Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
FACTS
Crime Rape
Events Santocildes was charged with the crime of rape of a girl less than 9 years old
before Trial Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of not guilty
SC RTC decision is SET ASIDE, and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for new trial
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment is SET ASIDE, and the case is hereby REMANDED to the trial court
for new trial.
With respect to the unauthorized practice of law by the person named Gualberto C. Ompong in
connection with this case, the local Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines of Iloilo City is
DIRECTED to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation regarding this matter and to report its
recommendations to the Court within ninety (90) days from notice of this order. Let all concerned
parties, including the O ce of the Bar Confidant, be each furnished a copy of this Decision for their
appropriate action.
NOTES:
Section 1 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court explicitly states who are entitled to practice law in
the Philippines
Section 2 of Rule 138 clearly provides for the requirements for all applicants for admission to
the bar
TRIAL
3 BARKER vs. WINGO
Justice Powell
Crime Murder
Nature Certiorari to US CA
Facts ● Silas Manning and Willie Barker were arrested for the murder of an elderly
couple.
● Barker was not brought to trial for murder until more than 5 years after he had
been arrested, during which time the prosecution obtained numerous
continuances (a total of around 15), initially for the purpose of first trying his
alleged accomplice, Manning, so that his testimony, if conviction resulted,
would be available at Barker’s trial.
○ Before Manning was finally convicted, he was tried six times.
● Barker posted a bond for his release. In the meantime, the prosecution
obtained further continuances.
● Barker made no objection to the continuances until 3 1/2 years after he was
arrested.
○ After the Manning was finally convicted, Barker, after further delays
due to the illness of the investigating sheriff, was tried and convicted.
● He is now appealing his conviction on the ground of denial of his right to a
speedy trial.
DICTA:
Nature/unique qualities of the right
● The right to a speedy trial is different from any other rights enshrined in the Constitution for
the protection of the accused, for the following reasons:
1. This right serves two interests (1) interest of accused persons be treated according to
decent and fair procedures, and (2) a societal interest which includes the following:
a. It prevents a large backlog of cases. A large backlog enables defendants to negotiate
more effectively for pleas of guilty to lesser offenses and otherwise manipulate the
system.
b. Persons released on bond for lengthy periods awaiting trial have an opportunity to
commit other crimes.
c. The longer an accused is free awaiting trial, the more tempting it is to jump bail and
escape.
d. Delay between arrest and punishment may have a detrimental effect on
rehabilitation.
e. If an accused cannot make bail, he is generally confined to a local jail. This
contributes to the overcrowding and generally deplorable state of those institutions.
Lengthy exposure to these conditions "has a destructive effect on human character,
and makes the rehabilitation of the individual offender much more difficult."
f. Lengthy pretrial detention is costly. The cost of maintaining a prisoner in jail
amounts to millions across
g. Society loses wages which might have been earned, and it must often support
families of incarcerated breadwinners.
2. The deprivation of the right may work to the accused's advantage. Delay is not an
uncommon defense tactic.
○ As the time between the commission of the crime and trial lengthens, witnesses
may become unavailable or their memories may fade. If the witnesses support the
prosecution, its case will be weakened, sometimes seriously so. And it is the
prosecution which carries the burden of proof.
3. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the right to speedy trial is a more vague concept
than other procedural rights. It is, for example, impossible to determine with precision when
the right has been denied. We cannot definitely say how long is too long in a system where
justice is supposed to be swift but deliberate.
○ The unique quality of the right also leads to the unsatisfactorily severe remedy of
dismissal of the indictment when the right has been deprived.
Proposed approaches to protect the right
● The first suggestion is that we hold that the Constitution requires a criminal defendant to be
offered a trial within a specified time period. The result of such a ruling would have the
virtue of clarifying when the right is infringed and of simplifying courts' application of it.
○ However, we find no constitutional basis for holding that the speedy trial right can
be quantified into a specified number of days or months.
● The second is the demand-waiver doctrine. This provides that a defendant waives any
consideration of his right to speedy trial for any period prior to which he has not demanded
a trial. Under this rigid approach, a prior demand is a necessary condition to the
consideration of the speedy trial right.
○ However, this rule would result in either an automatic, pro forma demand made
immediately after appointment of counsel or delays which, but for the demand-
waiver rule, would not be tolerated.
○ We reject, therefore, the rule that a defendant who fails to demand a speedy trial
forever waives his right. This does not mean, however, that the defendant has no
responsibility to assert his right.
● The two approaches are rejected by the court. The better rule is that the defendant's
assertion of or failure to assert his right to a speedy trial is one of the factors to be
considered in an inquiry into the deprivation of the right.
○ The approach we accept is a balancing test, in which the conduct of both the
prosecution and the defendant are weighed.
Balancing Test
● A balancing test necessarily compels courts to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc
basis. We can do little more than identify some of the factors which courts should assess in
determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of his right.
○ Though some might express them in different ways, we identify four factors: length
of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and
prejudice to the defendant.
■ The 4th factor, prejudice to the defendant, should be assessed in the light of
the interests of defendants which the speedy trial right was designed to
protect: (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize
anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the
defense will be impaired.
TRIAL
58 Cal.2d 56
4 JONES v. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEVADA COUNTY
J. Traynor
Crime Rape
Nature
WON the discovery order violates the privilege against self-incrimination – The order can’t be
enforced in its present form.
When the prosecution has ample evidence of the existence, identity, and authenticity of
documents in the defendant's possession and thus does not need to rely on his knowledge to
locate and to identify them or on his testimony to authenticate them, it may be that his implied
admission alone that the documents produced were those he was ordered to produce would
involve too trivial a degree of incrimination to justify invoking the privilege.
We are not confronted with such a case, however, for the prosecution has no independent
evidence of the existence of the reports and X-rays it seeks or the names of the witnesses who
have treated or will examine petitioner and who could authenticate any reports or X-rays they
have made or will make. The prosecution seeks more than to require petitioner tacitly to admit
that the materials are those requested; it seeks the benefit of his knowledge of the existence of
possible witnesses and the existence of possible reports and X-rays for the purpose of preparing
its case against him.
Moreover, insofar as the prosecution seeks reports made or to be made by physicians to whom
petitioner "was sent by his attorney for examination, as distinguished from advice and treatment,"
it would violate the attorney-client privilege, for such reports are communications from petitioner
to his attorneys through such physicians.
The prosecution, however, is entitled to discover the names of the witnesses petitioner intends
to call and any reports and X-rays he intends to introduce in evidence in support of his particular
affirmative defense of impotence. Although such discovery may require a defendant to disclose
information that would lead to effective rebuttal of his defense, these statutes have uniformly
been upheld against the claim that they violate the privilege against self-crimination.
The identity of the defense witnesses and the existence of any reports or X-rays the defense offers
in evidence will necessarily be revealed at the trial. The witnesses will be subject to cross-
examination, and the reports and X-rays subject to study and challenge. Learning the identity of
the defense witnesses and of such reports and X-rays in advance merely enables the prosecution
to perform its function at the trial more effectively.
Thus, "the alibi statutes do not infringe on the privilege against self-incrimination. Rather, they set
up a wholly reasonable rule of pleading which in no manner compels a defendant to give any
evidence other than that which he will voluntarily and without compulsion give at trial. Such
statutes do not violate the right of a defendant to be forever silent. Rather they say to the accused:
If you don't intend to remain silent, if you expect to offer an alibi defense, then advance notice
and whereabouts must be forthcoming; but if you personally and your potential witnesses elect
to remain silent throughout the trial, we have no desire to break that silence by any requirement
of this statute."
DISPOSITIVE: Let a peremptory writ of prohibition issue restraining the trial court from proceeding in
a manner inconsistent with the views expressed herein.
05 PEOPLE V MENDIOLA
MENDIOLA IS ACQUITTED
TRIAL
G.R. No. L-63677
6 FLORES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
J. Relova
FACTS
Crime Robbery
Events before Trial Robbed the Legaspi City branch of Central Bank of the
(commission of the crime Philippines
to Pre-trial) Abelardo was charged as an accessory
All of them pleaded not guilty
Supreme Court
1. W/N the SB erred in granting the Motion to Discharge of the Tanodbayan. YES.
a. Fiscal must show the absolute necessity for the testimony of the defendant whose
discharge is requested
i. There were other testimonies that would’ve supported the prosecution
1. Security guards
ii. At most, his probably testimony, would only be corroborative
b. Must comply with Sec. 9, Rule 119 of the ROC
c. ALSO, SB erred in granting the motion before the prosecution has presented all its
other evidence
i. In order to determine w/n his testimony was really needed
ii. Hold the resolution of the motion in the meantime
iii. ALSO, granting the motion early in the case might give the state witness time
to flee, frustrating the reason of his discharge
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the resolution of respondent Sandiganbayan, dated February 11, 1983, ordering the
discharge from the information of accused Abelardo B. Licaros in Criminal Case No. 6672, as well as its
resolution, dated March 21, 1983, denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, are hereby SET
ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
DICTA: Resolution of the motion to discharge is PREFERABLY after the presentation of all of the
prosecution’s other evidence, in order to make sure that the person discharged’s testimony is indeed
necessary.
G.R. No. 136258 | October 10, 2001
7 PEOPLE vs. FELICIANO
Vitug
FACTS
Events before 1. Information filed against Rodel and Carlos for Robbery with Homicide
Trial The prosecution sought the discharge of accused Rodel so that the latter
(commission could testify against his co-accused Carlos.
of the crime to 2. Carlos and Rodel were arraigned, pending the resolution of the prosecution’s
Pre-trial) motion. Plea: not guilty.
RTC granted the motion of the prosecution and the name of Rodel de la
Cruz, an accused turned state witness, was forthwith stricken off from
the Information.
Court of N/A
Appeals
Supreme WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo is AFFIRMED except insofar as it
Court imposed on appellant Carlos Feliciano the penalty of death which is hereby
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE:
W/N Trial Court erred in discharging Rodel de la Cruz to be the State witness against co-accused
Carlos, despite strong objections from the offense
HELD: YES.
RATIO:
1. Rodel de la Cruz appears to be far from being the inculpable young man who has simply been
an unwitting and reluctant accomplice to a gruesome crime. Several incidents disprove his
innocence.
The behavior of Rodel de la Cruz during and immediately after the crime could not be that of
a threatened, frightened man. If he indeed wanted to escape, he had in his possession his
own service gun, and he was in control of the tricycle. He had enough advantage and
chances to escape, if he really wanted to, from Feliciano who was at that time engrossed at
restraining a struggling victim.
The evident attempt, nevertheless, of Rodel, to mitigate his own culpability did not
adversely affect his discharge nor did it render completely weightless the evidentiary value
of his testimony.
2. Also, even if even Rodel appears to be equally as guilty in conspiracy with Carlos Feliciano, the
hands of the State are now stayed and the Court must assure the exemption of the witness
from punishment.
The rules of procedure allowing the discharge of an accused to instead be a witness for the
state is embodied in General Order No. 58, which highlights the emphasis placed by the new
system on the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
o The State must first establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt before an accused can
be called upon to defend himself, and on the proscription against compelling an accused
to be a witness against himself as well as against drawing inferences of guilt from his
silence.
o In this jurisdiction, it is the trial court judge who has the exclusive responsibility of
ensuring that the conditions prescribed by the rules exist.
A discharge, if granted at the stage where jeopardy has already attached, is equivalent to
an acquittal, such that further prosecution would be tantamount to the state reneging on its
part of the agreement and unconstitutionally placing the state witness in double jeopardy.
o Exception: When the accused fails to fulfill his part of the bargain and refuses to testify
against his co-accused, the benefit of his discharge can be withdrawn and he can again
be prosecuted for the same offense.
Despite an obvious attempt to downgrade his own participation in the crime, state witness
de la Cruz, nevertheless, did not renege from his agreement to give a good account of the
crime, enough to indeed substantiate the conviction of his co-accused.
o On significant points, the damaging testimony of de la Cruz against appellant was
corroborated by 2 other witnesses.
DICTA:
- The rules of procedure allowing the discharge of an accused to instead be a witness for the state
is not a home grown innovation but is one with a long and interesting history.
- It has its origins in the common law of ancient England where faithful performance of such an
agreement with the Crown could entitle a criminal offender to an equitable right to a
recommendation for executive clemency.
- The practice, soon recognized through widespread statutory enactments in offer jurisdictions,
finally has found its way to our own criminal procedure in a short and compact military General
Order No. 58 issued in 1900.
- Its adoption highlights the emphasis placed by the new system on the presumption of innocence
in favor of the accused, on the requirement that the State must first establish its case beyond a
reasonable doubt before an accused can be called upon to defend himself, and on the
proscription against compelling an accused to be a witness against himself as well as against
drawing inferences of guilt from his silence.
- Underlying the rule is the deep-lying intent of the State not to let a crime that has been
committed go unpunished by allowing an accused who appears not to be the most guilty to
testify, in exchange for an outright acquittal, against a more guilty co-accused. It is aimed at
achieving the greater purpose of securing the conviction of the most guilty and the greatest
number among the accused for an offense committed.
Trial
G.R. No. 103397
8 Chua v CA
J. Hermosisima Jr.
FACTS
Crime Falsification of Private Documents
Events before Trial Accused Wilson Chua leased several earth moving equipment to
(commission of the crime Tolong Aquaculture Corporation while Arcadio Enriquez is the
to Pre-trial) project accountant of TAC
Tolong Aquaculture Corporation (TAC) filed a Complaint for
Falsification of Private Documents against Petitioner and Enriquez
alleging that Chua instigated and indorsed Enriquez to make
alteration in the Daily Equipment Utilization Reports (DEUR) to
enable Chua to charge more than what was legally due him for the
use of the equipment. The complaint of TAC was that Chua
instigated and indorsed Enriquez to make alteration and changes
in the Daily Equipment Ultilization Reports (DEUR) to enable Chua
to charge more than what was legally due him for the use of the
equipment.
Inquest Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable
cause
On appeal to the DOJ, the prosecutor was ordered to file the
information
Provincial Prosecutor filled the information
Court of Appeals Office of SolGen filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to
set aside the RTC Decision denying the State’s motion for the
discharge, alleging grave abuse of discretion
CA granted the petition and set aside RTC’s decision, ordered the
discharge of Enriquez.
MR was filed denied
1. WON the 5 witnesses listed in the information should have been presented first before the
discharge of Enriquez to be a state witness? NO
Petitioner Chua contends that CA committed a grave order in ordering the discharge of the
accused Enriquez despite the fact that the prosecution has not presented any of its five
witnesses listed in the information. Chua cites Flores v. Sandiganbayan wherein the SC ruled that
if there is an opposition to the discharge of an accused, the trial court must defer or hold in
abeyance its resolution on the motion until after the prosecution has presented all its other
evidence.
In Flores, it was imperative for the Sandiganbayan to hold in abeyance its resolution ordering the
discharge of the accused until after the prosecution had presented all its other evidence because
the testimonies of the three security guards might establish the participation of one of the
accused (A) without needing the testimony of the other accused (B) sought to be a state witness.
Likewise, the evidence might show accused (B) as the most guilty.
In the case at bar, the Information charges only two defendants of having committed the
offense of falsification of private documents: Chua and Enriquez.
In the Flores case, the crime of bank robbery was done in public and was witnessed by several
persons. In this case, the crime of falsification of private documents was done clandestinely.
Only Chua and Enriquez had knowledge of the criminal conspiracy. Thus, only one person can
supply the DIRECT evidence required by ROC Sec. 9, Rule 119, that being Enriquez
Hence, the principle that where a crime is contrived in secret, then the discharge of one of the
conspirators is essential so he can testify against the other conspirators is applicable in this case.
The other witnesses not yet called to the witness stand would not constitute DIRECT evidence of
Chua's guilt because none of the five were privy to the conspiracy between Chua and Enriquez.
Their testimonies would only be corroborative.
Also, the Rule does not require the prosecution to present all its other evidence before an
accused can be discharged. An accused may be discharged at any time before the defendants
have entered upon their defense. Discharge can be at any stage of the proceedings from the
filing of the information to the time the defense starts to offer any evidence."
2. WON the trial court has exclusive responsibility in the matter of discharging an accused for use
as a state witness? YES, but with qualification
As a general rule, the discharge or exclusion of a co-accused from the Information, in order that
he may be utilized as a prosecution witness rests upon the sound discretion of the trial court.
However, this discretion should be strictly exercised on the basis of the conditions set forth in
ROC Rule 119, Section 9
As to the requisite of absolute necessity for the testimony of the defendant whose discharge is
requested, the trial court has to rely on the suggestions and the information presented by the
public prosecutor. The reason is that the public prosecutor should know better than the court
and the defense as to which of the accused would be best to be qualified to become a state
witness. He is also supposed to know the evidence in his possession and whom he needs to
establish his case
4. WON there absolute necessity for the testimony of accused Enriquez who is sought to be
discharged YES
MEANING of ABSOLUTE NECESSITY: The accused who is sought to be discharged has lone
knowledge of the crime and not when his testimony would simply corroborate or otherwise
strengthen the evidence in the hands of the prosecution. For example, in a conspiracy done in
secret, there is a necessity to discharge one of the accused to provide direct evidence of the
commission of the crime. Only the conspirators can testify on what was concocted between the
conspirators.
In the case at bar, the Judge denied the motion to discharge Enriquez in spite of the fact that
there were only two paticipes criminis (Chua and Enriquez). Moreover, the conspiracy to defraud
TAC was known only to Chua and Enriquez since the other five witnesses had an involvement
only after the end of the conspiracy
DICTA:
Enriquez’s testimony
On February 1989, he was approached at his office by Chua, who engaged him in conversation
inquiring into his work with TAC and then offered to help him out of his financial difficulties.
Chua induced and persuaded him to alter theDEURs, EORs, and logbooks that were under his
control and possession, and to convert the idle hours to utilization hours so that Chua could collect
larger payments than he was lawfully entitled for the use of his leased equipment by TAC. Chua
offered him a 50/50 cut of all monies received from TAC by reason of such conversion of idle hours
into utilization hours.
He succumbed to such inducements and blandishments of Chua, and thereafter started making
alterations and changes in the DEURs, EORs, and logbooks in his possession, choosing such
documents that seemed easy to change or alter without much risk of detention.
When he arrived at the TAC prawn farm on 1989, he had only about P50.00 left in his possession.
He applied for a job with Arnulfo Ilustre and Fernando Juanitez, both of whom he had met before
during several construction projects. He pleaded with Ilustre and Juanitez to give him a job
because he had no money at all, no work during the previous two years, and his family and children
were suffering, especially his eldest son who was seriously ill and in and out of the hospital. Ilustre
and Juanitez took pity on him and hired him.
The falsifications he made in the records for the rentals of Chua’s equipment between February
16 and February 28, 1989, illegally increased by P50,150. This “bloated amount” was received by
Chua, who gave him his “50/50 share” in the amount of P25,000.
Aside from the P25,000, he had also received from Chua the sums of P 10,000, P5,000, P5,000,
and P10,000, as his share in the loot extracted by Chua from TAC by means of the falsifications the
latter had induced him to make.
He had sent to his wife immediately P15,000 out of the first P25,000 he received, and P2,000 to
his sick son, who sadly died anyway. Aside from these amounts, he had also received from Chua
several thousands of pesos for so-called commissions from the rentals paid by TAC for another
bulldozer that he and Mr. Ilustre had been instrumental in convincing TAC to rent from Chua.
Although the amounts he received from Chua for the falsifications of the DEURs and other
documents were less than the 50/50 share promised him, Chua compensated for it by taking him,
Juanitez, and Ilustre out drinking, nightclubbing, and womanizing on various occasions, all at
respondent Chua’s expense
Trial
247 SCRA 652
9 Webb v De Leon
Puno, J.
FACTS
Crime Rape and Homicide
Nature Petition for writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction
Parties Hubert Webb – accused; son of Freddie Webb (actor; basketball player)
Hon. Raul E. de Leon – Presiding Judge, RTC Parañaque br. 258
Hon Zosimo V. Escano
Events June 30, 1991 – [Vizconde Massacre] rape and killing of Carmela N. Vizconde, her mother
before Estrellita Nicolas- Vizconde, and her sister Anne Marie Jennifer in their home at BF Homes,
Trial Parañ aque, Metro Manila.
June 19, 1994 – NBI filed with DoJ a letter-complaint charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael
Gatchalian, Antonio J. Lejano and six (6) other persons
DoJ formed a panel of prosecutors headed by Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Jovencio R. Zuñ o
to conduct the preliminary investigation of those charged with the rape and killing. In
Preliminary Investigation, NBI presented various sworn statements and autopsy reports against
Webb & co.
Before submitting his counter-affidavit, Webb filed with the DOJ Panel a Motion for Production
and Examination of Evidence and Documents for the NBI to produce certifications, sworn
statements, lab reports, photographs, records of arrest and others.
The motion was granted; NBI was ordered to submit photocopies of the documents.
- It alleged it lost the original of the April 28, 1995 sworn statement of Alfaro. This compelled
Webb to file a civil case in RTC Makati to obtain the original of said sworn statement. A copy
of the original was produced in compliance with a subpoena duces tecum. The original was
then submitted by Webb to the DOJ
- It appears, however, that Webb failed to obtain from the NBI the copy of the FBI Report
despite his request for its production.
Webb claimed that he did not commit the crime as he went to US on March 1, 1991 and
returned to the Philippines on October 27, 1992.
- Alibi was corroborated by Honesto Aragon, Lecinia Edrosolano, Sylvia Climaco, Gina Roque,
Sonia Rodriguez, Edgardo Ventura and Pamela Francisco.
- Also submitted documentary evidence that he bought a bicycle and a car while in US, and
that he was issued a driver’s license.
- Also submitted a letter dated July 25, 1995 of the Legal Attache of the US Embassy, citing
certain records tending to confirm his arrival at San Francisco on March 1991.
The other respondents submitted sworn statements, responses, and a motion to dismiss
denying their complicity in the rape-killing of the Vizcondes
August 8, 1995 – DoJ Panel found probable cause to hold respondents for trial. An information
was filed and case was raffled to Br. 258 presided by Judge Zosimo V. Escano (He later inhibits,
citing that he was part of NBI before being appointed as judge). It was, however, the judge Raul
de Leon, pairing judge of Judge Escano, who issued the warrants of arrest.
August 11, 1995 –Webb voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities at Camp Ricardo Papa
Sr., in Bicutan, Taguig.
RTC/MTC N/A
CA N/A
SC Petitioners filed petitions for the issuance of the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
To annul the warrant of arrest
Enjoin respondents from conducting further proceedings
Dismiss criminal case or include Jessica Alforo as one of the accused
Petitioners contend:
(1) respondent Judges committed GAD when it failed to conduct a preliminary examination before
issuing warrants of arrest against them;
(2) DOJ Panel also commited GAD in holding that there is probable cause to charge them with the
crime of rape with homicide;
(3) they were denied due process during their preliminary investigation; and
(4) the DOJ Panel unlawfully intruded into judicial prerogative when it failed to charge Jessica Alfaro
in the Information as an accused.
1. W/N respondent Judges committed GAD when it failed to conduct a preliminary examination
before issuing warrants of arrest against them – NO.
Petitioners:
Jessica Alfaro’s sworn statement is inherently weak & uncorroborated because of
o material inconsistencies between her April 28, 1995 and May 22, 1995 sworn statements.
w/n she has met Carmela before
w/n she saw the dead bodies
w/n she saw the act of rape
w/n she entered the Visconde house
o her misdescription of petitioner Webb’s hair as semi-blonde.
They also criticize the procedure followed by the DOJ Panel when it did not examine witnesses to
clarify the alleged incredulities & inconsistencies in the sworn statements of witnesses for the NBI.
Supreme Court:
Purpose of preliminary investigation: “determine whether there is a sufficient ground to engender
a well-grounded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty
thereof, and should be held for trial”
Despite the alleged inconsistencies, DOJ Panel ruled that these did not erode the credibility of
Alfaro. In addition, the DOJ Panel evaluated OTHER supporting sworn statements of Nerissa
Rosales and Mila Gaviola, former housemaids of the Webbs, Carlos J. Cristobal, a passenger in
United Airlines Flight No. 808 and Lolita Birrer, a paramour of Gerardo Biong.
A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement
of guilt.
The decision to call witnesses for clarificatory questions is addressed to the sound discretion of
the investigator and the investigator alone. If the evidence on hand already yields a probable
cause, the investigator need not hold a clarificatory hearing.
2. W/N respondent Judges committed GAD when it failed to conduct a preliminary examination
before issuing warrants of arrest against them – NO.
Petitioners
it was impossible to conduct a “searching examination of witnesses and evaluation of the
documents” on the part of said judges.
o warrants were issued in only a matter of few hours
o judges failed to issue orders of arrest
o records were incomplete and insufficient from which to base a finding of probable cause
o even Gerardo Biong as a mere accessory had a “NO BAIL” recommendation by the DOJ Panel
Supreme Court
With respect to warrants of arrest, section 6 of Rule 112 simply provides that “upon filing of an
information, the Regional Trial Court may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.” In
contrast, the procedure to be followed in issuing search warrants is more defined, as indicated in
sec 3 (Requisites for issuing search warrant), 4 (examination of complainant) 5 (issuance of search
warrant) of Rule 126.
There is also no law or rule requiring the issuance of an Order of Arrest prior to a warrant of arrest.
The sufficiency of the review process cannot be measured by merely counting minutes and hours
o before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally the probability, not the
certainty of guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to
determine the existence of probable cause. They just personally review the initial
determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by
substantial evidence.
3. WN the DOJ Panel denied them their constitutional right to due process during their preliminary
investigation – NO.
The records will show that the DOJ Panel did not conduct the preliminary investigation with
indecent haste. Petitioners were given fair opportunity to prove lack of probable cause against
them, and petitioners even actively participated in the proceedings.
o It must also be pointed out that despite the declaration by the DOJ Panel that the
preliminary investigation was to be terminated after the hearing held on July 14, 1995,
the panel continued to conduct further proceedings, e.g., comparison of the photo-copies
of the submitted documents with the originals on July 17, 1995.
4. WN the DOJ Panel unlawfully intruded into judicial prerogative when it failed to charge Jessica
Alfaro in the Information as an accused – NO.
The non-inclusion of Alfaro is anchored on Republic Act No. 6981, Sec 10. (Witness Protection
Act).
o Upon qualification of Alfaro to the program, Sec 12 of the said law mandates her non-
inclusion in the criminal Complaint or Information.
Petitioners: challenge the validity of these provisions; constitute “x x x an intrusion into judicial
prerogative for it is only the court which has the power under the Rules on Criminal Procedure to
discharge an accused as a state witness.”
o Petitioner’s argument is based on Sec 9, Rule 119 which gives the court the prerogative
to approve the discharge of an accused to be a state witness.
Petitioner’s argument lacks appeal for it lies on the faulty assumption that the decision whom to
prosecute is a judicial function, the sole prerogative of courts and beyond executive and legislative
interference.
o In truth, the prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive department of government
whose principal power and responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed.
o A necessary component of this power to execute our laws is the right to prosecute their
violators. The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion—
the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a
smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors.
We thus hold that it is not constitutionally impermissible for Congress to enact R.A. No. 6981
vesting in the Department of Justice the power to determine who can qualify as a witness in the
program and who shall be granted immunity from prosecution.
o Section 9 of Rule 119 does not support the proposition that the power to choose who
shall be a state witness is an inherent judicial prerogative.
o Under this provision, the court is given the power to discharge a state witness only
because it has already acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused. The
discharge of an accused is part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a recognition of
an inherent judicial function.
Moreover, the Rules of Court have never been interpreted to be beyond change by legislation
designed to improve the administration of our justice system.
o R.A. No. 6981 is one of the much sought penal reform laws to help government in its uphill
fight against crime, one certain cause of which is the reticence of witnesses to testify.
5. WN there was prejudicial publicity during their preliminary investigation which caused a denial
of their right to due process – NO.
The possibility of media abuses and their threat to a fair trial notwithstanding, criminal trials
cannot be completely closed to the press and the public.
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia: The historical evidence of the evolution of the criminal
trial in Anglo-American justice demonstrates conclusively that at the time this Nation’s organic
laws were adopted, criminal trials both here and in England had long been presumptively open,
thus giving assurance that the proceedings were conducted fairly to all concerned and
discouraging perjury, the misconduct of participants, or decisions based on secret bias or
partiality.
o To work effectively, it is important that society’s criminal process ‘satisfy the appearance
of justice,’ which can best be provided by allowing people to observe such process. From
this unbroken, uncontradicted history, supported by reasons as valid today as in centuries
past, it must be concluded that a presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of
a criminal trial under this Nation’s system of justice.
o The First Amendment right to receive information and ideas means, in the context of
trials, that the guarantees of speech and press, standing alone, prohibit government from
summarily closing courtroom doors which had long been open to the public at the time
the First Amendment was adopted.
Moreover, the right of assembly is also relevant, having been regarded not only
as an independent right but also as a catalyst to augment the free exercise of the
other First Amendment rights with which it was deliberately linked by the
draftsmen.
o A trial courtroom is a public place where the people generally—and representatives of
the media—have a right to be present, and where their presence historically has been
thought to enhance the integrity and quality of what takes place.
o The right to attend criminal trials is implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment:
without the freedom to attend such trials, which people have exercised for centuries,
important aspects of freedom of speech and of the press could be eviscerated.”
Martelino, et al v Alejandro: to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation
and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the
barrage of publicity.
o In the case at bar, we find nothing in the records that will prove that the tone and content
of the publicity that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness
and impartiality of the DOJ Panel.
Petitioners cannot just rely on the subliminal effects of publicity on the sense of
fairness of the DOJ Panel, for these are basically unbeknown and beyond knowing.
o To be sure, the DOJ Panel is composed of an Assistant Chief State Prosecutor and Senior
State Prosecutors. Their long experience in criminal investigation is a factor to consider in
determining whether they can easily be blinded by the klieg lights of publicity.
Indeed, their 26-page Resolution carries no indubitable indicia of bias for it does
not appear that they considered any extra-record evidence except evidence
properly adduced by the parties.
The length of time the investigation was conducted despite its summary nature
and the generosity with which they accommodated the discovery motions of
petitioners speak well of their fairness.
At no instance, we note, did petitioners seek the disqualification of any member
of the DOJ Panel on the ground of bias resulting from their bombardment of
prejudicial publicity.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions are dismissed for lack of showing of grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the respondents. Costs against petitioners.
RA 6981
Sec. 10. State Witness.—Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and desires to
be a witness for the State, can apply and, if qualified as determined in this Act and by the Department,
shall be admitted into the Program whenever the following circumstances are present:
(a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the R.P.C.
or its equivalent under special laws;
(b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony;
(c) there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed;
(d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points;
(e) he does not appear to be most guilty; and
(f) he has not at anytime been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude
Sec. 12. Effect of Admission of a State Witness into the Program.—The certification of admission into
the Program by the Department shall be given full faith and credit by the provincial or city prosecutor
who is required NOT TO INCLUDE THE WITNESS IN THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION and
if included therein, to petition the court for his discharge in order that he can be utilized as a State
Witness. The court shall order the discharge and exclusion of the said accused from the information.
Admission into the Program shall entitle such State Witness to immunity from criminal prosecution
for the offense or offenses in which his testimony will be given or used and all the rights and benefits
provided under Section 8 hereof.
TRIAL
G.R. No. 11750
10 US v Catimbang
Carson, J.
Events before Trial Two cows tied to their owners’ homes had disappeared. While looking
(commission of the crime for the animals, Templo met and asked for help in the search from
to Pre-trial) Catimbang
Next day, when asked whether he had seen the animals, Catimbang
asked P40 as ransom for their return.
W/N unexplained possession of stolen property creates a presumption of law that the possessor
committed the larceny, and casts the burden of proving the innocent character of the possession upon
the accused | NO
Conviction rests wholly upon an inference of fact as to the guilt of the accused. If as a matter of
probability and reasoning based on the fact of possession of the stolen goods, taken in connection
with other evidence, it may be fairly concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is uilty of
the theft, judgment of conviction may properly be entered.
When the prosecution closes its case there must e enough evidence in the record to establish the guilt
of the accused if nothing further appears; and proof of the possession of recently stolen goods taken
together with proof of the commission of the theft, may be and generally will be sufficient to establish
guilt of the accused, if there is nothing in the record to raise a doubt as to the guilty character of the
possession, though there is no presumption of law to that effect.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Judgment affirmed.
ELEMENTS OF CRIME:
Art. 310. Qualified theft. — The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two
degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic
servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or
large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic
erruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance
TRIAL
64 Phil. 483
11 BERMUDEZ V. CASTILLO
Diaz, J.
FACTS
RTC/MTC N/A
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
In view of the foregoing considerations and holding, as it is hereby held, that the complainant is
perfectly entitled to the privilege invoked by her, the respondent's petition is denied. So ordered.
LAUREL, concurring:
• As between two possible and equally rational constructions, that should prevail which is more
in consonance with the purpose intended to be carried out by the Constitiution. The provision, as
doubtless it was designed, should be construed with the utmost liberality in or of the right of the
individual intended to be secured.
• The witness would in effect be forced to punish the means for his own destruction. Unless the
evidence is voluntarily given, the policy of the constitution is one of protection of humanitarian
considerations and grounds of public policy. This is not saying that the constitutional privilege was
intended to shield the witness from the personal disgrace or opprobrium resulting from the exposure
of crime. It was only intended to prevent the disclosure of evidence that may tend to render the
witness liable to prosecution in a criminal case.
• The privilege should not be disregarded merely because it often affords a shelter to the guilty
and may prevent the disclosure of wrongdoing.
• The privilege afforded by the constitution is purely personal to the witness and may be waived
by him either by a failure to claim the privilege on time or by testifying without objection; and a
witness who has waived the privilege is not permitted to stop but must go on and make a full
disclosure of all matters material to the case. In this case, there has not been a waiver. The privilege
was invoked on time. The objection to the question of respondent’s counsel was raised upon the
asking of the question which would subject the witness to the danger of committing perjury. This the
witness had a right to do.
• It was not the complainant but the respondent who offered the letters (Exhibits 32 to 37) in
evidence. The complainant was presented in rebuttal and she simply denied having written the letters.
She should not be made to furnish the other party evidence by which to destroy her own testimony
under circumstances which tend to incriminate her. She was not even presented by the respondent
as his own witness.
• There are already in evidence letters written by the complainant and admitted by her to be
genuine. The purpose then of respondent's counsel can be attained without extracting from the
witness herself evidence which would subject her to punishment for a felony.
• The petitioner in this case having waived her privilege against self-incrimination by voluntarily
taking the stand and testifying, it was legitimate cross-examination to call on her to write in order that
such writing may be compared with the disputed writing for the purpose of contradicting her, and the
investigating officer erred in sustaining her objection on the ground that she might incriminate herself.
TRIAL
12 PEOPLE v. MAMACOL
No. L-1748. | September 29, 1948 | J. Perfecto
Nature Appeal
Parties THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. MORO MAMACOL,
defendant and appellant.
Events before Doesn’t say exactly what happened, the Court just said he was sentenced “for the
Trial killing of Dagodob in the early morning of October 16, 1946”
RTC Appellant was sentenced by the lower court to reclusión perpetua, to indemnify the
heirs of the deceased in the amount of P2,000 and to pay the costs
Defendant was not allowed to present evidence after denying a motion for
dismissal made when the prosecution rested, without reserving the right to
present said evidence in the event the motion is denied
Court of N/A
Appeals
Supreme Court Case was REMANDED to the lower court for further proceedings
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Fidel Abriol (petitioner-appellant)
Vicente Homeres (Provincial Warden of Leyte, respondent-appellee)
FACTS
1. At the CFI Leyte, Fidel Abriol, together with six other persons, was accused of illegal possession
of firearms and ammunition.
2. After the prosecution had presented its evidence and rested its case, counsel for the defense
moved to dismiss the case on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to prove the guilt of
the accused.
3. After hearing the arguments for and against the motion for dismissal, the court held the proofs
sufficient to convict and denied said motion, whereupon counsel for the defense offered to
present evidence for the accused.
4. The provincial fiscal opposed the presentation of evidence by the defense, contending that
the present procedural practice and laws precluded the defense in criminal cases from
presenting any evidence after it had presented a motion for dismissal with or without
reservation and after said motion had been denied, and citing as authority the case of United
States vs. De la Cruz, 28 Phil., 279.
5. His Honor Judge S. C. Moscoso sustained the opposition of the provincial fiscal and, without
allowing the accused to present evidence in their defense, convicted all of them and
sentenced the herein petitioner to suffer seven years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P2,000.
6. Petitioner appealed to the CA, but failed to file a Brief on time. The CA dismissed it. Hence,
petitioner afterwards filed a petition for habeas corpus against the provincial warden of Leyte.
7. Judge Rodolfo Baltazar, who heard the petition for habeas corpus, denied it on the ground
that, the judgement of conviction against the petitioner having become final, "this court is
entirely devoid of jurisdiction over and power to modify or in any war alter said decision."
From that decision of Judge Baltazar the petitioner has appealed to this Court.
1. Petition for habeas corpus the proper remedy to review a judgment of conviction here?
YES.
General rule: The function of a writ of habeas corpus in permitting the petitioner to
challenge by collateral attack the jurisdiction under which the process or judgment by
which he is deprived of his liberty was issued or rendered cannot be distorted by
extending the inquiry to mere errors of trial courts acting within their jurisdiction
(Habeas Corpus under American Jurisprudence).
o This principle however has been qualified to not be applied to destroy the
constitutional safeguards of human life and liberty (Johnson v Zerbst –
another Am Juris)
A writ of habeas corpus is the proper remedy to review a judgment of a conviction.
(from 2015 reviewer)
o Upon the grant, one is restored the right he has been unlawful deprived of. In
this case, it was his right to present evidence as the defense.
o No court of justice under our system of government has the power to deprive
the accused of his right to be heard or to present evidence in his defense
before being sentenced. If the accused does not waive his right to be heard
but on the contrary – as in the instant case – invokes that right, and the court
denies it to him, the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed; it has no
power to sentence the accused without hearing him in his defense; and the
sentence thus pronounced is void and may be collaterally attacked in a
habeas corpus proceeding.
However, habeas corpus is not a means of reviewing errors or irregularities during
trial. Therefore it is not a writ of error. It is used technically to safeguard constitutional
rights of human life and liberty. Therefore, not a corrective remedy.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Judgment reversed
14 Griffin v California
Douglas, J. 1965
Crime Murder
Events before Trial Griffin had been invited into the apartment shared by Essie Mae
(commission of the crime Hodson and her boyfriend, Eddie Seay. After going to bed, Eddie was
to Pre-trial) awakened by a noise, and he and saw Griffin and Essie struggling. Essie
said Griffin had tried to force her to have sex.
Eddie locked Griffin outside the apartment, but Griffin broke back into
the apartment and struck Eddie, who ran to a bar for help. Upon
returning, Griffin and Essie were gone.
California Court Griffin was convicted of murder in the first degree after a jury trial in a
California court. Griffin, who already had multiple felony convictions,
did not testify at the trial on the issue of guilt, though he did testify at
the separate trial on the issue of penalty.
The trial court stated that a defendant has a constitutional right not to
testify, and this did not create a presumption of guilt, but it also told
the jury: "As to any evidence or facts against him which the defendant
can reasonably be expected to deny or explain because of facts within
his knowledge, if he does not testify or if, though he does testify, he fails
to deny or explain such evidence, the jury may take that failure into
consideration as tending to indicate the truth of such evidence and as
indicating that among the inferences that may be reasonably drawn
therefrom those unfavorable to the defendant are the more probable."
(This was essentially an instruction to the jury saying that silence is an
admission of guilt.)
Whether the comment on the defendant’s failure to testify violated the Self-Incrimination Clause of
the Fifth Amendment (“No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself…) Yes, the comment violated defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights
The Court stated that a prosecutor's or judge's comment to the jury about a defendant's
refusal to testify "is a remnant of the 'inquisitorial system of criminal justice', which the Fifth
Amendment outlaws. It is a penalty imposed by courts for exercising a constitutional privilege.
It cuts down on the privilege by making its assertion costly."
o The Court noted that a jury might find it "natural and irresistible" to infer the guilt of
a defendant who refused to testify while possessing facts about the evidence against
him, and so a judge's commenting upon the refusal did not "magnify that inference
into a penalty for asserting a constitutional privilege," but went on to state that a
judge's comment on the refusal "solemnizes the silence of the accused into evidence
against him."
Under the Fifth Amendment no defendant could be forced to testify. However, there was a
concern that "the failure of a defendant to testify would be seen as a confession of guilt and
that jurors would draw this inference regardless of any instructions they might receive." To
help reduce the impact or the likelihood of this inference, the federal government passed a
law in 1878 called the "no-comment rule", prohibiting prosecutors from commenting on the
failure to testify, and prohibiting any presumption against the defendant based on his failure
to testify.
o However, the California Constitution explicitly permitted counsel and the judge to
comment on the failure to testify. The US SC already noted in Adamson v. California
(1947) that California's "comment practice" violated the Fifth Amendment.
TRIAL
G.R. No. 143885-86. January 21, 2002
15 Ty-Dazo v Sandiganbayan
J. Kapunan
FACTS
Crime Violation of Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Presidential Decree No. 705
(Forestry Code)
Nature Petition for certiorari filed by Ty-Dazo and Quiminales assailing the
Sandiganbayan Resolutions in Criminal Cases Nos. 23656 and 22021, and the
Sandiganbayan Joint Resolution denying their motions for reconsideration.
SC Petitioners allege that the SB commited GaoD in denying the motions to dismiss
since the delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation conducted by
the Office of the Ombudsman constitutes a violation of their rights to due
process and speedy trial.
Petitioners allege that the complaints were received in 1997, but the
informations were only filed in 1997. Additionally, when the motion for
reinvestigation was filed with the Sandiganbayan on 1995, it took the
Office of the Ombudsman more than four (4) years to resolve it
Petitioners relied on Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan where the court ruled
that the long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation
conducted by the then Tanodbayan violated the constitutional rights of
the accused to due process and to the speedy disposition of cases.
The right to a speedy disposition of cases, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only when
the proceedings is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified
postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or unjustifiable
motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.
- factors: the length of the delay the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert
such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay.
- A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient
- Particular regard must also be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.
Tatad v SB: political motivation played a vital role in activating and propelling the prosecutorial
process; that there was a blatant departure from the established procedure prescribed by law for the
conduct of a preliminary investigation; and that the long delay in resolving the preliminary
investigation could not be justified on the basis of the facts on record
In the case at bar, there is no showing that the filing of the cases against petitioners was politically
motivated. The established procedure prescribed for the conduct of preliminary investigation was also
observed and petitioners were given the opportunity to submit their respective evidence to refute the
charges against them before the corresponding information was filed with the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioners themselves also contributed to the delay, since notwithstanding their present claim that
the lapse of time from the conduct of the preliminary investigation until the filing of the cases already
violated their constitutional right to due process, accused filed a motion for reinvestigation of this
case, which, admittedly, served to further delay the case.
Petitioners failed to show that the assailed resolutions of respondent Sandiganbayan are tainted by
grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional defect to warrant the issuance of the writ of certiorari.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.