Consti Transcript March 12:

Our Constitution has guaranteed protection to anyone who may be accused of a crime because of the
presumption of innocence. He has been given all the opportunity to protect himself from being prejudged or
from being punished even if he is (inaudible). Right from the time he is arrested, he is already given such rights
to protect his liberty as well as his life. So we start with Section 12 guys.
Section 12 (Rights of suspects while in custody) a right granted to a person who is a suspect yet of a
crime and the guarantee is procedural due process as enumerated there and the custodial rights.
Procedural Due Process
-

Insofar as procedural due process, it simply means that one cannot be made to answer for any wrong
doing if there no law punishing the act or omission.

In this jurisdiction, without any law punishing the act no matter how anomalous, heinous or immoral, such is not
considered a crime. So then first and foremost, when you are charged with a wrong doing, you ask Is there any
law that punishes this act? Because if there is none, you are not answerable to that act or to that omission. Do
you understand? The law guarantees the protection that you will be given a day in court to answer for any
crime that is punishable under the law.
And another thing that is guaranteed under the Constitution guys is that poverty should not be an excused
in order to deny the person of justice. So if you cannot afford the services of a lawyer, we have laws
allowing the accused to be assisted with a counsel de oficio. First and foremost, you have the Public
Attorneys Office (PAO). Then the judge may appoint or designate any lawyer to assist the accused as
counsel de oficio to be exempt from court fees, to make sure that he will be protected and his being poor
should not be a reason to deny him of justice.
Custodial Rights
-

These are rights granted to anyone who may have been deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way. Usually this happens when one is arrested without a warrant of arrest and immediately
put in the custody of the police. And the police thereafter makes an investigation. The investigation
conducted is what we call a Custodial Investigation.

Custodial Investigation
-

This is conducted by a law enforcer immediately after one is arrested or deprived of his liberty in any
significant way, including the invitation of a suspect for some questioning at the police station(this is
included in the protection).

Who is this law enforcer being referred to?

-

One who tasked to implement the law. That includes the Barangay Tanod, the Barangay Captain
and the Bantay Bayan as it is already enunciated in the case of (People vs Laob?)
So even those who are considered as agents of persons in authority, are considered as law enforcers.
You have NBI, CIDG and members of the PNP.

So then, when do they conduct investigation?

-

It starts with the arrest. Then the questioning, foc using on the person as the suspect, as the
perpetrator of the crime. That is a custodial investigation.
It is not just in the asking of the person to step into the office for a police lineup for identification by
witnesses custodial investigation

If the custodial investigation has not yet started the suspect is not yet entitled to the guaranties under
custodial rights.
Unless he is the only suspect in the commission of the crime (Forever alone identification line-up) -> Custodial
investigation commences and that would give the suspect the entitlement to the custodial rights.
When does the custodial investigation conducted?
Within the allowable hours prescribed(?) by the law on arbitrary detention
ARTICLE 125 RPC
Custodial Investigation Suspect

Fiscals office Respondent

Court Accused
If charged with:
Light offense must not be detained for more than 12 hours
Less grave offense must not be detained for more than 18 hours
Grave offense must not be detained for more than 36 hours
The hours includes the inquest conducted by the fiscals office after preliminary(?) custodial investigation.
IF THERE IS NO CASE FILED AGAINST THE SUSPECT WITHIN THOSE HOURS, THE SUSPECT MUST BE
RELEASED OR ELSE THE POLICE WILL BE CHARGED WITH ARBITRARY DETENTION.

CUSTODIAL RIGHTS
The right to remain silent & the right to be assisted by a competent lawyer.
The right to be informed of the Miranda rights (People vs Miranda case)
Miranda was acquitted after 20 years because of the failure of the policemen to inform him of his rights and he
was not assisted by a lawyer when he made his confessions.
If these rights are not communicated to the suspect
The confessions and admissions made in a custodial investigation are INADMISSIBLE
The reason for the strictness of informing the suspect of the Miranda rights:
Considering the intimidating ambiance in a custodial investigation in a police station and the suspect can be
easily intimidated by a police mans badge. (stupid daw ang mga taw nga gapatakag confess. Haha)
The guarantee under section 12 is to make sure that the suspects rights are not violated.
MIRANDA RIGHTS
The right to remain silent do you invoke this right everytime you are asked a question by the police?
NO. Being referred to here is the right not to answer to a question that would put you at the crime scene or
that would implicate/incriminate you to the commission of the crime. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT
YOURSELF.
Light confessions are okay as long as it is done in writing and must be in the presence of a lawyer.
If there is no lawyer available the police must make sure that the suspect will understand the consequences
of his confessions and those can or might be used against him and must be done a meaningful manner so that
the suspect will understand his rights.
RA 7438? the informing of the suspect of his rights is mandatory.
No presumption of regularity in the performance of the duty of the police. The burden of proving that the
suspect is informed of his rights (custodial rights) lies upon the police.
You may also opt not to do an act that might be used against you:
Ordered to remove your clothes, paraffin test, give a sample of blood, semen, hair, saliva can the suspect
be compelled to do this? NO.
These are mechanical acts. They do not need the freewill and intelligence in performing it. THESE ACTS ARE
ADMISSIBLE!

NOTE: MECHANICAL ACTS yes you can be compelled to do these acts even if you are the subject of the
evidence.
PROHIBITED: Testimonial Compulsion
When you have to use your intelligence in an act or in answering a question.
Is the act of giving a sample of your handwriting a mechanical act? IT IS A TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION.
If you are asked if the signature in a document is yours, INVOKE YOUR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. Because
if you DENY that it is not your signature, you are also waiving your right against self-incrimination and will be
compelled to give a sample of your signature.
In invoking the right to privacy you cannot be compelled to do an act. However, if there is already a warrant,
the suspect will still be compelled to do that act.
The re-enactment of a commission of a crime is LIKEWISE PROTECTED. You cannot be compelled to reenact because you are using your intelligence to remember and act on it. THAT IS NOT ALLOWED.
Is the right to remain silent waivable?
YES. As long as it is done in writing and in the presence of a lawyer, relative, parish priest, deped
superintendent etc.
REASON:
To make sure that the confession/admission of the accused was not extracted through/by force or intimidation
or any means that would vitiate his free will.

The right to be assisted by a competent lawyer, preferably his (suspect) own choice.
COMPETENT LAWYER basta kay lawyer (nakapasar sa bar you are already considered a
competent lawyer)
Is it exclusive to the accused to choose a lawyer? What if he cannot afford the services of a lawyer?
Choice of the lawyer is not exclusive to the accused; only preferably.
If he cannot afford the services of a lawyer it is then the duty of the police to provide a counsel de
officio to assist the suspect during a custodial investigation.
The right to be assisted by a competent lawyer
Having a counsel provided by the authorities, is this waivable?
Yes, but must be done in writing and in the presence of a lawyer. You wouldnt say that I dont need a lawyer, I
am a lawyer myself can I waive it in writing without the presence of another lawyer the answer is NO, the
constitution is very clear PRESENCE OF A LAWYER not just yourself as the accused.
What if there is no lawyer in the place that you would make your waiver, you have to get one in the nearest
place where there is an available lawyer to witness your waiving the right to be assisted by a lawyer.
Thats how important it is in a custodial investigation. Of these two rights guys, the accused must be informed,
You have the right to remain silent, the right to be assisted by a lawyer. You have to memorize that and that is
very important and very crucial.
Is the right to be informed waivable? Certainly IT IS NOT WAIVABLE.
He has the right not to be placed in a solitary confinement. He must be with the rest of his compatriots. No
force, violence, intimidation or any means that would vitiate his free will shall be used against him. Anyone who
will violate his rights/custodial rights can be made to answer criminally, civilly and administratively and the
victim shall be entitled to rehabilitation and compensation.
The right to bail

Principle: if you are charged with an offense you lose your liberty.
GENERAL RULE: To make sure that you will attend to your hearing and you will not escape you will be arrested
and detained.
But because of presumption of innocence you are given the chance to continue your temporary
liberty. Why temporary liberty?
Because there is always the possibility that you will be punished and the penalty could be imprisonment. So in
the meantime so that you can prepare your defences, you are allowed to continue your temporary liberty under
a certain condition that you put up a bond. to guarantee your appearance in court whenever you are required
to appear (an assurance to appear in court).

TWO KINDS OF BONDS: Bail bonds and recognizance

These are 2 guarantees of your appearances in court that you can avail of as a matter of right, even before you
are being charged in court as long as you are deprived of your physical liberty you petition the court that it set
the amount of bail so that in the meantime while you are being investigated by the police or by the fiscal you
continue to enjoy your liberty and you will not be detained.
THREE KINDS OF BAIL BONDS: CASH BOND, PROPERTY BOND AND SURETY BOND
Cash bond: it means you put up deposit the money in the clerk of court. How much do you deposit? Its for the
court to fix; although the fiscal makes the recommendation ultimately it is the judge that fixes the amount. For
every 1 year of imprisonment thats Php 2000 so if it is 12 years of imprisonment times Php 2000 that is Php
24,000 depending on the nature of the offense.
NO CHEQUES ONLY CASH.
Anyone can put up the cash bond; you can ask your friends. After all once the case is terminated either
by conviction or acquittal the money will be returned to you. The cash bond is deposited in a bank by
the clerk of court while the proceedings are on-going. They get it back when the case is terminated.
What is the risk being assumed here by the bonds man: when the accused escapes the money will
answer for it. It will be cancelled and forfeited in favour of the government. Only then you will lose your money.
You wont lose the money if you appear in court.

PROPERTY BOND
NO FRIENDS/FOREVER ALONE/POOR FRIENDS BUT YOU HAVE A PROPERTY:
Note: YOU CANNOT USE PERSONAL PROPERTIES because they depreciate in value.
What is required is REAL PROPERTIES equivalent to the value of the bond. You can bring the land isud
sa ka-ang. Joke lang you dont bring the land ONLY THE LAND TITLE. You go to the registry of deeds and
annotate that this property is subject to a bond posted by the accused. If the accused jumps bail, that property
will be executed forfeited in favour of the government. You will never escape because of the risk of losing the
property.
If you have no land, you can ask your generous friend to put up their land as a bond. STILL if the accused
jumps bail the property will be forfeited in favour of the government.

SURETY BOND
NO FRIENDS AND NO CASH:
Avail of the SURETY BOND. Pay for the 20% of the bond set by the court.
If the accused jumps bail the court must order the surety company to produce the body of the accused or else
the surety company will be the one paying the bond. (Bounty Hunters)

UNYA KUNG WALA KA TANAN (NO FRIENDS/FOREVER ALONE/POOR FRIENDS/NO PROPERTY/SURETY

COMPANY DI MOSALIG NIMO)
You can still enjoy your temporary liberty through RECOGNIZANCE but this can only be availed of if the offense
charged is for petty crimes.
The accused can be released to a jailer (Mayor, Barangay Captain etc) who will assure the court that the
accused will be there when he is required by the court.
If the jailer fails to produce the body of the accused the jailer will be arrested for contempt (pang gulat or pang
hadlok ra daw ana si judge)

FAVORITE KUNO NI SA EXAMS NI JUDGE

When is a right to bail a matter of right? When should the court deny it?
When you are charged before the first level courts
Even if convicted and you are appealing the judgment of the first level courts to the RTC: IT IS A MATTER OF
RIGHT, DEMANDABLE
Bisag mag sigeg layas the court cannot deny that right! All the court can do is to increase the
amount of the bail recommended

When the case is filed in the RTC

Before conviction: Charged with a non-capital offense a matter of right even if you jumped bail a lot
of times
If convicted: is it still a matter of right to give you your right to temporary liberty while appealing the
conviction? It is up to the discretion of the court either to deny it or not. It is no longer a matter of
right.

If the penalty is more than 6 years of imprisonment + attended by recidivism and habitual delinquency + the
accused has evaded (?) his sentence + violated his probation + a flight risk+ jumped bail several times
(Neseye ne eng lehet)
The discretion of the trial court is removed. Even if the conviction is non-capital, bail must be
denied by the trial court if convicted.
If you ask for bail you go to the appellate court then it is discretionary upon the appellate court.

REQUISITES IN DENYING YOU OF YOUR RIGHT TO BAIL:

CHARGED WITH A CAPITAL OFFENSE and THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT TO THE CHARGE MUST BE
STRONG THE RIGHT TO BAIL SHOULD BE DENIED.
This will be determined by the court by holding a summary hearing.
While the court doesnt know yet if the evidence of guilt is strong, THE RIGHT TO BAIL IS STILL
DISCRETIONARY.
If the evidence of guilt is not strong, the court should grant you bail BEFORE CONVICTION.
If the evidence of guilt is strong, THE RIGHT TO BAIL SHOULD BE DENIED.

Hearing for the petition for bail is mandatory. Even if the fiscal has no objection, this should not be taken as
binding upon the court.
What if convicted of a lesser offense? (From murder to homicide) RIGHT TO BAIL SHOULD STILL BE
DENIED
The basis for the granting of bail is not the actual crime but the original charge.
When appealed to the Supreme Court they can always revert back to the original charge.

..do you understand?

Lets have a minor, charge with rape with homicide, therefore capital offense.
Question: before conviction, is it a matter of right? discretionary? it should be denied?
Answer: it is a matter of right guys, why? Because even if the evidence of guilt is strong, TN penalty is two
degrees lower only, which is prision mayor, in which case bailable, then a matter of right, TN a minor ha.
Now then, convicted siya as charge, so more than six years of imprisonment, because the penalty is prision
mayor to reclusion temporal.
Question: is it a matter of right? Discretionary or it should be denied?
Answer: then it becomes discretionary, unless attended by habitual delinquency, recidivism etc.
then it should be denied
Another point to take note, this right to bail is only available in Criminal Proceedings. So it is not a matter of
right when you are detained because of a pending extradition or deportation, because these are not criminal
proceedings. Deportation is an administrative proceeding. Extradition is like a diplomatic proceedings.
But then again, in a more recent supreme court decision, this hongkong case supreme court said that: The
fact that you are denied of your physical liberty, you can avail of the right to bail, but however not
a matter of right but discretionary of the court
for reasons of humanity, humanitarian reasons, like the deportee is sick, and his country of region does not
want to accept him, or they are not ready to accept him. He may be allowed to post bail, under certain
conditions;
1. It is not a flight risk (?) (not sure, wa ko kasabot)
2. There is no evidence that he is going to violate the rules and the laws of the country granted him bail.
Another is: The right to bail is not available to military men, charge before the military tribunal. Because is
what is important to the military tribunal is SPEED, it can easily, speedily dispose of and not the freedom or
liberty of the accused military man. Why? Because of the structure of their organization, there is brotherhood.
But it is a different story, if the military men is charged is before a civilian court. When the charge is bailable
then therefore then can post bail.
Another right of the Suspect
Sec. 16- the right of speedy disposition of the case
Once you are investigated, as soon as possible there should be a resolution of the investigation, not that it
would take forever, the investigation, that would be tantamount to a violation of due process of law.
Read the case of Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, supreme court said:
Delay in accordance of preliminary investigation, like for about of 3 years that is a violation of the right
of the accused to speedy disposition of the case.
Speedy disposition compared to speedy trial.
Speedy trial is only available in criminal proceedings, where speedy disposition is available before any
judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.
1.

Why? Because of the structure of their organization. There is brotherhood, mag labanay na sila, they
are armed and they can incriminate possible witnesess. It is a different story when you are charged
before a civilian court, when the charge is bailable, of course they can difinetly (constraint?), not when
they are charge before the military court, bail is not available.

Another right of the suspect is Section 16, to have a speedy disposition of the case. What do you by that?
Once the case is investigated, there should be resolution of the investigation, not that it will take forever,
then would already be a violation of due process of law.

Read the case of Tatad vs Sandiganbayan, SC was saying that inordinate delay of the preliminary
investigation for about 3 years, the Supreme Court said, that is already a violation of the speedy disposition
of the case. It this speedy disposition as compare to a speedy trial. Speedy trial is more likely available in
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, while speedy disposition is AVAILABLE TO ANY JUDICIAL, QUASI JUDICIAL
OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES. So pananglitan, kung (kuhaon?) kang sa Fiscal, the fiscal must write away
on the inquestigation, and tap out on a resolution on whether you should be charged on the offense., for
the reason that it would not be delayed, otherwise that would be a violation of the speedy disposition of
the case kay as they say JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED
Q (Rizza): Judge for example non bailable imo offense and na convict ka, ang imo pag serve sa imo
sentence apil na tong delaying period?
A: Yes, it would be credited. We all state that in our decision that all the preventive detention will be
credited for, in favor of the accused. So if you ar ein jail for 10 years, by the time you are decided, then you
are out.
I have cases specially in the MTC, where ang iyang sentence diay is one year lang, so tapos. So that is the
advantage kung detained ka, sugod kas uno, starting one year. 10 years ang trial, sugod ka 10 years to be
convicted to jail to serve your sentence. Whereas kadtong na detained na, by the time the judgement is
rendered, then they are out.
---------DISCUSSION ABOUT POE VS. COMELEC CASE---------Judge: There was a point in her life that she gave up her citizenship (Grace Poe) when she married a
foreigner. You do not automatically acquire your husbands citizenship, you have to apply for it. And she
actually applied for naturalization. She is saying that she has repatriated. The question is the continued use
of her US passport, is she still considered a natural born? Kinda awkward! The husband is American. The
children are American! If we vote for her, what are we?! My sister have lived for American and worked
there but she never acquired naturalization. She is an ordinary Filipino with loyalty to her country. (CHAR)
Sometimes, you feel bad about being a good citizen of this country but you realize that Who are
you? JUST AN ECHO IN THE WILDERNESS. (CHAR. How dee is your love?) When you get older, you get
sentimental. Because youve worked so hard to improve, not just your life, but your country and your
countrymen. From the point of view of students now, they dont feel that sense of urgency, the
responsibility for your country. This is your country! (Sorry nagud, Judge! I solemnly swear to be a good
citizen of this country! Hahaha)
Some of the professors are bothered that DUTERTE won in the mock election here. We are
studying law and Duterte won, who does not follow the rule of law?! And I think, MARCOS is second to
ROBRIDO. Then one of the teachers day Whats going on? Does your students know history?! And I said,
they are just frustrated. They are desperate of a radical change!
MARCH 17, 2016 (WED, 1 HOUR)
By the police they will question you at the road. You have seen this at a checkpoint now so, a road side
questioning especially at a checkpoint cannot be consider as custodial investigation that will entitle you to the
miranda rights being inform of your right to remain silent, when you are stop by the police at the road side and
they start questioning you is that part of a custodial investigation? Supreme Court said NO, its not yet a part
of custodial investigation because there is no line and not match questions can you ask at the road side.
Therefore, the rights such a Miranda rights do not commence yet they are not enjoyed yet at that point or at
that stage of the questioning its not consider as custodial investigation.
Now lets go to Section 14: THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED DURING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
Criminal prosecution commences upon the arrest of the accused following an arraignment and then you will
have a pre-trial, trial and then finally you have the sentencing. During that period as enumerated under Sec.
14: The right to presumption of innocence, the right to be informed of the nature and the cause
of the accusation against you, the right to speedy, impartial and public trial, the right to a face to
face confrontation of the witnesses of the prosecution, the right to compulsory process, the right
to self-incrimination, the right to inflection of cruel,
inhuman punishment and petition of
excessive fine, the right against double jeopardy and the rights against expose facto law or a bill
of abater.

Pertaining Sec. 14 on the Presumption of Innocence, it is not for you the accused to prove
that you are innocent the burden lies on the prosecution because you already have in your favour the
presumption of innocence. When the evidence are at font, the prosecution and evidence are similar,
even, equal, the case has to be decided in favour of the acquittal of the accused because he has in his
favour the presumption of innocence. The conviction of the accused does not depend on the strength
of his defense rather it depends on the strength of evidence of prosecution because even if the fiscal
doesnt have any defects if the prosecutions evidence is weak, the case has to be decided in favour of
presumption of innocence, so the accused is acquitted. Another is the presumption of law, there are
certain laws that would presume a fact that is advantageous to an accused, the question if it does
violate the presumption of innocence. Example: Anti-fencing law, when an accused is found to be in
possession of certain property, what would be the presumption of the law is that you stole it. There
cannot be a violation of presumption of the law because the basis is human experience, as long as
there is a logical connection between the presumed fact and the fact that is ultimately proven there is
no violation of the presumption of law and presumption of innocence. Here it is more on the burden of
proving ones innocence but the moment the accused overcome the presumption of that law he
continues now to enjoy the presumption of innocence.

Presumption of innocence is only applicable in criminal proceedings. Another is presumption

of regularity in the performance of duty, usually our public officers in the presumption of innocence.
Example: A police arresting a suspect and charging him in court. The presumption of regularity is that
he performs his duty as a police officer regularly. The fact that he arrested the accused, he must have
committed the crime because it would be against human experience for a police man to arrest an
innocent person so thats the presumption and he has presumed to have performed his regular
function.

Can the accused be convicted merely on the presumption that the police did his job regularly? NO! As between
the presumption of innocence and presumption of regularity, the presumption of innocence prevails.

Another right of the accused is to be informed the nature of the cause of the accusation
against him and this happens during the arraignment. While the accused may have been
arrested and he is not been arraigned yet, there cannot be a trial in absentia because arraignment is
mandatory, his presence at the arraignment is likewise mandatory, the assistance of the lawyer at the
arraignment of the accused is also mandatory. The reading of the information to the accused may be
dispensed with but definitely not the presence of the accused. The court has to make sure that the
accused understand the information and dispensation simply because he understood it. What is the
consequence of letting the accused know of the charge against him? This is more on allowing him to
declare his defense. If he understands the charge against him and the circumstances of which he may
have committed the crime, he will be in a better position to defend himself. Because of this, the
accused cannot be made to answer for something that has never been read to him through the
information or he cannot be made to answer a fact that was never stated or alleged in the body of
information because he has the right to be inform in the nature and cause of the accusation against
him. He cannot be made to answer of the fact that ws never stated or alleged in the body of
information. What matters are the allegations in the body of information and not the title of the
offense. Example: Even if the accused has been charged of murder but none of the aggravating
circumstances are enumerated or alleged in the information, and even if the aggravating
circumstances that were not alleged in the information and it were proven during trial, the accused
can never be convicted of murder because the information did not state any of aggravating
circumstance that would qualify that he committed murder but can only be convicted of homicide
because that was alleged to him because he has the right to be informed of the nature and the cause
of the accusation against him.

Another right of the accused is the right to be assisted, to be present by himself and counsel.
To be assisted every time his present. So in every stage of the trial of the case, from arraignment, pretrial, trial and promulgation of the sentence and every time he appears in court he must be assisted
with a lawyer and that is mandatory. It is an absolute right however it can be waived but the waiver
however may not be done in writing. Unlike in a custodial investigation the right to counsel is
mandatory. Strict observance of the presence of the lawyer is also a being emphasize because in fact
the right to waive the assistance of a lawyer in a custodial investigation must be done in writing and
in the presence of cousel. This is not required during a criminal prosecution, where the accused waives
the right to be assisted with a counsel, he cannot do that in writing. The obligation also of the court to
appoint a counsel de officio once the accused has already hired his own lawyer and later his lawyer
abandons him, thus the court has the obligation to appoint a counsel de officio, the answer is NO! That
application is only applicable during arraignment and not during trial.

Read the case of laranyaga! Being present in every stage of the trial what does it mean? He has to be
around, physically present to attend the trial of the case. So therefore if the accused cannot attend the trial
because his sick, then he may ask for a postponement and the court grants it because it is his right to be
present in every stage of the trial of his case. If his carabao is sick, he can ask for postponement because that
is his means of transportation. When the accused does not appear in court then that is considered to have
waived his right to be present. The only instance where you can be compelled to come in court is when the
court requires him especially for identification purposes by the witnesses of the prosecution. For the conviction
of the accused it is not enough that you establish the commission of the crime you must also prove that the
accused was the one who committed the crime. How can you get a conviction when in the first place you
cannot even have your witnesses identified the accused because his absent.
Let me talk about during sentencing it is his right to be present, why? Because if convicted especially 15 th day
period in which to appeal shall commence from the date of promulgation, unlike in civil cases the finality of the
decision starts upon receipt of a copy by registered mail not with the case of a criminal case. The criminal case
the 15th day period if convicted just start on the date of promulgation if he doesnt appear how can then he
appeal. The moment you failed to appeal during your promulgation of your judgment you lose the remedies of
appeal. In other words, therefore if you cannot attend during promulgation you should ask for a postponement.
You would know if it a conviction or acquittal. How? Because if it is an acquittal in most likelihood the court will
not grant because even in his absence the judgment can be promulgated and no right will be prejudiced. But if
it is a conviction and you ask for a postponement the court will have to grant it because it is his right to be
present at the promulgation of your sentence. What if despite notice he does not appear? Can judgment be
promulgated? YES! It can be an ex parte.

Take note on the right to counsel that is waveable during criminal prosecution. There is no
violation on right to due process. Case of People vs. Laranaga! Unlike in administrative cases, the right
to counsel in not mandatory.
Another right of the accused is the right to speedy, impartial and public trial, the speedy
disposition has no hard and fast rule. A year could be already much delayed trial, 10 years could
be still speeding because this is not in consistent with postponement as long as it is reasonable. It is a
violation to speedy trial if the postponement or delay is cause by capricious circumstance or whimsical
excuses or unreasonable postponement then in which case that could be a cause of delay which
violates on the right of the accused to speedy trial. As a consequence, one may move for the dismissal
and in this case that will tantamount to acquittal. It forever bar the reinstatement of the case, because
this will result to double jeopardy. Now on the matter of public trial, this is not synonymous to publicize
trial, it is simply means that as long as the court room can accommodate the public, they can watch
and see for themselves how the accused is treated and for the court to always remember that it must
be proper and conduct itself in a manner that would not impress upon the public that the accused is
not been treated well. The court has to be careful considering that the public is watching of the
hearing of the case but there are circumstance where the public may be excluded from the the hearing
especially when the evidenced adduced during the trial is offensive against public descence. Or when
it involves the bible, so usually there can be the exclusion of the public. Now there can also prohibition
on the broadcasting of the trial because you would act differently if you know that there is camera,
radio or announcer, commentator watching and listening and making a report. You would act
differently others would act unnaturally not to mention that the accused will be exposed to public
opinion that would result to his violation of right to due process because in effect that might influence
the court in the resolution of the case so it is prohibited.

Question about JDR, it is Judicial Dispute Resolution, JDR is like a mediation that there is a mediator
that tries to mediate the parties so that they can settle amicably their differences. Its like an ADR but
In the mediation it is the mediator that mediate while in JDR it is the judge that mediate. As between
the mediator and the judge, it is the judge that is most effective because the judge can imposed and
the judge is very influential that he knows the law. When the mediation fails you go to JDR, it is
confidential and mandatory. One of the most difficult things that needs to be mediated are family
affairs.

Another right of the accused is the right to a face to face confrontation of the witnesses. It
is on cross examination where the accused cross examine the witnesses of the prosecution to test the
veracity of their testimony and at the same time for the court to see the deportment of the witnesses
while testifying. As a general rule, when the witness has not been cross examine by the accused, his
testimony his inadmissible because it violates of the rights of the accused to a face to face
confrontation.
(SHES GROUP)
(FAYES GROUP)

When you are arrested especially without a warrant either because you are caught in the act of committing a
crime or you are arrested in hot pursuit, the moment you are deprived of your physical liberty or deprive of any
freedom of action in a significant way, you are already entitled of what we call the Miranda rights or custodial
rights. So that when you are investigated by the police to sure that your rights are protected, there is this
guarantee of Section 12, the right to remain silent, right to be assisted with a competent and dependent
counsel and the right to be informed of his rights. Insofar as the right to remain silent, it may not be limited to
answering to questions orally that would place you at the crime scene also, included in the right remain silent is
that the right not to be compelled to be a witness against yourself or acts which if performed may also be used
against you, unless this acts that are asked of you to do are merely mechanical in nature, then even if it may
incriminate you, you can still be asked to perform the act after all what is prohibited is testimonial compulsion.
Do you understand?
So we gave examples of mechanical acts. Now then, we said however that giving of a sample of your
handwriting is not included as mechanical act, because it uses you intelligence and free will inorder to write or
to sign your name. In which case you cannot be compelled, unless if you waived that right by denying the
signatures to which you are confronted with, which case you will be compelled to give a sample for purposes of
comparison. Also, not included is the order for you to reenact the commission of the crime, definitely you
cannot be compelled.
Now then, you also take note of the right to be assisted with competent and independent lawyer. One is
considered competent if he can protect the interest of the suspect or vigilant in the protection of the suspect
having no conflict at all of interest with him, then he can be competent and independent lawyer of the accused.
Take note however that choice of a lawyer in a custodial investigation is not absolute, it is not exclusive to the
accused because if he cannot afford the services of a lawyer then he has no choice but to avail of the services
of the lawyer that may be assigned to him by the investigator. Do you understand?
Now as to waiving his rights, we said these are waivable as long as it is done in writing and in the presence of a
lawyer, insofar as confession or admission it must be under oath in the presence of the lawyer or if not in the
presence of any relative or a priest or a principal of a public school or supervisor or superintendent just to make
sure that there will be no intimidation or force that will vitiate the freewill of the accused that may be used
against him. Do you understand? With regards to the waiver of assistance of a lawyer, likewise it must in writing
under oath in the presence of another lawyer if he himself is also a lawyer.
However, the right to be informed this right is not waivable. That is absolute. Other rights waivable to a
suspect during a custodial investigation:
1. Would not be placed under solitary confinement
2. No force, violence or intimidation. Any means that vitiate freewill should be used against the suspect.
Should be there be anyone who violates this rights of the suspect, he would be entitled for rehabilitation and
compensation and the violator should be liable administratively, criminally as well as civilly. Do you
understand?
Also guys, we explain on the right to bail. If you are a suspect or an accused, you are entitled to bail. The right
to bail is just a guarantee of your appearance during the hearing of your case whenever the court requires you
to appear. Now when you are charged of an offense, the rule is you must be placed under preventive detention
to make sure that you will answer to whatever charges may be filed against you . But because there is
presumption of innocence, you are allowed to continue your provisional liberty to post bail guarantee. Right to
bail is available only in criminal proceedings. So therefore, as a matter of rule this right to bail is not available in
deportation proceedings neither in extradition proceedings. As a matter of discretion of the court to grant an
extradite or deportee the right to bail provided that he satisfy or convince the court that he will not plight
against or he will not violate the laws of the country or the rules that may be imposed by the extradition or
deportation court. More of humanitarian reason in the interest of justice and equity that the court grant an
extradite or deportee to bail. The bottomline according to the supreme court, even if it is not criminal
proceeding he was detained for, the fact is he is deprived of his physical liberty, that would already entitled him
the right to bail. However, not as a matter of right but of the discretion of the court. Take note that the right to
bail is not available to an active military man who is facing charges before the military tribunal. So when a
military man is charged in a civilian court then the offense charged is bailable then he can still apply for bail.
Only when he is charged before a military tribunal that bail is not available to him. Military man is different
from a civilian because a military man considering the organization and the structure they are more close to
each other, this kind of brotherhood maglabanay. Considering further that they are armed the possibility of
using this to disrupt the proceedings or to intimidate possible witness. Military proceeding is very fast as
compared to civilian proceedings ordinary in the judicial proceedings.
Three kinds of bail bond:
1. Cash
2. Property
3. Surety

On recognizance if just a promise by the jailer to whom the accused is surrendered to or released to that the
suspect will appear in court whenever he is required. Thats the only guarantee that he could be given to the
court while he continues to enjoy his provisional liberty.
Now then, what should you master guys is when is the matter of right discretionary by the court or when should
it be denied.
It is a matter of right, regardless of how many times the accused jumps bail or regardless when he is already
convicted, when the case is triable before the first level courts. Before and after conviction and even if the case
is still on appeal because he was convicted, it is a matter of right. First level courts like MTC, MCTC, MCCT. In
which case even if he was already convicted and his judgment of conviction is appealed to RTC, it is a matter of
right. The penalty is not serious at a maximum of 6 years imprisonment.
But when the case now is triable before the second level like the RTC, then you have to distinguished between
an offense charged against the accused which is non-capital and a capital offenses. So what is a non-capital,
the penalty is 20 years or less and is capital is imprisonment of 20 years and 1 day to death.
For non-capital offenses before conviction so when is charged, is it a matter of right? YES! Once convicted
however, then it becomes discretionary of the court whether to grant bail or not, especially when you are
sentenced to more than 6 years of imprisonment. Now, again I repeat, in the RTC the penalty is 6 years and 1
day to death. So if convicted the matter of bail is discretionary by the court whether to grant or not. But then
again, we said that discretion of the court may be removed if conviction is aggravated or attended by the
following circumstances:
1. Recidivism
2. Habitual delinquency
3. Proof that accused has evaded his sentence
4. Proof that he violated the his conditions of probation
5. Recording of having jump bail
In which case if these is proven, that discretion after conviction where the penalty is more than 6 years of
imprisonment is removed. Therefore, it should be denied. Even if the conviction is for the non-capital offense.
On the otherhand, when the accused is charged of a capital offense, meaning the penalty is 20 years and 1 to
death or life imprisonment if punishable by special law. What will happen here? Before the conviction it is
discretionary before the court. Why? It is not enough that the accused is charged of a capital offense, the law
requires by way of exception to the grant of bail is that the evidence of guilt of the charge on the part of the
accused is strong. And how the court determine that? Precisely, the hearing of the petition of bail, that is
mandatory. Because now, the court will order the prosecution to present evidence in order to establish whether
or not the guilt of the accused is strong. If it is not strong, then it is still a matter of right of the accused to post
bail but if the evidence of guilt is strong then that discretion of the court is removed, it should be denied. Two
things therefore, the accused is charged of capital offense if the evidence of guilt is strong then even before
conviction that bail of the accused should be denied.
Now then, assuming that the accused is charged with murder and it was established that the evidence of guilt
is strong, that is even before conviction the bail was denied. Thereafter during the trial presentation of evidence
already, then judgment is rendered finding him guilty of homicide. What is the penalty of homicide? 12 years
and 1 day to 20 years of imprisonment. Question now, can this accused now apply for bail considering that he
was only convicted of a non-capital offense? If you were the court, should you grant that as a matter of right to
the accused or should you grant or deny as a matter of discretion or should be denied as provided by way of
exception under the constitution. Then we go back to the principle. As exception to the grant of bail, two things
must concur, charged of a capital offense and that the evidence of guilt is strong. Apply it in this case. Was he
charged of a capital offense? Yes, that was his original charge only that he was convicted for a lesser offense.
The fact remains that he original charge was capital. Because if he appeals the case, the case can be opened to
a new trial and can therefore still apply the original charge.
SECOND 16 MINUTES (16:01-32:00)
And the appellate court can still apply the original charge. So you base it on the charge, not the actual condition
but on the charge. So that element is present after the condition. Second, was the evidence of guilt strong?
Definitely. It was also established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the killing although for
a lesser offense had the aggravating circumstances not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Then which
in this case, they should be. Then it becomes discretionary not by the trial court but by the appellate court. So
when it comes to the appellate court, it becomes discretionary. So what must the accused do? he applies for
bail in the appellate court. Then it becomes discretionary in the appellate court.
So, let's have another case. What if the accused is a minor of 17 years old? He is charged with murder which is
a capital offense. Question: can the right of bail, can the bail here a matter of right or should it be discretionary
to the court or should it be denied? The minor is charged with capital offense and it was established that the
evidence of guilt is strong. Now, question: can he still apply for bail? Answer is YES. A matter of right or
discretionary to the court? A matter of right before conviction. Why? As a minor, it's a mitigating circumstance,
the penalty should be two degrees lower. From death to reclusion perpetua, one degree. Reclusion temporal,
two degrees. If he should be convicted, the penalty is only prision mayor which is 6 years and 1 day to 12
years. Then in which case, it becomes a non-____ as far as the minor is concerned. Therefore, the right to bail is
a matter of right before conviction. If convicted, sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment to 12 years, question:

can he still continue his _____ liberty under the same bail once (?), meaning is it still a matter of right, a
discretion of the court or should it be denied? Is it discretionary of the court. Recidivism, habitual delinquency, if
that is established then the discretion should be denied.
Again, I repeat: if the penalty is more than 6 years of imprisonment and attended by recidivism or habitual
delinquency or findings or proofs that the accused before has deliberately evaded sentence or he has violated
the conditions of his probation, that he jumped-bail or he is a flight-risk, then that discretion is removed. Bail
should be denied. So, since, in this case, he had been granted bail as a matter of right before conviction, what
the Court should do is cancel the bail and commit him to service of sentence pending him.
Another right of the accused is SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF HIS CASE. Speedy disposition refers to the resolution of
a case following the investigation or a trial. How is this different from SPEEDY TRIAL? The right to speedy trial
can be availed only in criminal proceedings whereas speedy disposition of cases is a right available to any
person in any judicial, quasi-judicial or any administrative bodies. For example: In the conduct of preliminary
investigation for _____ in the office of the Ombudsman, Supreme Court said, in the case of Tanada vs.
Sandiganbayan, is a violation of due process. As a consequence, case was dismissed. The delaying of
administration of justice is tantamount to the denial of justice.
So always remember that, guys ha? Speedy disposition in relation to the rights of a suspect even before a
criminal prosecution. That is section 16 which may even also apply during criminal prosecution. Precisely, our
courts are prescribed within a certain period of time to decide a case after the case is submitted for a decision.
The trial courts are given only three months to decide a case. The immediate appellate courts, twelve months
and the Supreme Court, 18 months within which to decide a case the moment it is submitted for a decision or a
resolution.
Now, then let's go to SECTION 14. Now, section 14 guys, these are the rights of the accused during a criminal
prosecution. When does a criminal prosecution start? It starts from the arraignment of the accused and ends
when there is already a sentencing or a promulgation of judgment. It can be an acquittal or a conviction of the
accused. What happens here, guys after the custodial investigation? Where will the suspect go? What will
happen to the case? If the police finds substantial evidence against the accused, the police, before the
expiration of the period of detention --- which is 12, 18 and 36 hours, before that expires, must immediately
bring the suspect to the Fiscal's office. For what purpose? For an inquest proceeding. Why inquest? Because
there is no time for the accused to controvert what was being said against him. The basis then of the filing of
the case in court before the expiration of the period of detention is only the complainant's testimony or the
evidence of the complainant. Precisely, they will ask the accused, "Do you want a preliminary investigation? We
will allow you to controvert if you waive your right against illegal/arbitrary detention." But if the accused, if he
does not waive his right to invoke illegal/arbitrary detention, then the Fiscal has no choice but to only conduct
an inquest to ascertain that there is probable cause as shown by the evidence of the complainant --- Based on
the affidavit of the complainant, usually.
So then, if the Fiscal finds probable cause, what then will the Fiscal do? The Fiscal now then declares the
Information and file it with the Court. What should the Court do after receipt of the complaint? Should the Court
immediately issue a Warrant of Arrest? The answer is NO. The Constitution mandates the court to determine
probable cause, that the client has been probably committed and the charge has probably been committed and
the duty thereof and must be placed upon immediately in the custody of law. And once the court has been
satisfied by those circumstances, then the court can now issue a warrant of arrest. If the accused has not been
arrested yet, the court cannot proceed with the hearing because it has still not gained jurisdiction over the
person, the accused and much more the case.
So, usually, after 3 or more times, if the accused is still not arrested, the court shall simply archive the case and
wait until the accused has been arrested. Prescription does not run anymore when the case has been archived
in court. But when the accused has been arrested, what would the Court do? Reset the arraignment of the
accused and it is now the start of criminal prosecution.
So in the arraignment, what are the rights of the accused? From arraignment to sentencing: There is
presumption of innocence on the part of the accused. He must be informed of the nature and cause of the
charge filed against him. He has the right to afford himself a counsel. He has the right to a public, speedy and
impartial trial, face-to-face confrontation with the witnesses; and the right to compulsory processes.
Let us take this one by one, guys:
From the very start, he is presumed to be innocent. What is the implication? It is not for the accused to prove
that he is innocent. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. Because any doubt to the guilt of the accused, reasonable doubt lang ang kinahanglan, then
it should be resolved in favor of the presumption of innocence. What could the consequences be? Since it is not

proved that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then the accused should be acquitted. What do you
mean by 'reasonable doubt'? Does that mean absolute certainty? The answer is NO. What is needed is only
moral certainty that the accused has committed the crime and he is probably guilty thereof. We can never be
sure as judges that the accused has committed the crime, because in the first place, we were not there when
the crime was committed. We can only rely on the testimonies of witnesses, the circumstances and the
evidence presented. That is why when I doubt the guilt and innocence of the accused, I always resolve that in
favor of the accused because as the Constitution says, he has the presumption of innocence. You have to
consider all the circumstances favorable to the accused.
As I was saying, guys: even when accused does not put up a defense, and the evidence of prosecution is weak,
it still should be resolved in favor of the accused; because after all, there is still the responsibility of the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Now, when the evidence of the defense and prosecution is on equal footing, how do you resolve a case? You
have to resolve it in favor of the presumption of innocence. In other words, in favor of the accused, which
means acquittal of the accused. Now then, how about when there is a presumption of guilt, not really guilt, but
a presumption of certain facts that was presented by the prosecution, then it can be a basis of his conviction.
For example: If you are found to be in possession of a stolen property, what is the presumption of the law? The
presumption is that you stole the property. Does this run counter to the presumption of innocence that
guarantees protection of the accused? The answer is NO. According to the Supreme Court, as long as there is a
logical connection between the presumed fact and the fact that was eventually proven, then it can be a logical
conclusion; unless you can explain how on earth did you come to possess a stolen property if you did not steal
it. Thus, precisely, we have the Anti-Fencing Law. Now what will happen here, guys? Now, the burden of proof
shifts to you, to prove that you did not steal it. Once you overcome that presumption through your evidence,
then you can continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence. Only that, the burden of proof would shift to the
accused to overcome the presumption. Now, another presumption: what is the presumption if you were accused
but you tried to flee? Nilayas ka. The presumption here is that, you must be guilty. Why did you escape? Why
did you not face the prosecution of your case if you're not guilty? It's more difficult now because now, you have
that presumption against you --- that's the presumption of the law. It's logical to think that if you truly are
innocent, then you will not hide from the law, from the law enforcers. But if you can explain the reason for your
fleeing, maybe there was a threat against your life and you can establish; then the presumption of innocence is
restored. You continue now to enjoy the presumption of innocence.
Now here's an important point on presumption, guys: the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
of a public official. You were charged with malversation of the funds. In the report submitted by the Commission
on Audit, it was found that there was a shortage of audit in your account. That was the report, and the
presumption of law is because the report was made by an expert, a COA auditor, the report must be accurate.

The report must be accurate, reliable and correct (do you understand?) now, then, my question is, can you use
that report only as proof to prove that this accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, considering that theres
a presumption of (di ko sure sa akong nadungog huhuhu)? SC said, no, only on the basis of the fact that the one
who (di maklaro) enjoys the presumption of regularity of the performance of duty. You cannot just simply use
that report as basis for his conviction, there has to be proof that will support the report because the accused
has the presumption of innocence (do you understand?) That is why in the Philippines its very difficult, indeed,
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In most grant cases, guys, supposed to be lang,
chain of custody. In the possession or undertaking of custody of the evidence wa naman tay inana because
there is no presumption of regularity and there is a presumption of innocence on the part of the accused. I tell
you, 80% of the tried cases in court are dismissed because the evidence have been excluded, do you
undertand? There is question on the integrity on.hindi maklaro sa huhu.
Second, the right to be informed on the nature and the cause of the accusation against the accused. We have
explained this before, guys. This is part of the due process of law. For the accused to prepare his defenses, he
must understand what are the charges against him, how he may have committed the crime. So that, if the facts
are not alleged in the body of the information the accused should not need to answer for a fact or a statement
that has never been alleged in the information because that would violate his right to inform of the nature and
the cause of the accusation against him. Example, the accused was charged of murder but not of the
aggravating circumstances that is mentioned in the body of the information. Can he be convicted of murder?
Should he be found to have killed the victim? The answer is, no. he can only be convicted of homicide but never
of murder because the aggravating circumstances in not mention in the body of the information. What if the
prosecutor have proved it during the trial that the killing was attended by treachery or by premeditation. The
answer is still no. Those aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the body of information. The accused
must not need to answer for it because he has the right to inform of the nature and the cause of the accusation

against him. He will not be convicted of something that is never mentioned in the information. Do you
understand? As a consequence, he can be only convicted of homicide not for murder.
Third, the right of to be held by himself and counsel. What does this mean? The accused has the right to be
present in every stage of the trial of his case from arraignment, trial, to sentencing. No trial can proceed with
absentia without the accused first being arraigned. So, arraignment is indispensable to the commencement of
the prosecution without the accused having been arraigned there cannot be any trial after that. In during
arraignment, the accused will be informed of the charges against him and in the arraignment he must be
assisted with a lawyer. If he cannot afford the services of the lawyer, the judge can appoint a council de officio.
Take note, this is mandatory only during the arraignment. The assistance of a counsel is likewise mandatory
during the custodial investigation. Question, is the assistance of a lawyer mandatory during the trial? While it is
an absolute right guaranteed under the constitution, but this can be waived by the accused. Once the accused
is arraigned and had never sought the assistance of the court that he will be assisted with a lawyer, and then
the court will presume that he can afford of the services of a lawyer especially when he was initially assisted by
a private lawyer. What if for example, the lawyer of the accused abandon him or he dismiss his lawyer, is it the
duty of the court now to appoint a counsel de officio to assist the accused? Answer is, no. (Read the case of PP
vs Larannaga) I have explained this to you before, guys where the Larannagas were assisted with private
lawyers and the others were assisted by PAO. They asked for the (nay ni ubo) however, it was denied by the
court so their last resort was to dismiss their lawyers so the court will be compelled to give them time to secure
the services of another lawyer. But the court knew already the reason for dismissal. What the court do, was to
appoint the PAO to assist this accused and order the PAO to present all the evidence for the accused. What
happened? The Larannagas and others said, you know, one of the PAO lawyer, do you want our own counsel of
our choice. Take note, that department of lawyer, preferably choice of the suspect, is (di ko kaklaro sa term na
gi use applicable ba or what) during a custodial investigation, that is not mandated during a criminal
prosecution. SC was saying that theres no denial of due process of law here because there were in fact,
notwithstanding, not anymore qualified to be assisted with council de officio because they had hired their
lawyer di ba, The SC was saying it can be waived if they want although it is an absolute right on their part
especially they can afford the services of the lawyer but since they chose to dismiss the case and to dismiss
their lawyer, their lawyer of their choice is no longer the problem of the court to appoint a council de officio to
assist them. Nonetheless, what the court did here was to appoint the PAO to assist them. And the SC said due
process after all is not actually di maklaro) only hearing. If they will not avail of that opportunity thats not
anymore the problem of the court . Take note of the necessity of the assistance of a lawyer. The assistance of
the a lawyer is only mandatory during arraignment.
Is the reading of the information to the accused mandatory? The answer is, no. That can be dispensed with as
long as he is present during the arraignment. To avoid embarrassment they will ask the court to dispense the
reading of the information, but I will not usually allow it just to make sure because they can always deny that in
the future and ask for the nullification of the proceedings. Theyre playing safe, I will insist on the reading of the
information. I will repeat ha, the presence of the accused in the arraignment is indispensable and it is
mandatory.
We go to trial. Trial this time, is the presence of the accused and his lawyer is indispensable? Is it mandatory?
This is the right of accused which right can be waived by him. Meaning, if he will not attend thats fine with the
court but if required by the court you should be present. Otherwise, a bench warrant will be issued against you.
IOW, the accuse can waive the right to be present unless he needs to be present so that he can be identified by
the witnesses, there in which case, his presence is indispensable. Unless, he waives that right and would
stipulate and admit that whenever his name is called is the same person who is the accused indicates of the
charge of information then we will have a problem of the identity. Crucial to the conclusion of the accused is
him having been identified positively by the witnesses if he will not be around for identification how can we be
sure that the accused is the same person who is charge of the information. (nagtabi na sya diri dapit). The first
thing that you should learn when you are a prosecutor, the first question that you would ask for your witness is
Do you know the accused? Is the accused present here in the courtroom? When no proper identity of the
accused, chances are there will be an acquittal. While the right to be present can be waived by the accused, for
purposes of identification, he can be mandated or order to appear, otherwise, if he failed to appear his bail
bond should be cancelled and bench warrant of arrest shall be issued against him unless he would stipulate, he
will ask the court that your honor I will not be able to attend because I will have to work. You familiar of the case
of Estrada, everytime he attends trial in the Sandiganbayan the government spends 205,000 pesos, and since
everyone can identify who Estrada is even if he is not there, thats the time when his presence is dispensable di
ba who doesnt know Estrada. OTH, to be present during the trial because this is the right of the accused then it
is a matter of matter right so when the accused cannot attend the trial because he has other things to attend to
and will ask for the postponement, the court should grant it, because that is his right.
Question, should it be done in writing the waiver and also with the assistance of a counsel. The answer is, no.
That requirement is only during custodial investigation. (chikaaaaaaaaaa asta ang nag record hahaah)

Sentencing nata. The presence of the accused is also required. If the accused will not appear, can there be
promulgation ex parte? The answer is, yes.

SEC. 21- RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a
law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act.
_______________________________________________________________________
One of the protection that you are guaranteed under the Constitution, you cannot be prosecuted more than
once or being place or being exposed to the risk of being tried twice or more for the same offense. You
understand? How it is done guys?
Basically, what we do understand by double jeopardy? In order for us to understand the concept of double
jeopardy. We must look on the requisites of double jeopardy.

KINDS S OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY (TAKE NOTE- MEMORIZE)

1. The risk of being punish for the same offense
2. An act or omission that is punished by a law and an ordinance. Conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution of the same act.

REQUISITES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY:

A. There is the first jeopardy.
When there is a first jeopardy?
a.1 when there is a valid complaint.
If the information filed against the accused is defective which would result to a dismissal and you
file the same case this time that which would be complete and is valid information for complaint.

QUESTION:

Would that filing of the same case after its dismissal constitutes double jeopardy that

is prohibited?

ANSWER: No, because in the first place, there must ever be a first jeopardy. You can never raise the
risk of being punished because how can you be punished under a valid complaint or information.
a.2 - when the court has jurisdiction over the case
Assuming the complaint is valid. However it was wrongfully filed. Instead of filing a case let see a
homicide, it was filed in the MTC- MTC has no jurisdiction of homicide cases- why? It is because the
penalty is more than 6 yrs of imprisonment- the jurisdiction belong to the RTC. The case was dismissed
because MTC lacked jurisdiction.

QUESTION: If you file the case on a proper court, would here be a double jeopardy in the case?
ANSWER: No, because there has never been a first jeopardy. The dismissal does no raise the first
jeopardy because that court has no authority.

a.3 - accused has been arraigned and entered into a valid plea
Arraignment- when the case is read to the accused and he enters his plea
Example 1:
A case was filed to the RTC. RTC has the jurisdiction over the information. Before the case was heard or
before he accused is arraigned, a motion to dismiss was filed by the accused based by the desistance
of the complainant because maybe they settled the civil liability and the complainant manifested that
he is no longer interested of the case. So, the case was dismissed based on the affidavit of desistance
of the complainant.

QUESTION: What if the complainant will refile the case because he was not paid by the liabilities of
the accused, can the refiling of the case still be adopt considering there has been dismissal by a
competent jurisdiction?

ANSWER:

Yes, because there was no double jeopardy in the first place. It is because the case that
was dismissed was not even arraigned. So you have to wait for the case to be arraigned. If you were
the accused, and there is dismissal of the case, you ask the court to arraign it first so it cannot be
refiled anymore because it will constitute double jeopardy.
Example 2:
There was an arraignment and you entered a plea, you were the accused and you pleaded guilty to a
lesser offensefrom murder to homicidehowever without the consent of the complainant,
nonetheless the court uphold the plea bargaining and sentence you to a lesser penalty under a lesser
offense.

QUESTION:

Can the complainant appeal the judgement of the decision to the appellate court?

ANSWER:

General rule is if you appeal a judgement to the appellate court in a criminal case, you
subject that case into any trial. The new trial will be in the appellate court and that would be the 2 nd
hearing. The 1st hearing was by the trial court. Then you have the 2 nd hearing by the same case before
the appellate court. Precisely, the general rule, unless the right to invoke double jeopardy was
waived by the accused, the accused can no longer appeal the judgement by the trial court, as it will
violate the right of the accused to invoke double jeopardy.
But of course there is conviction- the accused will appeal the judgement of conviction then it is
considered to have waived the right of double jeopardy. Then the court can review the case as if it was
newly filed in the court the second time around.
Example 3:
In the previous example (2)- The plea bargaining is not approve by the complainant even if it was with
the approval of the public prosecutor but the complainant is against plea bargaining.

QUESTION: Can the complaint then appeal the judgement of conviction?

ANSWER: (Take Note)
Analyze the 1st jeopardy.
a. Was there a valid complaint? Yes, there was.
b. Was it tried in a competent court? Yes it was.
c. Did he enter into a valid plea? It is not just entering into a plea of not
guilty or guilty. It has to
be validly pleaded.
No it was not validly pleaded. In case of plea bargaining- It must be in full consent of the
complainant as well as the public prosecutor, unless the complainant did not appear despite the
notice, then conformity of public prosecutor is sufficient. In this case, the complainant was there and
they objected, but the public prosecutor agreed he plea bargaining wished by the accused. However,
the plea of the accused for lesser guilt is invalid.
d. Can it be appealed? Yes
e. Is there double jeopardy? There is none.
Example 4:
Complaint is valid. The court has jurisdiction. The accused was arraigned.
accused pleaded guilty to the charged of homicide. What is next when the accused pleads guilty?
Sentencing will follow and simply there will be no trial and impose the penalty to be served by the
accused. Sometimes, the court will allow the accused who pleaded guilty to present evidence that is
mitigating circumstances, but instead of presenting mitigating circumstance, accused presented
exempting such as self-defensein effect the accused said it was not his fault to commit the crime but
he was just protecting himself. The court was convinced, instead of sentencing, the accused was
acquitted.

QUESTION: Can the prosecution appeal the judgement of acquittal?

ANSWER: When there is an appeal, it opens the case to any trial

which will lead to the second

jeopardy.

QUESTION: In this particular case, can the complainant appeal the judgement of acquittal?
ANSWER: Go back to the requisites. Yes, they can appeal. There was no valid plea entered.

The
plea of guilt was deemed withdrawn when the accused presented exempting evidence that led to the
acquittal. So it was as if no valid plea was entered by the accused it would be as if there was no plea
entered. So, there was no first jeopardy even if the case is appealed to the appellate court.
What should have been done in this case?
In order for double jeopardy to be invoke and appeal will not be allowed, if he intends to present
exempting evidence in the court, the moment he does that the prosecutor would then require him to
withdraw the original plea of guilt of the charged and requires him to plead a new plea which is not
guilty and so you can now present the evidence in a reverse trial because he have admitted to have
killed the victim only because of self-defense, now the prosecution will now have to rebut in the
reverse trial and that would be a first trial.
In this particular case that I gave as an example, the prosecution was caught unaware that the
accused had presented exempting evidence and denies the prosecution of due process because they
did not have the chance to rebut the self-defense of the accused. That would be unfair to the
prosecution. Thus, in this case according to the SC, as there was no plea entered into after they
presented the new plea, then the first jeopardy has never been terminated. So, it would as if there was
no jeopardy. If there is no first jeopardy, then it can be appealed.

B. First jeopardy is terminated.

To constitute double jeopardy you must terminate the first jeopardy.
Which means: You can file as many as similar cases against the accused as long as not one of the cases yet has
been terminated- there is no DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
The moment that one of the similar cases is terminated, then you can move for the dismissal of all other similar
cases on the grounds of DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

EXAMPLE:
Due to the death of Maria Aguanta, charges have been filed against Juan dela Cruz for homicide,
murder, serious physical injuries, attempted, frustrated, murdertanan nalang-

QUESTION: Can you file all of them?

ANSWER: Yes, why not? But you have

the risk of the cases will be dismissed on the grounds of DOUBLE

JEOPARDY. But you have to wait until one of the cases will be terminated (first jeopardy). Once it is terminated
and you were the accused, these cases filed against you, the only cases are identical with the first jeopardy
then you can move for the dismissal of the cases by invoking your right against DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
That would be the consequences. If you dont want that to happen, you should have charged with one offense
unless the act is punishable by different laws because they constitute different offenses, they are not identical
even if they rose from the same act or function. In which case Double Jeopardy will not prosper because there
was no identity as to the offenses, they have just similarities as offenses charge.
How do you terminate the first jeopardy?
b.1 CONVICTION of the accused
Once he is convicted- do not add to his suffering that is ignominy or otherwise there is no conviction
but prosecution.
Accused was already convicted but the prosecution is not satisfied of the penalty (ngano minimum
ramandili medium)

QUESTION: can you appeal the judgement of conviction?

ANSWER: Certainly not, that would constitute double jeopa
C. SECOND JEOPARDY
When there is second jeopardy?
1. When the first offense in the 1st jeopardy is similar or identical with the other offense.
EXAMPLE: Murder ang first chargefor killing one acquitted kay murderdifficult to prove the aggravating
circumstancenot satisfied to the courts decision you file homicide for same killing one. Are they identical? In
the sense they are different because the murder is attended by aggravating circumstances while homicide it is
not. But the same killing of one therefore they are identical.
Pero sa anti cyber-crime prevention act, specific ang publication nga gigamit through the use of social media in
this particular case, facebook, it could be instagram, it could be twitter,
but social media online
question: because this was questioned as to its constitutionality. kay ngano man, ingon man nag balaod nga,
kini kuno inyong pagkiha diri kuno sa violation sa anti-cyber crime prevention law is without prejudice to be
punished also or charged for violations of different laws although arising from the same act, ingon ang balaod.
Sa ato pa, pwede diay ka makiha under the anti-cyber crime prevention act ug sa Revised Penal Code pero the
same libel. Specific lang anti-cyber crime kay through online man ang publication whereas the revised penal
code in any manner basta naay publication
supreme court said: that provision is unconstitutional bec that would now constitute double jeopardy bec they
are identical dili pwede nga ug kihaon ka for violation of the RPC and at the same time for violation of the anti
cyber crime law. Usa ra. RPC, RPC ra. Anti-cyber crime prevention law, anti-cyber crime prevention ra. for libel.
sometimes, mas sayun man gud RPC .. ang anti-cyber crime, lisod man kay bago paman ni nga balaod. You
need precedent and electronics pa gyud, you need to prove through the use of electronic evidence. But you
cannot be charged for the same.
There's another one: kani btaw mag posting ka ug pornography, that is prohibited ani nga law diba? antipornography act, do you know? babaye nga imo ipost nga gahubo, malicious or a child, it is prohibited under
anti-pornography. You now post that in your account, not only you violated the anti-pornography, you also
violated the anti-cyber crime act. You cannot be charged for both, usa ra bec that will directly constitute double
jeopardy. If you are charged for both violations.
When an offense is an attempt or frustrated with (---) offense: the charge will be frustrated homicide, acquitted.
You again charged him with attempted homicide .. You cannot divide an offense into stages. That will be double
jeopardy.
When one offense necessarily includes another offense or is necessarily included in the other offense. Charge
kag homicide, convicted of homicide, wa ghapon ka nasatisfy, you now charge the accused with serious
physical injuries. Serious physical injuries is necessarily included in the crime of homicide, dili pwede. Ikiha
nimo ug rape ang accusado, convicted; You are not satisifed, you charge him again of acts of lasciviousness. It
is included in the crime of rape or physical injuries is included in the crime of rape, violence or intimidation is an
element of the crime.
What if for example you charge the accused of serious physical injuries, accused was convicted; after the
conviction of the accused the victim died of the injuries he sustained; can you file a case of homicide to (---) the
serious physical injuries are included in the crime of homicide? Yes, this is now the exception under the rule of
supervening event. Well, the prosecution would not have anticipated that the victim will die and make
reservation without prejudice to the death of the victim. You cannot make reservation to that effect.

So in which case, once materminate na gani ang first (---) you may still file ... pero,what if, ang victim namatay
while the case was still pending
the first (---) of serious physical injuries .. No (---) was made to the
information. pangutana: can you file a separate case of homicide after definition of first jeopardy? answer is NO,
you can't there is no supervening event bec the victim died during pendency of the first jeopardy. What should
have been done guys? Amend the information and re-arraign the accused of the amended information this time
for homicide
What if the prosecutor did not know nga namatay ang biktima while the case was still pending ... the (---) of
supervening event will still apply. You can still file a separate action for homicide. as long as imong conviction is
included in the crime but definitely you cannot convict him of murder, frustrated murder unya murder, it cannot
be higher.
so it can only be trial (---) and these are the reason (---)
if you are the prosecutor, you should present (---) evidence bahala na ang korte ana to appreciate.
Charge nimo ug rape, nia na-acquit, nia file napud ka ug acts of lasciviousness, ah that's not allowed. bec if the
court knew that indeed the accused committed a crime and it will not constitute an act of lasciviousness, the
court would have convicted the accused of acts of lasciviousness. di na pwede nimo irevive. The fact nga naacquitted and the court did not make any judgement on acts of lasciviousness, then the accused must be
innocent. then in which case you cannot charge him of an offense that is related to the original charge. that will
then constitute double jeopardy.
Where an act like jaywalking is punished by a statute, a law, and a city ordinance, you are convicted for
violation of the ordinance with a fine of 1million. Here you are again bec of a violation of a law that punishes the
same act, answer is no. Conviction and acquittal
under either would be a bar to another prosecution, that
would already constitute to double jeopardy.
Ex-post facto law, bill of attainder is being prohibited from being enacted. Cannot be passed by congress as this
would violate the rights of the accused. What is an ex-post facto law? a law that punishes an act when
committed it was not yet a crime. So for example: my just talking is not a crime, tomorrow there will be a law
"no more talking (---) you will be put to death. Even if you did the talking today only, that law will be applied
retroactively to you guys and you will be put to death. That is an ex-post facto law prohibited under the
constitution. even assuming that by the time of the commission of the act is already considered a crime, by the
time the nature of the offense is light, and that law was passed aggravating the nature of the crime. Is that an
ex-post facto law? answer is yes, it cannot be allowed. It removes the protection provided by law by the time at
the commission of the crime.
For an ex-post facto law that is not allowed bec it is a violation of due process
1. it refers only to criminal matter - something to do with the definition of the act as a crime and the penalty,
the (---) of penalty. Sa ato pa, kung ang balaod does not refer to any crime, does not refer to any penalties that
is penal in nature, that is not considered as ex post facto law, bisag di disadvantageous pa siya. e.g.: we have
an extradition treaty with australia, right? by the time he committed the crime in the Phils and he fled to
australia, we do not have yet extradition treaty with australia; then extradition treaty was signed. bec of the
treaty, he was arrested in Australia and extradited in the phils. Now he invokes his right against ex-post facto
law. he said "it should not be applied to me bec when I was charged of this crime, there was no extradition
treaty yet bet. the phils and australia. SC said: it can be applied retroactively for crimes committed even before
the execution of the extradition treaty bec an extradition treaty is not criminal matter, it is diplomatic,
enhancing the relationship between two countries in the prosecution of crimes.
Nuez v. Sandiganbayan - related to a criminal case; was charged before the RTC, Ang kaso kaniadto against
public officials for violations of anti-graft law RTC rana ug MTC. Sandiganbayan was created, and all cases
involving HRO or High-Ranking officials were transferred to the Sandiganbayan. Nuez questioned: "why xfer
the case" diba it is disadvantageous to him, this prosecution of a criminal case, why disadvantageous? Kung diri
ka sa cebu, walay plete. If it goes to Sandiganbayan, mahal na kaayo, he goes there either by boat or by plane.
"This is disadvantageous to me bec the moment I get convicted, usa rana imo padulngan: from the
Sandiganbayan to the SC whereas kung RTC ka, naa kay CA, naa kay SC. is this an ex-post facto law? SC said
"no that is not an ex-post facto law, why? it does not refer to the definition of the crime or penalty for crimes. It
refers to a procedure in the prosecution of a case therefore it is not an ex-post facto law.
2. Applied Retroactively
3. Always to the disadvantage of the accused
If there is any change in the law, even if it is disadvantageous to the accused for as long as it is applied
prospectively, we do not have any problem regarding on the ex-post facto law. Prospective lang. But if
retroactive, that is where the problem is or it is advantageous to the accused, it should be applied retroactively,
kung beneficial to the accused
Principle on Ex-post facto law is applicable to 2 diviisons of decisions. 1. Judicial decisions cannot be applied
retroactively against the interest of the accused. E.g.: at the time the crime was committed by the accused, ang
iyahang treatment sa killing is homicide, and through the use of unlicensed firearms, that creates 2 separate
offenses: homicide and unlicensed firearms, illegal possession. A decision was rendered by the supreme court,
sc said: they should not be treated as separate offenses of a complex crime - ang imohang pagpatay is
aggravated by the use of an unlicensed firearm, so nagqualify sa crime. Instead of homicide, nahimo siyang
murder bec of the aggravating circumstance through use of unlicensed firearms. Now hain man ang mas

advantageous sa acusado, can you apply that law retroactively to a case that was by compliance that
judgement? when one is charged with two offenses or one offense only? Which is advantageous, 2 separate
offenses or apply the decision of the SC retroactively? 2 separate offense, therefore that decision should not be
applied retroactively otherwise it is considered as an ex-post facto law
Finally,
bill of attainder - law that punishes the person without judicial trial. Here, congress is not only the maker of the
law but at the same time it is the judge and the executioner. The moment you check, accd'g to the law, liking
a .... whatever you place in your account, you like it bisag derogatory, you are equally guilty with the person for
libel. This disini case v. the sec. of DOJ was also objected bec accd'g to them, bill of attainder kuno ning balaod
creating to, kani bitaw'ng iclassify nimo the acts that are punishable under the anti-cyber crime prevention act.
Ang define ana, ang committee. And so, there are enumeration of acts that can be considered as a violation
and they are saying that it is a bill of attainder bec even without trial, once you are found to have committed
the act you are already found guilty. SC is saying that "the anti-cyber crime prevention act is not a bill of
attainder bec while there are definitions of the acts still that needs to be proven and ultimately, it is the court
that decides whether you committed the act or whether or not you are guilty of the act complained of, so it is
not a bill of attainder.
EXAMPLE: failure to be present in school, you are a subversive, penalty is death. The moment you'll be absent
will be considered subversive without trial penalty is death. That is not allowed, it is a bill of attainder, a
violation of due process of law. You'll be immediately punished without judicial trial. Where the penalty is less
than death is likewise prohibited.
EXAMPLE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS SET ASIDE WHEN INVOKED:
ON the case of assasination of Ninoy Aquino
Galman was the accused of the case and he was convicted ... the case was all dismissed, when there was a
change of administration na, gkan tong Marcos then Cory, the case was reinstated nga mga taga-aviation and
security, escorts gani, they were all convicted, there were some who got paroled, nia namatay lang gihapon, an
accident kuno .. Now here, they had the acquittal already by the Sandiganbayan. It was set aside by the
Supreme court, and the SC saying that there was mistrial bec considering the circumstances of the trial
considered favorable sa administration, at that time it was favorable to them, they were all acquitted then retried, they were all convicted. The only exception that I can remember of an acquittal that was set aside bec of
the grounds of mis-trial, they were retried, and this time they were all convicted.