCRA 448
The constitutional rights of the accused were not violated when he was made to j
oin the police line up because a
police line up was not part of a custodial inquest the accused not being investi
gated but only the witness was in
the process of identifying him, his right to counsel is not violated and in addi
tion, there is no law providing that a
police line up is essential to proper identification.
PEOPLE VS MARTINEZ, 425
SCRA 525
The right to counsel attaches only when the investigating officer star
ts to ask questions to elicit information,

confession or admission from the accused; when one is identified in a police lin
e-up, he has not yet been held to
answer for the criminal offense, a police line-up os outside the mantle of prote
ction of the right to counsel.
PEOPLE VS SULTAN, G.R. NO.
130594, JULY 5, 2000
Sultan committed carnapping with homicide in General Santos City, and
the court, in applying the totality of
circumstances test, held that his identification in the police line-up w
as not in violation of his constitutional
right to counsel.
PEOPLE VS ESCORDIAL, 373
SCRA 585
Any identification of an uncounselled accused made in a police line-up, or in a
show-up for that matter, after the
start of the custodial investigation is inadmissible as evidence against him.
EXCEPTIONS
PEOPLE VS HATTON, 210 SCRA
1
Aside from the fact that Ongue, the witness, could not positively identify the d
efendant as he made only fleeting
glances at him after the incident, it was shown that he was identified by the po
lice as a suspect.
PEOPLE VS GARNER, 326 SCRA
660
Garner committed the crime of carnapping in Angeles City, and the court held tha
t the statements he made were
inadmissible as evidence since from the moment Garner was invited to
the CIS office, he was clearly placed
under "custodial investigation" for there the questioning was never a "general i
nquiry into an unsolved crime" but
already focused on appellant as a "particular suspect, hence he should have been
informed of his Miranda rights
before being questioned.
PEOPLE VS TEEHANKEE, JR.
249 SCRA 54
Out of court identifications contaminate the integrity of in court ide
ntifications, but the courts have to use the
totality of circumstances test where there consider the ff. factors: (
1) the witness opportunity to view the
criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness degree of attention at that ti
me; (3) the accuracy of any prior
description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the
witness at the identification; (5)
the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6)
the suggestiveness of the identification
procedure. This mode was resorted to by the authorities for security purposes.
PEOPLE VS MENESES, 288
SCRA 95
The mere assertion by a police officer that after an accused was inf
ormed of his constitutional right to remain
silent and to counsel he readily admitted his guilt, does not make the supposed
confession admissible when it is
not shown that the admissions of guilt were made with benefit of counsel.
SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS
PEOPLE VS BARRIENTOS, 285
SCRA 221
The matter testified to was appellants spontaneous statement of having asked for
the forgiveness of the offended
party. It was a statement uttered by appellant, overheard by the Chie

f of Police Motalib Banding, that had not

been elicited from him through any questioning.
ARROYO VS CA, 203 SCRA 750 An accused cannot claim the right against self-incrim
ination when the admission was made to her husband in the
privacy of their conjugal home since the husband was not a peace officer nor an
investigation officer conducting
a custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS ANDAN, 269 SCRA
95
A spontaneous confession by the accused outside of any interrogation is consider
ed admissible evidence in court.
PEOPLE VS DUMANTAY, 307
SCRA 1
The rights guaranteed in Section 12(1) applied to accused since he wa
s already under custodial investigation
when he was brought to the Malasiqui police station as a suspect in slaying Jenn
ifer Domantay and in any case,
his waiver of his right to counsel was void since it was neither pu
t in writing nor made in the presence of
counsel.
PEOPLE VS MORADA, G.R. NO.
129723, MAY 19, 1999
The constitutional guarantees during custodial investigation do not apply to spo
ntaneous statements not elicited
through questioning by the authorities and given during an ordinary co
nversation or during media interviews,
whereby the suspect orally admits the commission of the crime. This does not, ho
wever, authorize the police to
obtain confessions they cannot otherwise obtain through media reporters who are
actually acting for the police.
PEOPLE VS DANO, G.R. NO.
117690, SEPT. 1, 2000
The constitutional requirements on custodial investigation do not apply
to spontaneous statements made in a
voluntary manner whereby appellant orally admitted authorship of the crimes befo
re the barangay captain, who is
neither a police officer nor a law enforcement agent.
PEOPLE VS ULIT, 423 SCRA 374 Improvident pleas of guilty to a capital offense on
the part of the accused must be averted since by admitting his
guilt before the trial court, the accused would forfeit his life and
liberty without having fully understood the
meaning, significance and the dire consequences of his plea.
MARKED MONEY
PEOPLE VS LINSANGAN, 195
SCRA 784
Although he was not assisted by counsel when he initialed the P10-bills that the
police found tucked in his waist,
his right against self-incrimination was not violated for his possessio
n of the marked bills did not constitute a
crime; the subject of the prosecution was his act of selling marijuana cigarette
s.
BOOKING SHEETS
PEOPLE VS ANG CHUN KIT, 251
SCRA 660
When an arrested person signs a booking sheet at a police station, he does not a
dmit the confession of an offense
nor confess to any incriminating circumstance since it is merely a statement of
the accuseds being booked which
accompanies the fact of an arrest.
PARAFFIN TEST

PEOPLE VS GAMBOA, 194

SCRA 372
Paraffin test conducted without the presence of the accuseds lawyer doe
s not violate the right against selfincrimination.
WHEN BODY OF THE
ACCUSED IS EXAMINED
PEOPLE VS SINOC, 275 SCRA
357
It must additionally be pointed out that apart from Sinocs protestations that his
extrajudicial confession was the
result of torture and threats, no competent evidence exists on record to substan
tiate that claim. There must be a
medical examination to confirm such revelation.
PEOPLE VS PIEDAD, G.R. NO.
131923, DEC. 5, 2002
The right to counsel accrues only after an investigation ceases to be a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime and
commences an interrogation aimed at a particular suspect who has been
taken into custody and to whom the
police would then propound questions which tend to elicit incriminating statemen
ts.
GUTANG VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO.
135406, JULY 11, 2000
(exemption under the freedom from testimonial compulsion) The Constituti
on prohibits 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 - an accused may validly be compelled to be phot
ographed or measured, or his garments or
shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing things to
be done, without running afoul
of the proscription against testimonial compulsion.
PEOPLE VS PAYNOR, 256 SCRA
611
The rights of the accused were not infringed when he was stripped of his clothin
g by the police investigators and
later submitting his items as evidence. The constitutional protection r
efers to testimonial evidence and not
physical examination.
TAKING OF PICTURES
PEOPLE VS GALLARDE, 325
SCRA 835
The taking of pictures of an accused without the assistance of his counsel is no
t a violation of his right against
self-incrimination because the right only protects testimonial compulsion agains
t the accused or that of the giving
of evidence against himself through a testimonial act.
INCIDENT LAWFUL TO
ARREST
PEOPLE VS ENRIQUEZ, 204
SCRA 674
The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful.
MARCELO VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO.
109242, JANUARY 26, 1999
Lito Marcelo and Ronnie Romero were found guilty of qualified theft b
efore the Sandiganbayan. The signed
letters presented as evidence were valid because these were seized incidental to
a lawful arrest.

THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE:

VIOLATION OF RIGHTS
PEOPLE VS SIMON, 234 SCRA
555
Although appellant manifested during the custodial investigation that he waived
his right to counsel, the waiver
was not made in writing and in the presence of counsel, hence whatever incrimina
tory admission or confession
may be extracted from him, either verbally or in writing, is not allowable in ev
idence.
PEOPLE VS HERMOSO, G.R.
NO. 130590, OCT. 18, 2000
As a general rule, confession made without the assistance of counsel is inadmiss
ible in evidence; however, if it
appears that the defense failed to object immediately when a witness
was presented for prosecution or when
specific questions concerning the confession were asked, it is deemed
that the accused has waived his right to
object to the inadmissibility of such witnesss testimony.
PEOPLE VS PINLAC, 165 SCRA
675
Verbal admissions made during custodial investigation are inadmissible if the ri
ghts of the accused were violated.
The right of a person to be informed implies a correlative obligation
on the part of the police investigator to
explain and contemplates an effective communication that results in understandin
g what is conveyed.
PEOPLE VS BACAMANTE, 248
SCRA 47
Extrajudicial confessions given without the benefit of an effective and vigilant
counsel is inadmissible in court.
PEOPLE VS ANDAN, 269 SCRA
95
the following are not custodial investigations and confessions freely obtained h
ere are admissible:
Meeting with the mayor which the accused freely sought and the accuse
d spontaneously made the confessions
without the mayors prodding.
Confessions made to the media in answer to medias questions even while in custody
.
PEOPLE VS MONTES, G.R. NO.
117166, DEC. 13, 1998
A confession to be admissible must satisfy all of four fundamental re
quirements: 1) the confession must be
voluntary; 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of comp
etent and independent counsel; 3) the
confession must be express; and 4) the confession must be in writing. Verbal adm
issions allegedly made by the
accused, at the time of their arrest and before the formal investigation, are in
admissible, both as violative of their
constitutional rights and as hearsay evidence.
PEOPLE VS SALCEDO, 273
SCRA 473
Even if the extrajudicial confession of the accused was the truth and there was
no coercion enforced, the failure
of the police to afford to him his rights during a custodial investi
gation, even when waived, rendered the
confession inadmissible.
PEOPLE VS MACOY, 275 SCRA 1 Although we are in agreement with the accused
-appellant that his extrajudicial confession, as testified upon by

Pat. Tumakay, was inadmissible, because it was taken during custodial

investigation and without benefit of a
counsel, the other evidences of the prosecution fully sustains Macoys conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE VS ARCEO, 202 SCRA
170
Librado subsequently denied having pointed to Pancho as his supplier. Librado s
confession was thus
not only unfounded, but obtained in gross violation of his fundamental right to
counsel.
PEOPLE VS ATREJENIO, G.R.
NO. 120160, JULY 13, 1999
The statement of Patrolman Fradejas is deemed inadmissible in evidence
because he was able to obtain such
information from the oral confession made by the accused which is violation of t
he latters constitutional rights
provided in Art. 3 Section 12(1) of the constitution.
TAN VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO.
134298, AUG. 26, 1999
Petitioner is not affected by the confession of the witness as any admission of
guilt of an offense may be given in
evidence only against the person admitting or confessing.
PEOPLE VS BINAMIRA, 277
SCRA 232
Binamira was not adequately informed of his constitutional right to engage a cou
nsel of his own choic, and, and
if the lawyers role is reduced to being a mere witness to the signin
g of a prepared document albeit indication
therein compliance with the accuseds constitutional rights, the constitutional st
andard is not met.
PEOPLE VS TURINGAN, 282
SCRA 424
Alternative plea should be rejected since he was not denied of full opportunity
to be heard.
PEOPLE VS PAGAURA, 267
SCRA 17
The evidence against the accused was inadmissible because one, he signed the wai
ver without the assistance of a
counsel, not knowing its content because he was threatened by the police officer
s and there was no proof that a
lawyer assisted during the interrogation.
PEOPLE VS QUIDATO, G.R. NO.
117401, OCT. 1, 1998
The affidavits obtained by the police are inadmissible in evidence eve
n though they were voluntarily given
because they were made without counsel; it cannot be said that the right was wai
ved because to waive it, if must
first be indicated in writing and in the presence of counsel.
PEOPLE VS SEQUINO, 264 SCRA
79
Sequio committed robbery with homicide in Cebu City, and the court hel
d that no statement made during the
custodial investigation can be admissible since the police did not rem
ind the accused of their right to remain
silent and to be assisted by counsel.
PEOPLE VS ALICANDO,, 251
SCRA 293
Physical evidences gathered by the police were declared inadmissible as
evidence since they were results of
custodial interrogation where appellant verbally confessed to the crime without

the benefit of counsel.

PEOPLE VS AGUSTIN, 240 SCRA
541
Agustin was acquitted, the court refusing to use evidence against him because it
was observed that his lawyer did
not fully apprise him of his rights in a way that he was able to
fully understand the consequences of his
admission.
PEOPLE VS PAGLINAWAN, 324
SCRA 97
Paglinawan was charged of murdering somebody in Butuan City, and the court held
that Paglinawan should not
be liable for the injuries which were proven to be suffered by some
of the witnesses, since the case is about
murder and said injuries were not properly charged in the information,
hence violating Paglinawans
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the offense charg
ed against him.
PEOPLE VS ALEGRIA, 190 SCRA
122
In the case of People vs. Algeria an extrajudicial confession made wi
thout the assistance of counsel is
inadmissible except with the accused waives them in writing and in the presence
of counsel.
PEOPLE VS BRAVO, G.R. NO.
13562
Admission made during an informal talk prior to custodial investigation
proper is not acceptable, any
information or admission given by a person while in custody which may appear har
mless at the time without the
competent assistance of an independent counsel is deemed as inadmissible as evid
ence.
PEOPLE VS BARIQUIT, G.R. NO.
122733, OCT. 2, 2000
After an exhaustive perusal of the records, we find inadmissible the
uncounselled extra-judicial admission of
accused-appellants, as well as the testimonies of the police officers pertaining
thereto, for having been obtained
in clear violation of accused-appellants rights enshrined in the Constit
ution; Courts are not allowed to
distinguish between preliminary questioning and custodial investigation proper
when applying the exclusionary
rule
PEOPLE VS MALIMIT, 264 SCRA
167
Infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render inadmissible only the extrajudi
cial confession or admission
made during custodial investigationthe admissibility of other evidence, provided
they are relevant to the issue
and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if obtained
or taken in the course of custodial
investigation (i.e. stolen wallet, ID, residence certificate, and keys from the
accused).
PEOPLE VS RIVERA, 245 SCRA
421
The right of the accused to cross-examine a witness is, however, not without lim
its but is subject to the rules on
the admissibility and relevance of evidence.
PEOPLE VS MENESES, 288
SCRA 95

Though the it is pointed out that the accused had verbally admitted having commi
tting the crime at the time of
his arrest and during the investigation, mere assertions by a police office that
after an accused was informed of
his constitutional right to remain silent and to counsel he readily admitted his
guilt, does not make the supposed
confession admissible against the purported confessant.
PEOPLE VS FIGUEROA, G.R.
NO. 134056, JULY 6, 2000
In the absence of proof that the arresting officers, prior to in-custody questio
ning, informed the confessant of his
constitutional rights, the extrajudicial statements made during custodial
investigation, whether inculpatory or
exculpatory, are inadmissible and cannot be considered in the adjudication of a
case.
PEOPLE VS PABURADA, G.R.
NO. 137118, DEC. 5, 2000
The extrajudicial confession given by accused-appellant to SPO1 Garana is inadmi
ssible in evidence for having
been taken without the assistance of counsel even if it speaks the truth and was
given voluntarily.
PEOPLE VS LAPITAJE, G.R. NO.
132042, FEB. 19, 2003
A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waive
r of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
during an illegal warrantless arrest.
IMMUNITY AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION
GALMAN VS PAMARAN, 138
SCRA 295
Even if the Agrava Board is and administrave body, the proceedings are similar t
o that of criminal proceedings
wherein all the herein private respondents could not have been compell
ed to give any statement whether
incriminatory or exculpatory and that they are also entitled to be ad
monished of their constitutional right to
remain silent, to counsel, and be informed that any and all statements given by
them may be used against them
wherein the light of the first portion of Section 5 of P.D. 1886 and the awesome
contempt power of the Board to
punish any refusal to testify or produce evidence, We are not persuaded that whe
n they testified, they voluntarily
waived their constitutional rights not to be compelled to be a witness against t
hemselves much less their right to
remain silent.
RE-ENACTMENTS
PEOPLE VS SUAREZ, 267 SCRA
119
Pictures of the re-enactment depicting the accuseds role in the commiss
ion of the crime cannot be utilized as
evidence of his participation where such re-enactment was conducted without any
lawyer assisting the counsel.
APPLICABILITY TO ALIENS
PEOPLE VS WONG CHUEN
MING, 256 SCRA 182
The mere fact that the counsels of one group of accused jointly represented the
other accused did not deprive the
former of their constitutional right to counsel where said counsels tr
ied to present all the defenses available to
each of the accused and did not put in jeopardy such groups constitutional right

to counsel.
VERBAL CONFESSIONS
PEOPLE VS DENIEGO, 251
SCRA 626
In all, under rules laid down by the Constitution and existing law a
nd jurisprudence, a confession to be
admissible must satisfy all of four fundamental requirements: 1) the c
onfession must be voluntary 2) the
confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independe
nt counsel; 3) the confession must be
express and 4) the confession must be in writing.
PEOPLE VS BONOLA, 274 SCRA
238
It is not material that appellants confession came in verbal form. Section 20, Ar
ticle IV of the 1973 Constitution
does not distinguish between verbal and non-verbal confessions. So long
as they are uncounselled, they are
inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS SUELA, 373 SCRA
163
A refusal to answer is not an obstruction to an investigation; that
the process of investigation could have been
"obstructed" should not concern the assisting counsel because his duty is to his
clients and not to the prosecution
nor to the police investigators the counsel should have informed his clients of
their right to remain silent.
PEOPLE VS TABOGA, 376 SCRA
500
The court did
not err in admitting in evidence accuseds confession t
o a radio man because such did not form
part of custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS BALOLOY, G.R. NO.
140740, APRIL 12, 2002
An extrajudicial confession made without the advice and assistance of
counsel and hence inadmissible in
evidence could be treated as a verbal admission of the accused that could be est
ablished through the testimonies
of the persons who heard it or who conducted the investigation of the accused.
PEOPLE VS GUILLERMO, 420 S
326
A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evi
dence as an exception to the hearsay rule
when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res
gestae is a startling occurrence; (2) the
statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or dev
ise; and (3) the statements must concern
the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
CO-ACCUSED NOT BOUND
PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA
52
Amboy Camat and Willie Del Rosario were accused of robbery with homicide. Camat
implicated Del Rosario in
his extra-judicial confession. An extrajudicial confession is binding on
ly upon the confessant and is not
admissible against his co-accused. As against the latter, the confession is hear
say.
WHO MAY RAISE THE
QUESTION
PEOPLE VS BALISTEROS, 237
SCRA 499

A confession taken in violation of Sec 12 and 17 of Article III sha

ll be inadmissible in evidence against the
confessant and the objection can be raised only by the confessant whose right ha
ve been violated since such right
is personal in nature.
WHEN MUST THE
OBJECTION BE RAISED
PEOPLE VS SAMUS, G.R. NO.
135957, SEPT. 17, 2002
Having made no timely objection to a testimony before the trial court, an appell
ant cannot raise such question for
the first time on appeal because as such a point the prosecution can
no longer present additional evidence as
substitute for that which is claimed to be inadmissible.
PEOPLE VS MONTILLA, 285
SCRA 703
A plea is tantamount to foregoing an objection to the irregularity of ones arrest.
PEOPLE VS SALVATIERRA, 276
SCRA 55
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition
of jurisdiction over the person of
an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is d
eemed waived.
GAMBOA VS JUDGE CRUZ, 162
SCRA 675
Police line-up is not part of custodial investigation because the poli
ce officer has not started to ask questions
designed to elicit information and/or confession. Presence of counsel is not yet
required.
MACASIRAY VS PEOPLE, 291
SCRA 154
Objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally off
ered, and in the case of documentary
evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer ha
ve testified, specifying the purpose
which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this time, and not at any oth
er, that objection to the documentary
evidence may be made.
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
PEOPLE VS ESPIRITU, 302 SCRA
533
The confession of Appellant Espiritu is admissible in evidence since it was show
n that it was (1) voluntary and
(2) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counselit
being enough that the counsel is (1)
engaged by anyone acting on behalf of the person under investigation or (2) appo
inted by the court upon petition
of the said person or by someone on his behalf.
PEOPLE VS LUMANDONG, 327
SCRA 650
Anent the issue of admissibility of the extrajudicial confession of th
e appellant, this Court is guided by four
fundamental requirements, namely: 1) the confession must be voluntary; 2) the co
nfession must be made with the
assistance of competent and independent counsel; 3) the confession must be expre
ss; and 4) the confession must
be in writing.
An extrajudicial confession will be struck for being involuntary if it had been
obtained with the use of coercion,

intimidation, inducement or false promises.

RIGHTS AFTER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
PEOPLE VS ALICANDO, 251
SCRA 293
The burden to prove that an accused waived his right to remain silent and the ri
ght to counsel before
making a confession under custodial interrogation rests with the prosecution
PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN, 194
SCRA 191
The receipt signed by de guzman stating that marijuana was seized from him is eq
uates to a confession by him.
This, being signed through force and intimidation when policemen pointed their g
uns at him, is inadmissible in
evidence as it was signed without the presence of a counsel and without him bein
g informed of his constitutional
rights.
SECTION 14
DUE PROCESS
PEOPLE VS BORAS, G.R. NO.
127495, DEC. 22, 2000
In consonance with the rights secured by section 14 of Article III of the Consti
tution, accused-appellant cannot
be convicted for the alleged rapes committed other than the one charg
ed in the information, even if the victim
testified to other occasions of rape committed against her by the accused.
PEOPLE VS HORIO, G.R. NO.
137842, AUG. 23, 2002
The retroactive application of procedural rules cannot adversely affect the righ
ts of the offended party that have
become vested prior to the effectivity of said rules.
MILITARY TRIBUNAL
OLAGUER VS MILITARY, 150
SCRA 144
Trial contemplated in the Constitution is trial by judicial process and military
tribunals are not courts.
TAN VS BARRIOS, 190 SCRA 685 There should be no retroactive nullification
of final judgments, whether of conviction or acquittal, rendered by
military courts against civilians before the promulgation of the Olague
r decision unless when the convicted
person or the State shows that there was serious denial of the Constitutional ri
ghts of the accused.
PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE
UNITED STATES VS LULING,
324 PHIL 725
Accused alleges that Section 316 of Act No. 355 is unconstitutional because it s
ays that certain facts only shall
constitute prima facie proof of guilt; it is established in criminal law that ev
ery man is presumed innocent until
his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt but many States have established a d
ifferent rule and have provided
that certain facts only shall constitute prima facie evidence.
PEOPLE VS MINGOA, 92 PHIL
856
Mingoa committed malversation of public funds in Romblon, and the court hel
d that Art. 217 of the RPC does
not violate the constitutional rights of the accused to be presumed i
nnocent since Art. 217 just provides a
rebuttable presumption of guilt once certain facts are proved and that

there was a rational connection between

said facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed in the article.
DUMLAO VS COMELEC, 95
SCRA 392
The provision of Election Code that the filing of charges for the commission of
crimes before a civil or military
court shall be prima facie evidence of the commission of an act of disloyalty to
the State was declared void as it
condemns before one is fully heard, in contravention of constitutional presumpti
on of innocence.
PAMINTUAN VS PEOPLE, 234
SCRA 63
Since Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 expressly provides that "mere possession of any
good, article, item, object, or
anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be pri
ma facie evidence of fencing," it
follows that the petitioner is presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the i
tems found in her possession were
the proceeds of robbery or theft. The presumption is reasonable for no other nat
ural or logical inference can arise
from the established fact of her possession of the proceeds of the crime of robb
ery or theft and this presumption
does not offend the presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law.
MARQUEZ VS COMELEC, 243
SCRA 538
Marquez raised the constitutionality of the term fugitive from justice i
n relation to the constitutional right of
the presumption of innocence, which was one of the enumerated grounds
for disqualification under the Local
Government Code, and the court held that the said provision is consti
tutional since flight from justice is an
indication of guilt hence it is not the challenged disqualifying provi
sion which overcomes the presumption of
innocence but rather the disqualified person himself who has proven his guilt.
HIZON VS CA, 265 SCRA 517 In Hizon vs. CA the SC ruled that the presumption of g
uilt based on the facts proves is not unconstitutional, the
finding of explosives, poisonous substances, and devices for electric f
ishing found in the boat will even lead a
reasonably prudent man to believe that the person was engaged in prohibited fish
ing.
PEOPLE VS CARANGUIAN, G.R.
NO. 124514, JULY 6, 2000
A witness can only testify to those information which he knows of his personal
knowledge derived from his own
perception, except as otherwise provided in the rules, else it is hea
rsay because it is based upon "third-hand"
information related to the witness by someone who heard it from others.
PEOPLE VS AQUINO, G.R. NO.
130742, JULY 18, 2000
When a testimony is capable of two inferences, one of which is consistent with t
he presumption of innocence of
accused- appellant of the crime charged and the other consistent with her guilt
as co principal in the commission
of the crime of estafa, the situation calls for the application of the equipoise
rule; pursuant to which the Court has
to acquit accused-appellant because the prosecutions evidence does not f
ulfill the test of moral certainty and
therefor is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction
PEOPLE VS GUILLERMO, G.R.
NO. 111292, JULY 20, 2000

Even if the killing is deplorable, especially the manner in which it was done, t
he accused should not be loosely
persecuted and condemned in the absence of the required quantum of proof.
PEOPLE VS BALACANO, G.R.
NO. 127156, JULY 31, 2000
The Constitution enshrines in the Bill of Rights the right of the ac
cused to be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and to overcome the presumption, nothing but proof
beyond reasonable doubt must be
established by the prosecution.
PEOPLE VS MANSUETO, G.R.
NO. 135196, JULY 31, 2000
Even though an accused invokes the inherently weak defense of alibi,
such defense acquires commensurate
strength where no positive and proper identification has been made by
the prosecution witnesses, as the
prosecution still has the onus probandi (burden of proof) in establishing the gu
ilt of the accused.
SORIANO VS ANGELES, G.R.
NO. 109920, AUGUST 31, 2000
If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of one or more
explanations, one of which is consistent
with innocence and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evid
ence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.
PEOPLE VS FAJARDO, G.R. NO.
128583, NOV. 22, 2000
Since appellant did not present Pamani, the person who was allegedly
responsible for the recruitment, as a
witness to back up her claim, she risked the adverse inference and l
egal presumption that evidence would be
evidence adverse if produced.
RUEDA VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
G.R. NO. 129064, NOV. 29, 2000
The prima facie evidence that public funds have been put to the pers
onal use of a municipal treasurer is
obliterated by the fact that he did not receive the money and the Court must not
reject arbitrarily an explanation
consistent with the presumption of innocence.
PEOPLE VS BAULITE, G.R. NO.
137599, OCT. 8, 2001
In the case at bar because of reasonable doubt as to the guilt of
the accused-appellant, they must be acquitted.
"Every accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved; that
presumption is solemnly guaranteed by
the Bill of Rights. The contrary requires proof beyond reasonable doub
t, or that degree of proof that produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Short of this, it is not only the right of t
he accused to be freed; it is even the
constitutional duty of the court to acquit them.
RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND TO
PRODUCTION IF EVIDENCE
MALIWAT VS CA, 256 SCRA 718 Although Maliwat was unable to adduce additional evi
dence that would establish his innocence, it was noted that
he had sought the postponements and cancellations of the hearings for no less th
an 40 times from the date of his
arraignment to the promulgation of judgment.
PEOPLE VS BUEMIO, 265 SCRA
582
Both parties must be granted the right to be heard and to produce evidence that

should be considered under the

circumstances of the case in accordance with due process.
PEOPLE VS RAMILLA, G.R. NO.
127485, JULY 19, 1999
Fernando was not denied his right to due process because he was afforded the opp
ortunity to present evidence.
His offer to change his plea from not guilty to guilty clearly meant he accepted
the evidence against him and that
he had nothing with which to rebut it.
MARQUEZ VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, 641 SCRA
175
Evidence cannot properly be weighed if not exhibited or produced befor
e the court.14 Only after evidence is
offered and admitted that the court can appreciate and evaluate it. T
he prosecution had already offered its
evidence on the
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
PEOPLE VS HOLGADO, 86 PHIL
752
When a defendant appears without attorney, the court has four importan
t duties to comply with: 1 It must
inform the defendant that it is his right to have attorney before be
ing 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.
UNITED VS ASH, 413 US 300 A number of informants were asked to identify
a number of suspects in connection with a bank robbery, such
identification was challenged by Respondent Ash because counsel was not present.
An accused does not have the
right to counsel at a post indictment photographic lineup.
PEOPLE VS RIO, 201 SCRA 702 The right to a counsel does not only involve the act
of the Court to inform the accused of such right and whether
he desires such aid or not, the Court should assign one counsel de oficio for hi
m if he desires yet he is poor or
allow him to procure an attorney of his own within a reasonable time
; such right should not cease upon the
conviction of an accused by a trial court.
SALAW VS NLRC, 202 SCRA 7 The right to counsel, a very basic requirement
of substantive due process, has to be observed and cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
CARILLO VS PEOPLE, 229 SCRA
386
Carillo claims he was deprived of his right to competent representatio
n and his right to be heard due to the
incompetence and gross negligence of his lawyer. If Carillo had substa
ntial doubts about the capability of his
counsel, he could have easily terminated his services and retained a
new one or sought from the trial court the
appointment of counsel de officio. Courts deems that counsel proved to
represent his client with reasonable
competence.
PEOPLE VS MACAGALING, 237
SCRA 299
There is no denial of the right to counsel where a counsel de ofici
o was appointed during the absence of the
accuseds counsel de parte pursuant to the courts desire to finish the

case as early as practicable under the

continuous trial system.
DE GUZMAN VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, 256 SCRA
171
For the higher interest of justice and equity, the Court may grant new trial in
case of the mistakes and negligence
of his incompetent lawyer.
PEOPLE VS CUIZON, 256 SCRA
329
The right to counsel is essentially denied if the counsel and the accused could
not understand and communicate
with each other regarding his defense to the point that no memorandum was filed.
PEOPLE VS CABODOC, 263
SCRA 187
While the accused under the Bill of Rights has the right to be heard by himself
and counsel, such right may be
waived just like any other personal right.
PEOPLE VS ECHEGARAY, 267
SCRA 543
It is a rule that the client is bound by the negligence or mistakes of his couns
el but the Supreme Court considered
Atty. Vitug competent contrary to what the defense thought of him as
the alleged errors committed by the
previous counsel could not have overturned the judgment of the conviction agains
t the accused.
REYES VS CA, 267 SCRA 543 The negligence of the counsel must be so gross
that it would become a prejudice to the clients constitutional
right to be heard and to prove his innocence.
PEOPLE VS SERZO, 274 SCRA
553
The right to a counsel is not violated when a court appoints a counsel for the a
ccused, in cases where the choice
of the accused of his counsel de parte is waived or in any way not
qualified as a counsel, and in this case, the
accused had been given ample time to secure a counsel of his choice but failed t
o do so.
DANS VS PEOPLE, 285 SCRA
504
Marcos claims that she was not adequately represented by counsel at t
he trial due to the suspension from the
practice of law of her counsel of record but it appears from the records, howeve
r, that during the absence of Atty.
Coronel and sometime thereafter, she was still represented by other la
wyers.
In any event, at the time Atty.
Coronel and his replacements withdrew their respective appearances, all evidence
had already been presented; it
is just that Marcos opted not to present any evidence for her defense, relying,
perhaps, on what she perceived to
be glaringly weak prosecution evidence or it is not impossible or far-fetched th
at her refusal may have been due
to her indifference to or open defiance of the justice system.
AMION VS CHIONGSON, A.M.
NO. RTJ-97-1371, JAN. 22, 1999
There is no denial of the right to counsel where a counsel de o cio was appointed
during the absence
of the accuseds counsel de parte pursuant to the courts desire to
nish
the case as early as
practicable under the continuous trial system
PEOPLE VS AMBRAY, G.R. NO.

127177, FEB. 25, 1999

The qualifying circumstance that the victim is under 18 years old and that the o
ffender is a common law spouse
of the victims mother was not alleged in the indictment in which he
was arraigned thus imposing a penalty of
reclusion perpetua instead of death penalty, its qualified form and P5
0,000 each for indemnity and moral
damages.
PEOPLE VS BOLATETE, G.R.
NO. 127570, FEB. 25, 1999
Although it was established that the accused is the step-father of the victim, t
he qualifying circumstance was not
alleged in the criminal complaints upon which the accused was arraigned and thus
, this omission bars conviction
of rape in its qualified form which is punishable by death.
PEOPLE VS DELA CUESTA, G.R.
NO. 126134, MAR. 2, 1999
There is a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape, on which he
was arraigned, and be convicted
of qualified rape punishable by death.
PEOPLE VS LAKINDANUM,
G.R. NO. 127123, MAR. 10, 1999
Rape was committed 10 oclock in the morning on the 8
the minor testified showing discernment and stated the crime straightforward.
PEOPLE VS CANTOS, G.R. NO.
129298, APRIL 14, 1999
The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on the accused because in or
der to warrant the imposition of
such, the concurrence of victims minority and her relationship with the
offender is a special qualifying
circumstance that must be alleged in the information.
PEOPLE VS ALBA, G.R. NO.
131858-59, APRIL 14, 1999
Accused contends that the charge of rape against him is too general, as a result
of which he was not informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him in violation of d
ue process, but this contention is untenable
because an information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory de
signation of the offense and the acts
or omissions constitutive thereof.
PEOPLE VS ONABIA, G.R. NO.
128288, APRIL 20, 1999
Onabia was accused of rape, and the court held that even if some ag
gravating circumstances can be proved in
trial such as relationship, these circumstances cannot be considered if
not included in the information filed
against Onabia.
PEOPLE VS BERNAS, G.R. NO.
120420, APRIL 21, 1999
The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the cour
troom or the mere propounding
of standards of questions and objections, but it means that the accus
ed is amply accorded legal assistance
extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause of the defense and acts a
ccordingly.
PEOPLE VS PEDRES, G.R. NO.
129533, APRIL 30, 1999
None about right to counsel.
PEOPLE VS ACALA, G.R. NO.
127023-25, MAY 19, 1999

Rey Acala raped his minor daughter on three counts but the death penalty was not
imposed because the special
qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship must be both alleg
ed and proved with certainty to be
appreciated however in this case, although it was clear that the vict
im was his daughter (relationship), her age
(minority) was not alleged in any of the complaints.
PEOPLE VS PUERTOLLANO,
G.R. NO. 122423, JUNE 17, 1999
(There was no right to be heard in the case, it was about DP) In
the case the SC said that the RTC wrongly
applied Section 11 of RA 7659 in relation to Paragraph 1 of Article 355, rape, o
f the RPC. The RA states that the
death penalty will be imposed if the person raped is below 18, and has a relatio
n to the offender. The complaint
only stated that the victim was a minor. The information has to be explicit as t
o the age of the victim.
PEOPLE VS BONGHANOY, G.R.
NO. 124097, JUNE 17, 1999
Even if relationship was duly proven during the trial, it cannot be taken into a
ccount since he would thereby be
denied his constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and c
ause of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS LARENA, G.R. NO.
121205-09, JUNE 29, 1999
Denial, like alibi, is a weak defense which becomes even weaker in the face of t
he positive identification of the
accused by the complaining witness.
PEOPLE VS NUNEZ, G.R. NO.
128875, JULY 8, 1999
In this case, accuseds counsel and the trial court led him to believe that his pl
ea of guilty would be a mitigating
circumstance in his favour when in fact it wouldnt. However, it is a
settled rule that a decision based on an
irregular plea may nevertheless be upheld where the judgment is suppor
ted by other adequate evidence on
record.
PEOPLE VS RAMILLA, G.R. NO.
127485, JULY 19, 1999
Accuseds right to due process is not violated for as long as he was given the opp
ortunity to present evidence.
PEOPLE VS SESBRENO, G.R.
NO. 121764, SEPT. 8, 1999
Appellant chose to be represented in this case by a competent member of the Bar,
namely himself, even if there
were other available counsel and so he is now estopped from claiming that the tr
ial court violated his right to be
represented by his counsel of his own choice.
PEOPLE VS SANTOCLIDES, G.R.
NO. 109149, DEC. 21, 1999
Where an accused was not duly represented by a member of the Philippine Bar duri
ng trial, even if the accused
was given an opportunity to be heard and the acting lawyer handled the case of t
he accused in a professional and
skillful manner, the judgment should be set aside and the case remanded to the t
rial court for a new trial.
PEOPLE VS SALONGA, G.R. NO.
131131, JUNE 21, 2001
The constitutional right to counsel may be invoked only by a person under custod
ial investigation for an offense

and does not apply in this case where the accused-appellants extrajudic
ial confession was given to a private
person, and not to a police officer or law enforcer.
PEOPLE VS BAGAS, G.R. NO.
104383, JULY 12, 2001
The police line-up is not included in the custodial investigation as
it is the witnesses who are asked questions
during the line-up and since the inquiry has not yet shifted from investigatory
to accusatory, the right to counsel
cannot be invoked by the accused.
PEOPLE VS LIWANAG, G.R. NO.
120468, AUGUST 15, 2001
Coupled with the presumption that counsel s performance was reasonable under the
circumstances, as long as the
trial was fair in that the accused was accorded due process by means of an effec
tive assistance of counsel, then
the constitutional requirement that an accused shall have the right to be heard
by himself and counsel is satisfied
wherein the only instance when the quality of counsel s assistance can
be questioned is when an accused is
deprived of his right to due process.
PEOPLE VS BERNAS, 377 SCRA
391
The defense counsel was lackadaisical, if not outrightly incompetent, and did no
t only fail to protect the rights of
his client but even advised him to plead guilty to the information that had fail
ed to allege the essential elements
of qualified rape.
PEOPLE VS CARALIPIO, G.R.
NO. 137766, NOV. 27, 2002
While the Constitution recognizes the right of the accused to competen
t and independent counsel of their own
choice, their option to secure the services of a private counsel is not absolute
, such as when the insistence of the
accused in acquiring the services of counsel de parte was merely a s
trategy to prolong the proceedings of the
case.
SIA VS PEOPLE, 504 SCRA 507 We agree with herein respondent Lee when she said th
at petitioners were given ample time by the trial court to
get a counsel of their choice, but did not. ven if we were to exte
nd the choice of a counsel to an accused in a
criminal prosecution, the matter of the accused getting a lawyer of h
is preference cannot be so absolute and
arbitrary as would make the choice of counsel refer exclusively to the predilect
ion of the accused.
BRIONES VS PEOPLE, 588 SCRA
362
An error or mistake committed by a counsel in the course of judicial proceedings
is not a ground for new trial. In
People v. Mercado (397 SCRA 746 [2003]), we declared: It has been re
peatedly enunciated that a client is
bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and cannot be heard
to complain that the result might
have been different if he proceeded differently.
VILLANUEVA VS PEOPLE, 644
SCRA 356
If one has to suffer in prison, his/her guilt must be established beyond reasona
ble doubt, availing all the remedies
provided for under the law to protect her right it is highly unjust for one to l
ose her liberty only because of the

gross negligence of her former counsel.

ABSENCE OF VIOLATION
PEOPLE VS AQUINO, G.R. NO.
129288, MARCH 30, 2000
Accuseds contention that the police line-up was not objective and fair
is untenable. A police line-up is not
indispensable for the proper and fair identification of offenders, the important
consideration is for the victim to
positively declare that the persons charged were the malefactors.
VILLANUEVA VS PEOPLE, G.R.
NO. 135098, APRIL 12, 2000
A member of the Bar can represent the petitioner without violating his constitut
ional right to counsel.
PRESENCE OF VIOLATION
PEOPLE VS NADERA, 324 SCRA
490
It is discernible in (a) his refusal to cross-examine; (b) the manner
in which he conducted cross-examination;
and, (c) his failure not only to present evidence for the accused but also to in
form the accused of his right to do
so, if he desires.
CALLANGAN VS PEOPLE, 493
SCRA 269
The omissions of petitioners counsel amounted to an abandonment or total disregar
d of her case. The rule that
the negligence of counsel binds the client admits of exceptions: (1)
counsels reckless or gross negligence
deprives client of due process of law, (2) its application results in
outright deprivation of the clients liberty or
property or (3) where the interests of justice so require.
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
PEOPLE VS REGALA, 113 SCRA
613
When a crime is not properly alleged in the body of the information,
the fact that the crime of assault was
established by the evidence of the prosecution without any objection a
s the part of the accused cant likewise
cure the aforestated defect in the information since it is a violation of his co
nstitutional right to be informed of
the malice and cause of the accusations against him.
ENRILE VS SALAZAR, 186
SCRA 217
As laid down in Hernandez doctrine, an information charging the petiti
oners with rebellion complexed with
murder and multiple frustrated murder is clearly void ab initio and therefore, c
harges nothing.
PEOPLE VS TAGUBA, 229 SCRA
188
Accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation agasint him and could only be
penalized for offenses stated in the information.
PEOPLE VS BARTE, 230 SCRA
401
Considering that nowhere in the Information is it alleged that he used an unlice
nsed firearm, an accused cannot
be convicted of Murder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm under P.D. 1866, even if t
he prosecution has established
that accused-appellant was not legally issued any firearm to qualify the crime t
o Murder with Use of Unlicensed
Firearm, because it would violate a fundamental constitutional precept, i.e., th

at the accused shall have the right

to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS VITOR, 245 SCRA
392
The testimony of children of sound mind is likewise to be more correct and truth
ful than that of older persons so
that once established that they have fully understood the character and nature o
f an oath, their testimony should
be given full credence
SABINIANO VS CA, 249 SCRA
24
A mere signature or approval appearing on a voucher, check or warrant
is not enough to sustain a finding of
conspiracy among public officials and employees charged with defraudatio
n. Proof, not mere conjectures or
assumptions, should be proffered to indicate that the accused had taken part.
PEOPLE VS REYES, 242 SCRA
264
The fact that there are only two complainants alleged in the informat
ion when in fact there should have been
more is not a violation of the right to be informed.
PEOPLE VS LEGASPI, 246 SCRA
206
Appellants were charged with two separate informations but their convic
tion can only be limited to the crime
alleged or necessarily included in the allegations in the separate informations.
What controls is the description of
the offense, as alleged in the information. While the trial court can hold a joi
nt trial of two or more criminal cases
and can render a consolidated decision, it cannot convict the accused
of a complex crime constitutive of the
various crimes alleged in the two informations. Thus, the accused were deprived
of their constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.
PEOPLE VS RAMOS, 245 SCM
405
A reading of the information clearly shows that accused-appellant was charged wi
th the commission of
only one act of rape. He can, therefore, be convicted of only one c
rime of rape even if the evidence
shows that two separate acts of rape were committed.
PEOPLE VS NAMAYAN, 246
SCRA 646
Even if it was proven that there were three acts of rape, there can
be prosecution for only one since the
information filed charges one offense only.
PECHO VS PEOPLE, 262 SCRA
518
There is absolutely no merit in the petitioners claim that he could n
ot be convicted of the said crime without
offending his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation aga
inst him, as what determines the
real nature and cause of accusation against an accused is the actual
recital of facts stated in the information or
complaint and not the caption or preamble of the information or complaint nor th
e specification of the provision
of law alleged to have been violated.
PEOPLE VS LAURENTE, 255
SCRA 543
On the matter of the an accused right to be informed of the nature and cause of

the accusation, what determines

the offense charged is not the characterization made by the prosecutor
who prepared the information, but the
allegations in the indictment.
PEOPLE VS ROSARE, 264 SCRA
398
Carnal knowledge of an insane woman is rape. There is lack of capacit
y to consent and it is presumed without
her consent.
PEOPLE VS EVANGELISTA, 256
SCRA 611
In the event that the accused gives a confession without the benefit of being wa
rned of his rights to remain silent
and to counsel, the evidence will be inadmissible this is the so-called Miranda w
arnings and it only applies
when the investigation has began to focus on the guilt of an accused and the lat
ter has been taken into custody.
PEOPLE VS CRUZ, 259 SCRA
109
From the victims testimony, accused succeeded in raping her in the pas
t but not on April 25, 1991, accused
cannot be convicted for consummated rape on the basis of the testimon
y as the complaint specifically refers to
the offense committed on April 25; due process demands that the accused in a cri
minal case should be informed
of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial
to convict him for an offense not
alleged in the complaint will violate such right.
PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN, 265
SCRA 228
De Guzman was accused of rape, and the court held that there can on
ly be one conviction for rape if the
information charges only one offense, even if the evidence shows three separate
acts of sexual intercourse.
SALUD IMSON-SOUWEHA VS
RONDEZ, 279 SCRA 258
The Court ruled that the respondent in this case was not reprimanded by virtue o
f his alleged falsification since it
would be in contravention of his fundamental right to be informed of
the nature of the charge for which he is
being held to be accountable.
PEOPLE VS MANANSALA, 273
SCRA 502
The decision of the trial court was reversed and Dante Manansala was
acquitted because Considering the
allegations in the complaint that the rape in this case was committed
by means of force, violence and
intimidation, accused-appellant cannot possibly be convicted of qualified
seduction without offense to the
constitutional rights of the accused to due process and to be informed of the ac
cusation against him. That charge
does not include qualified seduction. Neither can qualified seduction include r
ape.
PEOPLE VS PALOMAR, 278
SCRA 114
Palomar et al were found guilty of killing the dela Pea family howeve
r, even if the prosecution had actually
proven four separate counts of murder, the Information charged only th
e complex crime of multiple murder
without specifying the participation of each accused in the killing of each vict

im; thus, the appellants cannot be

convicted of four counts of murder because to do so would contravene
appellants right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against them and if found guilty, to be penal
ized only for the offense specified
in the information or necessarily included in such offense.
PEOPLE VS ORTEGA, 276 SCRA
166
In the case of People vs. Ortega the prosecution alleged in its information that
Ortega assaulted and stabbed the
body of Ablola, but the evidence pointed to him only concealing the crime. The
SC held that a person can not be
convicted of an offense which is not clearly charged in the complaint and the in
formation.
PEOPLE VS ANTIDO, 278 SCRA
425
If indeed purported victim were raped, she would not have stayed in accuseds hous
e after said incident, as there
was no credible evidence that accused prevented victim from detaining her agains
t her will and the relationship
of the accused and victim after the incidents raise serious doubts as to the com
mission of rape.
PEOPLE VS SADIOSA, 290 SCRA
92
Right to be Informed; The main purpose of the requirement that the a
cts or omissions complained of as
constituting an offense must be stated in ordinary and concise languag
e is to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged so that he could su
itably prepare for his defense
PEOPLE VS VILLAMORE, G.R.
NO. 12444, OCT. 7, 1998
The failure to state the age of the complainant in the information cannot be con
sidered as a violation of the right
of the accused to be informed of the charge against him where it wo
uld be illogical not to assume that when
accused ravished the complainant, he was aware that his victim was a
mere slip of a girl, unsophisticated and
defense-less.
There was a substantial compliance when the Order issued by the inves
tigating judge, a copy of which was
attached in the record of the preliminary investigation, clearly stated that the
complainant was nine years old.
PEOPLE VS ROSARE, 264 SCRA
398
An incomplete information filed does not bar a case from pursuing.
PEOPLE VS LLAGUNO, 285
SCRA 124
Accused Wilfredo (Boy) Llaguno and Judy Reyes pleaded not guilty to t
he charge but accused Atis was at
large; hence, he was not arraigned. (note: there was no issue in the
case on the right to be informed; I got this
from the FACTS of the case)
PEOPLE VS BUGAYONG, G.R.
NO. 126518, DEC. 2, 1998
Accused cannot be said to have been deprived of his constitutional right to be i
nformed of the accusation against
him since despite the duplicitous nature of the information filed against him, w
hich as a general rule, is defective
for charging more than one offense, he did not object to such defect.

PEOPLE VS MANALILI, 294

SCRA 220
To convict an accused of an offense other than that charged in the
complaint or information (in this case:
attempted robbery, multiple frustrated murder and qualified illegal poss
ession of firearms used in multiple
murder) would be violative of his constitutional right.
PEOPLE VS DIMAPILIS, G.R.
NO. 128619, DEC. 17, 1998
One accused of qualified rape cannot be meted the death penalty where the relati
onship between the accused and
the victimthe daughter of accuseds common-law spouse by the latters previous relati
onship with another man
has not been properly alleged in the Information which erroneously referred to th
e victim as being, instead, the
step-daughter of the accused because a step-daughter is a daughter of ones spouse b
y a previous marriage or
the daughter of one of the spouses by a former marriage.
PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN, 289
SCRA 470
The essence of the plea of guilty in a criminal trial is that the accused admits
his guilt freely, voluntarily, and with
full knowledge of the consequences and meaning of his act, and with a clear unde
rstanding of the precise nature
of the crime or crimes charged in the complaint or information and a
plea of guilty, when formally entered on
arraignment, is sufficient to sustain a conviction of any offense char
ged in the information without the
introduction of further evidence, the defendant himself having supplied the nece
ssary proof by his plea of guilty.
PEOPLE VS QUITLONG, 292
SCRA 360
The complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance
necessary to constitute the crime
charged.
PEOPLE VS PEREZ, G.R. NO.
122764, SEPT. 24, 1998
It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of
the charges against him and, consequently, a
denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape and be con
victed of its qualified form punishable by
death, although the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and r
esulting in capital punishment was not
alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned.
PEOPLE VS RENIDO, 288 SCRA
369
Appellant cannot be held liable for more than what he was charged with. There ca
n only be a conviction for two
counts of rape because each of the two informations charges only one offense of
rape, even if the evidence shows
that six separate acts of forcible sexual intercourse took place.
PEOPLE VS VENERABLE, 290
SCRA 15
It is well-settled that if the information charges only one offense, even if the
evidence shows three other acts of
forcible intercourse, conviction for only one rape is proper.
PEOPLE VS LOZANO, G.R. NO.
125080, SEPT. 25, 1998
An accused cannot be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in th
e complaint or information; one

has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
, and to convict him of an offense
other than that charged in the complaint or information would be a violation of
this constitutional right, even if
the evidence shows three separate acts of a crime. (Hornbook Doctrine)
PEOPLE VS PADILLA, G.R. NO.
126124, JAN. 20, 1999
The minor inconsistencies in the rape victims testimonies are to be expected of a
young girl who has been raped
and do not detract from the veracity of such testimony.
PEOPLE VS ACOSTA, G.R. NO.
142726, OCTOBER 17, 2011
It is a violation of the right to be informed if an accused is convicted of qual
ified rape which the elements and
circumstances were not brought upon and informed to him because he wa
s arraigned of a different crime of
simple rape.
PEOPLE VS DE LA PENA, G.R.
NO. 138358-59, NOV. 19, 2001
The conviction of an accused of a crime in its qualified form, where
the information failed to specify the
circumstance that qualified the crime, is a denial of his right to b
e informed of the nature of the accusation
against him.
PEOPLE VS ABINO, G.R. NO.
137288, DEC. 11, 2001
Abino cannot be convicted of rape committed through intimidation as a result of
his moral ascendancy, even if it
were proven beyond reasonable doubt since the Information was alleging rape of a
woman who was asleep and
unconscious. Convicting him of rape done by intimidation violates his right to be
informed of nature and cause
of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS TAN, G.R. NO.
116200-02, JUNE 21, 2001
Accused cant be convicted of a crime with which they were not charged
since it is not the designation of the
offense in the information described by the prosecution that governs, rather it
is the allegations
PEOPLE VS TAGANA, G.R. NO.
137608-09, JULY 6, 2001
The precise date of the commission of the offense need not be stated
with particularity nor is time an essential
ingredient of rape; however, so as to not to deprive the accused of his constitu
tional right to be informed of the
charges against him, the date must be stated as near to the actual
date as the information will permit so as to
afford the defendant an opportunity to prepare an intelligent defense.
PEOPLE VS ALCALDE, G.R. NO.
139225, MAY 29, 2002
Included in the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation is the correlative obligation to
convey to the accused information in order to prepare for his defense.
PEOPLE VS MEJECA, G.R. NO.
146425, NOV. 21, 2002
The use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of murder or homi
cide is a qualifying circumstance.
Following the well established rules pertinent to this issue, the impo
sition of capital punishment on accusedappellant is improper absent the express allegation of such qualifying

circumstance, otherwise it would violate

his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS ESURINA, 374 SCRA
429
Testimony of a person as to his age, although a hearsay, is admissible as eviden
ce of family tradition, it cannot be
considered as proof of age beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE VS TOGUD, 375 SCRA
291
The judge must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full compr
ehension by the accused of his
plea of guilt.
PEOPLE VS ESPEJON, 377 SCRA
412
There is no violation of the right to be informed on the basis of
the prosecutions failure to allege the specific
actual date of the rape since the exact date of the commission of the crime is n
ot an essential element of rape, for
the gravemen of the offense is the fact of having had carnal knowled
ge of a woman by means of force or
intimidation.
PEOPLE VS LAVADOR, 377
SCRA 424
Under Sec. 11 of RA 7659, the death penalty shall be imposed for th
e crime of rape if the victim is under
eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common
-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
These must be jointly alleged in the information in order to afford
the accused his right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him; otherwise the accused can only b
e convicted of the crime in its
simple form.
PEOPLE VS HERMANES, 379
SCRA 190
Appellant s conviction of quali ed rape violates his constitutional right
to be properly informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against him because only the elements of simple r
ape was established
by the prosecution.
PEOPLE VS PORTUGAL, 379
SCRA 212
Minority was not included in the information. Therefore, the penalty of death ca
nnot be imposed because it has
been held that minority and relationship should both be alleged in th
e information in order to impose death
penalty.
PEOPLE VS BALUYA, 380 SCRA
533
The accused is only liable for simple rape, considering that the seven attendant
circumstances are in the nature of
special qualifying circumstances which, unlike generic aggravating circumstances
which may be appreciated and
proved even if not alleged, cannot be considered as such unless so alleged in th
e information even if proved.
PEOPLE VS AROFO, 380 SCRA
533
As a general rule, inconsistency between two statements of a witness
should be determined, not by resort to

individual words and phrases alone, but by the whole impression or effect of wha
t has been said or done.
PEOPLE VS CANA, G.R. NO.
139229, JUNE 6, 2002
Complainant was below 12 years of age, even though there was no force or intimid
ation, carnal knowledge of the
woman is rape.
PEOPLE VS SORIANO, G.R. NO.
135027, JULY 3, 2002
The accused can only be held liable for the rape committed near the creek becaus
e he cannot be convicted of a
crime with which he has not been charged even if the evidence shows that he comm
itted the same.
PEOPLE VS RADAM, G.R. NO.
138395, JULY 18, 2002
Although the rape of a girl under 18 years of age by the common-law spouse of th
e victims mother is punishable
by death, this penalty cannot be imposed on appellant as a different relationshi
p was alleged in the Information
and the victims minority was not proved by independent evidence.
PEOPLE VS ABALA, G.R. NO.
135858, JULY 23, 2002
Abala was accused of rape, and the court held that Abala cannot be c
onvicted of qualified rape since only the
qualifying circumstance of minority was alleged in the information even
if the circumstance of relationship,
which was not alleged in the information, was also proven during trial.
PEOPLE VS ROMERO, G.R. NO.
137037, AUG. 5, 2002
The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and ruled that delay in revea
ling the commission of rape is not
an indication of a fabricated charge.
PEOPLE VS MAGTIBAY, G.R.
NO. 142985, AUG. 6, 2002
The penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of rape was affirmed
because ot appears that there was no
allegation of the age and minority of the victim in the Information. The requisi
te for complete allegations on the
particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully i
nformed of the nature of the charges
against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense, pursua
nt to the due process clause of the
Constitution.
PEOPLE VS MICLAT, G.R. NO.
137024, AUG. 7, 2002
The prosecution proved that Miclat is the maternal uncle of his rape
victim, which relationship falls within the
purview of the qualifying circumstance of relative by consanguinity with
in the third civil degree of the
victim
however, only the minority of the victim was alleged in the
information notwithstanding that the law
requires allegation of both the victims age and her relationship with appellant,
and proof of both circumstances
beyond reasonable doubt at the trial hence, Miclat can only be held liable for s
imple rape and the death penalty
imposed by the trial court must be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE VS GUARDIAN, G.R.
NO. 142900, AUG. 7, 2002
As a general rule, a complaint must charge only one offense, but it can charge f
or more than one offense if the

law provides a single punishment for various offenses.

PEOPLE VS OCAMPO, G.R. NO.
145303, AUG. 7, 2002
While appellant admits that the complainant is her daughter and that there is ev
idence to show that the latter was
less than eighteen years of age when the crime was committed, her age was not al
leged in the Information filed
against appellant thus the special qualifying circumstance of minority
and relationship cannot be appreciated
against him.
PEOPLE VS DEL AYRE, G.R. NO.
139788, OCT. 3, 2002
The reason why the death penalty cannot be imposed, even for the sec
ond offense, is that the father-daughter
relationship of the parties was not alleged in the Information
PEOPLE VS CALISO, G.R. NO.
131475, OCT. 14, 2002
Accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape and be imposed with the
penalty of death when the information
merely charged him with simple rape and failed to specify the rape v
ictims age at the time the crime was
committed.
PEOPLE VS BUADO, G.R. NO.
137341, OCT. 28, 2002
An appellate court will not disturb the credence the trial court accorded to the
testimonies of the witnesses unless
the trial court is shown to have overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded the facts
and circumstances of significance
in the correct resolution of the case.
PEOPLE VS ALEMANIA, G.R.
NO. 146221, NOV. 13, 2002
The conviction of an accused of a crime in its qualified form, where
the information failed to specify the
circumstance that qualified the crime, is a denial of his right to b
e informed of the nature of the accusation
against him (and, consequently, a denial of due process).
PEOPLE VS TERIBLE, G.R. NO.
140635, NOV. 18, 2002
It would be a denial of appellants constitutional right to be informed
of the charges against him and,
consequently, a denial of due process if he is charged with rape und
er paragraph 2 of Article 266-A and be
convicted of the qualified form under paragraph 1 which is punishable
with death although the same was not
alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned.
PEOPLE VS VICTOR, G.R. NO.
127904, DEC. 5, 2002
The appellants, through their failure to move for quashal before arrai
gnment, are deemed to have waived their
constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against them and are consi
dered charged with the offenses of
illegal possession of firearms and multiple murder.
PEOPLE VS VELASQUEZ, 377
SCRA 219
Under Rule 112, 7(3) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, requests for pre
liminary investigation must
be made to the trial court within five days from the time the accus
ed learns of the filing of complaint or
information.
PEOPLE VS LACHICA, G.R. NO.

143677, MAY 9, 2002

Finally, appellant relies on denial and alibi. Settled is the rule that such lin
es of defense in a criminal trial cannot
take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party and
it must be pointed out that the
circumstances of minority and relationship, as provided under paragraph 1 of Art
icle 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code as amended, must both be alleged in the information; otherwise, the penalty
of death cannot be imposed.
PEOPLE VS SAJOLGA, G.R. NO.
146684,
For the purpose of imposing death penalty, the accused must be informed of the q
ualifying circumstances of the
crime with which he is charged.
PEOPLE VS RAMOS, G.R. NO.
142577, DEC. 27, 2002
The denial of the right to be informed to the accused results to th
e violation of due process in criminal
proceedings.
PEOPLE VS MASCARINAS, G.R.
NO. 144034, MAY 28, 2002
In the instant case, the exact age of the victim should have been asserted. The
term minority is too technical and
therefore it must be stated because the age is what makes it qualified rape.
PEOPLE VS SANCHEZ, 375
SCRA 355
An accused can be convicted only of as many offenses as are charged and proved.
PEOPLE VS ABAYON, G.R. NO.
142874, JULY 31, 2002
An accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the
complaint or information since
he has that right under the Constitution to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him; it is
axiomatic that the accused can only be convicted for a crime duly charged and pr
oved.
PEOPLE VS GAVINA, G.R. NO.
143237, OCT. 28, 2002
The element of unconsciousness on the victims part was not alleged in
the information filed for rape against
accused and therefore cannot be made the basis of conviction without violating a
ppellants right to due process,
in particular to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS ORBITA, G.R. NO.
136591, JULY 11, 2002
The right to be informed includes the right to be informed clearly of how the de
cision has been reached by the
court; a person charged with rape under the first paragraph of Article 335 of th
e Revised Penal Code, they can be
convicted of the second and third paragraph of the same article even
if the information did not include the
victims mental status.
DADO VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO.
131421, NOV. 18, 2002
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall first be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against
him.
SANTOS VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO.
14761, JAN. 20, 2002
Virgilio Santos was convicted of attempted rape with the aggravating c
ircumstance of nighttime, but the latter

was not alleged. Any circumstance that would qualify or aggravate the
crime charged must be specified in the
information. A penal statute, whether substantive or procedural, shall be given
a retroactive effect if favorable to
the accused. Aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated.
PEOPLE VS BON, G.R. NO.
149199, JAN. 28, 2003
But in criminal cases, speculation and probabilities cant take the place of proof
required to establish the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion, no matter how strong, must not s
way judgment.
PEOPLE VS LLANTO, G.R. NO.
146458, JAN. 20, 2003
So as to afford fairness, if the offender is merely a relation not a parent, asce
ndant, step-parent, or guardian or
common law spouse of the mother of the victim it must be alleged in the Informat
ion that he is a relative by
consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third civil degree.
PEOPLE VS MIGRANTE, G.R.
NO. 147606, JAN. 14, 2003
Special qualifying circumstances must be concurrently and simultaneously alleged
in the information.
PEOPLE VS DY, G.R. NO.
115326-37, JAN. 16, 2003
Accused-appellants were substantially informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against them when
their counsel received a copy of the Prosecutors resolution maintaining
the charge for rape and acts of
lasciviousness. The failure to read the complaint or information in a
language or dialect known to them was
essentially a procedural infirmity that was eventually non-prejudicial to accuse
d-appellants.
PEOPLE VS LAPITAJE, G.R. NO.
132042, FEB. 19, 2003
In consonance with article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, rules are given retroac
tive effect if it is beneficial to the
accused.
PEOPLE VS OSTIA, G.R. NO.
131804, FEB. 26, 2003
The trial court is also required to probe thoroughly into the reasons as well as
the facts and circumstances for the
change of plea of the accused and his comprehension of his plea; exp
lain to him the elements of the crime for
which he is charged as well as the nature and effect of qualifying
circumstances, generic aggravating
circumstances and mitigating circumstances in the commission thereof; and inform
him of the imposable penalty
and his civil liabilities for the crime for which he would plead guilty to. Mere
ly reading and translating it to the
accused is not enough.
PEOPLE VS GANETE, G.R. NO.
142930, MARCH 28, 2003
Since the relationship of the private complainant and the appellant wa
s not alleged in the Information, the
appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape, to which the relation
ship of the accused with the victim is
substantial, otherwise he would be deprived of his right to be informed of the n
ature of the charge against him.
GARCIA VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO.
144785, SEPT. 11, 2003

The Information shall state the designation of the offense given by t

he statute and aver the acts or omissions
constituting the offense because the real nature of the crime charged
is determined by the facts alleged in the
Information and not by the title or designation of the offense contained in the
caption of the Information. What
facts and circumstances are necessary to be alleged in the Information
must be determined by reference to the
definition and essential elements of the specific crimes.
PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA, G.R.
NO. 138364, OCT. 15, 2003
Since the preamble or caption, in the case at bar, states that Rogelio Villanuev
a is her father (referring
to Reseilleta), then it adequately informed the accused that his daughter was ch
arging him of the acts
contained in the succeeding paragraph.
BURGOS VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO.
123144, OCT. 15, 2003
An information for violation of RA3019 has been filed against petition
ers but information only allege the
allowance of petitioners of payment of certain amount of money despite
knowing that survey instruments used
were not functional. Petitioners contend that information is not correc
t because the survey instruments were
functional thus they cannot be convicted of the crime. Court says information in
itself is valid. It is only that the
Sandiganbayan erred in convicting them for an act that was not alleged therein w
hich is paying the said amount
when the survey instruments are indeed operational.
PEOPLE VS ROTE, G.R. NO.
146188, DEC. 11, 2003
The Court has consistently held that where the information merely alleged the mi
nority of the victim but not the
fact of relationship with the accused, the latter is liable only for simple rape
punishable with reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE VS RATA, G.R. NO.
145523-24, DEC. 11, 2003
Where the prosecution fails to conjointly allege and prove the qualify
ing circumstances of minority and
relationship, the accused is liable only for the crime of simple rape
in line with his right to be informed of the
case against him.
ANDAYA VS PEOPLE, 493 SCRA
539
Preparation of a private document constitutes falsification when causing to appe
ar that persons have participated
in any act or proceeding when in fact they did not.
PEOPLE VS ESTRADA, 583
SCRA 302
Unfortunately for the People, the imprecision in the use of OR is the
reality the case has to live with. To act
contrary to this reality would violate Estradas right to be informed of the natur
e and cause of accusation against
him; the multiple transactions on several separate days that the People claims w
ould result in surprise and denial
of an opportunity to prepare for Estrada, who has a right to rely on the single
day mentioned in the Information.
PEOPLE VS ABELLA, 610 SCRA
19

The qualifying circumstance that the accused knew of the mental disability of th
e offended party was not alleged
in the information, thus he may only be convicted of statutory or simple rape co
mmitted with the use of a deadly
weapon instead of qualified rape.
PEOPLE VS PANGILINAN, G.R.
NO. 183090, NOV. 14, 2011
Pangilinan was accused of rape and sexual abuse, and the court held
that the information filed against him
regarding sexual abuse was void for being violative of his constitutio
nal right to be informed since it did not
contain the essential facts constituting the offense, but a statement of a concl
usion of law.
RELATIONSHIP
PEOPLE VS CEPEDON, 542 S 550 Relationship as a qualifying circumstance may be al
leged in laymans terms like stating that the victim was the
younger sister of the appellant, and need not mention that the victim
is a relative within the second degree of
consanguinity since the sister-brother relationship clearly falls in the second c
ivil degree.
PEOPLE VS TALAN, G.R. NO.
177354, NOV. 14, 2009
Talan claimed that the qualifying circumstance of relationship should n
ot be considered and the Court agreed
because the qualifying circumstance of relationship must be specifically
alleged in the information - the
information must clearly state that "the offender is a parent, ascenda
nt, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spous
e of the parent of the victim.
PEOPLE VS ESTRADA, 610
SCRA 222
The Information must succinctly state that appellant Estrada is a re
lative within the 3rd civil degree by
consanguinity or affinity of his rape victim; it is immaterial that Estrada admi
tted that the victim is his niece and
that AAA testified that appellant is her uncle.
PEOPLE VS CORPUZ, 577 SCRA
465
The prosecution stated in the information that the relationship of AAA
and BBB is one of step father and step
daughter, thus it should qualify the crime of rape. But during trial
it was proven that this relation was nonexistent, because AAA and the mother of BBB were only common law spouses, this i
s also aggravating, but in
order for it to qualify it must be alleged in the information, in this case a di
fferent one was alleged.
PEOPLE VS REGINO, 582 SCRA
189
While witnesses may be said to be interested by reason of their rela
tionship with one of the parties, their
declarations should not be disregarded or rejected capriciously on the ground of
apparent bias alone where they
are reasonable, consistent and supported by other facts and circumstances.
NATURE OF THE OFFENSE:
DIFFERENT OFFENSE, SAME
OFFENSE
PEOPLE VS PAGLINAWAN, 324
SCRA 97
The prosecution must adduced proof to satisfy the requirements establis

hing this qualifying circumstance of

premeditation. Mere presumptions and inferences are insufficient
PEOPLE VS PARAMIL, G.R. NO.
128056-57, MAR. 31, 2000
The accused-appellants herein can only be convicted of, and penalized
for, the crimes with which they were
charged or those necessarily included therein.
EVANGELISTA VS PEOPLE, G.R.
NO. 108135-36, AUG. 14, 2000
To convict the accused of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or
information would be a violation
of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and charge against him.
PEOPLE VS PUZON, G.R. NO.
123156-59, AUG. 29, 2000
The conviction of appellant for statutory rape absent any allegation in the info
rmation that the complainants were
below 12 years of age at the time of the rape, and not for rape t
hrough force or intimidation, which was the
method alleged - would violate the right of the appellant to be informed of the
nature of the accusation against
him.
PEOPLE VS VALDESANCHO,
G.R. NO. 137051-52, MAY 30,
2001
While the date of commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crim
e, the dates when the rapes were
committed are nonetheless essential to the accuseds defense of alibi an
d thus, for failure of the prosecution to
allege in the information and prove during trial the correct dates of
the rapes allegedly committed against the
victim, the accused is deprived of his right to be informed of the nature and ca
use of accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS DAWISAN, G.R. NO.
122095, SEPT. 13, 2001
There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges
only one offense, even if the evidence
shows that more than one was in fact committed.
MAPAS VS PEOPLE, 544 S 85 Even if the information charged the accused with frust
rated homicide, a finding of guilt for the lesser offense of
less serious physical injuries may be made considering that the latter
offense is necessarily included in the
former, and since the essential ingredients of physical injuries constitute and
form part of those constituting the
offense of homicide.
PACTOLIN VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, 554 S 136
As the courts has discoursed, no substantial right of Pactolin has been impaired
nor has there been any violation
of his right to due process because he had been adequately informed by the detai
led litany of the charges leveled
against him in the information and had the occasion to confront witne
sses against him and the opportunity to
question documents presented by the prosecution wherein under no circumstance in
this case has his right to due
process been violated.
PEOPLE VS HU, 567 S 697 In offenses in which the number of victims is e
ssential, failure of the prosecution to prove by convincing
evidence that the offense is committed against the minimum number of
persons required by law is fatal to its

cause of action.
ABSENCE OF QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE
PEOPLE VS RONATO, G.R. NO.
124298, OCT. 11, 1999
An accused must be informed of the cause and the nature of the accu
sation against him and in this case, since
abuse of superior strength qualifies the crime to murder, accused-appellant shou
ld have been apprised of this fact
from the beginning to prepare for his defense.
PEOPLE VS BAYRON, G.R. NO.
122732, SEPT. 7, 1999
This circumstance must, however, be alleged in the information becaus
e it is the nature of a qualifying
circumstance. It was not alleged in this case, with the result that it can only
be treated as a generic aggravating
circumstance.
PEOPLE VS ABELLA, G.R. NO.
131847, SEPT. 22, 1999
The Court emphasizes anew that in decreeing the death penalty under t
he aforequoted law, the information or
complaint must specifically allege the qualifying circumstances that would justi
fy the imposition of that extreme
penalty.
PEOPLE VS GALLO, G.R. NO.
124736, SEPT. 29, 1999
Absent a specific allegation that accused-appellant is the victims father; accuse
d-appellants relationship to the
victim, although proven during the trial, cannot be considered to be a qualifyin
g circumstance.
PEOPLE VS PANIQUE, G.R. NO.
125763, OCT. 13, 1999
The fact that complainant was below 18 years of age at the time of
the commission of the crime and that the
accused-appellant is her ascendant were not alleged in the information.
The minority of the victim and her
relationship to the offender constitute a special qualifying circumstanc
e which should be alleged in the
information and proved to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.
PEOPLE VS AGUINALDO, G.R.
NO. 130784, OCT. 3, 1999
The qualifying circumstances introduced in RA 7659 must be included in the infor
mation for rape in order for it
to properly qualify the crime and justify the penalty prescribed by the law beca
use it would be invalid to convict
the accused of a qualified crime without such qualifications included
in the preliminary charges against the
accused.
PEOPLE VS TABION, G.R. NO.
132715, OCT. 20, 1999
The accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to de
ath, consistent with the Court s ruling in
People v. Ramosboth that the age of the victim and her relationship with the off
ender must be clearly alleged in
the information.
PEOPLE VS TORIO, G.R. NO.
132216, NOV. 7, 1999
Torio was convicted of attempted rape. Being "the common-law spouse of the paren
t of a victim" coupled with
the minority of the victim is a special qualifying circumstance that would have

called for the death penalty, but

neither was this alleged in the Information. Penalty for simple rape was applied
.
PEOPLE VS ALFANTA, G.R. NO.
125633, DEC. 9, 1999
As an ordinary aggravating circumstance, nighttime can be so considered provided
it is duly proved although not
alleged in the information.
PEOPLE VS FLORES, G.R. NO.
123599, DEC. 13, 1999
It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of
the charges against him, and consequently, a
denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape only on wh
ich he was arraigned, and be convicted of
qualified rape punishable by death.
PEOPLE VS RAMON, G.R. NO.
130407, DEC. 15, 1999
Qualifying circumstance must be properly impleaded in the indictment; if the cir
cumstance is not impleaded but
proven then it would only be considered as an aggravating circumstance, to do ot
herwise would violate the right
of the accused to be informed of the charges against him.
PEOPLE VS VILLAR, 322 SCRA
390
Although the circumstances to qualify simple rape to the heinous crime
of rape, namely: (a) victim under 18
years old (the certificate of live birth exhibit "A" was admitted by
the defense), and (b) the offender being a
guardian, were duly proven in the present case, these circumstance cannot consid
ered for purposes of imposing
the extreme penalty of death unless these were alleged in the information.
PEOPLE VS BERNALDEZ, 322
SCRA 762
If no qualifying circumstance were alleged in the information, accused cannot be
sentenced to death.
PEOPLE VS FLORES, 322 SCRA
779
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict provided the following requisit
es are present, namely: (1) there is
more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences a
re derived from are proven; and (3) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a convicti
on beyond reasonable doubt. The
circumstantial evidence must constitute an unbroken chain of events so
as to lead to a fair and reasonable
conclusion that points to the guilt of the accused.
PEOPLE VS PALANCO, 322
SCRA 790
The accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape since the minority
of the child and her relationship to the
accused, which are elements needed to be prosecuted for qualified rape, were not
alleged in the information.
PEOPLE VS BACULE, 323 SCRA
734
While the prosecution did prove that appellant was the common-law spouse of the
victim s parent, such fact was
not alleged in the information. The Court held that the failure to a
llege in the information the relationship
between the accused and the victim constituted a violation of the right of the a
ccused to be informed of the nature

and cause of accusation against him. It is fundamental that every element of whi
ch the offense is composed must
be alleged in the complaint or information because the main purpose of requiring
the various elements of a crime
to be set out in an information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his
defense. He is presumed to have no
independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.
PEOPLE VS BARTOLOME, 323
SCRA 836
To impose the death penalty on the basis of the relationship of the accused to t
he victim, which has not
been alleged in the information, would violate JOHNNY s constitutional
and statutory right to be
informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS BAYONA, 327 SCRA
190
The accused is the father of the rape victim. The information failed
to include the qualifying circumstance of
relationship therefore, the crime committed is simple rape and not qualified rap
e.
PEOPLE VS SIAO, 327 SCRA 231 Since the use of a deadly weapon increases the pena
lty as opposed to a generic aggravating circumstance which
only affects the period of the penalty, said fact should be alleged
in the information, because of the accuseds
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS BAYZO, 327 SCRA
771
The purpose on the rules of criminal procedure is to uphold the defendants right
to be informed, and specifically
to, (1) To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him
as will enable him to make the
defense, (2) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for prot
ection against a further prosecution for the
same cause, (3) To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide
whether they are sufficient in law
to support a conviction, if one should be had.
PEOPLE VS DE LOS SANTOS,
G.R. NO. 121906, AUG. 5, 2000
Appellant was charged with a complex crime of multiple murders, multip
le frustrated murders, and multiple
attempted murders. Victims sustained injuries either died or death was prevented
creating the complex crime.
PEOPLE VS FRAGA, G.R. NO.
134130-33, APRIL 12, 2000
The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on the accused f
or each count of rape because in order to
impose such penalty, there should be concurrence of victims minority an
d her relationship with the offender
which must be alleged in the information pursuant to the right of an accused to
information as to the nature and
cause of accusation against him which in this case, the relationship
was not alleged it was only said that the
accused was the victims stepfather.
PEOPLE VS LICANDA, G.R. NO.
134084, MAY 4, 2000
The penalty for rape can be aggravated to death when the circumstance of filiati
on is present but this qualifying
circumstance must be proven as alleged in the information.
PEOPLE VS SABREDO, G.R. NO.
126114, MAY 11, 2000

Sabredo was accused of rape, and the court held that Sabredo cannot
be convicted of qualified rape since the
information did not allege that offender and offended party were relat
ives within the third degree of
consanguinity even if it was proven during trial.
PEOPLE VS ALICANTE, G.R.
NO. 127026-27, MAY 31, 2000
The Court affirmed the imposition of death penalty upon the accused f
or conviction for the crime of rape
qualified by minority of the victim and father-daughter relationship between the
accused and the victim.
PEOPLE VS TRAYA, G.R. NO.
129052, MAY 31, 2000
The fact of the minority of the victim was not stated in the Information and onl
y the relationship of the victim as
the daughter of the offender was alleged therein. The rule is that the elements
of minority of the victim and her
relationship to the offender must concur and the failure to allege one of these
elements precludes the imposition
of the death penalty.
PEOPLE VS MAMAC, G.R. NO.
130332, MAY 31, 2000
The Information only charged Mamac with simple rape; it did not conta
in any allegation of relationship and
minority nor the use of a deadly weapon; it did not charge Mamac wi
th qualified rape and hence he cannot be
sentenced to death because the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her
relationship to the offender is a
special qualifying circumstance which should be alleged in the informat
ion to warrant imposition of the death
penalty.
PEOPLE VS DECENA, G.R. NO.
131843, MAY 31, 2000
In this case the SC said that it would be a denial of the right to be informed o
f the charges against him if he is
charged with simple rape, then convicted of its qualified form which is punishab
le by death.
PEOPLE VS LOMIBAO, G.R. NO.
135855, AUG. 3, 2000
Trial court wrongly relied on the qualifying circumstance of relationsh
ip to convict him of qualified rape since
said circumstance was not alleged in the information thus he can only be convict
ed of simple rape since even if
the relationship between Marissa and Lomibao were proven, failure to a
llege the said circumstance in the
information cannot change the nature of the crime.
PEOPLE VS CANONIGO, G.R.
NO. 133649, AUG. 4, 2000
The seven attendant circumstances under Section 11 of Republic Act No.
7659 are in the nature of special
qualifying circumstances which cannot be considered as such unless so alleged in
the information even if proved.
PEOPLE VS CRUZ, G.R. NO.
128346-48, AUG. 14, 2000
Qualifying circumstance must be properly pleaded in the indictment, and
if it was not but proved, it will be
considered only as an aggravating circumstance.
PEOPLE VS WATIMAR, G.R. NO.
121651-52, AUG. 16, 2000
Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and unless supported by clear and

convincing evidence, the same

cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim.
PEOPLE VS GABIANA, G.R. NO.
123543, AUG. 23, 2000
Although the qualifying circumstance was proven, qualifying circumstances
must be properly pleaded in the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS BANIHIT, G.R. NO.
132045, AUG. 25, 2000
When the attendant circumstances are special qualifying circumstances an
d not ordinary aggravating
circumstances which merely increase the period of the penalty, they must be spec
ifically pleaded or alleged with
certainty in the information.
PEOPLE VS GUTIERREZ, G.R.
NO. 132772, AUG. 31, 2000
The circumstances provided for in the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of RA
7659, the attendance of any of
which would mandate the single indivisible penalty of death prescribed
in Article 335 of the RPC, are in the
nature of qualifying circumstances which cannot be proved as such unless alleged
in the Information.
PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA, G.R.
NO. 135330, AUG. 31, 2000
Unlike a generic aggravating circumstance which may be proved even if
not alleged, a qualifying aggravating
cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the information although i
t may be proved as a generic aggravating
circumstance if so included among those enumerated in the Code.
PEOPLE VS MELENDRES, G.R.
NO. 133999-4001, AUG. 31, 2000
The courts has consistently declared that the circumstances under the
amendatory provisions of Section 11 of
R.A. No. 7659, the attendance of which could mandate the imposition of the singl
e indivisible penalty of death,
are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which cannot be proved as such unl
ess alleged in the information,
and even if proved, the death penalty cannot be imposed, unlike a generic aggrav
ating circumstance which may
be proved even if not alleged, a qualifying aggravating cannot be proved as a ge
neric aggravating circumstance if
so included among those enumerated in the Code.
PEOPLE VS MENDEZ, G.R. NO.
132546, JULY 5, 2000
The long-standing rule is that qualifying circumstance must be properly
pleaded in the indictment. If the same
are not pleaded but proved, they shall only be considered as aggravating circums
tance.
PEOPLE VS ALARCON, G.R. NO.
133191-93, JULY 11, 2000
Where the fact of commission of rape by two or more persons, which pa
rtakes of the nature of a qualifying
circumstance, was not alleged in the information, the mere fact that three were
accused therein did not amount to
a specification of the qualifying circumstance in question and was insufficient
for the purpose of complying with
the constitutional requirement that the accused be informed of the nat
ure and cause of the accusation against
them.
PEOPLE VS BAYBADO, G.R. NO.

132136, JULY 14, 2000

In the case at bar, the Information failed to allege the minority of the complai
nant, hence, the trial court erred in
appreciating this qualifying circumstance and in imposing the death penalty. App
ellant can only be convicted of
simple rape punishable with reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE VS SURILLA, G.R. NO.
129164, JULY 24, 2000
The death penalty cannot be imposed when the qualifying circumstances are not al
leged in the information for it
would be violative of accused-appellants constitutional right to be info
rmed of the nature and cause of
accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS CAMPANER, G.R.
NO. 130500, JULY 26, 2000
Qualifying Circumstances must not only be proved but also alleged in the Informa
tion in view of the accuseds
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation again
st him; absent such finding, the penalty
provided by a trial court must be modified.
PEOPLE VS BALACANO, G.R.
NO. 127156, JULY 31, 2000
Failure to mention the relationship between the appellant and the youn
g victim, step-father and step-daughter,
respectively, necessarily excludes the crime from the coverage of RA 7
659. To justify the imposition of the
supreme penalty of death, both the special qualifying circumstances of the victi
m s minority and her relationship
to the offender must be alleged and proved.
PEOPLE VS VILLARAZA, G.R.
NO. 131848-50, SEPT. 5, 2000
The special qualifying circumstances of the victims minority and her relationship
to the offender must be both
alleged and proved in order to warrant the imposition of the capital punishment
of death.
PEOPLE VS BANIGUID, G.R.
NO. 137714, SEPT. 8, 2000
The special qualifying circumstances of the victims minority and her re
lationship with the offender should be
alleged and proved. The allegation in the information that complainant
is the minor daughter of accusedappellant is insufficient.
PEOPLE VS BALI-BALITA, G.R.
NO. 134266, SEPT. 15, 2000
Every element of the offense must be alleged. If charged of a crime
in its qualified form the qualifying
circumstance must be stated with certainty to enable a person of common understa
nding to be told of the acts or
omissions of which he is charged. Legal designation of the crime committed need
not be specifically stated.
PEOPLE VS CAJARA, G.R. NO.
122498, SEPT. 27, 2000
The accused cant be convicted
of qualified rape on the bases of the
circumstance that rape was committed in
full view of the relatives of the victim within the 3
wasnt pleaded in the information or in the complainant against the accused.
PEOPLE VS NOGAR, G.R. NO.
133946, SEPT. 27, 2000
The special qualifying circumstance of the relationship of accused-appellant wit
h the victim has not at all been

alleged in the Information for it to be considered in the imposition of a higher

penalty (death penalty).
PEOPLE VS MAGTRAYO, G.R.
NO. 133480-82, OCT. 4, 2000
The death penalty cannot be imposed because the relationship alleged in the info
rmation is different from what
was actually proven.
PEOPLE VS TAGUBA, G.R. NO.
112792-93, OCT. 6, 2000
The Information did not allege any of the circumstances which would q
ualify the crime to murder. Hence,
appellant can only be convicted of the crime of homicide.
PEOPLE VS DE LA CUESTA,
G.R. NO. 133904, OCT. 5, 2000
Courts cannot discredit a witness because there are gaps in her narra
tion of facts, or because her narration was
presented not in a chronological manner and trial court cannot properly imposed
death penalty.
PEOPLE VS ARVES, G.R. NO.
134628, OCT. 13, 2000
The accused can be convicted only of the crime alleged in the information and du
ly proven during the trial.
PEOPLE VS BALDINO, G.R. NO.
137269, OCT. 13, 2000
Though there is proof of the existence of the qualifying circumstance to prosecu
te the accused for qualified rape,
the failure to allege it in the information cannot convict him for the said offe
nse.
PEOPLE VS BALTAZAR, G.R.
NO. 130610, OCT. 16, 2000
The Court in a number of cases held that the relationship of the ac
cused-appellant and the victim, and the
minority of the offended party must be specifically pleaded in the information i
n order to be properly appreciated
as a qualifying circumstance for the purpose of imposing the death pe
nalty under R.A. 7659. Here, the
circumstances that would qualify the offense are (a) that the accused-appellant
is the uncle of the victim, and (b)
that the latter is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape.
However, since the three informations failed to
allege these circumstances, accused-appellant cannot be convicted of qualified r
ape because he was not properly
informed of the charges against him.
PEOPLE VS FRANCISCO, G.R.
NO. 136252, OCT. 20, 2000
Special qualifying circumstances indicated in the amendatory provisions
of Section 11 of R.A. 7659
must be speci cally pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information
; otherwise the death penalty
cannot be imposed
PEOPLE VS SARMIENTO, G.R.
NO. 134768, OCT. 25, 2000
Sarmiento was charged with statutory rape but was convicted of qualifi
ed rape due to relationship. Court says
that he cannot be convicted of qualified rape since the relationship of the accu
sed to the victim was not alleged in
the information.
PEOPLE VS GALLARDE, 325
CRA 835
It is fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the compl

aint or information as in the case

of rape with homicide, where in order to be convicted of murder in case the evid
ence fails to support the charge
of rape, the qualifying circumstance must be sufficiently alleged.
PEOPLE VS CRISPIN, 327 SCRA
167
The right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him is a fundament
al right of every accused which
may not be summarily done away with.
PEOPLE VS PARAMIL, G.R. NO.
128056-57, MARCH 31, 2000
The facts state that car-napping ensued first but the victim resisted so was sho
t by one of the accused, thus, the
Court declared homicide and car-napping considering the circumstances attended f
or murder are not present.
PEOPLE VS GALLEGO, G.R. NO.
130603, AUG. 15, 2000
When the rape is attended by the aggravating circumstance of use of a
deadly weapon, the penalty becomes
reclusion perpetua to death, provided that such circumstance was alleged in the
information and in this case, the
accused cannot be punished with a higher penalty even if it was proved that he u
sed a deadly weapon (a knife)
because the same was not alleged.
PEOPLE VS TEJADA, G.R. NO.
126166, JULY 10, 2001
Not only did both informations fail to allege the fact of relationshi
p between the accused and victim, the
appreciation of such relationship is in itself legally flawed; the degree betwee
n them is already in the fourth civil
degree but the required degree of relationship is up to the third civil degree o
nly.
PEOPLE VS LALINGJAMAN,
G.R. NO. 132714, SEPT. 6, 2001
Lalingjaman was accused of rape, and the court held that Lalingjaman
cannot be convicted of qualified rape
since the information did not allege the circumstance of relationship even if bo
th minority, which was alleged in
the information, and relationship was proven during trial.
PEOPLE VS MERCADO, G.R.
NO. 139904, OCT. 12, 2001
For the death to be imposable under Article 266-B of the Revised Pena
l Code, both the minority of the victim
and her relationship to the offender should be specifically alleged in the Infor
mation.
ESTRADA VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO.
148560, NOV. 19, 2001
All the essential elements of plunder can be culled and understood from its defi
nition in Sec. 2, in relation to Sec.
1, par. (d), and "pattern" is not one of them. It purports to do no more than pr
escribe a rule of procedure for the
prosecution of a criminal case for plunder.
Being a purely procedura
l measure, Sec. 4 does not define or
establish any substantive right in favor of the accused but only operates in fur
therance of a remedy.
PEOPLE VS MARAHAY, G.R.
NO. 120625-29, JAN. 28, 2003
Carlito Marahay raped his daughters Mylene (14y/o) and Belinda (12 y/o) but the
prosecution did not present the

certificates of live birth of both Mylene and Belinda or other similar authentic
documents to prove their ages, not
even the victims mother or the victims themselves, or any other relative qualifie
d to testify on matters respecting
pedigree were presented by the prosecution to establish the victims ages at the t
ime the crimes were committed
because of such failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden, the qualifyi
ng circumstance of minority cannot
be appreciated in these cases.
PEOPLE VS MONTEMAYOR,
G.R. NO. 124474, JAN. 28, 2003
The SC said that the trial court erred when it convicted the accused of rape wit
h a deadly weapon, there has to be
use of the deadly weapon, and not mere possession, even if the quali
fying circumstance is alleged in the
information.
PEOPLE VS DELIM, G.R. NO.
142773, JAN. 28, 2003
Various testimonies with respect to minor, collateral or incidental matters do n
ot impair the weight of testimony
to the prominent facts, and inconsistencies on minor and trivial matte
rs only serve to strengthen rather than
weaken the credibility of witnesses for they remove the suspicion of uncorrobora
ted testimony.
PEOPLE VS ACOSTA, G.R. NO.
140402, JAN. 28, 2003
The attendant aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is necessar
ily included in treachery. Hence,
the trial court erred in still appreciating abuse of superior strength
apart from treachery, which warranted the
imposition of the death penalty.
PEOPLE VS CALOZA, G.R. NO.
138404-06, JAN. 28, 2003
Qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances in the commission of t
he crimes must be expressly and
specifically alleged in the complaint or information, otherwise the same will no
t be considered by the court even
if proved during the trial.
PEOPLE VS LAYOSO, G.R. NO.
14773-76, JAN. 22, 2003
Alleged inconsistencies in witness testimonies are diminimis in nature
and in no way destroy their
credibility.
What is important is that the prosecution witnesses were
consistent in relating the significant and
indispensable components of the principal occurrence of rape.
PEOPLE VS BALDOGO, G.R.
NO. 128106-07, JAN. 24, 2003
The qualifying aggravating circumstance (of evident premeditation), like
any other qualifying circumstance,
must be proved with certainty as the crime itself and the prosecution
is burdened to prove overt acts that after
deciding to commit the felony, the felon clung to his determination to commit th
e crime.
PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R.
NO. 175954, DEC. 16, 2008
It is not the use of the words qualifying or qualified by that raises
a crime to a higher category, but the
specific allegation of an attendant circumstance which adds the essenti
al element raising the crime to a higher
category.

PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R.

NO. 174371, DEC. 11, 2008
What is required is that the Information allege, specify or enumerate
the attendant circumstances mentioned in
law to qualify the offense and does not need the words aggravating/qua
lifying circumstance to appear in the
information since these words are merely descriptive of the attendant
circumstances and do not constitute an
essential element of the crime.
ANDRES VS PEOPLE, 588 SCRA
830
While qualifying circumstances were proven at the trial, they cannot b
e appreciated because they were not
alleged in the Information as in this case where the information did not allege
that the carnapping was committed
by means of violence against, or intimidation of, any person, or force upon thin
gs.
SAMBILON VS PEOPLE, 591
SCRA 405
Case cannot be found.
VALENZUELA VS PEOPLE, 596
SCRA 1
The words aggravating/qualifying, or aggravated by need not be expressly s
tated, so long as the particular
attendant circumstances are specified in the information.
DIFFERENCE OF
COMMISSION OF CRIME
PEOPLE VS CAPINPIN, G.R. NO.
118608, OCT. 30, 2000
An accused cannot be convicted under paragraphs 2 or 3 of Article 33
5 of the Revised Penal Code in an
information charging him with rape by the use of force or intimidatio
n because none of these modes of
committing rape were alleged in the information.
NUMBER OF OFFENSES
PEOPLE VS TRESBALLES, G.R.
NO. 126118, SEPT. 21, 1999
There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charge
s only one offense, even if the evidence
shows that more than one was in fact committed.
PEOPLE VS GERONA, G.R. NO.
126169, DEC. 21, 1999
Even if the victim claims that she has been raped five times, the accused could
only be convicted for one count of
rape where the information only charged a single offensean accused cannot be held
liable for more than what
he was indicted for.
PEOPLE VS PAMBID, G.R. NO.
124453, MARCH 15, 2000
Failure to object to a court charge of two or more offenses or raise the issue o
f duplicity of offenses may not be
availed of when the same is not charged in the information (that the
information itself does not charge the
accused with two or more offenses).
PEOPLE VS ALVERO, G.R. NO.
134536, APRIL 5, 2000
The records disclosed that ELISEO actually committed more than three acts of rap
e. However, considering that
ELISEO was charged with only three counts of rape, the Court can onl
y affirm the trial court s judgment of

conviction and its imposition of the death penalty for each of the three counts
of rape alleged and proved.
PEOPLE VS GUIWAN, G.R. NO.
117324-8, APRIL 27, 2000
A person cannot be convicted of five (5) counts of rape committed on other dates
if the information against him
if the charge against him only consists of one rape.
PEOPLE VS SURILLA, G.R. NO.
129164, JULY 24, 2000
The trial court correctly imposed one sentence for one count of rape
against accused-appellant since the
information only charged him with one count of rape.
PEOPLE VS RAMA, 379 SCRA
477
Julieto Rama argues that he could not be convicted of murder when he is charged
with robbery with homicide.
An accused cannot be convicted of an offense higher than that with w
hich he is charged in the complaint or
information or one which is necessarily included in the offense charged.
Where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support t
he charge as to one of the component
offense, the accused can be convicted of the other.
PEOPLE VS CUYUGAN, G.R.
NO. 146641, NOV. 18, 2002
Appellant cant be convicted of a crime for which she was not charged,
for that would violate appellants
constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against her.
PEOPLE VS MONTINOLA, 543
SCRA 412
In a case where the accused admitted that the complainant was his da
ughter, the alternative circumstance of
relationship shall apply and the Court may prescribe a higher or lowe
r penalty depending on the presence of
other circumstances.
DATE OF COMMISSION OF
CRIME
PEOPLE VS NARITO, G.R. NO.
132058, OCT. 1, 1999
The right to be informed is not violated when the time of the commi
ssion of the offense is different or is not
stated in the information unless the time is a material ingredient of the offens
e.
PEOPLE VS MAGBANUA, G.R.
NO. 12888, DEC. 3, 1999
The date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy because in fact, the
precise time when the rape takes
place has no substantial bearing on its commission. It is sufficient
that the complaint or information states that
the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its
actual commission.
PEOPLE VS LADRILLO, G.R.
NO. 124342, DEC. 8, 1999
Conviction of the accused should be set aside because the information,
charging him with rape allegedly
committed on or about the year 1990, failed to specifically allege the
exact date of the commission of the
crime, thus depriving him of the opportunity to fully defend himself.
PEOPLE VS FEROLINO, G.R.
NO. 131730-31, APRIL 5, 2000
Where time or place or any other fact alleged is not an essential element of the

crime charged, conviction may be

had on proof of the commission of the crime, even if it appear(s) that the crime
was not committed at the precise
time or place alleged, or if the proof fails to sustain the existenc
e of some immaterial fact set out in the
complaint, providing it appears that the specific crime charged was in
fact committed prior to the date of the
filing of the complaint or information within the period of the statu
te of limitations, and at a place within the
jurisdiction of the court.
PEOPLE VS GIANAN, G.R. NO.
135288-93, SEPT. 15, 2000
The allegation in the information that accused committed multiple rape sometime i
n November 1995 and some
occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto is not deemed a violation of the right
to be informed as the date of the
commission of the offense is not the gravemen of rape.
PEOPLE VS TRELLES, G.R. NO.
137659, SEPT. 19, 2000
Nobelita Trelles is feebleminded and a mental retardate, thus she could not very
well be expected to consistently
impart accurate responses to questions repeatedly propounded to her. A
mental retardate or a feebleminded
person is not, per se, disqualified from being a witness, her mental
condition not being a vitiation of her
credibility. It is now universally accepted that intellectual weakness,
no matter what form it assumes, is not a
valid objection to the competency of a witness so long as the latter
can still give a fairly intelligent and
reasonable narrative of the matter testified to.
SUMBANG VS GENERAL
COURT MARTIAL PRO
REGION 6, G.R. NO. 140188,
AUG. 3, 2000
The period of prescription therein decreed is the time that supervenes
from the commission of the
offense up to the time of arraignment.
ARAMBULO VS LAQUI, G.R.
NO. 138596, OCT. 12, 2000
The right for a speedy trial is only violated when unreasonable, vexa
tious, and oppressive delay without
participation or fault of the accused, petitioner is not without fault thus peti
tion was denied.
PEOPLE VS TAGANA, G.R. NOS.
137608-09, JULY 6, 2001
Under the basic rules on criminal procedure, it is not necessary to
state in the complaint or information the
precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material i
ncident of the offense, but the
act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to t
he actual date when the offense was
committed as the information or complaint will permit, as shown in th
is instance where a variance of three (3)
years between the time set in the indictment and that established by evidence du
ring the trial constitutes an error
so serious as to warrant a reversal of conviction on that score.
PEOPLE VS BIDOC, 506 SCRA
481
The exact date of the commission is not an essential element of the crime of rap
e, for the gravamen of the offense

is carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent.

PEOPLE VS CEREDON, 542
SCRA 550
Dates alleged need not to be precise, it is sufficient the date stated is near a
s possible to the actual date.
PEOPLE VS PASCUAL, 569
SCRA 534
The precise time of commission is not an essential element of rape or the crime
itself so the failure to specify the
exact date when the rape happened does not make the information defec
tive and that for as long as all the
essential elements of rape are there in the information, the accused
is sufficiently informed of the nature and
cause of accusation against him.
PEOPLE VS AURE, 569 SCRA
836
The date of rape alleged in the information (Nov. 7, 1999) is differ
ent from that which the RTC convicted the
accused for (Nov. 8, 1999) but this discrepancy is not a serious err
or that can reverse the decision; the date or
time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the
said crime because the gravamen of rape is
carnal knowledge through force and intimidation.
PEOPLE VS DIOCADO, G.R. NO.
170567, NOV. 14, 2008
Diocado was accused of rape, and the court held that the exact time of the commi
ssion of the rape is not a ground
for acquittal once the prosecution has clearly established the sexual act betwee
n the rapist and the victim without
the latters consent.
PEOPLE VS CANARES, 579
SCRA 582
Section 11 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides t
hat it is not necessary to state in the
complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed ex
cept when the date of commission is a
material element of the offense, thus, an information for rape is not defective
for failure to specify the exact date
of the commission of the act of rape.
PEOPLE VS ABOGANDA, 585
SCRA 1
In rape cases, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurre
nce of the rape, not the time of its
commission. The date or time the rape was committed is not an essent
ial and it is sufficient that the date of
commission alleged is as near as possible to the actual date
PEOPLE VS JIMENEZ, 586 SCRA
580
Jimenez raped his daughter but because of the failure of the prosecution to alle
ge in the criminal informations the
aggravating/qualifying circumstance of parental relationship between AAA a
nd the accused-appellant Jimenez,
he cannot be convicted of qualified rape for to do so would certainly be a denia
l of his right to be informed of the
charges against him however, this aggravating circumstance, which was d
uly proved during trial, may still be
considered by the courts in the award of damages.
PEOPLE VS LAZARO, 596 SCRA
587
The exact date and time that rape is committed is not material, facts which are

not determinative of the guilt of

the accused are not significant.
NO VIOLATION
PEOPLE VS ESCORO, 376 SCRA
670
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was
somewhere else when the crime
was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to
be at the locus criminis at the time of the
alleged crime, and when a bare denial, if unsupported by clear and convincing ev
idence, cannot be given greater
evidentiary weight.
PEOPLE VS PASCUAL, 379
SCRA 235
It has been held that the exact date or time of the commission of
rape is not an essential element of the crime.
Furthermore, the failure of the prosecution to specify the exact date or time wh
en it was committed did not make
the information or complaint defective on its face.
PEOPLE VS CONDE, 380 SCRA
159
Variance of a few months between the date set out in the information when the al
leged crime was committed, and
that established by the evidence during the trial does not constitute an error s
o serious as to warrant reversal of
the judgment of conviction.
PEOPLE VS MIRANDA, G.R. NO.
142566, AUG. 8, 2002
For alibi to prosper, the accused-appellant must prove that he was so
mewhere else when the crime was
committed and it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of
the crime.
PEOPLE VS ROQUE, G.R. NO.
130569, AUG. 14, 2002
Although the sisters accused their father of raping them several times
within the interval of 1992 and in 1994,
there is no violation of the right to be informed to allow the accused to prepar
e for his defense since one of the
sisters stated in her sworn statement the she was raped by the fathe
r in September 1994 and she was more
specific in the criminal complain she filed before the MTC.
PEOPLE VS SEGOVIA, G.R. NO.
138974, SEPT. 29, 2002
In rape cases, the date of the commission of the crime is not an e
ssential element of the crime and, as such, a
difference of one 1 year or twelve 12 months is merely a matter of form and does
not prejudice the rights of the
accused since the date or time need not be stated with absolute accu
racy, it being sufficient that the or
information states that the crime has been committed at any time as
near as possible to the date of its actual
commission.
PEOPLE VS CARALIPIO, G.R.
NO. 137766, NOV. 27, 2002
Contrary to appellants claim, he was afforded the opportunity to secure
counsel of his choice, but he failed to
obtain the services of a private lawyer during the period given him
by the court and continued to rely on his
counsel de oficio for about 3 months without producing the private lawyer whose
services he was insisting on.

PEOPLE VS CANTOMAYOR,
G.R. NO. 145522, DEC. 5, 2002
The time of the commission of the crime assumes importance only when
it creates serious doubt as to the
commission of the rape or the sufficiency of the evidence for purpose
s of conviction and there can be no
violation when the date or time of the offense is not stated with absolute accur
acy.
PEOPLE VS SARAZAN, G.R. NO.
123269-72, JAN. 22, 2003
Time and again, the courts have consistently ruled that when a woman,
more so if a minor, states that she has
been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was commi
tted for no woman, least of all a
child, would weave a tale of sexual assaults to her person, open herself to exam
ination of her private parts and
later be subjected to public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victi
m of rape and impelled to seek justice
for the wrong done to her and thus, when the testimonies of an accused are pitte
d against the positive testimony
of the rape victim who testified in a categorical, straightforward, sp
ontaneous and frank manner, and who
remains consistent, the rape victim is regarded as a credible witness, as in thi
s case.
PEOPLE VS TAPERLA, G.R. NO.
142680, JAN. 16, 2003
There is no evidence on record that the victim is a nymphomaniac, pervert or any
condition that may justify the
sweetheart theory of the accused. No married woman with children would have sexu
al relations with a complete
stranger whom she had just met.
PEOPLE VS LIZADA, G.R. NO.
143468-71, JAN. 24, 2003
The presentation by the prosecution, without objection on the part of the accuse
d, of evidence of rape committed
two times a week from 1996 until 1998 (which includes September 15, 1998 and Oct
ober 22, 1998) to prove the
charges lodged against him constituted a waiver by the accused of his right to o
bject to any perceived infirmity
in, and in the amendment of, the aforesaid Informations to conform to the eviden
ce adduced by the prosecution.
PEOPLE VS DY, G.R. NO.
115326-37, JAN. 16, 2003
The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation may not be wa
ived. Indeed, the defense may
waive their right to enter a plea and let the court enter a plea of not guilty in
their 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.
BATULANAN VS PEOPLE, 502
SCRA 35
As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of priva
te document, it is important to ascertain
whether the offender is to be charged with falsification of a private document o
r with estafa.
PEOPLE VS CORPUZ, 482 SCRA
435
The amendment of the information did not affect the crime committed by the appel
lant, that is, qualified rape. In

cases of incestuous rape, force or intimidation need not even be proven.

SOLEDAD VS PEOPLE, 644
SCRA 258
The information and its preamble clearly stated all the necessary deta
ils of the offense committed. The
Information sheet must be considered, not by sections or parts, but as one whole
document serving one purpose
to inform the accused why the full panoply of state authority is being marshalled
against him.
TORRES VS PEOPLE, 655 SCRA
720
A finding by the trial court affirmed by the appellate court shall b
e conclusive with the Supreme Court unless
shown that the trial court had disregarded or overlooked some fact or circumstan
ce.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
PEOPLE VS SESBRENO, G.R.
NO. 121764, SEPT. 9, 1999
If the trial appeared lengthy, it was largely due to the number of witnesses pre
sented, 13 for the prosecution and
15 for the defense. Appellants conduct of his own trial contributed to time-consu
ming tussles in the lower court.
TAI LIM VS COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. NO. 131483, OCT.
26, 1999
Petitioners constitutional right to speedy trial has not been violated. A trial i
s always subject to reasonable delays
and postponements, and in the absence of any showing that the same w
ere capricious, the State should not be
deprived of a reasonable opportunity of prosecuting petitioner.
CONDE VS RIVERA, 45 PHIL 650 When a prosecuting officer, without good caus
e, secured postponement of the trial of a defendant against his
beyond a reasonable period of time, the accused is entitled to relief
by a proceeding of mandamus to compel a
dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas c
orpus to obtain his freedom.
NEPOMUCENO VS SEC. OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE, 108 SCRA
658
The prosecutions failure to enter into trial or otherwise to present its evidence
without valid excuse, and instead
asked for postponement repeatedly gives rise to the reasonable presumption that
the prosecution counts with no
evidence to support conviction therefore, dismissal of the case must reasonably f
ollow and the accuseds right
to speedy trial is not violated.
PEOPLE VS GINES, 197 SCRA
481
The right to a speedy trial is relative and could be subject to reasonable delay
s and postponement as long as the
absence or delays are not capricious, oppressive, nor vexatious.
ABADIA VS CA, 236 SCRA 676 The absence of any specific provision limiting the ti
me within which records of general courts martial should be
forwarded to the appropriate reviewing authority and for the reviewing authority
to decide on the case does not
deny private respondent or any military personnel facing charges before the Gene
ral Courts Martial, for that
matter a judicial recourse to protect his constitutional right to a speedy trial
.
GONZALES VS CA, 232 SCRA

721
For the testimony to be credible, it is not mandatory that the evide
nce be established on record that witnesses
have good standing in the community as competence is distinguished fro
m credibility, the former being
determined by art 820 of the new civil code while the latter does n
ot require evidence of such good standing
because credibility depends on the convincing weight of his testimony in court
CADALIN VS POEA, 238 SCRA
721
The constitutional right to "a speedy disposition of cases" is not li
mited to the accused in criminal proceedings
but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and administrative case
s, and in all proceedings, including
judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. Hence, under the Constitution, any party t
o a case may demand expeditious
action on all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.
PEOPLE VS TAMPAL, 244 SCRA
202
Though the dismissal of a case on the ground of failure to prosecute is a bar to
further prosecution of the accused,
the fact that there was no violation of the right to speedy trial, there being g
ood faith on the part of prosecutor for
failing to attend, cannot give rise to double jeopardy.
DACANAY VS PEOPLE, 240
SCRA 490
A speedy trial is one "conducted according to the law of criminal pr
ocedure and the rules and regulations, free
from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays." The primordial purpos
e of this constitutional right is to
prevent the oppression of an accused by delaying criminal prosecution for an ind
efinite period of time. Likewise,
it is intended to prevent delays in the administration of justice by
requiring judicial tribunals to proceed with
reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal prosecutions.
The main objection of respondent People of the Philippines to he separate trial
asked by Petitioner is that such a
procedure would entail a repetitive presentation of evidence. A separate trial n
ecessarily requires a repetition of
the presentation of the same evidence. But the resulting inconvenience
and expense on the part of the
Government cannot be given preference over the right to speedy trial and the pro
tection to a person s life, liberty
or property accorded by the Constitution.
GUERRERO VS CA, 257 SCRA
703
Petitioner s silence would have to be interpreted as a waiver of his right to a
speedy trial.
DIZON VS LOPEZ, 278 SCRA 483 The claim that he was deprived of his right to a sp
eedy trial is without basis even when the copy of the decision
was only furnished to him after 1 yr and 8 mo. The delay did not p
rejudice since the period to appeal or file a
motion for reconsideration begins only when he receives the copy of t
he judgement. Nonetheless, there were
certain factors that mitigate Lopez culpability and except for this incident her
track record is unmarred. Failure
to decide on the case was brought about factors not within her contr
ol, and other personal problems. The court
reprimanded Lopez with a warning that repetition of the same acts complained wil

l be dealt with more severity.

LUZARRAGA VS METEORO,
A.M. NO. 00-1572, AUG. 3, 2000
Respondent violated the right of the accused to a speedy trial, as he was eviden
tly remiss in the performance of
his duty to decide Civil Case No. 96-0013 promptly and expeditiously, considerin
g that, it was on May 22, 1996
that said case was transferred to the RTC Branch presided by respondent, but it
was only on January 8, 1997 that
he proceeded to receive the defendants evidence, or after eight months.
SOLAR ENTERTAINMENT AND
PEOPLE VS HON. HOW, G.R.
NO. 140863, AUG. 22, 2000
The power of the secretary of justice to review resolutions of his s
ubordinates even after the information has
already been filed in court is well settled.
DE ZUZURREGUI VS ROSETE,
G.R. A.M. NO. MTJ-02-1426
The trial court was reprimanded for violation of constitutional right to speedy
and expeditious trial for the sole
initiative of the defense request for reset of case.
PEOPLE VS DY, G.R. NO.
115326-37, JAN. 16, 2003
The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation may not be wa
ived but it becomes a different
matter if the accused themselves refuse to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against them,
thus the defense cannot hold hostage the court by their refusal to the reading o
f the complaint or information.
LUMANLAW VS PERALTA, 482
SCRA 396
Because respondent failed to act swiftly on the accuseds arraignment, his right t
o a speedy trial was violated; an
arraignment is not a mere formality, but an integral part of due pro
cess and should be held within thirty days
from the date the court acquired jurisdiction over the accused.
PADILLA VS APAS, 487 SCRA 29 Padilla was accused of Estafa, and the court
held that since the prosecution, by repeated motions for
postponement, caused the delay of the proceedings from the time the information
was filed (from which time the
test of the violation of the right to speedy trial is to be counted
), the dismissal of the case, on motion of the
accused, amounts to acquittal.
PEOPLE VS HERNANDEZ, 499
SCRA 688
The Court affirmed the decision of the CA and ruled that dismissal on the ground
of the denial of accuseds right
to a speedy trial will have the effect of acquittal that would bar further prose
cution for the same offense. Factors
such as (1) length of delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) defendants assertion o
f his rights and (4) prejudice to the
defendant should be taken in consideration in determining whether or not the con
stitutional right to speedy trial
was violated.
UY VS ADRIANO, 505 SCRA 625 Petitioners claim is dismissed because the passage
of time alone, without a significant deprivation of liberty or
impairment of the ability to properly defend oneself, is not absolute
evidence of prejudice and the right to a
speedy trial is not primarily intended to prevent prejudice to the defense cause
d by the passage of time.

BENARES VS LIM, 511 SCRA

100
Petitioner Oscar Beares was accused of estafa during the trial, the to
tality of the circumstances excuses the
delay occasioned by the late filing of the prosecutions formal offer of evidence
since the delay was not vexatious
or oppressive, it follows that petitioners right to speedy trial was not violated
, consequently he cannot properly
invoke his right against double jeopardy.
GAAS VS MITMUG, 553 SCRA
535
The right to speedy disposition of cases is only violated when the p
roceedings are attended by vexatious,
capricious and oppressive delays, the complaint was only acted upon 4 years afte
r its submission, but there was
no invocation of speedy disposition, it was only invoked on appeal wh
en the petitioner lost, thus there was no
delay.
ALBERT VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
580 SCRA 279
Although the conduct of an investigation may hold back the progress o
f a case, it is necessary so that the
accused s right will not be compromised or sacrificed at the altar of expediency
thus succeeding events are of a
valid and regular course of judicial proceedings as long as they are
not considered as vexatious, capricious,
oppressive, or unjustified.
TAN VS PEOPLE, 586 SCRA 139 This right to a speedy trial may be defined
as one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, its
"salutary objective" being to assure that an innocent person may be free from th
e anxiety and expense of a court
litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the
shortest possible time compatible with the
presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose
.
TALLO VS PEOPLE, 588 SCRA
520
The right to a speedy disposition of cases is considered violated onl
y when the proceedings are attended by
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. A mere mathematical reckon
ing of the time involved is not
sufficient.
OLBES VS BUEMIO, 607 SCRA
336
In determining whether the accused has been deprived of his right to
a speedy disposition of the case and to a
speedy trial, four factors must be considered: (a) length of delay; (b) the reas
on for the delay; (c) the defendants
assertion of his right; and (d) prejudice to the defendant.
JACOB VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
635 SCRA 94
The dismissal of the criminal cases was unwarranted even though accuse
d was prejudiced by the delay in the
reinvestigation of the cases because under the circumstances, the State should n
ot be prejudiced and deprived of
its right to prosecute the criminal cases simply because of the inept
itude or nonchalance of the Office of the
Ombudsman
RIGHT TO IMPARTIAL TRIAL
MATEO, JR. VS VILLALUZ, 50

SCRA 18
Although a judge may not have been disqualified, nevertheless if it appears that
a party was not given a fair and
impartial trial because of the judge s bias or prejudice, the court will order a
new trial, if it deems it necessary, in
the interest of justice.
PEOPLE VS CA, 262 SCRA 452 Judge Espina cannot be considered to adequately
possess such cold neutrality of an impartial judge as to fairly
assess both the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution and the defense in vie
w of his previous decision in a
Special civil Action wherein he enjoined the preliminary investigation at the Re
gional State Prosecutors Office
level against herein respondent.
MALIWAT VS CA, 256 SCRA 718 An accused is not denied due process and an
opportunity to be heard when he himself had sought the
postponements and cancellations of the hearings of his case, in this
case for no less than forty times, from the
date of arraignment to the promulgation of judgment, a fact that spanned almost
a decade.
TABUENA VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, 268 SCRA
332
The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" requirement of due process
was certainly denied in the case at bar
against Tabuena and Peralta when the court, with its overzealousness,
assumed the dual role of magistrate and
advocate wherein time and again the Court has declared that due process requires
no less than the cold neutrality
of an impartial judge and the responsibility of the judge must not o
nly be impartial but must also appear to be
impartial, to give added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just
otherwise such is a violation of the
due process of the people.
PEOPLE VS ADORA, 275 SCRA
441
A trial courts zealous regard for the propriety of questions propounded
to witnesses during trial cannot be
equated with bias for a particular party. It is the duty of the tri
al judge to question a witness in order that his
judgment may rest upon a full and clear understanding of the facts.
COSEP VS PEOPLE, 290 SCRA
378
Judges must not only be impartial, but must also appear to be impartial as an ad
ded assurance to the parties that
the decision will be just.
PEOPLE VS CASTILLO, 289
SCRA 213
It was clearly premature on the part of the Sandiganbayan to make a
determinative finding prior to the parties
presentation of their respective evidence that there was no bad faith
and manifest partiality on the respondents
part and undue injury on the part of the complainant.
PEOPLE VS VAYNACO, G.R. NO.
126286, MARCH 22, 1999
The argument is without merit. Trial judges must be accorded a reason
able leeway in asking questions to
witnesses as may be essential to elicit relevant facts and to bring out the trut
h.
PEOPLE VS ESTRADA, G.R. NO.
130487, JUNE 19, 2000

An intelligent determination of an accuseds capacity for rational unders

tanding ought to rest on a deeper and
more comprehensive diagnosis of his mental condition than laymen can m
ake through observation of his overt
behavior and once a medical or psychiatric diagnosis is made, then ca
n the legal question of incompetency be
determined by the trial court; by this time, the accuseds abilities may be measur
ed against the specific demands
a trial will make upon him and that a deprivation of such mental examination sha
ll deny the defendant his right to
a fair trial.
IMPARTIALITY OF A JUDGE
SORIANO VS ANGELES, G.R.
NO. 109920, AUG. 31, 2000
Mere suspicion that a judge is partial to one of the parties is not enough; ther
e should be evidence to prove the
charge. There must be a showing of bias and prejudice stemming from
an extrajudicial source resulting in an
opinion in the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his p
articipation in the case.
ALMENDRA VS ASIS, A.M.
RTJ-1550, APRIL 6, 2000
An impartial judge is one who acts in bad faith, malice, revenge or
other similar motive with regards to him
arriving to a decision.
PEOPLE VS ZHENG BAI HUI,
G.R. NO. 127580, AUG. 22, 2000
A severe examination by a trial judge of some of the witnesses for the defense i
n an effort to develop the truth
and to get at the real facts affords no justification for a charge that he has a
ssisted the prosecution with an evident
desire to secure a conviction, or that he had intimidated the witnesses for the
defenseit cannot be taken against
him if the clarificatory questions he propounded happen to reveal certain truths
which tend to destroy the theory
of one party.
PEOPLE VS GENOSA, G.R. NO.
135981, SEPT. 29, 2000
The Supreme Court noted that the trial court took it solely upon itself to deter
mine the sanity of Genosa. The trial
judge does not have the specialized knowledge to determine a person s mental hea
lth. Without a medical expert,
he was denied a fair trial. Moreover, proof of insanity could have exempted appe
llant from criminal liability.
RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL
IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S. 237 An accused is entitled to a public trial, at least to
the extent of having his friends, relatives and counsel present -no matter with what offense he may be charged.
GARCIA VS DOMINGO, L-30104 A trial lasting for several weeks, held exclus
ively in chambers of the judge and not in court room open to the
public adversely affects an accuseds right to a free and impartial trial.
COMPULSORY PROCESS
FAJARDO VS GARCIA, 98 SCRA
514
The right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witn
esses of his choice includes the right to
compulsory process to secure the production of evidence in his behalf but the se
rvice of written interrogatories is
completely different from the compulsory process that is established in the cons
titution.

PEOPLE VS YAMBOT, G.R. NO.

120350, OCT. 13, 2000
Appellants must be afforded amplest opportunity to defend themselves be
fore rendition of judgment. The
constitutional right of the accused to be heard on his defense is inviolate.
RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION,
TO CROSS-EXAMINE, OR TO
MEET WITNESS FACE TO
FACE
TAMPAR VS USMAN, 200 SCRA
652
Sec. 7 of the special Rules of Procedure prescribed for Sharia courts
provides that if the plaintiff has no
evidence to prove his claim, the defendant shall take an oath and judgment shall
be rendered in his favor by the
court and on the other hand, should the defendant refuse to take an oath, plaint
iff may affirm his claim under oath
in which case judgment shall be rendered in his favor; this effective
ly deprives a litigant if his right to due
process as it denies a party to confront the witnesses against him and to crossexamine them.
PEOPLE VS DIGNO, 250 SCRA
237
The right to cross-examine the witness is a personal one, which may
be waived expressly or impliedly by
conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right to cross-examine. Thu
s where a party had the opportunity to
cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it he necessarily forfeit
s the right to cross-examine and the
testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed
to remain in the record.
PEOPLE VS MIYAKE, 279 SCRA
180
There is no violation of the right to confrontation when the evidence offered by
the prosecution was the decision
of the prior trial and not the testimony itself, even though such testimony is t
he basis of such decision.
PEOPLE VS NARCA, 275 SCRA
696
Not being a part of the due process clause but a right merely creat
ed by law, preliminary investigation if held
within the statutory limitations cannot be voided. The preliminary inve
stigation is not the venue for the full
exercise of the rights of the parties. This is why preliminary investigation is
not considered as a part of trial but
merely preparatory thereto and that the records therein shall not form
part of the records of the case in court.
Parties may submit affidavits but have no right to examine witnesses
though they can propound questions
through the investigating officer.
"Where death prevents cross-examination under such circumstances that no
responsibility of any sort can be
ascribed to the plaintiff or the witness, it seems a harsh measure t
o strike out all that has obtained in the direct
examination." Besides, mere opportunity and not actual cross-examination
is the essence of the right to crossexamine. Appellants lost such opportunity when they sought the defermen
t of their cross-examination of
Elizabeth, and they only have themselves to blame in forever losing that right b

y reason of Elizabeths demise.

This Court held that the right to cross-examination is a personal on
e which may be waived expressly or
impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examinati
on. Thus, where a party has had
the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself
of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to
cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the wit
ness will be received or allowed to
remain in the record. Waiver of the right to cross-examine may take
various forms. But the common basic
principle underlying the application of the rule on implied waiver is that the p
arty was given the opportunity to
confront and cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take adva
ntage of it for reasons attributable to
himself alone.
PEOPLE VS QUIDATO, G.R. NO.
117401, OCT. 1, 1998
It is hornbook doctrine that unless the af ants themselves take the wit
ness stand to af rm the
averments in their af davits, the af davits must be excluded from the jud
icial proceeding, being
inadmissible hearsay.
PEOPLE VS CRISPIN, 327 SCRA
167
An affidavit of a witness who was not presented as one on the witness stand shal
l not be admissible in evidence.
PEOPLE VS LIBO-ON, G.R. NO.
136737, MAY 23, 2001
The right to confrontation was observed when complainant was presented
on the witness stand and, after her
testimony, the counsel for accused-appellant conducted his cross-examination.
CARRIAGA VS CA, G.R. NO.
143561, JUNE 6, 2001
There is no rule in evidence to the effect that omission of certain particulars
in a sworn statement would estop an
affiant from making an elaboration thereof or from correcting inaccuracies durin
g the trial.
PEOPLE VS RIVERA, G.R. NO.
139180, JULY 31, 2001
In a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme pe
nalty of death, nothing but proof beyond
reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with
which an accused is charged must be
established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld.
PEOPLE VS MONJE, G.R.
146689, SEPT. 27, 2002
The cross-examination of a witness is an absolute right of the party
against whom he is called as part of due
process because it is a tool to test the truth or falsity of the statements made
by such witness.
VICTORINO VS PEOPLE, 509
SCRA 483
The right to confront and cross-examine the opposing partys witnesses is a person
al one which may be waived
expressly or impliedly; where a party has had the opportunity to cros
s-examine a witness but failed to avail
himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testim
ony given on direct examination of
the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record.

HERRERA VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, 579 SCRA 32
Herrera was accused of murder, and the court held that the rule of
double jeopardy does not apply in this case
since one of the questioned informations filed against him was not valid hence H
errera was not placed in danger
of being convicted twice.
HO WAI PANG VS PEOPLE, G.R.
NO. 1716229, OCT. 19, 2001
The right to confrontation is essentially a guarantee that a defendant
may cross-examine the witnesses of the
prosecution, and in this case, even if the petitioner did not object the present
ation of Cincos testimony without
an interpreter, the counsel of the petitioner was still able to cross-examine th
e witness and their credibility.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA, RIGHT
TO BE PRESENT
CARREDO VS PEOPLE, 183
SCRA 273
Waiver of appearance and trial in absentia does not mean that the prosecution is
thereby deprived of its right to
require the presence of the accused for purposes of identification by its witnes
ses which is vital for the conviction
of the accused because the accused may waive his right but not his duty or oblig
ation to the court.
PEOPLE VS RAVELO, 202 SCRA
655
Ravelo et al were convicted of murder of Reynaldo Cabrera Gaurano and of frustra
ted murder of Joey Lugatiman
but Ravelo et al were not able to or did not present evidence on t
heir behalf, nor were they themselves able to
confront the prosecution witnesses who testified against them except th
rough a counsel de oficio appointed by
the trial judge; although they were given more than generous time and opportunit
y to exercise their constitutional
rights to testify and present evidence, they still failed to make use
of their last opportunity and hence cannot
claim that they were denied of their rights.
PEOPLE VS RIVERA, 242 SCRA
26
In the case the SC held that it is the RTC that when it comes to the credibility
of the witnesses, the RTCs finding
will take credence. Furthermore just because the victim is a Taiwanese national
, this does not mean that she has
greater motive to fabricate rape because she can out run the shame that follows
the admission of being raped.
PEOPLE VS TABAG, 268 SCRA
115
Their escape should have been considered a waiver of their right to be present a
t their trial, and the inability of
the court to notify them of the subsequent hearings did not prevent
it from continuing with their trial and by
escaping, placed themselves beyond the protection of the law.
PARADA VS VENERACION, 269
SCRA 371
The requisites then of a valid trial in absentia are: (1) the accuse
d has already been arraigned; (2) he has been
duly notified of the trial; and (3) his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE

PEOPLE VS MORIAL, G.R. NO.

129295, AUG. 15, 2001
Where there is independent evidence, apart from the accuseds alleged uncounselled
confession, that the accused
is truly guilty, the latter nevertheless faces a conviction.
PEOPLE VS TULIN, G.R. NO.
111709, AUG. 30, 2001
Philippines acquires jurisdiction over piracy cases for as long as any
part of the crime was committed in
Philippine waters.
SECTION 21
DISMISSAL AT PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION, NO
JEOPARDY ATTACHMENT
OF JEOPARDY
PEOPLE VS YLAGAN, 58 PHIL
851
Under the foregoing provisions of law, defendant in a criminal prosecution is in
legal jeopardy when placed on
trial under the following conditions: (1) In a court of competent jur
isdiction; (2) upon a valid complaint or
information; (3) after he has been arraigned; and (4) after he has p
leaded to the complaint of information and
(and since these were present in a previous prosecution, the Supreme Court held
that the appelle has been once in
jeopardy for the offense for which she is now prosecuted.)
PEOPLE VS BALISACAN,
L-26376
Rule on double jeopardy is applicable even if accused fails to file brief or rai
se question of double jeopardy.
CINCO VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
202 SCRA 726
Preliminary investigation is not a trial where double jeopardy attaches as it is
not a trial of the case on the merits
and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has be
en committed and whether there is
probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty therefor.
PEOPLE VS VERGARA, 221
SCRA 560
For double jeopardy to attach there must be (a) a valid complaint or
information; (b) a court of competent
jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (d) the accused has
been convicted or acquitted or the
case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused.
NAVALLO VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, 234 SCRA
175
There is no jeopardy where the court had no jurisdiction.
GALVEZ VS CA, 237 SCRA 685 Even if substitution was made before judgment, petiti
oners cannot validly claim double jeopardy for the simple
reason that no first jeopardy had as yet attached.
CUNANAN VS ARCEO, 242
SCRA 88
Since the offense with which petitioner Cunanan is charged falls within the excl
usive and original jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan, and that the Regional Trial. Court of San Fernando, Pampanga
had no jurisdiction over that
offense.
PEOPLE VS TAMPAL, 244 SCRA
202

Legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid indictment, (2) before a competen
t court, (3) after arraignment (4)
when a valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendant was
acquitted or convicted , or the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.
PEOPLE VS MONTESA, 248
SCRA 641
He seemed to have something in mind for the protection of the interest of the pr
ivate respondents. Presumably,
he thought that the arraignment which was immediately followed by the
dismissal of the case would forever
foreclose, on the ground of double jeopardy, any reopening of the case.
DE LA ROSA VS CA, 253 SCRA
499
The requisites that must occur for legal jeopardy to attach are: (a) a valid com
plaint or information; (b) a court of
competent jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and
(d) the accused has been convicted or
acquitted or the case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the
accused (which may be made via
ORAL MOTION).
PEOPLE VS LEVISTE, 255 SCRA
238
Petitioner cannot invoke his right against double jeopardy because his right to
a speedy trial has not been violated
by the State.
PEOPLE VS CAWALING, 293
SCRA 267
The requisites for double jeopardy are: (1) a first jeopardy has attached before
another one; (2) the first jeopardy
has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense a
s that in the first while the first
jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) it was filed
before a competent court; (c) after
arraignment; (d) valid plea has been filed; and (e) when the charged individual
was acquitted or convicted, or the
case was dismissed.
CUDIA VS CA, 284 SCRA 173 In determining when the first jeopardy may be said to
have attached, it is necessary to prove the existence of the
following: (a) Court of competent jurisdiction; (b) Valid complaint or
information; (c) Arraignment; (d) Valid
plea; (e) The defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without the
express consent of the accused.
TECSON VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
G.R. NO. 123045, NOV. 16, 1999
Demetio Tecson, at the time Mayor of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, con
tends that his Sandiganbayan trial
amounts to double jeopardy since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had alrea
dy cleared him of all charges. The
requisites for jeopardy to attach are not present at the hearings by the Sanggun
iang Panlalawigan.
DIMATULAC VS VILLON, G.R.
NO. 127107, OCT. 12, 1999
When the state is deprived of due process in a criminal case by reason of grave
abuse of discretion on the part of
the trial court, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of th
e case is void, hence double jeopardy cant be
invoked by the accused.
PEOPLE VS MAQUILING, G.R.

NO. 128986, JUNE 21, 1999

No double jeopardy would attach where the state is deprived of a fair opportunit
y to prosecute and prove its case,
or where the dismissal of an information or a complaint is purely capricious or
devoid of reason, or when there is
lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
PEOPLE VS NITAFAN, G.R. NO.
707964-66, FEB. 1, 1999
Double jeopardy connotes the concurrence of three requisites: (a) the first jeopa
rdy must have attached prior to
the second, (b) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated, and (c) th
e second jeopardy must be for the
same offense as that in the first.
[T]he first jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment, (2) be
fore a competent court, (3) after
arraignment, (4) when a valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendant
was convicted or acquitted, or
the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of th
e accused.
BINAY VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
G.R. NO. 120681, OCT. 1, 1999
The first jeopardy never attached in the first place, the RTC not being a court
of competent jurisdiction. There
can be no double jeopardy where the accused entered a plea in a court that had n
o jurisdiction.
LIMPANGOG VS COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. NO. 134229,
NOVEMBER 26,1999
Court of appeals has no jurisdiction over an appeal of a trial court
imposing an indeterminate sentence, if the
same ruling also imposes reclusion perpetua.
FLORES VS JOVEN, G.R. NO.
129874, DEC. 27, 2002
The requisites that must be present for double jeopardy to attach are: (a) a val
id complaint or information; (b) a
court of competent jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and
(d) the accused has been convicted
or acquitted or the case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of
the accused.
MIRNADA VS TULIAO, 486
SCRA 377
The dismissal of the arraignment of the accused cannot make the bar the reinstat
ement of the criminal case since
double jeopardy cannot be invoked where the accused has not been arraigned and i
t was upon his express motion
that it be dismissed.
CABO VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
491 SCRA 264
It is elementary that for double jeopardy to attach, the case against
the accused must have been dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdi
ction, upon a valid information
sufficient in form and substance and the accused pleaded to the charg
e. In the instant case, the original
information to which petitioner entered a plea of not guilty was neithe
r valid nor sufficient to sustain a
conviction, and the criminal case was also neither dismissed nor termi
nated.
Double jeopardy could not,
therefore, attach even if petitioner is assumed to have been unconditionally arr
aigned on the original charge.

ROMUALDEZ VS MARCELO,
497 SCRA 89
An order sustaining a motion to quash on grounds other than extinctio
n of criminal liability or double
jeopardy does not preclude the ling of another information for a crime constituti
ng the same facts.
PEOPLE VS TERRADO, 558
SCRA 84
Terrado was acquitted of the crime of carnapping. Mistakes ascribed to
the trial court were not errors of
jurisdiction, but errors of judgment that can be corrected by a petition for rev
iew on certiorari. Correction of an
erroneous acquittal may be allowed when the public respondent clearly
showed/ acted without jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. But
the petition the the Garcias was
merely a call for an ordinary review of the findings of the court which is again
st the constitutional right against
double jeopardy.
PEOPLE VS CA, 626 SCRA 352 No double jeopardy attaches by reason of the
abbreviated nature of preliminary investigations, and as such, a
dismissal of the charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial pro
nouncement of acquittal.
TERMINATION OF
JEOPARDY, EXISTENCE, NONTERMINATION
BULAONG VS PEOPLE, 17 SCRA
746
The defense of double jeopardy is available to the accused only where he was eit
her convicted or acquitted or the
case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his consent.
BUSTAMANTE VS MACAREN,
48 SCRA 155
When the accused has been convicted and is actually serving his sentence, there
is no need to re-open the case for
it constitutes double jeopardy.
PEOPLE VS OBSANIA, L-24447 This particular aspect of double jeopardy dism
issal or termination of the original case without the express
consent of the defendant has evoked varied and apparently conflicting rulings fr
om this Court but the recent
ruling was where a criminal case is dismissed provisionally not only with the ex
press consent of the accused but
even upon the urging of his counsel, there can be no double jeopardy if the indi
ctment against him is revived by
the fiscal.
RIVERA, JR. VS PEOPLE, 189
SCRA 331
Where there is a valid information and the accused has been arraigned, an order
of dismissal issued by the court
has the effect of a judgment of acquittal and double jeopardy attaches; however,
this order of dismissal must be
written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by
the judge and signed by him conformably
with the provisions of Rule 120, section 2 of the Rules of Court.
DIZON-PAMINTUAN VS
PEOPLE, 234 SCRA 63
Dizon-Pamintuan was accused of violating the Anti-Fencing law, and the
court held that Dizon-Pamintuan was
not in danger of double jeopardy if informations for robbery and thef
t was filed against her since these are

separate and different offenses from fencing.

COMELEC VS CA, 229 SCRA 48 Double jeopardy attached when the accused, char
ged in a valid complaint or information before a competent
court, is acquitted or convicted or the case is unconditionally dismissed withou
t his express consent after he has
been arraigned and entered plea, otherwise, double jeopardy may still
attach if: (1) when the ground is
insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution and (2) when the pro
ceedings have been prolonged
unreasonably.
STATE PROSECUTORS VS
MURO, 236 SCRA 505
In the absence of jurisdiction, double jeopardy will not set in, and it is thus
settled that double jeopardy cannot be
invoked against this Court s setting aside of the trial court s judgme
nt of dismissal or acquittal where the
prosecution which represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is denied du
e process.
PEOPLE VS BELLAFLOR, 233
SCRA 196
Generally, protection against double jeopardy is not available where the dismiss
al of the case was effected at the
instance of the accused and there are only two instances where double jeopardy w
ill attach notwithstanding the
fact the case was dismissed with the express consent of the accused,
(1)where the ground for the dismissal is
insufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution and (2) where the criminal pro
ceedings have been unreasonably
prolonged in violation of the accuseds right to speedy trial, but none
of these instances exists in the case thus
since Respondent Bellaflor had moved for the dismissal of the criminal
case filed against him, the protective
mantle of double jeopardy does not cover him.
GUERRERO VS CA, 257 SCRA
703
In this case the petitioner claims that a re-hearing would place him under doubl
e jeopardy, in this case there has
been no termination of the first jeopardy, thus he could not have been placed in
double jeopardy.
TEODORO VS CA, 258 SCRA 603 Although an appeal does not vacate the judgment appe
aled from, it does prevent it from becoming final so that it
does not bar the trial court from acting on the appeal and imposing
penalty warranted by the law and the
evidence and until that appeal is withdrawn, there is no decision of the lower
court to serve or satisfy because
the appeal stayed the decision.
CUIDIA VS CA, 284 SCRA 173 If the complaint or information was insufficien
t because it was so defective in form or substance that the
conviction upon it could not have been sustained, its dismissal withou
t the consent of the accused cannot be
pleaded; Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to
a defective indictment that is voluntarily
dismissed by the prosecution.
PEOPLE VS LISING, 285 SCRA
595
It will be a violation of the accuseds constitutional right against double jeopar
dy to convict him of kidnapping
where he was already convicted of double murder arising from the very same act/o
ffense.
PEOPLE VS ARANETA, G.R. NO.

125894, DEC. 11, 1998, 95 OG

4556
Where conspiracy is established, it matters not who among the accused actually s
hot and killed the victim.
CUISON VS CA, 289 SCRA 159 The promulgation of only one part of the deci
sion, i.e., the liability for civil indemnity, is not a bar to the
subsequent promulgation of the other part, the imposition of the criminal accoun
tability.
PEOPLE VS CA, G.R. NO.
128986, JUNE 21, 1999
No double jeopardy would attach where the state is deprived of a fair opportunit
y to prosecute and prove its case,
or where the dismissal of an information or a complaint is purely capricious or
devoid of reason, or when there is
lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
PEOPLE VS SERRANO, G.R. NO.
135451, SEPT. 30, 1999
The preclusion against appeal by the government from judgments of acqu
ittal applies even though the accused
did not raise the question of double jeopardy.
BARANGAN VS COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. NO. 123307,
NOV. 29, 1999
The Courts hands are tied by the constitutional mandate against double
jeopardy and so acquittal must stand
when it is proven that a valid complaint or information is filed aga
inst an accused, a court of competent
jurisdiction has acquired jurisdiction over the person and the accused has been
tried and acquitted for the case.
PEOPLE VS VELASCO, G.R. NO.
127444, SEPT. 13, 2000
The doctrine that "double jeopardy may not be invoked after trial" may apply onl
y when the Court finds that the
"criminal trial was a sham" because the prosecution representing the s
overeign people in the criminal case was
denied due process and the court in People v. Bocar rationalized that the "reman
d of the criminal case for further
hearing and/or trial before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of
the first jeopardy, and does not
expose the accused to a second jeopardy."
TUPAZ VS ULEP, G.R. NO.
127777, OCT. 1, 1999
An accused is placed on double jeopardy if he is again tried for an
offense for which he has been convicted,
acquitted or which the indictment against him was dismissed without his consent.
PEOPLE VS VERRA, G.R. NO.
134732
While it is true that the respondent joined the prosecution in praying for its d
ismissal, double jeopardy will still
attach since the basis for the ruling was the insufficiency of evidence of the p
rosecution.
MERCIALES VS CA, 379 SCRA
345
The acquittal of the accused by the court a quo was done without regard to due p
rocess of law, which makes it
null and void. It is as if there was no acquittal at all, therefore it cannot c
onstitute a claim for double jeopardy.
POSO VS MIJARES, A.M. NO.
RTJ-02-1693, AUG. 21, 2002
From the lowering of the penalty to qualify the accused for probation, the autho

rization for temporary liberty on

recognizance, and finally the grant of probation, the orders of respondent Judge
arising from these proceedings
do not compel respectability and finality to constitute res judicata or even dou
ble jeopardy.
PEOPLE VS ALBERTO, G.R. NO.
132374, AUG. 22, 2002
The three requisites before double jeopardy can be invoked are: (1) the first je
opardy must have attached prior to
the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) th
e second jeopardy must be for the
same offense as that in the first, or the second offense includes or is necessar
ily included in the offense charged
in the first information, or is an attempt to commit the same or is a frustratio
n thereof; as to the first jeopardy, it
only arises (1) upon a valid indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3) afte
r arraignment; (4) when a valid plea
has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was acquitted, convicted,
or the case was dismissed; double
jeopardy cannot exist on the basis of a void dismissal order (e.g. trial court d
id not afford any opportunity to the
prosecution to be heard before it decided to dismiss the case, contra
ry to Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised
Rules of Court).
CONDRADA VS PEOPLE, G.R.
NO. 141646, FEB. 28, 2003
Petitioner is not in danger of being twice put in jeopardy with the
reinstatement of Criminal Case No. 10770
because the case was provisionally dismissed by the trial court upon his motion.
Thus, the requirement that the
dismissal of the case must be without the consent of the accused is not present
in this case and neither does the
case fall under any of the two exceptions (1:insufficiency of evidence
to support the charge; 2: unreasonable
delay in violation of right to speedy trial).
PEOPLE VS ROMERO, G.R. NO.
144156, MARCH 20, 2003
No violation of the right against double jeopardy even if the trial court approv
es the prosecutions motion to reopen the case after its earlier approval of the accuseds plea to the lesser offen
se of homicide where it has yet to
render a decision.
PEOPLE VS ESPINOSA, G.R. NO.
153714, AUG. 15, 2003
To substantiate a claim for double jeopardy, the following must be demonstrated:
(1) [A] first jeopardy must have
attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been
validly terminated; (3) the second jeopardy
must be for the same offense, or the second offense includes or is necessarily i
ncluded in the offense charged in
the first information, or is an attempt to commit the same or is a frustration t
hereof. And legal jeopardy attaches
only: (a) upon a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c)
after arraignment; (d) [when] a valid plea
[has] been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise termi
nated without the express consent of the
accused.
ORIENTE VS PEOPLE, 513 SCRA
348
Manuel Oriente attacked and killed Romulo Vallo. RTC promulgated a sec

ond decision to correct the penalty

imposed on the Oriente. This does not amount to double jeopardy as Co
urts have the inherent power to amend
formalities of their decisions to conform to law and justice.
PACOY VS CAJIGAL, 534 SCRA
338
It is the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal or
termination of the case that bars further
prosecution for the same offense or any attempt to commit the same or the frustr
ations thereof.
SUMMERVILLE VS EUGENIO,
529 SCRA 274
If the trial courts order granting the withdrawal of the Information w
as committed with grave abuse of
discretion, then the accused was not acquitted nor was there a valid and legal d
ismissal or termination of the case
as such the fourth requisite on the conviction and acquittal of the accused in t
he dismissal of the case, without
the approval of the accused was not met and therefore, double jeopardy did not s
et in.
HERRERA VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, 579 SCRA 32
In order for a case of double jeopardy to prosper all the requisites must be pre
sent, the absence of one would be a
fatal defect.
JAVIER VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
599 SCRA 324
Double jeopardy could not attach considering that the two cases remain pending b
efore the Sandiganbayan and
that the petitioner had pleaded to only one in the criminal cases against her.
CO VS LIM, 604 SCRA 702 The failure of the trial court judge to independently ev
aluate and assess the merits of the case against the accused
violates the complainants right to due process and constitutes grave ab
use of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
LEJANO VS PEOPLE, 639 SCRA
760
A judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the
accused under double jeopardy; to
reconsider such judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeop
ardy of being punished for the crime of
which he has already been absolved.
BANGAYON VS BANGAYON,
G.R. NO. 172777, OCT. 19, 2011
Though the trial court incorrectly overlooked the evidence against the
petitioner, granting them demurrer to
evidence which resulted to the acquittal of the accused, such error i
s a mistake of judgment which cannot be
rectified by a petition for certiorari as double jeopardy had already set in.
GOODLAND VS CO, G.R. NO.
196685, DEC. 18, 2011
An order granting an accuseds demurrer to evidence is a resolution of the case on
the merits, and it amounts to
an acquittal. Generally, any further prosecution of the accused after an acquitt
al would violate the constitutional
proscription on double jeopardy.nIt is settled that a judgment of acqu
ittal cannot be recalled or withdrawn by
another order reconsidering the dismissal of the case, nor can it be modified ex
cept to eliminate something which
is civil or administrative in nature. One exception to the rule is w

hen the prosecution is denied due process of

law. Another exception is when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion
in dismissing a criminal case by
granting the accuseds demurrer to evidence. If there is grave abuse of discretion
, granting Goodlands prayer is
not tantamount to putting Co and Chan in double jeopardy.
However, the present case is replete with evidence to prove that the
CA was correct in denying Goodlands
certiorari on appeal.
RULE ON SUPERVENING
FACTS
MELO VS PEOPLE, 85 PHIL 766
"Where after the
rst prosecution a new fact supervenes f or which the
def endant is responsible,
which changes the character of the offense and, together with the facts existing
at the time, constitutes
a new and distinct offense" (15 Am. Jur., 66), the accused cannot be said to be
in second jeopardy if
indicted for the new offense.
PEOPLE VS BULING, 107 PHIL
712
Accused was found guilty of less serious physical injuries and served sentence.
A subsequent examination by a
different physician using X-ray showed that wounds inflicted would not heal on t
ime, hence accused was charged
of serious physical injuries and was again sentenced to jail. This is double jeo
pardy because what happened here
is not a supervening event but a failure of the first physician to diagnose the
injury.
SAME OFFENSES
PEOPLE VS TIOZON, 198 SCRA
368
PD 1866 which punishes possession of firearms (qualified by the attend
ance of murder) and the article on
Murder/Homicide in the Revised Penal Code defines two distinct crimes, and as su
ch, prior jeopardy as to one of
them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise
from the same facts, as each crime
involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other.
LAMERA VS CA, 198 SCRA 186 Since the information were for separate offense
s, one cannot be pleaded as a bar to the other under the rule of
double jeopardy, and as a rule, for double jeopardy to attach, the accused must
have been arraigned.
GONZALES VS CA, 232 SCRA
667
Premature resort to the courts necessarily becomes fatal to the cause of action o
f the petitioner.
PEOPLE VS TURDA, 233 SCRA
702
Not all acts which constitute estafa necessarily establish illegal recr
uitment, for estafa is wider in scope and
covers deceits whether or not related to recruitment activities and mo
re importantly, the element of damage,
which is essential in estafa cases, is immaterial in illegal recruitment.
PEOPLE VS MANUNGAS, 231
SCRA 1
Accused- appellant is guilty of Estafa and Illegal Recruitment. A person who vio
lates any of the provisions under
Article 13(b) and Article 34 of the Labor Code can be charged and convicted sepa

rately of illegal recruitment and

estafa because illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum where the cri
minal intent of the accused is not
necessary for a conviction while estafa is amalum in se where crimina
l intent of the accused is necessary for a
conviction.
PEOPLE VS DEUNIDA, 231
SCRA 520
Deunida was accused of illegal possession of firearms (PD 1866) and m
urder, and the court held that Deunida
was not placed in double jeopardy when he was also charged in anothe
r case with murder because the former
offense is a different offense punished by a special law while the latter offens
e is defined and penalized under the
Revised Penal Code.
PEOPLE VS FERNANDEZ, 239
SCRA 174
There is no violation of the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy
since the two Informations filed
against the defendant charged two distinct and different offensesmurder and illeg
al possession of firearm.
PEOPLE VS QUIJADA, 259 SCRA
191
Where the offenses charged are penalized either by different sections of the sam
e statute or by different statutes,
the important inquiry relates to the identity of offenses charged such that the
protection against double jeopardy
is available only where an identity is shown to exist between the earlier and th
e subsequent offenses charged.
PEOPLE VS BALLABARE, 264
SCRA 350
Ballabare contends that he was placed in jeopardy when he was found guilty of mu
rder and Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Ammunition but the argument has no merit since Illegal Possession o
f Firearms and Ammunition
does not absorb the crime of homicide or murder under the Revised Pe
nal Code and therefore does not bar the
simultaneous or subsequent prosecution for the latter crime.
PEOPLE VS CALONZO, 262
SCRA 534
In this case Calonzo was convicted on 5 counts of illegal recruitment, he was al
so convicted of estafa. Calonzo
contends that this is double jeopardy, however conviction under the la
bour code does not preclude conviction
under other statues (Thus can be convicted for estafa).
PEOPLE VS BENEMERITO, 264
SCRA 534
The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence of the parties in
a criminal case is evenly balanced, the
presumption of innocence should tilt in favor of the accused for which an offer
of mere denial and claim that he
was the victim, fails to overcome the prosecutions evidence, hence the rule is un
available to him.
PEOPLE VS TOBIAS, 266 SCRA
229
Where the victim was slain by the accused with the use of an unlice
nsed firearm, the accused may not be
convicted of two separate offenses but only that of illegal possession of firear
m in its aggravated form.
PEOPLE VS MANOYCO, 269

SCRA 513
Accused in this case was convicted of estafa (RPC) and illegal recruitment in la
rge scale (Labor Code) though it
arose from the same offense, since elements of both were present.
PEOPLE VS TAN TIONG MENG,
271 SCRA 125
The presumption of innocence can be disproved by reasonable doubt established by
the prosecution.
PEOPLE VS SADIOSA, 290 SCRA
92
The crime of illegal recruitment (Labor Code) is malum prohibitum where the crim
inal intent of the accused is
not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal int
ent of the accused is necessary for
conviction and so a person convicted under the Labor Code may also be convicted
under the RPC.
PEOPLE VS SANCHEZ, 291
SCRA 333
A person convicted for illegal recruitment may also be convicted for the crime o
f estafa since the former offense
is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not
necessary for conviction, while estafa
is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is an additional element
for conviction.
PEOPLE VS SALEY, 291 SCRA
715
Conviction for the various offenses under the Labor Code does not bar the punish
ment of the offender for estafa
since illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum offense where criminal
intent is not necessary for conviction
while estafa is malum in se which requires criminal intent to warrant conviction
.
PEOPLE VS JUEGO, G.R. NO.
123162, OCT. 13, 1998
A conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar punishment for offen
ses punishable by other laws
and in this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recrui
tment may be charged and convicted
separately of illegal recruitment and estafa under par. 2 (a), Art. 315, of The
Revised Penal Code, as the offense
of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent o
f the accused is not necessary for
conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused
is crucial for conviction.
PEOPLE VS GANADIN, G.R. NO.
129441, NOV. 27, 1998
Case cannot be found.
PEOPLE VS BALASA, G.R. NO.
106357, SEPT. 3, 1998
Even if several cases arose out of the same scheme, if the fraudulen
t acts charged were committed against
different persons, they do not constitute the same offense.
PALUAY VS CA, 293 SCRA 358 The question raised by the petition for annulment of
judgment is a factual question that cannot be reviewed not
only because the decision of the trial court is now final but also because a rev
iew of such question at the instance
of the prosecution would violate the right of the accused against being placed i
n double jeopardy of punishment
for the same act.
PEOPLE VS MERCADO, 304

SCRA 504
The Court reiterated the rule that a person convicted of illegal recr
uitment under the Labor Code can be
convicted of violation of the Revised Penal Code provisions on estafa,
provided the elements of the crime are
present.
PEOPLE VS YABUT, G.R. NO.
115719, OCT. 5, 1999
Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offense
s punishable by other laws.
PEOPLE VS ONG, 322 SCRA 38 Cases may be tried jointly if such are based on the s
ame set of facts.
PEOPLE VS MERIS, G.R. NO.
117145-50, MARCH 28, 2000
Accused is convicted of six counts of estafa and large-scale illegal
recruitment stemming from seven
informations filed against her, containing the same allegations except
as to name of complainants and amounts
involved. The complaints were consolidated.
PEOPLE VS LOGAN, G.R. NO.
135030-33, JULY 20, 2001
Offenders who have committed illegal recruitment may be charged and co
nvicted separately of the crime of
illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under paragraph 2(
a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code.
POTOT VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO.
143547, JUNE 26, 2002
A petitioner who has been placed in jeopardy for the crime of homicide, cannot b
e prosecuted anew for the same
offense, or any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in
the first offense charged.
PEOPLE VS CA, 423 SCRA 605 Respondents Francisco and Pacao, accused with h
omicide and attempted murder, were found not guilty by the
Court of Appeals. Their acquittal must therefore be accorded finality
in faithful adherence to the rule against
double jeopardy.
RAMISCAL VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, 499 SCRA
375
Crimes committed by public officers and employees in relation to their offices d
efined and penalized under the
Anti-Graft law do not exclude prosecution for felonies defined and penalized und
er RPC, and vice versa --- one
may be charged of violation of RA No.3079 in addition to a felony under the RPC
for the same delictional act,
that is either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with or felony under
the code.
PEOPLE VS COMILA, 517 SCRA
153
A person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafaille
gal recruitment being malum
prohibitum while estafa is malum in se.
DIAZ VS DAVAO, 520 SCRA 481 A single criminal act could give rise to mul
tiple crimes and if there is a difference in the elements of the tw
o
crimes then there will be no Double Jeopardy since the prohibition on
Double Jeopardy refers to identity of
elements in the two crimes.
MERENCILLO VS PEOPLE, 521

SCRA 31
There is no double jeopardy if a person is charged simultaneously or
successively for violation of Section 3 of
RA 3019 and the Revised Penal Code.
LAPASARAN VS PEOPLE, 578
SCRA 658
The best arbiter of the issue of credibility of the witnesses and their testimon
ies is the trial court.
IVLER VS MODESTO, 635 SCRA
191
Where both charges are derived from the consequences of one and the same vehicul
ar accident (or act or quasioffenses), the second accusation places the appellant in second jeopardy for the
same offense.
PEOPLE VS OCDEN, 650 SCRA
124
There is no bar for the prosecution of the accused for both estafa and illegal r
ecruitment even though they root
from one and the same offense since conviction for offenses under the
Labor Code does not bar conviction for
offenses punishable by other laws.
PEOPLE VS LALLI, G.R. NO.
195419, OCT. 12, 2011
When an act or acts violate two or more different laws and constitute two differ
ent offenses, a prosecution under
one will not bar a prosecution under the other. The constitutional rig
ht against double jeopardy only applies to
risk of punishment twice for the same offense, or for an act punished by a law a
nd an ordinance. The prohibition
on double jeopardy does not apply to an act or series of acts constituting diffe
rent offenses.
NO APPEAL FROM
ACQUITTAL, INSTANCES OF
VOID ACQUITTAL
PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
376 SCRA 74
Once the court grants the demurrer, such order amounts to an acquittal; and any
further prosecution of
the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.
YUCHENGCO VS CA, 376 SCRA
531
Private respondents have been acquitted by CA from charges of libel. Petitioner
files a certiorari case to assail the
acquittal. Court says that acquittal cannot be appealed since it is f
inal and doing so would trample upon the
constitutional right protecting people from double jeopardy. Moreover, certiorar
i can only be used when there is
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The case
at bar involves a question of fact
and the appreciation of adduced evidence which the CA did without grave abuse of
discretion.
SAN VICENTE VS PEOPLE, G.R.
NO. 132081, NOV. 26, 2002
When the trial court issued an order to dismiss and granted demurrer
to San Vicente who was charged with
homicide, it constituted an exception to the rule that the dismissal
of a criminal case made with the express
consent of the accused or upon his own motion bars a plea of double jeopardy.
PEOPLE VS CA, G.R. NO.
132396, SEPT. 23, 2002

While it is true that double jeopardy will attach in case the prosecution appeal
s a decision acquitting the accused,
it is likewise true that an acquittal rendered in grave abuse of dis
cretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction does not really acquit and therefore does not terminate the case.
PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
491 SCRA 185
One can be discharge as long as the Rules are sufficiently complied on State wit
nesses.
PEOPLE VS CA, 516 SCRA 383 There are two recognized exceptions to the constituti
onal guarantee against double jeopardy: (1) Where there has
been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a m
istrial or (2) Where there has been a grave
abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances which in this case, neither
of these was present.
PEOPLE VS LAGUIO, 518 SCRA
393
It also basic that appeal in criminal cases throws the whole records
of the case wide open for review by the
appellate court that is why any appeal from a judgment of acquittal
necessarily puts the accused in double
jeopardy.
PEOPLE VS DUMLAO, 580 SCRA
409
Dumalao was accused of violating the anti-graft and corruption law, and the cour
t held that double jeopardy has
not yet set since the last element of double jeopardy valid conviction, acquitta
l, dismissal or termination of the
case has not been satisfied.
TIU VS CA, 586 SCRA 118 Settled is the ruled that only the Solicitor General may
bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the C
ourt of Appeals, and the appeal of
petitioner Tiu cannot be granted since the accused in the case appeal
ed was acquitted due to insufficiency of
evidence, otherwise, double jeopardy would attach.
PEOPLE VS DE GRANO, 588
SCRA 550
A judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for cer
tiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, but only upon a clear showing by the petitioner that the
lower court, in acquitting the accused,
committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but also grave abus
e of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, or to a denial of due process, thus rendering
the assailed judgment void, in which event,
the accused cannot be considered at risk of double jeopardy the reve
red constitutional safeguard against
exposing the accused to the risk of answering twice for the same offense.
PEOPLE VS NAZARENO, 595
SCRA 438
Nazareno et al were acquitted for violating Republic Act No. 3019 (RA
3019) or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, the People filed for a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Cou
rt however a judgment of acquittal
is final, no longer reviewable, immediately executory and the State may not seek
its review without placing the
accused in double jeopardy.
PEOPLE VS DUCA, 603 SCRA
159

In this case the CA acquitted Duca without giving the OSG the chance to file his
comment, this deprived the state
of its right to refute the material allegations filed before the CA, thus the de
cision of acquittal is null and void.
MUPAS VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO.
189365, OCT. 12, 2011
An order granting the accuseds demurrer to evidence amounts to an acqu
ittal, however, an exception is that
when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in dismis
sing a criminal case by granting the
accuseds demurrer to evidence, its judgment is considered nugatory.
PARTIES
METROBANK VS MERIDIANO,
G.R. NO. 118251, JUNE 29, 2001
Whenever a criminal case is prosecuted and the State is the offended party, the
case must always be prosecuted
under the control and guidance of the State through its government prosecutors;
Whenever there is an acquittal or
dismissal of a criminal case and the private complainant intends to q
uestion such an acquittal or dismissal, the
same must be undertaken by the State through the Solicitor General
ORDINANCE AND STATUTE
PEOPLE VS RELOVA, 148 SCRA
292
A person who was charged for violating a City Ordinance for having i
nstalled a metering device to lower his
electric bills which was dismissed for prescription of the offense may
not be charged again for theft of electric
power under the RPC.
APPLIED TO IMPEACHMENT
ESTRADA VS DESIERTO, G.R.
NO. 146710-15, G.R. NO. 146738,
MARCH 2, 2001
The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and
the officer who acts illegally is not
acting as such but stands in the same footing as any trespasser.
ESTRADA VS DESIERTO, MRGR 146710-15 AND 146738,
APRIL 3, 2001
Double jeopardy attaches only: (1) upon a valid complaint; (2) before a compet
ent court; (3) after arraignment;
(4) when a valid plea has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was acquitted
or convicted or the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused (pe
titioner failed to satisfy the fifth
requisite for he was not acquitted nor was the impeachment proceeding dismissed
without his express consent)
PEOPLE VS LOGAN, G.R. NO.
135030-33, JULY 20, 2001
A person convicted under the Labor Code may also be convicted of offenses punish
able by other laws.