Aranas MARTIN CENTENO vs. HON.

VICTORIA VILLALON-PORNILLOS FACTS:

1o" 1523 which the court opined it had the dut instant case"

to appl

in the

Sometime in the last quarter of 1985, the officers of a civic organization known as the Samahang Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay launched a fund drive for the purpose of renovating the chapel of Barrio Tika , !alolos, Bulacan" #etitioner !artin $enteno, the chairman of the group, together with %icente &co, approached 'udge (doracion )" (ngeles, a resident of Tika , and solicited from her a contri*ution of #1,5++"++" ,t is admitted that the solicitation was made without a permit from the -epartment of Social .elfare and -evelopment" (s a consequence, *ased on the complaint of 'udge (ngeles, an information was filed against petitioner !artin $enteno, together with /eligio 0varisto and %icente &co, for violation of #residential -ecree 1o" 1523, or the Solicitation #ermit 4aw, *efore the !unicipal Trial $ourt of !alolos, Bulacan #etitioner filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute an offense, claiming that #residential -ecree 1o" 1523 onl covers solicitations made for charita*le or pu*lic welfare purposes, *ut not those made for a religious purpose such as the construction of a chapel" This was denied * the trial court5 accused %icente &co and petitioner $enteno were held guilt *e ond reasona*le dou*t and sentencing them to each pa a fine of #6++"++" 1evertheless, the trial court recommended that the accused *e pardoned on the *asis of its finding that the acted in good faith, plus the fact that it *elieved that the latter should not have *een criminall lia*le were it not for the e7istence of #residential -ecree

Both accused appealed to the /T$ of !alolos, Bulacan, however, respondent 'udge %illalon8#ornillos affirmed the decision of the lower court *ut modified the penalt , allegedl *ecause of the perversit of the act committed which caused damage and pre9udice to the complainant, * sentencing petitioner $enteno to suffer an increased penalt of imprisonment of 2 months and a fine of #1,+++"++, without su*sidiar imprisonment in case of insolvenc " #etitioner questions the applica*ilit of #residential -ecree 1o" 1523 to solicitations for contri*utions intended for religious purposes and that to su*9ect to State regulation, solicitations made for a religious purpose would constitute an a*ridgment of the right to freedom of religion guaranteed under the $onstitution"

ISSUE: .hether or not the phrase :charita*le purposes: should *e construed in its *roadest sense so as to include a religious purpose" .hether or not there was an a*ridgment of the right to freedom of religion" HELD: ,t is an elementar rule of statutor construction that the e7press mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence e7cludes all others" This rule is e7pressed in the familiar ma7im : expressio unius est exclusio alterius": .here a statute, * its terms, is e7pressl limited to certain matters, it ma not, * interpretation or construction, *e e7tended to others" The rule proceeds from the premise that the legislature would not have made specified enumerations in a statute had the intention *een not to restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those e7pressl mentioned" ,t will *e o*served that the 198; $onstitution, as well as several other statutes, the words :charita*le: and :religious: separatel and independentl of each other"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 1

That these legislative enactments specificall spelled out :charita*le: and :religious: in an enumeration, whereas #residential -ecree 1o" 1523 merel stated :charita*le or pu*lic welfare purposes,: onl goes to show that the framers of the law in question never intended to include solicitations for religious purposes within its coverage" <therwise, there is no reason wh it would not have so stated e7pressl " #etitioner ne7t avers that solicitations for religious purposes cannot *e penalized under the law for, otherwise, it will constitute an a*ridgment or restriction on the free e7ercise clause guaranteed under the $onstitution" $onsidering, however, that such an activit is within the cloak of the free e7ercise clause under the right to freedom of religion guaranteed * the $onstitution, it *ecomes imperative to delve into the efficaciousness of a statutor grant of the power to regulate the e7ercise of this constitutional right and the allowa*le restrictions which ma possi*l *e imposed thereon" The constitutional inhi*ition of legislation on the su*9ect of religion has a dou*le aspect" <n the one hand, it forestalls compulsion * law of the acceptance of an creed or the practice of an form of worship" =reedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual ma choose cannot *e restricted * law" <n the other hand, it safeguards the free e7ercise of the chosen form of religion" Thus, the constitution em*races two concepts, that is, freedom to *elieve and freedom to act" The first is a*solute *ut, in the nature of things, the second cannot *e" $onduct remains su*9ect to regulation for the protection of societ " The freedom to act must have appropriate definitions to preserve the enforcement of that protection" ,n ever case, the power to regulate must *e so e7ercised, in attaining a permissi*le end, as not to undul infringe on the protected freedom"

To conclude, solicitation for religious purposes ma *e su*9ect to proper regulation * the State in the e7ercise of police power" >owever, in the case at *ar, considering that solicitations intended for a religious purpose are not within the coverage of #residential -ecree 1o" 1523, as earlier demonstrated, petitioner cannot *e held criminall lia*le therefor" .herefore !artin $enteno is ($?@,TT0- of the offense charged"

IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS. CA (1996 FACTS: #etitioner has a television program entitled :(ng ,glesia ni $risto: aired on $hannel 6 ever Saturda and on $hannel 1A ever Sunda " The program presents and propagates petitionerBs religious *eliefs, doctrines and practices often times in comparative studies with other religions" #etitioner su*mitted to the respondent Board of /eview for !oving #ictures and Television the %T/ tapes of its T% program Series 1os" 112, 119, 161 and 168" The Board classified the series as :C: or not for pu*lic viewing on the ground that the :offend and constitute an attack against other religions which is e7pressl prohi*ited * law": ,t appealed to the <ffice of the #resident the classification of its T% Series 1o" 168 which allowed it through a letter of former 07ecutive Secretar 0delmiro (" (mante, Sr", addressed for >enrietta S" !endez reversing the decision of the respondent Board" (ccording to the letter the episode in it is protected * the constitutional guarantee of free speech and e7pression and no indication that the episode poses an clear and present danger"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 2

#etitioner also filed $ivil $ase" #etitioner alleged that the respondent Board acted without 9urisdiction or with grave a*use of discretion in requiring petitioner to su*mit the %T/ tapes of its T% program and in 78rating them" ,t cited its T% #rogram Series 1os" 115, 119, 161 and 168" ,n their (nswer, respondent Board invoked its power under #- 1o" 19821 in relation to (rticle 6+1 of the /evised #enal $ode" The ,glesia ni $risto insists on the literal translation of the *i*le and sa s that our D$atholicE veneration of the %irgin !ar is not to *e condoned *ecause nowhere it is found in the *i*le" The *oard contended that it outrages $atholic and #rotestantBs *eliefs" /T$ ruled in favor of petitioners" $( however reversed it hence this petition"

The respondent Board ma disagree with the criticisms of other religions * petitioner *ut that gives it no e7cuse to interdict such criticisms, however, unclean the ma *e" @nder our constitutional scheme, it is not the task of the State to favor an religion * protecting it against an attack * another religion" /eligious dogmas and *eliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among their followers, especiall the fanatics, the esta*lishment clause of freedom of religion prohi*its the State from leaning towards an religion" /espondent *oard cannot censor the speech of petitioner ,glesia ni $risto simpl *ecause it attacks other religions, even if said religion happens to *e the most numerous church in our countr " The *asis of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is *est served * encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas" ,t is onl where it is unavoida*l necessar to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the securit and welfare of the communit that infringement of religious freedom ma *e 9ustified, and onl to the smallest e7tent necessar to avoid the danger" There is no showing whatsoever of the t pe of harm the tapes will *ring a*out especiall the gravit and imminence of the threatened harm" #rior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot *e 9ustified * h pothetical fears *ut onl * the showing of a su*stantive and imminent evil" ,t is inappropriate to appl the clear and present danger test to the case at *ar *ecause the issue involves the content of speech and not the time, place or manner of speech" (llegedl , unless the speech is first allowed, its impact cannot *e measured, and the causal connection *etween the speech and the evil apprehended cannot *e esta*lished" The determination of the question as to whether or not such vilification, e7aggeration or fa*rication falls within or lies outside the *oundaries of protected speech or e7pression is a 9udicial function

ISSUE: .hether or 1ot the :ang iglesia ni cristo: program is not constitutionall protected as a form of religious e7ercise and e7pression"

HELD: &es" (n act that restrains speech is accompanied with presumption of invalidit " ,t is the *urden of the respondent Board to overthrow this presumption" ,f it fails to discharge this *urden, its act of censorship will *e struck down" This is true in this case" So8called :attacks: are mere criticisms of some of the deepl held dogmas and tenets of other religions" /T$Fs ruling clearl suppresses petitionerBs freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free e7ercise of religion" GattackH is different from GoffendH an race or religion"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 3

which cannot *e arrogated * an administrative *od such as a Board of $ensors": ( s stem of prior restraint ma onl *e validl administered * 9udges and not left to administrative agencies"

%ictoriano presented his resignation to @nion claiming that as per /( AA5+ he is an e7emption to the close shop agreement * virtue of his *eing a mem*er of the ,1$ *ecause apparentl in the ,1$, one is for*idden from *eing a mem*er of an la*or union" The @nion wrote a formal letter to the $ompan asking the latter to separate him from the service in view of the fact that he was resigning from the @nion as a mem*er" The management of the $ompan in turn notified %ictoriano and his counsel that unless %ictoriano could achieve a satisfactor arrangement with the @nion, the $ompan would *e constrained to dismiss him from the service"

VICTORIANO VS. ELI!ALDE ROPE "OR#ERS UNION (19$%

FACTS:

Ben9amin %ictoriano is a mem*er of the religious sect known as the ,glesia ni $risto had *een in the emplo of the 0lizalde /ope =actor , ,nc"" (s such emplo ee, he was a mem*er of the 0lizalde /ope .orkersB @nion which had with the $ompan a collective *argaining agreement containing a closed shop provision which reads as followsI Membership in the Union shall be required as a condition of employment for all permanent employees workers covered by this greement!

ISSUE: .<1 /epu*lic (ct 1o" AA5+ discriminatoril favors those religious sects which *an their mem*ers from 9oining la*or unions HELD: 1<" The purpose of /epu*lic (ct 1o" AA5+ is secular, worldl , and temporal, not spiritual or religious or hol and eternal" ,t was intended to serve the secular purpose of advancing the constitutional right to the free e7ercise of religion, * averting that certain persons *e refused work, or *e dismissed from work, or *e dispossessed of their right to work and of *eing impeded to pursue a modest means of livelihood, * reason of union securit agreements" $ongress acted merel to relieve the e7ercise of religion, * certain persons, of a *urden that is imposed * union securit agreements" ,t was $ongress itself that imposed that *urden when it enacted the ,ndustrial #eace (ct D/epu*lic (ct 8;5E, and, certainl , $ongress, if it so deems advisa*le, could take awa the same *urden" The means adopted * the (ct to achieve that purpose e7empting the mem*ers of said religious sects from coverage of union securit

@nder /epu*lic (ct 1o" 8;5, the emplo er was not precluded :from making an agreement with a la*or organization to require as a condition of emplo ment mem*ership therein, if such la*or organization is the representative of the emplo ees"H Then /epu*lic (ct 1o" AA5+ was enacted, introducing an amendment to section 3 of /epu*lic (ct 1o" 8;5, as followsI !!! "but such agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor organi#ation"!

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 4

agreements J is reasona*le" ,t ma not *e amiss to point out here that the free e7ercise of religious profession or *elief is superior to contract rights" ,n case of conflict, the latter must, therefore, ield to the former" The Supreme $ourt of the @nited States has also declared on several occasions that the rights in the =irst (mendment, which include freedom of religion, en9o a preferred position in the constitutional s stem" /eligious freedom, although not unlimited, is a fundamental personal right and li*ert , and has a preferred position in the hierarch of values" $ontractual rights, therefore, must ield to freedom of religion" ,t is onl where unavoida*l necessar to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the securit and welfare of the communit that infringement of religious freedom ma *e 9ustified, and onl to the smallest e7tent necessar to avoid the danger" The right to religion prevails over contractual or legal rights" (s such, an ,1$ mem*er ma refuse to 9oin a la*or union and despite the fact that there is a close shop agreement in the factor where he was emplo ed, his emplo ment could not *e validl terminated for his non8mem*ership in the ma9orit therein" =urther, the right to 9oin a union includes the right not to 9oin a union" The law is not unconstitutional" ,t recognizes *oth the rights of unions and emplo ers to enforce terms of contracts and at the same time it recognizes the workersF right to 9oin or not to 9oin union" But the /( recognizes as well the primac of a constitutional right over a contractual right"

,n 19;1, =r" !argarito )onzaga, a priest, won the election for ma oralt in (l*uquerque, Bohol" >e was also proclaimed as a ma or therein" #amil, a rival candidate filed a quo warranto case against )onzaga questioning the eligi*ilit of )onzaga" >e argued that as provided for in the /evised (dministrative $ode5 Gin no case shall there *e elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service, persons receiving salaries or compensation from provincial or national funds, or contractors for pu*lic works of the municipalit "H ,n this case, the elected ma or is a priest" >owever, 'udge Teleron ruled that the (dministrative $ode is repealed * the 0lection $ode of 19;1 which allowed the prohi*itions of the revised administrative code"

ISSUE: ,s the prohi*ition imposed on ecclesiastics from holding appointive or elective municipal offices a religious testK

HELD: 1o" The vote is thus indecisive" .hile five mem*ers of the $ourt constitute a minorit , the vote of the remaining seven does not suffice to render the challenged provision ineffective" Section 61;5 of the /evised (dministrative $ode, as far as ecclesiastics are concerned, must *e accorded respect" The presumption of validit calls for its application" @nder the circumstances, certiorari lies" That is the conclusion arrived at * the writer of this opinion, 9oined * 'ustice $oncepcion

PAMIL VS. TELERON (19$& FACTS:

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 5

'r", Santos, =ernandez, and )uerrero" The have no choice then *ut to vote for the reversal of the lower court decision and declare ineligi*le respondent =ather !argarito /" )onzaga for the office of municipal ma or" .ith the aforesaid five other mem*ers, led * the $hief 'ustice, entertaining no dou*t as to his lack of eligi*ilit , this petition for certiorari must *e granted" ,t would *e an un9ustified departure from a settled principle of the applica*le construction of the provision on what laws remain operative after 19A5 if the plea of petitioner in this case were to *e heeded" The challenged (dministrative $ode provision, certainl insofar as it declares ineligi*le ecclesiastics to an elective or appointive office, is, on its face, inconsistent with the religious freedom guaranteed * the $onstitution" To so e7clude them is to impose a religious test" >ere *eing an ecclesiastic and therefore professing a religious faith suffices to disqualif for a pu*lic office" There is thus an incompati*ilit *etween the (dministrative $ode provision relied upon * petitioner and an e7press constitutional mandate" ,t is not a valid argument against this conclusion to assert that under the #hilippine (utonom (ct of 1912, there was such a prohi*ition against a religious test, and et such a *an on holding a municipal position had not *een nullified" ,t suffices to answer that no question was raised as to its validit "

D'(a)* +OVITO R. SALONGA, petitioner, vs" CAPTAIN ROLANDO HERMOSO, TRAVEL PROCESSING CENTER, anGENERAL FA.IAN VER, respondents" FERNANDO, C.J.: This is not the first time petitioner 'ovito /" Salonga came to this Tri*unal * wa of a mandamus proceeding to compel the issuance to him of a certificate of eligi*ilit to travel" ,n the first case, Salonga v! Madella, 1 the case *ecame

moot and academic as the <ffice of the Solicitor )eneral, in its answer to the petition, stated that the travel eligi*ilit certificate was not denied and, as a matter of fact, had *een granted" 1onetheless, a *rief separate opinion was filed, concurring in the resolution, and worded thusI :$learl this petition had assumed a moot and academic character" ,ts dismissal is thus indicated" !a , 9ust add these few words as m response to the plea of petitioner in his !anifestation and /epl dated <cto*er 68, 19;8" This is how , would view the matter not onl where petitioner is concerned *ut in all other similar cases" /espondent Travel #rocessing $enter should discharge its in9unction conforma*l to the mandate of the @niversal -eclaration of >uman /ights on the right to travel" <ne of the highlights of the ke note address of #resident !arcos in the !anila .orld 4aw $onference in cele*ration of the .orld #eace Through 4aw -a on (ugust 61, 19;; was the lifting of Bthe *an on international travel"B There should *e fidelit to such a pronouncement" ,t is the e7perience of the undersigned in his lectures a*road the last few ears, in the @nited States as well as in !ala sia, Singapore and (ustralia, that respect accorded constitutional rights under the present emergenc regime had elicited the commendation of mem*ers of the *ench, the *ar, and the academe in foreign lands" ,t is likewise worth of notice that in his ke note address to the ,nternational 4aw (ssociation, #resident !arcos made reference to martial law *eing instituted in accordance with law and that the $onstitution had *een applied in appropriate cases" (s an agenc of the e7ecutive *ranch, therefore, the Travel #rocessing $enter should ever *e on its guard, lest the impression *e created that such declarations amount, to paraphrase 'ustice 'ackson, to no more than munificent *equests in a pauperBs will" #etitioner, to m mind, is 9ustified, the more so in the light of the (nswer of (cting Solicitor )eneral %icente !endoza, to an affirmative response to his pra er in his !anifestation and /epl Bthat under the circumstances mentioned in the #etition, #etitioner is entitled to travel a*road, and that it is in recognition of this right that /espondents have issued his $ertificate of 0ligi*ilit to Travel, as mentioned in the (nswer" / The present petition is likewise impressed with a moot and academic aspect" ,n the motion to dismiss of the Solicitor )eneral dated (pril 61, 198+, it was stated that the certificate of eligi*ilit to travel had *een granted petitioner" ( 7ero7ed cop was enclosed" ( resolution for dismissal is, therefore, in order" =rom the docket of this $ourt, it appears that other petitions of this character had *een filed in the past, namel , Santos v" The Special $ommittee on Travel (*road, 0 $imentel v! Travel $rocessing %enter, % and &on#ales v! Special %ommittee on Travel" 1 ,n the aforesaid cases, as in this and the earlier Salonga petition, there was no occasion to pass on the merits of the

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 6

controvers as the certificates of eligi*ilit to travel were granted" The necessit for an ruling was thus o*viated" 1onetheless, in view of the likelihood that in the future this $ourt ma *e faced again with a situation like the present which takes up its time and energ needlessl , it is desira*le that respondent Travel #rocessing $enter should e7ercise the utmost care to avoid the impression that certain citizens desirous of e7ercising their constitutional right to travel could *e su*9ected to inconvenience or anno ance" ,n the address of #resident and #rime !inister =erdinand 0" !arcos *efore the (merican 1ewspaper #u*lishers (ssociation last Tuesda (pril 66, 198+, emphasized anew the respect accorded constitutional rights The freedom to travel is certainl one of the most cherished" >e cited with approval the ringing affirmation of .illough* , who, as he noted was :partial to the claims of li*ert ": 6 Burdick $ and .illis, & *oth of whom were equall convinced that there *e no erosion to human rights even in times of martial law, likewise received from #resident !arcos the accolade of his approval" ,t would appear, therefore, that in case of dou*t of the <fficer8in8$harge of the Travel #rocessing $enter, the view of )eneral =a*ian %er should immediatel *e sought" ,t goes without sa ing that the petition for such certificate of eligi*ilit to travel *e filed at the earliest opportunit to facilitate the granting thereof and preclude an disclaimer as to the person desiring to travel *eing in an wa responsi*le for an dela " .>0/0=</0, the petition is dismissed for *eing moot and academic G.R. N*. &&/11 S'23')4'r 11, 19&9 FERDINAND E. MARCOS vs" HONORA.LE RAUL MANGLAPUS 1 =actsI ,n =e*ruar 1982, =erdinand 0" !arcos was deposed from the presidenc via the non8violent :people power: revolution and forced into e7ile" ,n his stead, $orazon $" (quino was declared #resident of the /epu*lic under a revolutionar government" 1ow, !r" !arcos, in his death*ed, has signified his wish to return to the #hilipppines to die" But !rs" (quino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the sta*ilit of government is threatened from various directions and the econom is 9ust *eginning to rise and move forward, has stood firml on the decision to *ar the return of !r" !arcos and his famil " Note'
1

,t must *e emphasized in this case that the individual right involved herein is not the right to travel from the #hilippines to other countries or within the #hilippines that which is properl covered * the Bill of rights" 0ssentiall , 35' r6(53 6nv*7v'- 6s 35' r6(53 3* r'38rn 3* *n'9s :*8n3r;, a 3*3a77; -6s36n:3 r6(53 8n-'r 6n3'rna36*na7 7a<, 6n-'2'n-'n3 =r*) a735*8(5 r'7a3'- 3* 35' r6(53 3* 3rav'7. The right to return to oneBs countr is not among the rights specificall guaranteed in the Bill of /ights, which treats onl of the li*ert of a*ode and the right to travel, *ut it is our well8considered view that 35' r6(53 3* r'38rn 4'6n( a ('n'ra77; a::'23'- 2r6n:627' *= 6n3'rna36*na7 7a<, =*r)s 2ar3 *= 35' 7a< *= 35' 7an- as )an-a3'- 4; 35' C*ns363836*n. The said right to return to oneFs countr is distinct and separate from the right to travel and 'n>*;s a -6=='r'n3 2r*3':36*n 8n-'r 35' In3'rna36*na7 C*v'nan3 *= C6v67 an- P*7636:a7 R6(53s, 6.'., a(a6ns3 4'6n( ?ar463rar67; -'2r6v'-? 35'r'*= @Ar3. 1/ (% .A (ssue' )! *+N the president acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of ,urisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcoses pose a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decide to bar their return! No! /ulingI -! The request or demand of the !arcoses to *e allowed to return to the #hilippines cannot *e considered in the light solel of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing li*ert of a*ode and the right to travel *ut one su*9ect to the *alancing of the general welfare and the common good against the e7ercise of the said individual rights" ,n this case, the court cannot den the countr is in such a delicate state and is onl *eginning to recover from the hardships *rought a*out * the plunder of the econom attri*uted to the !arcoses and their close associates" To permit them to return would pose a serious threat to the national interest and welfare, hence it is onl *ut proper for the president to prohi*it their return"

G.R. N*. 9%/&% A2r67 &, 1991 RICARDO C. SILVERIO vs" THE COURT OF APPEALS =actsI #etitioner Silverio who was charged in a criminal case posted *ail for his provisional li*ert " 6 ears later, the court issued a hold departure order and direction to -=( to cancel petitionerFs passport on the ground that he had

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 7

gone a*road several times without the necessar court approval resulting in postponements of the arraignment and scheduled hearings" The petitioner theorizes that the right to travel ma onl *e impaired on the grounds of Gnational securit , pu*lic safet , or pu*lic health" Sec 2 of the 198; $onstitution provideI G""" 1either shall the right to travel *e impaired e7cept in the interest of national securit , pu*lic safet , or pu*lic health, as ma *e provided * law"H ,ssueLsI .<1 the right to travel ma onl *e impaired on the grounds of Gnational securit , pu*lic safet , or pu*lic health"H 1o" /ulingI (rticle ,,,, Section 2 of the 198; $onstitution should * no means *e construed as delimiting the inherent power of the $ourts to use all means necessar to carr their orders into effect in criminal cases pending *efore them" .hen * law 9urisdiction is conferred on a $ourt or 9udicial officer, all au7illar writs, process and other means necessar to carr it into effect ma *e emplo ed * such $ourt or officer D/ule 1A5, Section 2, /ules of $ourtE" #etitioner is facing a criminal charge" >e has posted *ail *ut has violated the conditions thereof * failing to appear *efore the $ourt when required" .arrants for his arrest have *een issued" Those orders and processes would *e rendered nugator if an accused were to *e allowed to leave or to remain, at his pleasure, outside the territorial confines of the countr " >olding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the $ourts * preventing his departure from the #hilippines must *e considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he ma *e dealt with in accordance with law" The offended part in an criminal proceeding is the #eople of the #hilippines" ,t is to their *est interest that criminal prosecutions should run their course and proceed to finalit without undue dela , with an accused holding himself amena*le at all times to $ourt <rders and processes" 1otesI 1901 C*ns363836*n, Ar36:7' III, S':36*n 1(% 35'r'*= r'a-s: The li*ert of a*ode and of changing the same within the limits prescri*ed * law shall not *e impaired" 19$0 C*ns363836*n, Ar36:7' IV, S':36*n 1:

The li*ert of a*ode and of travel shall not *e impaired e7cept upon lawful order of the court or when necessar in the interest of national securit , pu*lic safet , or pu*lic health" 19&$ C*ns363836*n, Ar36:7' III, S':36*n 6I The li*ert of a*ode and of changing the same within the limits prescri*ed * law shall not *e impaired e7cept upon lawful order of the court" 1either shall the right to travel *e impaired e7cept in the interest of national securit , pu*lic safet , or pu*lic health, as ma *e provided * law" G.R. N*. 10%0B$ D':')4'r /1, 199& EDUARDO M. CO+UANGCO, +R. vs" SANDIGAN.ACAN =actsI #etitioner is charged in a criminal case filed *efore the Sandigan*a an and has posted *ail for his provisional li*ert " <n 1ovem*er 6+, 1998, petitioner filed a !anifestation setting forth the urgenc of lifting the *an on foreign travel imposed on him in view of the need to oversee the critical stages in the international operations of S!$ as its $hairman and $hief 07ecutive <fficer, on the same date, the <S) filed a !anifestation indicating that it is not interposing an o*9ection to petitionerBs pra er that he *e allowed to travel a*road" ,ssueLsI D1E whether the *an on foreign travel imposed on petitioner per <rder of =e*ruar 6+, 1995 should *e vacated to ena*le petitioner to go a*road without prior permission of, and other restrictions imposed * the respondent Sandigan*a an" &es" /ulingI The travel *an should *e lifted, considering all the circumstances now prevailing" The rule laid down * this $ourt is that a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionall released on *ail does not have an unrestricted right to travel, the reason *eing that a personBs right to travel is su*9ect to the usual constraints imposed * the ver necessit of safeguarding the s stem of 9ustice" But, significantl , the <ffice of the Solicitor )eneral in its !anifestation dated 1ovem*er 6+, 1998 indicated that it is not interposing

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 8

an o*9ection to petitionerBs pra er that he *e allowed to travel a*road *ased on the following considerationsI " " " D1E it is well within the power of this $ourt to supend its own rules, including the second paragraph, Section 6A, /ule 113 of the /ules of $ourt5 D6E that it has *een shown in the past that the petitioner has alwa s returned to the #hilippines after the e7piration of the period of his allowed travel5 and DAE that petitioner, now $hairman of the Board of San !iguel $orporation, ma *e constrained to leave the countr for *usiness purposes, more often than he had done in the past, " " " (dmittedl , all of petitionerBs previous requests to travel a*road has *een granted and that, as confirmed * the <ffice of the Solicitor )eneral, that petitioner has alwa s returned to the #hilippines and complied with the restrictions imposed on him" The necessit of further den ing petitionerBs right to travel a*road, with attendant restrictions, appears less than clear" The risk of flights is further diminished in view of petitionerBs recent reinstatement as $hairman and $hief 07ecutive <fficer of San !iguel $orporation, though he has now more 9ustification to travel so as to oversee the entire operations of that compan " These considerations affecting the petitionerBs duties to a pu*licl held compan , militate against imposing further restrictions on petitionerBs right to travel a*road" S8)an-* Ca2 vs CA =($TSI D6E

final 9udgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must *e with prior notice to the court5 The $ommission of ,mmigration and -eportation D$,-E is here* directed to issue a hold departure order against accused8appellant5 and The accused8appellant shall forthwith surrender his passport to the -ivision $lerk of $ourt for safekeeping until the court orders its return5 (n violation of the aforesaid conditions shall cause the forfeiture of accused8appellantFs *ail *ond, the dismissal of appeal and his immediate arrest and confinement in 9ail"

DAE

D3E

#etitioner filed a /epl , contending that the proposed *ail of #5,5++,+++"++ was violative of his right against e7cessive *ail" >e pra s that *ail *e reduced to at least #3+,+++"++, citing the ma7imum amount of *ail that can *e posted for the crime of estafa under the 1992 Bail Bond )uide, or #6+,+++"++, equivalent to the amount of *ail he posted during the trial of the case" Solicitor )eneral further pointed out the pro*a*ilit of flight in case petitioner is released on *ail, it having *een esta*lished that petitioner was in possession of a valid passport and visa and had in fact left the countr several times during the course of the proceedings in the lower court" ,t was also shown that petitioner used different names in his *usiness transactions and had several a*odes in different parts of the countr "

#etitioner =rancisco &ap aka 0dwin &ap, was convicted for estafa for misappropriating 5 5++ +++" >e was sentenced to four ears and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight ears of prision mayor as ma7imum, Gin addition to one D1E ear for each additional #1+,+++"++ in e7cess of #66,+++"++ *ut in no case shall it e7ceed twent D6+E ears" >e filed an appeal for his provisional li*ert under a cash*ond which was granted su*9ect to the following conditionsI D1E >e Daccused8appellantE secures a certificationLguarant from the !a or of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to *e a resident therein until

,SS@0I .<1 the second condition imposed * the $ourt that he secure :a certificationLguarant from the !a orMH violates his li*ert of a*ode and travel" >04-I 1o" The li*ert of a*ode and of changing the same within the limits prescri*ed * law shall not *e impaired e7cept 82*n 7a<=87 *r-'r of the court" 1either shall the right to travel *e impaired e7cept in the interest of

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 9

national securit , pu*lic safet , or pu*lic health, as ma *e provided * law" The order of the $ourt of (ppeals releasing petitioner on *ail constitutes s8:5 7a<=87 *r-'r as contemplated * the a*ove provision" 6A The condition imposed * the $ourt of (ppeals is simpl consistent with the nature and function of a *ail *ond, which is to ensure that petitioner will make himself availa*le at all times whenever the $ourt requires his presence" Besides, a closer look at the questioned condition will show that 2'3636*n'r 6s n*3 2r'v'n3'- =r*) :5an(6n( a4*-'D 5' 6s )'r'7; r'E86r'- 3* 6n=*r) 35' :*8r3 6n :as' 5' -*'s s*.

(< 1 does not impose unreasona*le restrictions" ,t merel outlines several precautionar measures, to which toll wa users must adhere" These rules were designed to ensure pu*lic safet and the uninhi*ited flow of traffic within limited access facilities" The cover several su*9ects, from what lanes should *e used * a certain vehicle, to ma7imum vehicle height" The prohi*ition of certain t pes of vehicles is *ut one of these" 1one of these rules violates reason" The purpose of these rules and the logic *ehind them are quite evident" ( toll wa is not an ordinar road" The special purpose for which a toll wa is constructed necessitates the imposition of guidelines in the manner of its use and operation" ,nevita*l , such rules will restrict certain rights" But the mere fact that certain rights are restricted does not invalidate the rules" #etitioners are not *eing deprived of their right to use the limited access facilit " The are merel *eing required, 9ust like the rest of the pu*lic, to adhere to the rules on how to use the facilit " (< 1 does not infringe upon petitionersF right to travel *ut merel *ars motorc cles, *ic cles, tric cles, pedica*s, and an non8motorized vehicles as the mode of traveling along limited access highwa s" 31 Several cheap, accessi*le and practical alternative modes of transport are open to petitioners" #etitioners themselves admit that alternative routes are availa*le to them" Their complaint is that these routes are not the safest and most convenient" 0ven if their claim is true, it hardl qualifies as an undue curtailment of their freedom of movement and travel" The right to travel does not entitle a person to the *est form of transport or to the most convenient route to his destination" The o*structions found in normal streets, which petitioners complain of are not suffered * them alone"

M6ras*7 vs DP"H =($TSI <n 19 =e*ruar 1928, Secretar (ntonio %" /aquiza of the -epartment of #u*lic .orks and $ommunications issued (< 1, which, among others, prohi*ited motorc cles on limited access highwa s" ,SS@0I *+N +) violates the petitioners. right to travel! No!

>04-I

(dministrative issuances have the force and effect of law" A+ The *enefit from the same presumption of validit and constitutionalit en9o ed * statutes"A1 These two precepts place a heav *urden upon an part assailing governmental regulations" The *urden of proving unconstitutionalit rests on such part " A6 The *urden *ecomes heavier when the police power is at issue" The use of pu*lic highwa s * motor vehicles is su*9ect to regulation as an e7ercise of the police power of the state" AA The police power is far8 reaching in scope and is the :most essential, insistent and illimita*le: of all government powers"A3 The tendenc is to e7tend rather than to restrict the use of police power" The sole standard in measuring its e7ercise is reasona*leness

R';'s vs CA FACTS: #etitioner was among those arrested in the !anila #eninsula >otel siege on 1ovem*er A+, 6++;" The petitioner in this case was previousl included in the >old -eparture list D>-< 1<" 35E after the finding of pro*a*le cause for the crime of re*ellion * the -<' panel of #rosecutors" .hen the information was filed in the /T$, the T$ dismissed the charge of /e*ellion against the petitioner for lack of pro*a*le cause" The petitionerFs counsel <r*3' 35' DO+ S':r'3ar; r'E8's36n( the lifiting of >-< 1o"35 in view of the

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 10

dismissal of the $riminal $ase" >owever, the request remained unheeded there* inconveniencing the petitioner whenever he wants to travel" >ence the petitioner filed the instant petition" -uring the hearing however, it was discovered that the petitioner did not file a )*36*n 3* 76=3 35' HDO 4'=*r' 35' RTC n*r 35' DO+. The petitionerFs counsel rationalized that to do so would *e tantamount to recognizing the power of the -<' Secretar to issue the said >-<" So here petitioner filed a writ of amparo on the ground that respondents violated petitionerFs constitutional right of travel" ,SS@0I .<1 the a*ridgement of petitionerFs right to travel is covered * the /ule on the .rit of (mparo >04-I 1o" =irstl , the restriction on petitionerBs right to travel as a consequence of the pendenc of the criminal case filed against him was not unlawful" #etitioner has also failed to esta*lish that his right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the e7tent that it amounted to a serious violation of his right to life, li*ert and securit , for which there e7ists no readil availa*le legal recourse or remed " #etitioner should have filed with the /T$8!akati a motion to lift >-< 1o" 35 in the $riminal $ase" $etitioner/ however, did not file in the /T$8 !akati a motion to lift the -<'Bs >-<" #etitioner argues that it was not the /T$8!akati *ut the -<' that issued the said >-< however, in the case of $respo v" !ogul it was held that Gonce a complaint or information is filed in court, an disposition of the case such as its dismissal or its continuation rests on the sound discretion of the court"H The relief petitioner seeks which is the lifting of the >-< was and is availa*le * motion in the criminal case" (dditionall , petitioner is seeking the e7traordinar writ of amparo due to his apprehension that the -<' ma den his motion to lift the >-<" #etitionerBs apprehension is at *est merel speculative" ,n the conte7t of Section 1 of the (mparo /ule, Gfreedom from fear: is the right and an threat to the rights to life, li*ert or securit is the actiona*le wrong, in this case petitioner has failed to show an clear threat to his right to li*ert actiona*le through a petition for a writ of amparo"

The writ of amparo was originall conceived as a response to the e7traordinar rise in the num*er of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of availa*le and effective remedies to address these e7traordinar concerns" ,t is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, li*ert or securit , as an e7traordinar and independent remed *e ond those availa*le under the prevailing /ules, or as a remed supplemental to these /ules" .hat it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purel propert or commercial" 1either is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds" $onsequentl , the /ule on the .rit of (mparo 8 in line with the e7traordinar character of the writ and the reasona*le certaint that its issuance demands 8 requires that ever petition for the issuance of the writ must *e supported * 9ustif ing allegations of fact, to witI :DaE The personal circumstances of the petitioner5 D*E The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsi*le for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent ma *e descri*ed * an assumed appellation5 DcE The right to life, li*ert and securit of the aggrieved part violated or threatened with violation * an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits5 DdE The investigation conducted, if an , specif ing the names, personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authorit or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with an report5 DeE The actions and recourses taken * the petitioner to determine the fate or wherea*outs of the aggrieved part and the identit of the person responsi*le for the threat, act or omission5 and DfE The relief pra ed for" The petition ma include a general pra er for other 9ust and equita*le reliefs": The writ shall issue if the $ourt is preliminaril satisfied with the prima facie e7istence of the ultimate facts determina*le from the supporting affidavits that detail the circumstances of how and to what e7tent a threat to or violation of the rights to life, li*ert and securit of the aggrieved part was or is *eing committed" M6ran-a vs Ar6F*na =($TSI

1otesI

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 11

The Supreme $ourtFs decision in !iranda v" (rizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations" ,n each of these cases, the defendant was questioned * police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorne in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world" ,n none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process" ,n all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial" Miranda v! ri#ona' !iranda was arrested at his home and taken in custod to a police station where he was identified * the complaining witness" >e was then interrogated * two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession" (t trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the 9ur " !iranda was found guilt of kidnaping and rape and was sentenced to 6+8A+ ears imprisonment on each count" <n appeal, the Supreme $ourt of (rizona held that !irandaFs constitutional rights were not violated in o*taining the confession" 0ignera v! New 1ork' %ignera was picked up * 1ew &ork police in connection with the ro**er of a dress shop that had occurred three da s prior" >e was first taken to the 1;th -etective Squad headquarters" >e was then taken to the 22th -etective Squad, where he orall admitted the ro**er ad was place under formal arrest" >e was then taken to the ;+ th #recinct for detention, where he was questioned * an assistant district attorne in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcri*ed the questions and answers" (t trial, the oral confession and the transcript were presented to the 9ur " %ignera was found guilt of first degree ro**er and sentenced to A+82+ ears imprisonment" The conviction was affirmed without opinion * the (ppellate -ivision and the $ourt of (ppeals" *estover v! United States' .estover was arrested * local police in Nansas $it as a suspect in two Nansas $it ro**eries and taken to a local police station" ( report was also received from the =B, that .estover was wanted on a felon charge in $alifornia" .estover was interrogated the night of the arrest and the ne7t morning * local police" Then, =B, agents continued the interrogation at the station" (fter 6 and one8half hours of interrogation * the =B,, .estover signed separate

confessions, which had *een prepared * one of the agents during the interrogation, to each of the two ro**eries in $alifornia" These statements were introduced at trial" .estover was convicted of the $alifornia ro**eries and sentenced to 15 earsF imprisonment on each count" The conviction was affirmed * the $ourt of (ppeals for the 1inth $ircuit" %alifornia v! Stewart' ,n the course of investigating a series of purse8 snatch ro**eries in which one of the victims died of in9uries inflicted * her assailant, Stewart was identified as the endorser of checks stolen in one of the ro**eries" Steward was arrested at his home" #olice also arrested StewartFs wife and three other people who were visiting him" Stewart was placed in a cell, and, over the ne7t five da s, was interrogated on nine different occasions" -uring the ninth interrogation session, Stewart stated that he had ro**ed the deceased, *ut had not meant to hurt her" (t that time, police released the four other people arrested with Stewart *ecause there was no evidence to connect an of them with the crime" (t trial, StewartFs statements were introduced" Stewart was convicted of ro**er and first degree murder and sentenced to death" The Supreme $ourt of $alifornia reversed, holding that Stewart should have *een advised of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel"

ISSUE: .hether Gstatements o*tained from an individual who is su*9ected to custodial police interrogationH are admissi*le against him in a criminal trial and whether Gprocedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the =ifth (mendment to the $onstitution not to *e compelled to incriminate himselfH are necessar " HELD: The $ourt held that Gthere can *e no dou*t that the =ifth (mendment privilege is availa*le outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 12

an significant wa from *eing compelled to incriminate themselves"H (s such, Gthe prosecution ma not use statements, whether e7culpator or inculpator , stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self8incrimination" B custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated * law enforcement officers after a person has *een taken into custod or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in an significant wa "H The $ourt further held that Gwithout proper safeguards the process of in8 custod interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherentl compelling pressures which work to undermine the individualFs will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freel "H Therefore, a defendant Gmust *e warned prior to an questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that an thing he sa s can *e used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorne , and that if he cannot afford an attorne one will *e appointed for him prior to an questioning if he so desires"H The Supreme $ourt reversed the 9udgment of the Supreme $ourt of (rizona in !iranda, reversed the 9udgment of the 1ew &ork $ourt of (ppeals in %ignera, reversed the 9udgment of the $ourt of (ppeals for the 1inth $ircuit in .estover, and affirmed the 9udgment of the Supreme $ourt of $alifornia in Stewart"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 13

R'2*rs >o .ai #ang -omingo vs" /e es =($TSI (round 'ul 1999, famil mem*ers of /o*ert &ao were a*ducted and kidnapped * the accused8appelants -omingo /e es #a9e, (lvin (rnaldo (vena and 'oselito =lores %ictorio" The accused freed the head of the famil together with his daughter to prepare a 5! ransom and instructed latter not to ever seek the help of the authorities or the remaining mem*ers of their famil Fs lives will *e lost" The accused8appellants and &ao decided to meet in a place where the latter will *ring the amount in e7change of his children" >e arrived at the agreed place an hour late and waited for a call for further instructions *ut none" 6 da s after, his children corpses were found in a dam" ,t took several da s *efore the &ao famil filed a case against the accused8appellants" <ne of the accused8appellants D(rnaldoE was presented * #(<$T= as one of the kidnappers and helped the former to e7ecute a written e7tra89udicial confession identif ing his co8conspirators in the kidnapping and killing incident" -uring custodial investigation, 'oselito =lores issued a written e7tra8 9udicial confession stating his participation in the said incident" /T$Fs decision, the accused appellants were guilt as principals of kidnapping for ransom with dou*le homicide" (ppealed in $( and raised the issue of the admissi*ilit of their written e7tra89udicial confession" (ppellant =lores argues that his written e7tra89udicial confession is inadmissi*le in evidence, *ecause it was o*tained in violation of his constitutional right to have an independent counsel of his own choice during custodial investigation" >e insists that his written e7tra89udicial confession was elicited through force, torture and without the assistance of a

law er" >e avers that he was not assisted * an law er from the time he was arrested until he was coerced to sign the purported confession5 that he was forced to sign it *ecause he could not an more endure the *eatings he suffered at the hands of the #(<$T= agents5 and that he never met or knew (tt " /ous who, according to the #(<$T=, had assisted him during the custodial investigation" (ppellant (rnaldo contends that his written e7tra89udicial confession should *e e7cluded as evidence, as it was procured in violation of his constitutional right to have an independent counsel of his own choice during custodial investigation" >e claims that he was not given freedom to choose his counsel5 that the agents of the #(<$T= did not ask him during the custodial investigation whether he had a law er of his own choice, and whether he could afford to hire a law er5 and that the agents of the #(<$T= suggested the availa*ilit of (tt " @minga to him"

,SS@0I .<1 there were violations of the constitutional rights of the accused8 appellants during the custodial investigation" >04-I S$ said 1<" (n e7tra89udicial confession is a declaration made voluntaril and without compulsion or inducement * a person under custodial investigation, stating or acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the commission of a crime" ,n order that an e7tra8 9udicial confession ma *e admitted in evidence, (rticle ,,,, Section 16 of the 198; $onstitution mandates that the following safeguards *e o*servedI Section 16" D1E (n person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to *e informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel prefera*l of his own choice" ,f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must *e provided with one" These rights cannot *e waived e7cept in writing and in the presence of counsel" D6E 1o torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or an other means which vitiate the free will shall *e used against him" Secret detention places, solitar , incommunicado, or other forms of detention are prohi*ited" DAE (n confession or admission o*tained in violation of this or Section 1; shall *e inadmissi*le in evidence against him"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 14

Thus, we have held that an e7tra89udicial confession is admissi*le in evidence if the following requisites have *een satisfiedI D1E it must *e voluntar 5 D6E it must *e made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel5 DAE it must *e e7press5 and D3E it must *e in writing" To *e an effective counsel, a law er need not challenge all the questions *eing propounded to his client" The presence of a law er is not intended to stop an accused from sa ing an thing which might incriminate him5 *ut, rather, it was adopted in our $onstitution to preclude the slightest coercion on the accused to admit something false" The counsel should never prevent an accused from freel and voluntaril telling the truth" ,n the case at *ar, appellants (rnaldo and =lores failed to discharge their *urden of proving that the were forced or coerced to make their respective confessions" <ther than their self8serving statements that the were maltreated * the #(<$T= officersLagents, the did not present an plausi*le proof to su*stantiate their claims" The did not su*mit an medical report showing that their *odies were su*9ected to violence or torture" 1either did the file complaints against the persons who had allegedl *eaten or forced them to e7ecute their respective confessions despite several opportunities to do so" (ppellants (rnaldo and =lores averred that the informed their famil mem*ersLrelatives of the alleged maltreatment, *ut the latter did not report such allegations to proper authorities" Their ph sical e7amination reports certif that no e7ternal signs of ph sical in9ur or an form of trauma were noted during their e7amination" ,n $eople v! $ia, we held that the following factors indicate voluntariness of an e7tra89udicial confessionI D1E where the accused failed to present credi*le evidence of compulsion or duress or violence on their persons5 D6E where the failed to complain to the officers who administered the oaths5 DAE where the did not institute an criminal or administrative action against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment5 D3E where there appeared to *e no marks of violence on their *odies5 and D5E where the did not have themselves e7amined * a reputa*le ph sician to *uttress their claim" ,t should also *e noted that the e7tra89udicial confessions of appellants (rnaldo and =lores are replete with details on the manner in which the kidnapping was committed, there* ruling out the

possi*ilit that these were involuntaril made" Their e7tra89udicial confessions clearl state how appellants and their cohorts planned the kidnapping as well as the sequence of events *efore, during and after its occurrence" The voluntariness of a confession ma *e inferred from its language if, upon its face, the confession e7hi*its no suspicious circumstances tending to cast dou*t upon its integrit , it *eing replete with details which could onl *e supplied * the accused" (ffirmed the decision of the trial court wL modification in regards to the decision of -0(T> #01(4T&, it was lowered to /eclusion #erpetua"

#0<#40 %S" /<!@4< T@1,($< =($TSI Based on the findings of the /T$, in the morning of 'une 1A, 1996 some police officers from the 4agao #olice Su*8Station requested police officer 'aime Ta*ucon of the $entral #olice Station of )eneral Santos $it homicide division to take the statement of accused (le7 (leman regarding the sla ing of a certain -ondon $ortez" <n his arrival at the su*8station, Ta*ucon noted the presence of (tt " /uperto Besinga, 'r" of the #u*lic (ttorne Fs <ffice D#(<E who was conversing with those taken into custod for the offense" .hen queried if the suspects would *e willing to give their statements, (tt " Besinga said that the were" Some other police officer first took the statement of accused 'effre -atula ta" <fficer Ta*ucon ne7t took the statement of accused (leman, whom he o*served to *e in good ph sical shape" Before an thing else, officer Ta*ucon informed accused (leman in $e*uano of his constitutional right to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel of his own choice and asked him if he was willing to give a statement" (leman answered in the affirmative" .hen asked if he had an complaint to make, (leman said that he had none" .hen (leman said that he had no law er, Ta*ucon pointed to (tt " Besinga who claimed that he was assisting all the suspects in the case" Ta*ucon warned (leman that an thing he would sa ma *e used against him later in court" (fterwards, the police officer started taking down (lemanFs statement"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 15

(fter taking down the statement, Ta*ucon e7plained the su*stance of it to accused (leman who then signed it in the presence of (tt " Besinga" <n 'une 15, 1996 the police *rought (leman to the $it #rosecutorFs <ffice where he swore to his statement *efore an assistant cit prosecutor" ,n the afternoon, accused -atula ta and (leman led Ta*ucon, the cit prosecutor, and a police inspector, to the dump site where the left their victimFs *od " (fter some search, the group found a spot covered with *urnt rice husks and a partiall *urnt *od of a man" (*out a foot from the *od , the found the shells of a 5"52 cali*er gun and an armalite rifle" (lthough the prosecution and defense stipulated that (tt " Besinga assisted accused (leman during the taking of his e7tra9udicial confession, the latter, however, recanted what he said to the police during the trial" >e testified that sometime in 1996, some police officers took him from his auntFs house in #urok #alen, 4a*angal, )eneral Santos $it , and *rought him to the 4agao police station" >e was there asked to admit having taken part in the murder of $ortez" .hen he refused, the tortured him until he agreed to sign a document admitting his part in the crime" (ccused (leman also testified that he could not remem*er having *een assisted * (tt " Besinga during the police investigation" >e even denied ever knowing the law er" (leman further denied prior association with accused Tuniaco and -atula ta" >e said that he met them onl at the cit 9ail where the were detained for the death of $ortez" /T$ rendered guilt *e ond reasona*le dou*t" $( (ffirmed"

*eholden to the police, (tt " Besinga, assisted accused (leman during the custodial investigation" <fficer Ta*ucon testified that he saw accused (leman, *efore the taking of his statement, conversing with counsel at the police station" (tt " Besinga did not dispute this claim" (leman alleges torture as the reason for the e7ecution of the confession" The appellate court is correct in ruling that such allegation is *aseless" ,t is a settled rule that where the defendant did not present evidence of compulsion, where he did not institute an criminal or administrative action against his supposed intimidators, where no ph sical evidence of violence was presented, all these will *e considered as indicating voluntariness" >ere, although (leman claimed that he *ore torture marks on his head, he never *rought this to the attention of his counsel, his relatives, or the prosecutor who administered his oath" (ccused (leman claims, citing $eople v! &alit, that long questions followed * monos lla*ic answers do not satisf the requirement that the accused is ampl informed of his rights" But this does not appl here" Ta*ucon testified that he spoke to (leman clearl in the language he knew" (leman, 9oined * (tt " Besinga, even signed a certification that the investigator sufficientl e7plained to him his constitutional rights and that he was still willing to give his statement" =urther, (leman asserts that he was lacking in education and so he did not full realize the consequences of a confession" But as the $( said, no law or 9urisprudence requires the police officer to ascertain the educational attainment of the accused" (ll that is needed is an effective communication *etween the interrogator and the suspect to the end that the latter is a*le to understand his rights" O11P This appears to have *een done in this case" !oreover, as the lower court noted, it is impro*a*le that the police fa*ricated (lemanFs confession and 9ust forced him to sign it" The confession has details that onl the person who committed the crime could have possi*l known" .hat is more, accused -atula taFs confession corro*orate that of (leman in important details" @nder the doctrine of interlocking confessions, such corro*oration is circumstantial evidence against the person implicated in it" (ffirmed the decision of the $(" with modification on indimnities"

,SS@0I whether or not accused (lemanFs e7tra9udicial confession is admissi*le in evidence" >04-I S$" Said es"

There is no reason for it not to *e" $onfession to *e admissi*le must *e aE voluntar 5 *E made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel5 cE e7press5 and dE in writing" These requirements were met here" ( law er, not working with or was not

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 16

401,-< 4@!(1<) %S" #0<#40 =($TSI (ppellants were the accused perpetrators of the am*ush8sla of former $hief of the !etropolitan $ommand ,ntelligence and Securit )roup of the #hilippine $onsta*ular Dnow the #hilippine 1ational #oliceE, $olonel /olando 1" (*adilla" The principal witness for the prosecution was =reddie (le9o, a securit guard emplo ed assigned at 611 Natipunan (venue, Blue /idge, ?uezon $it , where the am*ush8sla happened" (s a purported e ewitness, he testified on what he saw during the fateful da , including the faces of the accused" (ll the accused raised the defense of alibi, highlighted the negative findings of *allistic and fingerprint e7aminations, and further alleged torture in the hands of police officers and denial of constitutional rights during custodial investigation" The trial court however convicted the accused8appellants" The $( affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court" The $( upheld the conviction of the accused8appellants *ased on the credi*le e ewitness testimon of (le9o, who vividl recounted *efore the trial court their respective positions and participation in the fatal shooting of (*adilla, having *een a*le to witness closel how the committed the crime"

the ,B# office, ?uezon $it >all onl the following da and sta ed overnight at the #olice Station *efore he was *rought to said counsel" 0ven assuming that custodial investigation started onl during 'oelFs e7ecution of his statement *efore (tt " Sansano on 'une 6+, 1992, still the said confession must *e invalidated" To *e accepta*le, e7tra9udicial confessions must conform to constitutional requirements" ( confession is not valid and not admissi*le in evidence when it is o*tained in violation of an of the rights of persons under custodial investigation" (tt " Sansano, who supposedl interviewed 'oel and assisted the latter while responding to questions propounded * S#<6 )arcia 'r", did not testif on whether he had properl discharged his duties to the said client" .hile S#<6 )arcia, 'r" testified that (tt " Sansano had asked 'oel if he understood his answers to the questions of the investigating officer and sometimes stopped 'oel from answering certain questions, S#<6 )arcia, 'r" did not sa if (tt " Sansano, in the first place, verified from them the date and time of 'oelFs arrest and the circumstances thereof, or an previous information elicited from him * the investigators at the station, and if said counsel inspected 'oelFs *od for an sign or mark of ph sical torture"

M6n*Fa =iloteo v" Sandigan*a an Santos v" Sandigan*a an #p v" -ano PEOPLE VS. RI.ADA+O, 1%0 SCRA 60$ (19&6 1B

,SS@0I .<1 the e7tra89udicial confession of accused 'oel de 'esus taken during the custodial investigation validK >04-I S$ said es" #olice officers claimed that upon arresting 'oel, the informed him of his constitutional rights to remain silent, that an information he would give could *e used against him, and that he had the right to a competent and independent counsel, prefera*l , of his own choice, and if he cannot afford the services of counsel he will *e provided with one D1E" >owever, since these rights can onl *e waived in writing and with the assistance of counsel, there could not have *een such a valid waiver * 'oel, who was presented to (tt " Sansano at

Fa:3sI <n 1ovem*er 18, 19;1, prisoners from *rigade A8$ succeeded in opening the door of their dormitor and attacked the inmates from dormitor A8a" /ecords further show that while the victim Bernardo $utamora was getting his ration he was sandwiched * the accused who rushed towards the door and sta**ed the victim simultaneousl where* the latter sustained multiple sta* wounds on the different parts of his *od which wounds caused his death" ,n an investigation conducted * the ,nvestigation Section of the 1ew Bili*id

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 17

#risons on 1ovem*er 6+, 19;1, all the accused e7ecuted statements admitting their participation in the sla ing of Bernardo $utamora" $onsequentl , an ,nformation for !urder was filed" @pon arraignment on 'ul 5, 19;A, accused To*ias /i*ada9o, /omeo $orpuz, 4oreto /ivera and /odolfo Torres, all with the assistance of counsel de officio, pleaded )uilt " (t the presentation of evidence for the defense however, accused To*ias /i*ada9o, /omeo $orpuz, and /odolfo Torres withdrew their pleas of )uilt " (ppellants su*mit that their e7tra9udicial confessions were e7tracted * force"<n their face, however, the individual confessions do not show an suspicious circumstance casting dou*t on their integrit " <n the contrar , the are replete with details onl appellants could have supplied" Iss8'I .hether accused is entitled to *e informed of their right to silence and to counsel during custodial investigation" R876n(: (s to appellantsB claim that the have not *een informed of their right to silence and to counsel during custodial investigation, suffice it to state that the proscription against the admissi*ilit of confessions o*tained from an accused during the period of custodial interrogation, in violation of procedural safeguards, applies to confessions o*tained after the effectivit of the 19;A $onstitution" 1o law gives the accused the right to *e so informed *efore the enactment of the 19;A $onstitution, even if presented after 'anuar 1;, 19;A" That $onstitutional guarant relative to confessions o*tained during custodial investigation does not have an retroactive effect" .anE8'r6(* #p v" 0ndino #p v" (rondain #p v" Ta*oga #p v" Balolo M*ra7's Se*astian v" )architorena /emolina v" $S$ #p v" Salonga R6(53s *= P'rs*ns Un-'r C8s3*-6a7 In3'rr*(a36*n

A. N*3 a2276:a47' 3* r's ('s3a' s3a3')'n3 *r s2*n3an'*8s s3a3')'n3s 1. .'n>a)6n +'sa7va vs. P'*27' *= 35' P5676226n's (/B11 FACTS: 'esalva alias Ben Sa*aw DpetitionerE was found guilt *e ond reasona*le dou*t of homicide" Sep" 9, 1996, 'esalva was charged of feloniousl attacking 4eticia (ldemo with the aggravating circumstances of superior strength, treacher , evident premeditation and use of motor vehicle in Sorsogon" -uring arraignment, 'esalva pleaded not guilt " There were 6 var ing versions during trial" T5' Pr*s':836*nGs V'rs6*n 'esalva was with the deceased at a*out 16I6+ am of Sept" 9, 1996 when he drove the victim home from eating out with friends" S#<1 !endoza chanced upon 'esalvaFs ,suzu panel and called out to 'esalva whom he knew since childhood, *ut the latter immediatel drove awa to Sorsogon town proper, opposite his place of residence in Ticol" <n the same night, 1oel <l*es saw the victim naked from the waist down" >e decided to carr her to a shed *ut realized that she was *leeding so he left her at >azelwood, fearing to *e implicated with the crime" -e %era initiall saw <l*es near the site where the victim was found *ut when he returned, <l*es was no longer there" >e reported the incident to the police station" -e %era further identified <l*es to *e the last person with the victim" The prosecution highlighted that 'esalva was courting 4eticia *ut the latter turned him down since she was married" She su*sequentl 9umped out of the vehicle when 'esalva accelerated the vehicle *e ond her point of destination" T5' D'='ns'Gs V'rs6*n 'esalva denied that he killed 4eticia, sa ing that there were man reasons wh he should not kill her" The defense proved a *roken chain of circumstantial evidence * presenting -e %era as a witness"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 18

-e %era declared that as he was driving his tric cle, he saw <l*es with the victim" <l*es had *lood on his hands, face and arms and was in a squatting position while the victim was l ing on the ground" >e decided to drive his passenger home first *ut upon returning to the scene, there was no one there" The victim was seen at a garage in >azelwood without clothes *elow her waist" -r" -ioneda and -r" (*rantes testified that 4eticia (ldemo was comatosed when the received her" She had contusion hematomas and a*rasions all over her *od " There were also puncture wounds pro*a*l caused * a fall or fist *low" The victim died despite the operation done on her" #articularl , a puncture wound caused * a pe**le which the victim landed on due to her fall is said to have *een the cause of her death" 'esalva, together with his cousin =iscal 'a ona, personall went to the police station and voluntaril made the statement that 4eticia 9umped out of his vehicle at around 16IA+ a"m" of Septem*er 9, 1996"

ISSUE: .<1 the statements made * 'esalva in the police station were admissi*le since he was not under custodial investigation despite sufficient evidence on recordK HELD: &0S" The S$ denied the petition and affirmed the /T$ decision" The /T$ and the $( did not, therefore, err in holding that the constitutional procedure for custodial investigation is not applica*le in the instant case" C8s3*-6a7 6nv's36(a36*n refers to Gan questioning initiated * law enforcement officers after a person has *een taken into custod or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in an significant wa "H This presupposes that he is suspected of having committed a crime and that the investigator is tr ing to elicit information or a confession from him" The rule *egins to operate at once, as soon as the investigation ceases to *e a general inquir into an unsolved crime, and direction is aimed upon a particular suspect who has *een taken into custod

and to whom the police would then direct interrogator questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements" The assailed statements herein were spontaneousl made * petitioner and were not at all elicited through questioning" ,t was esta*lished that petitioner, together with his cousin =iscal 'a ona, personall went to the police station and voluntaril made the statement that 4eticia 9umped out of his vehicle at around 16IA+ a"m" of Septem*er 9, 1996" Be that as it ma , even without these statements, petitioner could still *e convicted of the crime of >omicide" The prosecution esta*lished his complicit in the crime through circumstantial evidence, which were credi*le and sufficient, and which led to the inescapa*le conclusion that petitioner committed the said crime" ,ndeed, when considered in their totalit , the circumstances point to petitioner as the culprit" -irect evidence of the commission of the crime charged is not the onl matri7 wherefrom a court ma draw its conclusions and findings of guilt" There are instances when, although a witness ma not have actuall witnessed the commission of a crime, he ma still *e a*le to positivel identif a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as when, for instance, the latter is the person last seen with the victim immediatel *efore and right after the commission of the crime" This is the t pe of positive identification, which forms part of circumstantial evidence" ,n the a*sence of direct evidence, the prosecution ma resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its *urden" $rimes are usuall committed in secret and under condition where concealment is highl pro*a*le" ,f direct evidence is insisted upon under all circumstances, the guilt of vicious felons who committed heinous crimes in secret or in secluded places will *e hard, if not well8nigh impossi*le, to prove" T5'r' :an 4' a v'r-6:3 *= :*nv6:36*n 4as'- *n :6r:8)s3an36a7 'v6-'n:' <5'n 35' :6r:8)s3an:'s 2r*v'- =*r) an 8n4r*H'n :5a6n <56:5 7'a-s 3* a =a6r an- r'as*na47' :*n:78s6*n 26n2*6n36n( 35' a::8s'-, 3* 35' 'I:78s6*n *= a77 35' *35'rs, as 35' 2'r2'3ra3*r *= 35' :r6)'" >owever, in order that circumstantial evidence ma *e sufficient to convict, the same must compl with these 'ss'n36a7 r'E86s63's, DaE There is more than one circumstance5 D*E The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven5 and

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 19

DcE The com*ination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction *e ond reasona*le dou*t" P'3636*n'rGs )'r' -'n6a7 cannot outweigh the circumstantial evidence clearl esta*lishing his culpa*ilit in the crime charged" ,t is well8settled that the positive declarations of a prosecution witness prevail over the *are denials of an accused" The evidence for the prosecution was found * *oth the /T$ and the $( to *e sufficient and credi*le, while petitionerFs defense of denial was weak, self8 serving, speculative, and uncorro*orated" #etitionerFs silence as to the matters that occurred during the time he was alone with 4eticia is deafening" (n accused can onl *e e7onerated if the prosecution fails to meet the quantum of proof required to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence" .e find that prosecution met this quantum of proof in this case" #etitioner could not point to <l*es as the culprit *ecause, when 0duardo de %era saw the former holding on to 4eticia in a squatting position, <l*es was in the act of lifting her in order to *ring her to the near* shed" The $( opined that, if an misdeed or omission could *e attri*uted to <l*es, it was his failure to *ring 4eticia to a near* hospital, *ecause his fear of *eing implicated in the crime clouded his *etter 9udgment"

officers *eing the !anager of the 4oan !anagement and =oreign 07change -ivision D4<!(=0-E and =oreign Trader (nal st, respectivel , also of 1(#<$</, and accused /aul )utierrez, alias /aul 1icolas, alias )eorge (Qonuevo, alias !ara (Qonuevo, a private individual *eing a foreign e7change trader, said pu*lic officers taking advantage of their official positions, unlawfull and feloniousl falsif or cause to *e falsified the 1#$Fs application for managers checks with the #hilippine 1ational Bank D#1BE, 1#$ Branch in the total amount of #18A,8+5,691"65" The said amount was intended for the purchase of @S dollars from the @nited $oconut #lanters Bank D@$#BE" The accused inserted the account num*er of /aul )utierrez when in truth and in fact as the accused well knew that the #a ment ,nstructions D#,E when signed * the 1(#<$</ authorities did not indicate the account num*er of /aul )utierrez, there* making alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning, and with the use of the said falsified commercial documents, accused succeeded in diverting, collecting and receiving the said amount" The said amount was su*sequentl used to purchase two D6E managersFLcashierFs checks Dthe first check was in the amount of #;+,+++,+++"++ while the second was for #11A,8+5,691"65E in order to compl with its loan o*ligations to the (sian -evelopment Bank DG(-BHE" 1#$Fs de*t in favor of (-B was in en" @pon arraignment, )amus, @ and <choa pleaded not guilt charge, while )utierrez has remained at large" to the

R'n6s's PEOPLE VS +OSE TING LAN UC (N*v')4'r 1$, /BB1 FACTS: =or allegedl diverting and collecting funds of the 1ational #ower $orporation D1#$E intended for the purchase of @S -ollars from the @nited $oconut #lanters Bank D@$#BE, 'ose Ting 4an @ , 'r", 0rnesto )amus, 'aime <choa and /aul )utierrez were indicted *efore the Sandigan*a an for the comple7 crime of !alversation through =alsification of $ommercial -ocuments defined and penalized under (rticles 61; and 1;1 D8E, in relation to (rticle 38 of the /evised #enal $ode, Sometime in 'ul 199+, in ?uezon $it , accused 'ose Ting 4an @ , 'r", a pu*lic accounta*le officer, *eing the Treasurer of 1ational #ower $orporation D1(#<$</E, 0rnesto )amus and 'aime <choa, *oth pu*lic

(ppellant 'aime <choa claims that his conviction was *ased on the alleged sworn statement and the transcript of stenographic notes of a supposed interview with appellant * the 1#$ personnel and the report of the 1ational Bureau of ,nvestigation D1B,E"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 20

(ppellant maintains that he signed the sworn statement while confined at the #hilippine >eart $enter and upon assurance that it would not *e used against him" (ppellant insists that he could not *e convicted under the allegations in the information without violating his constitutional right to due process and to *e informed of the accusation against him" >e points out that the information alleges willful and intentional commission of the acts complained of while the 9udgment found him guilt of ine7cusa*le negligence amounting to malice" (ppellant ne7t claims that he should *e acquitted since his conviction was *ased on his sworn statement, transcript of stenographic notes from which the sworn statement was taken and the 1B, /eport, which are incompetent evidence"

police custody and the investigating officers *egin to ask questions to elicit information and confessions or admissions from the suspect" $ustodial investigation refers to the critical pre8trial stage when the investigation ceases to *e a general inquir into an unsolved crime *ut has *egun to focus on a particular person as a suspect ! Therefore, the rights enumerated * the constitutional provision invoked * accused8appellant are not availa*le *efore government investigators enter the picture" The protective mantle of the constitutional provision also does not e7tend to admissions or confessions made to a private individual, or to a ver*al admission made to a radio announcer who was not part of the investigation, or even to a ma or approached as a personal confidante and not in his official capacit " Thus, the flaw in appellantFs argument in this regard *ecomes immediatel apparent vis8R8vis the foregoing legal ardsticks, considering that his statement was taken during the administrative investigation of 1#$Fs audit team and before he was taken into custod " (s such, the inquest was still a general inquir into an unsolved offense at the time and there was, as et, no specific suspect" The fact that an 1B, investigation was *eing contemporaneousl conducted at the time the sworn statement was taken will not e7tricate appellant from his predicament" The interview where the sworn statement is *ased was conducted * 1#$ personnel for the 1#$Fs administrative investigation" -ecision of the Sandigan*a an is here* AFFIRMED in all respects"

ISSUE: .hether or not an information charging the commission of the crime * means of deceit will preclude a conviction on the *asis of negligence is neither novel nor of first impression" HELD: (n accused charged with willful malversation, in an information containing allegations similar to the present case, can *e validl convicted of the same offense of malversation through negligence where the evidence sustains the latter mode of perpetrating the offense" Section 16" D1E (rticle ,,, of the 198; $onstitution" ny person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice! (f the person cannot afford the services of counsel/ he must be provided with one! These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel! The GinvestigationH under the a*ove8quoted provision refers to a GcustodialH investigation where a suspect has already been taken into

ROSARIO ASTUDILLO VS PEOPLE (N*v')4'r /9, /BB6 Na38r' *= 35' :as': #etitioners /osario :Ba* : (studillo D/osarioE and =ilipina :4ina: <rellana D=ilipinaE via separate petitions for review on certiorari seek a review of the -ecision and the /esolution of the $ourt of (ppeals

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 21

affirming with modification that of the /egional Trial $ourt of ?uezon $it , Branch ;8the Dtrial courtE finding them guilt of ?ualified Theft and den ing their !otions for /econsideration, respectivel " FACTS: <n complaint of .estern !arketing $orporation D.esternE, petitioners were collectivel charged with ?ualified Theft, along with =lormarie /o*el and /o*erto Benitez" That during the period comprised from 'anuar 1992 to =e*ruar 1992, the a*ove8named accused, *eing then emplo ed as relieving cashierLservice8in8charge D=lormarie $ala9ate /o*elE, supervisorLfloor manager D/o*erto =" BenitezOEP, sales clerks D/osario (studillo a"k"a" :Ba* : and =ilipina <rellana !acaraegE at the .0ST0/1 !(/N0T,1) $</#</(T,<1, represented * 4,4& $>(1 <1), and as such had free access to the compan premises, materials, supplies and items stored" .ith grave a*use of confidence and intent of gain, and without the consent of the owner thereof, did, then and there wilfull , unlawfull and feloniousl take, steal and carr awa two D6E *ooklets of Sales ,nvoices 1os" from 168A51 to 1683++ of the said corporation" @sed the said invoices in the preparation of fictitious sales and withdrawals of merchandise with the total value of #;9;,983"++" (*out the period from !a 1, 1993 to =e*ruar 12, 1992, in ?uezon $it , /<S(/,< (ST@-,44< *eing then emplo ed as sales representativeLclerk at the .0ST0/1 !(/N0T,1) $</#</(T,<1 D#" Tuazon BranchE take, steal and carr awa the e7cess sumLamount *etween the tag price and discounts price in the sum of #16,225"++" =,4,#,1( </044(1( & !($(/(0) Dcrime of ?@(4,=,0- T>0=TE take, steal and carr awa the e7cess sumLamount *etween the tag price and discount price of each and ever items sold * her to compan customers, in the sum of #3,;55"++"

<n =e*ruar 61, 1992, in the course of preparing the 'anuar monthl sales report of the #" Tuason *ranch of .estern, Branch (ccountant !arlon $amilo D$amiloE noticed that the computer printout of the monthl sales report revealed a *elated entr for $ash Sales ,nvoice 1o" 168A22" $amilo then confirmed that the *ooklet of sales invoices *earing num*ers 168A51 up to 1683++ was missing" $oncluding that the transactions under the said invoices were made *ut no pa ment was remitted to .estern, $amilo reported the matter to !a" (urora Bor9a D(uroraE, the *ranch assistant manager" B -ecision of !a 68, 1998, the trial court found the accused8herein petitioners and Benitez guilt *e ond reasona*le dou*t of ?ualified Theft" #etitioners and Benitez elevated their cases on appeal" The $ourt of (ppeals affirmed the trial courtFs 9udgment with modification as to the penalties imposed"

ISSUE: .>0T>0/ </ 1<T (1 0CT/(8'@-,$,(4 (-!,SS,<1 <BT(,10T>/<@)> T/,$N0/& (1- S$>0!0 .,T><@T T>0 B010=,T (1(SS,ST(1$0 <= $<@1S04 ,S ( S@==,$,01T )/<@1- T< $<1%,$T (1 ($$@S0HELD: ,t *ears noting, however, that when the prosecution formall offered its evidence, petitioners failed to file an o*9ection thereto including their e7tra89udicial admissions" The rights specified in Sec 16 (rticle ,,, of the $onstitution, to repeat, e7ist onl in :custodial interrogations,: or :in8custod interrogation of accused persons": (nd, as this $ourt has alread stated, * custodial interrogation is meant :questioning initiated * law enforcement officers after a person has *een taken into custod or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in an significant wa ":

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 22

The $ourt of (ppeals did not thus err in pronouncing that petitioners were not under custodial investigation to call for the presence of counsel of their own choice, hence, their written incriminator statements are admissi*le in evidence" The e7tra89udicial confession *efore the police of =lormarie Dwho, as earlier stated, has remained at largeE in which she incriminated petitioners *ears a different comple7ion, however, as it was made under custodial investigation" o .hen she gave the statement, the investigation was no longer a general inquir into an unsolved crime *ut had *egun to focus on a particular suspect"

The issue on the admissi*ilit of petitionersF respective e7tra89udicial statements aside, an e7amination of the rest of the evidence of the prosecution does not set petitioners free" -ecision of the $ourt of (ppeals dated -ecem*er 18, 6++6 is MODIFIED.

CUSTODIAL PHASE OF INVESTIGATION ALE+ANDRO .. DELA TORRE VS CA (A8(8s3 1%, 199& Na38r' *= 35' Cas'I This case is here on appeal from the decision of the $ourt of (ppeals, dated 'une 18, 1991, which affirmed the decision of the /egional Trial $ourt of ?uezon $it finding petitioner (le9andro B" de la Torre guilt of qualified theft and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of 2 ears, 1 month, and 11 da s, as minimum, to 8 ears and 1 da , as ma7imum, and ordering him to indemnif the !anila 0lectric $ompan D!0/(4$<E, the offended part , in the amount of #31,;82"++" FACTS: ,n the afternoon of (pril 18, 1989, (le7ander !analo, an electrical engineer of !0/(4$< assigned to inspect si7 electric meters installed in the premises of the $atha #acific Steel and Smelting $orporation D$(#(SS$<E on -e la $ruz Street in San Bartolome, 1ovaliches, ?uezon $it , discovered that the said electric meters were missing" >e reported the loss to the !0/(4$< office in <rtigas (venue, #asig $it " <n (pril 6+, 1989, !analo and =elino <legario, also of !0/(4$<, gave statements to the 1orthern #olice -istrict at $amp Naringal, Sikatuna %illage, ?uezon $it regarding the loss of the electric meters" The suspected that $(#(SS$< emplo ees must have damaged the electric meters while tampering with them and that to conceal the attempt, the emplo ees must have removed the electric meters"

The presumption of regularit of official acts does not prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence" >ence, in the a*sence of proof that the arresting officers complied with these constitutional safeguards, e7tra9udicial statements, whether inculpator or e7culpator , made during custodial investigation are inadmissi*le and cannot *e considered in the ad9udication of a case" ,n other words, confessions and admissions in violation of Section 16 D1E, (rticle ,,, of the $onstitution are 6na-)6ss647' 6n 'v6-'n:' a(a6ns3 35' -':7aran3 an- )*r' s* a(a6ns3 356r- 2'rs*ns. The presumption that no person of normal mind would deli*eratel and knowingl confess to a crime unless prompted * truth and conscience such that it is presumed to *e voluntar until the contrar is proved thus stands" There is a :short8over: when there is a discrepanc *etween the actual amount collected appearing in the ellow DwarehouseE cop and the remitted amount appearing in the *lue DaccountingE cop " ,n criminal cases, an admission is something less than a confession"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 23

(ccording to #atrolman 0nopia, one of those he asked, -anilo )arcia, said he had seen at a*out 1+I++ p"m" on (pril 11, 1989 four crewmem*ers in a !0/(4$< service truck, with the num*er 566 painted on its side, removing the electric meters" <n 'ul 3, 1989, the crewmem*ers were taken to the 1#- headquarters for investigation" )arcia pointed to petitioner de la Torre as the leader of the group which took down the electric meters from the $(#(SS$< premises, *ut he did not recognize the three DAE other crewmem*ers" #etitioner de la Torre appealed to the $ourt of (ppeals, contendingI o first, that his constitutional rights were violated during the custodial investigation conducted in the case5 second, that the /T$ erred when it admitted in evidence the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, when the same were not formall offered5 third, that the /T$ took into account hearsa evidence in arriving at its 9udgment5 fourth, that the uncorro*orated testimon of )arcia was insufficient to esta*lish his guilt *e ond reasona*le dou*t"

>owever, this applies onl from the moment the investigating officer *egins to ask questions for the purpose of eliciting admissions, confessions, or an information from the accused"

( police line8up is not considered part of an custodial inquest *ecause it is conducted *efore that stage is reached" #etitioner de la Torre, together with the other crewmem*ers of !0/(4$< truck num*er 566, was merel included in a line8up of eight D8E persons from which he was picked out * )arcia as the leader of the group which had removed the electric meters from the $(#(SS$< premises" o @ntil then, the police investigation did not focus on petitioner" ,ndeed, no questions were put to him" /ather, the questions were directed to witnesses of the complainant"

There is, therefore, no *asis for petitionerFs allegations that his rights as a suspect in a custodial interrogation were violated" (lthough hearsa evidence ma *e admitted *ecause of lack of o*9ection * the adverse part Fs counsel, it is nonetheless without pro*ative value" -ocuments material to the guilt of the accused were admitted without the prosecution presenting in court those who e7ecuted themI o certification signed * a certain )"B" #ilapil, 'r", which states that !0/(4$< did not send out an personnel to inspect the electrical installations at $(#(SS$< during the period (pril 11, 1989 to (pril 16, 19895 certification issued * one %italiano (" -izon, which states that !0/(4$< did not receive an complaint from $(#(SS$< concerning the electric meters in question during the same period5 and 07hi*it #, certification given * a certain 0"!" 4opez, 'r", stating that !0/(4$< did not

ISSUE: .<1 the rights of -ela Torre was violated during the custodial investigation conducted in the case HELD: G1o custodial investigation shall *e conducted unless it *e in the presence of counsel, engaged * the person arrested, or * an person in his *ehalf, or appointed * the court upon petition either of the detainee himself, or * an one in his *ehalf, and that, while the right ma *e waived, the waiver shall not *e valid unless made in writing and in the presence of counsel"H

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 24

authorize an of its emplo ees to remove the su*9ect electric meters" These documents contain statements of facts and, therefore, those who made them should have *een presented in court so that the could *e cross8e7amined * the defense" <therwise, whatever matter the contain is hearsa and, consequentl , without pro*ative value" .e likewise agree with the final point raised * petitioner, namel , that the evidence for the prosecution at the trial is not sufficient to prove his guilt *e ond reasona*le dou*t" The trial court convicted petitioner solel on the uncorro*orated testimon of -anilo )arcia" -ecision appealed from is /0%0/S0- and petitioner (le9andro B" de la Torre is ($?@,TT0- on the ground of reasona*le dou*t"

The three men forced him inside the ta7i ca* and *rought him somewhere near St" 'osephBs $ollege in ?uezon $it " The *rought him at the corner of (urora Boulevard and Boston street, ?uezon $it for the purpose of e7torting ransom mone in the amount of #6+,+++"++ there* detaining and depriving him of his li*ert for more than three hours, to the damage and pre9udice of the said offended part " Singh testified that the accused8appellant and his companions *eat him up and demanded one hundred thousand pesos D#1++,+++"++E for his release *ut Singh told him he onl had five thousand pesos D#5,+++"++E with him" The accused8appellant forced him to give the phone num*ers of his relatives so the can make their demand from them" Singh gave the phone num*er of his cousin 4akhvir Singh and the appellant made the call" The kidnappers *rought the complainant to the mini8grocer where he met his relatives" The ransom mone was handed to the appellant * the complainantBs cousin, after which the accused8appellant counted the mone and then, together with his cohorts, immediatel left the scene" <n (pril 69, 1992 *oth accused were arraigned and *oth pleaded :not guilt :" =or the defense, the accused8appellant testified that on the whole da of =e*ruar 16, 1992, he interposed an ali*i" o he alleged date of the incident, he was at the 9o* site in 1ovaliches where he had contracted to *uild the house of a client and that he could not have *een an where near /oces (venue at the time the complainant was allegedl kidnapped"

PEOPLE VS EDUARDO PAVILLARE ; VARONA (A2r67 1, /BB Na38r' *= 35' :as': Before us is an appeal from the decision of the /egional Trial $ourt of ?uezon $it , Branch 619 in $riminal $ase no" ?92825613 entitled #eople vs" 0duardo #avillare %arona, a prosecution for kidnapping for ransom" FACTS: That on or a*out the 16th da of =e*ruar , 1992, in ?uezon $it , 0-@(/-< #(%,44(/0 and S<T0/< S(1T<S kidnapped one S@N>',1-0/ S,1)> at the corner of Scout /e es and /oces (venue, ?uezon $it " (*out noon of =e*ruar 16, 1992 while Singh was on his wa *ack to his motorc cle parked at the corner of Scout /e es and /oces (venue, three men *locked his wa " The one directl in front of him, whom he later identified as herein accused8appellant, accused him of having raped the woman inside the red Nia ta7i ca* parked near* "

.hile under police custod the appellant was required to stand in a police line8up where he was supposedl identified * the private complainant as one of his a*ductors"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 25

#avillare points out however, that the sworn statement given * the private complainant does not contain a ph sical description of the kidnappers and that S#<1 =rias, who took the complainantBs statement, testified in court that the complainant descri*ed one of his a*ductors as short, *e9eweled and with a pock marked face"

,n court, the private complainant positivel identified #aviallare as one of his captors" !oreover, the complainantBs cousin 4akhvir Singh who met the kidnappers to pa the ransom mone corro*orated the complainantBs identification of the accused8appellant #avillare" .e find that the trial court did not err in giving due weight and credence to the identification in open court of the accused8appellant * the private complainant and his cousin as one of the kidnappers" Both witnesses had ample opportunit to o*serve the kidnappers and to remem*er their faces" The cited variance *etween the complainantBs testimon in court and his affidavit on whether or not the complainant gave a ph sical description of his a*ductors *efore the police investigator pertains to a minor detail" -ecision of the /egional Trial $ourt of ?uezon $it is (==,/!0- in toto!

ISSUE: .<1 the identification made * the private complainant in the police line8up is inadmissi*le *ecause the appellant stood at the line8up without the assistance of counsel HELD: .ithout merit" (n evidence o*tained in violation of the constitutional mandate is inadmissi*le in evidence" The prohi*ition however, does not e7tend to a person in a police line8up *ecause that stage of an investigation is not et a part of custodial investigation" ,t has *een repeatedl held that custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custod and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of the crime under investigation and the police officers *egin to ask questions on the suspectBs participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission" The stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to stand in a police line8up has *een held to *e outside the mantle of protection of the right to counsel *ecause it involves a general inquir into an unsolved crime and is purel investigator in nature" ,t has also *een held that an uncounseled identification at the police line8 up does not preclude the admissi*ilit of an in8court identification" The identification made * the private complainant in the police line8up pointing to #avillare as one of his a*ductors is admissi*le in evidence although the accused8appellant was not assisted * counsel"

J86a:5*n Tests of %alidit of .aiver of !iranda /ights PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs"AL.ERT CASIMIRO C SERILLO, G.R. N*. 1%6/$$ +8n' /B, /BB/ =actsI a civilian informer, named /ose, informed $hief ,nspector 4eleng and #<A 'uan #igganga that a certain (l*ert $asimiro was engaged in the distri*ution or sale of mari9uana" (s proof, /ose told the police officers to wait and $asimiro would call them up on that da however he did not call up" 1onetheless, #olice $hief ,nspector 4eleng formed a *u 8*ust team "The following da , /ose again told the 1arcotics agents to wait for a call"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 26

at around 3I++ p"m", $asimiro called" /ose introduced on the telephone #<6 Supa to $asimiro as someone who wanted to *u mari9uana" The agreed to meet the following da at aroung 1pm outside anthon Fs wine and grocer " Supa said he wanted to *u 1kg of mari9uana, to which $asimiro said it would cost 15++" (t around 1IA+ p"m the following da , $asimiro arrived" /ose greeted him, :+ 2ert/ heto na yung sinasabi ko sa iyong buyer! 2ahala na kayong mag3usap! alis na ako ": DBert, here is the *u er , told ou a*out" ,Fll leave ou two alone to talk"E /ose then left the two men alone"; $asimiro gave to Supa a paper *ag containing an o*9ect wrapped in plastic and newspaper" (fter determining the that it was mari9uana, he gave a signal to make the arrest" Supa testified that he no longer gave the marked mone *ecause he alread arrested $asimiro, recited to him his rights" the policemen took him to the 13th 1arcom <ffice, where the policemenwrote their initials on the *rick of mari9uana *efore giving it to the evidence custodian" The policemen prepared a *ooking sheet and arrest report, affidavits, and a request for the la*orator e7amination of the confiscated mari9uana" (ccused8appellant signed the receipt without the assistance of counsel" The leaves tested positive for mari9uana" Trial court found $asimiro guilt " >ence this appeal"

operation" !oreover, the receipt cannot *e considered as evidence since it was signed * the accused without the assistance of a counsel" Ar3. III, K1/(1 *= 35' C*ns363836*n 2r*v6-'s: An; 2'rs*n 8n-'r 6nv's36(a36*n =*r 35' :*))6ss6*n *= an *=='ns' s5a77 5av' 35' r6(53 3* 4' 6n=*r)'- *= 56s r6(53 3* r')a6n s67'n3 an- 3* 5av' :*)2'3'n3 an- 6n-'2'n-'n3 :*8ns'7 2r'='ra47; *= 56s *<n :5*6:'. I= 35' 2'rs*n :ann*3 a==*r- 35' s'rv6:'s *= :*8ns'7, 5' )8s3 4' 2r*v6-'- <635 *n'. T5's' r6(53s :ann*3 4' <a6v'- 'I:'23 6n <r636n( an- 6n 35' 2r's'n:' *= :*8ns'7. ,n $eople v! +brero,62 this $ourt held that an uncounseled statement is presumed * the $onstitution to *e ps chologicall coerced" Swept into an unfamiliar environment and surrounded * intimidating figures t pical of the atmosphere of a police interrogation, the suspect needs the guiding hand of counsel" #<6 Supa testified that he informed accused8appellant of his !iranda rights while he was *eing arrested outside the grocer however it was incomplete" ,t did not include a statement that if the accused could not afford a counsel, one would *e assigned to him" The warning was perfunctor , made without an effort to find out if he understood it" ,t was merel ceremonial and inadequate in transmitting meaningful information to the suspect" .e cannot sa that, in signing the receipt without a law er, accused8appellant acted willingl , intelligentl , and freel " .hat is more, the police investigators did not pause long enough and wait for accused8 appellant to sa whether he was willing to answer their questions even without the assistance of counsel or whether he was waiving his right to remain silent at all" 1or is there other credi*le evidence against accused8appellant" (s he points out, he could not have *een so careless as to call the telephone num*er of the 1arcotics <ffice and offer mari9uana to the policemen there" 1or can we *elieve that when accused8appellant finall showed up at the appointed place, /ose could simpl introduce #<6 Supa as the one who wanted to *u mari9uana as if the latter were *u ing something not prohi*ited or illegal" .hile drugs ma indeed *e sold to police officers, these transactions are usuall done face8to face" ,t is impro*a*le that a drug dealer would

,ssueI whether or not the evidence against the accused is sufficient to prove his guilt *e ond reasona*le dou*tK >eldI 1o" the evidence is not sufficient" 0ven though there was a receipt of the propert seized * the police, this does not affect the lia*ilit of the accused and cannot serve as and admission or confession"since it was onl done in accordance with the standard operating procedure in a *u *ust

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 27

discuss the details of an illegal sale over the telephone with someone he has never seen *efore" lso/ The prosecution failed to esta*lish the identit of the prohi*ited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, an essential requirement in a drug8related case"" the policemen admitted the did not write their initials on the *rick of mari9uana immediatel after allegedl seizing it from the accused" The narcotics field test, which initiall identified the seized item as mari9uana, was likewise not conducted at the scene of the crime, *ut onl at the narcotics office" There is thus reasona*le dou*t as to whether the item allegedl seized from accused8appellant is the same *rick of mari9uana marked * the policemen in their headquarters and given * them to the crime la*orator for e7amination" The discrepanc in the testimon of these two police officers casts additional dou*t on the identit of the prohi*ited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti" D#<6 #igganga said that the color of the *ag *rought * the accused was colored gra or *lue however #<6 supa sid it was color *rownE

!ore than three months, )alam was shot to death at the /ooftop -isco and 4odging owned * him" (ccording to a waitress of the /ooftop -iana )race Sanchez 'aramillo and the caretaker, Tessie #ilar, earlier or at AI++ p"m", a man whom she later identified as Ben9amin Sa a*oc rang the door*ell of the /ooftop, asked questions and ordered a *eer" The witnesses returned upstairs and chatted with the other emplo ees" (fter a while, the vehicle of )alam arrived" Shortl thereafter, the heard four gun*ursts emanating from the ground floor of the *uilding" .hen 'aramillo looked down, she saw Sa a*oc shooting )alam, causing the latter to fall to the ground face up, with *lood spurting out of his chest" Sa a*oc forthwith ran out and disappeared into the darkness" !eanwhile, 'oselito #arungao, $hief 2arangay Tanod saw !arlon Buenvia9e with his father !iguel Buenvia9e and #atricio 0scorpiso on his wa to a restaurant" The three were a*oard a tric cle parked in a vacant lot *etween the /ooftop and -iego" (fter getting his order and while he was getting out of the restaurant, #arungao heard four gunshots coming from *ehind the /ooftop *uilding" >e thereafter saw Ben9amin Sa a*oc, walking *riskl toward the tric cle and then rode *ehind !arlon Buenvia9e" (fterwards, the tric cle sped off towards the center of the town" 2 #ilar and 'aramillo identified Ben9amin Sa a*oc at the #1# #rovincial >eadquarters in Ba om*ong as the gunman who shot 'oseph )alam to death" S#<3 $agungao was called to take statements from Sa a*oc" Before taking the statement of Sa a*oc, he advised the latter of his constitutional rights" Then Sa a*oc told him that he wanted to have a counsel of his own choice" But since Sa a*oc could not name one, $agungao asked the police officers to get a law er" >alf an hour later, the police officers *rought (tt " /odolfo $orne9o of the #(<, who then conferred with Sa a*oc for a while" (tt " $orne9o remained silent the entire time" >owever, $agungao would stop questioning Sa a*oc whenever (tt " $orne9o would leave to go to the comfort room" That night Sa a*oc e7ecuted an e7tra9udicial confession in ,locano dialect" >e therein confessed to killing 'oseph )alam at the *ehest of !arlon Buenvia9e for the sum of #1++,+++" >e likewise implicated !iguel Buenvia9e and #atricio 0scorpiso" The confession

,ndeed, there is failure in this case to o*serve standard operating procedure for a *u 8*ust operation" The accused it acquitted" PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs" .EN+AMIN SACA.OC ; SEGU.A, PATRICIO ESCORPISO ; VALDE!, MARLON .UENVIA+E ; PINEDA, an- MIGUEL .UENVIA+E ; FLORES, G.R. N*. 1%$/B1 +an8ar; 11, /BB% Fa:3s: <n 1A (ugust 1993, (*el /amos was at a vulcanizing shop when he heard Tessie #awid screaming from across the roadI :0nough, enough, enoughS: ,n front of her were !arlon Buenvia9e and 'oseph )alam, who were engaged in a fisticuff" B the time #awid was a*le to su*due the two men * standing *etween them and em*racing )alam, Buenvia9eFs face was alread *loodied and )alamFs shirt collar torn" (s Buenvia9e was leaving, he turned to face )alam and, with his right inde7 finger making a slicing motion across his throat, shoutedI :$utang3ina mo 4oseph/ may araw ka rin/ papatayin kita ": )alam retorted, :&ago/ traydor/ gold digger/ halika ": Buenvia9e did not respond an more and left on a tric cle"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 28

was also signed * !elvin Tiongson"

(tt " $orne9o and attested to *

one =iscal

the failure to properl inform a suspect of his rights during a custodial investigation renders the confession valueless and inadmissi*le" 63 ,n this case, contrar to S#<3 $agungaoFs claim that he conferred with Sa a*oc for half an hour informing him a*out his constitutional rights, the e7tra9udicial confession provides onl the followingI #/04,!,1(/&I , would like to inform ou !r" Sa a*oc that questions will *e asked to ou regarding an incident last -ecem*er 6, 1993 at the /ooftop, Brg " ?uezon, Solano, 1ueva %izca a, in connection with the shooting of 'oseph )alam, owner of the said -isco >ouse as a result of his death" Before questions will *e asked OofP ou , would like to inform ou a*out our riOgPhts under the new $onstitution of the #hilippines, as followsI That ou have the right to remain silent or refuse to answer the questions which ou think will incriminate ou5 That ou have the right to seek the services of a counsel of our own choice or if not, this office will provide ou a law er if ou wish" ?@0ST,<1SI (fter informing ou all our constitutional rights, are ou willing to give our true statement regarding the death of 'oseph )alamK (1S.0/I &es, sir" ?@0ST,<1SI -o ou want to get a law er to assist in this investigationK (1S.0/I &es, sir" , want to seek the assistance of (tt " /odolfo $orne9o" ?@0ST,<1SI (tt " /odolfo $orne9o is here now, do want him to assist ou in this investigationK (1S.0/I &es, sir" 65 (part from the a*sence of an e7press waiver of his rights, the confession contains the passing of information of the kind held to *e in violation of the right to *e informed under Section 16, (rticle ,,, of the $onstitution" ou

the trial court found Ben9amin Sa a*oc guilt of the crime of murder and sentenced him to the ma7imum penalt of death" (s for !arlon Buenvia9e, !iguel Buenvia9e, and #atricio 0scorpiso declared them guilt of the crime of homicide onl , with the first as principal and the two others as accomplices

Iss8': .hether or not the e7tra9udicial confession of sa a*oc ma *e admitted as evidence against him despite of att " $orne9o not *eing a competent, independent, vigilant and effective counselK H'7-: Sa a*ocFs e7tra9udicial confession cannot *e used as evidence" Section 16 of (rticle ,,, of the 198; $onstitution providesI Sec" 16" D1E (n person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to *e informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel prefera*l of his own choice" ,f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must *e provided with one" These rights cannot *e waived e7cept in writing and in the presence of counsel" M DAE (n confession or admission o*tained in violation of this or the preceding section shall *e inadmissi*le in evidence against him" 'urisprudence provides that e7tra9udicial confessions are presumed to *e voluntar " The condition for this presumption, however, is that the prosecution is a*le to show that the constitutional requirements safeguarding an accusedFs rights during custodial investigation have *een strictl complied with, especiall when the e7tra9udicial confession has *een denounced" The rationale for this requirement is to alla an fear that the person *eing investigated would succum* to coercion while in the unfamiliar or intimidating environment that is inherent in custodial investigations" Therefore, even if the confession ma appear to have *een given voluntaril since the confessant did not file charges against his alleged intimidators for maltreatment, 6A

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 29

The right to *e informed requires :the transmission of meaningful information rather than 9ust the ceremonial and perfunctor recitation of an a*stract constitutional principle": ,t should allow the suspect to consider the effects and consequences of an waiver he might make of these rights" !ore so when the suspect is one like Sa a*oc, who has an educational attainment of )rade ,%, was a stranger in 1ueva %izca a, and had alread *een under the control of the police officers for two da s previous to the investigation, al*eit for another offense" .e likewise rule that Sa a*oc was not afforded his constitutional right to a competent counsel" .hile we are una*le to rule on the unsu*stantiated claim that (tt " $orne9o was partial to the police, still, the facts show through the testimonies of Sa a*oc and prosecution witness S#<3 $agungao that (tt " $orne9o remained silent throughout the duration of the custodial investigation" The trial court attri*uted the silence of (tt " $orne9o to the garrulous nature and intelligence of Sa a*oc, thusI (s alread stated, Sa a*oc was a garrulous Dmeaning sa garrulousI )iven to e7cessive and often trivial or ram*ling talk5 tiresomel talkativeE man and intelligent" ,t was in his character for him to want to *e a central figure in a drama, al*eit tragic T for others" >e would do what he wanted to do regardless of the advice of others" >ence, (tt " $orne9o could onl advise him of his constitutional rights, which was apparentl done" The said counsel could not stop him from making his confession even if he did tr " .e find this e7planation unaccepta*le" That Sa a*oc was a :garrulous: man who would :do what he wanted to do regardless of the advice of others: is immaterial" The waiver of a right is within the rights of a suspect" .hat is lacking is a showing, to the satisfaction of this $ourt, of a faithful attempt at each stage of the investigation to make Sa a*oc aware of the consequences of his actions" ,f an thing, it appears that Sa a*ocFs counsel was ineffectual for having *een cowed * his clientFs enthusiasm to speak, or, worse, was indifferent to it" The right to a competent and independent counsel means that the counsel should satisf himself, during the conduct of the investigation, that the suspect understands the import and consequences of answering the questions propounded" ,n #eople v" -eniega,69 we saidIThe desired role of counsel in the process of custodial investigation is rendered meaningless if the law er merel

gives perfunctor advice as opposed to a meaningful advocac of the rights of the person undergoing questioning" ,f the advice given is so cursor as to *e useless, voluntariness is impaired" This is not to sa that a counsel should tr to prevent an accused from making a confession" ,ndeed, as an officer of the court, it is an attorne Fs dut to, first and foremost, seek the truth" >owever, counsel should *e a*le, throughout the investigation, to e7plain the nature of the questions * conferring with his client and halting the investigation should the need arise" The dut of a law er includes ensuring that the suspect under custodial investigation is aware that the right of an accused to remain silent ma *e invoked at an time" .e understand the difficult and frustration of police investigators in o*taining evidence to *ring criminals to 9ustice" But even the hardest of criminals have rights that cannot *e interfered with" Those tasked with the enforcement of the law and who accuse those who violate it carr the *urden of ensuring that all evidence o*tained * them in the course of the performance of their duties are untainted with constitutional infirmit " The purpose of the stringent requirements of the law is to protect all persons, especiall the innocent and the weak, against possi*le indiscriminate use of the powers of the government" (n deviation cannot *e tolerated, and an fruit of such deviation shall *e e7cluded from evidence" =or these reasons, the e7tra9udicial confession of Sa a*oc cannot *e used in evidence against him" >owever, that the prosecution has discharged its *urden of proving his guilt for the crime of homicide, there can *e no dou*t that Sa a*oc shot and killed )alam in the earl evening of 6 -ecem*er 1993" (ppellants Ben9amin Sa a*oc and !arlon Buenvia9e are found guilt *e ond reasona*le dou*t of the crime of homicide" (ppellants !iguel Buenvia9e and #atricio 0scorpiso are here* ($?@,TT0- on the ground of reasona*le dou*t"

Dpasens a na 6 pages and digest, taas man gud ni na case" 1ag concentrate nalang ko sa waiver of constitutional rightsE

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 30

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs" AMADO .AGNATE, G.R. N*. 1006&1&6 Ma; /B, /BB% Fa:3s: <n the ;th da of (ugust, 199; at 1I++ oFclock in the morning, the accused killed * hacking with a *olo and raped /<S(4,0 /(&(4( and killed * hacking with a *olo (@/,( B/<U(, a ;+8 ear old *lind woman" ,n the afternoon of (ugust ;, 199;, appellant was turned over to S#<6 'unwel (m*ion for custodial investigation" S#<6 (m*ion informed him in the Bicol dialect of his right to remain silent, to *e assisted * counsel, that whatever he sa s ma *e used against or in his favor, and that he cannot *e tortured or molested" .hen appellant told S#<6 (m*ion that he is willing to confess, S#<6 (m*ion again informed appellant of his rights, and asked him further if he wants to *e assisted * counsel *ut appellant said that his counsel was in !anila" S#<6 (m*ion offered the services of (tt " #aterno Brotamonte, which appellant accepted" (fter some time, (tt " Brotamonte arrived at the police station" Before proceeding with the investigation, (tt " Brotamonte asked the policemen to leave the investigation room and conferred with appellant" >e introduced himself to appellant and informed him of his rights" >e also asked and e7amined appellant to see if he was ph sicall harmed * the policemen and found none although (tt " Brotamonte noticed that appellantFs left hand was handcuffed to the ta*le" (ppellant told (tt " Brotamonte that he is willing to give a statement" The investigation was then conducted in the Bicol dialect, with S#<6 (m*ion asking the questions" ,t was translated thereafter into 0nglish with the help of (tt " Brotamonte, for the purpose of putting it into writing" (fter t ping the first page of the confession, (tt " Brotamonte translated and e7plained the contents thereof to appellant, then (tt " Brotamonte and appellant signed thereon" .hile all this was going on, S#<1 /ogelio )onzales was taking pictures" S#<6 (m*ion then proceeded with the second and third pages of the confession, following the same procedure of propounding the questions in the Bicol dialect and translating it thereafter into 0nglish for each page" ; (tt " Brotamonte again read and e7plained the contents thereof to appellant8 after which the again separatel signed on pages two and three thereof" (fter appellantFs confession was t ped and

signed, (tt " Brotamonte left the police station and went *ack to his office" (s far as he could recall, the entire process took more than an hour" The ne7t da , (ugust 8, 199;, appellant was *rought *efore 'udge (rsenio Base, 'r" of the !T$ of Ta*aco, (l*a " 'udge Base requested the presence of (tt " Brotamonte and su*sequentl e7amined the voluntariness and veracit of the confession as well as the authenticit of the signatures of appellant and (tt " Brotamonte" >e also e7plained to appellant the consequences of his confession to the crimes charged and asked him if he was coerced into admitting them" 'udge Base inspected appellantFs *od and asked him if he was forced or coerced" 'udge Base then asked appellant if he was still willing to sign it again and appellant answered in the affirmative sa ing that his conscience *othered him" 'udge Base asked him to sign the confession again in the presence of (tt " Brotamonte, after which appellant affi7ed his signature" There were no e ewitnesses to the incident5 onl the e7tra8 9udicial confession of appellant showed how the crimes were committed * him" (ppellant repudiated his e7tra89udicial confession *efore the trial court and assailed its admissi*ilit alleging that it was e7ecuted in violation of his constitutional rights, particularl his right to a competent and independent counsel of his own choice5 and that he was not full apprised of the consequences of his confession" >e testified that the real perpetrators of the crime were his *rother8in8law, /o*erto (ngeles, and a certain $arlito Begil, and that he was onl forced into owning up to the crimes *ecause (ngeles threatened to harm him or his sister, (ngelesFs wife, if he did not do so The trial court found appellantFs e7tra89udicial confession admissi*le in evidence on which *asis, it convicted appellant of the crimes rape and murder and sentenced him to death penalt "

Iss8': The main issue in this case is the admissi*ilit of appellantFs confession" (ppellant claims that (tt " Brotamonte was not a competent and independent counsel as he failed to advise him of the penalt to *e imposed on the crimes he was accused of committing5 hence, he was not aware of the consequences of his admissions"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 31

H'7-: To *e admissi*le in evidence, an e7tra89udicial confession must *e e7press and voluntaril e7ecuted in writing with the assistance of an independent and competent counsel, and a person under custodial investigation must *e continuousl assisted * counsel from the ver start thereof" The presence of counsel is intended to secure the voluntariness of the e7tra89udicial confession, and the assistance given must *e independent and competent, that is, providing full protection to the constitutional rights of the accused" The rule is premised on the presumption that the accused is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere running through menacing police interrogation procedures where the potentialit for compulsion, ph sical or ps chological is forcefull apparent" ,t is not intended as a deterrent to the accused from confessing guilt if he voluntaril and intelligentl so desires *ut to protect the accused from *eing coerced to admit an that is untrue"To *e an effective counsel, a law er need not challenge all the questions *eing propounded to his client" The presence of a law er is not intended to stop an accused from sa ing an thing which might incriminate him *ut, rather, it was adopted in our $onstitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false" The counsel, however, should never prevent an accused from freel and voluntaril telling the truth" ,n the present case, the assistance rendered * (tt " Brotamonte is more than perfunctor " Before the onset of the investigation, (tt " Brotamonte privatel conferred with appellant to ascertain the voluntariness of his confession and to make sure that no force or duress was emplo ed * the police authorities on the latter to make him admit the crimes charged" >e informed appellant of his constitutional rights and was clear in e7plaining to him the questions propounded * S#<6 (m*ion" (ppellant signed the confession with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel, (tt " Brotamonte, and it was also sworn to * him *efore 'udge (rsenio Base, 'r" of the !unicipal Trial $ourt of Ta*aco, (l*a , who, *efore administering the oath to appellant, conferred with him and informed him of his rights and the consequences of his confession" The failure of (tt " Brotamonte to apprise appellant of the imposa*le penalt of the crimes he was to admit is not a sufficient ground to strike down appellantFs e7tra9udicial confession"

what the $onstitution regards as inadmissi*le in evidence is confession given * an accused without having *een informed of his right to remain silent, or, without having *een given competent and independent counsel, prefera*l his own choice, or if he cannot afford the services of counsel, he was not provided with one5 or the waiver of his rights was not in writing and not in the presence of counsel5 or, that he was tortured, forced, threatened, intimidated, * violence or an other means that vitiated his free will" There is nothing in the $onstitution that mandates a counsel to inform an accused of the possi*le penalt for the crime he committed" 1either would a presumption arise that the counsel is incompetent or not independent 9ust *ecause he failed to apprise the accused that the imposa*le penalt for the crime he was a*out to admit is death" (fter all, the imposa*le penalt is totall immaterial to the resolve of an accused to admit his guilt in the commission of a crime" To *e considered competent and independent for the purpose of assisting an accused during a custodial investigation, it is onl required for a law er to *eI :M"willing to full safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who would merel *e giving a routine, peremptor and meaningless recital of the individualFs constitutional rights" ,n #eople v" Basa D619 S$/( 3+3, 318E this $ourt stressed that an accusedFs right to *e informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than 9ust the ceremonial and perfunctor recitation of an a*stract constitutional principle":6A (s previousl stated, (tt " Brotamonte a*l assisted appellant during the entire procedure T from the time appellant signified his intention to give his e7tra9udicial confession up to the time he signed the same" Besides, it cannot *e gainsaid that appellant was not aware of the consequences of his admissions as 'udge Base e7plained it to appellant when he appeared *efore the latter to swear to the veracit of his confession" (ppellant also failed to su*stantiate his *are claim that when he was *rought to the Ta*aco police station, the police officers *o7ed and kicked him, telling him to confess to the crimes" 63 (s the records show, like (tt " Brotamonte, 'udge Base also asked him if he was forced to confess *ut Bagnate said that he was not" ,f it were true that he was forced to confess to the crime, then appellant should

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 32

have complained of such a*use to (tt " Brotamonte or 'udge Base as he had the opportunit to do so when the two conferred with him on separate occasions" *here the appellants did not present evidence of compulsion or duress or violence on their persons5 where they failed to complain to the officers who administered the oaths5 where they did not institute any criminal or administrative action against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment5 where there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies and where they did not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their claim/ all these should be considered as factors indicating voluntariness of confessions" To consider appellantFs allegation of maltreatment as true is to facilitate the retraction of solemnl made statements at the mere allegation of torture, without an proof whatsoever" The taking of appellantFs confession has conformed to the safeguards of the $onstitution" ,t constitutes evidence of a high order, *ecause of the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deli*eratel and knowingl confess to a crime unless prompted * truth and conscience"

The )alit /ule THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs"FRANCISCO GALIT, G.R. N*. L11$$B Mar:5 /B, 19&1

Fa:3s:

(nother pointI @nder Section A, /ule 1AA of the /ules of $ourt, an e7tra9udicial confession made * an accused, shall not *e sufficient ground for conviction, unless corro*orated * evidence of corpus delicti" The /ule specificall requires that there should *e some other evidence :tending to show the commission of the crime apart from the confession": (ppellantFs confession is corro*orated * evidence of corpus delicti, that is, the *od of the crime and, in its primar sense, that a crime has actuall *een committed"The evidence of corpus delicti in *oth cases consists of the victimsF deaths, as evidenced * the death certificates of (urea BroQaA+ and /osalie /a ala,A1 and the findings of the autopsies conducted on the victimsF cadavers * Ta*aco /ural >ealth <fficer -r" (melia )uiri*a showing that *oth were hacked to death and /osalie was raped"

The decision of the trial court is affirmed"

The prisoner was arrested for killing the victim on the occasion of a ro**er " >e had *een detained and interrogated almost continuousl for five da s, to no avail" >e consistentl maintained his innocence" There was no evidence to link him to the crime" <*viousl , something drastic had to *e done" ( confession was a*solutel necessar " So the investigating officers *egan to maul him and to torture him ph sicall " Still the prisoner insisted on his innocence" >is will had to *e *roken" ( confession must *e o*tained" So the continued to maltreat and *eat him" BThe covered his face with a rag and pushed his face into a toilet *owl full of human waste" The prisoner could not take an more" >is *od could no longer endure the pain inflicted on him and the indignities he had to suffer" >is will had *een *roken" >e admitted what the investigating officers wanted him to admit and he signed the confession the prepared" 4ater, against his will, he posed for pictures as directed * his investigators, purporting it to *e a reenactment" Fa:3s *= 35' a::6-'n3 as =*8n- 4; 35' 3r6a7 :*8r3 I <n (ugust 18, 19;;, accused )alit and two others , 'uling -ula and a certain :#a*ling: agreed to ro* 1atividad =ernando" (t a*out 16I++ oBclock that night, the three were a*le to gain entrance into the house of the victim5 as the three could not find an thing valua*le inside the first room, 'uling -ula destro ed the screen of the door of the victim, 1atividad =ernando5 that upon entering the room of the victim, the three accused killed the victim and then *egan searching the room for valua*les5 after ro**ing, the three accused went out of the premises of the house, and divided the loot that the got from the room of the victim5 and that after receiving their shares the three accused left and went home" .hen witness =lorentino %alentino was in his room, which was ad9oining that of accused =rancisco )alit, he overheard accused )alit and his wife quarreling a*out the intention of accused )alit to leave their residence immediatel 5 that

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 33

he further stated that he overheard accused )alit sa ing that he and his other two companions ro**ed and killed 1atividad =ernando" The accused denied participation of the crime, >e claimed that he was in his house in !arikina, /izal, when the crime was committed in !ontal*an, /izal"

Iss8': The accused assailed the admissi*ilit of the e7tra89udicial confession e7tracted from him through torture, force and intimidation as descri*ed earlier, and without the *enefit of counsel"

H'7-: 1o, the e7tra 9udicial confession is not admissi*le"

(fter a review of the records, .e find that the evidence presented * the prosecution does not support a conviction" ,n fact, the findings of the trial court relative to the acts attri*uted to the accused are not supported * competent evidence" The principal prosecution witness, =lorentino %alentino merel testified that he and the accused were living together in one house in !arikina, /izal, that he heard that the accused was leaving the house *ecause he and his companions had ro**ed :(ling 1ene:, the owner of a poultr farm and pigger in !ontal*an, /izal5 that the wife of the accused was imploring him not to leave, *ut the latter was insistent5 that he saw the accused carr ing a *ag containing a*out two handfuls D dakotE of coins which he had taken from (ling 1ene5 that upon learning of what the accused had done, he went to the !ontal*an police the ne7t da and reported to the police chief a*out what he had heard5 and that a week later, !ontal*an policemen went to their house and arrested the accused" This $ourt, in the case of Morales vs! $once 6nrile, laid down the correct procedure for peace officers to follow when making an arrest and in conducting a custodial investigation, and which .e reiterateI

(t the time a person is arrested, it shall *e the dut of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must *e shown the warrant of arrest, if an " >e shall *e informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that an statement he might make could *e used against him" The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his law er, a relative, or an one he chooses * the most e7pedient means J * telephone if possi*le J or * letter or messenger" ,t shall *e the responsi*ilit of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished" 1o custodial investigation shall *e conducted unless it *e in the presence of counsel engaged * the person arrested, * an person on his *ehalf, or appointed * the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or * an one on his *ehalf" The right to counsel ma *e waived *ut the waiver shall not *e valid unless made with the assistance of counsel" (n statement o*tained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether e7culpator or inculpator , in whole or in part, shall *e inadmissi*le in evidence" There were no e ewitnesses, no propert recovered from the accused, no state witnesses, and not even fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime" The onl evidence against the accused is his alleged confession" ,t *ehooves @s therefore to give it a close scrutin " The statement *egins as followsI

," T(1<1)I ,pinag*i*iga 8alam ko sa in o ang in ong mga karapatan sa ilalim ng Saligang8Batas ng #ilipinas na kung in ong nanaisin a maaaring hindi ka o mag*iga ng isang sala sa , na hindi rin ka o maaaring pilitin o saktan at pangakuan upang mag*iga ng naturang sala sa , na anuman ang in ong sasa*ihin sa pagsisi asat na ito a maaaring la*an sa in o sa anumang usapin na maaaring ilahad sa anumang hukuman o tri*unal dito sa #ilipinas, na sa pagsisi asat na ito a maaaring katulungin mo ang isang

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 34

manananggol at kung sakaling hindi mo ka ang *a aran ang isang manananggol a maaaring *ig an ka ng isa ng 1B," 1ga on at alam mo na ang mga ito nakahanda ka *ang mag*iga ng isang kusang8loo* na sala sa sa pagtatanong na itoK S()<TI <po" Such a long question followed * a monos lla*ic answer does not satisf the requirements of the law that the accused *e informed of his rights under the $onstitution and our laws" ,nstead there should *e several short and clear questions and ever right e7plained in simple words in a dialect or language known to the person under investigation" (ccused is from Samar and there is no showing that he understands Tagalog" !oreover, at the time of his arrest, accused was not permitted to communicate with his law er, a relative, or a friend" ,n fact, his sisters and other relatives did not know that he had *een *rought to the 1B, for investigation and it was onl a*out two weeks after he had e7ecuted the salaysay that his relatives were allowed to visit him" >is statement does not even contain an waiver of right to counsel and et during the investigation he was not assisted * one" (t the supposed reenactment, again accused was not assisted * counsel of his choice" These constitute gross violations of his rights" The alleged confession and the pictures of the supposed re8 enactment are inadmissi*le as evidence *ecause the were o*tained in a manner contrar to law" The 9udgment of the trial court is reversed and the accused is here* acquitted"

G.>0/0=</0, 9udgment is here* rendered, finding accused (lfredo =a9ardo, 'r" alias Bo =a9ardo, !arcelo -esiderio Silvestre, 'esus 0stacio 0strella and /olando Santos /amirez alias !icke !ouse, )@,4T& as co8 principals in the three DAE separate comple7 crimes of 0stafa Thru =alsification of #u*lic -ocuments and here* sentences them"H

Fa:3sI <n (pril 15, 1986, the Tanod*a an filed with the Sandigan*a an three DAE informations for estafa thru falsification of pu*lic documents against =elipe Salamanca, !ariano Bustamante, Basilio Tan, (lfredo =a9ardo, 'r", 'esus 0stacio, /olando San #edro, !anuel %alentino, /olando Santos, !arcelo -esiderio, 'aime Tan and 0milio /e es" The informations filed were similarl worded e7cept for the dates of commission of the crime charged, the num*er of the checks involved, and the amounts allegedl misappropriated" Sometime in 1981, a s ndicate masterminded * =elipe Salamanca infiltrated the $learing $enter of the $entral Bank of the #hilippines D$entral Bank, for *revit E" ,n its operation, the s ndicate emplo ed two schemesI the switching scheme, and the pilferage scheme" ,n the switching scheme, a s ndicate would open a current account with such *anks as the Bank of (merica DB(E and the #hilippine %eterans Bank D#%BE in ,loilo" (s a matter of procedure, checks drawn on the B( were forwarded to the $entral Bank for clearing" @pon receipt of those checks * the clearing clerk of the $entral Bank, who was a mem*er of the s ndicate, he would su*stitute those checks with ones *earing the stamp of another *ank" Thus, instead of forwarding the checks to the B(, these were misrouted to cause dela in the clearing procedure" @pon the lapse of the clearing period, the depositor would withdraw the amount of the checks"

Fa8s36n* SANTOS VS. SANDIGAN.ACAN G.R. N*. $11/0 Na38r' *= 35' :as': $hallenged in these four separate petitions for review on certiorari is the -ecision dated 'ul 19, 1985O1P of the Sandigan*a an disposing of $riminal $ase 1os" 5939 to 5951 as followsI

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 35

>owever, the scheme faltered as the huge amounts covered * the checks caused suspicion on the part of the #%B" ,t called up the B( to inquire a*out those checks and hence, the former *ank discovered that the checks were insufficientl funded"

G1o person shall *e compelled to *e a witness against himself" (n person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to *e informed of such rights" 1o force, violence, threat, intimidation, or an other means which vitiates the free will shall *e used against him" (n confession o*tained in violation of this section shall *e inadmissi*le in evidence"H =irst paragraph of (rticle ,,,, Section 16 of the 19&$ $onstitution statesI GD1E (n person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to *e informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel prefera*l of his own choice" ,f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must *e provided with one" These rights cannot *e waived e7cept in writing and in the presence of counsel"H The 19;A $onstitution does not specif the right against uncounselled waiver of the right to counsel, which is found in paragraph 1, Section 16, (rticle ,,, of the 198; $onstitution" The specific provision of the 198; $onstitution requiring that a waiver * an accused of his right to counsel during custodial investigation must *e made with the assistance of counsel ma not *e applied retroactivel or in cases where the e7tra9udicial confession was made prior to the effectivit of said $onstitution" "a6v'rs *= 35' r6(53 3* :*8ns'7 during custodial investigation without the *enefit of counsel during the '==':36v63; *= 35' 19$0 C*ns363836*n should, * such argumentation, *e a-)6ss647'" The prosecution has shown that there was compliance with the constitutional requirement on pre8interrogation advisories, a confession is presumed to *e voluntar and the declarant *ears the *urden of proving that his confession is involuntar and untrue" %alentino and petitioner 0stacio failed to present an convincing evidence to prove the use of force or intimidation on their persons to o*tain the confession" PEOPLE VS. MENDO!A G.R. N*. 1%0$B/ Na38r' *= 35' Cas': This is an appeal from the decision,O1P dated !arch 16, 1998, of the /egional Trial $ourt, Branch AA, ,loilo $it , finding accused8 appellant Vald !endoza guilt of the crime of ro**er with homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalt of reclusion perpetua and to indemnif the heirs of the victim, >ernandez (*ata , in the amounts of #;5,+++"++ as actual damages and #5+,+++"++ as civil indemnit " Fa:3s:

,n the pilferage scheme, current accounts would *e opened with a provincial *ank, such as the Bank of the #hilippine ,slands DB#,E, 4aoag *ranch, and a cit *ank such as the $iti*ank8)reenhills, !anila" ( B#, check deposited with $iti*ank would then *e forwarded to the $entral Bank clearing house where mem*ers of the s ndicate, who were emplo ed there, would pilfer the check and alter the $entral Bank manifest and the entries in the clearing *ank statements" The pilferage was intended to provide opportunit for the s ndicate to *lot out entries referring to the pilfered check" $onsequentl , B#,84aoag would not know that a check drawn on it had *een deposited with $iti*ank" (fter the lapse of the five8da clearing period, the s ndicate would withdraw the amount deposited from $iti*ank simpl *ecause said *ank would have considered the check cleared and funded, as no protest or notice of dishonor could *e received from B#,84aoag" ,n utilizing this scheme in the commission of the crimes charged in $riminal $ase 1os" 5939 to 5951, the s ndicate netted 1ine !illion #esos D#9,+++,+++"++E" (ll the accused appropriated among themselves the proceeds of amounted to 9,+++,+++,+++ to their own personal use and *enefit which was illegall taken from $entral Bank of the #hilippines or Bank of the #hilippine ,slands" ,n 1985, accused are found guilt as co8principals in the three separate comple7 crimes of 0stafa Thru =alsification of #u*lic -ocuments" Iss8': .hether or not the e7tra9udicial confessions of petitioner 0stacio and %alentino are inadmissi*le in evidence as their right to counsel was violated when said confessions were e7ecuted" H'7-I (rticle ,%, Section 6+ of the 19$0 $onstitution providing for the rights of an accused during custodial investigation" ,t readsI

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 36

<n 'ul ;, 1993, at around 1IA+ a"m", the victim >ernandez (*ata and his companion 'ose 1eri Ta9anlangit were at the corner of ?uezon and 4edesma Streets in ,loilo $it waiting for a 9eepne to take them home" The had 9ust come from work at a supermarket" Ta9anlangit left (*ata to urinate near* " >e was a*out 15 feet awa from (*ata when he saw accused8appellant Vald !endoza and a companion approach (*ata " The two men ro**ed (*ata " (ccused8appellantFs companion held (*ata Fs hands *ehind his *ack while accused8appellant took (*ata Fs wrist watch and mone " (ccused8appellant then sta**ed (*ata in the a*domen" (*ata ran awa *ut accused8 appellant pursued him"OAP (t that time, #<A -anilo Tan of the #1# was going home on *oard a tric cle" >e saw a man running on the street, going in his direction" Tan asked the tric cle driver to stop" >e alighted and asked the person wh he was running" >e turned out to *e (*ata " >e said that he had *een held up * two persons" Tan asked him wh he was clutching his stomach" (*ata replied that he had *een sta**ed * the ro**ers" Tan found that the victim had a wound in the lower right portion of his stomach, a*out one inch a*ove his *elt" (*ata told Tan that one of the ro**ers was wearing a white t8shirt while the other was wearing a sleeveless *asket*all shirt and undershirt uniform"O3P #<A Tan asked the tric cle driver to take (*ata to St" #aulFs >ospital, while he went after the suspects" >e spotted one of the suspects, who was wearing a sleeveless *asket*all shirt, along ?uezon St" on the wa to /izal St" The suspect, who was later identified as accused8appellant Vald !endoza, was panting for *reath *ecause he had *een running" Tan identified himself and searched the suspect" Tan was a*le to recover a ta*le knife from accused8appellant"O5P #<A Tan then took accused8appellant to the St" #aulFs >ospital where (*ata was confined" ,n the presence of Tan and some nurses and the attending ph sician in the emergenc room, (*ata pointed to accused8 appellant as one of those who had held him up and then sta**ed him"

(t that time, (*ata was in good condition and even spoke with Tan" Tan then placed accused8appellant under arrest and took him to the police station for investigation" (ccused8appellant allegedl pointed to !arco (guirre as his companion when the held up (*ata " Tan tried to look for (guirre *ut was unsuccessful"O2P !ell -e /o9o testified that on 'ul ;, 1993, from around 11IA+ p"m" to 16IA+ a"m", she was washing clothes outside her house at the /o7as %illage in !a*ini St", ,loilo" She was a neigh*or of accused8appellant Vald !endoza and !arco (guirre in the said village"O;P (ccording to this witness, !arco (guirre asked her to hide him inside her house *ecause he had 9ust sta**ed someone" -e /o9o said (guirre was wearing a white t8shirt with *loodstains on it and was holding a knife" (guirre told her that he could not get inside his own house *ecause it was closed" She said she refused (guirreFs request *ecause her hus*and and children were sleeping inside the house" Then (guirre allegedl took off his clothes and hung them on her clothes line" She told (guirre not to hang his clothes on her clothes line as it might place her in trou*le" (guirre left and -e /o9o did not see him again" 1either did she see accused8appellant" -e /o9o did not report the incident to the police *ecause she was afraid and, an wa , she found out later that the crime had alread *een reported to the police"O8P (ccused8appellant went to see -e /o9o twice after the event that took place on the night of 'ul ;, 1993" (ccused8appellantFs wife asked her if it was true that (guirre showed up at her house on the night in question" -e /o9o replied in the affirmative and told her that she would testif in favor of accused8appellant *ecause it was (guirre and not accused8appellant whom she saw that night outside her house"O9P The kitchen knife which had *een recovered from accused8appellant was turned over on 'ul 8, 1993 at 8I++ a"m" to #<A !anuel (rtuz, the e7hi*it custodian of #olice #recinct ," The *lade of the knife was discolored *ut he could not sa if it was *lood that caused the stain"O1+P

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 37

%ioleta (*ata , the victimFs mother, testified that she saw her son at the St" #aulFs >ospital in the earl morning of 'ul ;, 1993" >er son died on 'ul 1+, 1993, after three da sF confinement"O11P -r" Tito -oromal, a medico8legal officer of the ,loilo $it #olice Station, performed an autops on the *od of >ernandez (*ata on 'ul 11, 1993" O16P (s reflected in a medico8legal autops report D07h" (E prepared * him, -r" -oromal found that the cause of death of the victim was a single sta* wound located under the su*leeding and thoraco8a*dominal region or near the right lower a*domen" The direction and entrance of the wound was horizontal inside the a*dominal cavit and ended at the outer portion of the right kidne " The wound, which was 18 cms" deep and A"5 7 1"6 cms" wide, was inflicted using a single8*laded sharp instrument, such as a knife" The *laded instrument penetrated the *ack and hit the posterior portion of the lungs, causing the same to harden and acquire a liver8like consistenc " The victim developed h postatic pneumonia causing his death" >emorrhaging secondar to the sta* wound also contri*uted to the victimFs death"O1AP -r" -oromal also found that *ased on the location of the wound in the victimFs *od , it was possi*le that the victim and his assailant were facing each other when the former was sta**ed" The assailantFs thrust originated from *elow the victimFs a*domen and moved upwards to the inner portion of the *od " T5' -'='ns' *= 35' a::8s'--a22'77an3 !a7-; M'n-*Fa <as a7646. >e claimed that on 'ul ;, 1993, at around 11IA+ p"m", he was at the /ochelle $arinderia resting after a da Fs work, driving a Gtrisicad"H (fterwards, he walked along !a*ini St" towards the corner of 4edesma St" <n the wa , he saw his neigh*or !arco (guirre with a certain person he did not know" (ccused8appellant, who was a*out five meters awa , saw (guirre pointing a knife at the person" (ccused8appellant said he approached the two and asked (guirre what the matter was, *ut he was told to leave" Then, he said, he saw (guirre sta* the person" (ccused8appellant claimed he fled towards the direction of the /ochelle $arinderia" (ccused8appellant said he wanted to report the incident to the police, *ut *efore he could do so a police patrol car arrived" #<A -anilo Tan alighted from the car and, while pointing a gun at him, asked accused8appellant who his companions were" (ccused8 appellant said he had no companions" >e was then made to get inside the patrol car and taken to the )en" 4una #olice Station for investigation"O13P

(ccused8appellant said he was handcuffed and taken to St" #aulFs >ospital" (t the emergenc room of the hospital, he said #<A Tan asked (*ata if accused8appellant was the one who sta**ed him, *ut (*ata answered that it was accused8appellantFs companion who sta**ed him" <n !arch 16, 1998, the lower court rendered a decision finding accused8 appellant guilt of the crime charged" (ccused Vald !endoza was found guilt of the crime of ro**er with homicide" (ccused said he was handcuffed and taken to St" #aulFs >ospital" (t the emergenc room of the hospital, he said #<A Tan asked the victim if accused was the one who sta**ed him, *ut the victim answered that it was accused companion who sta**ed him" Iss8'I .hether or not the confession made * accused to #<A Tan is inadmissi*le *ecause it was given without the assistance of counsel" H'7-: The confession is inadmissi*le in evidence under (rticle ,,,, Section 16D1E and DAE of the $onstitution, *ecause it was given under custodial investigation and was made without the assistance of counsel" >owever, the defense failed to o*9ect to its presentation during the trial with the result that the defense is deemed to have waived o*9ection to its admissi*ilit " $onfession is admissi*le" (I= In :as' )a(-asH s6 s6r a4*83 35' 3<* *35'r 6ss8's: F6rs3" The issue in this case turns on the credi*ilit of the prosecution witnesses" .e have repeatedl ruled that in the a*sence of an fact or circumstance of weight which has *een overlooked or the significance of which has *een misconstrued, appellate courts will not interfere with the trial courtFs findings on the credi*ilit of witnesses or set aside its 9udgment considering that it is in a *etter position to decide these questions as it heard the witnesses during trial"O61P The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is *est and most completel performed and carried out * a trial 9udge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimonies in the light of the defendantFs *ehavior, demeanor, conduct, and attitude during the trial"O66P ,n this case, accused8appellant questions the testimon of the lone e ewitness, 'ose Ta9anlangit, claiming that the latterFs testimon is not worth of credence *ecause it is incredi*le and is *ased largel on hearsa " To *olster his claim, accused8appellant cites three e7amples from the latterFs

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 38

testimon " =irst, Ta9anlangit did not testif that he heard an sound come from the deceased (*ata when the latter was sta**ed * his holduppers" (ccused8appellant sa s it is highl impro*a*le that the deceased did not make an outcr when he was sta**ed and equall impro*a*le that Ta9anlangit did not hear the same" Second, Ta9anlangit testified that he ran awa in the direction opposite that to which (*ata ran after *eing sta**ed" &et Ta9anlangit also testified that (*ata met #<A Tan5 that Tan sent (*ata to his emplo er5 and that Tan pursued and caught up with accused8appellant" (ccused8appellant asserts that Ta9anlangit could not have possi*l testified as to facts which took place after he ran awa and that he onl gathered such facts from the victim himself when the latter was still alive in the hospital" Third, Ta9anlangit testified that he and the victim were waiting for a 9eep instead of a ta7i on the night in question *ecause the victim onl had #15"++ in his pocket" (ccused8appellant claims that this is un*elieva*le since Ta9anlangit had #5+"++ in his own pocket" .h , accused8appellant asks, did Ta9anlangit not disclose this fact to the victim so that the could have taken a ta7iK S':*n-" (ccused8appellant claims that the decision of the trial court, dated !arch 16, 1998, is a nullit since it was promulgated twelve months, or more than ninet D9+E da s, after the case was su*mitted for decision on !arch 6A, 199;" >e cites the ruling of this $ourt in 4azaret v" BantuasOA5P in support of his contention"OA2P >e further contends that the amended decision dated <cto*er 62, 1998 is likewise a nullit since it was issued motu proprio, contrar to /ule 16+, W; of the /evised /ules of $riminal #rocedure, which allows the modification of a 9udgment of conviction onl upon motion of the accused" =inall , accused8appellant maintains that the amended decision, consisting of a new dispositive portion contained in a two8paragraph order, was never promulgated and is, therefore, a nullit "OA;P (ccused8appellantFs contention is without merit" The failure to decide cases within the ninet 8da period required * law constitutes a ground for administrative lia*ilit against the defaulting 9udge,OA8P which ma take the form of dismissal, forfeiture of *enefits and privileges,OA9P or a fine"O3+P But it does not make the 9udgment a nullit " The 9udgment is valid"O31P (ccused8appellant also complains that the decision in this case was amended without an of the parties asking for it" This is not so" The original decision in this case was issued on !arch 16, 1998 and was promulgated on 'ul 15, 1998"O36P The decision was written * (cting #residing 'udge =lorentino #" #edronio of the Bacolod $it /T$, Branch 3A" <n 'ul 63, 1998, accused8appellant, through counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration, pra ing that the decision *e set aside and accused8appellant acquitted on

the ground that the decision did not state the law violated nor refer to the specific provision of the /evised #enal $ode"O3AP PEOPLE VS. GON!ALES G.R. N*. 1%/90/ Na38r' *= 35' Cas': This is an appeal from the decision,O1P dated =e*ruar 1+, 6+++, of the /egional Trial $ourt, 11th 'udicial /egion, Branch 2, !ati, -avao <riental, insofar as it finds accused8appellants 'oel )onzales and /omeo Bernaldez guilt as principals of the comple7 crime of ro**er with homicide and sentences each of them to suffer the penalt of reclusion perpetua, with the accessor penalties provided * law, and to indemnif 9ointl and severall the heirs of the victim 1icanor Suralta in the amounts of #5+,+++"++ as civil indemnit and #6,365"++, plus the costs of the proceedings" Fa:3sI (ccused8appellants 'oel )onzales and /omeo Bernaldez were found guilt as principals of the comple7 crime of ro**er with homicide" (ccused8appellant )onzales alleged that he was *eaten up with the use of an armalite and hit on the and was forced to confess" (ccused8appellant )onzales contends that during the interrogation and investigation, he and his co8appellant /omeo Bernaldez were not informed of their rights to remain silent and to secure the services of counsel, in violation of WW6 and 16, (rt" ,,, of the $onstitution" (t a*out 9IA+ oFclock in the evening of 'ul 5, 1996, the spouses 1icanor and $arolita Suralta had visitors at their house in Bagsac, !anikling, San ,sidro, -avao <riental" 1icanor was having drinks with (rsenio (*onales, Bo*ong 4amanilao, and 1icasio 4amanilao when two armed men, one carr ing a gun and the other a knife, suddenl entered the house through the kitchen door" The one carr ing a gun had a *onnet over his face, with onl his e es e7posed, while the other one carr ing a knife had the lower half of his face covered with a handkerchief" The knife8wielder held $hona, the third child of the Suralta spouses, and announced a holdup" (ll persons in the house were ordered to go inside the *edroom, a*out two meters awa from the sala" There, the man with a gun demanded a gun and mone from 1icanor" 1icanor answered that he had no gun, *ut asked his wife to give mone to the holduppers"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 39

$arolita gave #6,1++"++, which was intended to *e deposited in the *ank, to the knife8wielder, who placed it in his pocket" Then the knife8wielder ransacked the ca*inet and took the remaining amount of #A65"++, which was intended for the school e7penses of the Suralta children" ,n addition, he took the famil Fs San o cassette recorder and some clothes" The holduppers also divested (rsenio (*onales, one of the guests, of his Seiko diverFs wristwatch and then left"O5P (s the holduppers were leaving, two gunshots rang out" $arolita thought that the first one was a mere warning shot, *ut later 1icanor was heard moaning" $arolita *ecame h sterical after seeing her hus*and l ing in a pool of his own *lood" 1icanor was immediatel *rought to the 4upon 0mergenc >ospital where he was given first aid" Thereafter, he was transferred to the Tagum /egional >ospital *ut he eventuall died"O2P The death certificate D07h" BE states the cause of his death as X ,mmediate $auseI $(/-,<8/0S#,/(T</& (//0ST (ntecedent $auseI !@4T,#40 O)@1S><T .<@1-SP #010T/(T,1) (B-<!01 #0/=</(T,1) .,T> !(SS,%0 $<1T(!,1(T,<1, #0/=</(T,1) $0$@!, (##01-0$,(4 T/(1S0$T,<1 !0S01T0/,$ %,SS04, ,40@!, '0'@1@! Y S,)!<,<ther significant conditions contri*uting to deathI >&#<%<40!,("O;P The incident was reported to the San ,sidro #olice on the same night" $arolita Suralta and (rsenio (*onales gave descriptions of the holduppers and told the responding police investigators that the would *e a*le to recognize the suspects if the saw them again" <n 'ul 16, 1996, there was another holdup inside the ($= passenger *us compound in the neigh*oring municipalit of !agdug, )overnor )eneroso, -avao <riental" The police team sent to investigate the incident was a*le to pick up suspects,O9P one of whom was accused8appellant 'oel )onzales" >e was wearing a wristwatch D07h" (E and had a handgun D07h" >E" <ther items, consisting of watches, a cassette recorder D07h" -E, a chain saw, and spare parts, were recovered from his house, some of which were claimed * passengers of the ($= *us line"O1+P #olice ,nspector (rnold !alintad of )overnor )eneroso, head of the team investigating the ro**er of the ($= *us compound, informed $apt" (dane

Sakkam, #olice $hief of San ,sidro, a*out the apprehension of accused8 appellant )onzales and the recover of the items from him" (ccordingl , on 'ul 13, 1996, $apt" Sakkam, $arolita Suralta, and (rsenio (*onales proceeded to the )overnor )eneroso #olice Station" $arolita and (rsenio identified accused8appellants 'oel )onzales and /omeo Bernaldez as the holduppers" 'oel )onzales was identified as the man armed with a gun who wore a *onnet to cover his face, while /omeo Bernaldez was identified as the knife8wielder who wore a handkerchief to cover the lower portion of his face"O11P $arolita volunteered that accused8appellant Bernaldez is in fact her nephew" $arolita and (rsenio said that the were a*le to recognize the suspects despite their disguises *ecause the were onl one to two meters awa from each other during the holdup, and the rooms of the house were well8lighted" O16P ,n addition, $arolita was a*le to identif the San o cassette recorder D07h" -E as the one taken from their house *ecause of the *roken antennae and the name G1ick SuraltaH written inside the *atter compartment" <n the other hand, (rsenio likewise identified the Seiko diverFs watch D07h" (E as his"O1AP A::8s'--a22'77an3s 283 82 35' -'='ns' *= -'n6a7 an- a7646. (ccused8appellant 'oel )onzales testified that he was in Tandang Sora, )overnor )eneroso, -avao <riental the whole da of 'ul 5, 1996 working in his mother8in8lawFs farm, piling coconut palm leaves together with his *rother8in8law" ,n the evening, he had supper in his house and slept there together with his famil "O13P <n 'ul 1A, 1996, )onzales was suffering from a fever" .hile he was sleeping, he was awakened * #oliceman -ann $a*anilas, ,nspector (rnold !alintad and 0ddie Tano, who took him to the )overnor )eneroso police station in connection with a ro**er in the ($= *us compound" (t the police station, he was investigated * ,nspector !alintad and thereafter put in 9ail" .hile inside the 9ail, people came to see him" !alintad pointed at him and asked a woman companion if he was one of the persons who committed the ro**er in San ,sidro" The woman answered, G, do not know them"H =or this reason, *oth !alintad and the woman left" >owever, upon their return, the woman said that she recognized the men and pointed to him and accused8appellant /omeo Bernaldez as those who were involved in the ro**er "O15P

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 40

<n 'ul A1, 1996, accused8appellant )onzales was taken to !ati * #olicemen 0rnesto Bahan and (lfredo $astro, *ut, *efore reaching !ati, somewhere in BaQas, the alighted from the 9eep and he was made to kneel" >e was *eaten up * Bahan and $astro with the use of an armalite and hit on the chest and the *ack" >e was then *rought to the !ati $emeter and there forced to confess" Thereafter, he was placed inside an open tom* for 16 minutes and then he was taken to the !ati !unicipal 'ail" (fter three da s, he was taken to )overnor )eneroso" >e denied participation in the crime and stated that the cassette recorder and other items were not confiscated from him"O12P =or his part, accused8appellant /omeo Bernaldez claimed that at around 9IA+ oFclock in the evening of 'ul 5, 1996, he was sleeping in his house in Ti*an*an, )overnor )eneroso together with his father, mother, and two sisters" <n 'ul 1A, 1998, he went to the !unicipal 'ail of )overnor )eneroso to answer accusations * the police that he was concealing a firearm" (t the police station, he was investigated * ,nspector !alintad for the firearm he allegedl kept, which he denied" >e was later placed in 9ail" O1;P ,nspector !alintad, however, testified that Bernaldez was actuall arrested in his house in Ti*an*an"O18P /omeo Bernaldez further testified that on 'ul 13, 1996, $arolita Suralta, accompanied * #olicemen Sakkam and !alintad, went to the 9ail and made the prisoners stand up, after which the went to !alintadFs office" Then, the two returned to the 9ail cell after a few minutes and $arolita pointed to him as among those involved in the ro**er "O19P /omeo Bernaldez also said that his residence was appro7imatel 65 kilometers from !anikling, San ,sidro, where the ro**er with homicide took place, and could *e reached * several means of land transportation"O6+P Iss8': .hether or not accused8appellantsF admission of the commission of the crime is inadmissi*le evidence against them" H'7-: ,nspector !alintad testified that accused8appellant )onzales admitted participation in the crime upon interrogation and voluntaril surrendered the stolen goods to him" (ccused8appellants were alread under custodial investigation when the made their admissions to the police" The investigation had ceased to *e a general inquir into an unsolved crime and had *egan to focus on the guilt of a suspect and for this reason the latter

were taken into custod or otherwise deprived of freedom in a su*stantial wa " >ence, the a-)6ss6*ns )a-' 4; a::8s'--a22'77an3s ar' 6na-)6ss647' 6n 'v6-'n:' 28rs8an3 3* Ar3. III, K /(1 an- (0 *= 35' C*ns363836*n. >owever, the -'='ns' =a67'- 3* ra6s' 63s *4>':36*ns 3* 35' a-)6ss646763; *= 35's' s3a3')'n3s 6))'-6a3'7;, as required * /ule 1A6, WA2, when ,nspector !alintad was presented as a witness for the prosecution or when specific questions concerning the confession were asked of him" $onsequentl , a::8s'--a22'77an3s ar' -'')'- 3* 5av' <a6v'- 35'6r r6(53 3* *4>':3 3* 35' a-)6ss646763; *= Ins2':3*r Ma76n3a-9s 3's36)*n; " ,ndeed, it was even the defense counsel who provided the opportunit for ,nspector !alintad to ela*orate on the circumstances of accused8appellant )onzalesB admission in the course of his cross8e7amination of the said witness" PEOPLE VS. +ARA G.R. NO. L-61016 Na38r' *= 35' Cas': Fa:3s: The facts according to the prosecution are as followsI (t a*out 2I++ oBclock in the earl morning of 'une 9, 19;8, the waitresses at (lvinBs $anteen situated in !alvar Street, #uerto #rincesa $it , wondered wh their emplo er, the deceased (mparo Bantigue, did not answer when the called at her door that morning Op" ;, T"S"1", !arch 61, 19;9P" The went to the kitchen and peeped through a hole" The saw (mparo and 4uisa 'ara seemingl asleep" The again went to the door and knocked *ut still no answer came" The waitresses called one of 4uisa 'araBs waitresses at (ileenBs canteen ne7t door" Becoming apprehensive, the went *ack to the kitchen for a second look" The discovered the followingI (mparo and 4uisa were *oth l ing in *ed5 4uisa was dressed onl in her underwear and there was dried *lood in one of her hands5 (mparo, seemingl asleep, la *eside her Opp" 9811, T"S"1", !arch 61, 19;9P" =inall , the decided to inform 4uisaBs daughter, !inerva, a*out their apprehension" .hen the met !inerva at the pu*lic market, she tearfull accompanied them *ack to (mparoBs room" .hen no one answered their

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 41

knocking, !inerva kicked open the door" Opp" 11816, T"S"1", !arch 61, 19;9P" ,nside, the found the two women dead from wounds inflicted on their persons Op" 1A, T"S"1", !arch 61, 19;9P"cralaw The hus*and of 4uisa, appellant =elicisimo 'ara, then entered the room and saw the condition of the victims Op" 15, T"S"1", !arch 61, 19;9P" ,nside the room, several ceramic pigg *anks *elonging to (mparo containing coins estimated in the amount of #1,+++"++ were missing Op" 3A, T"S"1", =e*ruar 2, 19;9P" Scattered underneath the window of (mparoBs *edroom were coins and *its and pieces of what used to *e ceramic pigg *anks O07h" :=:5 pp" 1;86+, T"S"1", =e*" 2, 19;9P" 4ater, two suspects in the killing, appellants /e mundo %ergara and /o*erto Bernadas, were apprehended Opp" 5982+, T"S"1", !arch 19, 19;9P" (fter investigation, the confessed their guilt to the #rovincial $ommander of the #hilippine $onsta*ular in #alawan and other police investigators Opp" 628A1, TS"1", !a 68, 19;9P" The also positivel identified appellant =elicisimo 'ara as the mastermind who had plotted the killing and who promised them a fee of #1,+++"++ each for their participation O07hi*its :<: and :1:P" Before the $it =iscal and =irst (ssistant $it =iscal of #uerto #rincesa $it , respectivel , appellants %ergara and Bernadas su*scri*ed and swore to their e7tra89udicial statements wherein the narrated their role and that of =elicisimo 'ara in the killing Osee 07hi*its :<: and :1:P"cralaw Thereafter, the killing was reenacted *efore the militar authorities and the pu*lic, with appellants %ergara and Bernadas participating Op" 13, T"S"1", 'ul 19, 19;9P"cr (ppellants /e mundo %ergara and /o*erto Bernadas were apprehended for the killing of 4uisa 'ara and (mparo Bantigue" (fter investigation, the confessed their guilt to the #rovincial $ommander of the #hilippine $onsta*ular in #alawan and other police investigators" The positivel identified appellant =elicisimo 'ara as the mastermind who had plotted the killing" Before the $it =iscal and =irst (ssistant =iscal of #uerto #rincesa $it , respectivel , appellants %ergara and Bernadas su*scri*ed and swore to their e7tra89udicial statements wherein the narrated their role and that of =elicisimo 'ara in the killing" The confessions were o*tained in the a*sence of counsel however according to the records, there was a waiver * the accused8appellants of their right to counsel"

=elicisimo 'ara denied the charge that he was the one who killed his wife, 4uisa, together with her friend, (mparo Bantigue" >e interposed ali*i as a defense and testified that at the time the killings took place at (lvinBs $anteen at !alvar Street, #uerto #rincesa $it , he was fast asleep with his grandchildren at his stepdaughterBs house in #ineda Su*division" The other accused, /e mundo %ergara and /o*erto Bernadas, retracted their respective e7tra89udicial confessions admitting their participation in the crimes charged and identif ing their mastermind as the accused 'ara during proceedings *efore the ,nquest =iscal" The contested the admissi*ilit of the e7tra89udicial confessions and the su*sequent re8enactment of the crime on the ground that their participations in these occasions were not free and voluntar and were without the *enefit of counsel" Iss8': .hether or not the waiver was valid" H'7-: The records sustain that the e7tra9udicial confessions *ear clear earmarks of illegalit and impro*a*ilit " .henever a protection given * the $onstitution is waived * the person entitled to that protection, the presumption is alwa s against the waiver" The prosecution must prove with strongl convincing evidence to the satisfaction of this $ourt that indeed the accused willingl and voluntaril su*mitted his confession and knowingl and deli*eratel manifested that he was not interested in having a law er assist him during the taking of that confession" That proof is missing in this case" The records also show that the interrogations were conducted incommunicado in a police8dominated atmosphere" .hen appellant Bernadas gave his confession, his companions in the room were five police officers" The onl people with %ergara when he confessed were also police investigators" (ccused8appellants are acquitted for lack of evidence" D$riminal case kasi ito, *ut nag8focus lang ako sa waiver on the prosecutionE L6)*s #p v" Tolentino #p v" 0namoria #p v" Bacor

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 42

#p v" (ndan Casa7an LITO MARCELO vs" SANDIGAN.ACAN (G.R. N*. 1B9/%/D +an8ar; /6, 1999 NATURE OF THE CASE: This is a petition for review on certiorari filed * 4ito !arcelo from a decision of the Sandigan*a an D=irst -ivisionE O1P convicting him and two others of qualified theft" FACTS: <n =e*rua 1+, 1989, 'acinto !erete, a letter carrier in the !akati $entral #ost <ffice, disclosed to his chief, #ro9ecto Tumagan, the e7istence of a group responsi*le for the pilferage of mail matter in the post office" =or this reason, Tumagan sought the aid of the 1B, in apprehending the group responsi*le for mail pilferage in the !akati #ost <ffice" 1B, -irector Salvador /anin dispatched 1B, agents to 4egaspi %illage following a report that the group would stage a theft of mail matter on that da (t 6I++ p"m", a postal deliver 9eep, driven * one >enr <rindai, was parked in front of the 0sguerra Building on (delantado Street" 0sguerra Building is located *etween (delantado and (morsolo Streets" (delantado and (morsolo Streets are parallel to each other" #asicolan alighted from the 9eep *ringing with him a mail *ag" !erete sta ed inside the 9eep" #asicolan then passed through an alle *etween 0sguerra and !ontepino Buildings going towards (morsolo St" !ontepino Building is ad9acent to 0sguerra Building" The two are separated * the alle " @pon reaching (morsolo St", #asicolan gave the mail *ag to two persons, who were later identified as /onnie /omero and petitioner 4ito !arcelo" The latter transferred the contents of the mail *ag Di"e", assorted mail matterE to a travelling *ag" The two then secured the *ag to the *ack of their motorc cle" !eanwhile, the 1B, team led * agent %ela, upon seeing #asicolan going towards (morsolo St", moved their car and started towards

(morsolo St" The were 9ust in time to see #asicolan handing over the mail *ag to !arcelo and /omero" (t that point, (tt " Sacaguing and (rles %ela arrested the two accused" @naware of the arrest of /omero and !arcelo, #asicolan went *ack to the postal deliver 9eep and proceeded toward #asa /oad" The 1B, agents followed the postal deliver 9eep, overtook it, and arrested #asicolan" The unsorted mail seized from !arcelo and /omero consisted of 266 letters" The names of the addresses were listed" The were su*sequentl notified * the Bureau of #osts to claim their letters" !an of them, after proper identification, were a*le to claim their letters" Some letters contained mone " R*)'r*, Mar:'7*, an- Pas6:*7an <'r' asH'- 3* a==6I 35'6r s6(na38r's *n 35' 'nv'7*2's *= 35' 7'33'rs. T5'; -6- s* 6n 35' 2r's'n:' *= 35' )')4'rs *= 35' N.I A-)6n6s3ra36v' anInv's36(a36v' S3a== an- 35' 2'*27' 3ransa:36n( 48s6n'ss <635 35' N.I a3 35a3 36)'" (ccording to -irector /anin, the required the accused to do this in order to identif the letters as the ver same letters confiscated from them" 1B, -irector /anin allegedl saw @S dollar *ills in various denominations of 6+, 5+, and 1++ dollars" 1% %ela and the other 1B, agents stated in their affidavits that there were dollar *ills in the letters which, if converted to #hilippine pesos, at the then e7change rate of #66 to @S Z1, were worth #11,+++"++" the addressees agreed to leave the envelopes of the letters with the 1B," Those letters which was not claimed were opened in court in the presence of the counsel for the defense" The letters were found to contain three DAE one dollar *ills, one D1E five dollar *ill, one D1E twent dollar *ill, a check for twent 8five dollars, and fift D5+E Saudi (ra*ian ri als" The San-6(an4a;an found all the accused guilt dou*t as principals of the crime of qualified theft *e ond reasona*le

ISSUE: .<1 the Sandigan*a an erred in admitting as evidence of petitionerFs guilt the letters signed * the accused during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel, in utter disregard of his constitutional right" HELD: N*.

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 43

The petitioner contends that the Sandigan*avan erred in admitting in evidence the letters signed * him *ecause he was asked to sign them during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel" #etitionerBs counsel sa s that the signing of petitionerBs and his co8 accusedBs names was not a mere mechanical act *ut one which required the use of intelligence and therefore constitutes self8incrimination" To *e sure, the use of specimen handwriting in 2eltran case is different from the use of petitionerBs signature in this case" ,n that case, the purpose was to show that the specimen handwriting matched the handwriting in the document alleged to have *een falsified and there* show that the accused was the author of the crime DfalsificationE while in this case the purpose for securing the signature of petitioner on the envelopes was merel to authenticate the envelopes as the ones seized from him and /onnie /omero" >owever, this purpose and petitionerBs signatures on the envelope, when coupled with the testimon of prosecution witnesses that the envelopes seized from petitioner were those given to him and /omero, undou*tedl help esta*lish the guilt of petitioner" S6n:' 35's' s6(na38r's ar' a:38a77; 'v6-'n:' *= a-)6ss6*n *43a6n'- =r*) 2'3636*n'r an- 56s :*-a::8s'- 8n-'r :6r:8)s3an:'s :*n3')27a3'- 6n Ar3. III, KK1/(I an- 1$ *= 35' C*ns363836*n, 35'; s5*87- 4' 'I:78-'-. =or indeed, petitioner and his co8accused signed following their arrest" >ence, the were at the time under custodial investigation, defined as questioning initiated * law enforcement officers after a person has *een taken into custod or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant wa " @nder the $onstitution, among the rights of a person under custodial investigation is the right to have competent and independent counsel prefera*l of his own choice and if the person cannot afford the services of counsel, that he must *e provided with one" >owever, the letters are themselves not inadmissi*le in evidence" The 4etters were validl seized from petitioner and /omero as an incident of a valid arrest" ( ruling that petitionerBs admission that the letters in question were those seized from him and his companion on =e*ruar 1;, 1989 is inadmissi*le in evidence does not e7tend to the e7clusion from evidence of the letters themselves" The letters can stand on their own, *eing the fruits of the crime validl seized during a lawful arrest" That these letters were the ones found in the possession of petitioner and his companion and seized from them was shown * the testimonies of %ela and Tumagan" ,ndeed, petitioner and his co8accused were not convicted solel on the *asis of the signatures found on the letters *ut on other

evidence, nota*l the testimonies of 1B, agents and other prosecution witnesses"

PEOPLE vs. +ANSON (G.R. N*. 1/190&D A2r67 %, /BB0 NATURE OF THE CASE: (ppeal on the decision of the /egional Trial $ourt, Branch C%,,, Nidapawan, $ota*ato promulgated on Septem*er 15, 1995, declaring appellants guilt of the crime of ro**er with rape, and sentencing each of them to the penalt of 7eclusion $erpetua/ and ordering them to pa #A+,+++"++ and #1+,+++"++ in favor of !arites (lcantara and $esario (lcantara, respectivel " FACTS: ,n the evening of !arch 63, 1982, si7 D2E men came to the house of $esario (lcantara threatening to strafe and *urn it should the not *e let in" <nce inside, the masked group of men turned off the lights, hogtied $esario, pushed him facedown and covered him with *lankets" The asked for mone and Teresa gave them #3++" Teresa was then led to the kitchen" -uring this time, her daughter !arites was raped * four men" Then !arites was led to the kitchen where the culprits threatened to a*duct her if her mother would not give them mone " Teresa then gave them an additional #1,+++ while the group took three wristwatches, one can of coffee, and one chicken" Then the left the house, all the while speaking in the !ano*o dialect" Teresa identified appellants 'anson and #inantao as two of the men who ro**ed their house and raped her daughter that night" She testified that she knew appellants since the were their neigh*ors at !ateo" She also claimed that while 'anson and #inantao were masked during the incident, she recognized them through their *od *uilt, ph sical appearance, and their voices while speaking in !ano*o" (ppellant '<04 '(1S<1, for his own defense, declared that he was assisted * a law er when he was investigated and made to sign a sworn statement *efore the police on 'une 62, 1982" But he denied the accusation against him and claimed that he was not assisted * counsel during the custodial investigation" >e claimed that he did not know how to read or write, and that he was made to e7ecute a sworn statement *efore a certain policeman named @lep" <nl after the investigation did

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 44

(tt " Verrudo sign the document" <n cross8e7amination, he said that he was put in 9ail for another crime, ro**er @pon cross8e7amination, !arites admitted that she was not certain of the identit of her perpetrators at the time of the incident or immediatel thereafter" (ccording to her, it was onl after 'oel 'anson was apprehended for another crime, and after he [confessedF to the police, that she was a*le to confirm her suspicion" .hen asked in open court, she was not a*le to satisfactoril e7plain the discrepanc in her initial sworn statement *efore the police and her testimon later" .hat stands out in the testimonies of the victims is that the were uncertain of the identities of the masked men who committed the ro**er and rape that night and anchored their suspicion on the alleged confession of 'oel 'anson" This confession, however, is itself inadmissi*le for failing to meet the constitutional requirements for admissi*ilit " The investigating police officer, #LSgt" #edro ,dpan, also admitted in open court that the sworn statement of appellant 'oel 'anson was taken without the presence of counsel and that this statement together with the waiver of his right to counsel, was alread prepared when it was presented to (tt " Verrudo for signing"

@nder the $onstitution and e7isting law as well as 9urisprudence, a confession to *e admissi*le must satisf the following requirementsI D1E it must *e voluntar 5 D6E it must *e made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel5 DAE it must *e e7press5 and D3E it must *e in writing" ,n this case, it cannot *e said that the waiver of the right to counsel was made knowingl and intelligentl " (ppellant 'oel 'anson was illiterate, and a minor of si7teen D12E ears at the time of the offense" (s held in the case of $eople v! 2onola, where the accused was unschooled and onl nineteen D19E ears old when arrested, it is difficult to *elieve that considering the circumstances, the accused made an intelligent waiver of his right to counsel" ,n such instances, the need for counsel is more pronounced" ,t is also important to mention that the investigating officers alread had a prepared statement when the went to the law er who is supposed to assist appellant 'anson in waiving his right to counsel" =inall , the invalid e7tra9udicial confession of 'oel 'anson cannot *e used against /ick #inantao" (n e7tra9udicial confession * an accused implicating another ma not *e utilized unless repeated in open court or when there is an opportunit for the co8accused to cross8e7amine the confessant on his e7tra9udicial statements" ,t is considered hearsa as against said co8accused under the res inter alios acta rule, which ordains that the rights of a part cannot *e pre9udiced * an act, declaration, or omission of another" =or all the foregoing considerations, the 9udgment of the /egional Trial $ourt finding 'anson and #inantao guilt of the crime of ro**er with rape fails to persuade us that appellants have *een adequatel identified as the perpetrators of the heinous offense" ,n our view, to affirm that 9udgment of conviction on the *asis of contradictor testimon of prosecution witnesses and the flawed e7tra9udicial confession of appellant 'oel 'anson is to sanction a possi*le miscarriage of 9ustice"

ISSUE: ,s the e7tra9udicial confession of 'anson admissi*le as evidence for the prosecutionK N*. !a said confession *e used against co8accused #inantaoK N*.

HELD: $learl , the alleged e7tra9udicial confession of appellant 'oel 'anson cannot *e admitted in evidence" The manner * which it was o*tained violated accusedFs constitutional right to counsel" ,t is well8settled that the $onstitution a*hors an uncounselled confession or admission and whatever information is derived therefrom shall *e regarded as inadmissi*le in evidence against the confessant"

GOVERNMENT vs. PURGANAN (G.R. N*. 1%&1$1D S'23')4'r /%, /BB/

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 45

NATURE OF THE CASE: #etition for $ertiorari under /ule 25 of the /ules of $ourt, seeking to void and set aside the <rders dated !a 6A, 6++1 and 'ul A, 6++1 issued * the /egional Trial $ourt D/T$E of !anila, Branch 36" FACTS: #ursuant to the e7isting /#8@S 07tradition Treat , the @S) requested for the e7tradition of respondent, !ark 'imenez" @pon learning the request for his e7tradition, 'imenez sought and was granted a T/<, which prohi*ited the -<' from filing with the /T$ a petition for his e7tradition" >owever, T/< was assailed * the S<' in a petition which resolution holding that 'imenez was *ereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the e7tradition process" /espondent was the su*9ect of an arrest warrant issued * the @S, which warrant had *een issued in connection with the charges in certain criminal offenses" ,n order to prevent the flight of 'imenez, the petition pra ed for the issuance of an order for his Gimmediate arrestH pursuant to Section 2 of #- 1o" 1+29" /espondent pra ed and was granted *efore the /T$ that petitionerFs application for an arrest warrant *e set for hearing5 allowing in an e7tradition case to *e heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest" (fter the hearing, 'imenez sought an alternative pra erI that in case a warrant should issue, he *e allowed to post *ail in the amount of #1++N" Thereafter, the court directed the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fi7ing *ail for his temporar li*ert at #1! in cash" #rovisional li*ert was granted after he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash *ond" #etitioner now assails the grant of *ail to respondent contending thatI o (n e7tradition court has no power to authorize *ail, in the a*sence of an law that provides for such power" Section 1A, (rticle ,,, Dright to *ail clauseE of the 198; #hilippine $onstitution and Section 3, /ule 113 DBailE of the /ules of $ourt, o

as amended, which OwereP relied upon, cannot *e used as *ases for allowing *ail in e7tradition proceedings" The presumption is against *ail in e7tradition proceedings or proceedings leading to e7tradition" <n the assumption that *ail is availa*le in e7tradition proceedings or proceedings leading to e7tradition, *ail is not a matter of right *ut onl of discretion upon clear showing * the applicant of the e7istence of special circumstances" (ssuming that *ail is a matter of discretion in e7tradition proceedings, the pu*lic respondent received no evidence of [special circumstances which ma 9ustif release on *ail" The risk that 'imenez will flee is high, and no special circumstance e7ists that will engender a well8founded *elief that he will not flee" The conditions attached to the grant of *ail are ineffectual and do not ensure compliance * the #hilippines with its o*ligations under the /#8@S 07tradition Treat " The $ourt of (ppeals /esolution promulgated on !a 1+, 6++1 in the case entitled [0duardo T" /odriguez et al" vs" The >on" #residing 'udge, /T$, Branch 1;, !anila,F $(8)"/" S# 1o" 23589, relied upon * the pu*lic respondent in granting *ail, had *een recalled *efore the issuance of the su*9ect *ail orders"F:

ISSUELS: 1" .<1 a potential e7traditee Dlike respondentE is entitled to notice and hearing *efore the issuance of a warrant of arrest" N*" 6" .<1 there was a denial of the respondentFs right to *ail" N*n'. HELD: 1. On 35' 4as6s *= EI3ra-636*n La<

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 46

,t is significant to note that Section 2 of #- 1+29, our 07tradition 4aw, uses the word :immediate: to qualif the arrest of the accused" This qualification would *e rendered nugator * setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant" >earing entails sending notices to the opposing parties, receiving facts and arguments 3; from them, and giving them time to prepare and present such facts and arguments" (rrest su*sequent to a hearing can no longer *e considered :immediate": The law could not have intended the word as a mere superfluit *ut, on the whole, as a means of imparting a sense of urgenc and swiftness in the determination of whether a warrant of arrest should *e issued"

n*3 4' s84>':3'- 3* 35' 7*ss *= =r''-*) as 35'r'a=3'r 5' <*87- 4' 'n3637'- 3* a:E8633a7, 8n7'ss 56s (8673 4' 2r*v'- 4';*n- r'as*na47' -*843.N I3 =*77*<s 35a3 35' :*ns363836*na7 2r*v6s6*n *n 4a67 <677 n*3 a227; 3* a :as' 76H' 'I3ra-636*n, <5'r' 35' 2r's8)236*n *= 6nn*:'n:' 6s n*3 a3 6ss8'. T5' 2r*v6s6*n 6n 35' C*ns363836*n s3a36n( 35a3 35' Mr6(53 3* 4a67 s5a77 n*3 4' 6)2a6r'- 'v'n <5'n 35' 2r6v67'(' *= 35' <r63 *= 5a4'as :*r28s 6s s8s2'n-'-N -*'s n*3 -'3ra:3 =r*) 35' r87' 35a3 35' :*ns363836*na7 r6(53 3* 4a67 6s ava67a47' *n7; 6n :r6)6na7 2r*:''-6n(s. ,t must *e noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of ha*eas corpus finds application Gonl to persons 9udiciall charged for re*ellion of offenses inherent in or directl connected with invasion"H >ence, the second sentence in the constitutional provision on *ail merel emphasizes the right to *ail in criminal proceedings for the aforementioned offenses" ,t cannot *e taken to mean that the right is availa*le even in e7tradition proceedings that are not criminal in nature" In 35' a4s'n:' *= an; 2r*v6s6*n- 6n 35' C*ns363836*n, 35' 7a< *r 35' 3r'a3;- 'I2r'ss7; (8aran3''6n( 35' r6(53 3* 4a67 6n 'I3ra-636*n 2r*:''-6n(s, a-*236n( 35' 2ra:36:' *= n*3 (ran36n( 35') 4a67, as a ('n'ra7 r87', <*87- 4' a s3'2 3*<ar-s -'3'rr6n( =8(636v's =r*) :*)6n( 3* 35' P5676226n's 3* 56-' =r*) *r 'va-' 35'6r 2r*s':83*rs. Bail is not a matter of right in e7tradition cases" >owever, the 9udiciar has the constitutional dut to cur* grave a*use of discretion and t rann , as well as the power to promulgate rules to protect and enforce constitutional rights" =urthermore, we *elieve that the right is *road enough to induce the grant of *asic fairness to e7traditees" ,ndeed, the right to due process e7tends to the Glife, li*ert or propert H of ever person" ,t is Gd namic and resilient, adapta*le to ever situation calling for its application"H (ccordingl and 3* 4's3 s'rv' 35' 'n-s *= >8s36:', <' 4'76'v' an- s* 5*7- 35a3, a=3'r a 2*3'n36a7 'I3ra-63' 5as 4''n arr's3'- *r 27a:'- 8n-'r 35' :8s3*-; *= 35' 7a<, 4a67 )a; 4' a2276'- =*r an- (ran3'- as an 'I:'236*n, *n7; 82*n a :7'ar an- :*nv6n:6n( s5*<6n(: 1. T5a3, *n:' (ran3'- 4a67, 35' a2276:an3 <677 n*3 4' a =76(53 r6sH *r a -an('r 3* 35' :*))8n63;D an/. 35a3 35'r' 'I6s3 s2':6a7, 58)an63ar6an an- :*)2'776n( :6r:8)s3an:'s 6n:78-6n(, as a )a33'r *= r':62r*:63;, 35*s' :63'- 4; 35' 56(5's3 :*8r3 6n 35' r'E8's36n( s3a3' <5'n 63 (ran3s 2r*v6s6*na7 764'r3; 6n 'I3ra-636*n :as's 35'r'6n.

On 35' 4as6s *= 35' C*ns363836*n @pon receipt of a petition for e7tradition and its supporting documents, the 9udge must stud them and make, as soon as possi*le, a prima facie finding whether DaE the are sufficient in form and su*stance, D*E the show compliance with the 07tradition Treat and 4aw, and DcE the person sought is e7tradita*le" (t his discretion, the 9udge ma require the su*mission of further documentation or ma personall e7amine the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner" ,f, in spite of this stud and e7amination, no prima facie finding is possi*le, the petition ma *e dismissed at the discretion of the 9udge" <n the other hand, if the presence of a prima facie case is determined, then the magistrate must immediatel issue a warrant for the arrest of the e7traditee, who is at the same time summoned to answer the petition and to appear at scheduled summar hearings" #rior to the issuance of the warrant, the 9udge must not inform or notif the potential e7traditee of the pendenc of the petition, lest the latter *e given the opportunit to escape and frustrate the proceedings" ,n our opinion, the foregoing procedure will :*est serve the ends of 9ustice: in e7tradition cases" 6" (s suggested * the use *= 35' <*r- M:*nv6:36*nN, 35' :*ns363836*na7 2r*v6s6*n *n 4a67 E8*3'- a4*v', as <'77 as S':36*n % *= R87' 11% *= 35' R87's *= C*8r3, a2276's *n7; <5'n a 2'rs*n 5as 4''n arr's3'- an- -'3a6n'- =*r v6*7a36*n *= P5676226n' :r6)6na7 7a<s. I3 -*'s n*3 a227; 3* 'I3ra-636*n 2r*:''-6n(s, 4':a8s' 'I3ra-636*n :*8r3s -* n*3 r'n-'r >8-()'n3s *= :*nv6:36*n *r a:E8633a7. M*r'*v'r, 35' :*ns363836*na7 r6(53 3* 4a67 M=7*<s =r*) 35' 2r's8)236*n *= 6nn*:'n:' 6n =av*r *= 'v'r; a::8s'- <5* s5*87-

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 47

NOTES: 07tradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of suppressing crime * facilitating the arrest and the custodial transfer of a fugitive from one state to the other"

/espondent was then convicted for the crime charged against him" Su*sequentl , respondent applied for *ail, which the /T$ denied in view that the circumstances of the accused indicate pro*a*ilit of flight and that there is an undue risk that the accused ma commit a similar offense, if released on *ail pending appeal" <n appeal to the $(, the /T$ decision was affirmed" /espondent filed and was denied a !otion to =i7 Bail with !anifestation" >owever, *ail was granted in the $(, which temporar li*ert was premised not on the grounds stated in his !otion for Bail *ut in the higher interest of su*stantial 9ustice and considering the new trial granted in the case Dappellant alread of old age and is not in the *est of healthE" #etitioner argues that *ail should not *e granted to respondent since the crime charged against him is punisha*le * reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong" >ence, this petition

F6v' P*s387a3's *= EI3ra-636*n 1" 07tradition ,s a !a9or ,nstrument for the Suppression of $rime" 6" The /equesting State .ill (ccord -ue #rocess to the (ccused A" The #roceedings (re Sui )eneris 3" $ompliance Shall Be in )ood =aith 5" There ,s an @nderl ing /isk of =light EI3ra-636*n is essentiall an e7ecutive, not a 9udicial, responsi*ilit arising out of the presidential power to conduct foreign relations and to implement treaties" Thus, the 07ecutive -epartment of government has *road discretion in its dut and power of implementation"

ISSUE: .<1 respondent can *e granted *ail" HELD: N* The right to *ail emanates from the right to *e presumed innocent" ,t is accorded to a person in the custod of the law who ma *e, * reason of the presumption of innocence he en9o s, *e allowed provisional li*ert upon filing of a securit to guarantee his appearance *efore an court, as required under specified conditions" I= 35' 2'na73; 6)2*s'- 4; 35' 3r6a7 :*8r3 6s 6)2r6s*n)'n3 'I:''-6n( s6I (6 ;'ars, 35' a::8s'- s5a77 4' -'n6'- 4a67 , or his *ail shall *e cancelled upon a showing * the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstancesI DaE That he is a recidivist, quasi8recidivist, or ha*itual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated * the circumstance of reiteration5 D*E That he has previousl escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his *ail without valid 9ustification5 DcE That he committed the offense while under pro*ation, parole, or conditional pardon5 DdE That the circumstances of his case indicate the pro*a*ilit of flight if released on *ail5 or DeE That there is undue risk that he ma commit another crime during the pendenc of the appeal"

PEOPLE vs. FIT!GERALD (G.R. N*. 1%9$/0D O:3*4'r /$, /BB6 NATURE OF THE CASE: #etition for /eview on %ertiorari under /ule 35 of the /ules of $ourt of the (ugust A1, 6++1 /esolution of the $ourt of (ppeals D$(E in $(8)"/" $/ 1o" 6+3A1 which granted the !otion for Bail of accused8 appellant, herein respondent %ictor Neith =itzgerald, D=itzgeraldE" FACTS: /espondent, %ictor Neith =itzgerald, an (ustralian citizen was charged *efore the /T$ of <langapo, with violation of (rt" ,,, Sec" 5, par" DaE, su*paragraph D5E of /"(" 1o ;21+ for inducing a 1A8 ear old minor to engage in prostitution and thereafter having carnal knowledge of her"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 48

.a67 6s n*3 a s6:H 2ass =*r an a676n( *r a('- -'3a6n'' *r 2r6s*n'r n''-6n( )'-6:a7 :ar' *83s6-' 35' 2r6s*n =a:6763;. A )'r' :7a6) *= 677n'ss 6s n*3 a (r*8n- =*r 4a67. ,t ma *e that the trend now is for courts to permit *ail for prisoners who are seriousl sick" There ma also *e an e7isting proposition for the Gselective decarceration of older prisonersH *ased on findings that recidivism rates decrease as age increases"

the *urden of showing that he will not flee once *ail is granted" ,f after his arrest and if the trial court finds that he is no flight risk, it grants him *ail" The grant of the *ail, presupposes that the co8petitioner has alread presented evidence to prove her right to *e on *ail, that she is no flight risk, and the trial court had alread e7ercised its sound discretion and had alread determined that under the $onstitution and laws in force, co8petitioner is entitled to provisional release" .e emphasize that *ail ma *e granted to a possi*le e7traditee onl upon a clear and convincing showing D1E that he will not *e a flight risk or a danger to the communit , an- D6E that there e7ist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances" $onsidering that she has not *een shown to *e a flight risk nor a danger to the communit , she is entitled to notice and hearing *efore her *ail could *e cancelled" Based on the record, we find that, a*sent prior notice and hearing, the *ailFs cancellation was in violation of her right to due process" G*v'rn)'n3 *= H*n( #*n( vs. O7a76a Fa:3s: 'uan !uQoz was charged *efore a >ong Nong $ourt with several counts of offenses in violation of >ong Nong laws" ,f convicted, he faces a 9ail term of ; to 13 ears for each charge" (fter 'uan !uQoz was arrested in the #hilippines, the >ong Nong Special (dministrative /egion filed with the /T$ of !anila a petition for the e7tradition of 'uan !uQoz" <n -ecem*er 6+, 6++1, 'udge C of /T$8!anila allowed 'uan !uQoz to post *ail" >owever, the government of >ong Nong alleged that the trial court committed grave a*use of discretion amounting to lack or e7cess of 9urisdiction in admitting him to *ail *ecause Gthere is nothing in the $onstitution or statutor law providing that a potential e7traditee a right to *ail, the right *eing limited solel to criminal proceedings"H Iss8': .<1 'uan !unoz, a potential e7tradite, will *e granted *ail on the *asis of clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk and will a*ide with all the orders and processes of the e7tradition courtK H'7-: &es" ,n a unanimous decision the S$ remanded to the !anila /T$, to determine whether 'uan !uQoz is entitled to *ail on the *asis of Gclear and convincing evidence"H ,f !uQoz is not entitled to such, the trial court should

Gar:6a #p v" Sandigan*a an %alero v" $(

R*-r6E8'F vs. Pr's6-6n( +8-(' Fa:3s: This case stemmed from the #0T,T,<1 =</ 0CT/(-,T,<1 * the government of the @nited States of (merica through the -epartment of 'ustice against 0duardo and ,melda /odriquez" (fter their arrest, the applied for *ail which the trial court granted" ,t was for one million pesos each" #etitioners then posted cash *onds" The @S government moved for the reconsideration of the grant of *ail, *ut the motion was denied * the trial court" The petitionerFs *ail was cancelled after the government of @S filed a motion for reconsideration through the Supreme $ourt" The petitioners then filed for !otion for /econsideration of the cancellation of their *ail" Iss8': .<1 in prior notice and hearing in e7tradition case are required *efore *ail is cancelledK (nd what constitutes a Gspecial circumstanceH to *e e7empt from the no8*ail rule in e7tradition casesK H'7-: (n the case of $urganan , we said that a prospective e7traditee is not entitled to notice and hearing *efore the issuance of a warrant of arrest, *ecause notif ing him *efore his arrest onl tips him of his pending arrest" But this is for cases pending the issuance of a warrant of arrest, n*3 in a cancellation of a *ail that had *een issued after determination that the e7traditee is a no8flight risk" The polic is that a prospective e7traditee is arrested and detained to avoid his flight from 9ustice" <n the e7traditee lies

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 49

order the cancellation of his *ail *ond and his immediate detention5 and thereafter, conduct the e7tradition proceedings with dispatch" G,f *ail can *e granted in deportation cases, we see no 9ustification wh it should not also *e allowed in e7tradition cases" 4ikewise, considering that the @niversal -eclaration of >uman /ights applies to deportation cases, there is no reason wh it cannot *e invoked in e7tradition cases" (fter all, *oth are administrative proceeding where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue,H the $ourt said" $iting the various international treaties giving recognition and protection to human rights, the $ourt saw the need to ree7amine its ruling in )overnment of @nited States of (merica v" 'udge #urganan which limited the e7ercise of the right to *ail to criminal proceedings" ,t said that while our e7tradition law does not provide for the grant of *ail to an e7traditee, there is no provision prohi*iting him or her from filing a motion for *ail, a right under the $onstitution" ,t further said that even if a potential e7tradite is a criminal, an e7tradition proceeding is not * its nature criminal, for it is not punishment for a crime, even though such punishment ma follow e7tradition" ,t added that Ge7tradition is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of potential e7traditee" 1or is it a full8*lown civil action, *ut one that is merel administrative in character"

'ustification for confinement with its underl ing rationale of pu*lic self8 defense applies equall to detention prisoners like petitioner or convicted prisoners8appellants like 'alos9os" FACTS: #etitioner Trillanes ,% is on trial for coup dFetat in relation to the G<akwood ,ncident"H ,n the 6++; elections, he won a seat in the Senate with a si78 ear term commencing at noon on 'une A+, 6++;" #etitioner now asks the $ourt that he *e allowed to attend all official functions of the Senate, alleging mainl that his case is distinct from that of 'alos9os as his case is still pending resolution whereas that in the 'alos9os case, there was alread conviction" ISSUE: .hether or not valid classification *etween petitioner and 'alos9os e7ists RULING: The petition is *ereft of merit" ,n attempting to strike a distinction *etween his case and that of 'alos9os, petitioner chiefl points out that former /ep" /omeo 'alos9os D'alos9osE was alread convicted, al*eit his conviction was pending appeal, when he filed a motion similar to petitionerBs <mni*us !otion, whereas he DpetitionerE is a mere detention prisoner" >e asserts that he continues to en9o civil and political rights since the presumption of innocence is still in his favor" =urther, petitioner illustrates that 'alos9os was charged with crimes involving moral turpitude, i"e", two counts of statutor rape and si7 counts of acts of lasciviousness, whereas he is indicted for coup dBetat which is regarded as a :political offense": =urthermore, petitioner 9ustifies in his favor the presence of no*le causes in e7pressing legitimate grievances against the rampant and institutionalized practice of graft and corruption in the (=#" ( plain reading of 'alos9os suggests otherwise, however"

Sa7aFar )acal v" 'udge ,nfante (swat v" )alido Tr677an's IV vs. P6)'n3'7 )"/" 1o" 1;981;, 'une 6;, 6++8 0lection to $ongress is not a reasona*le classification in criminal law enforcement as the functions and duties of the office are not su*stantial distinctions which lift one from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in li*ert of movement"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 50

The distinctions cited * petitioner were not elemental in the pronouncement in 'alos9os that election to $ongress is not a reasona*le classification in criminal law enforcement as the functions and duties of the office are not su*stantial distinctions which lift one from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in li*ert of movement" ,t cannot *e gainsaid that a person charged with a crime is taken into custod for purposes of the administration of 9ustice" 1o less than the $onstitution providesI (ll persons, e7cept those charged with offenses punisha*le * reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, *efore conviction, *e *aila*le * sufficient sureties, or *e released on recognizance as ma *e provided * law" The right to *ail shall not *e impaired even when the privilege of the writ of ha*eas corpus is suspended" 07cessive *ail shall not *e required" D@nderscoring suppliedE The /ules also state that no person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punisha*le * reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall *e admitted to *ail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal action" That the cited provisions appl equall to rape and coup dBetat cases, *oth *eing punisha*le * reclusion perpetua, is *e ond cavil" .ithin the class of offenses covered * the stated range of imposa*le penalties, there is clearl no distinction as to the political comple7ion of or moral turpitude involved in the crime charged" ,n the present case, it is uncontroverted that petitionerBs application for *ail and for release on recognizance was denied" The determination that the evidence of guilt is strong, whether ascertained in a hearing of an application for *ail or imported from a trial courtBs 9udgment of conviction, 9ustifies the detention of an accused as a valid curtailment of his right to provisional li*ert " This accentuates the proviso that the denial of the right to *ail in such cases is :regardless of the stage of the criminal action": Such 9ustification for confinement with its underl ing rationale of pu*lic self8defense applies equall to detention prisoners like petitioner or convicted prisoners8appellants like 'alos9os"

#etitioner goes on to allege that unlike 'alos9os who attempted to evade trial, he is not a flight risk since he voluntaril surrendered to the proper authorities and such can *e proven * the numerous times he was allowed to travel outside his place of detention" Su*sequent events reveal the contrar , however" The assailed <rders augured well when on 1ovem*er 69, 6++; petitioner went past securit detail for some reason and proceeded from the courtroom to a posh hotel to issue certain statements" The account, du**ed this time as the :!anila #en ,ncident,: proves that petitionerBs argument *ites the dust" The risk that he would escape ceased to *e neither remote nor nil as, in fact, the cause for fore*oding *ecame real" !oreover, circumstances indicating pro*a*ilit of flight find relevance as a factor in ascertaining the reasona*le amount of *ail and in cancelling a discretionar grant of *ail" ,n cases involving non8*aila*le offenses, what is controlling is the determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong" <nce it is esta*lished that it is so, *ail shall *e denied as it is neither a matter of right nor of discretion" COMMENDADOR VS. DE VILLA Fa:3s: The petitioners in )"/" 1os" 9A1;; and 92938 who are officers of the (=# were directed to appear in person *efore the #re8Trial ,nvestigating <fficers for the alleged participation the failed coup on -ecem*er 1 to 9, 1989" #etitioners now claim that there was no pre8trial investigation of the charges as mandated * (rticle of .ar ;1" ( motion for dismissal was denied" 1ow, their motion for reconsideration" (lleging denial of due process" ,n )"/" 1o" 95+6+, 4tc 'acinto 4igot applied for *ail on 'une 5, 199+, *ut the application was denied * )$! 1o"13" >e filed with the /T$ a petition for certiorari and mandamus with pra er for provisional li*ert and a writ of preliminar in9unction" 'udge of )$! then granted the provisional li*ert " >owever he was not released immediatel " The /T$ now declared that even militar men facing court martial proceedings can avail the right to *ail"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 51

The private respondents in )"/" 1o" 9;353 filed with S$ a petition for ha*eas corpus on the ground that the were *eing detained in $amp $rame without charges" The petition was referred to /T$" =inding after hearing that no formal charges had *een filed against the petitioners after more than a ear after their arrest, the trial court ordered their release" Iss8's: D1E .hether or 1ot there was a denial of due process" D6E .hether or not there was a violation of the accused right to *ail" H'7-: 1< denial of due process" #etitioners were given several opportunities to present their side at the pre8trial investigation, first at the scheduled hearing of =e*ruar 16, 199+, and then again after the denial of their motion of =e*ruar 61, 199+, when the were given until !arch ;, 199+, to su*mit their counter8affidavits" <n that date, the filed instead a ver*al motion for reconsideration which the were again asked to su*mit in writing" The had *een e7pressl warned in the su*poena that :failure to su*mit counter8 affidavits on the date specified shall *e deemed a waiver of their right to su*mit controverting evidence": #etitioners have a right to pre8emptor challenge" D/ight to challenge validit of mem*ers of )LS$!E ,t is argued that since the private respondents are officers of the (rmed =orces accused of violations of the (rticles of .ar, the respondent courts have no authorit to order their release and otherwise interfere with the court8 martial proceedings" This is without merit" \ The /egional Trial $ourt has concurrent 9urisdiction with the $ourt of (ppeals and the Supreme $ourt over petitions for certiorari, prohi*ition or mandamus against inferior courts and other *odies and on petitions for ha*eas corpus and quo warranto" The right to *ail invoked * the private respondents has traditionall not *een recognized and is not availa*le in the militar , as an e7ception to the general rule em*odied in the Bill of /ights" The right to a speed trial is given more emphasis in the militar where the right to *ail does not e7ist"

<n the contention that the had not *een charged after more than one ear from their arrest, there was su*stantial compliance with the requirements of due process and the right to a speed trial" The (=# Special ,nvestigating $ommittee was a*le to complete the pre8charge investigation onl after one ear *ecause hundreds of officers and thousands of enlisted men were involved in the failed coup" (ccordingl , in )"/" 1o" 9A1;;, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit" ,n )"/" 1o" 92938, the petition is granted, and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to e7ercise the right of peremptor challenge under article 18 of the articles of war" ,n )"/" 1os" 95+6+ and 9;353, the petitions are also granted, and the orders of the respondent courts for the release of the private respondents are here* reversed and set aside" 1o costs"

R*-r6(8'F S3an-ar-s =*r F6I6n( .a67: V677as'ns*r v. A4an* Fa:3s: 1" ?uestions presented in this petition for certiorari, took root in $riminal $ase for the murder of Boac #olice Sgt" !adla, lodged * the #rovincial =iscal against petitioner" ]#etitioner, defendant *elow, was, on motion, admitted to a #2+T8*ail" ]The amount of the *ond was, on ver*al representation of petitionerBs wife, reduced to #3+T" #etitioner posted a propert *ond, was set at provisional li*ert " 6" Before arraignment on the murder charge, however, respondent #rovincial =iscal amended the information" ] >e accused petitioner with :-irect (ssault @pon an (gent of a #erson in (uthorit with !urder": ] /espondent 9udge cancelled petitionerBs *ond, ordered his immediate arrest" A" <n petitionerFs !/, respondent 9udge, after hearing, resolved to admit him to *ail provided he puts up a cash *ond of #2+T" ]<n petitionerBs motion that the original *ond previousl given *e reinstated, respondent 9udge resolved to fi7 :the *ond anew in real propert in the amount of #2+T, *ut to *e posted onl * residents of the province of

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 52

!arinduque actuall sta ing therein: with properties which :must *e in the possession and ownership of said residents for five ears": 3" #etitioner came to this $ourt on certiorari, with a pra er for preliminar in9unction" ]>e sought to set aside respondent 9udgeBs orders5 to reinstate the *ail *ond theretofore approved * respondent 9udge and for other reliefs" ]>e charges respondent 9udge having acted without an or in e7cess of his 9urisdiction and with grave a*use of discretion, and with violation of the $onstitution and the /ules of $ourt in issuing the disputed orders" Iss8': -oes the #2+T *ond fi7ed * respondent 9udge transgress the constitutional in9unction that :e7cessive *ail shall not *e required:K SC 5'7-: 1" #etitionerBs su*mission is that he is a mere government emplo ee, earning *ut a monthl salar of #61+"++, and the sole *readwinner of a famil of five" ] Section 16, /ule 113, /ules of $ourtI :the court ma , upon good cause shown, either increase or reduce the amount: of the *ail, and that :defendant ma *e committed to custod unless he gives *ail in the increased amount he is called upon to furnish": ](long with the courtBs power to grant *ail in *aila*le cases is its discretion to fi7 the amount thereof, to increase or reduce the same" ]The question of whether *ail is e7cessive :la s with the court to determine": 6" ,n the matter of *ail fi7ing, courts are to *e guided at all times * the purpose for which *ail is required" ] Section 1, /ule 113, /ules of $ourtI :the securit required and given for the release of a person who is in the custod of the law, that he will appear *efore an court in which his appearance ma *e required as stipulated in the *ail *ond or recognizance": ] Section 6I the condition of the *ail is that :defendant shall answer the complaint or information in the court in which it is filed or to which it ma *e transferred for trial, and after conviction, if the case is appealed to the $=, upon application supported * an undertaking or *ail, that he will, surrender himself in e7ecution of such 9udgment as the appellate court ma render, or that, in case cause, is to *e tried anew or remanded for a new trial, he will appear in the court to which it ma *e remanded and su*mit himself to the orders and processes thereof": A" #rinciples governing *ail fi7ingI D1E a*ilit of the accused to give *ail5 D6E nature of the offense5 DAE #enalt for the offense charged5 D3E character and reputation of the accused5 D5E health of the accused5 D2E character and

strength of the evidence5 D;E pro*a*ilit of the accused appearing in trial5 D8E forfeiture of other *onds5 D9E whether the accused was a fugitive from 9ustice when arrested5 and D1+E if the accused is under *ond for appearance at trial in other cases"" 3" .e see no discerni*le a*use of discretion, given the facts and the law, when respondent 9udge fi7ed petitionerBs *ail at #2+T" ]Section 9, /ule 113, /ules of $ourtI ?ualification of sureties" J The necessar qualifications of sureties to a *ail *ond shall *e as followsI DaE 0ach of them must *e a resident householder or freeholder within the #hilippines" 777 ].e read this statute to mean that the directive that *ondsmen *e resident householders or freeholders in the #h, is *ut a minimum requirement" ]/eason for this is that *ondsmen in criminal cases, residing outside of the #h, are not within the reach of the processes of its courts" ],t is to *e treated :as cumulative, rather than e7clusive, of the inherent power: of the courts to determine whether *ail proffered should *e accepted" 3" .e look in retrospect at the situation confronting respondent 9udge" ].hat prompted him to require as condition that petitionerBs *ondsmen *e residents of the province of !arinduque actuall sta ing thereinK ]/espondent 9udge reasons out that it has *een his e7perience that :it is hard to send notices to people outside the province": ]The posture taken * respondent 9udge does not offend the good sense of 9ustice" ]Bail is given to secure appearance of the accused" ,f *ondsmen reside in far awa places, even if within the #h, the purpose of *ail ma *e frustrated" 5" (lso assailed is the requirement that properties to *e offered as *ond must *e :in the possession and ownership of the sureties for at least 5 ears": ]/espondent 9udge relies on $ircular 6 of the Secretar of 'ustice, addressed, to 'udges of =irst ,nstance" That circular recites that it had *een *rought to the attention of the -<' that in certain provinces, unscrupulous persons who are spurious landowners, have *een accepted as sureties" ]Secretar then suggested that :DiEt ma *e a good polic not to accept as *ail *onds real properties not covered * certificate of title unless the have *een declared for ta7ation purposes in favor of the person offering them as *ond for at least five D5E ears": 2" /espondent 9udgeBs order is here confirmed considering the overall environmental circumstances" ].e are not to *e understood as la ing down here specifics in *ail fi7ing, *ail approval or *ail denial"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 53

]-iscretion, indeed, is with the court called upon to rule on the question of *ail" ].e must stress, however, that where conditions imposed upon a defendant seeking *ail would amount to a refusal thereof and render nugator the constitutional right to *ail, we will not hesitate to e7ercise our supervisor powers to provide the required remed "^ ].e vote to dismiss the petition for certiorari, and to dissolve the writ of preliminar in9unction issued herein" S3an-ar-s =*r F6I6n( .a67: D' 7a Ca)ara v. Ena(' Na38r': (n order of respondent 'udge 0nage, fi7ing the *ail of petitioner, de la $amara, in the sum of #1,195,6++"++ is assailed in this petition for certiorari as repugnant to the constitutional mandate prohi*iting e7cessive *ail" ]/elief sought setting aside the a*ove order * reducing the amount of *ail to #3+T cannot *e granted, as in the meanwhile, petitioner had escaped from the provincial 9ail, thus rendering this case moot and academic" ],t is deemed advisa*le, however, for the guidance of lower court 9udges, to set forth anew the controlling and authoritative doctrines that should *e o*served in fi7ing the amount of the *ail sought in order that full respect *e accorded to such a constitutional right" Fa:3s: 1" -e la $amara, !unicipal !a or of !agsa sa , !isamis <riental, was arrested and detained at the #rovincial 'ail of (gusan, for his alleged participation in the killing of 13 and the wounding of 16 other la*orers of the Tirador 4ogging $o", (gusan del Sur, on 1928" ] #rovincial =iscal of (gusan filed with the $=, a case for multiple frustrated murder and another for multiple murder against petitioner and his co8 accused" ] $ame an application for *ail filed * petitioner with the lower court, premised on the assertion that there was no evidence to link him with such fatal incident" >e mantained his innocence" 6" /espondent 'udge issued an order granting petitionerBs application for *ail, admitting that there was a failure on the part of the prosecution to prove that petitioner would flee even if he had the opportunit , *ut fi7ed the amount of the *ail *ond at the e7cessive amount of #1,195,6++"++, the sum of #83+T for the information charging multiple murder and #A55,6++"++ for the offense of multiple frustrated murder" ]Then came the allegation that Sec" of 'ustice (*ad Santos, upon *eing informed of such order, sent a telegram to respondent 'udge stating that the

*ond required :is e7cessive: and suggesting that a #3+T *ond, either in cash or propert , would *e reasona*le" ]There was a !/ to reduce the amount" ]/espondent 'udge however remained adamant" A" /espondent 'udge su*mitted on a supplemental answer wherein he alleged that petitioner escaped from the provincial 9ail and had since then remained at large" Iss8': .L1 the *ond required is e7cessive" SC 5'7-: 1" The fact that this case is moot and academic should not preclude from setting forth the unequivocal command of the $onstitution that e7cessive *ail shall not *e required" 6" Before conviction, ever person is *aila*le e7cept if charged with capital offenses when the evidence of guilt is strong" ]This flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of ever accused who should not *e su*9ected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he would *e entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt *e proved *e ond reasona*le dou*t" ]#er $oole I ( *ail is a :mode short of confinement which would, with reasona*le certaint , insure the attendance of the accused: for the su*sequent trial" A" .here, however, the right to *ail e7ists, it should not *e rendered nugator * requiring a sum that is e7cessive" ],n a @S decision, :the sole permissi*le function of mone *ail is to assure the accusedBs presence at trial, and declared that :*ail set at a higher figure than an amount reasona*l calculated to fulfill thus purpose is :e7cessive: under the 0ighth (mendment": 3" 1othing can *e clearer, therefore, than that the challenged order of (ugust 1+, 19;+ fi7ing the amount of #1,195,6++"++ as the *ail that should *e posted * petitioner, the sum of #83+T for the information charging multiple murder, there *eing 13 victims, and the sum of #A55,6++ for the other offense of multiple frustrated murder, there *eing 16, is clearl violative of constitutional provision" ]@nder the circumstances, there *eing onl 6 offenses charged, the amount required as *ail could not possi*l e7ceed #5+T for the information for murder and #65T for the other information for frustrated murder" ]1or should it *e ignored that -<' did recommend the total sum of #3+T for the two offenses"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 54

5" There is an attempt on the part of respondent 'udge to 9ustif what, on its face, appears to *e indefensi*le * the alleged reliance on %illaseQor v" (*ano enumerating the guidelines in the fi7ing of *ailI :D1E a*ilit of the accused to give *ail5 D6E nature of the offense5 DAE penalt for the offense charged5 D3E character and reputation of the accused5 D5E health of the accused5 D2E character and strength of the evidence5 D;E pro*a*ilit of the accused appearing in trial5 D8E forfeiture of other *onds5 D9E whether the accused was a fugitive from 9ustice when arrested5 and D1+E if the accused is under *ond for appearance at trial in other cases": ]/espondent 'udge ignored the decisive consideration appearing at the end of the a*ove opinionI :-iscretion, indeed, is with the court called upon to rule on the question of *ail" .e must stress, however, that where conditions imposed upon a defendant seeking *ail would amount to a refusal thereof and render nugator the constitutional right to *ail, we will not hesitate to e7ercise our supervisor powers to provide the required remed ": 2" There is reason to *elieve that an person in the position of petitioner would under the circumstances *e una*le to resists thoughts of escaping from confinement, reduced as he must have *een to a state of desperation" ],n the same *reath that he was told he could *e *ailed out, the e7cessive amount required could onl mean that provisional li*ert would *e *e ond his reach" ,t would have *een more forthright if he were informed categoricall that such a right could not *e availed of" ].ith petitioner, however, having escaped from the provincial 9ail, no ruling can *e had on his plea to nullif the a*ove order" ]This case is dismissed for *eing moot and academic" S3an-ar-s =*r F6I6n( .a67: Ca2 +r v. CA Na38r': The right against e7cessive *ail, and the li*ert of a*ode and travel, are *eing invoked to set aside two resolutions of the $( which fi7ed *ail at #5"5! and imposed conditions on change of residence and travel a*road" Fa:3s: 1" =or misappropriating amounts equivalent to #5"5!, petitioner was convicted of estafa * /T$ #asig and was sentenced to 3 ears and 6 months of #$ minimum 8 8 ears of #! ma7imum, Gin addition to 1 ear for each additional #1+T in e7cess of #66T *ut in no case shall it e7ceed 6+ ears"H ]>e filed a notice of appeal, and moved to *e allowed provisional li*ert under the cash *ond he had filed earlier in the proceedings" ]The motion was denied * the trial court"

6" #etitioner filed with $( a !otion to =i7 Bail =or the #rovisional 4i*ert of (ccused8(ppellant #ending (ppeal, invoking the last paragraph of Section 5, /ule 113, 199; /evised /ules of $ourt" ]Sol)en opined that petitioner ma *e allowed to post *ail in the amount of #5"5! and *e required to secure Ga certificationLguarant from the !a or of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to *e so until final 9udgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must *e with prior notice to the court and private complainant"H ]#etitioner filed a /epl , contending that the proposed *ail of #5"5! was violative of his right against e7cessive *ail" ] $( upheld the recommendation of the Sol)enI &ap, 'r" is here* (44<.0- T< #<ST B(,4 in the amount of #5"5!, su*9ect to the following conditions, viz"I D1E >e secures a certificationLguarant from the !a or of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to *e a resident therein until final 9udgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must *e with prior notice to the court5 D6E The $ommission of ,mmigration and -eportation D$,-E is here* directed to issue a hold departure order against accused8appellant5 and DAE (ccused8appellant shall forthwith surrender his passport to the -ivision $lerk of $ourt for safekeeping until the court orders its return5 D3E (n violation of the aforesaid conditions shall cause the forfeiture of accused8appellantFs *ail *ond, the dismissal of appeal and his immediate arrest and confinement in 9ail" A" #etitioner sets out the following assignments of errorI ]#etitioner contends that $(, * setting *ail at a prohi*itor amount, effectivel denied him his right to *ail" >e challenges the legal *asis of respondent court for fi7ing *ail at #5"5!, which is equivalent to the amount of his civil lia*ilit to private complainant !anila !ahogan !arketing $orporation, and argues that the /ules of $ourt never intended for the civil lia*ilit of the accused to *e a guideline or *asis for determining the amount of *ail" ]>e pra s that *ail *e reduced to at least #3+T, citing the ma7imum amount of *ail that can *e posted for the crime of estafa under the 1992 Bail Bond )uide, or #6+T, equivalent to the amount of *ail he posted during the trial of the case" 3" Sol)en maintains that no grave a*use of discretion could *e ascri*ed to the $( for fi7ing the amount of *ail at #5"5! considering the severit of the penalt imposed, the weight of the evidence against petitioner, and the gravit of the offense of which petitioner was convicted * the /T$"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 55

]>e asserted that the #5"5! not onl corresponded to civil lia*ilit *ut also to the amount of fraud imputed to petitioner" ]>e pointed out the pro*a*ilit of flight in case petitioner is released on *ail, it having *een esta*lished that petitioner was in possession of a valid passport and visa and had in fact left the countr several times during the course of the proceedings in the lower court" ],t was also shown that petitioner used different names in his *usiness transactions and had several a*odes in different parts of the countr " ](s for the conditions imposed * the *ail *ond, he advanced that all that the $( requires is notice in case of change of address5 it does not in an wa impair petitionerFs right to change a*ode for as long as the court is apprised of his change of residence during the pendenc of the appeal" Iss8': .L1 the amount of *ail effectivel denied him his right to *ail" SC 5'7-: 1" There is no question that $( e7ercised its discretion in favor of allowing *ail to petitioner on appeal" ]$( stated that it was doing so for Ghumanitarian reasonsH, and despite a perceived high risk of flight, as * petitionerFs admission he went out of the countr several times during the pendenc of the case, for which reason the court deemed it necessar to peg the amount of *ail at #5"5!" 6" The prohi*ition against requiring e7cessive *ail is enshrined in the $onstitution" ] -e la $amara vs" 0nageI imposing *ail in an e7cessive amount could render meaningless the right to *ail" ]%illaseQor vs" (*aQoIS$ will not hesitate to e7ercise its supervisor powers over lower courts should the latter, after holding the accused entitled to *ail, effectivel den the same * imposing a prohi*itor sum or e7acting unreasona*le conditions" A" Section 9, /ule 113, /evised /ules of $riminal #rocedure advises courts to consider the following factors in the setting of the amount of *ailI DaE =inancial a*ilit of the accused to give *ail5 D*E 1ature and circumstances of the offense5 DcE #enalt for the offense charged5 DdE $haracter and reputation of the accused5 DeE (ge and health of the accused5 DfE .eight of the evidence against the accused5 DgE #ro*a*ilit of the accused appearing at the trial5 DhE =orfeiture of other *ail5 DiE The fact that the accused was a fugitive from 9ustice when arrested5 and

D9E

#endenc of other cases where the accused is on *ail"

A" The court has wide latitude in fi7ing the amount of *ail" ] <ptions ma include increasing the *ail *ond to an appropriate level, or requiring the person to report periodicall to the court and to make an accounting of his movements" ] ,n the present case, where petitioner was found to have left the countr several times while the case was pending, $( required the confiscation of his passport and the issuance of a hold8departure order against him" 3" @nder the circumstances of this case, we find that appropriate conditions have *een imposed in the *ail *ond to ensure against the risk of flight, particularl , the com*ination of the hold8departure order and the requirement that petitioner inform the court of an change of residence and of his wherea*outs" ](lthough an increase in the amount of *ail while the case is on appeal ma *e meritorious, we find that the setting of the amount at #5"5! is unreasona*le, e7cessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitionerFs right to *ail" ]To fi7 *ail at an amount equivalent to the civil lia*ilit of which petitioner is charged Din this case, #5"5!E is to permit the impression that the amount paid as *ail is an e7action of the civil lia*ilit that accused is charged of5 this we cannot allow *ecause *ail is not intended as a punishment, nor as a satisfaction of civil lia*ilit which should necessaril await the 9udgment of the appellate court" 5" .e cannot ield to petitionerFs su*mission that *ail in the instant case *e set at #3+T *ased on the 1992 Bail Bond )uide" ]True, the $ourt has held that the Bail Bond )uide although technicall not *inding upon the courts, Gmerits attention, *eing in a sense an e7pression of polic of the 07ecutive Branch, through -<', in the enforcement of criminal laws"H ]$ourts are advised that the must not onl *e aware *ut should also consider the Bail Bond )uide due to its significance in the administration of criminal 9ustice" ]This notwithstanding, the $ourt is not precluded from imposing in petitionerFs case an amount higher than #3+T D*ased on the Bail Bond )uideE where it perceives that an appropriate increase is dictated * the circumstances" 2" Section 5, /ule 113, /evised /ules of $riminal #rocedure is clear that although the grant of *ail on appeal in non8capital offenses is discretionar , when the penalt imposed on the convicted accused e7ceeds 2 ears and

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 56

circumstances e7ist that point to the pro*a*ilit of flight if released on *ail, then the accused must *e denied *ail, or his *ail previousl granted should *e cancelled" ]#etitioner was in fact declared guilt *e ond reasona*le dou*t * the /T$, and due to the serious amount of fraud involved, sentenced to imprisonment for 6+ 888 the ma7imum penalt for estafa * false pretenses or fraudulent acts allowed * the /#$" ]The setting of *ail in the amount of #5"5! is un9ustified as having no legal nor factual *asis" ])uided * the penalt imposed * the lower court and the weight of the evidence against petitioner, we *elieve that the amount of #6++T is more reasona*le" ;" #etitioner also contests the condition imposed * $( that he secure Ga certificationLguarant from the !a or of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to *e a resident therein until final 9udgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must *e with prior notice to the courtH, claiming that the same violates his li*ert of a*ode and travel" ]The right to change a*ode and travel within the #hilippines, *eing invoked * petitioner, are not a*solute rights" Section 2, (rticle ,,, of the 198; $onstitution statesI The li*ert of a*ode and of changing the same within the limits prescri*ed * law shall not *e impaired e7cept upon lawful order of the court" 1either shall the right to travel *e impaired e7cept in the interest of national securit , pu*lic safet , or pu*lic health, as ma *e provided * law" ] $ondition imposed * $( is simpl consistent with the nature and function of a *ail *ond, which is to ensure that petitioner will make himself availa*le at all times whenever the $ourt requires his presence" ]( closer look at the questioned condition will show that petitioner is not prevented from changing a*ode5 he is merel required to inform the court in case he does so" ] #etitionerFs *ail pending appeal is reduced from #5"5! to #6++T" ,n all other respects, the resolutions of $( are (==,/!0-" R6(53 3* .a67 an- R6(53 3* Trav'7 A4r*a-: Man*3*H v. CA Fa:3s: 1" #etitioner !anotoc is one of the two principal stockholders of Trans8,nsular !anagement, ,nc" and the !anotoc Securities, ,nc", a stock *rokerage house"

]>aving transferred the management into the hands of professional men, he holds no officer8position in said *usiness, *ut acts as president of the former corporation" ]=ollowing the :run: on stock *rokerages caused * stock *roker SantamariaBs flight from this 9urisdiction, petitioner, who was then in the @S, came home, and together with his co8stockholders, filed a petition with the S0$ for the appointment of a management committee, not onl for !anotoc Securities, ,nc", *ut likewise for Trans8,nsular !anagement, ,nc" ]The petition relative to the !anotoc Securities, ,nc", entitled, :,n the !atter of the (ppointment of a !anagement $ommittee for !anotoc Securities, ,nc", Teodoro Nalaw, 'r", /icardo !anotoc, 'r", #etitioners:, was granted and a management committee was organized and appointed" 6" #ending disposition of S0$ $ase, S0$ requested the then $ommissioner of ,mmigration /e es, not to clear petitioner for departure and a memorandum to this effect was issued * the $ommissioner on =e*ruar 3, 198+ to the $hief of the ,mmigration /egulation -ivision" A" .hen a Torrens title su*mitted to and accepted * !anotoc Securities, ,nc" was suspected to *e a fake, 2 of its clients filed 2 separate criminal complaints against petitioner and one 4everiza, as #res" and %#, respectivel , of !anotoc Securities, ,nc" ],n due course, corresponding criminal charges for estafa were filed * the investigating fiscal *efore $=, /izal, docketed as $riminal $ases, assigned to respondent 'udge $amilon, and $riminal $ases raffled off to 'udge #ronove" ],n all cases, petitioner has *een admitted to *ail in the total amount of #1+5T, with =)@ ,nstance $orporation as suret " 3" #etitioner filed *efore each of the trial courts a motion entitled, :motion for permission to leave the countr ,: stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the @S, :relative to his *usiness transactions and opportunities": ]#rosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing, *oth trial 9udges denied the same" ]The order of 'udge $amilon readsI The $ourt sees no urgenc from this statement" 1o matter of an magnitude is discerned to warrant 9udicial imprimatur on the proposed trip" ,n view thereof, permission to leave the countr is denied /icardo !anotoc, 'r" now or in the future until these 6 cases are terminated " 5" #etitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus *efore $( seeking to annul the orders of 'udges $amilon and #ronove, as well as the communication8request of the S0$, den ing his leave to travel a*road"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 57

]$( rendered a decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit" 2" #etitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari" ]#ending resolution of the petition, he filed a motion for leave to go a*road pendente lite" ],n his motion, he stated that his presence in the @S is needed in connection :with the o*tention of foreign investment in !anotoc Securities, ,nc": ]>e attached the letter of the $0< of the 07ploration $ompan of 4ouisiana, ,nc", !r" !iller requesting his presence to :meet the people and companies who would *e involved in its investments": ]>e likewise manifested that the $riminal $ases in /T$ !akati had *een dismissed as to him :on motion of the prosecution on the ground that after verification of the records of the S0$ """ DheE was not in an wa connected with the !anotoc Securities, ,nc" as of the date of the commission of the offenses imputed to him": ]<ther $riminal $ases remained pending with 'udge $amilon Iss8': .L1 a person facing a criminal indictment and provisionall released on *ail have an unrestricted right to travelK SC 5'7-: 1" #etitioner contends that having *een admitted to *ail as a matter of right, neither the courts which granted him *ail nor the S0$ which has no 9urisdiction over his li*ert could prevent him from e7ercising his constitutional right to travel" ]#etitionerBs contention is untena*le" ]( court has the power to prohi*it a person admitted to *ail from leaving the #h" This is a necessar consequence of the nature and function of a *ail *ond" 6" /ule 113, Section 1,/ules of $ourt defines *ail as the securit required and given for the release of a person who is in the custod of the law, that he will appear *efore an court in which his appearance ma *e required as stipulated in the *ail *ond or recognizance" ],ts o*9ect is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the state of the *urden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to put the accused as much under the power of the court as if he were in custod of the proper officer, and to secure the appearance of the accused so as to answer the call of the court and do what the law ma require of him" ]The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself availa*le at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel"

A" The effect of a recognizance or *ail *ond, when full e7ecuted or filed of record, and the prisoner released thereunder, is to transfer the custod of the accused from the pu*lic officials who have him in their charge to keepers of his own selection" Such custod has *een regarded merel as a continuation of the original imprisonment" The sureties *ecome invested with full authorit over the person of the principal and have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state" 3" ,f the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state, more so then has the court from which the sureties merel derive such right, and whose 9urisdiction over the person of the principal remains unaffected despite the grant of *ail to the latter" ,n fact, this inherent right of the court is recognized * petitioner himself, notwithstanding his allegation that he is at total li*ert to leave the countr , for he would not have filed the motion for permission to leave the countr in the first place, if it were otherwise" 5" >is petition is solel predicated on a wish to travel to the @S where he will, allegedl attend to some *usiness transactions and search for *usiness opportunities" ]>e has failed to satisf the trial courts and $( of the urgenc of his travel, the duration thereof, as well as the consent of his suret to the proposed travel" ].e find no a*use of 9udicial discretion in their having denied petitionerBs motion for permission to leave the countr , in much the same wa , al*eit with contrar results, that .e found no reversi*le error to have *een committed * the appellate court in allowing Shepherd to leave the countr after it had satisfied itself that she would compl with the conditions of her *ail *ond" 2" The constitutional right to travel *eing invoked * petitioner is not an a*solute right" Section 5, (rticle ,% of the 19;A $onstitution statesI The li*ert of a*ode and of travel shall not *e impaired e7cept upon lawful order of the court, or when necessar in the interest of national securit , pu*lic safet or pu*lic health" ] #etition for review is here* dismissed" S'-'r6*sa Santiago v" %asquez Silverio v" $( #p v" -onato 4ardiza*al v" /e es G6-*

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 58

P'*27' vs Man's (Panes in our outline (0B0 SCRA /01 =actsI 8 'ul 16, 1991, #rovincial #rosecutor of ,loilo #rovince filed with /T$ ,loilo $it , an ,1=</!(T,<1 charging the accused with !@/-0/I:That on or a*out the 6Ard of 'une, 1991, a*ove8named accused, conspiring, one another to *etter realize their purpose armed with a knife and a "A8 cali*er revolver respectivel , with treacher andLor evident premeditation, assault, attack, sta* and shot 1icanor Tamorite inflicting upon the said 1icanor Tamorite sta* wounds and gunshot wounds on the different parts of his *od which caused his death immediatel thereafter": 8 prosecution recommended 1< B(,4 for theprovisional li*ert of the accused" 8 'ul 66, 1991 8 T$ issued a .(//(1T <= (//0ST against the accused 8 <cto*er 18, 1991 T T$ ordered the case (/$>,%0- for failure to locate the two accused 8 'une 63, 1996 8 Sergon and /amil !anes were (//0ST0- in /om*lon, /om*lon8 Septem*er 1;, 1996 8 @pon (//(,)1!01T, *oth accused pleaded 1<T )@,4T& to the information 8 (ugust 65, 1996 8 accused filed a #0T,T,<1 =</B(,4 which was opposed * the prosecution" T$ did not hear the petition for *ail" 1either did the accused invoke the right to *ail at an stage of the trial" 8 'anuar 1A, 1995 8 T$ convicted the accused of murder 8 =e*ruar 1+, 1995 8 *oth accused appealed to S$ where accused questioned T$Fs failureDaE to hear the petition for *ailD*E to consider defense of relative in favor of /amil !anes andDcE to take note that Sergon !anes was a mere victim of TamoriteBs unlawful aggression ,ssueI .<1 there was waiver of the /ight to Bail of the accused" >eldI

&0S" @nder the law, in offenses punished * reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death, the accused had no right to *ail when evidence of guilt is strong" The court must hear a petition for *ail to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong *efore deciding to grant or den *ail to the accused" .hile the accused can appl for *ail and have the court hear his application summaril and promptl , such right ma *e waived e7pressl or impliedl " ,n this case, the trial court proceeded to tr the case without resolving the petition for *ail that appellants filed" >owever, the latter did not call the attention of the trial court to their unresolved application for *ail" ,t was onl in the appeal that the raised the issue" Thus, for failure to *ring the attention of the trial court at the earliest opportune time, appellants are deemed to have waived their right to *ail" A7*n3' vs Sav'77an* =($TSI (lonte was accused of raping 'uvie 4 n #unong *a an with accomplice Buenaventura $oncepcion" ,t was alleged that $oncepcion *efriended 'uvie and had later lured her into (loneteFs house who was then the ma or of Bi_an, 4aguna" The case was *rought *efore /T$ Bi_an" The counsel and the prosecutor later moved for a change of venue due to alleged intimidation" .hile the change of venue was pending, 'uvie e7ecuted an affidavit of desistance" The prosecutor continued on with the case and the change of venue was done notwithstanding opposition from (lonte" The case was raffled to the !anila /T$ under ' Savellano" Savellano later found pro*a*le cause and had ordered the arrest of (lonte and $oncepcion" Thereafter, the prosecution presented 'uvie and had attested the voluntariness of her desistance the same *eing due to media pressure and that the would rather esta*lish new life elsewhere" $ase was then su*mitted for decision and Savellano sentenced *oth accused to reclusion perpetua" Savellano commented that (lonte waived his right to due process when he did not cross e7amine 'uvie when clarificator questions were raised a*out the details of the rape and on the voluntariness of her desistance" ,SS@0I .hether or not (lonte has *een denied criminal due process" >04-I

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 59

The S$ ruled that Savellano should inhi*it himself from further deciding on the case due to animosit *etween him and the parties" There is no showing that (lonte waived his right" The standard of waiver requires that it Gnot onl must *e voluntar , *ut must *e knowing, intelligent, and done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likel consequences"H Mere silence of the holder of the right should not be so construed as a waiver of right/ and the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver! Savellano has not shown impartiality by repeatedly not acting on numerous petitions filed by lonte " The case is remanded to the lower court for retrial and the decision earlier promulgated is nullified" 1<T0SI -ue process in criminal proceedings DaE that the court or tri*unal tr ing the case is properl clothed with 9udicial power to hear and determine the matter *efore it5D*E that 9urisdiction is lawfull acquired * it over the person of the accused5DcE that the accused is given an opportunit to *e heard5 andDdE that 9udgment is rendered onl upon lawful hearing" Section A, /ule 119, of the /ules of $ourt GSec" A" <rder of trial" The trial shall proceed in the following orderIGDaE The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and, in the proper case, the civil lia*ilit "GD*E The accused ma present evidence to prove his defense, and damages, if an , arising from the issuance of an provisional remed in the case"GDcE The parties ma then respectivel present re*utting evidence onl , unless the court, in furtherance of 9ustice, permits them to present additional evidence *earing upon the main issue"GDdE @pon admission of the evidence, the case shall *e deemed su*mitted for decision unless the court directs the parties to argue orall or to su*mit memoranda"GDeE >owever, when the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information *ut interposes a P'*27' vs Ma:aran( =actsI

This case is an automatic review of the -ecision of the /egional Trial $ourt of #asig $it in a criminal cases sentencing appellant (riel !acarang to suffer the penalt of death in each of said criminal cases for qualified rape" (ppellant claims that the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimon of private complainant and that appellantFs guilt was not proven *e ond reasona*le dou*t" (ppellee, represented * the <ffice of the Solicitor )eneral, filed its *rief, entitled GBrief =or The (ppellee .ith /ecommendation To /emand The $ases To The $ourt ( ?uo =or =urther #roceedingsH, calling our attention to the fact that the trial court had considered appellant to have waived his right to present his evidence without an showing that the latter was full aware of the consequences of such waiver"

,ssueI .<1 the appellant was of his right to due process" >eldI ,n criminal cases where the impossi*le penalt ma *e death, the presiding 9udge is called upon to see to it that the accused is made aware of the consequences of not heeding the warning given * the trial court" ( simple forewarning to the appellant that the next time that he would not be ready with his defense evidence/ he would be deemed to have waived his right to present it/ did not satisfy appellant.s constitutional right to due process" The trial court granted !otion of (ppellantFs counsel to withdraw his appearance" (ppellant, therefore, had no more counsel" ,t is o*vious that the appellant was deprived of his right to due process"

D6)ar8:83 vs P'*27' Fa:3s

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 60

>erein petitioner is accused in a criminal case for frustrated murder when he tried to kill one (ngelito /osini )o using an iron pipe" (fter trial, on Septem*er 11, 6++2, the /T$ promulgated its -ecision convicting petitioner of frustrated homicide, sentences him to an indeterminate penalt of four D3E ears and two D6E months and one D1E da , as minimum, to eight D8E ears and one D1E da , as ma7imum, of imprisonment" @pon receiving the notice to file appellantBs *rief, petitioner thru his counsel de parte requested and was granted additional period of twent D6+E da s within which to file said *rief" This was followed * three DAE successive motions for e7tension which were all granted * the $(" <n (ugust 69, 6++;, the $( issued a /esolution dismissing the appeal for failing to file his appellantBs *rief within the reglementar period without furnishing accused8appellant an notice of the dismissal of the appeal" #etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, his counsel admitting that he was at fault in failing to file the appellantBs *rief due to :personal pro*lemsH ,t was thus pra ed that the $( allow petitioner to file his appellantBs *rief which counsel undertook to su*mit within seven D;E da s or until <cto*er 3, 6++;" B /esolution dated 1ovem*er 6;, 6++;, the $(, finding the allegations of petitioner unpersuasive and considering that the intended appellantBs *rief was not at all filed on <cto*er 3, 6++;, denied the motion for reconsideration which *ecame final and e7ecutor

1o" S0$" 8" 8ismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute! 8 The $ourt of (ppeals ma , upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his *rief within the time prescri*ed * this /ule, e7cept where the appellant is represented * a counsel de oficio" under the foregoing provision that a criminal case ma *e dismissed * the $( motu proprioand with notice to the appellant if the latter fails to file his *rief within the prescri*ed time" The phrase :with notice to the appellant: means that a notice must first *e furnished the appellant to show cause wh his appeal should not *e dismissed" ,n the case at *ar, there is no showing that petitioner was served with a notice requiring him to show cause wh his appeal should not *e dismissed for failure to file appellantBs *rief" The purpose of such a notice is to give an appellant the opportunit to state the reasons, if an , wh the appeal should not *e dismissed *ecause of such failure, in order that the appellate court ma determine whether or not the reasons, if given, are satisfactor " 1otwithstanding such a*sence of notice to the appellant, no grave a*use of discretion was committed * the $( in considering the appeal a*andoned with the failure of petitioner to file his appeal *rief despite four D3E e7tensions granted to him and non8compliance to date" -ismissal of appeal * the appellate court sans notice to the accused for failure to prosecute * itself is not an indication of grave a*use" Thus, although it does not appear that the appellate court has given the appellant such notice *efore dismissing the appeal (1 , if the appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration of, or to set aside, the order dismissing the appeal, in which he stated the reasons wh he failed to file his *rief on time and the appellate court denied the motion after considering said reasons, the dismissal was held proper" 4ikewise, (/ where the appeal was dismissed without prior notice, *ut the appellant took no steps either * himself or through counsel to have the appeal reinstated, such an attitude of

Iss8': .<1 there the $( committed grave a*use in dismissing the appeal of the accused8appellant" H'7-:

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 61

indifference and inaction amounts to his a*andonment and renunciation of the right granted to him * law to prosecute his appeal

registered with the /egister of -eeds of ?uezon $it " !angali filed a complaint with the 1ational Bureau of ,nvestigation D1B,E which arranged an entrapment operation on 62 =e*ruar 1992 in !angaliFs house" @pon investigation * the 1B,, it was discovered that the :0pifania Saquitan: who owned the Sta" (na lot was a ;98 ear old woman who denied mortgaging the Sta" (na lot or knowing petitioner and her co8accused" ISSUE: .<1 petitioner is guilt of 0stafa thru falsification of pu*lic documentsK RULE: S$ set aside the $( ruling and acquit petitioner of the charges against her on the ground of reasona*le dou*t" T>0 #/<S0$@T,<1 =(,40- T< #/<%0 #0T,T,<10/ B0&<1- /0(S<1(B40 -<@BT" T>0 )@,4T <= T>0

O2a77a EUGENIO VS. PEOPLE FACTS: <n 13 1ovem*er 1995, petitioner went to the house of private complainant (lfredo !angali D!angaliE in Tonsu a, !ala*on, !etro !anila and introduced !angali to 0pifania Saquitan DSaquitanE, (malia (*laza D(*lazaE, and another individual"A #etitioner persuaded !angali to loan#1++,+++ to Saquitan with a parcel of land in Sta" (na, !etro !anila DSta" (na lotE as securit for the loan" #etitioner assured !angali that the Sta" (na lot was covered * Transfer $ertificate of Title DT$TE 1o" 1;12+6 issued in SaquitanFs name" !angali asked petitioner to confirm with the /egister of -eeds of !anila the validit of T$T 1o" 1;12+6" ,n the afternoon of that same da , petitioner informed !angali that she saw the original of T$T 1o" 1;12+6 on file with the /egister of -eeds of !anila" .ith this assurance, !angali agreed to e7tend the loan su*9ect to SaquitanFs e7ecution of a :deed of sale: of the Sta" (na lot in his favor" Saquitan agreed and after the :deed of sale: was signed, !angali released the loan in two tranches to Saquitan which the latter promised to pa on 61 -ecem*er 1995" Su*sequentl , petitioner, on *ehalf of one 4ourdes T DT E, sought another #1++,+++ loan from !angali, pa a*le in 'anuar 1992 with a parcel of land in ?uezon $it D?uezon $it lotE as securit " #etitioner represented that the propert was covered * T$T 1o" 96585 issued in T Fs name" !angali agreed to e7tend the loan, again su*9ect to the condition that T e7ecute a :deed of sale: over the ?uezon $it lot in his favor" .hen the loans lapsed and remained unpaid, !angali inquired from the /egister of -eeds of !anila and ?uezon $it on the status of T$T 1o" 1;12+6 and T$T 1o" 96585, respectivel " !angali discovered that T$T 1o" 1;12+6 had *een cancelled on 5 <cto*er 1995 while T$T 1o" 96585 is not

The trial court found petitioner guilt of 0stafa thru =alsification of #u*lic -ocuments Dwhich the $ourt of (ppeals sustainedE for petitionerFs :principal role: in the loan transactions *etween !angali, on the one hand, and Saquitan and T , on the other hand" ,n further pinning lia*ilit on petitioner for her role in the alleged falsification of T$T 1o" 96585, the trial court, for lack of proof of petitionerFs participation in falsif ing such document, relied on the disputa*le legal presumption that the possessor of a falsified document who makes use of such to her advantage is presumed to *e the author of the falsification" ,n short, petitionerFs conviction *elow rested on an implied conspirac with her co8accused to swindle !angali, *uttressed, as to one count, * a reliance on a disputa*le presumption of culpa*ilit " .e reverse" True, conspirac need not *e proved * direct evidence as the same can *e inferred from the concerted acts of the accused" 13 >owever, this does not dispense with the requirement that conspirac , like the felon itself, must *e proved *e ond reasona*le dou*t"15 Thus, the presence of a reasona*le dou*t as to the e7istence of conspirac suffices to negate not onl the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense as principal *ut

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 62

also, in the a*sence of proof implicating the accused as accessor accomplice, the criminal lia*ilit of the accused"12

or

>ere, petitionerFs acts which the lower courts considered as constitutive of her complicit in the supposed plot to swindle !angali consisted of the followingI D1E petitioner was the one who *rought Saquitan, T , and (*laza to !angali5 D6E petitioner was present in all the occasions !angali met Saquitan, T , and (*laza5 DAE petitioner confirmed that T$T 1o" 1;12+6 was registered with the /egister of -eeds of !anila when in fact it was alread cancelled5 and D3E the real :0pifania Saquitan: denied mortgaging the Sta" (na propert to !angali" B themselves, these circumstances can plausi*l pass muster to prove petitionerFs involvement in a plan among the accused to swindle !angali" >owever, when petitionerFs side is considered, taking into account admitted facts and unre*utted claims, her participation in the events leading to her arrest is cast in an entirel new light raising reasona*le dou*t as to her culpa*ilit " These facts and unrefuted claims areI D1E petitioner works for !angali, on commission *asis, in the latterFs check re8discounting and lending *usinesses1; and D6E the $ivil /egister of !anila certified as true cop the photocop of T$T 1o" 1;12+6 that Saquitan gave petitioner" (s !angaliFs agent, petitioner is o*liged to *ring prospective *orrowers to !angali5 otherwise, she will not earn commissions" This also e7plains wh she was present in all the ocassions !angali met Saquitan and T T she was pecuniaril interested in seeing to it that the deals she *rokered were consummated to ena*le her to receive commission from !angali" <n petitionerFs disclosure to !angali that T$T 1o" 1;12+6 is registered with the /egister of -eeds of !anila, petitioner merel relied on the certification * the /egister of -eeds of !anila that the photocop of T$T 1o" 1;12+6 she *rought with her was a true cop of the title on file in that office" 18 The prosecution did not re*ut this" .e arrive at the same conclusion on petitionerFs alleged lia*ilit for 0stafa using the allegedl falsified T$T 1o" 96585" (side from rel ing on conspirac to pin petitioner for this charge, the trial court also anchored its finding on the presumption that petitioner was part to the falsification of T$T 1o" 96585 *ecause she had possession of such title" >owever, petitionerFs unre*utted testimon on this point is that it was T who *rought with her what she represented to *e her ownerFs duplicate cop of T$T 1o" 96585 and which she presented to !angali"19 (t an rate, for the presumption of authorship of

falsification to appl , the possessor must stand to profit or had profited from the use of the falsified document"6+ >ere, the e7tent of petitionerFs participation on T Fs loan was to *ring T Dand (*lazaE to !angali" The prosecution failed to show an proof that petitioner received a portion of the loan !angali e7tended to T , 9ust as there is no proof on record that she received an share from the loan !angali e7tended to Saquitan" #etitioner is not a part to an of the documents !angali, T , and Saquitan signed" ,n sum, we hold that the lower courtsF rulings are *ased on a misapprehension of facts 9ustif ing reversal on review" 61 ,ndeed, when, as here, the circumstances surrounding the alleged commission of crimes are capa*le of two inferences, one favoring the innocence of the accused and the other her guilt, the inference for her innocence must prevail, consistent with the $onstitutional presumption of her innocence" 66 .IRAOGO VS. PHIL TRUTH =($TSI (fter a month in office, #resident Benigno (quino ,,, issued 07ecutive <rder 1o" 1 D0"<" 1E on 'ul A+, 6+1+ creating the #hilippine Truth $ommission D#T$E" The #T$ was tasked to conduct a thorough fact8finding investigation of reported cases of graft and corruption involving third level pu*lic officers during the administration of (quinoBs predecessor )loria !acapagal8(rro o, and thereafter su*mit its findings and recommendations to the <ffice of the #resident, $ongress, and the <m*udsman" #rivate citizen 4ouis Biraogo and a group of congressmen led * 4akas Nampi $!- chairman /ep" 0dcel 4agman filed in the Supreme $ourt separate petitions for certiorari and prohi*ition assailing the constitutionalit of 0"<" 1 *ased on their *elief that the creation of the #T$ constitutes usurpation of the legislative power to create pu*lic office, threatens the independence of the <ffice of the <m*udsman, and violates the equal protection clause of the #hilippine $onstitution for specificall targeting certain officials of the (rro o administration" ,SS@0SI D1E .hether the president can create pu*lic office such as the #T$ without usurping the powers of $ongress5 D6E .hether the #T$ supplants the powers alread vested on the <m*udsman and the -epartment of 'ustice D-<'E5

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 63

and, DAE .hether the purpose of the #T$ transgresses the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws" /@40I T5' 2r's6-'n3 5as 35' a835*r63; 3* :r'a3' 35' Tr835 C*))6ss6*n !a9orit of the mem*ers of the Supreme $ourt re9ected the 9ustification of the Solicitor )eneral D<S)E that the creation of the #T$ finds *asis on the presidentFs power of control over all e7ecutive offices" The -ecision stressed that GcontrolH is essentiall the power to alter, modif , nullif or set aside what a su*ordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to su*stitute the 9udgment of the former with that of the latter" $learl , the power of control is entirel different from the power to create pu*lic offices" The ma9orit also re9ected the <S)Fs claim that that the 0"<" finds *asis under sec" A1 of the (dministrative $ode, which authorizes the president to restructure the <ffice of the #resident" $learl , GrestructureH under the said provision refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation or a*olition of offices * reason of econom or redundanc " This presupposes an alread e7isting office" The creation of an office is nowhere mentioned, much less envisioned in said provision" 1onetheless, the ponencia agreed with the argument of the <S) that the presidentFs power to create the #T$ ma find 9ustification under the presidentFs dut under sec" 1;, (rticle %,, of the $onstitution Gto ensure that the laws *e faithfull e7ecuted"H The $ourt held that while it is true that the authorit of the president to conduct investigations and to create *odies to e7ecute this power is not e7plicitl mentioned in the $onstitution or in statutes, it does not necessaril mean that he does not have such authorit " The president has the o*ligation to ensure that all e7ecutive officials and emplo ees Dwhether from past or present administrationsE faithfull compl with the law" The purpose of ad hoc investigating *odies such as the #T$ is to allow an inquir into matters which the president is entitled to know so that he can *e properl advised and guided in the performance of his duties relative to the e7ecution and enforcement of the laws of the land" T5' PTC <677 n*3 'r*-' 35' 2*<'rs *r 6n-'2'n-'n:' *= 35' O)48-s)an The $ourt also held that the investigative function of the commission will not supplant nor threaten the independence of the <ffice of the <m*udsman" ,f at all, it will complement the functions of the <m*udsman and the -epartment of 'ustice" (s correctl pointed out * the <S), the function of the #T$ is merel to recommendprosecution, which is 9ust a consequence of its fact8finding investigation" The actual prosecution of suspected offenders,

much less ad9udication on the merits of the charges against them, is certainl not a function given to the #T$" T5' 28r2*s' *= 35' PTC *=='n-s 35' 'E8a7 2r*3':36*n :7a8s' .hile the $ourt was almost unanimous in holding that the president indeed had the authorit to create the #T$ and that it would not undul duplicate the powers of the <m*udsman, nine D9E of the 9ustices 9oined (ssociate 'ustice 'ose $atral !endoza in refusing to uphold the constitutionalit of 0"<" 1 in view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined in sec" 1, (rt" ,,, of the $onstitution" Senior (ssociate 'ustice (ntonio $arpio was 9oined * four D3E others in their strong dissent" 4a ing down a long line of precedents, the ponencia reiterated that equal protection simpl requires that all persons or things similarl situated should *e treated alike, *oth as to rights conferred and responsi*ilities imposed" The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure ever person against intentional and ar*itrar discrimination" (ppl ing this precept, the ma9orit held that 0"<" 1 should *e struck down as violative of the equal protection clause" The -ecision stressed that the clear mandate of the #T$ is to investigate and find out the truth Gconcerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administrationH onl " The intent to single out the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest" !ention of it has *een made in at least three portions of the questioned e7ecutive order" The (rro o administration, according to the ponencia, is 9ust a mem*er of a class, that is, a class of past administrations" ,t is not a class of its own" 1ot to include past administrations similarl situated constitutes ar*itrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction" Such discriminating differentiation gave the ma9orit an impression that the #T$ is 9ust *eing used Gas a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retri*utionH and that 0"<" 1 is onl an Gadventure in partisan hostilit "H .hile the $ourt recognized that the creation of the #T$ was inspired with no*le intentions, the ponencia nonetheless reminded the government of the ethical principle that Gthe end does not 9ustif the means"H ,t emphaticall closed * stressing that the search for the truth must *e within constitutional *ounds, for Gours is still a government of laws and not of men"H /eI #resumption of ,nnocence, itFs in the $oncurring <pinion of 'ustice Brion, taas kaa o *ut , 9ust picked what is stated as followsI The 07ecutive <rder 1o" 1 D0< 1 or 0<E creating the Truth $ommission is fatall defective and thus should *e struck down"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 64

, *ase m conclusionI (1 On -8' 2r*:'ss (r*8n-sD (/ On 35' 8n:*ns363836*na7 6)2a:3 *= 35' EO *n 35' 's3a476s5'7'(a7 =ra)'<*rH *= 35' :r6)6na7 >8s36:' s;s3')D OOO (% On 35' v6*7a36*ns *= 35' 2'rs*na7 r6(53s *= 35' 6nv's36(a3'2'rs*ns an- 35'6r :*ns363836*na7 r6(53 3* a =a6r 3r6a7D1 an777 $oncern for the individual is another overriding constitutional value" Significantl , the $onstitution does not distinguish *etween the guilt and the innocent in its coverage and grant of rights and guarantees" ,n fact, it has ver specific guarantees for all accused *ased on its general concern for ever =ilipinoFs life, li*ert , securit and propert " The $onstituion, too, ensures that persons of the same class, whether natural or 9uridical, are treated equall , and that the government does not discriminate in its actions" (ll these, this $ourt must zealousl guard" .e in the $ourt cannot ever allow a distur*ance of the equili*rium of the constitutional structure in favour of one or the other *ranch, especiall in favour of the 'udiciar " !uch less can we pre89udge an potential accused, even in the name of truth8telling, retri*ution, national healing or social 9ustice" The 9ustice that the $onstitution envisions is largel e7pressed and em*odied in the $onstitution itself and this concept of 9ustice, more than an thing else, the 'udiciar must serve and satisf " ,n doing this, the 'udiciar must stand as a neutral and apolitical 9udge and cannot *e an advocate other than for the primac of the $onstitution" These, in *rief, reflect the underl ing reasons for the cited grounds for the invalidit of 0"<" LE+ANO VS. PEOPLE =($TSI

<n 'une A+, 1991 0strellita %izconde and her daughters $armela, nineteen ears old, and 'ennifer, seven, were *rutall slain at their home in #araQaque $it " =ollowing an intense investigation, the police arrested a group of suspects, some of whom gave detailed confessions" But the trial court smelled a frame8up and eventuall ordered them discharged" Thus, the identities of the real perpetrators remained a m ster especiall to the pu*lic whose interests were aroused * the gripping details of what ever *od referred to as the %izconde massacre" =our ears later in 1995, the 1ational Bureau of ,nvestigation or 1B, announced that it had solved the crime" ,t presented star8witness 'essica !" (lfaro, one of its informers, who claimed that she witnessed the crime" She pointed to accused >u*ert 'effre #" .e**, (ntonio :Ton Bo : 4e9ano, (rtemio :-ong: %entura, !ichael (" )atchalian, >ospicio :# ke: =ernandez, #eter 0strada, !iguel :)ing: /odriguez, and 'oe =ilart as the culprits" /el ing primaril on (lfaroBs testimon , on (ugust 1+, 1995 the pu*lic prosecutors filed an information for rape with homicide against .e**, et al" The trial court found a credi*le witness in her" The trial court rendered 9udgment, finding all the accused guilt as charged and imposing on .e**, 4e9ano, )atchalian, =ernandez, 0strada, and /odriguez the penalt of reclusion perpetua and on Biong, an indeterminate prison term of eleven ears, four months, and one da to twelve ears" The trial court also awarded damages to 4auro %izconde" The $( affirmed this decision" <n (pril 6+, 6+1+, the $ourt issued a /esolution granting the request of .e** to su*mit for -1( anal sis the semen specimen taken from $armelaFs cadaver, which specimen was then *elieved still under the safekeeping of the 1B," The $ourt granted the request pursuant to section 3 of the /ule on -1( 0vidence to give the accused and the prosecution access to scientific evidence that the might want to avail themselves of, leading to a correct decision in the case" @nfortunatel , on (pril 6;, 6+1+ the 1B, informed the $ourt that it no longer has custod of the specimen, the same having *een turned over to the trial court" The trial record shows, however, that the specimen was not among the o*9ect evidence that the prosecution offered in evidence in the case" ,SS@0SI

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 65

.hether or not 'essica (lfaro is a credi*le witness and that her testimon is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime committedK /@40I 1<" The Supreme $ourt ruled on the contrar " 'essica (lfaroBs testimon was uncorro*orated" There e7ist inconsistencies which the >ighest tri*unal could not ignore" (ccording to the Supreme $ourt, :/ather, to *e accepta*le, the positive identification must meet at least two criteriaI =irst, the positive identification of the offender must come from a credi*le witness" She is credi*le who can *e trusted to tell the truth, usuall *ased on past e7periences with her" >er word has, to one who knows her, its weight in gold" (nd second, the witnessF stor of what she personall saw must *e *elieva*le, not inherentl contrived" ( witness who testifies a*out something she never saw runs into inconsistencies and makes *ewildering claims" @ltimatel , (lfaroFs qualit as a witness and her inconsistent, if not inherentl un*elieva*le, testimon cannot *e the positive identification that 9urisprudence acknowledges as sufficient to 9ettison a denial and an ali*i": 'essica (lfaroBs stor was not supplanted with evidence and did not corro*orate to testimonies of other prosecution witnesses" ,n toto, 'essica (lfaroBs testimon was made * an e7perienced 1B, asset who has access to official records and made her testimon *ased on the official records made availa*le to her" $<1$4@S,<1 ,n our criminal 9ustice s stem, what is important is, not whether the court entertains dou*ts a*out the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to e7plore all possi*ilities, *ut whether it entertains a reasona*le, lingering dou*t as to his guilt" =or, it would *e a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to ones inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth " .ill the $ourt send the accused to spend the rest of their lives in prison on the testimon of an 1B, asset who proposed to her handlers that she take the role of the witness to the %izconde massacre that she could not produceK DEL CASTILLO VS. PEOPLE FACTS:

#ursuant to a confidential information that petitioner was engaged in selling shabu, police officers headed * S#<A Bienvenido !asna on, after conducting surveillance and test8*u operation at the house of petitioner, secured a search warrant from the /T$ and around A oBclock in the afternoon of Septem*er 1A, 199;, the same police operatives went to )il Tudtud St", !a*olo, $e*u $it to serve the search warrant to petitioner" @pon arrival, some*od shouted :raid,: which prompted them to immediatel disem*ark from the 9eep the were riding and went directl to petitionerBs house and cordoned it" The structure of the petitionerBs residence is a two8 store house and the petitioner was sta ing in the second floor" .hen the went upstairs, the met petitionerBs wife and informed her that the will implement the search warrant" But *efore the can search the area, S#<A !asna on claimed that he saw petitioner run towards a small structure, a nipa hut, in front of his house" !asna on chased him *ut to no avail, *ecause he and his men were not familiar with the entrances and e7its of the place" The all went *ack to the residence of the petitioner and closel guarded the place where the su*9ect ran for cover" S#<A !asna on requested his men to get a barangay tanod and a few minutes thereafter, his men returned with two barangay tanods" ,n the presence of the barangay tanod, 1elson )onzalado, and the elder sister of petitioner named -oll del $astillo, searched the house of petitioner including the nipa hut where the petitioner allegedl ran for cover" >is men who searched the residence of the petitioner found nothing, *ut one of the barangay tanods was a*le to confiscate from the nipa hut several articles, including four D3E plastic packs containing white cr stalline su*stance" $onsequentl , the articles that were confiscated were sent to the #1# $rime 4a*orator for e7amination" The contents of the four D3E heat8 sealed transparent plastic packs were su*9ected to la*orator e7amination, the result of which proved positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu" Thus, an ,nformation was filed *efore the /T$ against petitioner, charging him with violation of Section 12, (rticle ,,, of /"(" 2365, as amended" The ,nformation5 readsI That on or a*out the 1Ath da of Septem*er 199;, at a*out AI++ p"m" in the $it of $e*u, #hilippines and within the 9urisdiction of this >onora*le $ourt, the said accused, with deli*erate intent, did then and there have in his

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 66

possession and control four D3E packs of white cr stalline powder, having a total weight of +"A1 gram, locall known as :sha*u,: all containing methamphetamine h drochloride, a regulated drug, without license or prescription from an competent authorit " #etitioner pleaded not guilt " 1evertheless, to prove the earlier mentioned incident, the prosecution presented the testimonies of S#<A Bienvenido !asna on, #<6 !ilo (rriola, and =orensic (nal st, #olice ,nspector !utchit Salinas" The defense, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of petitioner, 'esusa del $astillo, -alisa del $astillo and >er*ert (clan, which can *e summarized as followsI <n Septem*er 1A, 199;, around A oBclock in the afternoon, petitioner was installing the electrical wirings and airconditioning units of the =our Seasons $anteen and Beaut #arlor at .ack Bldg", $a*ancalan, $e*u" >e was a*le to finish his 9o* around 2 oBclock in the evening, *ut he was engaged * the owner of the esta*lishment in a conversation" >e was a*le to go home around 8IA+89 oBclock in the evening" ,t was then that he learned from his wife that police operatives searched his house and found nothing" (ccording to him, the small structure, 6+ meters awa from his house where the found the confiscated items, was owned * his older *rother and was used as a storage place * his father" (fter trial, the /T$ found petitioner guilt *e ond reasona*le of the charge against him in the ,nformation which the $ourt of (ppeals affirmed" ISSUE: )! *+N T96 $6T(T(+N67 (S $UN(S9 2:6 ;+7 T96 ;+U7 <=> $ %KS +; *9(T6 %71ST ::(N6 $+*867 ::6&68:1 ;+UN8 +N T96 ;:++7 +; T96 N($ 9UT +7 ST7U%TU76 76 8M(SS(2:6 (N 60(86N%6 & (NST 9(M?

NO. T5' r':*r-s ar' v*6- *= an; 'v6-'n:' 3* s5*< 35a3 2'3636*n'r *<ns 35' n62a 583 6n E8's36*n n*r <as 63 's3a476s5'- 35a3 5' 8s'- 35' sa6s3r8:38r' as a s5*2. The RTC, as <'77 as 35' CA, )'r'7; 2r's8)'- 35a3 2'3636*n'r 8s'- 35' sa6- s3r8:38r' -8' 3* 35' 2r's'n:' *= '7':3r6:a7 )a3'r6a7s, 35' 2'3636*n'r 4'6n( an '7':3r6:6an 4; 2r*='ss6*n. ,n addition, the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution do not also provide proof as to the ownership of the structure where the seized articles were found" -uring their direct testimonies, the 9ust said, without stating their *asis, that the same structure was the shop of petitioner" -uring the direct testimon of S#<1 #ogoso, he even outrightl concluded that the electrical shopLnipa hut was owned * petitioner, thusI T5' 2r*s':836*n )8s3 2r*v' 35a3 35' 2'3636*n'r 5a- Hn*<7'-(' *= 35' 'I6s3'n:' an- 2r's'n:' *= 35' -r8(s 6n 35' 27a:' 8n-'r 56s :*n3r*7 an-*)6n6*n an- 35' :5ara:3'r *= 35' -r8(s. "635 35' 2r*s':836*n9s =a678r' 3* 2r*v' 35a3 35' n62a 583 <as 8n-'r 2'3636*n'r9s :*n3r*7 an- -*)6n6*n, 35'r' :as3s a r'as*na47' -*843 as 3* 56s (8673. ,n considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the lawBs own starting perspective on the status of the accused 8 in all criminal prosecutions, 5' 6s 2r's8)'- 6nn*:'n3 *= 35' :5ar(' 7a6- 8n7'ss 35' :*n3rar; 6s 2r*v'n 4';*n- r'as*na47' -*843. Pr**= 4';*n- r'as*na47' -*843, *r 35a3 E8an38) *= 2r**= s8==6:6'n3 3* 2r*-8:' a )*ra7 :'r3a6n3; 35a3 <*87- :*nv6n:' an- sa36s=; 35' :*ns:6'n:' *= 35*s' <5* a:3 6n >8-()'n3, 6s 6n-6s2'nsa47' 3* *v'r:*)' 35' :*ns363836*na7 2r's8)236*n *= 6nn*:'n:'.

Ma-r6a(a

$allangan v" #p #p v" Siongco !illa v" #eople #p v" /io RULING: L*4a3*n

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 67

#p v" )uevarra MARTINE! v. PEOPLE AA6 S$/( 293 D6+++E Fa:3s: #etitioner was accused of homicide *efore the /T$ of Butuan $it " -uring the hearing, petitioner, represented * (tt " 'esus )" $havez of the #u*lic (ttorne Fs <ffice, o*9ected to petitionerFs motion to *e allowed to litigate as pauper and moved instead to strike out the entire testimon of the first witness for the prosecution on the ground that it was inadmissi*le for *eing violative of the testimonial privilege afforded to children in cases involving their parents" The /T$ issued an order overruling the o*9ection" The !otion for reconsideration was also denied, prompting petitioner to go to the $(" 1993I #etitioner filed *efore the $( a Motion to :itigate as $auper attaching thereto supporting affidavits e7ecuted * 6 ostensi*l disinterested persons attesting to petitionerFs eligi*ilit to avail of the privilege" 199;I The $( denied said motion and directed petitioner to remit the docketing fees D#36+" ++E" #etitioner then filed a Manifestation wherein he stated through counsel that he was transmitting the docket fees required of his client Gunder protestH and that the mone was advanced * his counsel, (tt " 'esus )" $havez himself" 1+ 1ovem*er 199;I the $( dismissed the petition, citing petitionerFs failure to pa the required docket fee Don the ground that the amount remitted was short of #15+" ++E" Iss8': .<1 a motion to litigate as pauper can *e entertained * appellate court" D&0SE H'7-: .hen petitioner filed his original motion to litigate as pauper in 1993 *efore the $(, the applica*le rule was Sec" 12 D6E, /ule 31 of the 1923 /evised /ules of $ourt, to witI Sec! )@! ppeal by pauper A *here a party desiring to appeal shall establish to the satisfaction of the trial court that he is a pauper and unable to pay the expenses of prosecuting the appeal/ and that the case is of such importance/ by reason of the amount involved/ or the nature of the question raised/ that it ought to be reviewed by the an

appellate court/ the trial ,udge may enter an order entitling the party to appeal as pauper! The clerk shall transmit to the appellate court the entire record of the case/ including the evidence taken on trial and the record on appeal/ and the case shall be heard in the appellate court upon the original record so transmitted without printing the same! petition to be allowed to appeal as pauper shall not be entertained by the appellate court! .hen the 199; /ules of $ivil #rocedure came into effect on 1 'ul 199;, the provision a*ovequoted was not re8enacted" Sec" 61 of /ule A providesI Sec! -)! (ndigent party! A party may be authori#ed to litigate his action/ claim or defense as an indigent if the court/ upon an ex parte application and hearing/ is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food/ shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family! Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful fees/ and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished him! The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any ,udgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent/ unless the court otherwise provides! ny adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before ,udgment is rendered by the trial court! (f the court should determine after hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property/ the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of court! (f payment is not made within the time fixed by the court/ execution shall issue or the payment thereof/ without pre,udice to such other sanctions as the court may impose! <n the other hand, Sec" 18 of /ule 131 prescri*es the evidentiar requirements for the e7emption of pauper litigants from pa ment of legal fees" ,t cannot *e inferred from an of the aforementioned provisions that the restrictive polic enunciated * Sec" 12, /ule 31 of the 1923 /evised /ules of $ourt was carried over to the 199; /ules of $ivil #rocedure

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 68

1owhere can we find a provision to the effect that Ga petition to *e allowed to appeal as pauper shall not *e entertained * the appellate court"H

Based on this evidence, the $ourt finds that petitioner is qualified to litigate as an indigent"

Statutes regulating the procedure of courts will *e construed as applica*le to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage Dsuch as in the case at *arE" ,n that sense and to that e7tent, procedural laws are retroactive" S$I .e therefor hold that a motion to litigate as an indigent can *e made even *efore the appellate courts, either for the prosecution of appeals, in petitions for review or in special civil actions" .e *elieve that this interpretation of the present rules is more in keeping with our Bill of /ights, which decrees that, :DfEree access to the courts and quasi89udicial *odies and adequate legal assistance shall not *e denied to an person * reason of povert ": <ur espousal of the democratization of appellate remedies is shared * the @nited States Supreme $ourt, speaking through !r" 'ustice >ugo 4" Black J There is no meaningful distinction *etween a rule which would den the poor the right to defend themselves in a trial court and one which effectivel denies the poor an adequate appellate review accorded to all who have mone enough to pa the costs in advance " " " " Such a denial is a misfit in a countr dedicated to affording equal 9ustice to all and special privileges to none in the administration of its criminal law" There can *e no equal 9ustice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of mone he has" ( perusal of the records shows that petitioner has complied with all the evidentiar requirements for prosecuting a motion to appear in court as a pauper 1. >e has e7ecuted an affidavit attesting to the fact that he and his immediate famil do not earn a gross income of more than #A,+++"++ a month, /.and that their onl real propert , a hut, cannot *e worth more than #1+,+++"++" A" >e has also su*mitted a 9oint affidavit e7ecuted * =lorencia 4" <ngtico and >elen !aur, *oth residents of Butuan $it , who generall attested to the same allegations contained in petitionerBs own affidavit"

$ase is remanded for appropriate action to the $( which is further ordered to allow petitioner to litigate as pauper and to return to him the amount representing the docket fees he paid"

R6(53 3* 4' 6n=*r)'- *= 35' na38r' an- :a8s' *= a::8sa36*n PEOPLE v. TA.IO 533 S$/( 152 D6++8E Fa:3s: (ppellant 'imm Ta*io was charged with A counts of rape in a single information, the accusator portion of which reads as followsI That between 4une )B/ -CC- and 4une -D/ -CC- in E uroraF the said accused/ did then and there/ unlawfully/ feloniously and willfully/ have carnal knowledge of mentally retarded by means of force and intimidation three times all committed while the victim was alone inside their house and during nighttime which was taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime! %+NT7 71 T+ : *! (ppellant pleaded not guilt on arraignment and trial on the merits ensued" The victim, ((( testified that one night in 'une 6++6, while she was alone in her home, appellant entered her house" >e pressed a knife on (((Fs *reast, removed her clothing, fondled her *reast, undressed himself, and mounted her as she was seated on a *ed" >e inserted his penis in her vagina and e9aculated" ((( was a*le to recognize the appellant as her house was lighted with a gas lamp" ((( further testified that the appellant on two succeeding occasions again entered her home and repeated the same acts on her" <ther witnesses for the prosecution presented testimon concerning (((Fs mental condition" ( doctor who had trained with the 1ational $enter for !ental >ealth testified that he had e7amined ((( and concluded that while she was 6A ears old at the time of the rape, she nonetheless had the mental age of a si78 ear old child" (((Fs

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 69

mother and grand aunt also testified on her mental retardation and the occurrences after she had reported the rape to them" The /T$ found appellant guilt and imposed on him the penalt of death on A counts of qualified rape, defined in (rticle 6228(, paragraph 1 DdE and penalized under (rticle 6228B, paragraph 2 D1+E of the /#$" The records of the case were thereafter forwarded to the S$ for automatic review" The S$ issued a /esolution transferring the case to the $( foe appropriate action" The $( affirmed with modification the /T$ decision" ,t found appellant guilt of all A counts for simple rape onl and not qualified rape"

$ode could not, thus, *e applied and the supreme penalt of death could not *e validl imposed" /ule 11+ of the 6+++ /ules of $riminal #rocedure is clear and unequivocal that *oth qualif ing and aggravating circumstances must *e alleged with specificit in the information"

PEOPLE v. AURE 529 S$/( 8A2 D6++8E Fa:3s: =or review of the $( decision affirming in toto /T$ decision $rim" $ase finding accused8appellants S#<1 (rnulfo (" (ure and S#<1 !arlon =erol guilt of rape, and imposing upon them the penalt of reclusion perpetua" The prosecution presented the ff" testimoniesI - <n ; 1ovem*er 1999 at around Apm, several policemen entered (((Fs house" (ccording to appellant (ure, the are the $entral ,ntelligence Service D$,SE agents and were tasked to rescue A oung girls whom ((( was keeping and allegedl a*using and e7ploiting" - (ure told ((( to e7plain her side at the $entral ,ntelligence -ivision )roup D$,-)E office" Thereafter, ((( and the A oung girls were taken to the *aranga hall where the incident was *lottered and afterwards, to the $,-) office for *ooking and investigation" - (ccording to (((, at a*out ;pm of the same da , she was raped inside the computer room of said $,-) office * (ure who threatened to kill her if she would tell an one a*out what happened" (t a*out 6am on 8 1ovem*er 1999, while ((( was sleeping on the sofa inside the office, appellant =erol woke her up and instructed her to go to the computer room where she was again raped" - (t a*out 8IA+am of the same da , ((( and the A oung girls were taken to the prosecutorFs office for inquest proceedings on the charges of %iolation of /( ;81+ otherwise known as the (nti8 $hild (*use 4aw, #h sical ,n9uries, and ,llegal /ecruitment" Thereafter, ((( was taken for medical e7amination where she confided to the attending ph sician that she was raped"

Iss8': .<1 the /T$ erred in finding appellant guilt of qualified rape with the penalt of death in view of the prosecutorFs failure to allege a qualif ing circumstance in the information" D&0SE H'7-: The $ourt of (ppeals properl resolved the first error in appellantFs favor" The information should have warranted a 9udgment of guilt onl for simple, not qualified rape" .e quote with approval the appellate court when it saidI @nder (rticle 6228BD1+E of the /evised #enal $ode, knowledge * the offender of the mental disa*ilit , emotional disorder, or ph sical handicap at the time of the commission of the rape is the qualif ing circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death penalt " /ule 11+ of the 6+++ /ules of $riminal #rocedure requires *oth qualif ing and aggravating circumstances to *e alleged with specificit in the information" ,n the case at *ench, however, the information merel states that the appellant had carnal knowledge with a mentall retarded complainant" 1" ,t does not state that appellant knew of the mental disa*ilit of the complainant at the time of the commission of the crime" 6" ,t *ears stressing that the rules now require that the qualif ing circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death penalt should *e specificall stated in the information" (rticle 6228B D1+E of the /evised #enal

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 70

The /T$ convicted (ure of rape in $rim" $ase `1 and acquitting him of rape in $rim" $ase 1o"`6 =erol was convicted of rape in $rim" $ase `1 *ut was acquitted of rape in $rim" $ase`6" The /T$ e7plained that in $rim" $ase `1, the prosecution has dul esta*lished that (ure raped ((( *ut the prosecution failed to prove that =erol conspired with (ure in raping (((, hence, =erol is acquitted of rape in $rim" $ase `6" ,n $rim" $ase`A, the prosecution had proven that =erol raped ((( *ut (ure is acquitted of rape in this instance since there was no evidence that he conspired with =erol"

Iss8': .<1 the accused8appellantsF right to *e informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them was violated" D1<E H'7-: (ppellants claim that the informations in $rim" $ases 1o" $85821; and 1o" $85829A *oth alleged that the conspired in raping ((( once on ; 1ovem*er 1999" The /T$, however, found no conspirac *etween appellants in raping (((" 1onetheless, it held that appellant (ure alone raped ((( on ; 1ovem*er 1999 and thus convicted him of rape in $rim" $ase 1o" $8 5821; *ut acquitted him of rape in $rim" $ase 1o" $85829A5 while appellant =erol alone raped ((( on 8 1ovem*er 1999 and, hence, convicted him of rape in $rim" $ase 1o" $85829A *ut acquitted him of rape in $rim" $ase 1o"$85821;" (ppellants maintain that the foregoing findings and rulings of the /T$ are inconsistent with the allegations of conspirac in the two informations and that the /T$ cannot individuall and separatel convict appellants of rape *ecause the informations in the two cases alleged conspirac *etween them in raping (((" (lso, appellant =erol cannot *e convicted in $rim, $ase 1o" $85829A of rape committed on 8 1ovem*er 1999 *ecause such fact was not alleged in the informations" (ppellants argued that the said finding and ruling of the /T$ violated their constitutional rights to *e informed of the nature of the case against them, to *e presumed innocent of the charges, and to due process"

(lthough the informations in $rim" $ases 1o" $85821; and 1o" $8 5829A *oth alleged that appellants conspired in raping (((, it does not necessaril follow that the /T$ cannot individuall and separatel convict appellants of rape" The rule is that once a conspirac is esta*lished, the act of one is the act of all, and each of the conspirators is lia*le for the crimes committed * the other conspirators" ,t follows then that if the prosecution fails to prove conspirac , the alleged conspirators should *e held individuall responsi*le for their own respective acts ,n the instant cases, the /T$ ruled that the prosecution failed to esta*lish conspirac *etween appellants in raping ((( 1evertheless, on the *asis of (((Fs credi*le testimon and documentar evidence for the prosecution, the /T$ found that appellant (ure alone raped ((( on ; 1ovem*er 1999 and that appellant =erol alone raped ((( on 8 1ovem*er 1999" Thus, the /T$ was correct in holding appellants individuall responsi*le for their respective acts of rape" ,t is true that the information in $rim" $ase 1o" $85829A alleged that appellants conspired in raping ((( on ; 1ovem*er 1999, and that the /T$ convicted appellant =erol alone in $rim" $ase 1o" $85829A of raping ((( on 8 1ovem*er 1999" 1onetheless, the discrepanc on the actual date of rape does not constitute a serious error warranting the reversal of appellant =erolFs conviction" The date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime *ecause the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation" The precise time or date when the rape took place has no su*stantial *earing on its commission" (s such, the date or time need not *e stated with a*solute accurac " ,t is sufficient that the information states that the crime has *een committed at an time as near as possi*le to the date of its actual commission"

PEOPLE v. GUEVARRA 1$B SCRA /&& (/BB& =actsI

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 71

That on or a*out (ugust 63, 6++6 at around 9I15 oFclock in the evening at 0*ora /oad, Brg " Numintang ,*a*a, Batangas $it , #hilippines and within the 9urisdiction of this >onora*le $ourt, the a*ove8named accused, while armed with a cali*er "35 pistol, a deadl weapon, with intent to kill and with the qualif ing circumstance of treacher , did then and there willfull , unlawfull and feloniousl attack, assault and repeatedl shot with said firearm suddenl and without warning one #L$hief ,nspector !arcos Barte #az while the latter was unarmed and completel defenseless, there* hitting him on different parts of his *od which directl caused the victimFs death" That the special aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm is attendant in the commission of the offense" (nacleto, cousin of the deceased victim #olice $hief ,nspector !arcos #" Barte of the Batangas $it #olice Station, testified that on 63 (ugust 6++6, at around AIA+ pm, ,nspector Barte and several others arrived at his house where the talked and drank gin" Su*sequentl , the went to a videoke *ar owned * a certain Sergeant 0milio %idal" The arrived at 8IA+ pm" (t a*out 9I15, the group went out of said videoke *ar" The were a*out to *oard an owner8t pe 9eep when appellant suddenl appeared and approached ,nspector Barte" (ppellant asked ,nspector Barte if he was G!a9or BarteH" Thereupon, appellant shot ,nspector Barte several times with a short firearm and immediatel fled the scene" Su*sequentl , (nacleto drove the 9eep and *rought ,nspector Barte to the Batangas /egional >opsital where the latter was pronounced dead on arrival" /T$ rendered a decision convicting appellant of murder" <n appeal, $( affirmed the /T$ decision and held that an additional amount of #65, +++" ++ as e7emplar damages *e imposed *ecause the qualif ing circumstance of treacher attended the killing"

,t is settled that aggravatingLqualif ing circumstances must *e alleged in the information and proven during the trial *efore the can *e appreciated" There is treacher when the offender commits an of the crimes against the person, emplo ing means, methods or forms in the e7ecution thereof which tend directl and speciall to insure its e7ecution, without risk to himself arising from an defensive or retaliator act which the victim might make" The essence of treacher is a deli*erate and sudden attack that renders the victim una*le and unprepared to defend himself * reason of the suddenness and severit of the attack" Two essential elements are required in order that treacher can *e appreciatedI D1E The emplo ment of means, methods or manner of e7ecution that would ensure the offenderFs safet from an retaliator act on the part of the offended part who has, thus, no opportunit for self8 defense or retaliation5 and D6E deli*erate or conscious choice of means, methods or manner of e7ecution" ,n the case at *ar, treacher was alleged in the information and all its elements were dul esta*lished * the prosecution" ,nspector Barte was sitting inside the 9eep when appellant suddenl appeared and approached him" (ppellant asked ,nspector Barte if he was :!a9or Barte": >owever, *efore ,nspector Barte could respond or utter a word, appellant quickl shot him several times in the head and chest with a cali*er "35 pistol" The suddenness and une7pectedness of the appellantFs attack rendered ,nspector Barte defenseless and without means of escape" There is no dou*t that appellantFs use of a cali*er "35 pistol, as well as his act of waiting for ,nspector Barte to *e seated first in the 9eep *efore approaching him and of shooting ,nspector Barte several times on the head and chest, was adopted * him to prevent ,nspector Barte from retaliating or escaping" $onsidering that ,nspector Barte was tips or drunk and he was seated inside the 9eep where the space is narrow, there was a*solutel no wa for him to defend himself or escape"

,ssueI .<1 accused8appellant was informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him" D&0SE >eldI .e agree with the /T$ and the $ourt of (ppeals that the qualif ing circumstance of treacher and the special aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm attended the killing of ,nspector Barte"

P2 v. R8s36:* .ar3*76n6 =actsI

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 72

The /egional Trial $ourt of Bislig $it , Surigao del Sur charged appellant /ustico Bartolini with three counts of rape for raping his two daughters" <n or a*out ;I++ in the morning sometime in the month of !arch 1995, appellant Bartolini with lewd and unchaste designs, willfull , unlawfull and feloniousl rape his daughter,O(((P, * means of force and intimidation, against his daughterFs will, to the damage and pre9udice of the said O(((P, who was then 13 ears old" <n or a*out AI++ in the afternoon sometime in the month of !arch 1993, Bartolini with lewd and unchaste designs and * means of force and intimidation, willfull , unlawfull and feloniousl rape his daughter OBBBP,12 ears old against the latterFs will, to the damage and pre9udice of the said OBBBP" @pon arraignment, appellant Bartolini pleaded not guilt to the three charges filed against him" (ccording to him, he could not have raped BBB *ecause that da he had *een out to deliver shrimps, prawns and cra*s to a certain Ben9amin $astanas" >e claimed that he arrived there at 3I6+ am and sta ed there for *reakfast and left for home at 1+I++ am" The trial court found /ustico Bartolini guilt in all three criminal cases" (t the $(, Bartolini argued that he should not have *een convicted of the crime of qualified rape since the information in o $riminal $ase 1o" 998186+858> was defective *ecause it failed to allege that the act was committed * force or intimidation as required * law, while there was no allegation of minorit of the victim in the information for $riminal $ase 1o" 998186+838> "

Bartolini also argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt *e ond reasona*le dou*t" (fter an e7tensive discussion on the issues raised * Bartolini, the appellate court found no compelling reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court" 1evertheless, the $( modified the penalties * reducing the penalt of death to reclusion perpetua following the a*olition of the death penalt and * modif ing the monetar award in favor of the victims"

,ssuesI .hether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant in $riminal $ase 1o" 998186+858> despite the fact that the information therein was allegedl defective5 and .hether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalt upon the appellant after finding him guilt in $riminal $ase 1o" 998186+838> considering the failure of the information to allege minorit "

>eldI D1oE /ape is committed * having carnal knowledge of a woman under an of the following circumstancesI D1E when force or intimidation is used5 D6E when the woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious5 and DAE when she is under 16 ears of age" .e are adequatel convinced that the prosecution proved that appellant emplo ed force and intimidation upon his victim" This *eing so, we find no cogent reason to distur* the ruling of *oth the /T$ and the appellate court on this matter" &es" The appellate court was correct in sustaining appellantFs argument that the special qualif ing circumstance cannot *e appreciated in $riminal $ase 1o" 998186+838> since the age of the victim was not specificall alleged in the information"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 73

<ur disquisition in #eople v" Tagud, Sr"AA succinctl e7plains the matter" There, we saidI To 9ustif the imposition of the death penalt in this case, the single special qualif ing circumstance of the minorit of the victim and her relationship to the offender must *e specificall alleged in the ,nformation and proven during the trial" 7 7 7 0ven under the old /ules of $riminal #rocedure, 9urisprudence alread required that qualif ing circumstances must *e specificall alleged in the ,nformation to *e appreciated as such" 1ota*l , the amended ,nformation merel stated that appellant had carnal knowledge of his minor daughter without stating (rwinFs actual age" ,n a rape case where the ver life of the accused is at stake, such an ine7act allegation of the age of the victim is insufficient to qualif the rape and raise the penalt to death" The sufficienc of the ,nformation is held to a higher standard when the onl imposa*le penalt is death" The constitutional right of the accused to *e properl informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him assumes the greatest importance when the onl imposa*le penalt in case of conviction is death" Similar to Tagud, the qualif ing circumstance of relationship of BBB to appellant was specificall alleged and proven during the trial" 1ota*l a*sent in the information, however, is a specific averment of the victimFs age at the time the offense against her was committed" Such an omission committed * the prosecutor is fatal in the imposition of the supreme penalt of death against the offender"

,t must *e *orne in mind that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is *ased on the right of the accused to *e full informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he ma adequatel prepare for his defense pursuant to the constitutional requirement on due process, speciall so if the case involves the imposition of the death penalt in case the accused is convicted Thus, even if the victim is *elow eighteen D18E ears of age and the offender is her parent, *ut these facts are not alleged in the information, or if onl one D1E is so alleged such as what happened in the instant case, their proof as such * evidence offered during trial cannot sanction the imposition of the death penalt "

TopicI /ight to speed trial P'*27' vs. M'n-*Fa =actsI <n (pril 68, 6+++, accused8appellant was charged with rape in an ,nformation which reads as followsI That on or a*out the 65th da of (pril 6+++, in the cit of !untinlupa, #hilippines and within the 9urisdiction of this >onora*le $ourt, the a*ove8named accused, with lewd design, with force, intimidation and grave a*use of confidence, accused *eing emplo ed as a driver in the *usiness of the father of O(((P,1 a si7 D2E ear old minor, did then and there willfull , unlawfull and feloniousl insert his finger inside the latterFs vagina against the will and consent of the said complainant" <n <cto*er 6;, 6++3, the /T$ rendered 9udgment finding accused8 appellant guilt of rape" (ccused8appellant appealed the /T$ decision to the $(" Before the appellate court, accused8appellant raised the following errors allegedl committed * the trial courtI

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 74

D1E in not dismissing the case on account of the violation of his right to speed trial5 D6E in considering the prosecutionFs testimonial evidence which was not formall offered5 and DAE in convicting him for rape without the prosecution presenting proof of his guilt *e ond reasona*le dou*t"

1one of these circumstances are, to us, present in the instant case" .hile perhaps there might have *een dela s, accused8appellant does not state in some detail what or who caused the dela s, or whether these are of the ve7atious or oppressive kind" .hat is more, accused8appellant *elatedl invoked his right to speed trial onl *efore the $(" The proceedings cannot now *e claimed to *e attended * ve7atious, capricious, and oppressive dela s" (ccused8appellant cannot plausi*l seek the protection of the law to *enefit from the adverse effects of his failure to assert his right at the first instance" (s the $( correctl and 9udiciousl o*servedI (s can *e gleaned from the records, accused8appellant never invoked in the /T$ that he has *een deprived of his right to speed trial and speed disposition of case" (s it is, an allegation of violations of rights should first *e ventilated with the /T$ concomitant with the pra er to dismiss the case with pre9udice" ,t is a *it too late in the da for herein accused8appellant to invoke now his right to speed trial D#eople vs" Tee, A95 S$/( 33A O6++APE" B raising this point *elatedl with the O$(P, accused8appellant has thus waived his o*9ection and accordingl forfeits his right to the aforesaid constitutional guarantees"

,ssueI .hether or not accused8appellantFs right to speed trial was violated" D1<E >eldI (ccused8appellant states that while he has *een detained since (pril 62, 6+++, his arraignment came onl on !arch 6, 6++1 and the prosecution started to present its evidence onl on !a 9, 6++1" To compound matters, the prosecution was not deemed to have terminated its presentation of evidence until (pril 13, 6++3" (ccused8appellant thus argues that the dela s attending his case should have *een enough for the trial court to have dismissed it" The $ourt is not convinced" The right to speed trial, as an ad9unct to the right of all persons to a speed disposition of their cases *efore 9udicial and quasi89udicial *odies, requires that court proceedings should *e conducted according to fi7ed rules and must *e free from ve7atious, capricious, and oppressive dela s" The same right ma also *e considered violated when un9ustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured5 or when without cause or 9ustifia*le motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the parties having their case tried"

Dan3' Tan vs. P'*27' DSourceI httpILLwww"scri*d"comLdocL52;;;623LSpeed 8TrialE =actsI <n 19 -ecem*er 6+++, a #anel of #rosecutors of the -epartment of 'ustice D-<'E, on *ehalf of the #eople of the #hilippines D#eopleE,

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 75

filed three ,nformation against -ante T" Tan the /egional Trial $ourt D/T$E of #asig $it " The cases pertained to allegations that petitioner emplo ed manipulative devises in the purchase of Best .orld /esources $orporation DB.Eshares and the alleged failure of petitioner to file with the Securities and 07change $ommissionDS0$E a sworn statement of his *eneficial ownership of B. shares" <n the same da , the -<', through (ssistant $hief State #rosecutor 1ilo $" !ariano, filed a !otion for $onsolidation pra ing that the cases *e consolidated together which the trial court granted" #etitioner was arraigned on 12'anuar 6++1, and pleaded not guilt to the charges" <n 2 =e*ruar 6++1, the pre8trial was concluded, and a pre8trial order set, among other things, the first date of trial on 6; =e*ruar 6++1"

presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he ma interpose The oft8repeated adage G9ustice dela ed is 9ustice deniedH requires the e7peditious resolution of disputes, much more so in criminal cases where an accused is constitutionall guaranteed the right to a speed trial" The $ourt added that following the policies incorporated under the 198; $onstitution, /epu*lic (ct 1o" 839A, otherwise known as GThe Speed Trial (ct of 1998,H was enacted, with Section 2of said act limiting the trial period to 18+ da s from the first da of trial" (ware of pro*lems resulting in the clogging of court dockets, the $ourt implemented the law * issuing Supreme $ourt $ircular 1o" A8898, which has *een incorporated in the 6+++ /ules of $riminal #rocedure, Section 6 of /ule 119" The $ourt emphasized qualified that a *alancing test of appl ing societal interests and the rights of the accused necessaril compels the court to approach speed trial cases on an ad hoc *asis" ,n determining whether the accused has *een deprived of his right to a speed disposition of the case and to a speed trial, four factors must *e consideredI o o o o DaE length of dela 5 D*E the reason for the dela 5 DcE the defendantFs assertion of his right5 and DdE pre9udice to the defendant"

,ssueI whether there was a violation of petitioner -anteTanFs right to speed trialK >eldI D1oE #etitioner assailed the decision and resolution of the $ourt of (ppeals which determined that he Gimpliedl agreedH that his case would not *e tried until after termination of the other related cases" <ffhand, the $ourt stated that an accusedFs right to Ghave a speed , impartial, and pu*lic trialH is guaranteed in criminal cases * Section 13D6E of (rticle ,,, of the $onstitution" This right to a speed trial ma *e defined as one free from ve7atious, capricious and oppressive dela s, its Gsalutar o*9ectiveH *eing to assure that an innocent person ma *e free from the an7iet and e7pense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possi*le time compati*le with the

$losel related to the length of dela is the reason or 9ustification of the State for such dela " -ifferent weights should *e assigned to different reasons or 9ustifications invoked * the State"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 76

,n the case at *ar, it was esta*lished that from the initial hearing on 6; =e*ruar 6++1 until the time the prosecution filed its formal offer of evidence for $riminal $ases 1o" 1198A181198A6 on 65 1ovem*er 6++A, *oth prosecution and defense admitted that no evidence was presented for $riminal $ase 1o" 1198A+" >ence, for a period of almost two ears and eight months, the prosecution did not present a single evidence for $riminal $ase 1o" 1198A+" The question was whether there was ve7atious, capricious, and oppressive dela " To this, the $ourt applied the four8factor test previousl mentioned" ,t stated that in determining the right of an accused to speed trial, courts are required to do more than a mathematical computation of the num*er of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case" ( mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is clearl insufficient, and particular regard must *e given to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case" ,n previous cases the $ourt ruled that there was no violation of the right to speed trial and speed disposition where the dela was attended * the frequent amendments of procedural laws * presidential decrees, the structural reorganizations in e7isting prosecutorial agencies and the creation of new ones * e7ecutive fiat, resulting in changes of personnel, preliminar 9urisdiction, and the functions and powers of prosecuting agencies" The $ourt also considered the failure of the accused to assert such right, the comple7it of the issues, the conduct of the law ers of the accused, and the lack of pre9udice caused * the dela to the accused" #etitionerFs o*9ection to the prosecutionFs stand that he gave an implied consent to the separate trial of $riminal $ase 1o" 1198A+ is *elied * the records of the case"

1o o*9ection was interposed * his defense counsel when this matter was discussed during the initial hearing" #etitionerFs conformit thereto can *e deduced from his non8o*9ection at the preliminar hearing when the prosecution manifested that the evidence to *e presented would *e onl for $riminal $ases 1o" 1198A181198A6" >is failure to o*9ect to the prosecutionFs manifestation that the cases *e tried separatel is fatal to his case" The acts, mistakes and negligence of counsel *ind his client, e7cept onl when such mistakes would result in serious in9ustice" ,n fact, petitionerFs acquiescence is evident from the transcript of stenographic notes during the initial presentation of the #eopleFs evidence in the five B. cases on 6; =e*ruar 6++1, which the $ourt quoted e7tensivel " The $ourt stressed that although periods for trial have *een stipulated, these periods were not a*solute" .here periods had *een set, certain e7clusions were allowed * law" (fter all, the $ourt and the law recognize the fact that 9udicial proceedings did not e7ist in a vacuum and had to contend with the realities of ever da life" ,n spite of the prescri*ed time limits, 9urisprudence continued to adopt the view that the fundamentall recognized principle was that the concept of speed trial was a relative term and must necessaril *e a fle7i*le concept" (s to the assertion that dela in the presentation of evidence for $riminal $ase 1o" 1198A+ has pre9udiced petitioner *ecause the witnesses for the defense ma no longer *e availa*le at this time, the $ourt stated that suffice it to sa that the *urden of proving his guilt rests upon the prosecution"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 77

Should the prosecution fail for an reason to present evidence sufficient to show his guilt *e ond reasona*le dou*t, petitioner would *e acquitted" @nless the prosecution discharges its *urden to prove the guilt of an accused *e ond reasona*le dou*t, the latter need not even offer evidence in his *ehalf" <n a related issue, the $ourt stated that there was no merit to petitionerFs claim that a reversal of the /T$Fs <rder dismissing $riminal $ase 1o" 1198A+ was a violation of his constitutional right against dou*le 9eopard which dismissal was founded on an alleged violation of his right to speed trial"

a The complaint or information or other formal charge was sufficient in form and su*stance to sustain a conviction5 a a The court had 9urisdiction5 The accused had *een arraigned and had pleaded5 and

a >e was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the e7press consent of the accused"

a The constitutional protection against dou*le 9eopard shields one from a second or later prosecution for the same offense" (rticle ,,,, Section 61 of the 198; $onstitution declares that no person shall *e twice put in 9eopard of punishment for the same offense, providing further that if an act is punished * a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a *ar to another prosecution for the same act" a =ollowing the a*ove constitutional provision, Section ;, /ule 11; of the /evised /ules of $ourt found it apt to stipulateI a S0$" ;" =ormer conviction or acquittal5 dou*le 9eopard " T .hen an accused has *een convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his e7press consent * a court of competent 9urisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and su*stance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall *e a *ar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for an attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for an offense which necessaril includes or is necessaril included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information"

a ,n the case at *ar, the $ourt held that dou*le 9eopard had not attached, considering that the dismissal of $riminal $ase 1o" 1198A+ on the ground of violation of his right to speed trial was without *asis and issued with grave a*use of discretion amounting to lack or e7cess of 9urisdiction" .here the right of the accused to speed trial had not *een violated, there was no reason to support the initial order of dismissal" (lthough it was true that in an un*roken line of cases, the $ourt had held that dismissal of cases on the ground of failure to prosecute was equivalent to an acquittal that would *ar further prosecution of the accused for the same offense, it stressed, however, that these dismissals were predicated on the clear right of the accused to speed trial" -ou*le 9eopard did not appl to this case, considering that there was no violation of petitionerFs right to speed trial"

a =or dou*le 9eopard to attach then, the following elements in the first criminal case must *e presentI

a ,ndeed, the $ourt held that for 9ustice to prevail, the scales must *alance, for 9ustice is not to *e dispensed for the accused alone" 0videntl , the task of the pillars of the criminal 9ustice s stem was to preserve our democratic societ under the rule of law, ensuring that all those who appeared *efore or were *rought to the *ar of 9ustice were afforded a fair opportunit to present their side" The State, like an other litigant, was entitled to its da in court, and to a reasona*le opportunit to present its case" ( hast dismissal, instead of unclogging dockets, had actuall increased the workload of the 9ustice s stem and unwittingl prolonged the litigation"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 78

a =inall , the $ourt reiterated that the rights given to the accused * the $onstitution and the /ules of $ourt were shields, not weapons" $ourts were tasked to give meaning to that intent" There *eing no capricious, ve7atious, oppressive dela in the proceedings, and no postponements un9ustifia*l sought, it dismissed the petition"

5, 6++A, holding that petitioner pla ed a *ig part in the dela of the case, and that technical rules of procedure were meant to secure, not override, su*stantial 9ustice" ,ssueI .hether or not the petitionerFs right to speed trial was violated" >eldI D1oE

O74's vs .8')6* =actsI #etitioner was indicted for )rave $oercion *efore the !etropolitan Trial $ourt D!eT$E of !anila * ,nformation1 dated 'une 68, 6++6 which was raffled to Branch 66 thereof" <n <cto*er 68, 6++6, petitioner posted *ail and was released" 'udge >ipolito dela %ega proceeded with petitionerFs arraignment on =e*ruar 16, 6++A in which he pleaded not guilt to the charge" #re8trial was thereupon set to !a 68, 6++A which was, however, declared a non8working da due to the occurrence of t phoon :$hedeng": The pre8trial was thus reset to <cto*er 6A, 6++A #re8trial was again reset to 'anuar 61, 6++3" Before the scheduled pre8trial on 'anuar 61, 6++3 or on 1ovem*er A, 6++A, petitioner filed a !otion to -ismiss the ,nformation on the ground of violation of his right to a speed trial under /epu*lic (ct 1o" 839A2 or the Speed Trial (ct of 1998 and Supreme $ourt $ircular DS$$E 1o" A8898"; >e argued that :considering that OheP was not 8 without an fault on his part 8 *rought to trial within 8+ da s from the date he was arraigned, this case should *e dismissed pursuant to /ule 119, Section 98 in relation to /ule 119, Section 2 of the /ules": The trial court, through pairing 'udge -anilo (" Buemio Drespondent 9udgeE, denied petitionerFs !otion to -ismiss * <rder of -ecem*er

#etitioner draws attention to the time gap of 1+5 da s from his arraignment on =e*ruar 16, 6++A up to the first pre8trial setting on !a 68, 6++A, and another gap of 138 da s from the latter date up to the second pre8trial setting on <cto*er 6A, 6++A or for a total of 65A da s 8 a clear contravention, according to petitioner, of the 8+8da time limit from arraignment to trial" ,t *ears noting, however, that on his arraignment on =e*ruar 16, 6++A, petitioner interposed no o*9ection to the setting of the pre8trial to !a 68, 6++A which was, as earlier stated, later declared a non8 working da " ,nargua*l , the cancellation of the scheduled pre8trial on that date was *e ond the control of the trial court" #etitioner argues, however, that the lapse of 65A da s Dfrom arraignment to <cto*er 6A, 6++AE was not 9ustified * an of the e7cusa*le dela s as em*odied in the time e7clusions specified under Section A of /ule 119" The argument is unavailing"

,n Solar Team 0ntertainment, ,nc" v" 'udge >ow, the $ourt stressed that the e7ceptions consisting of the time e7clusions provided in the Speed Trial (ct of 1998 reflect the fundamentall recognized principle that :speed trial: is a relative term and necessaril involves a degree of fle7i*ilit " This was reiterated in #eople v" >ernandez, vizI The right of the accused to a speed trial is guaranteed under Sections 13D6E and 12, (rticle ,,, of the 198; $onstitution" ,n 1998, $ongress enacted /"(" 1o" 839A, otherwise known as the :Speed Trial (ct of 1998":

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 79

The law provided for time limits in order :to ensure a speed trial of all criminal cases *efore the Sandigan*a an, O/T$P, !etropolitan Trial $ourt, !unicipal Trial $ourt, and !unicipal $ircuit Trial $ourt": <n (ugust 11, 1998, the Supreme $ourt issued $ircular 1o" A8898, the /ules ,mplementing /"(" 1o" 839A" The provisions of said circular were adopted in the 6+++ /evised /ules of $riminal #rocedure" (s to the time limit within which trial must commence after arraignment, the 6+++ /evised /ules of $riminal #rocedure statesI Sec" 2, /ule 119" 07tended time limit"88 1otwithstanding the provisions of section 1DgE, /ule 112 and the preceding section 1, for the first twelve8calendar8month period following its effectivit on Septem*er 15, 1998, the time limit with respect to the period from arraignment to trial imposed * said provision shall *e one hundred eight D18+E da s" =or the second twelve8month period, the time limit shall *e one hundred twent D16+E da s, and for the third twelve8month period, the time limit shall *e eight D8+E da s" /"(" 1o" 839A and its implementing rules and the /evised /ules of $riminal #rocedure enumerate certain reasona*le dela s as e7clusions in the computation of the prescri*ed time limits" The also provide that :no provision of law on speed trial and no rule implementing the same shall *e interpreted as a *ar to an charge of denial of speed trial as provided * (rticle ,,,, Section 13D6E, of the 198; $onstitution": Thus, in spite of the prescri*ed time limits, 9urisprudence continues to adopt the view that the concept of :speed trial: is a relative term and must necessaril *e a fle7i*le concept" ,n $orpuz v" Sandigan*a an, we heldI The right of the accused to a speed trial and to a speed disposition of the case against him was designed to prevent the oppression of the citizen * holding criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and to prevent dela s in the administration of

9ustice * mandating the courts to proceed with reasona*le dispatch in the trial of criminal cases" Such right to a speed trial and a speed disposition of a case is violated onl when the proceeding is attended * ve7atious, capricious and oppressive dela s" 7 7 7 ,n determining whether the accused has *een deprived of his right to a speed disposition of the case and to a speed trial, four factors must *e consideredI DaE length of dela 5 D*E the reason for the dela 5 DcE the defendantFs assertion of his right5 and DdE pre9udice to the defendant" The time limits set * the Speed Trial (ct of 1998 do not thus preclude 9ustifia*le postponements and dela s when so warranted * the situation" To the $ourt, the reasons for the postponements and dela s attendant to the present case reflected a*ove are not unreasona*le" .hile the records indicate that neither petitioner nor his counsel was notified of the resetting of the pre8trial to <cto*er 6A, 6++A, the same appears to have *een occasioned * oversight or simple negligence which, standing alone, does not prove fatal to the prosecutionFs case" The fau7 pas was acknowledged and corrected when the !eT$ recalled the arrest warrant it had issued against petitioner under the mistaken *elief that petitioner had *een dul notified of the <cto*er 6A, 6++A pre8trial setting" (ppl ing the *alancing test for determining whether an accused has *een denied his constitutional right to a speed trial, or a speed disposition of his case, taking into account several factors such as the length and reason of the dela , the accusedFs assertion or non8 assertion of his right, and the pre9udice to the accused resulting from the dela , the $ourt does not find petitioner to have *een undul and e7cessivel pre9udiced * the :dela : in the proceedings, especiall given that he had posted *ail"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 80

D!alinaoE 'aco* vs" Sandigan*a an =($TSI =rom 199A to 199;, #etron $orporation D#etronE, a corporation engaged in the *usiness of refining, marketing and distri*ution of petroleum products, received Ta7 $redit $ertificates DT$$sE * assignment from 18 private firms registered with the Board of ,nvestments DB<,E" #etron used the assigned T$$s to pa its e7cise ta7 lia*ilities " #etron then forwarded said documents to the <SS, with a request for authorization to use said T$$s to pa for its e7cise ta7 lia*ilities" -<= @ndersecretar (ntonio #" Belicena DBelicenaE approved the request of #etron through the issuance of Ta7 -e*it !emoranda DT-!E addressed to the $ollection #rogram -ivision of the Bureau of ,nternal /evenue DB,/E" The B,/ $ollection #rogram -ivision accepted the T$$s as pa ment for the e7cise ta7 lia*ilities of #etron * issuing its own T-!" The control num*ers of the B,/8T-! were indicated on the *ack of the T$$s, marking the final utilization of the ta7 credits" >owever, the =act =inding and ,ntelligence Bureau D==,BE of the <ffice of the <m*udsman eventuall found that the aforementioned transactions involving the T$$s were irregular and violative of the !emorandum of (greement dated (ugust 69, 1989 *etween the B<, and the -<=, which implemented (rticle 61 of 07ecutive <rder 1o" 662, otherwise known as the <mni*us ,nvestments $ode of 198;" <ffice of the <m*udsman issued a /esolution dated !arch 6;, 6+++ finding pro*a*le cause against several pu*lic officers and private individuals, including petitioners !onico %" 'aco* D'aco*E, #resident, and $elso 4" 4egarda D4egardaE, %ice8#resident and )eneral

!anager for !arketing, *oth of #etron, for perpetrating the so8called :ta7 credit scam": <n (pril 1+, 6+1+, the <ffice of the <m*udsman filed a total of 26 ,nformations, 18 of which, docketed as $riminal $ase 1os" 659668 659A9, were against -<= @ndersecretar Belicena, <SS -eput 07ecutive -irector @ldarico #" (ndutan, 'r", petitioners and other #etron officials, and officers of the B<,8registered firms which assigned the T$$s to #etron, charging them with violation of Section ADeE of /epu*lic (ct 1o" A+19, otherwise known as the (nti8)raft and $orrupt #ractices (ct" <n (pril 13, 6+++, petitioners and the four other #etron officers who were similarl charged filed a !otion for /einvestigation Owith the <ffice of the <m*udsmanP" <n 1; (pril 6+++, the OSandigan*a an =ourth -ivisionP issued an <rder giving the prosecution a period of si7t D2+E da s within which T o M to re8assess its evidence in these cases and to take appropriate action on the said motion for reconsideration of accused movants and to inform the $ourt within the same period as to its findings and recommendations including the action thereon of the >onora*le <m*udsman" Si7t D2+E da s passed *ut the <ffice of the <m*udsman did not even *other to su*mit a report on the status of the motions for reconsideration" !onths passed, and then, (1 01T,/0 &0(/ #(SS0-" There was still nothing from the respondent <ffice of the <m*udsman"

$onsidering the time that had lapsed, the OSandigan*a an =ourth -ivisionP, at the hearing on 1 'une 6++1, e7pressl warned the prosecution that should it fail to resolve the reconsiderationLinvestigation, it would order the dismissal of the cases or require the prosecution to show cause wh it should not *e cited for contempt"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 81

,n its /esolution dated 62 'une 6++1, the OSandigan*a an =ourth -ivisionP in fact denied the motion of the prosecution for the resetting of the scheduled arraignment and pre8trial on 6 'ul 6++1 :it appearing that the /einvestigation of these cases has *een pending for more than one D1E ear now and the court cannot countenance the unreasona*le dela attri*uta*le to the plaintiff": ,n spite of the denial of their motion, the prosecution still failed to su*mit its report to the OSandigan*a an =ourth -ivisionP during the 6 'ul 6++1 hearing" ,nstead the asked for a period of seven D;E more da s to resolve the motions for reconsideration" The arraignment Dof the other accusedE and pre8trial therefore had to *e reset again to 1; 'ul 6++1" (t the scheduled hearing on (ugust 6+, 6++1, #rosecutor <rlando ,nes, however, again requested for the deferment of the arraignment and pre8trial on the ground that the resolution on the various motions for reconsiderationLreinvestigation were still pending approval * the <ffice of the <m*udsman" ,n all the hearings conducted in the cases the defense ver*all and consistentl invoked their right to speed trial and moved for the dismissal of the cases" ,n the course of more than one ear, however, the OSandigan*a an 3th -ivisionP kept affording the prosecution one chance after another" The si7t da s granted to the prosecution *ecame more than four hundred da s T still, there was no resolution in sight" Thus on 6+ (ugust 6++1, compelled * its dut to uphold the fundamental law, the OSandigan*a an =ourth -ivision, through its $hairman, 'ustice 1arioP issued a ver*al order dismissing the cases" The dismissal was dul recorded in the minutes of the hearing of the said date which was attested to * the $lerk of $ourt and signed * the parties" But the prosecutors appealed the decision of the Sandigan*a an to set aside its previous ver*al order to dismiss the case"

<n 3 =e*ruar 6++6, </ S,C D2E !<1T>S after O'ustice 1arioP issued the ver*al order of dismissal, the OSandigan*a an Special =ourth -ivisionP issued an <rder setting aside said ver*al order"

,SS@0I .<1 T>0 /0S#<1-01T $<@/T $<!!,TT0- )/(%0 (B@S0 <= -,S$/0T,<1 (!<@1T,1) T< 4($N </ 0C$0SS <= '@/,S-,$T,<1 ,1 -01&,1) #0T,T,<10/SF /,)>T T< S#00-& T/,(4K

/@4,1)I (n accusedFs right to :have a speed , impartial, and pu*lic trial: is guaranteed in criminal cases * Section 13D6E, (rticle ,,,16 of the $onstitution" This right to a speed trial ma *e defined as one free from ve7atious, capricious and oppressive dela s, its :salutar o*9ective: *eing to assure that an innocent person ma *e free from the an7iet and e7pense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possi*le time compati*le with the presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he ma interpose" ,ntimating historical perspective on the evolution of the right to speed trial, we reiterate the old legal ma7im, :9ustice dela ed is 9ustice denied": This oft8repeated adage requires the e7peditious resolution of disputes, much more so in criminal cases where an accused is constitutionall .e further emphasized in @ that :speed trial: is a relative term and necessaril a fle7i*le concept" ,n determining whether the right of the accused to a speed trial was violated, the dela should *e considered, in view of the entiret of the proceedings" ,ndeed, mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not suffice as the realities of ever da life must *e

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 82

regarded in 9udicial proceedings which, after all, do not e7ist in a vacuum" The right of the accused to a speed trial and to a speed disposition of the case against him was designed to prevent the oppression of the citizen * holding criminal prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and to prevent dela s in the administration of 9ustice * mandating the courts to proceed with reasona*le dispatch in the trial of criminal cases" Such right to a speed trial and a speed disposition of a case is violated onl when the proceeding is attended * ve7atious, capricious and oppressive dela s" The inquir as to whether or not an accused has *een denied such right is not suscepti*le * precise qualification" The concept of a speed disposition is a relative term and must necessaril *e a fle7i*le concept" .hile 9ustice is administered with dispatch, the essential ingredient is orderl , e7peditious and not mere speed" ,t cannot *e definitel said how long is too long in a s stem where 9ustice is supposed to *e swift, *ut deli*erate" ,t is consistent with dela s and depends upon circumstances" ,t secures rights to the accused, *ut it does not preclude the rights of pu*lic 9ustice" (lso, it must *e *orne in mind that the rights given to the accused * the $onstitution and the /ules of $ourt are shields, not weapons5 hence, courts are to give meaning to that intent"18 D0mphases ours"E .e went on to la down in $orpuz the test for determining whether an accused was indeed deprived of his right to a speed trial and disposition of the case against himI ,n determining whether the accused has *een deprived of his right to a speed disposition of the case and to a speed trial, four factors must *e consideredI DaE length of dela 5 D*E the reason for the dela 5 DcE the defendantFs assertion of his right5 and DdE pre9udice to the defendant"

#re9udice should *e assessed in the light of the interest of the defendant that the speed trial was designed to protect, namel I to prevent oppressive pre8trial incarceration5 to minimize an7iet and concerns of the accused to trial5 and to limit the possi*ilit that his defense will *e impaired" <f these, the most serious is the last, *ecause the ina*ilit of a defendant adequatel to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire s stem" There is also pre9udice if the defense witnesses are una*le to recall accuratel the events of the distant past" 0ven if the accused is not imprisoned prior to trial, he is still disadvantaged * restraints on his li*ert and * living under a cloud of an7iet , suspicion and often, hostilit " >is financial resources ma *e drained, his association is curtailed, and he is su*9ected to pu*lic o*loqu " ,n the #etition at *ar, petitioner 'aco* was arraigned on 'une 1, 6+++, while petitioner 4egarda was arraigned on !a 18, 6++15 with *oth petitioners pleading not guilt " Since then, there had *een no other significant development in the cases since the prosecution repeatedl requested for deferment or postponement of the scheduled hearings as it awaits the result of the reinvestigation of the <ffice of the <m*udsman" 'udge 1ario ver*all ordered the dismissal of said cases during the hearing on (ugust 6+, 6++1" Thus, the criminal cases had *een pending for a*out a ear and four months * the time the were dismissed * 'ustice 1ario" But, even though we acknowledge the dela in the criminal proceedings, as well as the pre9udice suffered * petitioners and their co8accused * reason thereof, the weighing of interests militate against a finding that petitionersF right to speed trial and disposition of the cases involving them would have 9ustified the dismissal of $riminal $ase " .e agree with the Sandigan*a an Special =ourth -ivision that 'ustice 1arioFs dismissal of the criminal cases was unwarranted

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 83

under the circumstances, since the State should not *e pre9udiced and deprived of its right to prosecute the criminal cases simpl *ecause of the ineptitude or nonchalance of the <ffice of the <m*udsman" .e reiterate our o*servations in $orpuz thatI There can *e no den ing the fact that the petitioners, as well as the other accused, was pre9udiced * the dela in the reinvestigation of the cases and the su*mission * the <m*udsmanLSpecial #rosecutor of his report thereon" So was the State" .e have *alanced the societal interest involved in the cases and the need to give su*stance to the petitionersF constitutional rights and their quest for 9ustice, and we are convinced that the dismissal of the cases is too drastic a remed to *e accorded to the petitioners" The cloud of suspicion ma still linger over the heads of the petitioners * the precipitate dismissal of the cases"

such order *aseless, as we had previousl discussed herein5 *ut more importantl , *ecause it is an utter nullit "

#"S" Sorr taas kaa o mga facts and rulings" Mar6 vs. P'*27' =actsI #etitioner (((, e7ecuted a sworn statement *efore an ,nvestigator of the 8th /egional <ffice, #hilippine 1ational #olice8$riminal ,nvestigation and -etection )roup D#1#8$,-)E in Taclo*an $it , where she stated that she was raped * herein private respondent on <cto*er 1+, 6++3 at her *oarding house at Sogod, Southern 4e te" ( warrant of arrest was issued against private respondent, so he voluntaril surrendered to the $hief of #olice of Sogod on 1ovem*er 18, 6++3 and was then incarcerated at the Sogod !unicipal 'ail" <n 1ovem*er 6+, 6++3, private respondent filed a !otion for Bail" (nd petitioner failed to appear" <nl private respondent presented evidence" Thus, on !arch 12, 6++5, the !$T$ of Sogod issued an <rder allowing private respondent to post *ail set at #6++,+++"++" (fter posting a suret *ond, private respondent was released from confinement" #ursuant to the issuance of ("!" 1o" +588862, records of the su*9ect case were transmitted to the #rovincial #rosecutorBs <ffice of Southern 4e te" The #rosecutorBs <ffice issued a /esolution dated !a 62, 6++8, finding pro*a*le cause against private respondent and, accordingl , ,nformation for /ape was filed on 'une 11, 6++8" ( warrant of arrest was immediatel issued against private respondent" <n 'une 6;, 6++8, private respondent was committed to detention and, on 'une A+, 6++8, the /T$ issued an <rder stating that

.e repeat 88 the cases involve the so8called ta7 credit certificates scam and hundreds of millions of pesos allegedl perpetrated * government officials in connivance with private individuals" The #eople have et to prove the guilt of the petitioners of the crimes charged *e ond reasona*le dou*t" .e agree with the ruling of the Sandigan*a an that *efore resorting to the e7treme sanction of depriving the petitioner a chance to prove its case * dismissing the cases, the <m*udsmanLSpecial #rosecutor should *e ordered * the Sandigan*a an under pain of contempt, to e7plain the dela in the su*mission of his report on his reinvestigation" =urthermore, the Sandigan*a an Special =ourth -ivision did not a*use its discretion in setting aside 'ustice 1arioFs ver*al order, which dismissed $riminal $ase 1os" 659668659A9, for not onl was

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 84

accused had voluntaril surrendered to the <ffice of the $lerk of $ourt and arraignment was set for 'ul A1, 6++8" ,n the meantime, on 'ul A, 6++8, private respondent filed a !otion to (dmit $ash Bond in 4ieu of Suret Bond5 thus, in an <rder dated 'ul 1+, 6++8, the /T$ cancelled the 'ul A1, 6++8 schedule for arraignment and reset the arraignment and hearing on said motion for (ugust 6+, 6++8" (t said scheduled date for arraignment and hearing on the motion, no*od appeared for the prosecution" >ence, the /T$ issued the <rder dated (ugust 6+, 6++8 resetting the arraignment for <cto*er A1, 6++8 and stating thatI <n <cto*er 68, 6++8, petitioner (((, private complainant *elow, filed through her private counsel, a !otion for $ancellation of >earing, manifesting that (tt " #edro =elicen, 'r" had *een granted the authorit to prosecute * the #rovincial #rosecutor and pra ing that the scheduled arraignment on <cto*er A1, 6++8 *e cancelled due to the pendenc of private complainantBs petition for transfer of venue *efore this $ourt" The authorized private prosecutor did not appear on said hearing date" The hearing on <cto*er A1, 6++8 proceeded as the /T$ ruled, in its <rder issued on the same da , that unless restrained * a higher court, the mere pendenc of a petition for transfer of venue is not sufficient reason to suspend the proceedings" !oreover, counsel for accused invoked the accusedBs right to a speed trial and, thus, private respondent was arraigned in the presence of the #rovincial #rosecutor who was designated * the /T$ to represent the prosecution for the purpose of arraignment" #re8trial was set for 1ovem*er 1A, 6++8" 1evertheless, said schedule for pre8trial was cancelled as the #residing 'udge of the /T$ had to attend a #>,4'( Seminar, and pre8trial was reset and on the da of the pre8trial itself, the private prosecutor again filed a !otion for $ancellation of >earing, again using as 9ustification the pendenc of the petition for transfer of venue" The /T$ issued an <rder on even date, reading as followsI

To make the long stor shortI /T$ dismissed the case .>0/0=</0, finding the motion of the counsel for the accused to *e *ased on grounds that are meritorious, this $ourt pursuant to 7 7 7 the rule on speed trial D/( 83AAE Oshould *e :839A:P here* orders this case dismissed for failure of the prosecution to prosecute or nolle prosequi"

,SS@0I .<1 the /T$ commit grave a*use of discretion when the dismissed the case and grant the pra er of the accused invoking his right to speed trialK /ulingI (n accusedBs right to :have a speed , impartial, and pu*lic trial: is guaranteed in criminal cases * Section 13 D6E of (rticle ,,, of the $onstitution" This right to a speed trial ma *e defined as one free from ve7atious, capricious and oppressive dela s, its :salutar o*9ective: *eing to assure that an innocent person ma *e free from the an7iet and e7pense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possi*le time compati*le with the presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he ma interpose"

a ,ntimating historical perspective on the evolution of the right to speed trial, we reiterate the old legal ma7im, :9ustice dela ed is 9ustice denied": This oft8repeated adage requires the e7peditious resolution of disputes, much more so in criminal cases where an accused is constitutionall guaranteed the right to a speed trial" a =ollowing the policies incorporated under the 198; $onstitution, /epu*lic (ct 1o" 839A, otherwise known as :The Speed Trial (ct of 1998,: was enacted, with Section 2 of said act limiting the trial period to 18+ da s from the first da of trial" (ware of pro*lems resulting in the clogging of court dockets, the $ourt implemented the law * issuing Supreme $ourt $ircular 1o" A8898, which has *een incorporated in the 6+++ /ules of $riminal #rocedure, Section 6 of /ule 119"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 85

a 07haustivel e7plained in $orpuz v" Sandigan*a an, an accusedBs right to speed trial is deemed violated onl when the proceeding is attended * ve7atious, capricious, and oppressive dela s" ,n determining whether petitioner was deprived of this right, the factors to consider and *alance are the followingI DaE duration of the dela 5 D*E reason therefor5 DcE assertion of the right or failure to assert it5 and DdE pre9udice caused * such dela " a .e emphasize that in determining the right of an accused to speed trial, courts are required to do more than a mathematical computation of the num*er of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case" ( mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is clearl insufficient, and particular regard must *e given to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case" a >ere, it must *e emphasized that private respondent had alread *een deprived of his li*ert on two occasions" a =irst, during the preliminar investigation *efore the !$T$, when he was incarcerated from 1ovem*er 18, 6++3 to !arch 12, 6++5, or a period of almost four months5 a then again, when an ,nformation had alread *een issued and since rape is a non8*aila*le offense, he was imprisoned *eginning 'une 6;, 6++8 until the case was dismissed on 'anuar 12, 6++9, or a period of over 2 months a " %eril , there can *e no cavil that deprivation of li*ert for an duration of time is quite oppressive" Because of private respondentBs continued incarceration, an dela in tr ing the case would cause him great pre9udice" Thus, it was a*solutel ve7atious and oppressive to dela the trial in the su*9ect criminal case to await the outcome of petitionersB petition for transfer of venue, especiall in this case where there is no temporar restraining order or writ of preliminar in9unction issued * a higher court against herein pu*lic respondent from further proceeding in the case" a >ence, the $ourt does not find an grave a*use of discretion committed * the trial court in dismissing the case against private respondent for violation of his constitutional right to speed trial"

/eI /equest for /adio8T% $overage of 0ST/(-( plunder case" D'une 6++1E

=($TSI a The Sandigan*a an reels to start hearing the criminal charges against !r" 'oseph 0" 0strada" !edia seeks to cover the event via live television and live radio *roadcast and endeavors this $ourt to allow it that kind of access to the proceedings" a <n 1A !arch 6++1, the Napisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng #ilipinas DNB#E, an association representing dul franchised and authorized television and radio networks throughout the countr , sent a letterO1P requesting this $ourt to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed against former #resident 'oseph 0" 0strada *efore the Sandigan*a an in order :to assure the pu*lic of full ransparenc in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our histor ": a <n 1; (pril 6++1, the >onora*le Secretar of 'ustice >ernando #erez formall filed the instant petition,OAP su*mitting the following e7egesisI a The foregoing criminal cases involve the previous acts of the former highest official of the land, mem*ers of his famil , his cohorts and, therefore, it cannot *e over emphasized that the prosecution thereof, definitel involves a matter of pu*lic concern and interest, or a matter over which the entire citizenr has the right to know, *e informed and made aware of" a There is no gainsa ing that the constitutional right of the people to *e informed on matters of pu*lic concern, as in the instant cases, can *est *e recognized, served and satisfied * allowing the live radio and television coverage of the concomitant court proceedings" a !oreover, the live radio and television coverage of the proceedings will also serve the dual purpose of ensuring the desired transparenc in the administration of 9ustice in order to disa*use the minds of the supporters of the past regime of an and all unfounded notions, or ill8perceived attempts on

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 86

the part of the present dispensation, to BrailroadB the instant criminal cases against the =ormer #resident 'oseph 09ercito 0strada":

a The television camera is a powerful weapon which intentionall or inadvertentl can destro an accused and his case in the e es of the pu*lic" a /epresentatives of the press have no special standing to appl for a writ of mandate to compel a court to permit them to attend a trial, since within the courtroom, a reporterBs constitutional rights are no greater than those of an other mem*er of the pu*lic" a !assive intrusion of representatives of the news media into the trial itself can so alter or destro the constitutionall necessar 9udicial atmosphere and decorum that the requirements of impartialit imposed * due process of law are denied the defendant and a defendant in a criminal proceeding should not *e forced to run a gauntlet of reporters and photographers each time he enters or leaves the courtroom" a :$onsidering the pre9udice it poses to the defendantBs right to due process as well as to the fair and orderl administration of 9ustice, and considering further that the freedom of the press and the right of the people to information ma *e served and satisfied * less distracting, degrading and pre9udicial means, live radio and television coverage of court proceedings shall not *e allowed" a %ideo footages of court hearings for news purposes shall *e restricted and limited to shots of the courtroom, the 9udicial officers, the parties and their counsel taken prior to the commencement of official proceedings" 1o video shots or photographs shall *e permitted during the trial proper" a :(ccordingl , in order to protect the partiesF right to due process, to prevent the distraction of the participants in the proceedings and in the last anal sis, to avoid miscarriage of 9ustice, the $ourt resolved to #/<>,B,T live radio and television coverage of court proceedings" %ideo footages of court hearings for news purposes shall *e limited and restricted as a*ove indicated": a (dmittedl , the press is a might catal st in awakening pu*lic consciousness, and it has *ecome an important instrument in the quest for truth" /ecent histor e7emplifies mediaBs invigorating presence, and its contri*ution to societ is quite impressive" The $ourt, 9ust recentl , has

,SS@0I .<1 the petitioners will *e allowed to cover the #lunder case of =ormer #res" 0stradaK

/@4,1)I a :$ourts do not discriminate against radio and television media * for*idding the *roadcasting or televising of a trial while permitting the newspaper reporter access to the courtroom, since a television or news reporter has the same privilege, as the news reporter is not permitted to *ring his t pewriter or printing press into the courtroom" a :,n 0stes vs" Te7as, the @nited States Supreme $ourt held that television coverage of 9udicial proceedings involves an inherent denial of the due process rights of a criminal defendant" %oting 583, the $ourt through B!r" 'ustice $lark, identified four D3E areas of potential pre9udice which might arise from the impact of the cameras on the 9ur , witnesses, the trial 9udge and the defendant" The decision in part pertinentl statedI a 07perience likewise has esta*lished the pre9udicial effect of telecasting on witnesses" a .itnesses might *e frightened, pla to the camera, or *ecome nervous" The are su*9ect to e7traordinar out8of8court influences which might affect their testimon " a (lso, telecasting not onl increases the trial 9udgeBs responsi*ilit to avoid actual pre9udice to the defendant, it ma as well affect his own performance" 'udges are human *eings also and are su*9ect to the same ps chological reactions as la men" a =or the defendant, telecasting is a form of mental harassment and su*9ects him to e7cessive pu*lic e7posure and distracts him from the effective presentation of his defense"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 87

taken 9udicial notice of the enormous effect of media in stirring pu*lic sentience during the impeachment trial, a partl 9udicial and partl political e7ercise, indeed the most8watched program in the *oo*8tu*es during those times, which would soon culminate in 0-S( ,," a The propriet of granting or den ing the instant petition involve the weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to pu*lic information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of the accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial" a .hen these rights race against one another, 9urisprudence tells us that the right of the accused must *e preferred to win" a .ith the possi*ilit of losing not onl the precious li*ert *ut also the ver life of an accused, it *ehooves all to make a*solutel certain that an accused receives a verdict solel on the *asis of a 9ust and dispassionate 9udgment, a verdict that would come onl after the presentation of credi*le evidence testified to * un*iased witnesses unswa ed * an kind of pressure, whether open or su*tle, in proceedings that are devoid of histrionics that might detract from its *asic aim to ferret verita*le facts free from improper influence, and decreed * a 9udge with an unpre9udiced mind, un*ridled * running emotions or passions" a #arentheticall , the @nited States Supreme $ourt and other federal courts do not allow live television and radio coverage of their proceedings" a The sad realit is that the criminal cases presentl involved are of great dimensions so involving as the do a former #resident of the /epu*lic" ,t is undenia*le that these cases have twice *ecome the nationBs focal points in the two conflicting phenomena of 0-S( ,, and 0-S( ,,, where the magnitude of the events has left a still divided nation" a The transcendental events in our midst do not allow us to, turn a *lind e e to et another possi*le e7traordinar case of mass action *eing allowed to now creep into even the *usiness of the courts in the dispensation of 9ustice under a rule of law" (t the ver least, a change in the standing rule of the court contained in its resolution of 6A <cto*er 1991 ma not appear to *e propitious"

a @nlike other government offices, courts do not e7press the popular will of the people in an sense which, instead, are tasked to onl ad9udicate 9usticia*le controversies on the *asis of what alone is su*mitted *efore them" ( trial is not a free trade of ideas" 1or is a competing market of thoughts the known test truth in a courtroom" a The $ourt is not all that unmindful of recent technological and scientific advances *ut to chance forthwith the life or li*ert of an person in a hast to *id to use and appl them, even *efore ample safet nets are provided and the concerns heretofore e7pressed are aptl addressed, is a price too high to pa " .>0/0=</0, the petition is -01,0-"

)(/$,( vs" -<!,1)< =($TS a <n 'anuar 12, 1928, in the $it $ourt of !anila presided over * petitioner 'udge )regorio )arcia, 8 information were filed against respondents 0dgardo $alo, and Simeon $ar*onnel and =rancisco 4orenzana, for slight ph sical in9uries, maltreatment, for violation of Sec" 88; of the /evised <rdinances of !anila Dresisting an officerE5 and for slander" a (ll the 13 trial dates e7cept !arch 3 and 18, and (pril 1;, 1928 fell on a Saturda " This was arranged * the parties and the $ourt upon the insistence of respondents $alo and $ar*onnel who, as police officers under suspension *ecause of the cases, desired the same to *e terminated as soon as possi*le and as there were man cases scheduled for trial on the usual criminal trial da s D!onda , .ednesda and =rida E" a Saturda was agreed upon as the invaria*le trial da for said eight D8E criminal cases" The trial of the cases in question was held, with the conformit of the accused and their counsel, in the cham*ers of 'udge )arcia"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 88

a -uring all the 13 da s of trial, spanning a period of several months, the accused were at all times represented * their respective counsel, who acted not onl in defense of their clients, *ut as prosecutors of the accusations filed at their clientsB instance" There was onl 1 da D(pril 6+E when (tt " $onsengco, representing respondent $alo and $ar*onnel, was a*sent" But at the insistence of $ar*onnel, the trial proceeded, and said respondent cross8e7amined one of the witnesses presented * the adverse part " a >owever, on <cto*er 1, 1928, $alo and $ar*onnel, thru their counsel, filed with the $=, of !anila a petition for certiorari and prohi*ition, with application for preliminar prohi*itor and mandator in9unction alleging 9urisdictional defects" a /espondent 'udge =eli7 -omingo issued a restraining order thus causing the deferment of the promulgation of the 9udgment" (fter proceedings dul had, there was an order from him declaring that Bthe constitutional and statutor rights of the accusedB had *een violated, adversel affecting their Bright to a free and impartial trial, noting Bthat the trial of these cases lasting several weeks held e7clusivel in cham*ers and not in the court room open the pu*licB5: and ordering the cit court 'udge )arcia, :to desist from reading or causing to *e read or promulgated the decisions he ma have rendered alread in the criminal cases pending in his $ourt, until further orders of this $ourt" a #etioner 'udge )arcia filed this instant case Dpetition for certiorari and prohi*ition on the T/< issued * respondent 'udge -omingo"

&0S a The 19A5 $onstitution which was in force at the time of this petition e7plicitl enumerated the right to a pu*lic trial to which an accused was entitled" a (s a matter of fact, that was one constitutional provision that needed onl a single, terse summation from 'ustice 'ose #" 4aurel, to gain acceptance" (s was stressed * himI :Trial should also *e pu*lic in order to offset an danger of conducting it in an illegal and un9ust manner": a The $onstitution guarantees an accused the right to a pu*lic trial" There is no am*iguit in the words emplo ed" The trial must *e pu*lic" ,t possesses that character when an one interested in o*serving the manner a 9udge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom ma do so" There is to *e no *an on such attendance" >is *eing a stranger to the litigants is of no moment" 1o relationship to the parties need *e shown" The thought that lies *ehind this safeguard is the *elief that there* the accused is afforded further protection, that his trial is likel to *e conducted with regularit and not tainted with an impropriet " a (ccordingg to '" 4aurel, the importance of this right is its *eing deterrence to ar*itrariness" ,t is thus understanda*le wh such a right is deemed em*raced in procedural due process" .here a trial takes place, as is quite usual, in the courtroom and a calendar of what cases are to *e heard is posted, no pro*lem arises" ,t the usual course of events that individuals desirous of *eing present are free to do so" There is the well8recognized e7ception though that warrants the e7clusion of the pu*lic where the evidence ma *e characterized as :offensive to decenc or pu*lic morals": a .hat did occasion difficult in this suit was that for the convenience of the parties, and of the cit court 'udge, it was in the latterBs air8conditioned cham*ers that the trial was held" a There is no showing that the pu*lic was there* e7cluded" ,t is to *e admitted that the size of the room allotted the 'udge would reduce the num*er of those who could *e our present" Such a fact though is not indicative of an transgression of this right"

,SS@0 .<1 respondent 'udge commit a grave a*use of discretion in ruling that the holding of the trial of the accused inside the cham*ers of petitioner ,cit court 'udge )regorio )arcia, as violative of the constitutional right to pu*lic trialK

>04-

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 89

a $ourtrooms are not of uniform dimensions" Some are smaller than others" !oreover, as admitted * 'ustice Black in his masterl ,n re <liver opinion, it suffices to satisf the requirement of a trial *eing pu*lic if the accused could :have his friends, relatives and counsel present, no matter with what offense he ma *e charged": a ,t is an undisputed fact that at least fourteen hearings had *een held in cham*ers of the cit court 'udge, without o*9ection on the part of respondent policemen" a The crowded dail calendar, the nature of the cases handled, civil as well as criminal, the rela7ed attitude on procedural rules not *eing strictl adhered to all make for a less tense atmosphere" (s a result the attendance of the general pu*lic is much more in evidence5 nor is its presence unwelcome" a .hen it is remem*ered further that the occupants of such courts are not chosen primaril for their legal acumen, *ut taken from that portion of the *ar more considera*l attuned to the pulse of pu*lic life, it is not to *e rationall e7pected that an accused would *e denied whatever solace and comfort ma come from the knowledge that a 9udge, with the e es of the alert court alert to his demeanor and his rulings, would run the risk of *eing un9ust, unfair, or ar*itrar " 1or does it change matters, 9ust *ecause, as did happen here, it was in the air8conditioned cham*ers of a cit court 9udge rather than in the usual place that the trial took place" a .>0/0=</0, the writ of certiorari pra ed for is granted nullif ing, setting aside, and declaring *ereft of an legal force or effect the order of respondent 'udge =eli7 -omingo 1ovem*er 69, 1928 for *eing issued with grave a*use of discretion" a The writ of prohi*ition sought * petitioner is likewise granted, commanding respondent 'udge or an one acting in his place to desist from an further action in $riminal $ase 1o" ;38A+ of the $ourt of =irst ,nstance of !anila other than that of dismissing the same" a The preliminar writ of in9unction issued * this $ourt in its resolution of =e*ruar A, 1929 against the actuation of respondent 'udge is made

permanent" .ith costs against respondent policemen 0dgardo $alo and Simeon $ar*onnel"

P*76nar

RE: REJUEST FOR LIVE RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL IN THE SANDIGAN.ACAN OF THE PLUNDER CASES AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT +OSEPH E. ESTRADA Septem*er 1A, 6++1 FACTS 1" #etitioner Secretar of 'ustice argues that there is reall no conflict *etween the right of the people to pu*lic information and the freedom of the press and, on the right of the accused to a fair trial5 that if there is a clash *etween these rights, it must *e resolved in favor of the right of the people and the press 6" #resident 'oseph 0" 0strada reiterates his o*9ection to the live T% and radio coverage of his trial on the ground that its allowance will violate the sub ,udice rule and that, *ased on his e7perience with the impeachment trial, live media coverage will onl pave the wa for so8 called :e7pert commentar : which can trigger massive demonstrations aimed at pressuring the Sandigan*a an to render a decision one wa or the other" A" !r" 0strada contends that the right of the people to information ma *e served through other means less distracting, degrading, and pre9udicial than live T% and radio coverage" ISSUE .hether or not the said media coverage would lead to an impartial trial HELD 1. NO 6" There are several reasons for such televised recording" a" F6rs3, the hearings are of historic significance" The are an affirmation of our commitment to the rule that :the Ning is under

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 90

no man, *ut he is under )od and the law": <Guod 7ex non debet esse sub homine/ sed sub 8eo et :ege!> *" S':*n-, the 0strada cases involve matters of vital concern to our people who have a fundamental right to know how their government is conducted" This right can *e enhanced * audio8 visual presentation" c" T56r-, audio8visual presentation is essential for the education and civic training of the people" A" (*ove all, there is the need to keep audio8visual records of the hearings for documentar purposes" The recordings will *e useful in preserving the essence of the proceedings in a wa that the cold print cannot quite do *ecause it cannot capture the sights and sounds of events" The will *e primaril for the use of appellate courts in the event a review of the proceedings, rulings, or decisions of the Sandigan*a an is sought or *ecomes necessar " The accurac of the transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the trial can *e checked * reference to the tapes" 3" <n the concerns a*out the REGULARITC AND FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL T the will *e addressed since the tapes will not *e released for pu*lic showing until after the decision of the cases * the Sandigan*a an" B dela ing the release of the tapes, much of the pro*lem posed * real time T% and radio *roadcast will *e avoided" ANIMAS vs. MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENSE 1%6 SCRA %B6 19&6 FACTS 1" This petition challenges the 9urisdiction of a militar tri*unal to tr twelve accused persons, *n7; *n' *= <5*) 6s 6n 35' )6763ar;, for the offense devoid of an national securit or political comple7ion and committed long *efore the proclamation of martial law" 6" The petitioners were recommended for prosecution *efore the !ilitar Tri*unal, considering that one of them, petitioner Sgt" /odolfo (nimas is a militar personnel" Thereafter, the 'udge (dvocate )eneral filed the corresponding charge sheet, *ut he modified the crime charged from G!urderH to G%iolation of Section 8;8 of the /evised (dministrative $odeH in /elation to Section 6296 of the same $ode and #residential -ecree 1o" 9, H ,llegal #ossession of =irearms with !urder"H

A" (ccording to the petitioners, !ilitar $ommission 1o" 6; is without 9urisdiction over the criminal case filed against them *ecause )eneral <rder 1o" 59 upon which the $ommissionFs 9urisdiction is anchored refers onl to illegal possession of firearms and e7plosives in relation to crimes committed with a political comple7ion" The point out that, from the charge sheet, the onl crime imputed against them is murder and that the essential elements of the crime of illegal possession of firearms were not alleged" The also stress that the alleged killing of the deceased &anson was devoid of an political comple7ion" ISSUE .hether or not there are compelling reasons wh the petition should *e granted and the criminal case transferred from the militar tri*unal to an appropriate civil court HELD 1. CES 6" #resident issued #roclamation 1o" 6+35 which ostensi*l lifted martial law in the #hilippines" The polic announced in the #roclamation was to transfer cases pending with the militar tri*unals to civilian courts e7cept those which ma not *e transferred *ecause of Girrepara*le pre9udiceH to the state in view of the rules on dou*le 9eopard or other circumstances which would render further prosecution of cases difficult if not impossi*le 3. The $ourt relied on the enunciated polic of normali#ation in upholding the primac of civil courts" T56s 2*76:; )'an3 35a3 as )an; :as's as 2*ss647' 6nv*7v6n( :6v676ans 4'6n( 3r6'- 4; )6763ar; 3r648na7s as :*87- 4' 3rans='rr'- 3* :6v67 :*8r3s s5*874' 38rn'- *v'r 6))'-6a3'7;. In :as' *= -*843, 35' 2r's8)236*n <as 6n =av*r *= :6v67 :*8r3s a7<a;s 3r;6n( :6v676an a::8s'-. 4. <ut of the twelve D16E accused onl one, Sgt" /odolfo (nimas is a mem*er of the armed forces" (ppl ing rule in 7olando ! de &u#man v! 9on! le,andro 7! :eopando/ where the lone militar personnel was ordered tried together with 19 civilians accused *efore a civil court" ,t is also clear from the records that the acts for which Sgt" (nimas was charged had nothing to do with the performance of official dut " 5" The crime for which the petitioners were charged was committed on 1ovem*er 1+, 19;1 long *efore the proclamation of martial law" There was no question a*out the case *eing prosecuted * civilian fiscals and tried * civil courts at the time"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 91

2" The 9urisdiction given to militar tri*unals over common crimes and civilian accused at a time when all civil courts were full operational and freel functioning constitutes one of the saddest chapters in the histor of the #hilippine 9udiciar " $. T5' 6))'-6a3' r'38rn 3* :6v67 :*8r3s *= a77 :as's s5*87- 2r*2'r7; 4'7*n( 3*.

5"

Such *eing the case here, the respondent !ilitar $ommissionFs actions of tr ing the #etitioners and rendering sentence is null and void" 2" (ssuming that the same does have 9urisdiction, the fact that the trials were conducted hastil i"e", the #etitioners were never actuall given a chance to defend themselves or even present their own evidences due process was actuall denied to the #etitioners5 hence, 35'6r s'n3'n:' s5*87- 4' 3r'a3'- as 8n:*ns363836*na7 an- v6*7a3's 35' R6(53s *= 35' 2'3636*n'rs 3* an I)2ar36a7 Tr648na7 CRU! vs. PONCE ENRILE 12+ S$/( ;+6 1988 FACTS

OLAGUER V. MILITARC COMMISSION 66 !a 198; FACTS 1" <n 63 -ecem*er 19;9, herein #etitioners88 all, of which, are civilians were arrested * the militar and were su*sequentl detained at $amp $rame and were then transferred to $amp Bagong -iwa" 6" Sometime in 198+, the then $hief of Staff of the (rmed =orces created the /espondent !ilitar $ommission 1o" A3 for the purposes of tr ing the said #etitioners of their alleged crimes" A" >astil , the said /espondent $ommission sentenced the #etitioners to death" 3" #etitioners now come to the Supreme $ourt to challenge the said !ilitar $ommission" ISSUE .hether or not the actions of the militar violates the /ights of the petitioners to an ,mpartial Tri*unal HELD 1. CES 6" ,t must *e noted that in 1981, #resident !arcos issued #roclamation 1o" 6+35, there* officiall lifting !artial 4aw" A" =urthermore, *etween 1981 and 1982, the #etitioners were given provisional li*ert there* rendering their #etitions for >a*eas $orpus moot and academic" 3" ,t has *een held in a long line of cases that !ilitar $ommissionsLTri*unals have no 9urisdiction to tr civilians for alleged offenses when $ivil $ourts are open and functioning"

1. 9abeas corpus proceedings were commenced in this $ourt on 1982 2.

to test the legalit of the continued detention of some 61; so8called :political detainees arrested in the nine8 ear span of official martial <f the 61; prisoners, 15; are civilians, and onl 62 confirmed as militar personnel"

A" The petitioners urge the $ourt to declare unconstitutional the esta*lishment of all militar tri*unals as well as )eneral <rder 1o" 8 ordaining their creation, and the nullit of all the proceedings had against them *efore these *odies as a result of which the had *een illegall deprived of their li*ert " 3" Their plea is for the grant of a retrial of their respective cases in the civil courts, where their right to due process ma *e accorded respect"

ISSUE .hether or not the decision held in +laquer vs! M% No! B= on the /ight to an ,mpartial Tri*unal can *e applied in the case at *ar HELD 1. NO 2. $learl , no right to relief under +laquer e7ists in favor of the 62 petitioners who were admittedl in the militar service" <ver them the

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 92

courts martial ardl e7ercised 9urisdiction" ,t need onl *e said that these tri*unals were created precisel to tr and decide cases of militar personnel, and the validit of )eneral <rder 1o" 8 ordaining their creation, although repeatedl challenged on constitutional grounds, has as man times *een upheld * the $ourt, either e7pressl or impliedl

no *reach of the constitutional prohi*ition against twice putting an accused in 9eopard of punishment for the same offense would result from the retrial of the petitioners: cases, for the simple reason that the a*sence of 9urisdiction of the courts martial to tr and convict the petitioners prevented the first 9eopard from attaching" %alid previous proceedings are required in order that the defense of dou*le 9eopard can *e raised * the accused in the second prosecution" 8" ,n fine, the $ourt holds that the merits of the indictments against all these civilians are solel for the civil courts to weigh and decide upon after due proceedings" <therwise stated, the are entitled to the retrial the have e7plicitl requested of their respective cases in the civil courts" M8n(:a7 PEOPLE VS SALAS 1%0 SCRA 160 (19&6 FACTS: !ario (*ong was originall charged with homicide in the $ourt of =irst ,nstance of $e*u *ut *efore he could *e arraigned the case was reinvestigated on motion of the prosecution" (s a result of the reinvestigation, an amended information was filed, with no *ail recommended" Trial commenced, *ut while it was in progress, the prisoner, taking advantage of the first information for homicide, succeeded in deceiving the cit court of $e*u into granting him *ail and ordering his release5 and so he escaped" The respondent 9udge, learning later of the tricker , cancelled the illegal *ail *ond and ordered (*ongBs re8arrest" But he was gone" 1onetheless, the prosecution moved that the hearing continue in accordance with the constitutional provision authorizing trial in absentia under certain circumstances" The respondent 9udge denied the motion, however, and suspended all proceedings until the return of the accused" The order of the trial court is now *efore us on certiorari and mandamus"

3. -eference to the +laquer decision impels on the other hand the

application thereof to all civilians, without distinction, who were tried *efore militar tri*unals" To *e sure, due consideration was given to the su*mittal that the doctrine is, or should *e declared as , 76)63'- 6n a2276:a46763; 3* ?2*7636:a7 *=='n-'rs,? an- n*3 ?*r-6nar; :r6)'s? such as those of which the civilian petitioners were convicted" 3" There is all the more reason to strike down the proceedings leading to the conviction of these non8political detainees who should have *een *rought *efore the courts of 9ustice in the first place, as their offenses are totall unrelated to the insurgenc avowedl sought to *e controlled * martial rule" 5" 1o distinction should *e made, as the pu*lic respondents propose, *etween cases still *eing tried and those finall decided or alread under review" (ll cases must *e treated alike, regardless of the stage the happen to *e in, and since according to +laquer, all proceedings *efore courts martial in cases involving civilians are null and void, the court deems it proper to adhere to that unequivocal pronouncement, perceiving no cogent reason to deviate from the doctrine"

6. +laquer cannot and does not operate to a*solve the petitioners of

these charges, or esta*lish that the same are *aseless, so as to entitle them to immediate release from detention" ,t is not to *e forgotten that the victims in offenses ascri*ed to the petitioners have as much interest as the State has to prosecute the alleged authors of the misdeeds" The State should *e given a reasona*le period of time to accomplish this transfer, at which time the petitioners ma appl for *ail for their temporar release" ;" The Solicitor )eneral not unreasona*l anticipates questions to arise as to the availa*ilit of certain defenses to the petitioners upon their prosecution *efore the civil courts" ,t seems evident, however, that

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 93

ISSUE: .<1 the respondent 9udge erred in suspending all proceeding until the return of the accused"

HELD: &es" The rule is found in the last sentence of (rticle ,%, Section 19, of the 19;A $onstitution, reading in full as followsI Section )H! (n all criminal prosecution/ the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved and shall en,oy the right to be heard by himself and counsel/ to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him/ to have a speedy/ impartial/ and public trial/ to meet the witnesses face to face/ and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf! 9owever/ after arraignment/ trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is un,ustified! The purpose of this rule is to speed up the disposition of criminal cases, trial of which could in the past *e indefinitel deferred, and man times completel a*andoned, *ecause of the defendantBs escape" The doctrine laid down in $eople v! vanceIa Dthe trial had to *e discontinued as long as the defendant had not re8appeared or remained at largeE has *een modified * Section 19, which now allows trial in absentia, 1ow, the prisoner cannot * simpl escaping thwart his continued prosecution and possi*l eventual conviction provided onl thatI a 5' 5as 4''n arra6(n'-5 4 5' 5as 4''n -87; n*36=6'- *= 35' 3r6a75 and : 56s =a678r' 3* a22'ar 6s 8n>8s36=6'-. The respondent 9udge was pro*a*l still thinking of the old doctrine when he ruled that trial in absentia of the escapee could not *e held *ecause he could not *e dul notified under Section 19" >e forgets that the =8(636v' 6s n*< -'')'- 3* 5av' <a6v'- s8:5 n*36:' 2r':6s'7; 4':a8s' 5' 5as 's:a2'-, an- 63 6s a7s* 356s 's:a2' 35a3 )aH's 56s =a678r' 3* a22'ar a3 56s 3r6a7 8n>8s36=6'-. Trial in absentia was not allowed in 2or,a v! Mendo#a *ecause it was held notwithstanding that the accused had not *een previousl arraigned" In 35' 6ns3an3 :as', s6n:' a77 35' r'E86s63's ar' 2r's'n3, 35'r' 6s a4s*783'7; n* r'as*n <5; 35' r's2*n-'n3 >8-(' s5*87- r'=8s' 3* 3r; 35' a::8s'-, <5* 5a- a7r'a-; 4''n arra6(n'- a3 35' 36)'

5' <as r'7'as'- *n 35' 677'(a7 4a67 4*n- " (*ong should *e prepared to *ear the consequences of his escape, including forfeiture of the right to *e notified of the su*sequent proceedings and of the right to adduce evidence on his *ehalf and refute the evidence of the prosecution, not to mention a possi*le or even pro*a*le conviction" T5' r6(53 3* 4' 2r's'n3 a3 *n'9s 3r6a7 )a; n*< 4' <a6v'- 'I:'23 *n7; a3 35a3 s3a(' <5'r' 35' 2r*s':836*n 6n3'n-s 3* 2r's'n3 <63n'ss's <5* <677 6-'n36=; 35' a::8s'-. Un-'r S':36*n 19, 35' -'='n-an39s 's:a2' <677 4' :*ns6-'r'- a <a6v'r *= 356s r6(53 an35' 6na46763; *= 35' :*8r3 3* n*36=; 56) *= 35' s84s'E8'n3 5'ar6n(s <677 n*3 2r'v'n3 63 =r*) :*n36n86n( <635 56s 3r6a7. H' <677 4' -'')'- 3* 5av' r':'6v'- -8' n*36:'. The same fact of his escape will make his failure to appear un9ustified *ecause he has, * escaping, placed himself *e ond the pale, and protection, of the law" .>0/0=</0, the order of the trial court dated -ecem*er 66, 198A, den ing the motion for the trial in absentia of the accused is set aside" The respondent 9udge is directed to continue hearing the case against the respondent !ario (*ong in absentia as long as he has not reappeared, until it is terminated"

,C" #/,%,40)0 ()(,1ST S04=8,1$/,!,1(T,<1

1" Scope8 applies onl to compulsor testimonial self8incrimination

US VS TAN TENG /0 PHIL 1%1 (191/

FACTS: This defendant was charged with the crime of rape and found guilt * >onora*le $harles S" 4o*ingier, 9udge, of the offense of abusos deshonestos, as defined and punished under article 3A9 of the #enal $ode"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 94

=rom an e7amination of the record it appears that the offended part , <liva #acomio, a girl seven ears of age, was, on the 15th da of Septem*er 191+, sta ing in the house of her sister, located on ,lang8 ,lang Street, in the cit of !anila5 that on said da a num*er of $hinamen were gam*ling had *een in the ha*it of visiting the house of the sister of the offended part 5 that <liva #acomio, on the da in question, after having taken a *ath, returned to her room5 that the defendant followed her into her room and asked her for some face powder, which she gave him5 that after using some of the face powder upon his private parts he threw the said <liva upon the floor, placing his private parts upon hers, and remained in that position for some little time" Several da s later, perhaps a week or two, the sister of <liva #acomio discovered that the latter was suffering from a venereal disease known as gonorrhea" ,t was at the time of this discover that <liva related to her sister what happened upon the morning of the 15th of Septem*er" The sister at once put on foot an investigation to find the $hinaman" ( num*er of $hinamen were collected together" <liva was called upon to identif the one who had a*used her" The defendant was not present at first" later he arrived and <liva identified him at once as the one who had attempted to violate her" @pon this information the defendant was arrested and taken to the police station and stripped of his clothing and e7amined" The policeman who e7amined the defendant swore from the venereal disease known as gonorrhea" The policeman took a portion of the su*stance emitting from the *od of the defendant and turned it over to the Bureau of Science for the purpose of having a scientific anal sis made of the same" The result of the e7amination showed that the defendant was suffering from gonorrhea" The defendant attempted to prove in the lower court that the prosecution was *rought for the purpose of compelling him to pa to the sister of <liva a certain sum of mone " ,n the court *elow the defendant contended that the result of the scientific e7amination made * the Bureau of Science of the su*stance taken from his *od , at or a*out the time he was arrested, was not admissi*le in evidence as proof of the fact that he was suffering from gonorrhea" That to admit such evidence was to compel the defendant to testif against himself"

ISSUE: .<1 admission of the evidence would compel the defendant to testif against himself"

HELD: 1o" (ccording to 'udge 4o*ingierI The accused was not compelled to make an admissions or answer an questions, and the mere fact that an o*9ect found on his person was e7aminedI seems no more to infringe the rule invoked, than would the introduction in evidence of stolen propert taken from the person of a thief" T5' s84s3an:' <as 3aH'n =r*) 35' 4*-; *= 35' -'='n-an3 <635*83 56s *4>':36*n, 35' 'Ia)6na36*n <as )a-' 4; :*)2'3'n3 )'-6:a7 a835*r63; an- 35' r's873 s5*<'- 35a3 35' -'='n-an3 <as s8=='r6n( =r*) sa6- -6s'as'. As <as s8(('s3'- 4; +8-(' L*46n(6'r, 5a- 35' -'='n-an3 4''n =*8n- <635 s3*7'n 2r*2'r3; 82*n 56s 2'rs*n, 35'r' :'r3a6n7; :*87- 5av' 4''n n* E8's36*n 5a- 35' s3*7'n 2r*2'r3; 4''n 3aH'n =*r 35' 28r2*s' *= 8s6n( 35' sa)' as 'v6-'n:' a(a6ns3 56). So also if the clothing which he wore, * reason of *lood stains or otherwise, had furnished evidence of the commission of a crime, there certainl could have *een no o*9ection to taking such for the purpose of using the same as proof" 1o one would think of even suggesting that stolen propert and the clothing in the case indicated, taken from the defendant, could not *e used against him as evidence, without violating the rule that a person shall not *e required to give testimon against himself" ,n the case of 9olt vs! U!S!/ !r" 'ustice >olmes, speaking for the court upon this question, saidI But the prohi*ition of compelling a man in a criminal court to *e a witness against himself, is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion , to e7tort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence/ when it may be material" The o*9ection, in principle, would for*id a 9ur DcourtE to look at a person and compare his features with a photograph in proof" !oreover we are not considering how far a court would go in compelling a man to e7hi*it himself, for when he is e7hi*ited, whether voluntaril or * order, even if the order goes too far, the evidence if material, is competent" The prohibition :*n3a6n'- 6n s':36*n 1 *= 35' P5676226n' .677 35a3 a 2'rs*n s5a77 n*3 4' :*)2'77'- 3* 4' a <63n'ss a(a6ns3 56)s'7=,

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 95

is simpl a prohibition against legal process to e!tract from the defendant"s own lips, against his will, an admission of his guilt. T5' )a6n 28r2*s' *= 35' 2r*v6s6*n *= 35' P5676226n' .677 6s to prohibit compulsor oral e!amination of prisoners 4'=*r' 3r6a7 *r 82*n 3r6a7, =*r 35' 28r2*s' *= 'I3*r36n( 8n<6776n( :*n='ss6*ns *r -':7ara36*ns 6)276:a36n( 35') 6n 35' :*))6ss6*n *= a :r6)'. The doctrine contended for * appellant would prohi*it courts from looking at the fact of a defendant even, for the purpose of disclosing his identit " Such an application of the prohi*ition under discussion certainl could not *e permitted" S8:5 an 6ns2':36*n *= 35' 4*-67; ='a38r's 4; 35' :*8r3 *r 4; <63n'ss's, :an n*3 v6*7a3' 35' 2r6v67'(' (ran3'- 8n-'r 35' P5676226n' .677, 4':a8s' 63 -*'s n*3 :a77 82*n 35' a::8s'- as a <63n'ss P 63 -*'s n*3 :a77 82*n 35' -'='n-an3 =*r 56s 3's36)*n6a7 r's2*ns646763;" !r" .igmore sa s that evidence o*tained in this wa from the accused, is not testimon *ut his *od itself" The doctrine contended for * the appellant would also prohi*it the sanitar department of the )overnment from e7amining the *od of persons who are supposed to have some contagious disease"

ISSUE: .hether the compelling of a woman to permit her *od to *e e7amined * ph sicians to determine if she is pregnant, violates that portion of the #hilippine Bill of /ights providing that no person shall *e compelled in an criminal case to *e a witness against himself"

HELD: 1o" !r" 'ustice >olmes, in the late case of >olt vs" @nited States, in resolving an o*9ection *ased upon what he termed :an e7travagant e7tension of the =ifth (mendment,: saidI :The prohi*ition of compelling a man in a criminal court to *e a witness against himself is a prohi*ition of the use of ph sical or moral compulsion to e7tort communications from him, not an e7clusion of his *od as evidence when it ma *e material": #erhaps the *est wa to test the correctness of our position is to go *ack once more to elements and ponder on what is the prime purpose of a criminal trial" $riminal procedure, the rules of evidence, and constitutional provisions, are then provided, not to protect the guilt *ut to protect the innocent" <*viousl a stirring plea can *e made showing that under the due process of law cause of the $onstitution ever person has a natural and inherent right to the possession and control of his own *od " ,t is e7tremel a*horrent to oneBs sense of decenc and propriet to have the decide that such inviola*ilit of the person, particularl of a woman, can *e invaded * e7posure to anotherBs gaze" =ull conscious that we are resolving a most e7treme case in a sense, which on first impression is a shock to oneBs sensi*ilities, we must nevertheless enforce the constitutional provision in this 9urisdiction in accord with the polic and reason thereof, undeterred * merel sentimental influences" On:' a(a6n <' 7a; -*<n 35' r87' 35a3 35' :*ns363836*na7 (8aran3;, 35a3 n* 2'rs*n s5a77 4' :*)2'77'- 6n an; :r6)6na7 :as' 3* 4' a <63n'ss a(a6ns3 56)s'7=, 6s 76)63'- 3* a 2r*564636*n a(a6ns3 :*)287s*r; 3's36)*n6a7 s'7=-6n:r6)6na36*n. T5' :*r*77ar; 3* 35' 2r*2*s636*n 6s 35a3, an *:87ar 6ns2':36*n *= 35' 4*-; *=

VILLAFLOR VS SUMMERS %1 PHIL 6/ (19/B FACTS: The petitioner pra s that a writ of ha*eas corpus issue to restore her to her li*ert " ,n a criminal case pending *efore the $ourt of =irst ,nstance of the cit of !anila, 0meteria %illaflor and =lorentino Souingco are charged with the crime of adulter " <n this case coming on for trial *efore the >on" #edro $oncepcion, 'udge of =irst ,nstance, upon the petitioner of the assistant fiscal for the cit of !anila, the court ordered the defendant 0meteria %illaflor, nor *ecome the petitioner herein, to su*mit her *od to the e7amination of one or two competent doctors to determine if she was pregnant or not" The accused refused to o*e the order on the ground that such e7amination of her person was a violation of the constitutional provision relating to self8incrimination" Thereupon she was found in contempt of court and was ordered to *e committed to Bili*id #rison until she should permit the medical e7amination required * the court"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 96

35' a::8s'- 6s 2'r)6ss647'. T5' 2r*v6s* 6s 35a3 3*r38r' *= =*r:' s5a77 4' av*6-'-. "5'35'r =a:3s =a77 <6356n *r <635*83 35' r87' <635 63s :*r*77ar; an- 2r*v6s* )8s3, *= :*8rs', 4' -':6-'- as :as's ar6s'. I3 6s a r'as*na47' 2r's8)236*n 35a3 6n an 'Ia)6na36*n 4; r'283a47' an- -6s6n3'r's3'- 25;s6:6ans -8' :ar' <677 4' 3aH'n n*3 3* 8s' v6*7'n:' an- n*3 3* ')4arass 35' 2a36'n3 an; )*r' 35an 6s a4s*783'7; n':'ssar;. In-''-, n* *4>':36*n 3* 35' 25;s6:a7 'Ia)6na36*n 4'6n( )a-' 4; 35' =a)67; -*:3*r *= 35' a::8s'- *r 4; -*:3*r *= 35' sa)' s'I :an 4' s''n. (lthough the order of the trial 9udge, acceding to the request of the assistant fiscal for an e7amination of the person of the defendant * ph sicians was phrased in a*solute terms, it should, nevertheless, *e understood as su*9ect to the limitations herein mentioned, and therefore legal" The writ of ha*eas corpus pra ed for is here* denied"

PEOPLE VS CATAR %/& SCRA1B% (/BB% FACTS: <n automatic review is a -ecision of the /T$ of Bulanao, Ta*uk, Nalinga, Branch 65, sentencing appellant 'oel &atar alias :Nawit: to 8eath for the special comple7 crime of /ape with >omicide" <n 'une A+, 1998, at 8IA+ a"m", 'udil n #as8a and her first cousin, 1;8 ear old Nath l n @*a, were on the ground floor of the house of their grandmother, ,sa*el -awang, in 4iwan .est, /izal, Nalinga" (t 9I++ a"m" of the same da , 'udil n and her hus*and, together with ,sa*el -awang, left for their farm" Nath l n was left alone in the house" 4ater, at 1+I++ a"m", (nita .ania and 158 ear old Beverl -eneng stopped * the house of ,sa*el" The saw appellant at the *ack of the house" The went inside the house through the *ack door of the kitchen to have a drink of water" (nita asked appellant what he was doing there, and he replied that he was getting lum*er to *ring to the house of his mother" (t 16IA+ p"m", while 'udil n was on her wa home, she saw appellant descend the ladder from the second floor of the house of ,sa*el -awang and run towards the *ack of the house"

She later noticed appellant, who was wearing a white shirt with collar and *lack pants, pacing *ack and forth at the *ack of the house" (t 1IA+ p"m", 'udil n again saw appellant when he called her near her house" This time, he was wearing a *lack shirt without collar and *lue pants" She noticed that appellantFs e es were :reddish and sharp": ,n the evening of the same da , ,sa*el -awang arrived home and found that the lights in her house were off" The door to the ground floor was open" She noticed that the water container she asked Nath l n to fill up earlier that da was still empt " She went up the ladder to the second floor of the house to see if Nath l n was upstairs" She found that the door was tied with a rope, so she went down to get a knife" .hile she groped in the dark, she felt a lifeless *od that was cold and rigid" She found out that it was the naked *od of her granddaughter, Nath l n" She called for help" 'udil n and her hus*and arrived" ,sa*el was given a flashlight * 'udil n" She focused the *eam and saw Nath l n sprawled on the floor naked, with her intestines protruding out of her stomach" !eanwhile, neigh*ors had arrived to offer assistance and called the police" (t 9I++ that evening, S#+3 !elchor =aniswa and fellow police officers went to the house and found the naked *od of Nath l n @*a with multiple sta* wounds" The people in the vicinit informed the police officers that appellant was seen going down the ladder of the house of ,sa*el -awang at appro7imatel 16IA+ p"m" .hen questioned * the police authorities, appellant denied an knowledge of Nath l nsFs death, however, he was placed under police custod " (fter trial, appellant was convicted of the crime of 7ape with 9omicide and sentenced with death penalt " 4a*orator e7amination revealed sperm in the victimFs vagina" The stained or dirt white shirt found in the crime scene was found to *e positive with *lood5 -1( of slide, compared with the -1( profile of the appellant are identical" (ppellant escaped two da s after he was detained *ut was su*sequentl apprehended" ,n an attempt to e7clude the -1( evidence, the appellant contends that the *lood sample taken from him as well as the -1( tests were conducted in violation of his right to remain silent as well as his right

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 97

against self8incrimination under Secs" 16 and 1; of (rt" ,,, of the $onstitution" ISSUE: .<1 there was a violation of the appellantFs right to remain silent as well as his right against self8incrimination" HELD: 1o" T5' H'rn'7 *= 35' r6(53 6s n*3 a(a6ns3 a77 :*)287s6*n, 483 a(a6ns3 3's36)*n6a7 :*)287s6*n. T5' r6(53 a(a6ns3 s'7=- 6n:r6)6na36*n 6s s6)27; a(a6ns3 35' 7'(a7 2r*:'ss *= 'I3ra:36n( =r*) 35' 762s *= 35' a::8s'- an a-)6ss6*n *= (8673. I3 -*'s n*3 a227; <5'r' 35' 'v6-'n:' s*8(53 3* 4' 'I:78-'- 6s n*3 an 6n:r6)6na36*n 483 as 2ar3 *= *4>':3 'v6-'n:'" .e ruled in $eople v! 7ondero that although accused8appellant insisted that hair samples were forci*l taken from him and su*mitted to the 1ational Bureau of ,nvestigation for forensic e7amination, the hair samples ma *e admitted in evidence against him, for what is proscri*ed is the use of testimonial compulsion or an evidence communicative in nature acquired from the accused under duress" H'n:', a 2'rs*n )a; 4' :*)2'77'- 3* s84)63 3* =6n('r2r6n36n(, 25*3*(ra256n(, 2ara==6n, 47**- an- DNA, as 35'r' 6s n* 3's36)*n6a7 :*)287s6*n 6nv*7v'-. @nder $eople v! &allarde, where immediatel after the incident, the police authorities took pictures of the accused without the presence of counsel, we ruled that there was no violation of the right against self8incrimination" T5' a::8s'- )a; 4' :*)2'77'- 3* s84)63 3* a 25;s6:a7 'Ia)6na36*n 3* -'3'r)6n' 56s 6nv*7v')'n3 6n an *=='ns' *= <56:5 5' 6s a::8s'-" ,t must also *e noted that appellant in this case su*mitted himself for *lood sampling which was conducted in open court on !arch A+, 6+++, in the presence of counsel" (ppellant further argues that the -1( tests conducted * the prosecution against him are unconstitutional on the ground that resort thereto is tantamount to the application of an ex3post facto law" This argument is specious" 1o ex3post facto law is involved in the case at *ar" The science of -1( t ping involves the admissi*ilit ,

relevance and relia*ilit of the evidence o*tained under the /ules of $ourt" .hereas an ex3post facto law refers primaril to a question of law, -1( profiling requires a factual determination of the pro*ative weight of the evidence presented" "HEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the -ecision of the /T$ of Bulanao, Ta*uk, Nalinga, Branch 65 in $riminal $ase 1o" A5898, sentencing appellant 'oel &atar alias :Nawit: to -eath for the special comple7 crime of /ape with >omicide is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

M*r'n* #p v" )amih #n $e %abio &'(()* FACTS: Senator !iriam -efensor8Santiago introduced #hilippine Senate /esolution 1o" 355 DSenate /es" 1o" 355E directing an inquir in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred * the #hilippine <verseas Telecommunications $orporation D#<T$E, #hilippine $ommunications Satellite $orporation D#>,4$<!S(TE, and #>,4$<!S(T >oldings $orporation D#>$E due to the alleged improprieties in their operations * their respective Board of -irectors" The Senate invited #residential $ommission on )ood )overnance D#$))E $hairman $amilo 4" Sa*io to *e the resource person in a pu*lic meeting that would deli*erate on the issues presented in Senate /es" 1o" 355" $hairman Sa*io, however, declined the invitation, invoking Section 3, paragraph D*E of 07ecutive <rder 1o" 1, which providesI G1o mem*er or staff of the $ommission shall *e required to testif or

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 98

produce evidence in an 9udicial, legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance"H Senator /ichard '" )ordon issued a su*poena ad testificandum, requiring $hairman Sa*io and the four #$)) $ommissioners to appear in the pu*lic hearing scheduled on (ugust 6A, 6++2 and testif on what the know relative to the matters specified in Senate /es" 1o" 355" (gain, $hairman Sa*io refused to appear" (nother notice was sent to $hairman Sa*io requiring him to appear and testif on the same su*9ect matter set on Septem*er 2, 6++2, *ut $hairman Sa*io still did not compl " 0ventuall , $hairman Sa*io and the #$)) $ommissioners were arrested for contempt of the Senate and *rought to the Senate premises where the were detained" $hairman Sa*io filed the present petition for ha*eas corpus D)"/" 1o" 1;3A3+E and, together with the four #$)) $ommissioners and the #$))Fs nominees to #>$, petition for certiorari and prohi*ition D)"/" 1o" 1;3A18E" The allege that the investigating committees concerned disregarded Sec" 3D*E of 0"<" 1o" 1 without an 9ustifia*le reason, the inquiries conducted * the said committees are not in aid of legislation, the inquiries were conducted in the a*sence of dul pu*lished Senate /ules of #rocedure )overning ,nquiries in (id of 4egislation, and the said committees are not vested with the power of contempt" ,n )"/" 1o" 1;31;;, another petition for certiorari and prohi*ition, #>$ and its officers and directors contend that the said committees have no 9urisdiction over the su*9ect matter stated in Senate /es" 1o" 355, the same inquir is not in accordance with the SenateFs /ules of #rocedure )overning ,nquiries in (id of 4egislation, the su*poenae issued * Senator )ordon are void for having *een issued without authorit , the conduct of legislative inquir pursuant to Senate /es" 1o" 355 constitutes undue encroachment * the Senate into 9usticia*le controversies over which several courts and tri*unals have alread acquired 9urisdiction, and the su*poenae violated their rights to privac and against self8incrimination"

The respondents countered that the issues raised in the petitions involve political questions over which the Supreme $ourt has no 9urisdiction5 that Sec" 3D*E of 0"<" 1o" 1 has *een repealed * the $onstitution5 that the investigating committees are vested with contempt power5 that the SenateFs /ules of #rocedure )overning ,nquiries in (id of 4egislation have *een dul pu*lished5 that the have not violated an civil right of the #>$ officers and directors, such as their right to privac and right against self8incrimination5 and that the inquir does not constitute undue encroachment into 9usticia*le controversies"

ISSUE: .hether or not the rights to privac and against self8incrimination of the #>$ officers and directors have *een violated

RULING: The petitions are -,S!,SS0-" The su*9ect inquir does not violate rights to privac and against self8 incrimination ,n evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privac , a court must determine whether a person has e7hi*ited a reasona*le e7pectation of privac and, if so, whether that e7pectation has *een violated * unreasona*le government intrusion" The su*9ect inquir focuses on the acts committed * the #>$ officers and directors in the discharge of their duties as such" The latter have no reasona*le e7pectation of privac over matters involving their offices in a corporation where the government has interest, which matters are of pu*lic concern and over which the people have the right to information" ,ndeed, the right to privac is not a*solute where there is an overriding compelling state interest" The alleged anomalies in the #>,4$<!S(T, #>$ and #<T$, ranging in millions of pesos, and the conspiratorial participation of the #$)) and its officials are compelling reasons for the Senate to e7act vital information from the #>$ officers and directors, as well as from $hairman Sa*io and his

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 99

$ommissioners to aid it in crafting the necessar legislation to prevent corruption and formulate remedial measures and polic determination regarding #$))Fs efficac " (nent the right against self8incrimination, this ma *e invoked * the #>$ officers and directors onl when the incriminating question is *eing asked, since the have no wa of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the questions to *e asked of them" That this right ma possi*l *e violated or a*used is no ground for den ing the investigating committees their power of inquir " So long as the constitutional rights of witnesses, like $hairman Sa*io and his $ommissioners, will *e respected * the investigating committees, it is the dut of the former to cooperate with the latter in their efforts to o*tain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action" The unremitting o*ligation of ever citizen is to respond to su*poenae, to respect the dignit of the $ongress and its $ommittees, and to testif full with respect to matters within the realm of proper investigation" vs. +angerous +rugs ,oard and P+-. &+rug

D1E to nullif Sec" A2DgE of /( 9125and $<!040$ /esolution 1o" 2382 dated -ecem*er 6A, 6++A for *eing unconstitutional in that the impose a qualification for candidates for senators in addition to those alread provided for in the 198; $onstitution5 and D6E to en9oin the $<!040$ from implementing /esolution 1o" 2382" ISSUES: .hether Sec" A2DgE of /( 9125 and $<!040$ /esolution 1o" 2382 impose an additional qualification for candidates for senatorK $orollaril , can $ongress enact a law prescri*ing qualifications for candidates for senator in addition to those laid down * the $onstitutionK (re paragraphs DcE, DdE, DfE, and DgE of Sec" A2, /( 9125 unconstitutionalK Specificall , do these paragraphs violate the right to privac , the right against unreasona*le searches and seizure, and the equal protection clauseK <r do the constitute undue delegation of legislative powerK

RULING: Sec" A2DgE of /( 9125 and $<!040$ /esolution 1o" 2382 illegall impose an additional qualification on candidates for senator" The $ongress cannot validl amend or otherwise modif these qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade, or weaken the force of a constitutional mandate or alter or enlarge the $onstitution" (ccordingl , Sec" A2DgE of /( 9125 should *e, as it is here* declared as, unconstitutional" ,t is *asic that if a law or an administrative rule violates an norm of the $onstitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect" The $onstitution is the *asic law to which all laws must conform5 no act shall *e valid if it conflicts with the $onstitution" ,n the discharge of their defined functions, the three departments of government have no choice *ut to ield o*edience to the commands of the $onstitution" .hatever limits it imposes must *e o*served"

%ocial Justice %ociet Testing* FACTS:

,n these kindred petitions, the constitutionalit of Section A2 of /epu*lic (ct 1o" D/(E 9125, otherwise known as the $omprehensive -angerous -rugs (ct of 6++6, insofar as it requires mandator drug testing of candidates for pu*lic office, students of secondar and tertiar schools, officers and emplo ees of pu*lic and private offices, and persons charged *efore the prosecutorBs office with certain offenses, among other personalities, is put in issue" #etitioner (quilino ?" #imentel, 'r", a senator of the /epu*lic and a candidate for re 8 election in the !a 1+, 6++3 elections filed a #etition for $ertiorari and #rohi*ition under /ule 25" ,n it, he seeks

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 100

The drug test prescri*ed under Sec" A2DcE, DdE, and DfE of /( 9125 for secondar and tertiar level students and pu*lic and private emplo ees, while mandator , is a random and suspicion less arrangement" The primar legislative intent is not criminal prosecution, as those found positive for illegal drug use as a result of this random testing are not necessaril treated as criminals" The ma even *e e7empt from criminal lia*ilit should the illegal drug user consent to undergo reha*ilitation" 'ust as in the case of secondar and tertiar level students, the mandator *ut random drug test prescri*ed * Sec" A2 of /( 9125 for officers and emplo ees of pu*lic and private offices is 9ustifia*le, al*eit not e7actl for the same reason" Taking into account the foregoing factors, i"e", the reduced e7pectation of privac on the part of the emplo ees, the compelling state concern likel to *e met * the search, and the well 8 defined limits set forth in the law to properl guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing, we hold that the challenged drug test requirement is, under the limited conte7t of the case, reasona*le and, ergo, constitutional" 4ike their counterparts in the private sector, government officials and emplo ees also la*or under reasona*le supervision and restrictions imposed * the $ivil Service law and other laws on pu*lic officers, all enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in the pu*lic service and if /( 9125 passes the norm of reasona*leness for private emplo ees, the more reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, who, * constitutional command, are required to *e accounta*le at all times to the people and to serve them with utmost responsi*ilit and efficienc " .e find the situation entirel different in the case of persons charged *efore the pu*lic prosecutorBs office with criminal offenses punisha*le with si7 D2E ears and one D1E da imprisonment" The operative concepts in the mandator drug testing are :randomness: and :suspicionless": ,n the case of persons charged with a crime *efore the prosecutorBs office, a mandator drug testing can never *e random or suspicionless" The ideas of randomness and *eing suspicionless are antithetical to their *eing made defendants in a

criminal complaint" The are not randoml picked5 neither are the *e ond suspicion" .hen persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, the are singled out and are impleaded against their will" The persons thus charged, * the *are fact of *eing hailed *efore the prosecutorBs office and peacea*l su*mitting themselves to drug testing, if that *e the case, do not necessaril consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privac " To impose mandator drug testing on the accused is a *latant attempt to harness a medical test a sa tool for criminal prosecution, contrar to the stated o*9ectives of /( 9125" -rug testing in this case would violate a personsB right to privac guaranteed under Sec" 6, (rt" ,,, of the $onstitution" .orse still, the accused persons are verita*l forced to incriminate themselves" .>0/0=</0, the $ourt resolves to )/(1T the petition in )"/" 1o" 121258 and declares Sec" A2DgEof /(9125 and $<!040$ /esolution 1o" 2382 as @1$<1ST,T@T,<1(45 and to #(/T,(44& )/(1T the petition in )"/" 1os"15;8;+ and 1582AA * declaring Sec" A2DcE and DdE of /( 9125 $<1ST,T@T,<1(4, *ut declaring its Sec" A2DfE@1$<1ST,T@T,<1(4" (ll concerned agencies are, accordingl , permanentl en9oined from implementing Sec"A2DfE and DgE of /( 9125"

/umanog vs. People &'(0(* FACTS (ppellants were the accused perpetrators of the am*ush8sla

of

former $hief of the !etropolitan $ommand ,ntelligence and Securit )roup of the #hilippine $onsta*ular Dnow the #hilippine 1ational #oliceE, $olonel /olando 1" (*adilla" The principal witness for the prosecution was =reddie (le9o, a securit guard emplo ed assigned at 611 Natipunan (venue, Blue /idge, ?uezon $it , where the am*ush8sla happened" (s a purported e ewitness, he testified on what he saw during the fateful da , including the faces of the accused"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 101

(ll the accused raised the defense of alibi, highlighted the negative findings of *allistic and fingerprint e7aminations, and further alleged torture in the hands of police officers and denial of constitutional rights during custodial investigation" The trial court however convicted the accused8appellants" The $( affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court" The $( upheld the conviction of the accused8appellants *ased on the credi*le e ewitness testimon of (le9o, who vividl recounted *efore the trial court their respective positions and participation in the fatal shooting of (*adilla, having *een a*le to witness closel how the committed the crime"

ISSUES: -id the $( decision compl with the constitutional standard that GOnPo decision shall *e rendered * an court without e7pressing therein clearl and distinctl the facts and the law on which it is *asedHK .as the e7tra89udicial confession of accused 'oel de 'esus taken during the custodial investigation validK .as the right to speed disposition of cases of the accused violatedK .as the out8of8court identification of the accused8appellants made * the e ewitness, securit relia*leK RULING: 1-%, the C. decision complied with the constitutional standard that 23n4o decision shall be rendered b an court without e!pressing therein clearl and distinctl the facts and the law on which it is based5. #erusing the $( decision, we hold that it cannot *e deemed constitutionall infirm, as it clearl stated the facts and law on which guard (le9o, in a police line8up was

the ruling was *ased, and while it did not specificall address each and ever assigned error raised * appellants, it cannot *e said that the appellants were left in the dark as to how the $( reached its ruling affirming the trial courtFs 9udgment of conviction" The principal arguments raised in their !emorandum su*mitted *efore this $ourt actuall referred to the main points of the $( rulings, such as the alleged sufficienc of prosecution evidence, their common defense of alibi, allegations of torture, pro*ative value of *allistic and fingerprint test results, circumstances qualif ing the offense and modification of penalt imposed * the trial court" .hat appellants essentiall assail is the verbatim cop ing * the $( of not onl the facts narrated, *ut also the arguments and discussion including the legal authorities, in disposing of the appeal" <n such wholesale adoption of the <ffice of the Solicitor )eneralFs position, as well as the trial courtFs insufficient findings of fact, appellants anchor their claim of failure of intermediate review * the $(" 67, the e!tra8judicial confession of accused Joel de Jesus taken during the custodial investigation was 67T valid. #olice officers claimed that upon arresting 'oel, the informed him of his constitutional rights to remain silent, that an information he would give could *e used against him, and that he had the right to a competent and independent counsel, prefera*l , of his own choice, and if he cannot afford the services of counsel he will *e provided with one D1E" >owever, since these rights can onl *e waived in writing and with the assistance of counsel, there could not have *een such a valid waiver * 'oel, who was presented to (tt " Sansano at the ,B# <ffice, ?uezon $it >all onl the following da and sta ed overnight at the police station *efore he was *rought to said counsel" 0ven assuming that custodial investigation started onl during 'oelFs e7ecution of his statement *efore (tt " Sansano on 'une 6+, 1992,

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 102

still the said confession must *e invalidated" To *e accepta*le, e7tra9udicial confessions must conform to constitutional requirements" ( confession is not valid and not admissi*le in evidence when it is o*tained in violation of an of the rights of persons under custodial investigation" (tt " Sansano, who supposedl interviewed 'oel and assisted the latter while responding to questions propounded * S#<6 )arcia, 'r", did not testif on whether he had properl discharged his duties to said client" .hile S#<6 )arcia, 'r" testified that (tt " Sansano had asked 'oel if he understood his answers to the questions of the investigating officer and sometimes stopped 'oel from answering certain questions, S#<6 )arcia, 'r" did not sa if (tt " Sansano, in the first place, verified from them the date and time of 'oelFs arrest and the circumstances thereof, or an previous information elicited from him * the investigators at the station, and if said counsel inspected 'oelFs *od for an sign or mark of ph sical torture" 6o, the right to speed disposition of cases of the accused was 67T violated. Section 12, (rticle ,,, of the 198; $onstitution provides that Gall persons shall have the right to a speed disposition of their cases *efore all 9udicial, quasi89udicial, or administrative *odies"H This protection e7tends to all citizens and covers the periods *efore, during and after trial, affording *roader protection than Section 13D6E, which guarantees merel the right to a speed trial" >owever, 9ust like the constitutional guarantee of Gspeed trial,H Gspeed disposition of casesH is a fle7i*le concept" ,t is consistent with dela s and depends upon the circumstances" .hat the $onstitution prohi*its are unreasona*le, ar*itrar and oppressive dela s, which render rights nugator "

,t must *e stressed that in the determination of whether the right to speed disposition of cases has *een violated, particular regard must *e taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case" ( mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not *e sufficient" @nder the circumstances, we hold that the dela of D3E four ears during which the case remained pending with the $( and this $ourt was not unreasona*le, ar*itrar or oppressive" ,n several cases where it was manifest that due process of law or other rights guaranteed * the $onstitution or statutes have *een denied, this $ourt has not faltered to accord the so8called Gradical reliefH to keep accused from enduring the rigors and e7pense of a full8*lown trial" ,n this case, however, appellants are not entitled to the same relief in the a*sence of clear and convincing showing that the dela in the resolution of their appeal was unreasona*le or ar*itrar "

1-%, the out8of8court identification of the accused8appellants made b the e ewitness, securit guard .lejo, in a police line8 up was reliable. (ppl ing the totalit 8of8circumstances test, we reiterate that (le9oFs out8court8identification Oof the accusedP is relia*le, for reasons that, first/ he was ver near the place where (*adilla was shot and thus had a good view of the gunmen, not to mention that the two D6E lookouts directl approached him and pointed their guns at them5 second/ no competing event took place to draw his attention from the event5 third/ (le9o immediatel gave his descriptions of at least two D6E of the perpetrators, while affirming he could possi*l identif the others if he would see them again, and the entire happening that he witnessed5 and finally/ there was no evidence that the police had supplied or even suggested to (le9o that appellants

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 103

were the suspects, e7cept for 'oel de 'esus whom he refused to 9ust pinpoint on the *asis of a photograph shown to him * the police officers, insisting that he would like to see said suspect in person" !ore importantl , (le9o during the trial had positivel identified appellant 'oel de 'esus independentl of the previous identification made at the police station" Such in8court identification was positive, straightforward and categorical" L6)2*3 PASCUAL V. .OARD OF MEDICAL EOAMINERS Fa:3s: #etitioner, (rsenio #ascual 'r, filed an action for prohi*ition against the respondent, Board of !edical 07aminers" ,t was alleged that at the initial hearing of an administrative case for alleged immoralit , the counsel for complainants announced that petitioner would *e his first witness, who was also the respondent in that case" #etitioner o*9ected sa ing that he has the constitutional right to *e e7empt from *eing a witness against himself" >owever, despite the plea of petitioner, respondent stated that petitioner would still *e called upon to testif as witness unless he could secure a restraining order from a competent authorit " #etitioner then pra ed for a writ of preliminar in9unction and after a hearing or trial, for a writ of prohi*ition" The lower court ruled in favor of petitioner" 7espondent.s defense' The petitioner ma *e called upon as a witness *ecause the right against self8incrimination is availa*le onl when a question calling for an incriminating answer is asked of a witness" ,n addition, the petitionerFs remed is to o*9ect onl once he is in the witness stand" !oreover, the complainants in the administrative case also alleged that the right against self8incrimination cannot *e availed of in an administrative hearing" Iss8': .hether or not petitioner can *e compelled to *e a witness against himself"

H'7-: N*. #etitioner cannot *e compelled to take the witness stand" ,t is a well8settled principle that :the accused in a criminal case ma refuse, not onl to answer incriminator questions, *ut, also, to take the witness stand": The proceeding for forfeiture while administrative in character thus possesses a criminal or penal aspect" ,n the case at *ar, petitioner would *e similarl disadvantaged" >e could suffer not the forfeiture of propert *ut the revocation of his license as a medical practitioner, for some an even greater deprivation" ,n an (merican Supreme $ourt opinion * 'ustice -ouglas, he e7plained that Gthe Self8,ncrimination $lause of the =ifth (mendment has *een a*sor*ed in the =ourteenth, that it e7tends its protection to law ers as well as to other individuals, and that it should not *e watered down * imposing the dishonor of dis*arment and the deprivation of a livelihood as a price for asserting it"H Such principle is equall applica*le to a proceeding that could result in the loss of a privilege to practice the medical profession" The appeal apparentl proceeds on the mistaken assumption * respondent Board and intervenors8appellants that the constitutional guarantee against self8incrimination should *e limited to allowing a witness to o*9ect to questions the answers to which could lead to a penal lia*ilit *eing su*sequentl incurred" ,t is true that one aspect of such a right, to follow the language of another (merican decision, is the protection against :an disclosures which the witness ma reasona*l apprehend could *e used in a criminal prosecution or which could lead to other evidence that might *e so used": ,f that were all there is then it *ecomes diluted" The constitutional guarantee protects as well the right to silence" (s far *ack as 19+5, we had occasion to declareI :The accused has a perfect right to remain silent and his silence cannot *e used as a presumption of his guilt": <nl last ear, in %have# v! %ourt of ppeals, speaking through 'ustice Sanchez, we reaffirmed the doctrine anew that it is the right of a defendant :to forego testimon , to remain silent, unless he chooses to take the witness stand J with undiluted, unfettered e7ercise of his own free genuine will": The constitutional guarantee, along with other rights granted an accused, stands for a *elief that while crime should not go unpunished and that the truth must *e revealed, such desira*le o*9ectives should not *e accomplished according to means or methods offensive to the high sense of respect accorded the human personalit " !ore and more in line with the democratic creed, the deference accorded an individual even those suspected of the most heinous crimes is given due weight" To quote from

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 104

$hief 'ustice .arren, :the constitutional foundation underl ing the privilege is the respect a government """ must accord to the dignit and integrit of its citizens": >ence, in an administrative hearing against a medical practitioner for alleged malpractice, respondent Board of !edical 07aminers cannot, consistentl with the self8incrimination clause, compel the person proceeded against to take the witness stand without his consent" GALMAN V. PAMARAN Fa:3s: <n (ugust 61, 198A, =ormer Senator Benigno S" (quino, 'r was gunned down to death inside the premises of !anila ,nternational (irport" #- 1882 was then promulgated creating an ad hoc =act =inding Board which *ecame popularl known as (grava Board" The are to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing and allow a free investigation of all aspects of the traged " The Board conducted pu*lic hearings wherein various witnesses appeared, testified andLor produced documentar evidence" (mong them are private respondents )eneral =a*ian $" %er, !a9or )eneral #rospero <livas, Sgt" #a*lo !artinez, Sgt" Tomas =ernandez, Sgt" 4eonardo !o9ica, Sgt" #epito Torio, Sgt" #rospero Bona and (,$ (niceto (cupido" Two informations for !urder, one for (quino and one for /olando )alman, were filed with the Sandigan*a an" ,n *oth criminal cases, private respondents were charged as accessories, along with several principals, and one accomplice" @pon arraignment, all the accused, including the herein private respondents pleaded 1<T )@,4T&" The #rosecution represented * the <ffice of the petition T(1<-B(&(1, marked and thereafter offered as part of its evidence the individual testimonies of private respondents *efore the (grava Board" )en" %er filed a formal :!otion to 07clude Testimonies of )en" =a*ian $" %er *efore the =act =inding Board as 0vidence against him in the a*ove8entitled cases: contending that its admission will *e in derogation of his constitutional right against self8incrimination and violative of the immunit

granted * #"-" 1882" >e pra ed that his aforesaid testimon *e re9ected as evidence for the prosecution" !a9or )en" <livas and the rest of the other private respondents likewise filed separate motions to e7clude their respective individual testimonies invoking the same ground" P'3636*n'r TANOD.ACAN *22*s'- sa6- )*36*ns :*n3'n-6n( 35a3 35' 6))8n63; r'76'- 82*n 4; 35' 2r6va3' r's2*n-'n3s 6n s822*r3 *= 35'6r )*36*ns 3* 'I:78-' 35'6r r's2':36v' 3's36)*n6's, <as n*3 ava67a47' 3* 35') 4':a8s' *= 35'6r =a678r' 3* 6nv*H' 35'6r r6(53 a(a6ns3 s'7=-6n:r6)6na36*n 4'=*r' 35' a- 5*: Fa:3 F6n-6n( .*ar-. The #rosecution made a G=ormal <ffer of 0videnceH which includes the testimonies of private respondents and other evidences produced * them *efore the Board" (ll of them o*9ected to the offer on the same ground the provided when the filed the !otion to 07clude Testimonies" S(1-,)(1B(&(1 admitted all the evidences offered * the prosecution e7cept the testimonies andLor evidence produced * private respondents" #etitioner filed a !otion for /econsideration *ut was denied" Iss8': .hether or not the testimonies given * the eight D8E private respondents who did not invoke their rights against self8incrimination *efore the (grava Board are admissi*le in evidence" H'7-: NO. The testimonies are inadmissi*le in evidence" $etitioner.s %ontention' The said testimonies are admissi*le against the private respondents *ecause of the latterBs failure to invoke *efore the (grava Board the immunit granted * #"-" 1882" Since private respondents did not invoke said privilege, the immunit did not attach" Such failure to claim said constitutional privilege amounts to a waiver thereof" 7espondent.s 8efense' 1otwithstanding failure to set up the privilege against self8 incrimination *efore the (grava Board, said evidences cannot *e used against them as mandated * Section 5 of the said #"-" 1882" The contend that without the immunit provided for * the second clause of Section 5, #"-" 1882, the legal compulsion imposed * the first clause of the same Section would suffer from constitutional infirmit for *eing violative of the

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 105

witnessB right against self8 incrimination" Thus, the protagonists are locked in horns on the effect and legal significance of failure to set up the privilege against self8incrimination" The (grava Board came into e7istence in response to a popular pu*lic clamor that an impartial and independent *od *e charged with the task of conducting the investigation" Their function is the determination of the person or persons criminall responsi*le therefor so that the ma *e *rought *efore the *ar of 9ustice" S0$T,<1 16" The findings of the Board shall *e made pu*lic" Should the findings warrant the prosecution of an person, the Board ma initiate the filing of proper complaint with the appropriate got government agenc " """ D0mphasis suppliedE #"-" guarantees :an person called to testif *efore the Board the right to counsel at an stage of the proceedings": $onsidering the foregoing environmental settings, it cannot *e denied that in the course of receiving evidence, persons summoned to testif will include not merel plain witnesses *ut also those suspected as authors and co8participants in the tragic killing" (mong this class of witnesses were the herein private respondents, suspects in the said assassination, all of whom e7cept )enerals %er and <livas, were detained Dunder technical arrestE at the time the were summoned and gave their testimonies *efore the (grava Board" This notwithstanding, #residential -ecree 1o" 1882 denied them the right to remain silent" The were compelled to testif or *e witnesses against themselves" Section 5 of #"-" 1882 leave them no choice" The have to take the witness stand, testif or produce evidence, under pain of contempt if the failed or refused to do so" The 9eopard of *eing placed *ehind prison *ars even *efore conviction dangled *efore their ver e es" Similarl , the cannot invoke the right not to *e a witness against themselves, *oth of which are sacrosantl enshrined and protected * our fundamental law" Both these constitutional rights Dto remain silent and not to *e compelled to *e a witness against himselfE were right awa totall foreclosed * #"-" 1882" (nd et when the so testified and

produced evidence as ordered, the were not immune from prosecution * reason of the testimon given * them" ,t has *een categoricall declared that a person detained for the commission of an offense undergoing investigation has a right to *e informed of his right to remain silent, to counsel, and to an admonition that an and all statements to *e given * him ma *e used against him" Significantl however, there has *een no pronouncement in an of these cases nor in an other that a person similarl undergoing investigation for the commission of an offense, if not detained, is not entitled to the constitutional admonition mandated * said Section 6+, (rt" ,% of the Bill of /ights" The private respondents have not *een informed or at the ver least even warned while so testif ing, even at that particular stage of their testimonies, of their right to remain silent and that an statement given * them ma *e used against them" ,t is true that testif ing ma *e construed as a waiver of their right to remain silent and not *e compelled to *e a witness against themselves *ut onl if the are given the option to do so" ,n the case at *ar, the cannot *e said to have voluntaril waived their constitutional rights not to *e compelled to *e a witness against themselves much less their right to remain silent" $ompulsion as it is understood here does not necessaril connote the use of violence5 it ma *e the product of unintentional statements" #ressure which operates to over*ear his will, disa*le him from making a free and rational choice, or impair his capacit for rational 9udgment would in our opinion *e sufficient" So is moral coercion Btending to force testimon from the unwilling lips of the defendant" (s to petitionerFs contention that the :right not to *e compelled to *e a witness against himself: applies onl in favor of an accused in a criminal case, the ruling in %abal vs Kapunan applies" The said case is not a criminal case and et, when $a*al refused to take the stand, to *e sworn and to testif upon *eing called as a witness for complainant $ol" !aristela in a forfeiture of illegall acquired assets, this $ourt sustained $a*alBs plea that for him to *e compelled to testif will *e in violation of his right against self8 incrimination"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 106

<ur review of the pleadings and their anne7es, together with the oral arguments, manifestations and admissions of *oth counsel, failed to reveal adherence to and compliance with due process" The manner in which the testimonies were taken from private respondents fall short of the constitutional standards *oth under the -@0 #/<$0SS $4(@S0 and under the 0C$4@S,<1(/& /@40 in Section 6+, (rticle ,%" ,n the face of such grave constitutional infirmities, the individual testimonies of private respondents cannot *e admitted against them in all criminal proceeding" This is true regardless of a*sence of claim of constitutional privilege or of the presence of a grant of immunit * law" ,mmunit statutes ma *e generall classified into twoI one, which grants :use immunit :5 and the other, which grants what is known as :transactional immunit ": The distinction *etween the two is as followsI :@se immunit : prohi*its use of witnessB compelled testimon and its fruits in an manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness" <n the other hand, :transactional immunit : grants immunit to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimon relates": 07amining #residential -ecree 1882, more specificall Section 5 thereof, which readsI S0$" 5" 1o person shall *e e7cused from attending and testif ing or from producing *ooks, records, correspondence, documents, or other evidence in o*edience to a su*poena issued * the Board on the ground that his testimon or the evidence required of him ma tend to incriminate him or su*9ect him to penalt or forfeiture5 *ut his testimon or an evidence produced * him shall not *e used against him in connection with an transaction, matter or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having invoked his privilege against self8incrimination, to testif or produce evidence, e7cept that such individual so testif ing shall not *e e7empt from prosecution and punishment for per9ur committed in so testif ing, nor shall he *e e7empt from demotion or removal from office" D0mphasis suppliedE ,t is *e ond dispute that said law *elongs to the first t pe of immunit statutes" ,t grants merel immunit from use of an statement given *efore the Board, *ut not immunit from prosecution * reason or on the *asis thereof" !erel testif ing andLor producing evidence do not render the

witness immuned from prosecution notwithstanding his invocation of the right against self8 incrimination" >e is merel saved from the use against him of such statement and nothing more" Stated otherwise """ he still runs the risk of *eing prosecuted even if he sets up his right against self8 incrimination" The dictates of fair pla , which is the hallmark of due process, demands that private respondents should have *een informed of their rights to remain silent and warned that an and all statements to *e given * them ma *e used against them" This, the were denied, under the pretense that the are not entitled to it and that the Board has no o*ligation to so inform them" The first test of admissi*ilit is (rticle ,%, Section 6+ of the $onstitution which readsI G1o person shall *e compelled to *e a witness against himself" (n person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to *e informed of such right" 1o force, violence, threat, intimidation, or an other means which vitiates the free will shall *e used against him" (n confession o*tained in violation of this section shall *e inadmissi*le in evidence"H D0mphasis suppliedE The aforequoted provision renders inadmissi*le an confession o*tained in violation thereof" (s herein earlier discussed, this e7clusionar rule applies not onl to confessions *ut also to admissions, whether made * a witness in an proceeding or * an accused in a criminal proceeding or an person under investigation for the commission of an offense" (n interpretation of a statute which will give it a meaning in conflict with the $onstitution must *e avoided" So much so that if two or more constructions or interpretations could possi*l *e resorted to, then that one which will avoid unconstitutionalit must *e adopted even though it ma *e necessar for this purpose to disregard the more usual and apparent import of the language used" To save the statute from a declaration of unconstitutionalit it must *e given a reasona*le construction that will *ring it within the fundamental law" (pparent conflict *etween two clauses should *e harmonized" But a literal application of a requirement of a claim of the privilege against self8 incrimination as a condition sine qua non to the grant of immunit presupposes that from a la manBs point of view, he has the option to refuse to answer questions and therefore, to make such claim" #"-" 1882, however,

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 107

forecloses such option of refusal * imposing sanctions upon its e7ercise, thusI S0$" 3" The Board ma hold an person in direct or indirect contempt, and impose appropriate penalties therefor" ( person guilt of """" including """ refusal to *e sworn or to answer as a witness or to su*scri*e to an affidavit or deposition when lawfull required to do so ma *e summaril ad9udged in direct contempt * the Board" """ Such threat of punishment for making a claim of the privilege leaves the witness no choice *ut to answer and there* forfeit the immunit purportedl granted * Sec" 5" The a*surdit of such application is apparent Sec" 5 requires a claim which it, however, forecloses under threat of contempt proceedings against an one who makes such claim" But the strong testimonial compulsion imposed * Section 5 of #"-" 1882 viewed in the light of the sanctions provided in Section 3,infringes upon the witnessB right against self8incrimination" (s a rule, such infringement of the constitutional right renders inoperative the testimonial compulsion, meaning, the witness cannot *e compelled to answer @140SS a co8e7tensive protection in the form of ,!!@1,T& is offered" >ence, under the oppressive compulsion of #"-" 1882, immunit must in fact *e offered to the witness *efore he can *e required to answer, so as to safeguard his sacred constitutional right" But in this case, the compulsion has alread produced its desired results the private respondents had all testified without offer of immunit " Their constitutional rights are therefore, in 9eopard " The onl wa to cure the law of its unconstitutional effects is to construe it in the manner as if ,!!@1,T& had in fact *een offered" .e hold, therefore, that in view of the potent sanctions imposed on the refusal to testif or to answer questions under Sec" 3 of #"-" 1882, the testimonies compelled there* are deemed immunized under Section 5 of the same law" The applica*ilit of the immunit granted * #"-" 1882 cannot *e made to depend on a claim of the privilege against self8 incrimination which the same law practicall strips awa from the witness" PP V. ACSON Fa:3s: #rivate respondent =elipe /amos was a ticket freight clerk of the #hilippine (irlines D#(4E, assigned at its Baguio $it station" #(4 notified him of an investigation to *e conducted on =e*ruar 9, 1982 *ecause it was

alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets" That investigation was scheduled in accordance with #(4Bs $ode of $onduct and -iscipline, and the $ollective Bargaining (greement signed * it with the #hilippine (irlines 0mplo eesB (ssociation D#(40(E to which /amos pertained" /amos gave his superiors handwritten notes stating his willingness to settle the irregularities" The investigation was conducted * #(4 Branch !anager in Baguio, 0dgardo $ruz, in the presence of (ntonio <campo, /odolfo ?uitasol and $risteta -omingo who are also emplo ees of #(4" =elipe /amos were informed of the finding of the (udit Team" Thereafter, his answers in response to questions * $ruz, were taken down in writing" /amosB answers were to the effect inter alia that he had not indeed made disclosure of the tickets mentioned in the (udit TeamBs findings, that the proceeds had *een :misused: * him, that although he had planned on pa ing *ack the mone , he had *een prevented from doing so, :perhaps D* E shame,: that he was still willing to settle his o*ligation, and proferred a :compromise 7 7 to pa on staggered *asis, DandE the amount would *e known in the ne7t investigation5: that he desired the ne7t investigation to *e at the same place, :Baguio $T<,: and that he should *e represented therein * :Shop stewardees ,T/ 1ieves Blanco5: and that he was willing to sign his statement Das he in fact afterwards didE" >ow the investigation turned out is not dealt with the parties at all5 *ut it would seem that no compromise agreement was reached much less consummated" Two months later, /amos was charged with the crime of 0stafa" The prosecutors presented as evidence his statement taken on =e* 9, at #(4 Baguio $it Ticket <ffice" The defendant o*9ected to the evidence stating that the confession was taken without the accused *eing represented * a law er" <n (ugust 9, 1988, the respondent 9udge admitted all e7hi*its as part of evidence e7cept the statement of the accused since it did not appear that the accused was reminded of this constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel, and that when he waived the same and gave his statement, it was with the assistance actuall of a counsel": >e also declared inadmissi*le :07hi*it N, the handwritten admission made * accused =elipe '" /amos,

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 108

given on =e*ruar 8, 1982 7 7 for the same reason stated in the e7clusion of 07hi*it B(B since it does not appear that the accused was assisted * counsel when he made said admission": The private prosecutors filed a motion for reconsideration *ut were denied" Iss8': .hether or not it was grave a*use of discretion for respondent 'udge to have e7cluded the #eopleBs 07hi*its ( and N as evidence" H'7-: CES. There was grave a*use of discretion on the part of respondent 9udge" 07hi*its ( and N shall *e admitted as evidence" Section 6+, (rticle ,% of the 19;A $onstitution states thatI S0$" 6+" 1o person shall *e compelled to *e a witness against himself (n person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to *e informed of such right" 1o force, violence, threat, intimidation, or an other means which vitiates the free will shall *e used against him" (n confession o*tained in violation of this section shall *e inadmissi*le in evidence" ,t should at once *e apparent that there are two D6E rights, or sets of rights, dealt with in the section, namel I 1E the right against self8incrimination J i"e", the right of a person not to *e compelled to *e a witness against himself J set out in the first sentence, which is a ver*atim reproduction of Section 18, (rticle ,,, of the 19A5 $onstitution, and is similar to that accorded * the =ifth (mendment of the (merican $onstitution, and 6E the rights of a person in custodial interrogation, i"e", the rights of ever suspect :under investigation for the commission of an offense": The first right, against self8incrimination, mentioned in Section 6+, (rticle ,% of the 19;A $onstitution, is accorded to ever person who gives evidence, whether voluntaril or under compulsion of su*poena, in an civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding" The right is 1<T to :*e compelled to *e a witness against himself: The precept set out in that first sentence has a settled meaning" ,t prescri*es an :option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohi*ition of inquir ": ,t simpl secures to a witness, whether he *e a part or not, the

right to refuse to answer an particular incriminator question, i"e", one the answer to which has a tendenc to incriminate him for some crime" >owever, the right can *e claimed onl when the specific question, incriminator in character, is actuall put to the witness" ,t cannot *e claimed at an other time" ,t does not give a witness the right to disregard a su*poena, to decline to appear *efore the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testif altogether" The witness receiving a su*poena must o*e it, appear as required, take the stand, *e sworn and answer questions" ,t is onl when a particular question is addressed to him, the answer to which ma incriminate him for some offense, that he ma refuse to answer on the strength of the constitutional guarant " The right against self8incrimination is not self8 e7ecuting or automaticall operational" ,t must *e claimed" ,f not claimed * or in *ehalf of the witness, the protection does not come into pla " ,t follows that the right ma *e waived, e7pressl , or impliedl , as * a failure to claim it at the appropriate time" Section 6+, (rticle ,% of the 19;A $onstitution also treats of a second right, or *etter said, group of rights" These rights appl to persons :under investigation for the commission of an offense,: i"e", :suspects: under investigation * police authorities5 and this is what makes these rights different from that em*odied in the first sentence, that against self8 incrimination which, as aforestated, indiscriminatel applies to an person testif ing in an proceeding, civil, criminal, or administrative" This provision granting e7plicit rights to persons under investigation for an offense was not in the 19A5 $onstitution" ,t is avowedl derived from the decision of the @"S" Supreme $ourt in !iranda v" (rizona, a decision descri*ed as an :earthquake in the world of law enforcement": Section 6+ states that whenever an person is :under investigation for the commission of an offense:88 1E he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to *e informed of such right, 6E nor force, violence, threat, intimidation, or an other means which vitiates the free will shall *e used against him5 and

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 109

AE an confession o*tained in violation of 7 7 Dthese rights shall *e inadmissi*le in evidence" ,n !iranda, $hief 'ustice .arren summarized the procedural safeguards laid down for a person in police custod , :in8custod interrogation: *eing regarded as the commencement of an adversar proceeding against the suspect" >e must *e warned prior to an questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that an thing he sa s can *e used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorne , and that if he cannot afford an attorne one will *e appointed for him prior to an questioning if he so desires" <pportunit to e7ercise those rights must *e afforded to him throughout the interrogation" (fter such warnings have *een given, such opportunit afforded him, the individual ma knowingl and intelligentl waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement" But unless and until such warnings and waivers are demonstrated * the prosecution at the trial, no evidence o*tained as a result of interrogation can *e used against him" 1ot ever statement made to the police * a person involved in some crime is within the scope of the constitutional protection" ,f not made :under custodial interrogation,: or :under investigation for the commission of an offense,: the statement is not protected" ,t is pertinent at this point to inquire whether the rights 9ust discussed, i"e", D1E that against self8incrimination and D6E those during custodial interrogation appl to persons under preliminar investigation or alread charged in court for a crime" ,t seems quite evident that a defendant on trial or under preliminar investigation is not under custodial interrogation" >is interrogation * the police, if an there had *een would alread have *een ended at the time of the filing of the criminal case in court Dor the pu*lic prosecutorsB officeE" >ence, with respect to a defendant in a criminal case alread pending in court Dor the pu*lic prosecutorBs officeE, there is no occasion to speak of his right while under :custodial interrogation: laid down * the second and su*sequent sentences of Section 6+, (rticle ,% of the 19;A $onstitution, for the o*vious reason that he is no longer under :custodial interrogation":

But unquestiona*l , the accused in court Dor undergoing preliminar investigation *efore the pu*lic prosecutorE, in common with all other persons, possesses the right against self8 incrimination set out in the first sentence of Section 6+ (rticle ,% of the 19;A $onstitution, i"e", the right to refuse to answer a specific incriminator question at the time that it is put to him" (dditionall , the accused in a criminal case in court has other rights in the matter of giving testimon or refusing to do so" (n accused :occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinar witness": @nder the /ules of $ourt, in all criminal prosecutions the defendant is entitled among others8 1E to *e e7empt from *eing a witness against himself, and 6E to testif as witness in his own *ehalf5 *ut if he offers himself as a witness he ma *e cross8e7amined as an other witness5 however, his neglect or refusal to *e a witness shall not in an manner pre9udice or *e used against him" The right of the defendant in a criminal case :to *e e7empt from *eing a witness against himselfB signifies that he cannot *e compelled to testif or produce evidence in the criminal case in which he is the accused, or one of the accused" >e cannot *e compelled to do so even * su*poena or other process or order of the $ourt" >e cannot *e required to *e a witness either for the prosecution, or for a co8accused, or even for himself" ,n other words J unlike an ordinar witness Dor a part in a civil actionE who ma *e compelled to testif * su*poena, having onl the right to refuse to answer a particular incriminator question at the time it is put to him8the defendant in a criminal action can refuse to testif altogether" >e can refuse to take the witness stand, *e sworn, answer an question" (nd, as the law categoricall states, :his neglect or refusal to *e a witness shall not in an manner pre9udice or *e used against him": ,f he should wish to testif in his own *ehalf, however, he ma do so" This is his right" But if he does testif , then he :ma *e cross8 e7amined as an other witness": >e ma *e cross8e7amined as to an matters stated in his direct e7amination, or connected therewith " >e ma not on cross8 e7amination refuse to answer an question on the ground that the answer that he will give, or the evidence he will produce, would have a tendenc to incriminate him for the crime with which he is charged"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 110

,t must however *e made clear that if the defendant in a criminal action *e asked a question which might incriminate him, not for the crime with which he is charged, *ut for some other crime, distinct from that of which he is accused, he ma decline to answer that specific question, on the strength of the right against self8incrimination granted * the first sentence of Section 6+, (rticle ,% of the 19;A $onstitution Dnow Section 1; of the 198; $onstitutionE" ,t is clear from the undisputed facts of this case that =elipe /amos was not in an sense under custodial interrogation, as the term should *e properl understood, prior to and during the administrative inquir into the discovered irregularities in ticket sales in which he appeared to have had a hand" The constitutional rights of a person under custodial interrogation under Section 6+, (rticle ,% of the 19;A $onstitution did not therefore come into pla , were of no relevance to the inquir " ,t is also clear, too, that /amos had voluntaril answered questions posed to him on the first da of the administrative investigation, =e*ruar 9, 1982 and agreed that the proceedings should *e recorded, the record having thereafter *een marked during the trial of the criminal action su*sequentl filed against him as 07hi*it (, 9ust as it is o*vious that the note Dlater marked as 07hi*it NE that he sent to his superiors on =e*ruar 8,1982, the da *efore the investigation, offering to compromise his lia*ilit in the alleged irregularities, was a free and even spontaneous act on his part" The ma not *e e7cluded on the ground that the so8called :!iranda rights: had not *een accorded to /amos" IN RE SA.IO Fa:3s: ;ebruary -D/ )HD@8 former #resident $orazon $" (quino issued 07ecutive <rder D0"<"E 1o" 1, creating the #residential $ommission on )ood )overnment D#$))E" This commission is charged with the task of recovering the ill8gotten wealth of !arcos and his famil " The constitutionalit of Sec 3D*E is *eing question, however, on the ground that it tramples upon the SenateBs power to conduct legislative inquir under (rticle %,, Section 61 of the 198; $onstitution, which readsI The Senate or the >ouse of /epresentatives or an of its respective committees ma conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its dul pu*lished rules of procedure"

The rights of persons appearing in or affected * such inquiries shall *e respected" ;ebruary -C/ -CC@3 Senator !iriam -efensor Santiago introduced #hilippine Senate /esolution 1o" 355 DSenate /es" 1o" 355E, :directing an inquir in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred * the #hilippines <verseas Telecommunications $orporation D#<T$E, #hilippine $ommunications Satellite $orporation D#>,4$<!S(TE, and #>,4$<!S(T >oldings $orporation D#>$E due to the alleged improprieties in their operations * their respective Board of -irectors": Senate /es" 1o" 355 was su*mitted to the Senate and referred to the %ommittee on ccountability of $ublic +fficers and (nvestigations and %ommittee on $ublic Services" ,t was then transferred to the %ommittee on &overnment %orporations and $ublic 6nterprises" May D/ -CC@8 $hief of Staff /io $" ,nocencio, under the authorit of Senator /ichard '" )ordon, wrote $hairman $amilo 4" Sa*io of the #$)), one of the herein petitioners, inviting him to *e one of the resource persons in the pu*lic meeting 9ointl conducted * the %ommittee on &overnment %orporations and $ublic 6nterprises and %ommittee on $ublic Services" The purpose of the pu*lic meeting was to deli*erate on Senate /es" 1o" 355" Sa**io declined the invitation *ecause of a prior appointment and invoked Section 3D*E of 0< 1o"1" ugust )C/ -CC@8 Senator )ordon issued a Subpoena d Testificandum, approved * Senate #resident !anuel %illar, requiring $hairman Sa*io and #$)) $ommissioners /icardo (*cede, 1icasio $onti, Tereso 'avier and 1arciso 1ario to appear in the pu*lic hearing scheduled on (ugust 6A, 6++2 and testif on what the know relative to the matters specified in Senate /es" 1o" 355" Similar su*poenae were issued against the directors and officers of #hilcomsat >oldings $orporation, namel I Benito %" (raneta, #hilip '" Brodett, 0nrique 4" 4ocsin, !anuel -" (ndal, /o*erto 4" (*ad, 4uis N" 4okin, 'r", 'ulio '" 'alandoni, /o*erto %" San 'ose, -elfin #" (ngcao, (lma Nristina (llo*a and 'ohnn Tan" (gain, $hairman Sa*io refused to appear"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 111

Thereafter, $hief of Staff !a" $arissa <" $oscolluela, under the authorit of Senator )ordon, sent another notice to $hairman Sa*io requiring him to appear and testif on the same su*9ect matter set on Septem*er 2, 6++2" The notice was issued :under the same authorit of the Subpoena d Testificandum previousl served upon DhimE last 12 (ugust 6++2": <nce more, $hairman Sa*io did not compl with the notice" >e sent a letter dated Septem*er 3, 6++2 to Senator )ordon reiterating his reason for declining to appear in the pu*lic hearing" Senator )ordon then issued an order requiring $hairman Sa*io and $ommissioners (*cede, $onti, 'avier and 1ario to show cause wh the should not *e cited in contempt of the Senate" The sent a letter to the Senate invoking Section 3D*E of 0< 1o"1 which the said constitutes a limitation to legislative inquir and recognition * the State of the need to provide protection to the #$)) in order to ensure the unhampered performance of its duties under its charter" 0"<" 1o" 1 is a law, Section 3D*E of which had not *een amended, repealed or revised in an wa " The %ommittee on &overnment %orporations and $ublic 6nterprises and the %ommittee on $ublic Services issued an <rder directing !a9or )eneral 'ose Bala9adia D/et"E, Senate Sergeant8(t8(rms, to place $hairman Sa*io and his $ommissioners under arrest for contempt of the Senate" The <rder *ears the approval of Senate #resident %illar and the ma9orit of the $ommitteesB mem*ers" Sa*io was then arrested and *rought to the Senate premises where he was detained" ,n )"/" 1o" 1;3A3+ Dfor habeas corpusE and )"/" 1o" 1;3A18 Dfor certiorari and prohi*itionE $hairman Sa*io, $ommissioners (*cede, $onti, 1ario, and 'avier5 and the #$))Bs nominees (ndal and 'alandoni allegedI first, respondent Senate $ommittees disregarded Section 3D*E of 0"<" 1o" 1 without an 9ustifia*le reason5 second, the inquiries conducted * respondent Senate $ommittees are not in aid of legislation5 third, the inquiries were conducted in the a*sence of dul pu*lished Senate 7ules of $rocedure &overning (nquiries in id of :egislation 5 and fourth, respondent Senate $ommittees are not vested with the power of contempt"

Iss8': .hether or not $hairman Sa*io and his $ommissionersF refusal to appear *efore respondent Senate $ommittees is 9ustified H'7-: (rticle %,, Section 61 of the 198; $onstitution grants respondent Senate $ommittees the power of legislative inquir " Section 3D*E of 0"<" 1o"1, however, limits such power of legislative inquir * e7empting all #$)) mem*ers or staff from testif ing in an 9udicial, legislative or administrative proceeding, thusI G1o mem*er or staff of the $ommission shall *e required to testif or produce evidence in an 9udicial, legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance"H Section 3D*E was found to *e directl repugnant with (rticle %,, Section 61" Section 3D*E e7empts the #$)) mem*ers and staff from the $ongressB power of inquir " This cannot *e countenanced" 1owhere in the $onstitution is an provision granting such e7emption" The $ongressB power of inquir , *eing *road, encompasses ever thing that concerns the administration of e7isting laws as well as proposed or possi*l needed statutes" ,t even e7tends :to government agencies created * $ongress and officers whose positions are within the power of $ongress to regulate or even a*olish": #$)) *elongs to this class" $ertainl , a mere provision of law cannot pose a limitation to the *road power of $ongress, in the a*sence of an constitutional *asis" =urthermore, Section 3D*E is also inconsistent with (rticle C,, Section 1 of the $onstitution stating thatI : $ublic office is a public trust! $ublic officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people/ serve them with utmost responsibility/ integrity/ loyalty/ and efficiency/ act with patriotism and ,ustice/ and lead modest lives": The provision presupposes that since an incum*ent of a pu*lic office is invested with certain powers and charged with certain duties pertinent to sovereignt , the powers so delegated to the officer are held in trust for the people and are to *e e7ercised in *ehalf of the government or of all citizens who ma need the intervention of the officers" Such trust e7tends to all

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 112

matters within the range of duties pertaining to the office" ,n other words, pu*lic officers are *ut the servants of the people, and not their rulers" Section 3D*E, *eing in the nature of an immunit , is inconsistent with the principle of pu*lic accounta*ilit " ,t places the #$)) mem*ers and staff *e ond the reach of courts, $ongress and other administrative *odies" ,t would seem constitutionall offensive to suppose that a mem*er or staff mem*er of the #$)) could not *e required to testif *efore the Sandigan*a an or that such mem*ers were e7empted from compl ing with orders of this $ourt" The principle that $ongress or an of its *odies has the power to punish recalcitrant witnesses is founded upon reason and polic " Said power must *e considered implied or incidental to the e7ercise of legislative power" ,n Negros +riental (( 6lectric %ooperative/ (nc! v! Sangguniang $anlungsod of 8umaguete, the $ourt characterized contempt power as a matter of self8 preservation, thusI The e7ercise * the legislature of the contempt power is a matter of self8 preservation as that *ranch of the government vested with the legislative power, independentl of the 9udicial *ranch, asserts its authorit and punishes contempts thereof" The contempt power of the legislature is, therefore, sui generis 7 7 7" !eanwhile, with respect to )"/" 1o" 1;31;;, the petition of #hilcomsat >oldings $orporation and its directors and officers, this $ourt holds that the respondent Senate $ommitteesB inquir does not violate their right to privac and right against self8incrimination" <ne important limitation on the $ongressB power of inquir is that :the rights of persons appearing in or affected * such inquiries shall *e respected": This is 9ust another wa of sa ing that the power of inquir must *e :su*9ect to the limitations placed * the $onstitution on government action": (s held in 2arenblatt v! United States/ :the $ongress, in common with all the other *ranches of the )overnment, must e7ercise its powers su*9ect to the limitations placed * the $onstitution on governmental action, more

particularl in the conte7t of this case, the relevant limitations of the Bill of /ights": An'n3 35' r6(53 a(a6ns3 s'7=-6n:r6)6na36*n, 63 )8s3 4' ')25as6F'- 35a3 356s r6(53 )a;4' 6nv*H'- 4; 35' sa6- -6r':3*rs an- *==6:'rs *= P567:*)sa3 H*7-6n(s C*r2*ra36*n *n7; <5'n 35' 6n:r6)6na36n( E8's36*n 6s 4'6n( asH'-, s6n:' 35'; 5av' n* <a; *= Hn*<6n( 6n a-van:' 35' na38r' *r '==':3 *= 35' E8's36*ns 3* 4' asH'- *= 35').? That this right ma possi*l *e violated or a*used is no ground for den ing respondent Senate $ommittees their power of inquir " The consolation is that when this power is a*used, such issue ma *e presented *efore the courts" (t this 9uncture, what is important is that respondent Senate $ommittees have sufficient 7ules to guide them when the right against self8incrimination is invoked" Sec" 19 readsI Sec" 19" #rivilege (gainst Self8,ncrimination ( witness can invoke his right against self8incrimination onl when a question tends to elicit an answer that will incriminate him is propounded to him" >owever, he ma offer to answer an question in an e7ecutive session" 1o person can refuse to testif or *e placed under oath or affirmation or answer questions *efore an incriminator question is asked" >is invocation of such right does not * itself e7cuse him from his dut to give testimon " ,n such a case, the $ommittee, * a ma9orit vote of the mem*ers present there *eing a quorum, shall determine whether the right has *een properl invoked" ,f the $ommittee decides otherwise, it shall resume its investigation and the question or questions previousl refused to *e answered shall *e repeated to the witness" ,f the latter continues to refuse to answer the question, the $ommittee ma punish him for contempt for contumacious conduct" The same directors and officers contend that the Senate is *arred from inquiring into the same issues *eing litigated *efore the $ourt of (ppeals and the Sandiganbayan" Suffice it to state that the Senate /ules of #rocedure )overning ,nquiries in (id of 4egislation provide that the filing or pendenc of

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 113

an prosecution of criminal or administrative action should not stop or a*ate an inquir to carr out a legislative purpose" 4et it *e stressed at this point that s* 7*n( as 35' :*ns363836*na7 r6(53s *= <63n'ss's, 76H' C5a6r)an Sa46* an- 56s C*))6ss6*n'rs, <677 4' r's2':3'- 4; r's2*n-'n3 S'na3' C*))633''s, 63 35'6r -83; 3* :**2'ra3' <635 35') 6n 35'6r '==*r3s 3* *43a6n 35' =a:3s n''-'- =*r 6n3'776('n3 7'(6s7a36v' a:36*n. The unremitting o*ligation of ever citizen is to respond to su*poenae, to respect the dignit of the $ongress and its $ommittees, and to testif full with respect to matters within the realm of proper investigation" ,n fine, #$)) $hairman $amilo Sa*io and $ommissioners /icardo (*cede, 1arciso 1ario, 1icasio $onti, and Tereso 'avier5 and !anuel (ndal and 'ulio 'alandoni, #$))Bs nominees to #hilcomsat >oldings $orporation, as well as its directors and officers, must compl with the Subpoenae d Testificandum issued * respondent Senate $ommittees directing them to appear and testif in pu*lic hearings relative to Senate /esolution 1o" 355" .>0/0=</0, the petition in )"/" 1o" 1;3A3+ for habeas corpus is -,S!,SS0-, for *eing moot" The petitions in )"/ 1os" 1;3A18 and 1;31;; are likewise -,S!,SS0-" Section 3D*E of 0"<" 1o" 1 is declared /0#0(40- * the 198; $onstitution" /espondent Senate $ommitteesB power of inquir relative to Senate /esolution 355 is upheld" #$)) $hairman $amilo 4" Sa*io and $ommissioners /icardo (*cede, 1arciso 1ario, 1icasio $onti and Tereso 'avier5 and !anuel (ndal and 'ulio 'alandoni, #$))Bs nominees to #hilcomsat >oldings $orporation, as well as its directors and officers, petitioners in )"/" 1o" 1;31;;, are ordered to compl with the Subpoenae d Testificandum issued * respondent Senate $ommittees directing them to appear and testif in pu*lic hearings relative to Senate /esolution 1o" 355"

TANOD.ACAN, GENERAL FA.IAN C. VER, MA+OR GENERAL PROSPERO OLIVAS, SGT. PA.LO MARTINE!, SGT. TOMAS FERNANDE!, SGT. LEONARDO MO+ICA SGT. PEPITO TORIO, SGT. PROSPERO .ONA AND A7C ANICETO ACUPIDO (19&1 FACTS: <n (ugust 61, 198A, a crime unparalleled in repercussions and ramifications was committed inside the premises of the !anila ,nternational (irport D!,(E in #asa $it " =ormer Senator Benigno S" (quino, 'r", an opposition stalwart who was returning to the countr after a long8so9ourn a*road, was gunned down to death" The assassination rippled shock8waves throughout the entire countr which rever*erated *e ond the territorial confines of this /epu*lic" The after8shocks stunned the nation even more as this ramified to all aspects of #hilippine political, economic and social life" To determine the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing and to allow a free, unlimited and e7haustive investigation of all aspects of the traged , #"-" 1882 was promulgated creating an ad hoc =act =inding Board which later *ecame more popularl known as the (grava Board" #ursuant to the powers vested in it * #"-" 1882, the Board conducted pu*lic hearings wherein various witnesses appeared and testified andLor produced documentar and other evidence either in o*edience to a su*poena or in response to an invitation issued * the Board (mong the witnesses who appeared, testified and produced evidence *efore the Board were the herein private respondents )eneral =a*ian $" %er, !a9or )eneral #rospero <livas, Sgt" #a*lo !artinez, Sgt" Tomas =ernandez, Sgt" 4eonardo !o9ica, Sgt" #epito Torio, Sgt" #rospero Bona and (,$ (niceto (cupido" ,n the course of the 9oint trial of the two D6E aforementioned cases, the #rosecution represented * the <ffice of the petition T(1<-B(&(1, marked and thereafter offered as part of its evidence, the individual testimonies of private respondents *efore the (grava Board" #rivate respondents, through their respective counsel o*9ected to the admission of said e7hi*its" #rivate respondent )en" %er filed a formal :!otion to 07clude Testimonies of )en" =a*ian $" %er *efore the =act =inding Board as 0vidence against him in the a*ove8entitled cases: contending that its admission will *e in derogation of his constitutional right against self8 incrimination and violative of the immunit granted * #"-" 1882" >e pra ed that his aforesaid testimon *e re9ected as evidence for the prosecution" !a9or )en" <livas and the rest of the other private

Ca25*:H8n SATURNINA GALMAN AND RECNALDO GALMAN vs.THE HONORA.LE PRESIDING +USTICE MANUEL PAMARAN AND ASSOCIATE +USTICES AUGUSTO AMORES AND .IENVENIDO VERA CRU! OF THE SANDIGAN.ACAN, THE HONORA.LE .ERNARDO FERNANDE!,

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 114

respondents likewise filed separate motions to e7clude their respective individual testimonies invoking the same ground" #etitioner T(1<-B(&(1 opposed said motions contending that the immunit relied upon * the private respondents in support of their motions to e7clude their respective testimonies, was not availa*le to them *ecause of their failure to invoke their right against self8 incrimination *efore the ad hoc =act =inding Board" /espondent S(1-,)(1B(&(1 ordered the T(1<-B(&(1 and the private respondents to su*mit their respective memorandum on the issue after which said motions will *e considered su*mitted for resolution" @#<1 termination of the investigation, two D6E reports were su*mitted to >is 07cellenc , #resident =erdinand 0" !arcos" <ne, * its $hairman, the >on" 'ustice $orazon 'uliano (grava5 and another one, 9ointl authored * the other mem*ers of the Board J namel I >on" 4uciano Salazar, >on" (mado -izon, >on" -ante Santos and >on" 0rnesto >errera" Bthe reports were thereafter referred and turned over to the T(1<-B(&(1 for appropriate action" (fter conducting the necessar preliminar investigation, the T(1<-B(&(1 filed with the S(1-,)(1B(&(1 two D6E ,nformations for !@/-0/8one for the killing of Sen" Benigno S" (quino which was docketed as $riminal $ase 1o" 1++1+ and another, criminal $ase 1o" 1++11, for the killing of /olando )alman, who was found dead on the airport tarmac not far from the prostrate *od of Sen" (quino on that same fateful da " ,n *oth criminal cases, private respondents were charged as accessories, along with several principals, and one accomplice" @pon arraignment, all the accused, including the herein private ate /espondents pleaded 1<T )@,4T&" <n 'une 1A, 1985, respondent S(1-,)(1B(&(1 issued a /esolution, now assailed in these two D6E petitions, admitting all the evidences offered * the prosecution e7cept the testimonies andLor other evidence produced * the private respondents in view of the immunit granted * #"-" 1882" #etitionersB motion for the reconsideration of the said /esolution having *een -01,0-, the now come *efore @s * wa of certiorari pra ing for the amendment andLor setting aside of the challenged /esolution on the ground that it was issued without 9urisdiction andLor with grave a*use of discretion amounting to lack of 9urisdiction" #rivate prosecutor *elow, as counsel for the mother of deceased /olando )alman, also filed a separate petition for certiorari on the same ground" >aving arisen from the same factual *eginnings and raising practicall ,dentical issues, the two D6E

petitioners were consolidated and will therefore *e 9ointl dealt with and resolved in this -ecision" ISSUE: .<1 the evidence of the testimonies given * the eight D8E private respondents who did not invoke their rights against self8incrimination *efore the (grava Board are admissi*le" RULING: R': In <5a3 2r*:''-6n(s ava67a47' The (grava Board, came into e7istence in response to a popular pu*lic clamor that an impartial and independent *od , instead of an ordinar police agenc , *e charged with the task of conducting the investigation" The then earl distortions and e7aggerations, *oth in foreign and local media, relative to the pro*a*le motive *ehind the assassination and the person or persons responsi*le for or involved in the assassination hastened its creation and heavil contri*uted to its earl formation" (lthough referred to and designated as a mere =act =inding Board Ddifference from the $eople vs yson E, the Board is in truth and in fact, and to all legal intents and purposes, an entit charged, not onl with the function of determining the facts and circumstances surrounding the killing, *ut more importantl , the determination of the person or persons criminall responsi*le therefore so that the ma *e *rought *efore the *ar of 9ustice" The investigation therefore is also geared, as an other similar investigation of its sort, to the ascertainment andLor determination of the culprit or culprits, their consequent prosecution and ultimatel , their conviction" (nd as safeguard, the #"-" guarantees :an person called to testif *efore the Board the right to counsel at an stage of the proceedings": $onsidering the foregoing environmental settings, it cannot *e denied that in the course of receiving evidence, persons summoned to testif will include not merel plain witnesses *ut also those suspected as authors and co8participants in the tragic killing" (nd when suspects are summoned and called to testif andLor produce evidence, the situation is one where the person testif ing or producing evidence is undergoing investigation for the commission of an offense and not merel in order to shed light on the facts and surrounding circumstances of the assassination, *ut more importantl , to determine the character and e7tent of his participation therein" <f course, it ma *e argued is not the right to remain silent availa*le onl to a person undergoing custodial interrogationK .e find no

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 115

categorical statement in the constitutional provision on the matter which readsI """ (n person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain and to counsel, and to *e informed of such right" """ (ll the private respondents, e7cept )enerals %er and <livas, are mem*ers of the militar contingent that escorted Sen" (quino while disem*arking from the plane that *rought him home to !anila on that fateful da , the records show that )enerals %er and <livas were among the last witnesses called * the (grava Board" The su*9ect matter dealt with and the line of questioning as shown * the transcript of their testimonies *efore the (grava Board, indu*ita*l evinced purposes other than merel eliciting and determining the so8 called surrounding facts and circumstances of the assassination" ,n the light of the e7amination reflected * the record, it is not far8 fetched to conclude that the were called to the stand to determine their pro*a*le involvement in the crime *eing investigated" &et the have not *een informed or at the ver least even warned while so testif ing, even at that particular stage of their testimonies, of their right to remain silent and that an statement given * them ma *e used against them" To *uttress their precarious stand and *reathe life into a seemingl hopeless cause, petitioners and amicus curiae D078Senator (m*rosio #adillaE assert that the :right not to *e compelled to *e a witness against himself: applies onl in favor of an accused in a criminal case, it is not the character of the suit involved *ut the nature of the proceedings that controls" The privilege has consistentl *een held to e7tend to all proceedings sanctioned * law and to all cases in which punishment is sought to *e visited upon a witness, whether a part or not" ,f in a mere forfeiture case where onl propert rights were involved, :the right not to *e compelled to *e a witness against himself: is secured in favor of the defendant, then with more reason it cannot *e denied to a person facing investigation *efore a =act =inding Board where his life and li*ert , * reason of the statements to *e given * him, hang on the *alance" =urther enlightenment on the su*9ect can *e found in the historical *ackground of this constitutional provision against self8 incrimination <ur review of the pleadings and their anne7es, together with the oral arguments, manifestations and admissions of *oth counsel, failed to reveal adherence to and compliance with due process" The manner in which the testimonies were taken from private respondents fall

short of the constitutional standards *oth under the -@0 #/<$0SS $4(@S0 and under the 0C$4@S,<1(/& /@40 in Section 6+, (rticle ,%" ,n the face of such grave constitutional infirmities, the individual testimonies of private respondents cannot *e admitted against them in all criminal proceeding" This is true regardless of a*sence of claim of constitutional privilege or of the presence of a grant of immunit * law" 1evertheless, .e shall rule on the effect of such a*sence of claim to the availa*ilit to private respondents of the immunit provided for in Section 5, #"-" 1882 which issue was squarel raised and e7tensivel discussed in the pleadings and oral arguments of the parties" R': Us' an- Fr863 I))8n63; ,mmunit statutes ma *e generall classified into twoI one, which grants :use immunit :5 and the other, which grants what is known as :transactional immunit ": The distinction *etween the two is as followsI :@se immunit : prohi*its use of witnessB compelled testimon and its fruits in an manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness" <n the other hand, :transactional immunit : grants immunit to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimon relates": 07amining #residential -ecree 1882, more specificall Section 5 thereof, which readsI S0$" 5" 1o person shall *e e7cused from attending and testif ing or from producing *ooks, records, correspondence, documents, or other evidence in o*edience to a su*poena issued * the Board on the ground that his testimon or the evidence required of him ma tend to incriminate him or su*9ect him to penalt or forfeiture5 *ut his testimon or an evidence produced * him shall not *e used against him in connection with an transaction, matter or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having invoked his privilege against self8incrimination, to testif or produce evidence, e7cept that such individual so testif ing shall not *e e7empt from prosecution and punishment for per9ur committed in so testif ing, nor shall he *e e7empt from demotion or removal from office" But a literal application of a requirement of a claim of the privilege against self8 incrimination as a condition sine qua non to the grant of immunit presupposes that from a la manBs point of view, he has the option to refuse to answer questions and therefore, to make such claim" #"-" 1882, however, forecloses such option of refusal * imposing sanctions upon its e7ercise, thusI

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 116

S0$" 3" The Board ma hold an person in direct or indirect contempt, and impose appropriate penalties therefor" ( person guilt of """" including """ refusal to *e sworn or to answer as a witness or to su*scri*e to an affidavit or deposition when lawfull required to do so ma *e summaril ad9udged in direct contempt * the Board" """ Such threat of punishment for making a claim of the privilege leaves the witness no choice *ut to answer and there* forfeit the immunit purportedl granted * Sec" 5" The a*surdit of such application is apparent Sec" 5 requires a claim which it, however, forecloses under threat of contempt proceedings against an one who makes such claim" But the strong testimonial compulsion imposed * Section 5 of #"-" 1882 viewed in the light of the sanctions provided in Section 3,infringes upon the witnessB right against self8incrimination" (s a rule, such infringement of the constitutional right renders inoperative the testimonial compulsion, meaning, the witness cannot *e compelled to answer @140SS a co8e7tensive protection in the form of ,!!@1,T& is offered" >ence, under the oppressive compulsion of #"-" 1882, immunit must in fact *e offered to the witness *efore he can *e required to answer, so as to safeguard his sacred constitutional right" But in this case, the compulsion has alread produced its desired results the private respondents had all testified without offer of immunit " Their constitutional rights are therefore, in 9eopard " The onl wa to cure the law of its unconstitutional effects is to construe it in the manner as if ,!!@1,T& had in fact *een offered" .e hold, therefore, that in view of the potent sanctions imposed on the refusal to testif or to answer questions under Sec" 3 of #"-" 1882, the testimonies compelled there* are deemed immunized under Section 5 of the same law" The applica*ilit of the immunit granted * #"-" 1882 cannot *e made to depend on a claim of the privilege against self8incrimination which the same law practicall strips awa from the witness" ,1 %,0. <= T>0 =</0)<,1) $<1S,-0/(T,<1S and finding the instant petitions without merit, same are -,S!,SS0-" 1o pronouncement as to costs"

management notified him of an investigation to *e conducted" That investigation was scheduled in accordance with #(4Bs $ode of $onduct and -iscipline, and the $ollective Bargaining (greement signed * it with the #hilippine (irlines 0mplo eesB (ssociation D#(40(E to which /amos pertained" ( letter was sent * /amos stating his willingness to settle the amount of #;2,+++" The findings of the (udit team were given to him, and he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was prevented from settling said amounts" >e proffered a compromise however this did not ensue" Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against /amos" /amos pleaded not guilt " 0vidence * the prosecution contained /amosF written admission and statement, to which defendants argued that the confession was taken without the accused *eing represented * a law er" /espondent 'udge did not admit those stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel" ( motion for reconsideration filed * the prosecutors was denied" >ence this appeal" ISSUE:

.hether or 1ot the respondent 'udge correct in making inadmissi*le as evidence the admission and statement of accused"

RULING: 1o" Section 6+ of the 198; constitution provides that the right against self8incrimination Donl to witnesses other than accused, unless what is asked is relating to a different crime charged8 not present in case at *arE" This is accorded to ever person who gives evidence, whether voluntaril or under compulsion of su*poena, in an civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding" The right is not to :*e compelled to *e a witness against himself"H ,t prescri*es an :option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohi*ition of inquir ": the right can *e claimed onl when the specific question, incriminator in character, is actuall put to the witness" ,t cannot *e claimed at an other time" ,t does not give a witness the right to disregard a su*poena, to decline to appear *efore the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testif altogether" ,t is a right that a witness knows or should know" >e must claim it and could *e waived"

PEOPLE VS ACSON (19&9 FACTS: =elipe /amos was a ticket freight clerk of the #hilippine (irlines, assigned at its Baguio $it station" ,t was alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets, the #(4

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 117

/ights in custodial interrogation as laid down in !iranda v" (rizonaI the rights of the accused includeI 1E >e shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to *e informed of such right" 6E 1or force, violence, threat, intimidation, or an other means which vitiates the free will shall *e used against him" AE (n confession o*tained in violation of these rights shall *e inadmissi*le in evidence" The individual ma knowingl and intelligentl waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement" But unless and until such rights and waivers are demonstrated * the prosecution at the trial, no evidence o*tained as a result of interrogation can *e used against him" Ddifference reI proceedings availa*leE CHAVE! vs COURT OF APPEALS (196& FACTS: ,n the last week of Septem*er, 1926, Sumilang saw /oger $havez at a gas station" The latter informed him that there was a Thunder*ird from $lark =ield for sale for a price *etween #6+,+++"++ and #66,+++"++" $havez said that it could *e held for him with a down pa ment of #1+,+++"++" To raise this sum, Sumilang and $havez, on <cto*er 1, went to the house of a certain 1ena >ernaez de los /e es who wrote out a check for #5,+++"++ as a loan to Sumilang" That check was e7hi*ited in court" Sumilang and $havez then went to #asa $it to see a certain !ario Baltazar, an agent of the #asa $it !a or, and 1arsing $ailles, $hief of the =ire -epartment" Sumilang asked the two for a #1+,+++8loan *acked up * the #5,+++"++8check aforesaid on condition that it should not *e cashed immediatel as there were not enough funds therefor" Baltazar and $ailles agreed to give the mone the ne7tda as long as the check would *e left with them and Sumilang would sign a promissor note for #1+,+++"++" Baltazar later informed Sumilang that $havez picked up the mone the ne7t da " =our or five da s afterwards, $havez returned #3,+++"++ to Sumilang *ecause #2,+++"++ was enough for the deposit" (nd so, Sumilang gave *ack the #3,+++"++ to Baltazar" (*out the end of <cto*er or at the *eginning of 1ovem*er, $havez asked Sumilang for another #A,+++"++" Sumilang sent $havez to Baltazar and $ailles, with a note requesting that the accommodate

him once more" >e also sent a check, again without funds" Baltazar gave the mone after verif ing the authenticit of the note" <n 1ovem*er 13, $havez appeared at SumilangBs house with the news that the car was read if Sumilang was read with the rest of the mone " So Sumilang got #9,+++"++ from his mother and another #3,+++"++ from his aparador" >e immediatel gave #2,+++"++ to $havez, intending to pa out the *alance upon the carBs deliver " ,t was then that $havez told Sumilang that the car was alread *ought * a $hinese who would *e the vendor" The purchase price finall agreed upon *etween Sumilang and 'ohnson 4ee was #61,+++"++, plus #5++"++ agents commission at the e7pense of the *u er" Sumilang told 4ee that he alread paid part of the price to $havez" (t 0ugeneBs, $havez asked Sumilang for the *alance" Sumilang accommodated" There, Sumilang, also saw a friend, :)ing: #ascual" ,n the course of their conversation at the *ar, Sumilang mentioned the proposed transaction thru $havez" #ascual warned that $havez was a :smart: agent and advised that Sumilang should have a receipt for his mone " ( certain Bim*o, a friend of #ascual, offered to make out a receipt for $havez to sign" (fter Sumilang returned from posing for some photographs with some of his fans, Bim*o showed him the receipt alread signed * $havez" Sumilang requested #ascual and Bim*o to sign the receipt as witnesses" (nd the did" This receipt was offered as an e7hi*it * the prosecution and * Sumilang" .hen Sumilang was read to leave 0ugeneBs, 'ohnson 4ee turned over to him the deed of sale, the registration papers and the ke s to the car" (fter shaking hands with 4ee, Sumilang drove awa in the car with his driver at the wheel" Two or three da s afterwards, Sumilang dropped * the Barrio =iesta on his wa to a film shooting at Bulacan" >e saw (sistio with man companions" (sistio liked his Thunder*ird parked outside" (sistio offered to *u it from him for #66,5++"++" (s the offer was good, and knowing (sistioBs and his friendsB reputation for alwa s getting what the wanted, Sumilang consented to the sale" (sistio tendered a down pa ment of #1,+++"++5 the *alance he promised to pa the ne7t da after negotiating with some financing compan " Before said *alance could *e paid, the car was impounded" The trial court gave evidence to SumilangBs averment, strengthened * BaltazarBs and $aillesB corro*orations, that he paid good mone for the car" Sumilang was thus cleared" So was (sistio whom the trial

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 118

ISSUE: .<1 petitioner was compelled to testif against himself" RULING: #etitionerBs plea on this score rests upon his averment, with proof, of violation of his right J constitutionall entrenched J against self8 incrimination" >e asks that the hand of this $ourt *e made to *ear down upon his conviction5 that he *e relieved of the effects thereof" >e asks us to consider the constitutional in9unction that :1o person shall *e compelled to *e a witness against himself,: full echoed in Section 1, /ule 115, /ules of $ourt where, in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant shall *e entitledI :To *e e7empt from *eing a witness against himself": " #re9udice to the accused for having *een compelled over his o*9ections to *e a witness for the #eople is at once apparent" The record discloses that * leading questions $havez, the accused, was made to affirm his statement given to the 1B, agents on 'ul 1;, 192A at 5I++ oBclock in the afternoon" 62 (nd this statement detailed the plan and e7ecution thereof * Sumilang D%asquezE, (sistio and himself to deprive the $hinese of his Thunder*ird car" (nd he himself proceeded to narrate the same anew in open court" >e identified the Thunder*ird car involved in the case" 6; The decision convicting /oger $havez was clearl of the view that the case for the #eople was *uilt primaril around the admissions of $havez himself" The trial court descri*ed $havez as the :star witness for the prosecution:" ,ndeed, the damaging facts forged in the decision were drawn directl from the lips of $havez as a prosecution witness and of course /icardo Sumilang for the defense"

court *elieved to *e a mere *u er of the car" (nd so, the prosecutionBs theor of conspirac was discounted" (s to the other accused, the court found no case against #edro /e*ullo alias :#ita: and 4orenzo !eneses alias :4or :" The accused :)ing: #ascual was also acquitted for in the first place he was not identified * 'ohnson 4ee in court" (s to /oger $havez, however, the court had this to sa I :/oger $havez does not offer any defense! (s a matter of fact, his testimony as witness for the prosecution establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt!"5 The trial court *randed him :a self8confessed culprit:" The foregoing sentence was promulgated on !arch 8, 1925" /oger $havez appealed to the $ourt of (ppeals" $( dismissed the appeal"

There are the unequivocal statements in the decision that :even accused $havez: identified :the ver same Thunder*ird that 'ohnson 4ee had offered for sale:5 that $havez :testimon as witness for the prosecution esta*lishes his guilt *e ond reasona*le dou*t and that $havez is :a self8confessed culprit:" )JwphK)!ILt 3" .ith all these, we have no hesitanc in sa ing that petitioner was forced to testif to incriminate himself, in full *reach of his constitutional right to remain silent" ,t cannot *e said now that he has waived his right" >e did not volunteer to take the stand and in his own defense5 he did not offer himself as a witness5 on the contrar , he claimed the right upon *eing called to testif " ,f petitioner nevertheless answered the questions inspite of his fear of *eing accused of per9ur or *eing put under contempt, this circumstance cannot *e counted against him" >is testimon is not of his own choice" To him it was a case of compelled su*mission" >e was a cowed participant in proceedings *efore a 9udge who possessed the power to put him under contempt had he chosen to remain silent" 1or could he escape testif ing" The court made it a*undantl clear that his testimon at least on direct e7amination would *e taken right then and thereon the first da of the trial" ,t matters not that, after all efforts to stave off petitionerBs taking the stand *ecame fruitless, no o*9ections to questions propounded to him were made" >ere involve is not a mere question of self8 incrimination" ,t is a defendantBs constitutional immunit from *eing called to testif against himself" (nd the o*9ection made at the *eginning is a continuing one" )JwphK)!ILt There is therefore no waiver of the privilege" :To *e effective, a waiver must *e certain and unequivocal, and intelligently/ understandably/ and willingly made5 such waiver following onl where liberty of choice has *een full accorded" (fter a claim a witness cannot properl *e held to have waived his privilege on vague and uncertain evidence": The foregoing guidelines, 9u7taposed with the circumstances of the case heretofore adverted to, make waiver a shak defense" ,t cannot stand" ,f, * his own admission, defendant proved hs guilt, still, his original claim remains valid" =or the privilege, we sa again, is a rampart that gives protection 8 even to the guilty!

HEIRS OF PIEDAD VS EOECUTIVE +UDGE ESTRERA AND +UDGE VILLARIN (/BB9 FACTS:

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 119

,n 19;3, Simeon #iedad filed with the $e*u $it /egional Trial $ourt D/T$E a case against $andelaria 4inehan Bo*illes and !ariano Bo*illes for the annulment of an (*solute -eed of Sale was filed" Said court ruled in favor of Simeon #iedad in its -ecision dated !arch 19, 1996,O6P the dispositive portion of which readsI .>0/0=</0, premises considered and * preponderance of evidence, the $ourt here* renders a -ecision in favor of herein plaintiff Simeon #iedad and against defendants $andelaria 4inehan8Bo*illes and !ariano Bo*illes, * declaring the deed of sale in question D07hi*it G(H or G5HE to *e 1@44 and %<,- for *eing a mere forger , and ordering herein defendants, their heirs andLor assigns to vacate the house and surrender their possession of said house and all other real properties which are supposed to have *een covered * the voided deed of sale D07hi*it G(H or G5HE to the administrator of the estate of spouses 1emesio #iedad and =ortunata 1illas" =urthermore, herein defendants are here* ordered to pa plaintiff or his heirs the followingI D1E #A,+++"++ !oral -amages5 D6E #6,+++"++ 07emplar -amages5 and DAE #8++"++ attorne Fs fees, plus costs" $( affirmed the ruling of the lower court" The foregoing decision *ecame final and e7ecutor on 1ovem*er 1, 1998" Su*sequentl , upon the instance of Simeon #iedad, an order for the issuance of the writ of demolition was issued * the late 'udge )aviola" <n 1ovem*er 5, 6++1, a motion for reconsideration was then filed * defendant $andelaria, which was denied in an <rder dated 1ovem*er 62, 6++1 Thus, on -ecem*er 3, 6++1, a .rit of -emolition was issued against the defendants therein and referred for implementation to Sheriff (ntonio (" Bellones" ,n a seeming attempt to stop the enforcement of the writ, $andelaria attached to the expediente of $ivil $ase 1o" 3A58T, a #etition for #ro*ate of the 4ast .ill and Testament of Simeon #iedad" This was found to *e untena*le * the late 'udge )aviola, who ordered the filing of the said petition in its natural course and its raffling to other *ranches of the court in its <rder dated (pril 66, 6++6" Su*sequentl , $andelaria filed a #etition for #ro*ate of the 4ast .ill and Testament of Simeon #iedad with the Toledo $it /T$, docketed as S"#" #roc" 1o" 35;8T and raffled to Branch 59, which was presided * respondent 'udge %illarin"

(lso, a verified petition for the issuance of a temporar restraining order DT/<E andLor preliminar in9unction was filed * $andelaria on !a 12, 6++6 with the Toledo $it /T$, docketed as S"#" #roc" 1o" 32A8T entitled %andelaria :inehan v! ntonio 2illones/ Sheriff 7T%/ 2ranch H/ %ebu %ity, against Sheriff Bellones to restrain the latter from enforcing the .rit of -emolition" <n the da that the said petition was filed, respondent 'udge 0strera, the 07ecutive 'udge of the Toledo $it /T$ and presiding 9udge of Branch 69, ordered the raffle of the petition" =our da s thereafter, respondent 'udge 0strera took it upon himself to hear the case summaril " =inding that the matter was of e7treme urgenc and would cause grave in9ustice and irrepara*le in9ur to the plaintiff, $andelaria, since it involved the demolition of the properties owned * the latter, respondent 'udge 0strera immediatel issued a restraining order" <n 'une 11, 6++6, Sheriff Bellones filed his answer, alleging that he was onl performing his ministerial dut , and that there was no cause of action against him" !eanwhile, upon the instance of $andelaria, respondent 'udge 0strera issued an order for the consolidation of the cases" ,mmediatel thereafter, respondent 'udge %illarin issued the <rder dated !a 6;, 6++6 e7tending the T/< for 1; da s, upon the instance of $andelaria" ,n compliance with the directive of the <$(, respondent 'udge 0strera su*mitted his comment dated (pril 63, 6++;, in which he clarified that what he issued was an ex parte T/<, not an Gin9unction order,H and that the said ex parte T/< was valid onl for ;6 hours and would *e deemed automaticall vacated should the preliminar in9unction remain unresolved within the said period" >e also stated that the T/< was never issued against the heirs of the late Simeon #iedad, the complainants herein, as the were never made parties to S"#" #roc" 1o" 32A8T" >e added that he was not aware of the circumstances attendant to $ivil $ase 1o" 3A58T" <n the other hand, respondent 'udge %illarin e7plained in his comment that he did not act on the motion to dismiss, as amended, as this would *e tantamount to a 9udicial interference in the order of Branch 69 of the Toledo $it /T$, a court of co8equal 9urisdiction" (s regards his inaction on the motion requesting the issuance of an order lifting the in9unction order, he 9ustified such inaction * stating that there was no need to resolve the motion, considering that *efore S"#" #roc" 1o" 32A8T was transferred to Branch 59 of the Toledo $it /T$, the ;68hour restraining order had alread lapsed" >e then 9ustified that the resolution of the motion requesting for the issuance of an order lifting the in9unction order had alread *ecome moot"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 120

<n 'anuar 12, 6++9, $ourt (dministrator 'ose #" #erez su*mitted his recommendations to this $ourt" >e found that respondent 'udges 0strera and %illarin indeed committed the acts complained of *ased on their ver own admissions in their respective comments" >e, thus, recommended that respondent 9udges, for gross ignorance of the law, *e fined in the amount of #h# 61,+++ each, and that respondent 'udge %illarin *e fined in the additional amount of #h# 11,+++ for undue dela in rendering an order"

,SS@0I .<1 respondent 'udge %illarin is lia*le for undue dela in rendering an order" /@4,1)I &0S" ,n his comment, respondent 'udge %illarin admitted that he did not act on the !otion to -ismiss, as amended, and the !otion /equesting the ,ssuance of an <rder 4ifting the ,n9unction <rder dated !a 6+, 6++6, which are still pending *efore his court" >e, however, 9ustified this * stating that he did not act on the pending motions *ecause he did not want to interfere with the order of a co8 equal court, that is, Branch 69 of the Toledo $it /T$5 and he *elieved that it was unnecessar to issue an order on the motion, which had *ecome moot and academic" .e do not agree" ,f respondent 'udge %illarin indeed *elieved that the motions pending *efore him were defective, he could have simpl acted on the said motions and indicated the supposed defects in his resolutions instead of 9ust leaving them unresolved" The importance of 9udicious and prompt disposition of cases and other matters pending *efore the courts was aptl e7plained in 2iggel v! $amintuanIO6AP @ndue dela in the disposition of cases and motions erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the 9udiciar and unnecessaril *lemishes its stature" 1o less than the $onstitution mandates that lower courts must dispose of their cases promptl and decide them within three months from the filing of the last pleading, *rief or memorandum required * the /ules of $ourt or * the $ourt concerned" ,n addition, a 9udgeBs dela in resolving, within the prescri*ed period, pending motions and incidents constitutes a violation of /ule A"+5 of the $ode of 'udicial $onduct requiring 9udges to dispose of court *usiness promptl " CAPT. "ILFREDO G. ROJUERO vs THE CHANCELLOR OF UP-MANILA (/B1B

FACTS: #etitioner .ildredo )" /oquero is an emplo ee of @#8!anila assigned at the #hilippine )eneral >ospital D#)>E Securit -ivision as Special #olice $aptain" #rivate respondent ,melda <" (*utal is a 4ad )uard of 078Bataan Securit (genc who was appl ing for a position in the securit force assigned at @#8#)>" The instant controvers arose from a complaint * private respondent (*utal with then $hancellor of @#8!anila #erla -" Santos8<campo for )rave !isconduct against petitioner $apt" /oquero" (fter preliminar investigation dul conducted in accordance with the /ules and /egulations on the -iscipline of @# =acult and 0mplo ees, a prima facie case has *een found to e7ist against ou for )/(%0 !,S$<1-@$T punisha*le under the @niversit /ules and /egulations on the -iscipline of @# =acult and 0mplo ees in relation to the $ivil Service 4aw, committed as followsI That ou, $apt" .ilfredo /oquero of the @# !anila #olice =orce, sometime in (pril 1992, while conducting an interview on !S" ,!04-( (B@T(4 who was then appl ing for the position of 4ad )uard of 078Bataan Securit (genc to *e assigned at @#8#)>, proposed to her that if she agreed to *e our mistress, ou would facilitate her application and give her a permanent position5 that despite the fact the !S" (B@T(4 re9ected our proposal, ou still insisted on demanding said se7ual favor from her5 that ou, therefore, are lia*le for )/(%0 !,S$<1-@$T under Section 66, paragraph DcE of /ule C,% of the <mni*us /ules ,mplementing Book % of 0"<" 696 on $ivil /ules" <n 1 <cto*er 1998, the petitioner was placed under preventive suspension for ninet D9+E da s * $hancellor Santos8<campo" Thereafter, the (dministrative -isciplinar Tri*unal D(-TE composed of (tt " Vald B" -ocena, 0den #erdido and ,sa*ella 4ara, was organized to hear the instant case" (tt " #aul (" =lor, as @niversit #rosecutor, represented the prosecution" >e was later on replaced * (tt " (steria =elicen" #etitioner was represented * (tt " 4eo )" 4ee of the #u*lic (ttorne s <ffice D#(<E who was then replaced * #u*lic (ttorne #hilger ,nove9as" The #rosecution presented its onl witness, private respondent (*utal" (fter the completion of the cross8e7amination on the prosecutionFs onl witness, the prosecution agreed to su*mit its =ormal <ffer of 0vidence on or *efore 12 'ul 1999"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 121

The prosecution, however, failed to su*mit its formal offer of evidence within the period agreed upon" Thereafter, on 1+ (ugust 1999, when the case was called, onl petitioner and his counsel appeared" (tt " =lor merel called * telephone and requested (tt " -ocena to reset the case to another date" (tt " -ocena then ordered the resetting of the hearing on the following datesI 11 (ugust and 61 (ugust 1999" <n 11 (ugust 1999, onl petitioner and his counsel came" 1o representative from the prosecution appeared *efore the (-T" (tt " =lor again called and asked for the postponement of the hearing" <n said date, the representative from the prosecution again failed to appear" <n 66 <cto*er 1999, petitioner filed a !otion through counsel pra ing that complainant Dprivate respondent hereinE *e declared to have waived her rights to formall offer her e7hi*its since complainant was not a*le to file her =ormal <ffer within the given period of fifteen D15E da s from 1 'ul 1999 or up to 12 'ul 1999" The (-T was not a*le to act on the said !otion for almost five D5E ears" -ue to the unreasona*le dela , petitioner, on 19 !a 6++3 filed another !otion asking for the dismissal of the administrative case against him" The !otion to -ismiss was anchored on the following reasonsI that the prosecution had not formall offered its evidence5 that the (-T had failed to act on the motion filed on 66 <cto*er 19995 that the unfounded charges in the administrative complaint were filed 9ust to harass him5 and that he is entitled to a 9ust and speed disposition of the case" =urthermore, the prosecution e7plained in its $ommentL<pposition that in view of the resignation of (tt " =lor in (ugust 1999 *ut who had *een on leave * mid8'ul 1999, the =ormal <ffer could not *e prepared * another counsel until all the transcript of stenographic notes have *een furnished to the counsel that replaced (tt " =lor" !eanwhile, the stenographer, 'amie 4im*aga, had *een in and out of the hospital due to a serious illness, thus the dela in the filing of the prosecutorFs =ormal <ffer of -ocumentar 07hi*its" ( motion for reconsideration was filed * petitioner *ut the same was denied in an <rder dated 9 1ovem*er 6++3" #etitioner $aptain .ilfredo /oquero then filed with the $ourt of (ppeals a #etition for %ertiorari under /ule 25, docketed as $(8)"/" S# 1o" 8;;;2, alleging therein that the (-T committed grave a*use of discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss the administrative case filed against him"

,n a -ecision dated 66 !arch 6++;, the >onora*le $ourt of (ppeals denied the petition with pra er for T/< of /oquero reasoning that the (-T did not commit grave a*use of discretion in issuing the assailed orders"

ISSUE: .<1 the failure of the (-T to resolve /oqueroFs !otion Dto declare complainant ,melda (*utal to have waived her right to su*mit her =ormal <ffer of 07hi*itE which he seasona*l filed on 66 <cto*er 1999 and the assailed <rder of the (-T dated 8 'une 6++3 admitting the =ormal <ffer of 07hi*it of complainant ,melda (*utal despite having filed after almost five ears violated the constitutional right of /oquero to a speed disposition of cases" RULING: &0S" .hile it is true that administrative investigations should not *e *ound * strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applica*le to 9udicial proceedings, O1+P the same however should not violate the constitutional right of respondents to a speed disposition of cases" Section 12, (rticle ,,, of the 198; $onstitution providesI Section 12" (ll person shall have the right to a speed disposition of their cases *efore all 9udicial, quasi89udicial, or administrative *odies" The constitutional right to a Gspeed disposition of casesH is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings *ut e7tends to all parties in all cases, including civil and administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including 9udicial and quasi89udicial hearings" >ence, under the $onstitution, an part to a case ma demand e7peditious action * all officials who are tasked with the administration of 9ustice"O11P The right to a speed disposition of a case, like the right to a speed trial, is deemed violated onl when the proceedings are attended * ve7atious, capricious, and oppressive dela s5 or when un9ustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured5 or even without cause or 9ustifia*le motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the part having his case tried" 0quall applica*le is the *alancing test used to determine whether a defendant has *een denied his right to a speed trial, or a speed disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct of *oth the prosecution and the defendant is weighed, and such factors as the length of the dela ,

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 122

the reasons for such dela , the assertion or failure to assert such right * the accused, and the pre9udice caused * the dela " The concept of a speed disposition is a relative term and must necessaril *e a fle7i*le concept" >ence, the doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether that right has *een violated, the factors that ma *e considered and *alanced are as followsI D1E the length of dela 5 D6E the reasons for the dela 5 DAE the assertion or failure to assert such right * the accused5 and D3E the pre9udice caused * the dela " (ppl ing the doctrinal ruling vis3a3vis the factual milieu of this case, the violation of the right to a speed disposition of the case against petitioner is clear for the following reasonsI D1E the dela of almost five D5E ears on the part of (-T in resolving the motion of petitioner, which resolution petitioner reasona*l found necessar *efore he could present his defense5 D6E the unreasona*leness of the dela 5 and DAE the timel assertions * petitioner of the right to an earl disposition which he did through a motion to dismiss" <ver and a*ove this, the dela was pre9udicial to petitionerFs cause as he was under preventive suspension for ninet D9+E da s, and during the interregnum of almost five ears, the trial of the accusation against him remained stagnant at the prosecution stage"

6" to 9ointl and severall pa the sum OofP #1++"++ as reasona*le compensation for the use of said premises commencing from +3 Septem*er 19955 OandP A" to 9ointl and severall pa the sum of #1+,+++"++ as and for attorne Bs fees and to pa the cost of suit" Proceedings ,efore the Court of .ppeals <n 1ovem*er 5, 6++A, petitionersB previous counsel was notified * the $( to file appellantsB *rief within 35 da s from receipt of the notice" The original 358da period e7pired on -ecem*er 61, 6++A" But *efore then, on -ecem*er 8, 6++A, petitionersB former counsel filed a !otion to .ithdraw (ppearance" #etitioners consented to the withdrawal <n -ecem*er 19, 6++A, petitioners themselves moved for an e7tension of A+ da s or until 'anuar 61, 6++3 within which to file their appellantsB *rief" Then on !arch A, 6++3, petitioners themselves again moved for a fresh period of 35 da s from !arch A, 6++3 or until (pril 18, 6++3 within which to file their appellantsB *rief" <n !arch 1;, 6++3, the $( issued a /esolutionI O5P aE noting the withdrawal of appearance of petitionersB former counsel5 *E requiring petitioners to cause the 0ntr of (ppearance of their new counsel5 and cE granting petitionersB motions for e7tension of time to file their *rief for a period totaling ;5 da s, commencing from -ecem*er 61, 6++A or until !arch 5, 6++3" #etitioners themselves received a cop of this /esolution onl on (pril 2, 6++3" B that time, the e7tension to file appellantsB *rief had alread long e7pired" <n (pril 13, 6++3, the #u*lic (ttorne Bs <ffice D#(<E, having *een approached * petitioners, entered O2P its appearance as new counsel for petitioners" >owever, on (ugust 1+, 6++3, the $( issued the assailed /esolution dismissing petitionersB appeal, to witI =</ failure of defendants8appellants to file their *rief within the e7tended reglementar period which e7pired on !arch 5, 6++3 the appeal was -,S!,SS0- pursuant to Sec" 1 DeE, /ule 5+ of the 199; /ules of $ivil #rocedure"

Va77' NOLI ALFONSO AND ERLINDA FUNDIALAN VS. SPOUSES HENRC AND LI"ANAG ANDRES 9acts The present case stemmed from a complaint for accion publiciana with damages filed * respondent spouses >enr and 4iwanag (ndres against 1oli (lfonso and spouses /e naldo and 0rlinda =undialan *efore the /egional Trial $ourt D/T$E, Branch ;;, San !ateo, /izal" <n 'ul 8, 199;, the /T$ rendered a -ecision O6P in favor of respondents" 1" to vacate the premises located at 6A2 )eneral 4una St", -ulong*a an 11, San !ateo, /izal5

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 123

<n Septem*er 2, 6++3, the #(< filed their !otion for /econsideration O;P which requested for a fresh period of 35 da s from Septem*er ;, 6++3 or until <cto*er 66, 6++3 within which to file appellantsB *rief" <n <cto*er 61, 6++3, the *riefO8P was filed * the #(<" $( denied the petition" ,SS@0I .<1 $( 0//0- ,1 -,S!,SS,1) #0T,T,<10/SB (##0(4 =</ =(,4@/0 T< =,40 T>0,/ -0=01-(1TS8(##044(1TSB B/,0=, -0S#,T0 T>0 (TT01-(1$0 <= #0$@4,(/ =($TS (1- $,/$@!ST(1$0S S@//<@1-,1) S@$> =(,4@/0, 4,N0 T>0 )/<SS (1- /0$N40SS 10)4,)01$0 <= T>0,/ =</!0/ $<@1S04" NO HELD #etitioners contend that their failure to file their appellantsB *rief within the required period was due to their indigenc and povert " The su*mit that there is no 9ustification for the dismissal of their appeal speciall since the #(< had 9ust entered its appearance as new counsel for petitioners as directed * the $(, and had as et no opportunit to prepare the *rief" The contend that appeal should *e allowed since the *rief had an wa alread *een prepared and filed * the #(< *efore it sought reconsideration of the dismissal of the appeal and is alread part of the records" The contend that the late filing of the *rief should *e e7cused under the circumstances so that the case ma *e decided on the merits and not merel on technicalities" $espondents contend that failure to file appellantsB *rief on time is one instance where the $( ma dismiss an appeal" ,n the present case, the contend that the $( e7ercised sound discretion when it dismissed the appeal upon petitionersB failure to file their appellantsB *rief within the e7tended period of ;5 da s after the original 358da period e7pired"

9ailure to file ,rief 7n Time /ule 5+ of the /ules of $ourt statesI Section 1" )rounds for dismissal of appeal"8(n appeal ma *e dismissed * the $ourt of (ppeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following groundsI DeE =ailure of the appellant to serve and file the required num*er of copies of his *rief or memorandum within the time provided * these /ules5 #overt cannot *e used as an e7cuse to 9ustif petitionersB complacenc in allowing months to pass * *efore e7erting the required effort to find a replacement law er" #overt is not a 9ustification for dela ing a case" Both parties have a right to a speed resolution of their case" 1ot onl petitioners, *ut also the respondents, have a right to have the case finall settled without dela " =urthermore, the failure to file a *rief on time was due primaril to petitionersB unwise choices and not reall due to povert " #etitioners were a*le to get a law er to represent them despite their povert " The were a*le to get two other law ers after the consented to the withdrawal of their first law er" But the hired their su*sequent law ers too late"

GREGORIO DIMARUCOT ; GARCIA vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, =($TSI #etitioner is accused of =rustrated !urder for hitting (ngelito )o with an iron pipe" (fter trial, on Septem*er 11, 6++2, the /T$ promulgated its -ecisionA convicting petitioner of frustrated homicide" @pon receiving the notice to file appellantFs *rief, petitioner thru his counsel requested and was granted additional period of twent D6+E da s within which to file said *rief"5

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 124

This was followed * three DAE successive motions for e7tension which were all granted * the $(" 2 <n (ugust 69, 6++;, the $( issued a /esolution dismissing the appeal, as followsI $onsidering the '/- verification report dated 'ul 63, 6++; that the accused8appellant failed to file his appellantFs *rief within the reglementar period which e7pired on 'une 2, 6++;, his appeal is considered (B(1-<10- and thus -,S!,SS0-, pursuant to Sec" 1 DeE, /ule 5+, 199; /evised /ules of $ivil #rocedure" #etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, 8 his counsel admitting that he was at fault in failing to file the appellantFs *rief due to :personal pro*lems emanating from his OcounselFsP wifeFs recent surgical operation": ,t was thus pra ed that the $( allow petitioner to file his appellantFs *rief which counsel undertook to su*mit within seven D;E da s or until <cto*er 3, 6++;" B /esolution 9 dated 1ovem*er 6;, 6++;, the $(, finding the allegations of petitioner unpersuasive and considering that the intended appellantFs *rief was not at all filed on <cto*er 3, 6++;, denied the motion for reconsideration" (s per 0ntr of 'udgment, the /esolution of (ugust 69, 6++; *ecame final and e7ecutor on 'anuar 3, 6++8"1+ <n !a 8, 6++8, petitioner filed an <mni*us !otion D1E To /econsider (ugust 69, 6++; /esolution, D6E To 07punge The Same =rom Book <f 0ntries <f 'udgment, and DAE To )ive (ccused8 (ppellant ( =inal #eriod <f Thirt -a s To =ile (ppellantFs Brief" #etitioner reiterated that his failure to file the appeal *rief was solel the fault of his law er who is reportedl suffering from personal pro*lems and depression" >e also cited his advanced age Dhe will turn ;2 on !a A+, 6++8E and medical condition Dh pertension with cardiovascular disease and pulmonar emph semaE, attaching copies of his *irth certificate, medical certificate and certifications from the *aranga and church minister" $( denied the motion"

>04-I Section 8, paragraph 1, /ule 163 of the /evised /ules of $riminal #rocedure, as amended, providesI S0$" 8" -ismissal of appeal for a*andonment or failure to prosecute" T The $ourt of (ppeals ma , upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his *rief within the time prescri*ed * this /ule, e7cept where the appellant is represented * a counsel de oficio" ( criminal case ma *e dismissed * the $( motu proprio and with notice to the appellant if the latter fails to file his *rief within the prescri*ed time" The phrase :with notice to the appellant: means that a notice must first *e furnished the appellant to show cause wh his appeal should not *e dismissed"1A #etitioner here was not served with a notice requiring him to show cause wh his appeal should not *e dismissed for failure to file appellantFs *rief" The purpose of such a notice is to give an appellant the opportunit to state the reasons, if an , wh the appeal should not *e dismissed *ecause of such failure, in order that the appellate court ma determine whether or not the reasons, if given, are satisfactor " 13 1otwithstanding such a*sence of notice to the appellant, no grave a*use of discretion was committed * the $( in considering the appeal a*andoned with the failure of petitioner to file his appeal *rief despite four D3E e7tensions granted to him and non8compliance to date" -ismissal of appeal * the appellate court sans notice to the accused for failure to prosecute * itself is not an indication of grave a*use" Thus, although it does not appear that the appellate court has given the appellant such notice *efore dismissing the appeal, if the appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration of, or to set aside,

,SS@0I .<1 grave a*use of discretion was committed * the $( in considering the appeal a*andoned with the failure of petitioner to file his appeal *rief despite four D3E e7tensions granted to him" 1<

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 125

the order dismissing the appeal, in which he stated the reasons wh he failed to file his *rief on time and the appellate court denied the motion after considering said reasons, the dismissal was held proper" 4ikewise, where the appeal was dismissed without prior notice, *ut the appellant took no steps either * himself or through counsel to have the appeal reinstated, such an attitude of indifference and inaction amounts to his a*andonment and renunciation of the right granted to him * law to prosecute his appeal"

0C$0#T,<1SI o D1E where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law5 D6E when application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the clientFs li*ert or propert 5 or DAE where the interests of 9ustice so require"

1on8compliance with the requirement of notice or show cause order *efore the motu proprio dismissal under Section 8, paragraph 1 of /ule 163 had there* *een cured"1; @nder the circumstances, the petitioner was properl declared to have a*andoned his appeal for failing to diligentl prosecute the same" #etitioner cannot simpl harp on the mistakes and negligence of his law er allegedl *eset with personal pro*lems and emotional depression" The negligence and mistakes of counsel are *inding on the client" The admitted ina*ilit of his counsel to attend full and a*l to the prosecution of his appeal and other sorts of e7cuses should have prompted petitioner to *e more vigilant in protecting his rights and replace said counsel with a more competent law er"

The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process" ,t is merel a statutor privilege, and ma *e e7ercised onl in accordance with the law" The part who seeks to avail of the same must compl with the requirements of the /ules" =ailing to do so, the right to appeal is lost"66

+UDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES vs" +UDGE MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIC =($TSI 'udge (ngeles charges respondent 'udge Sempio -i with %iolations of Section 15 D1E, (rticle %,,, of the 198; $onstitution5 the $ode of 'udicial 0thics5 the $ode of #rofessional /esponsi*ilit 5 the $ode of $onduct and 0thical Standards for #u*lic <fficials and 0mplo ees5 =alsification of <fficial -ocuments5 and -ishonest " 1" $omplainant 'udge (ngeles alleges that she is the private complainant in the a*ove8mentioned cases which, * order of respondent 'udge Sempio8-i dated 6+ 'une 6++8, were su*mitted for decision, and the promulgation of 9udgment was set for 11 Septem*er 6++8" 6" ,n a su*sequent <rder dated 8 Septem*er 6++8, respondent 'udge Sempio8-i moved the promulgation of 9udgment to 1; Septem*er 6++8, for the reason that she had a previousl scheduled medical consultation concerning a neck ailment"

,nstead, petitioner continued to allow his counsel to represent him on appeal and even up to this $ourt, apparentl in the hope of moving this $ourt with a fervent plea for rela7ation of the rules for reason of petitionerFs age and medical condition" %eril , diligence is required not onl from law ers *ut also from their clients" 1egligence of counsel is not a defense for the failure to file the appellantFs *rief within the reglementar period"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 126

A" Thereafter, the promulgation of 9udgment on 1; Septem*er 6++8 was cancelled and reset to 1; <cto*er 6++8, with respondent 'udge Sempio8-i citing voluminous case records and health pro*lems as grounds to support her request *efore the $ourt of a thirt DA+E8da e7tension" 3" <n 1; <cto*er 6++8, the promulgation of 9udgment was once again cancelled and reset to 13 1ovem*er 6++8 on account of a second request for e7tension of time *ased on the ground that respondent 'udge Sempio8-i had 9ust recentl arrived from a trip to the @nited States where she attended a s mposium on religious freedom " =ollowing a third request for e7tension of time, the promulgation of 9udgment was reset for the last time to 16 -ecem*er 6++8" =inall , the 'oint -ecision in the su*9ect criminal cases was promulgated on 16 -ecem*er 6++8, wherein all the accused, e7cept for accused S#<1 /o*erto $" $arino, were acquitted" To complainant 'udge (ngeles, the said -ecision was *elatedl rendered *ecause there was a lapse of si7 D2E months from the time it was su*mitted for resolution to the time it was promulgated" She further avers that her personal e7amination of the case records revealed that no requests for e7tension of time to decide the su*9ect cases were made * respondent 'udge Sempio8-i " 4ikewise, she notes that the case records do not show that requests for e7tension of time, if an had indeed *een made * respondent 'udge Sempio8-i , were granted * the Supreme $ourt ,n fine, complainant 'udge (ngeles is adamant in her contention that the 'oint -ecision in the su*9ect criminal cases was r'n-'r'- <a; 4';*n- 35' 9B--a; 2'r6*- 2r's:r64'- * the $onstitution" ,n addition, complainant 'udge (ngeles raises another instance where respondent 'udge Sempio8-i is supposed to have incurred un9ustifia*le dela " (s it happened, convicted accused S#<1 /o*erto $" $arino assailed the 'oint -ecision * filing an @rgent !otion for /econsideration on 5 'anuar 6++9, which the prosecution countered in its <pposition filed on 13 'anuar 6++9" >owever, it was not until A+ 'ul 6++9, or more than si7 D2E months later, that respondent 'udge Sempio8-i issued an <rder su*mitting the incident for resolution, :it appearing that the accused through counsel has failed to file the necessary pleading despite the period given by the %ourt ": 4ess than a month later, or on 63 (ugust 6++9, respondent 'udge Sempio8 -i resolved the pending matter * den ing the @rgent !otion for /econsideration for lack of merit"

/espondent said she merel inherited the su*9ect cases which had alread *een previousl handled * three DAE other 9udges from the time the were filed in 1995" Thus, the case records were voluminous" (s for the three DAE su*sequent re8settings, she avers that she timel asked for e7tensions of the period, all of which were granted * the Supreme $ourt" These requests were favora*l considered * the $ourt and she was granted an e7tension of a total of ninet D9+E da s from 18 Septem*er 6++8" .ith regard to the @rgent !otion for /econsideration, she points out that the dela was inadvertentl incurred in good faith" -uring the hearing of the said motion on 69 'anuar 6++9, the request of the defense for time to file the necessar pleadings was granted, for which reason, she sa s, the said motion could not et *e su*mitted for resolution" She deemed it prudent to give the parties a reasona*le period of time within which to su*mit their adversarial pleadings" ,SS@0I .<1 'udge -i is guilt of unreasona*le dela in rendering the 'oint decision" 1< >04-I 1" /ecords reveal that 'udge Sempio -i timel sought for three successive e7tensions; of the period to decide the consolidated criminal cases" 6" (ll requests were favora*l considered * this $ourt" 8 /espondent was granted a total e7tension period of ninet D9+E da s to *e reckoned from Septem*er 18, 6++8 or until -ecem*er 18, 6++8" A" So, the promulgation of 'oint -ecision on -ecem*er 16, 6++8 was made well within the 9+8da e7tension period" $omplainant should have first verified the veracit and accurac of her allegations from the records of Branch 665, *efore hurling accusations of dishonest and slothful conduct against respondent" .e hold, however, that there was indeed dela in resolving accused $arinoFs @rgent !otion for /econsideration filed on 'anuar 5, 6++9" 3" /espondent 'udge Sempio -i claims that the dela in su*mitting accusedFs motion for reconsideration was due to inadvertence and without *ad faith on her part"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 127

5" She e7plains that she opted to wait for the defense to file its repl to the prosecutionFs comment on the motion for reconsideration *ecause the offense of which accused was convicted was serious and his li*ert was at stake" She adds that the death threats she and the mem*ers of her 9udicial staff received from !a to 'ul 6++9, caused them disorientation and contri*uted further to the dela in the resolution of the su*9ect motion" She readil admits that it was onl after the semi8annual inventor that the pending incidents in the consolidated criminal cases were considered su*mitted for resolution in the 'ul A+, 6++9 <rder" /ecords clearl show that respondent indeed gave the defense ten D1+E da s to su*mit its repl to the prosecutionFs comment on the motion for reconsideration and, thereafter, she would resolve all pending incidents in said consolidated cases" The reglementar period to resolve the motion in question *egan to run from =e*ruar 8, 6++9 or after the lapse of ten da s from 'anuar 69, 6++9" /espondent, however, did not act on the matter and allowed a hiatus in the consolidated criminal cases" ( 9udge cannot choose to prolong the period for resolving pending incidents and deciding cases *e ond the period authorized * law" 4et it *e underscored that it is the sworn dut of 9udges to administer 9ustice without undue dela under the time8honored precept that 9ustice dela ed is 9ustice denied" 'udges should act with dispatch in resolving pending incidents, so as not to frustrate and dela the satisfaction of a 9udgment"13 She should formall request for an e7tension of the deadline to avoid administrative lia*ilit " @nfortunatel , she failed to do that in these cases" -ela in resolving motions and incidents within the reglementar period of 9+ da s fi7ed * the law cannot *e e7cused or condoned"15 /espondentFs claim of death threats on her and her staff, even if real, would not constitute a valid e7cuse for her inaction" (lso, ( 9udge ought to know the cases su*mitted to her for decision or resolution and is e7pected to keep her own record of cases so that she ma act on them promptl " The ph sical inventor of cases is instrumental to the e7peditious dispensation of 9ustice" .ith the assistance of the *ranch clerk of court, a checklist should *e prepared indicating the steps to *e taken to keep the cases moving"

,n the instant case, there is no evidence to show an du*ious reason or improper motive that could have compelled respondent to dela the resolution of the su*9ect motion" ,n fact, when respondent found out a*out the unresolved su*9ect motion in the consolidated cases, she immediatel ordered its su*mission for resolution on 'ul A+, 6++9" ,n the a*sence of malice, the dela could onl *e due to inadvertence" ,t is significant to note that respondent resolved the motion within thirt da s from its su*mission date which clearl showed her effort to zealousl attend to her duties" "HEREFORE, respondent 'udge !aria 0lisa Sempio -i is found to have *een in dela in the rendition of an order and is here* ADMONISHED to *e more circumspect in o*serving the reglementar period for disposing of motions" CIRILA S. RACMUNDO vs +UDGE TERESITO A. ANDOC .e resolve in this /esolution the administrative complaint for violation of /ule A"+5, $anon A1 of the $ode of 'udicial $onduct filed * complainant $irila S" /a mundo against respondent 'udge Teresito (" (ndo " ,n her complaint8affidavit,6 the complainant alleged that sometime in 6+++, she filed si7 countsA of violation of 2atas $ambansa 2ilang 66 DB"#" Blg" 66E against >ermelinda $hang DaccusedE *efore the !unicipal Trial $ourt D!T$E of $ainta, /izal" The respondent 9udge presided over the court" The trial of the cases ended on (ugust 3, 6++3 after the respondent 9udge declared3 that the accused had waived her rights to present further evidence for repeated failure to appear in court despite due notice" <n Septem*er 6, 6++3, the complainant received a notice from the !T$, setting the cases for trial anew on 1ovem*er 1;, 6++3" The date was later moved to -ecem*er 6+, 6++3" <n -ecem*er 6+, 6++3, the accused and her counsel again failed to appear in court, prompting the private prosecutor to move for the reinstatement of the !T$Fs (ugust 3, 6++3 order" The respondent 9udge granted the motion and declared the cases su*mitted for decision" 5 The accused moved to reconsider this order5 the !T$ granted the motion in its order of =e*ruar 9, 6++5" (ccordingl , the cases were again set for hearing on <cto*er 16, 6++5"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 128

<n <cto*er 16, 6++5, the accused and her counsel again failed to appear in court despite due notice" The !T$, thus, ordered the direct testimon of the accused to *e stricken off the record, and again declared the cases su*mitted for decision"2 <n 'une 6A, 6++2, the complainant filed with the !T$ an urgent e7 parte motion to render decision"; (lmost two ears later, or on !arch 16, 6++8, the complainant filed a second e7 parte motion to render decision" 8 The respondent 9udge did not act on these motions" The <ffice of the $ourt (dministrator D<$(E required the respondent 9udge to comment on the complaint" The respondent 9udge responded with the following e7planationI 1" >e had prepared his decision in the su*9ect cases, dated 'ul 19, 6++8, and had set the same for promulgation on (ugust 18, 6++8, at 8IA+ in the morning5 6" The onl first level court in $ainta, /izal, this $ourt has an average active caseload of 1,526 cases" (n average of 8; new cases are filed each month" ,t hears cases dail , e7cept =rida s" A" (lthough the undersigned is aware that heav caseload is not considered * the Supreme $ourt as an e7cuse for dela in rendering decisions, the undersigned hum*l *egs this >onora*le <fficeFs utmost consideration, understanding and compassion in evaluating the su*9ect ,#," The undersigned is due to retire on <cto*er A, 6++8" 9 The <$( e7plained that while the $ourt is not unaware of the heav caseload of 9udges, nothing in the records shows that the respondent 9udge asked for an e7tension of time to decide the su*9ect criminal cases" ,n addition, the respondent 9udge failed to consider that the su*9ect cases required a quicker resolution as the were covered * the /ule on Summar #rocedure" ,SS@0I .<1 'udge (ndo is guilt of violating the right of the petitioner to a speed trial" >04-I

The /ule on Summar #rocedure was promulgated * the Supreme $ourt to achieve an e7peditious and ine7pensive disposition of cases" Section 1; of this /ule requires the court to promulgate a 9udgment not later than thirt DA+E da s after termination of trial" =rom this sequence of events, the 9udge failed to o*serve the mandated period of time to decide cases under the /ule on Summar #rocedure" =ollowing Section 1; of this /ule, he should have rendered a decision within A+ da s from the termination of trial on (ugust 3, 6++3" 0ven assuming that the su*sequent resettings of the cases for trial were valid, he should have rendered a decision within A+ da s from <cto*er 16, 6++5, or the date the cases were finall considered su*mitted for decision" 1" The $onstitution mandates that all cases or matters filed *efore all lower courts shall *e decided or resolved within 9+ da s from the time the case is su*mitted for decision" 6" 'udges are en9oined to dispose of the courtFs *usiness promptl and e7peditiousl and to decide cases within the period fi7ed * law" =ailure to compl with the mandated period constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speed disposition of their cases T a lapse that undermines the peopleFs faith and confidence in the 9udiciar , lowers its standards and *rings it to disrepute" 16 This constitutional polic is reiterated in /ule A"+5, $anon A of the $ode of 'udicial $onduct which requires a 9udge to dispose of the courtFs *usiness promptl and decide cases within the required periods" A" ,n the present case, the su*9ect cases had *een su*mitted for decision since <cto*er 16, 6++5" (s correctl pointed out * the <$(, while the respondent 9udge attri*uted his failure to render a decision to the heav caseload in his sala, 5' -6- n*3 asH =*r an 'I3'ns6*n *= 36)' 3* -':6-' 35' :as's" 3" This failure to decide within the required period, given that he could have asked for an e7tension, is ine7cusa*le5 it constitutes neglect of dut as well as gross inefficienc that collectivel warrant administrative sanction" :'udges are e7pected to o*serve utmost diligence and dedication in the performance of their 9udicial functions and the discharge of their duties" The failure or ina*ilit of a 9udge to decide a case within the period fi7ed * law su*9ects him to administrative sanctions": This is *ecause undue dela in the disposition of cases contri*utes to the peopleFs loss of faith and confidence in the 9udiciar and *rings it into disrepute"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 129

)@,4T& of D1E undue dela in rendering a decision and D6E violation of $anon A, /ule A"+5 of the $ode of 'udicial $onduct" >e is ordered to pa a =,10 of twent thousand pesos D#6+,+++"++E, to *e deducted from his retirement *enefits"

The gravamen of the offense punished * B# 66 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for pa ment" ,t is not the non8pa ment of an o*ligation which the law punishes " The law is not intended or designed to coerce a de*tor to pa his de*t" The thrust of the law is to prohi*it, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation" Because of its deleterious effects on the pu*lic interest, the practice is proscri*ed * the law" The law punishes the act not as an offense against propert , *ut an offense against pu*lic order"

G86r63an

FLORENTINA MARTINE! Fa:3s:

A.

LO!ANO

vs"

THE

HONORA.LE

ANTONIO

M.

This involves the constitutionalit of Batas #am*ansa Bilang 66 DB# 66 for shortE, popularl known as the Bouncing $heck 4aw, which was approved on (pril A, 19;9, is the sole issue presented * these petitions for decision" The question is definitel one of first impression in our 9urisdiction" (mong the constitutional o*9ections raised against B# 66, the most serious is the alleged conflict *etween the statute and the constitutional provision for*idding imprisonment for de*t"

,t ma *e constitutionall impermissi*le for the legislature to penalize a

person for non8pa ment of a de*t ex contractu But certainl it is within the prerogative of the lawmaking *od to proscri*e certain acts deemed pernicious and inimical to pu*lic welfare" (cts mala in se are not the onl acts which the law can punish" (n act ma not *e considered * societ as inherentl wrong, hence, not malum in se *ut *ecause of the harm that it inflicts on the communit , it can *e outlawed and criminall punished as malum prohibitum" The state can do this in the e7ercise of its police power" The enactment of B# 66 is a declaration * the legislature that, as a matter of pu*lic polic , the making and issuance of a worthless check is deemed pu*lic nuisance to *e a*ated * the imposition of penal sanctions" The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties directl involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the communit at large" The mischief it creates is not onl a wrong to the pa ee or holder, *ut also an in9ur to the pu*lic" The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousand fold, can ver well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, in9ure the *anking s stem and eventuall hurt the welfare of societ and the pu*lic interest"

,t is contended that the statute runs counter to the inhi*ition in the Bill of
/ights which states, :1o person shall *e imprisoned for de*t or non8 pa ment of a poll ta7": #etitioners insist that, since the offense under B# 66 is consummated onl upon the dishonor or non8pa ment of the check when it is presented to the drawee *ank, the statute is reall a :*ad de*t law: rather than a :*ad check law": .hat it punishes is the non8pa ment of the check, not the act of issuing it" The statute, it is claimed, is nothing more than a veiled device to coerce pa ment of a de*t under the threat of penal sanction" ,ssueI .<1 B# 66 transgressed the constitutional inhi*ition against imprisonment for de*tK 1o >eldI

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 130

 ,n sum, we find the enactment of B# 66 a valid e7ercise of the police power and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhi*ition against imprisonment for de*t" (s stated elsewhere, police power is a d namic force that ena*les the state to meet the e7igencies of changing times" There are occasions when the police power of the state ma even override a constitutional guarant " .e hold that B# 66 does not conflict with the constitutional inhi*ition against imprisonment for de*t"

week of !arch, 1982, instead of in (ugust, 1982" >e further claims that while there was a turn8over of the funds on 'une 6, 1982 when !unicipal Treasurer /uperto #alla a reported *ack for work, there was no turnover of the funds when he temporaril Treasurer" D/ollo, pp" 582E ,ssueI .<1 (g*anlog is guilt of malversation of pu*lic fundsK >eldI ,n all the foregoing cases of shortage, petitioner admits having prepared and collected the amounts stated in the vouchers" ,t is also difficult to comprehend how an earlier audit of petitionerFs accounta*ilit or an audit made upon assumption of office of the !unicipal took charge of the <ffice of the

FELICIANO V. AG.ANLOG vs" PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGAN.ACAN Fa:3s: =eliciano (g*anlog 1982 to !a %inluan was the <fficer8in8$harge of the <ffice of $<( (uditing 07aminer

Treasurer could possi*le e7plain the shortages unearthed * government auditor and assist him in his defense" The elements of malversation of pu*lic funds or propert under (rticle 61; of the /evised #enal $ode are I aE That the offender is a pu*lic officer5"

the

the !unicipal Treasurer of (glipa , ?uirino, for the periodI !arch 63, A1, 1988" .hen audited * !arcelina #" /e es of the #rovincial (uditorFs <ffice of $o*arroguis, ?uirino, on (ugust 3, 1982 for the aforesaid period of his incum*enc as (cting !unicipal Treasurer, =eliciano (g*anlog was found short in his cash and accounts in the sum of #61,93+";+" ( written demand to e7plain the shortage and to pa the amount thereof was neither answered nor acted upon * $onsequentl , a /eport was made * the accounta*le officer" 07amining (uditors and

punisha*le

*E That he had the custod or control of funds or propert * reason of the duties of his office5" cE That those funds or propert were pu*lic funds or propert for which he was accounta*le5" dE That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through a*andonment or negligence permitted another them" The prosecution has esta*lished DaE that appellant received in his possession pu*lic funds5 D*E that he could not account for them and did person to take

recommending the institution of administrative andLor criminal charges against (cting !unicipal Treasurer =eliciano (g*anlog" #etitioner admits the shortage of the accounta*le funds charged * the prosecution *ut claims that the prosecution failed to show that the shortage accrued during his short stint as acting treasurer" (ccording to him, the audit of his funds should have *een made immediatel upon his assumption as <fficer8in8charge of the <ffice of the Treasurer in the last

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 131

not have them in his possession when audited5 and DcE that he could not give a satisfactor e7planation or reasona*le e7cuse for the disappearance of said funds" The prosecution is not required to present direct evidence of the misappropriation, which ma *e impossi*le to do" The failure of a pu*lic officer to have dul forthcoming an pu*lic funds or propert with which he is chargea*le, upon demand * an dul authorized officer, is a prima facie evidence that he has put such funds or propert to personal use" D(rt" 61;, last paragraph, /evised #enal $ode as amended * /"(" 1+2+E" #etitioner questions as oppressive and unconstitutional the penalt imposed on him T>e argues that considering the value of the peso in 19A6 when the /evised #enal $ode was enacted and the value of peso toda , the penalt for malversation of #61,+++"++ should onl *e an imprisonment of one or two ears" (ssuming arguendo that inflation has in effect made more severe the penalt for malversing #61,+++"++, the remed penalt as cruel, degrading or inhuman onl cannot come from this when it has *ecome so $ourt *ut from the $ongress" The $ourt can intervene and strike down a flagrantl oppressive and so wholl disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral senses" $onsidering that malversation of pu*lic funds * a pu*lic officer is a

<n 'anuar 6+, 1985, accused did then and there wilfull , unlawfull and feloniousl make or draw and issue to =atima $ortez Sasaki #hilippine Trust $ompan $heck 1o" 11;A8A in the amount of #13A,+++"++ >e knew that at the time of issue he did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee *ank" The check was su*sequentl dishonored * the drawee *ank for insufficienc of funds, and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, said accused failed to pa Sasaki the amount of said check or to make arrangement for full pa ment of the same within five *anking da s after receiving said notice #rivate respondent, !ariano 4im moved to quash the ,nformation of the ground that the facts charged did not constitute a felon as B"#" 66 was unconstitutional and that the check he issued was a memorandum check which was in the nature of a promissor note in thus, is civil in nature" <n 1 Septem*er 1982, respondent 9udge, ruling that B"#" 66 on which the ,nformation was *ased was unconstitutional, issued the questioned <rder quashing the ,nformation" >ence, this petition for review on certiorari filed * the Solicitor )eneral in *ehalf of the government" Iss8'I .<1 is whether a memorandum check issued postdated in partial pa ment of a pre8e7isting o*ligation is within the coverage of B"#" 66K &0S H'7 ( memorandum check is in the form of an ordinar check, with the word :memorandum:, :memo: or :mem: written across its face, signif ing that the maker or drawer engages to pa the bona fide holder a*solutel , without an condition concerning its presentment" Such a check is an evidence of de*t against the drawer, and although ma not *e intended to *e presented, has the same effect as an ordinar check, and if passed to the third person, will *e valid in his hands like an other check" =rom the a*ove definition, it is clear that a memorandum check, which is in the form of an ordinar check, is still drawn on a *ank and should therefore *e distinguished from a promissor note, which is *ut a mere promise to pa

*etra al of the pu*lic trust, .e are not prepared to sa that the penalt imposed on petitioner is so disproportionate to the crime committed as to shock the moral sense" .>0/0=</0, the petition for review is -,S!,SS0-"

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs" HON. DAVID G. NITAFAN =actsI

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 132

 %eril , a memorandum check comes within the meaning of Sec" 185 of the 1egotia*le ,nstruments 4aw which defines a check as :a *ill of e7change drawn on a *ank pa a*le on demand": ( check is also defined as : OaP written order or request to a *ank or persons carr ing on the *usiness of *anking, * a part having mone in their hands, desiring them to pa , on presentment, to a person therein named or *earer, or to such person or order, a named sum of mone (nother definition of check is that is :OaP draft drawn upon a *ank and pa a*le on demand, signed * the maker or drawer, containing an unconditional promise to pa a sum certain in mone to the order of the pa ee

#etitioners are the tenants of Berlito #" Taripe on a propert located in -r" (" Santos (ve", #araQaque $it " <n -ecem*er 63, 6++1, the were arrested * <rmoc $it policemen * authorit of a .arrant of (rrest dated 1ovem*er 19, 6++1 issued * 'udge =ortunito 4" !adrona for ,ssuance of 4etters of (dministration, -istri*ution and #artition pending *efore the /egional Trial $ourt of <rmoc $it The warrant of arrest stemmed from a motion filed * respondent 0leuteria #" BolaQo, as Special (dministratri7 of the estate of the late (nselma #" (llers Dwhich includes in the inventor of the estate, the propert leased * Taripe to petitionersE pra ing that petitioners *e held guilt of indirect contempt for not compl ing with the pro*ate courtFs order dated <cto*er 9, 1999 directing them to pa their monthl rentals to respondent BolaQo" The pro*ate court issued a writ of e7ecution to enforce the aforesaid order *ut the sheriff failed to collect the rentals due on the propert as Taripe had alread collected from them three months advance rentals" The petitioners, together with the other tenants of the propert , informed the pro*ate court that the are GfreezingH their monthl rentals as the are in a quandar as to whom to pa the rentals"

( memorandum check must therefore fall within the am*it of B"#" 66

which does not distinguish *ut merel provides that :OaPn person who makes or draws and issues any check knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee *ank " " " which check is su*sequentl dishonored " " " shall *e punished * imprisonment "" But even if .e retrace the enactment of the :Bouncing $heck 4aw: to determine the parameters of the concept of :check:, .e can easil glean that the mem*ers of the then Batasang #am*ansa intended it to *e comprehensive as to include all checks drawn against *anks" ( memorandum check, upon presentment, is generall accepted * the *ank" >ence it does not matter whether the check issued is in the nature of a memorandum as evidence of inde*tedness or whether it was issued is partial fulfillment of a pre8e7isting o*ligation, for what the law punishes is the issuance itself of a *ouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issuance" The mere act of issuing a worthless check, whether as a deposit, as a guarantee, or even as an evidence of a pre8e7isting de*t, is malum prohibitum" 16 .>0/0=</0, the petition is )/(1T0V'r(ara vs. G'-*r6*, +r. Fa:3s:

@pon motion of respondent BolaQo, the pro*ate court, per its <rder dated
1ovem*er 12, 6++1, issued a warrant of arrest on 1ovem*er 19, 6++1" <n -ecem*er 63, 6++1, petitioners were arrested" <n -ecem*er 62, 6++1, petitioners filed with the $ourt of (ppeals a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus" Iss8'I .<1 the issuance of the warrant of arrest properK 1< H'7-I 1onetheless, even in the a*sence of proof of actual receipt * the petitioners, the su*9ect orders issued * the pro*ate court are valid and enforcea*le" #etitioners cannot den the fact that the had actual knowledge of the said orders as evidenced * the letters the sent to the court asking the freezing of their monthl rentals" $learl , the were given the opportunit to *e heard, and as aptl stated * the court, the were given more than sufficient time to compl with the <rder dated <cto*er 5, 1999"

-espite the foregoing, we find that the trial courtFs finding of contempt and
the order directing the imprisonment of petitioner to *e unwarranted" The

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 133

salutar rule is that the power to punish to contempt must *e e7ercised on the preservative, not vindictive principle, and on the corrective and not retaliator idea of punishment" $ourt must e7ercise their contempt powers 9udiciousl and sparingl , with utmost self8restraint" ,n #hilippine 9urisdiction, Section 6+, (rticle A of the 198; #hilippine $onstitution e7pressl provides that no person shall *e imprisoned for de*t" -e*t, as used in the $onstitution, refers to civil de*t or one not arising from a criminal offense" ,t means an lia*ilit to pa arising out of a contract, e7press or implied"

,n the present case, petitioners, as recognized lessees of the estate of

the deceased, were ordered * the pro*ate court to pa the rentals to the administratri7" #etitioners did not compl with the order for the principal reason that the were not certain as to the rightful person to whom to pa the rentals *ecause it was a certain Berlito #" Taripe who had originall leased the su*9ect propert to them" $learl , the pa ment of rentals is covered * the constitutional guarantee against imprisonment" !oreover, petitioners cannot *e validl punished for contempt under Section 8, /ule ;1 of the /ules of $ourt to witI S0$" 8" (mprisonment until order obeyed" T .hen the contempt consists in the refusal or omission to do an act which is et in the power of the respondent to perform, he ma *e imprisoned * order of the court concerned until he performs it" D;aE @ntil and unless all the means provided for under Section 9, /ule A9 Deg" Satisfaction * lev , garnishment of de*ts and creditE have *een resorted to and failed, imprisonment for contempt as a means of coercion for civil purposes cannot *e resorted to * the courts" Thus, petitioners could not *e held guilt of contempt of court for their continued refusal to compl with the pro*ate courtFs order to pa rentals to the administratri7 nor could the *e held guilt of contempt for diso*e ing the writ of e7ecution issued * the pro*ate court, which directs therein the Sheriff (lso the writ of e7ecution was not addressed to petitioners" ,t pertained to the sheriff to whom the law entrusts the e7ecution of 9udgments, and it was due to the latterFs failure that the writ was not dul enforced"

1st VIADA Costi. II 3rd Case Pool

Page 134