Constitutional law coverage 2

Atty. Rovynne Jumao-as

March 11, 2012 Transcribed by: Bruneson & Camille

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

What do you mean by competent court? The court has jurisdiction. It has the authority to hear these cases because even if all these rights afforded to the accused and the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but it turns out that the court has no authority or jurisdiction, what happens to the proceedings? These are null and void. So in the case of

Section 14.

OLAGUER VS. MILITARY COMMISSION

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy 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. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. Section 14 refers to the rights of the accused. Paragraph 1 “No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.” This phrase sounds familiar to you “due process of law”. In Section 1 “No persons shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” So

why is this repeated in Sec. 14? Sec. 14 is more specific for the accused in criminal proceedings. So this is restricted to criminal cases only and they are procedural requirements. What are the procedural requirements when a person is held to answer for a criminal offense? That’s in paragraph 2. “In all criminal prosecutions, the

accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy 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. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.”

What can you observe? The accused has been afforded these number of rights under Section 14. In this jurisdiction, compared to an ordinary citizen, the accused has more rights under the Constitution. Why is that so? Why did we (because we are supposed to be the authors of the our Constitution) give the accused these several number of rights? It’s because the accused is up against the State. It’s like the David versus Goliath scenario.

The state can use all its resources and power to convict the accused- so state versus individual. So to ensure that the individual will be afforded fairness and justice in his prosecution, it is only proper to afford him this number of rights. Yun ang sinasabi ko, even compared to an ordinary citizen, the accused has more rights. Yan ang hindi naiintindihan ng military, the time when I was talking about search warrants and warrants of arrest. They asked how come this criminal is set free just because of the nonobservance of these rights. It has been held that its better to set one criminal free than allow an innocent individual to suffer the adversarial system. Okay na yung maset-free ang criminal than to have this kind of procedure which is against an innocent individual. A. CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS

So Section 14 reiterates the due process clause in Section 1. While section 1 is general and refers to both substantive and procedural due process, Section 14 pertains to criminal proceedings and is restricted to procedural due process. Can you recall what procedural due process requires in judicial proceedings? There must be: 1.

The accused must be heard before an impartial, competent court

150 SCRA 144 (1987) You have a civilian who allegedly c ommitted an offense during martial law. Thus a military tribunal tried him. He was convicted there. The SC said the military tribunal has no jurisdiction over civilians even if the offenses have been allegedly committed during martial law, as long as the civilian courts are open. Military courts/tribunals are for military men and they are usually for violations of the rules of war. So the SC nullified the conviction of all of them, being a civilian tried in a military tribunal. Now impartial court means that the judge must not only be impartial, but must appear to be impartial. Now in a court proceeding, if it happens that a judge is laughing at a joke from a lawyer for this party, the lawyer of the other party might have the impression that the judge is in favor or favoring this other party. Now what we have here is a situation where even if the judge is impartial, he doesn’t appear to be impartial. He will give this

lawyer an opportunity to further delay the proceedings if he moves for the inhibition of the judge just because he believes that the judge is showing some expressions of favouring the other party. That is why if you happen to appear in a court where the judge wears shades or sunglasses, there is no objection against that. Why? The judge may be just complying with his mandate that he must not only be impartial but also appear impartial. So if the judge cannot perform that pokerface thing, ____ nalang kayo ng iba because the judge has to be pokerface. So if he wears the sunglasses or shades, there is no objection to that. He must not only be impartial but also appear impartial so that the litigants particularly the accused will have faith in the fairness of the proceedings. 2.

Now due process also requires that there must be a hearing.

Procedural process means that he must be heard before he is convicted. Right to be heard. ALONTE VS. SAVELLANO

287 SCRA 245 (1998) The accused here was charged of rape. Now in one hearing, the rape victim, filed his affidavit of desistance, meaning the rape victim desisted from further testifying against the accused. So she was presented before the court, the court has the opportunity to test the veracity or truthfulness of her desistance. Now she said she’s no longer interested in prosecuting the

accused. Because of that statement, the lawyer for the accused no longer cross-examined the witness. Because of her testimony, what’s the choice of the prosecution? The prosecution would be

constrained to move for the dismissal of the case. Why? The prosecution can no longer prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt especially in rape cases where usually the only witness is the victim herself. It is one offense that committed clandestinely. Usually, you have no other witness there. So because of the desistance, th e prosecution moved for the dismissal of the accused. However, 2 months after, the judge issued the decision, which was for the conviction of the accused. So the SC said here, the accused was denied due process because the conviction was made without a hearing. In this case, the SC did not nullify the proceedings to the point that double jeopardy will now take place, but the SC remanded the case back to trial court for further proceedings. PEOPLE VS. MACARANG

424 SCRA 18 (2005) (3RD Exam Coverage ) Vol. 3 | 1


The accused here was tried for the crime of qualified rape. It was supposedly the turn of the accused to present their defense evidence. Maybe they had no defense, or maybe there is a ____ proceeding because the accused here and the lawyer moved several times for the postponement of the hearing because the counsel is not around, or the accused is not ready to testify. After several postponements, gikapoy na nag prosecution, nagalit na ang judge, the prosecution moved that the accused be deemed to have waived his right to present evidence in his behalf. And the court made a relief that because of these postponements, the accused is now deemed to have waived his right to present evidence, and the case is now deemed submitted for the decision of the case. It was qualified rape, so he was convicted and the penalty was death. The SC said there was denial of due process. SO here there was no waiver to present evidence especially in this case when the imposable penalty is death. What do we know about waiver? It must be freely and intelligently be made, it cannot be implied or presumed. Especially in this case where the waiver is deemed to have come from the accused. So the accused here was denied of due process. Compare Section 14 with Section 12- Right of person under custodial investigation. So this [12] means before a charge is filed against you and he is arrested or under custody of law. So section 12 is applicable. But once the accused has been formally charged in court and there was already an arraignment, he’s now called an acc used. Prior to that anong tawag sa kanya? Respondent. So that’s the difference. Under Section 14, this only

attaches when, because it speaks of criminal proceedings, there must already be a criminal case. Section 14 applies only from the time of arraignment up to the termination of the case.

B. RIGHTS So what are THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Presumption of Innocence Right to be heard by himself and counsel To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation To have a speedy, impartial, public trial Right to confrontation To have compulsory processes to secure the attendance o f witnesses

What about trial in absentia? Is it part of the right of the accused? The right means that the prosecution may proceed even in the absence of the accused. Is it a right of the accused?

moral certainty on the part of the judge that the accused did it. Only moral certainty is required. But as it is, in this jurisdiction, it is the duty of the prosecution to present proof sufficient, beyond reasonable doubt, to the court that conviction may rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution. SO what’s the role of the accused and his defense lawyers? The

accused can just remain silent, because the duty is with the prosecution. It is a very difficult, and a heavy burden on the part of the prosecution. Trust me, it’s easier to be a defense lawyer than to be a prosecutor. Why? As a defense a lawyer, you can destroy the case of the prosecution by creating doubt. You just create doubt. You need not destroy evidence by rebutting evidence by saying that yes and presenting evidence that it is no. You can just say “maybe”, it can already destroy the case of

prosecution because of the presumption of innocence because the proof required is beyond reasonable doubt and there is reasonable doubt that the accused could be acquitted. Mas madali ang trabaho sa defense lawyer. But once the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused, now presented in evidence, and the prima facie guilt of the accused has already been established, the burden now shifts to the accused. Sometimes, he should no longer stay silent. This time, his silence may be an inference of nonrebuttable of evidence, not reduction of evidence, and this might be harmful to the case of the accused. So if you ask me, if I am representing the accused, pwede bang mag-remain silent nalang? Yes. But after the presentation of evidence, think it over because sometimes the prosecution might have already established a prima facie case against the accused. But if the prosecution has already rested its case, and you think that they have not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, you have the opportunity to move for demurer of evidence. You will just tell the court, your honor we will no longer present any evidence because the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. That’s a demurer of evidence. Pwede bay un? Yes, because again the burden is with the prosecution. However, we have laws which establish prima facie presumption. Some laws may say if this fact is proven, then it is already prima facie case against the accused. An example I can think of is Anti-fencing. There’s a prima facie presumption provision there, if the person is found in possession of stolen goods, there’s a prima facie presumption that he is guilty of Anti Fencing. Thus, in the cases of Dizon vs. People and Hizon vs. CA, involved her is Fisheries Law/Decree.

It’s more of a right of the state to proceed notwithstanding the

absence of the accused. DIZON VS. PEOPLE RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT

234 SCRA 63 (1994)

You’ve heard of this before when we discussed about bail. We said

265 SCRA 516 (1996)

HIZON VS. CA

that the right to bail flows from the right to be presumed innocent. SO under Section 14, all persons charged criminally are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. By what degree of proof? Proof beyond reasonable doubt. Now this presumption of innocence remains even if the accused presents the weakest of the weak defenses. What are the WEAK defenses?

Now under that law, there’s a provision there that states that a

discovery of explosives or obnoxious substance in any fishing boat shall constitute a prima facie presumption that owner is fishing with the use of explosives or poisonous substance. So if a person is found in the possession of explosives, there’s a presumption that he’s using this for illegal fishing. Now does this provision of law

establishing prima facie presumption against the accused violate their right to be presumed innocent?

1. Alibi- I was not there. That was the defense of Webb. That’s a weak defense, he did not attack directly the

2. 3.

accusation. Denial- I did not do it. I was framed up.

Notwithstanding these weak defenses, he is still presumed innocent. Accusation in itself or the charge in itself is not synonymous with guilt. Because of this presumption, in this jurisdiction, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. The burden, therefore, is with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty, but only

The SC said in these cases that it does not violate this constitutional provision. Why? Prima facie presumption only makes rebuttable presumption. There is no constitutional objection as long as the facts presumed have a direct relation with the facts proven. It is not arbitrary. For example, the fact proven is you are in possession of stolen goods. The natural conclusion would be you are guilty of anti-fencing law. For example, you are found in possession of dynamites in your boat, what would the natural and logical presumption? It’s logical to think that you’re using that for illegal fishing. So there’s a relation between the facts proven and the

(3RD Exam Coverage ) Vol. 3 | 2

Atty. Rovynne Jumao-as presumption of guilt. SO there’s no violation of this constitutional

provision. rebuttable Prima facie presumption means presumption. What this means is that hindi na magpresent ang prosecution ng proof other than that. But the burden now shifts to the accused, so the accused is now given the opportunity to rebut that presumption. Even in the case of malversation, a crime committed by a public official, if he feels to turn over or account for the money, and he cannot, there is already a presumption that he has already misappropriated the money. That’s the natural and

logical consequence of failing to return the money. So what the prosecution would do is only to prove this fact, that upon demand, he fails to return the money. The prosecution need not prove that he ACTUALLY misappropriated the money, and there’s no violation

of his right to innocence because the accused is still given the opportunity to rebut the evidence. RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND BY COUNSEL

Under this right, the accused may appear personally for himself. Can the accused opt to personally represent himself? Yes, because it is his constitutional right. But can this right be reserved? Yes, it can together with the right to appear by counsel because even the most intelligent person would not have the knowledge of the intricacies of legal proceedings, rules of evidence, rules of procedures. So this right to be heard by himself would be for ____ given the equal right to be heard by counsel. Thus it is stated in the constitution, provided there, constitutional right ni siya ang right to counsel, because this (right to be heard by himself) would be useless if the person is not given the constitutional right to be heard by counsel. PEOPLE VS. HOLGADO

85 PHIL 753 (1950) This is a matter to the right to counsel. This was the interchange, which transpired in court before arraignment, “Accused, do you have a lawyer? Or are you going to plead guilty?”. So what’s the

answer of the accused? I have no lawyer and I will plead guilty. Naloko na. So the court proceeded with arraignment, trial and then convicted the accused. The SC said Under the circumstances, particularly the qualified plea given by the accused, who was unaided by counsel, it was not prudent, to say the least, for the trial court to render such a serious judgment finding the accused guilty of a capital offense, and imposing upon him such a heavy penalty as ten years and one day of prision mayor to twenty years. That’s why in this case it was held that the accused has the right

to be heard not only by himself but also by counsel. And under the ROC which was already instituted, [Rule 112, Sec. 3] "If the defendant appears without attorney, he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have attorney before being arraigned, and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney. If he desires and is unable to employ attorney, the Court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring attorney." Under this provision, when a defendant appears without attorney, the court has four important duties to comply with before arraignment:

It must inform the defendant that it is his right to have attorney before being arraigned; 2. After giving him such information the court must ask him if he desires the aid of an attorney- why? Kasi may option siya to appear by himself. 3. If he desires and is unable to employ attorney, the court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him; and 4. If the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own, and he can afford one, the court must grant him a reasonable time therefore.

be convicted not to because he is guilty but because he cannot establish his innocence. As the counsel de officio what is your role?

It starts upon appointment and continues until the arraignment before court, until trial and appeal. That is why during hearings in criminal cases the moment that the accused appears without counsel, all lawyers become fidgety. If the accused cannot afford his own counsel, all the lawyers will bow down their heads because the judge can appoint anyone in the courts. Usually, he appoints the PAO lawyer, but sometimes he can appoint others present in that court. As counsel de officio your duty starts before arraignment, before trial, during trial, in and after trial upon appeal. In reality, when the judge appoints one, usually the lawyers will put into record that they will represent the accused only for the purpose of such arraignment. Otherwise, you’re bound to represent the accused even after arraignment Limits to the appointment: It is only mandatory for the judge

to appoint the counsel de officio during arraignment. There shall be no arraignment unless the accused has a lawyer except when he voluntary waives that right. So, it is mandatory during the time of arraignment. It is no longer so when: say for example when the accused is already  represented by counsel de parte;and in some occasions when the counsel is not present.  In these two cases, it is no longer mandatory to appoint a counsel de officio. Remember: Mandatory only during arraignment.

PEOPLE VS MANALO

148 SCRA 98 (1987)

The accused here was convicted death penalty for murder, the case was for automatic review before the SC. He implores the fact that several counsel de officio assisted him during different hearings of his case. So in day1 he was assisted by CDO (counsel de officio) 1, day 2, assisted by CDO 2, and so on and so forth. Ang dami nyang CDO. And he is now saying that he was denied the right to counsel, because even if he was represented by several CDO, it was a sham representation kasi i ba-iba. HELD: SC said that it is not so in this case especially when it is not

shown that the CDO did not perform their duties to the appellant and to the court. There was no showing that the appellant suffered from such representations. It was even shown on record that the CDO performed their duties in assisting the appellant, protecting his interests, making objections in timely manner , present during the examination of witnesses by the prosecution, etc. So, if that is the scenario, you have different counsels at the different phases of the trial, it does not mean that you are denied of your right to counsel.

People Vs Santocildes

321 SCRA 310 (1999)

1.

These are the basic rights under the right of attorney. Again the right to be heard will be to little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by counsel. Even the most educated man who has no skill in the study of law particularly in the rules of procedure, without counsel, he may

The accused was charged for the crime of rape. During trial he was represented by a certain Gualberto who turned out to be a non-lawyer. He was convicted of course. On appeal he argues that his right to counsel was violated so he should be acquitted. The SC said yes, he was denied his right to counsel. The right to be represented by A MEMBER OF THE BAR is what is contemplated in that constitutional right even if the non lawyer turns out to have the abilities of a seasoned lawyer and handled the case in a professional and skillful manner, the fact that he is not a member of the bar effectively denied the accused to counsel. PEOPLE VS TULIN

364 SCRA 10 (2001)



The Supreme Court said that judgment is set aside but is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. It did not result to the acquittal of the accused. The accused here was tried for piracy. He was represented by Tomas Posadas and he presented seven witnesses for the accused but he turned out to be a non lawyer also. Does this happen? But not everyday. In davao city it rarely happens because the number of lawyers is small and we know almost everyone here. The judges will usually have the counsel to make a courtesy call. So, in this case, luckily, it was discovered in the course of the trial, so that the accused was able to obtain the service of the real lawyer. During the trial, the lawyer manifested that h e is adapting the testimony of the witnesses presented by Tomas. The accused was convicted. On appeal, the accused said that he was denied of his right to counsel.

The case was for incestuous rape. Upon presentation of the physician witness who has incriminating testimony against the accused, what happened was that the lawyer for the accused did not appear. So, the accused said that they are moving for the postponement of the hearing. The judge denied the motion and appointed a CDO. There was in fact no mandatory duty for the judge to appoint a CDO because it was already during trial and was already represented by a counsel de parte. But the judge to avoid consti issues appointed a CDO just to hear the testimony of the physician bec. He believes that the Dr. was so busy and it is very difficult to get his appearance again. Was he denied the right to counsel? Held: SC said no. The judge has the duty to regulate the

proceeding for the speedy disposition of cases. Justice is not only for the accused but also for the state and the victim. In this case, the judge hast the duty to promote speedy and orderly administration of justice.

SC: There was already a waiver in this case. You have the right to

appear for yourself. Rights can be waived. There was already a valid waiver of right to counsel especially that the adaption of the witnesses presented and testimonies presented by Tomas was manifested and put on record by a lawyer. So, the waiver was done in the presence of the counsel. PEOPLE VS BERMAS

306 SCRA 135 (1999) The accused here was indigent charged with rape. As indigent he was represented by CDO, now after the victim was presented during the cross-examination. Counsel for the accused manifested that he would withdraw as counsel. So, another CDO was appointed, and he was able to prepare for only ten minutes. He cross-examined the witness. After the examination, the court also allowed him to withdraw. Then, there is another CDO, he also tried to withdraw, but this time the court said NO. So, he was constrained to present the accused as witness. On the presentation, during the succeeding hearings, the counsel can no longer found. He failed or refused to appear for no apparent reason. Was he denied from his right to counsel? Held: Yes. The right to counsel must be more than just presence

of counsel in court, more than asking questions, raising objections. The right means that the counsel must believe in the cause of your client. There should be active involvement of the lawyer bearing in mind the rights of the accused. Even if you know that the accused is guilty, you are there to ensure that his constitutional rights are given.

PEOPLE VS LIWANAG

363 SCRA 62 (2001) Accused here was charged with highway robbery with multiple rape. He was initially represented by CDO. Then he had a counsel de parte, on appeal he hired another counsel. On appeal, he questioned the tactics of his own counsel on trial. According to him, my counsel is inefficient! In other words bugo iyang lawyer. Was he denied the right to counsel? Held: SC said no. The right to counsel does not mean the right to

an intelligent counsel. What is required is only an EFFECTIVE counsel. It is presumed that when you pass the bar exam, you already know the rules of court and upholds professional standards. He need not be the most intelligent lawyer. PEOPLE VS SESBRENO

314 SCRA 87 (1999) He was charged with murder and he represented himself because he happened to be a lawyer, despite the suggestion of the court that he find another counsel since the IBP can provide him with one, he still insisted to defend himself. He was convicted. Can he now invoke that he was denied such right? Held: SC said no. he was accorded the right to counsel when he

was allowed to be represented by a competent member of the bar namely himself. You have the choice to get your own counsel. That he who is his own lawyer is a fool for his client. PEOPLE VS NADERA

People vs Larranaga

324 SCRA 490 (2000)

421 SCRA 530 (2004)

The accused here are from prominent families in Cebu, accused of kidnapping. When it was the defense’s time to present

their witnesses after the prosecution, their delaying tactics were already very obvious. There were several motions filed up to the point that there was a motion to withdraw by the counsel. Now, because of that motion, they cannot proceed to the hearing of evidence. The accused asked for time to secure the services of a counsel for 3 days to 1 month. The judge denied the motion and appointed a CDO for the accused. Was he denied the right?

The accused is charged with rape. So after the rape victim testified, counsel for the accused said that they are not conducting any cross-examination because he is convinced that the witness is telling the truth. Was the accused denied the right to counsel? Held: Yes, the counsel’s failure to cross examine the witness is a clear evidence of his lack of enthusiasm to his client’s cause. To

defend a client means to effectively assist accused to ensure that his constitutional rights are protected. The lawyer in this case has the duty to test the credibility of the witness. To scrutinize the private complainant’s testimony.

Held: SC said no, the time they asked from the court was

unreasonable, they could have secured the services of the lawyer at the very moment because they can afford one if they really desire to get one. They could have acted at the short period of time. This does not mean that the accused can avoid trial by refusing to get a counsel. The proceedings should not depend on the whims of the accused to the detriment of the hearing of the case. PEOPLE VS RIVERA

362 SCRA 153 (2001)

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED

We have that very important stage in criminal proceedings what we call as the arraignment. ARRAIGNMENT:

The stage of reading of the charge where the information is read by the court interpreter for the accused to know what he is being tried for. The arraignment is an indispensable stage, without which the judgment would not be valid.


Atty. Rovynne Jumao-as PURPOSE: Portion wherein the accused will be informed of the

nature and the cause of the accusation against him. Precisely to comply with the right of the accused to be informed. PEOPLE VS LABADO

SC went over the causes of the delay and saw a lack of earnest effort on the part of the judge to conduct arraignment as soon as the court calendar will allow. In other words, napabayaan ng judge. So there was violation to the right to speedy trial. What is the effect? ACQUITTAL. See, he is acquitted.

98 SCRA 730 (1980) TAI LIM VS CA

Supreme court said that the accused shou ld know the nature of the charge against him to enable him to make his defense. So he can prepare. Second is to protect himself for the prosecution of the same cause of action. The basis of double jeopardy should come from the information in case h e is charged anew. Third is to inform the court of the facts alleged whether they are sufficient for conviction. It need not be the exact facts but must include time, place, and circumstances. It must be specific. The discrepancy should be so grave that there would be no way for the accused to be convicted based on the information. For example, what was alleged was that the victim was killed in 2002 but in reality, he was killed in 1999. That’s why the information is very important. People vs Crisologo

150 SCRA 653 (1987)

317 SCRA 521 (1999) From the time that the arraignment was had, more than a year, one year 3 months has passed before the trial actually commenced. Here, there were 11 postponements. When SC went over the reasons, the reasons vary from absence on the part of prosecution, absence of the prosecutor and even the re-raffling (?) of the case. When we say re-raffling of the case, from one court to another. Na-transfer sya. SC said that the reasons for postponements were reasonable and not intended to delay the prosecution of the case. Now the absences of witnesses have been validated by their excus e. The excuse was reasonable. The right of the accused to speedy trial should not be utilized to give primacy (?) of the reasonable ___ of fairly prosecuting criminals.

The accused here was a deaf mute charged with robbery with homicide. They cannot have the arraignment bec there was no one to assist him. There was no one there to explain to the accused the information or the charge, The accused cannot understand sign language. The Trial court proceeded and convicted the accused.

In practice, invoking the right to speedy trial un der the rules, we can go with the 3-day rule. If the prosecution has been postponing the hearing for 3 consecutive days, we can invoke the right to speedy trial. 3 days lang. meaning, you can get an acquittal for your client.

Held: SC said that he was denied his right to be informed of the

DE ZURUARREGUI VS ROSETE

382 SCRA 1 (2002)

nature and cause of accusation. March 12, 2013 Transcribed by: Charity & Lou

Right to have a Speedy, Public & Impartial Trial Speedy trial What do you mean by speedy trial?

- Speedy trial would mean one that is free from vicious or capricious delays. Now whether the delay is oppressive, the delay is capricious, it depends upon the circumstances of the case. So it’s still case to case basis. - That is why, if we move for the postponement of let’s say a trial

or a hearing, we always allege on the last portion that this motion is not for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. - This is in view of the accused right to speedy trial.

From the arraignment, there was no trial f or 2 years. This is due to 15 postponements. The postponements are either on motions on both parties or agreements on both parties. SC said that the reasons there are reasonable, justified. Speedy trial means that if one party, soon after indictment filed after prosecution can with reasonable negligence to prepare for trial. (ANO DAW? Sorry kaayo, I cant keep up with her. Paspas kaayo sya. And I think what she is reading is a complex sentence, so many commas! Sorry. But I think what Maam is saying is that prosecution is allowed a reasonable amount of time to prepare). The court should do more than a mathematical computation on the number of postponements of scheduled hearing. What offense derives in a speedy trial are unjustified postponements? SUMBANG VS GEN COURT

What is the objective of this right? 





To assure the innocent man, free from anxiety (?), expense of litigation, so that if you can shorten the period of litigation, it would mean lesser expense on the part of the accused and lesser anxiety. And if otherwise, he is to be found guilty, that guilt be determined the soonest time possible. This would be to give consolation for evidence of the defense (?). This right is more for the accused. Again this is a case to case basis. Bear in mind the purpose or object of this right



Now under the speedy trial act of 1998, there is a provision which states that “the arraignment shall be held within 30 days from the

337 SCRA 227 (2000) Sumbang here is a member of the Philippine Constabulary. There was a decomposition of the Philippine National Police. Dili na sya PC nagging PNP na sya. Anyway, because of the decomposition of the entire unit, it took more than 8 years before his trial was continued. Was there violation of the right to speedy trial? SC said there was no violation because of the operation of law which delayed the proceedings. So dahil na decompose ang PC nagging PNP, they have new rules, new laws, etc. Public and impartial trial

date that the court acquired jurisdiction over the accused.” . So

from arrest, for example, an arraignment must be had within 30 days. But in the case of Lumanlaw vs Peralta LUMANLAW VS PERALTA

482 SCRA 396 (2006) From the time the accused was arrested, the arraignment was had one year 9 months and 4 days after. All in all, there were 14 postponements. So almost 2 years before accused was arraigned. Now in determining the violation of this right, the court has to look into the reasons of the delay.

PUBLIC TRIAL

- This is given to the accused to assure the proceedings will not be tainted with any irregularities or impropriety. Again, when you say criminal proceeding, you have a scenario of David vs Goliath. There was an assurance that the rights of David would be observed or respected. The public has to o bserve the proceedings. What will happen when the proceedings would be private? So basig kulatahon si David ron. So that’s why the constitution

provided that the trial should be made in public to ensure that the Judge in the proceeding will not do anything irregular and that the accused will be accorded such protection. If it is done in closed (3RD Exam Coverage ) Vol. 3 | 5


door sessions, it will cause the anxiety of the accused, wala syang kakampi. Gusto mo meron kang supporters, kung pwede pa lang may banner ka. Public trial means that the trial should be done in court rooms. Some court rooms are as big as this, some half lang. now, that’s

public trial. If you want to observe public students, you can go there as law students. Wala naming attendance dun. You don’t need to identify who you are. So punta ka lang dun. Anyway, the court requires that you come in decent clothings and shoes. Bawal mag-chinelas or sleeveless. (Maam shares story of fellow lawyer: arraignment nya tapos nakatshirt, so pinalabas ng Judge, akala law student.)

Impartial trial

Impartial trial, ah I already discussed this to you. The judge must not be impartial. Impartial, publicity, impartial, publicity, are they incompatible? No. that is also what happened in the Estrada case.

GARCIA VS DOMINGO

ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO

52 SCRA 143 (1973)

356 SCRA 109 (2001)

What happened here is that, the trial was held not in the court room but in the adjacent room, which is the chamber of the judge. Trial was had inside the chambers. Does this violate the right to public trial? SC said that trial is public when anyone interested in observing the manner how the judge conducts the proceeding may do so. There is legal bank on such attendance is being __ of no moment and no relationship to the . that is public trial. Meaning, any member of the public can observe/witness the proceeding. In the case at bar, SC said that there was no prohibition on the part of the public made by the judge. Meaning, anyone who is interested na makisiksik doon, can do so. SC said, trial inside the chamber qualifies as public trial. 

SC said NO. Publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of the accused to fair trial. It does not itself prove that the publicity so permeate the mind of the judge and impaired his impartiality on the case. The most that you can do is to allege the possibility of the tendency of the judge to be unfair. But you have to go more that, you have to prove that it actually affected the judge by such publicity. So more than allege, you have to prove.

Maam: But the reality is, may aura ung chamber ng judge. Sa labas pa lang, ayaw mo ng pumasok. Sino kaya papasok dun?

There was a finding of probable cause indicting him of plunder. The proceeding was had at and the ombudsman conducted preliminary investigation. During the conduct of preliminary investigation, there was already a day-to-day coverage of the proceedings in the newspapers. So according to Estrada, it has already prejudiced his case. He contends his right to impartial trial was affected by the prejudicial trial by publicity proceedings before the ombudsman. There was also, according to him, a hate campaign launched by some newspapers so that the prosecution and the judiciary can no longer assure him of an impartial trial. Again, that’s an allegation.

SC held that more than the allegation, you have to prove that there is already impartiality because of this publicity. The mere fact that the proceeding was given a wide media coverage does not prove that the publicity so far affected the tribunal’s

impartiality. It’s just the same as the Sanchez case. We cannot help it, he’s the

Are there instances wherein a judge may exclude a member of the family of the accused from witnessing the proceeding but still will not violate the right? 

In relation to the case…..

YES. Particularly in cases where maselan ang issue,

ESTRADA VS DESIERTO

like if it involves public decency or public morals. I’m

356 SCRA 109 (2001)

talking about rape cases. Particularly when it is the turn of the victim to testify because it cannot be avoided that the victim has to testify as to the details of the acts. 

president of the Philippines.

Also, another acceptable exception is when it is a minor who will testify. Kahit pa sabihin pa natin na hindi rape, and the minor cannot testify in the presence of many people. Pwede din i-excuse yun ng judge. Another example would be if the witness is to be corroborated by another witness. The judge can exclude that other witness from hearing the testimony of the first witness. Why? His testimony is supposed to be corroborated with the first testimony. So if he hear the testimony, then there is already coaching. “Ay yun pala sasabihin, etc etc”.

so in this case, the judge can validly exclude and there is no violation of the right.

This time ex-pesident who was being charged of plunder after allegedly resigning from public office. So in this case, Estrada for reconsideration and the decision of the SC wherein the SC ruled that he has resigned, one of his grounds is that he was denied the right to impartial trial because the impartiality of his trial was affected/ prejudice by pre – trial publicity / proceeding before the ombudsman. Even before the case was filed, even before the case was still in the investigatory stage. It already received media mileage! Not only locally but internationally pa!!! so, that is his contention. The Publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge impaired his impartiality. There must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be. the SC was consistent with this ruling in PEOPLE VS SANCHEZ. RE: REQUEST FOR RADIO TV COVERAGE –

PEOPLE VS SANCHEZ

302 SCRA 21 (1999) If we say that the trial must be public, here, the accused is now defrauding (?) the publicity of his trial. Who is familiar here of Mayor Sanchez? Mayor Sanchez here is charged with rape, 7 counts of rape with homicide. Now the mayor, being a public figure, his case has been attended by widespread media coverage. So this extreme spectrum, he doesn’t want pervasive publicity my

the media. According to him, it has violated his right to trial because it has affected the impartiality of the judge. So is the right of an accused to fair trial incompatible to a free press?

360 SCRA 248 (2001) In relation to that case, the KBP, consisting of duly franchised radio/TV networks petitioned the SC to request that they be allowed live media – coverage of the trial of the former Pres. Estrada. The Request was anchored to assure the public of full transparency of the proceedings of the public trial. What do we have here? The issue here is the constitutionality of the freedom of the press, and the right to public information and the fundamental right of the accused – the right to fair trial/impartial trial. Where there is clash between these 2 rights, which right should prevail – right to public information, freedom of the press vs right of the accused. Which right should be preferred? – The SC said the right of the accused must be preferred.


Atty. Rovynne Jumao-as “ with the possibility of losing not on ly the precious liberty but also

the very life of the accused, it behooves all to make absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict solely on the basis of a just and dispassionate judgment.” W hy? ---what is the effect of Television coverage? At least in this case that there is recognition of the SC. Example. I am a potential witness. To ensure that I will not bother myself before the court. I will make my research and watch the TV coverage. If I am going to testify in the impeachment proceedings against the CJ therefore prudence would dictate that I watched so that my testimony would be consistent with another witnesses. So more or less there is that possible effect. Another effect – it can effect the performance of the judge (di ka artista pero may live coverage) .. just look at the senator judges and the effect of the live media coverage.. and it can destroy the image of the accused in the eyes of the public.

will give the judge an idea of WON to believe the testimony of the accused. So another TIP! If you are going to be a trial court lawyer – if you find that the demeanor of the witness is relevant to the credibility of his/her own testimony, you make sure that it is put on record because the transcript / stenographic notes only records the spoken words. It is not written there “kahit hahahah pa yan”. The court stenographer will not write there “HAHHAHAHHA!” so what will you do? ----- “your honor, may we put into record that after the witness testified “na-rape din ako, she smiled” sabi pa nga nila, if umiyak yan “iparecord ang luha! (lol) if the witness is crying,

that will also add to his credibility. So it your witness is a good actor/actress why not??? Right to have compulsory processes to secure the attendance of the witness

last analysis’, to avoid miscarriage of justice, the request was denied”

In criminal proceedings, the venue or where the case should be filed is JURISDICTIONAL! What do you mean by that? – The place where the case should be filed i s equivalent to the court which h as jurisdiction over the case.

IN RE: REQUEST FOR LIV E COVERAGE

When you study jurisdiction, the rules would just say for this kinds

365 SCRA 62 (2001)

of offenses MTC, for this kind RTC, SANDIGANBAYAN, ETC…

“In order to protect the parties’ right to due process, to prevent

the distraction of the participants in the proceedings and in the

The Request was made by the KBP diba? It was denied. Who move for the reconsideration para ma-grant? Its the state via the secretary of Justice…etc.. anyways, “The motion was filed by the Secretary of Justice, as one of the

petitioners, who argues that there is really no conflict between the right of the people to public information and the freedom of the press, on one hand, and on the other hand, the right of the accused to a fair trial; that if there is a clash between these rights, it must be resolved in favor of the right of the people and the press because the people, as the repository of sovereignty, are entitled to information; and that live media coverage is a safeguard against attempts by any party to use the courts as instruments for the pursuit of selfish interest.”

There will be more damage to the accused than damage to the public as “repository of democracy”. Maxado vague na allegation

to whereas the damage to the accused would be concrete. So this was also denied. However, because of importance of the trial and preserving the records, the SC ruled that there should be “audio visual recording of the proceedings. The recording will not be for live or real broadcast but for documentary purposes. Only later will they be available for public showing, after the Sandiganba yan shall have promulgates its decision in every case to which the recordings pertains. The Material Film shall be deposited in the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office for historical preservation and exhibition pursuant to LAW!!!

RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION

This right refers to the right to CROSS – EXAMINATION. This right is very important to criminal prosecution for 2 reasons: 1.

It allows the accused to examine the witness to test the credibility, truthfulness and test against prejudice/bias against the accused.

- If I am the accused the sole purpose is to create the doubt diba? Because I can only be convicted upon proof beyond reasonable doubt. So to be given that opportunity, I should be allowed to confront the witness – to test his credibility, to test his bias against me so that somehow this may prove to shake the veracity of his testimony. 2.

And t he other reason is for the judge to OBSERVE THE DEMEANOR of the witness .

DEMEANOR is important because this will help the judge in appreciating the testimony of the witness. Sometimes we can see the truthfulness or falsity by just the demeanor of

regardless where. In Civil Cases, the option where the case is filed – let’s say RTC, the option is with the plaintiff, either at the place where the plaintiff resides or where the defense resides at the option of the plaintiff.

But when it comes to Criminal Cases, this case can only be filed at the place where the crime was committed. JURISDICTIONAL – means that the case is filed in another RTC not in the RTC of the Place, that another RTC has no jurisdiction of that offense. ----the presumption is that, if the crime is committed here, the witness for the accused can also be located in this place. So to make it easier for the accused, the venue should be in the same place where the offense / crime was committed. ----Now the accused, should have available witness not matter where the witness may be located however, they should be made available to the accused at the expense of the state. Now, how can the court secure the attendance o f the witness?? By subpoena 1.

Subpoena ad testificandum – an order for the

person to appear in court to testify 2.

duces tecum – aka subpoena for production of evidence – if it as an order for the person to appear in court and to bring documents. ( is a court summons ordering a named party to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial Subpoena

In this similar rules of procedure, we have the 100km radius rule – this is a compulsory process of the court to compel the attendance of the witness had no effect if the witness resides more than 100KM to the place where he is to testify. Meaning that it your witness is already in Batanes, he could not be compelled by a subpoena. But that is true in civil cass. But when it comes to witnesses for the accused, wherever the witness may be, he can be compelled to appear in court. HOW? If he disobeys the subpoena, he can be arrested or cited by the court in contempt. That is to favor the accused vis-s-vis the state the accused has no resource to compel the attendance of the witness. So it is now the constitution that will give now the duty to compel the attendance of the witness of the case. It will be the state who will prosecute you, it will be the state that wll find your witnesses. TRIAL IN ABSENTIA

the witness. For example, “narape din ako, hehehe” so that



Trial by absentia is no longer a right accorded to the accused. It is a right accorded to the state to continue with the trial in a criminal prosecution despite the absence of the accused. So we call that trial by absentia. Under the rule, trial by absentia is not allowed because if the accused will be denied his right to defend himself, right to counsel, confront witness, etc. but under the new Constitution, trial by absentia is already allowed. Why? So that the case in the prosecution will not be dependent upon the presence of the accused and the accused cannot invoke state liability by being absent and more importantly, there will be no mockery of the criminal justice system. But there are requisites for Trial in Absentia to be allowed. 1. There should be an arraignment. The accused must first be arraigned. 2. The accused must be notified of the schedule trial. 3. Despite the notice, the accused failed to appear in court. PEOPLE VS SALAS

143 SCRA 163 (1986) The accused here was charged with homicide with no bail recommended. Trial after arraignment was had, trial commenced for murer but along the way the granted him bail. Whaen he was given provisional liberty, he juped bail and hence escaped. The copurt now refused to continue the trial unless the accused is arrested. If you are the lawyer of the complainant, what would you do if the accused jumped bail, how can you go on/proceed presenting the evidence? What were your options? The bail will be forfeited in favor of the State; the trial will proceed despite the absence of the accused. “AS LONG AS THE ACCUSED HAS ALREADY BEEN ARRAIGNED, TRIAL SHOULD PROCEED” GIMENEZ VS NAZARENO

160 SCRA 1 (1988) There were 6 accused here. One of them however, escaped. After arraignment, all of the 6 were arraigned; the trial proceeded as against the 5 accused. But the court refused to consider that he is one of the accused who escaped. So for the mindset of the court this will be a trial only against the 5 accused (hindi niya sin ali yung isang naka-escaped). According to him, the court has lost jurisdiction over the person of the accused. What if my custody kana, the accused escapes, to the mind of the trial court the “escape” means the court h as lost jurisdiction over the accused. Is ha correct? NOOO!!! The principle is that once the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, JURISDICTION IS NEVE LOST!!! until the termination of the case. Here, trial in absentia should proceed even as against the person who escaped so that the rendering of the decision it should include not only findings of evidence but also who escaped. So what is the rul e in ESCAPE?? waiver of notice on the part of the accused. So under the law, is deemed notified of the hearing. So in actual huh!!! Mag panic ka if you’re the prosecution lawyer. So the escape is deemed a waiver

of his notice. So the escape makes his absence unjustified. And it is deemed waiver of his right to cross examination the witness. What if he appears for the purpose of cross – examining the witness? Can he do that? Yes! He can waive, he cannot waive, that’s the right of the accused.

present his evidence. It does not affect his presumption of innocence.

REASON: The court is still mandated to convict/acquit the accused based on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Meaning if the prosecution, despite na wala xang kalaban still fails to present the proof beyond reasonable doubt, the court can always acquit the accused because the presumption of innocence is still there. Dyan mu ma appreciate the difference ng proof in civil cases – therefore the relief will be granted to that party whereas in criminal cases – BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT talaga!!. Presumption of innocence vs proof that was shown by the prosecution and it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

March 13, 2012

Transcribed by: Kirsten & Marlie ----------------------------------------WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not

be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it. Sounds familiar to you? Under what article? Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all

armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. The Supreme Court may review, in an a ppropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts

or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

What is the effect of Trial by Absentia vis-à-vis the right of the accused to be presumed innocent. Na-imagine mu yung scenario sa court?

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.

ARRAIGNMENT – THE ACCUSED PLEAS – Now what happen? The prosecution will continue to present his witnesses / documentary evidence without the presence of the accused. So what do we have? Only that he waived that right by escaping /by not appearing during his term to

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

-

Executive department: powers of the commander in chief, particularly Sec 18. It covers both martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. (3RD Exam Coverage ) Vol. 3 | 8


Now, the second to the last paragraph of Art 7 Sec 18 states that: The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion. I think you already know the implication of this provision. And then during the suspension of the privilege, any person arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released. So, the usual limit for detention is suspended for 3 days but only insofar as those persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent therein. So as I've said, when you say the privilege of the writ is suspended, it only affects these classes of persons or these classes of offenses or charges. WHAT IS A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (WHC)?

Writ- order Habeas corpus- produce the body Corpus- body Under the rules on the ROC:

The WHC is an order directed to the person detaining another commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place and explain why that person detained should not be released.

It has nothing to do with any other issue but only as to the reason of his detention. In other words, the only objective of the WHC is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint an d to relieve the person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.

she be freed from those conditions? She has to file for a petition for the issuance of WHC to inquire into the validity of those conditions. AMPATUAN V MACARAIG

622 SCRA 266 (2010)

This involves a police officer from Sultan Kudarat suspected of killing the head of the Law Dept. of Comelec. He was placed in inquest. There was an investigation conducted by the prosecutor. During the inquest, however, while there was still no charge, he was released. But under the PNP rules and regulations, he was charged for grave misconduct arising from murder. So, there was an administrative charge. Now, the PNP law allows the PNP Director General to place him under "restrictive custody". So notwithstanding that he was released by the City Prosecutor because there was no charge yet, there was an administrative case filed against him by the PNP and because of that, he was placed on "restrictive custody". His movement is being monitored by the PNP General, kung saan siya and he was not yet allowed to go back to his family. The wife filed for a petition for the issuance of the WHC. SC said that here, since the PNP law authorizes "restrictive custody" as a matter of internal discipline, this constitutes a valid argument for his continued detention. In other words, the continued detention is lawful. And besides, he is not really in actual detention and is under other nominal restraint which is beyond the ambit of HC. Under monitioring lang siya ng PNP, so it is not a proper subject for the petition for the issuance of the WHC.

IN RE: AQUINO V ESPERON

The only issue on the WHC: Is there a legal basis for the continued detention of that person?

FUNCTIONS OF THE WHC: 1) It is the only effective remedy to question any form of involuntary restraints.

Restraint does not limit i tself to imprisonment or custody. It covers any form of involuntary restraints. Example: VILLAVICENCIO V LUKBAN

39 Phil 778 (1919) Women were involuntary sent to a far-flung island. This is the case of prostitutes in the red light district of Manila where they were all sent on a ship going to Davao. Davao was still a very, very far island from Manila. Unheard of for most of them. There was no imprisonment to talk about, yet they were there involuntarily. What case should you file? File for damages and/or criminal charges against those persons who sent these women to Davao? But the objective is to release these women and bring them back to Manila. The proper petition is the petition for the WHC. It will inquire into the validity of the involuntary restraint. MONCUPA VS. ENRILE

141 SCRA 233 (1986) Here the petitioner was detained by the military through the Secretary of Defense, Enrile. After detention, she was released with no charges. The release, however, was with other conditions like she has to report every now and then to the Secretary of Defense and she should not give interviews to reporters. So, there were accompanying conditions to her release. Although there is no custody, no actual detention to speak of, what we have here is a detention with conditions. How should

531 SCRA 788 (2007)

Major Aquino is the head of the highest officer of the Scout Rangers na nandoon sa Air Force Barracks. They had this petition of redress against the government but they are members of the military, so they cannot do that. He was one of those charged with violation against the Articles of War. So, he was under the custody of the military where he is supposed to be under court martial. The wife filed for a petition for the issuance of the WHC because according to her, he was not placed in his barracks, quarters or tents as mandated in the articles of war, rather he was placed in a solitary confinement with maximum security detention cell and the wife also questions the fact that she was restricted from visiting her husband. What is she questioning? She is not questioning the legality of the detention because there is a legal basis for such and that is the fact that he is under court martial proceedings for violation of the articles of war. What she is questioning is actually the conditions of his confinement which is not the proper question in the petition for WHC (Bakit sa isang maximum protection detention cell? Bakit hindi sa barracks where he can freely roam around?) Again, the question should only inquire into the validity of the continued detention. Example:

You already filed a bail bond and was approved by the court but your client was not yet released by the chief of police, notwithstanding several request, notwithstanding the filing of illegal detention, arbitrary detention pala. What would you file as a lawyer for your client to be immediately released? WHC. Iba yung arbitrary detention kasi liability yun ng officer.

2) It functions as a post-conviction remedy.

Here, the convict is already serving sentence. What happens if along the way, there is a new law that, if applied retroactively, will be advantageous to your client or to the convict? Say, the penalty (3RD Exam Coverage ) Vol. 3 | 9


has

been

reduced,

what

would

you

file?

GUMAHON V DIR. OF PRISON

37 SCRA 420 (1958) He was convicted in 1953 for the complex crime of rebellion with murder. Until now, jurisprudence would say that there is no complex crime of rebellion with murder, right? What we have is only rebellion and the murder is already incorporated in th e former crime. This was because of the ruling in the case of Amado v Hernandez that was decided 3 years after he started serving sentence. His original penalty was life imprisonment then, lumabas ang Amado v Hernandez where the penalty of rebellion is just prision mayor. Can he appeal his case? No. There is a period of appeal, which is usually 15 days from the time of judgment. Can he file a certiorari for grave abuse of discretion? No, it is already beyond the period. Usually it is 60 days. What can he file in order to question the validity of his continued detention? WHC. But when can he file that action? When is his cause of action accrue? When he has serve at least prision mayor maximum. He can allege that he has already served the penalty as properly interpreted by the SC. Because after the conviction, when the decision is already final and executory, it can no longer be changed. Here, the decision cannot be changed but the continued detention can be questioned via the petition of a WHC. Another example is the case of LAMEN V DIRECTOR OF PRISON

241 SCRA 537 (1995) The accused here is convicted for violation of RA 6245. At that time, the law provided for a penalty of life imprisonment then came the case of Pp v Simon. In this case, the SC interpreted for the first time the penalty range for the crime of possessing or selling regulated drugs. The law says the penalty ranges from prision correccional to death. So SC divided the penalty in relation to the grams of shabu. Here, he was caught in possession of 13.6 grams of shabu. During his conviction, he was sentenced to LI but after the SC interpreted the penalty range in a later decision, he should only serve the penalty of prision correccional. So ilang years yun? Diba, 6 years? So, when he has already served 6 years, the proper petition to question his continued detention is the WHC. Also, even if the decision is already final and the co nvict is already serving sentence, if it shown that there is a deprivation of the constitutional rights of the accused, the court is deemed ousted of its jurisdiction. Simple and easily understood example is the case of Olaguer. He was a civilian charged and convicted before the military tribunal. There were proceedings but at the end, he was denied of due process because he was tried before the military courts following military rules of procedure. That's why the SC said that that court has no jurisdiction over this person. That military court is supposedly ousted of its jurisdiction. What happens to the decision? How would you question that? Through a petition for the WHC. You would allege that the court has no jurisdiction over your person.

ANDAL V PEOPLE

307 SCRA 650 However, there was already judgment, the accused already served his sentence and then later on, he questioned the decision through a petition of WHC alleging that during the police line-up, he was identified without the assistance of a counsel. Thus, he was denied of his constitutional right. You know that the argument is wrong but had it been right, you know that the petition for the WHC is proper.

IN RE: GARCIA

399 SCRA 292 (2000) The same. Judgment, sentence, wala na silang ma-file, hindi na sila maka-appeal, hindi na sila maka-certiorari. To question his continued detention, he alleged that his constitutional right was violated during trial because the judge failed to appreciate the evidence. The argument is wrong because it is part of the duty of the judge to appreciate evidence. But had it been right, the court would have been ousted of its jursidiction. FERIA VS. CA

325 SCRA 525 (2000)

the same. He alleged that he was deprived of his constitutional right and so he filed for a petition of the WHC. He asked for a transfer from his present detention facility to another. He requested to transfer to Muntinlupa but he can't be transferred because allegedly, his conviction papers got lost or nasunog. So, according to him, there is no longer a basis for his conviction. Wala na ang papers, so how will you prove that he was convicted? Kaya nagfile sya ng WHC. The SC said that: you read your pleading, read your complaint. You said that you are serving sentence because of conviction. The fact that the conviction papers were lost does not affect jurisdiction. Although tama sana ang WHC, the argument is wrong. WRIT OF AMPARO

Writ of amparo is a very recent rule promulgated by the SC to protect the constitutional rights of the people under Art. 8. SEC. OF NATIONAL DEFENSE VS. MANALO

568 SCRA 1 (2008) The case of Manalo brothers is the first SC decision applying this rule. So the rule of Amparo took effect on Oct 24, 2007. The case is actually filed sometime in August 2001. There was yet no rule. What they filed was a prohibition or injunction and TRO. When the rule came out, they manifested that it be changed to a petition for a WOA. What happened to the Manalo brothers?

They were suspected as CCP-NPA supporters. Actually, the brother, not these two brothers Raymond and Reynand, is suspected to be the leader of NPA in their town. Since sila ang nandoon, the two were forcibly abducted. They were tortured and threatened of death. The family actually filed for a WHC para irelease sila. Now every time that there is supposed to be a hearing on the WHC, the persons who abducted them would bring them to their house, ipakita sila sa nanay and threaten the nanay that she will be killed or her sons will be killed if sh e appears in the hearing. They were subjected to continuous torture for 18 months. But of course, there were scheduled hearings so somehow along the way, they were also subjected to medical treatment para gumaling yung mga sugat then after, torture na naman. Now, they applied for the issuance of the petition for the WOA because it seems that the WHC will not be sufficient. In fact, in the WHC, it was not shown that they were detained by someone. But here, they were able to identify the persons who abducted them (members of the CAFGU who were their neighbors) and the persons who were cohorts of the CAFGUs who were military men. They actually saw where they were brought (in a military fort). (I forgot the name of the fort but read this case). When they filed the WOA, the SC granted and ordered the petitioner(s), this Secretary of National Defense the following (these are the reliefs granted to them): 1) To furnish respondents with all official and unofficial reports of the investigation undertaken in connection with their case, except those already filed with the court.

Because the military said that in lieu of this petition, they already conducted an investigation but it did not actually happen. (3RD Exam Coverage ) Vol. 3 | 10


2 ) To confirm in writing the present places of official assignments of respondents w/in 5 days from notice of this decision

Their location is necessary in order to avoid them because these are persons who are continually threatening the liberty and security of the Manalo brothers. 3) To produce to the CA the medical records and charts because as I've mentioned earlier, they were subjected to medical treatments. These will verify the allegations in the pleading that they were tortured and subjected to treatment. WHAT IS THE WRIT OF AMPARO?

As provided for in Sec 1 of the Rule is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened by a violation or an unlawful act or commission by a public official or employee or by a private individual or entity. This covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

This power made its first appearance in the 1987 Constitution to protect the constitutional rights of the people. Before the 1987 Constitution, the court has no power to protect the constitutional rights of the people. The WOA was taken from Mexico. Amparo is properly translated as protection. WOA is an order of protection. It is a protective remedy in providing an initial relief consisting of appropriate measures and directive crafted by the court. So the court can actually craft for measures it sees proper to protect this constitutional rights of life, liberty, and security from threat or violation. This was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and forced disappearances. WOA, therefore, is an extraordinary and independent remedy. You can still file a petition for other remedies under the

Example parent ang nag file na nawawala ang anak niya, nagreport siya sa military, walang aksyon. So the parent filed a petition for WRIT OF AMPARO. The court would order this officer not only to explain his defenses that he did not involve in that enforced disappearance but he has also taken action, honorable information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party. Maybe he has already received reports from petitioners regarding this person, baka subject or target na pala siya ng military, PNP or DDS. If the respondent is a public official or employee the RETURN shall further state the actions that had been formerly taken, verified the identity of the aggrieved party. Recovery and preserved evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person, identifying witnesses and obtain statements. So maraming nirerequire sa public officer not only to answer the military involvement (such as the military or police is not involve), they are required to write in their RETURN these FACTS, determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or disappearance as well as other facts that may have brought about the disappearance, that might apprehend the person/s involve in the death or disappearance and to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court. So if you are the secretary of defense or you are the chief of the armed forces and you are issued this WRIT, kung ikaw ang mastermind ng disappearance, you will be forced to bring all offenses siguro, because you are required to perform all these. Now, also the WRIT provides for INTERIM RELIEFS. While it is still being heard the court will issue TEMPORARY DETENTION ORDER. The petitioner or the aggrieved party, even the members of immediate family of the aggrieved person are protected by the government agency or accredited person, pwede ring mga madre as long as they are accredited. INSPECTION ORDER, Order in the person in possession or control of the disputed land, or other property to forbid entry for the purpose of inspecting, surveying, usurping or operation thereof…

ROC allowing alongside the WOA.

ROXAS v MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

630 SCRA 211 (2010) TWO MATTERS: 1.

EXTRALEGAL KILLINGS

2.

ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES or THREATS

So when you allege EXTRALEGAL KILLING OR ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES and you wanted to be protected from this, either the damage has been done or your properties are threaten thereof, the proper remedy would be the WRIT OF AMPARO. 1.

EXTRALEGAL KILLINGS – refer to killings committed

without due process of law, without legal safeguards in judicial proceedings 2.

ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES – an arrest, detention,

abduction of person by ordinary institution or organize group or private individuals acting indirect or direct appearance with the government. The refusal of the state to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concern, o r the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which in a case such persons outside the protection of law. If you cannot cope with copying what is there, actually it is in the case of the SECRETARY of DEFENSE v MANALO, the definition was there. You don’t have to memorize this, under the rules when a WRIT is issued against an official this requires a compliant to RETURN. Now, if you would like to have an idea of what a RETURN could be, because you will be given an idea how available a WRIT OF AMPARO is. Because the context of the RETURN is MANDATORY, in fact a mere denial is not sufficient. So if a WRIT is issued or served of an official what is required is placed in his RETURN. Of course those are noble defenses, that he did not violate the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party. But more than that, what course of actions have you taken to determine the fate or whereabouts.

Here involved is Roxas who is a US citizen, very young girl, US citizen involve a BAYAN- USA, she enrolled in their program to tour around the Philippines. Biruin nyo US citizen na siya pumunta lang siya sa Philippines to look at the barrios. She has a medical background, she brought with her, her stethoscope and sphygmomanometer, and allegedly she was conducting a medical mission. But one day while resting in a house, around 3 persons abducted them everything was taken from them, she was actually under custody in an unknown place, blindfolded all the time for around 5 days. Now, one of her prayers is a petition of WRIT OF AMPARO, because according to her she was brought to a military camp. Because according to her even if she was taken blind folded she can hear planes landing and taking-off, gun fire and construction going on. So why not military camp ito? So the SC based on the estimate the time of travel, they went to this particular camp, actually the CA denied her prayer for relief , INSPECTION ORDER, because according to CA concurred by the SC the basic requirement before granting the INSPECTION ORDER, the place to be inspected is at least determinable for the allegation in the court. Now, according to her, she is certain that it is a military camp because of the time travel. But the SC said that you are not familiar with place, there might be mistake, also there is no certainty that it is a military camp just because you heard airplanes landing and takeoff, gun fire and construction while being blind folded. So it was not granted, because it has NOT been an INTENTION of SC to make the WRIT OF AMPARO AN AVENUE OF FISHING EXPEDITION OF EVIDENCE. So in that case she was denied the prayer. The court can also issue a PRODUCTION ORDER , an order to any person in possession, in custody or in control of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things or others, in digitize or applied forms which constitute or contain evidence written in their petition for RETURN. To produce and permit their inspection, copy…



In this case of the MANALO BROTHERS there was a PRODUCTION ORDER issued by the court but the NATIONAL DEFENSE, the petitioners then, said that the PRODUCTION ORDER must comply the requisites of SEARCH WARRANT. Ano yun? Application, personal knowledge, probable cause determined by the judge in relation to one offense. So is this a correct argument? The SC said NO. This PRODUCTION ORDER is the order to protect the individual against government intrusion. It is an order issued against the government to protect an individual. Whereas in the issuance of a SEARCH WARRANT the act to be done is the government. Distinction…

PRODUCTION ORDER the applicant is individual as against the government. SEARCH WARRANT the applicant is the state as against the individual. The principle applies if there is state intrusion but here there is no state intrusion because it is for the benefit of the individual. PRODUCTION ORDER is liken to a civil case, when you file subpoena in a civil case. PRODUCTION of documents or things under the rules of CIVIL PROCEDURE, subpoena is a civil procedure it cannot be identified or confused with unreasonable searches and seizure prohibited by the constitution. The court can also issue WITNESS PROTECTION ORDER , with the WRIT OF AMPARO, they will be admitted to a witness protection program. Thus, what we have when we say WRIT OF AMPARO, it is provided with our lacking for judicial relief (wanting judicial relief, so vague on my recording), SUMMARY IN NATURE. The object of inquiry is WON there was EXTRA LEGAL KILLING or ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE, yun lang. Other matters are beyond the scope of the WRIT OF AMPARO. SUMMARY PROCEEDING requires at least substantial

evidence. Was there EXTRA LEGAL KILLING, was there ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE, was there THREAT to EXTRA LEGAL KILLING or THREAT to ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE, yan lang ang question. If there was, the court can already issue a WRIT provided for protection order that maybe proper adjudicating the circumstance. What is it now? It is NOT the WRIT to protect ourselves to duly PROPERTY or COMMERCIAL.

ROXAS v MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

630 SCRA 211 (2010) In ROXAS v MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, si Roxas ay US citizen na bata, she actually filed impleading the President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, because according to her she is responsible under the DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY. The SC said, other than immunity from suit of the president, the DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESP ONSIBILITY couldn’t apply because it presupposes an indication of an individual liability. Now, for individual liability is more applicable in a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather in a summary AMPARO PROCEEDINGS. Again, an AMPARO PROCEEDING is not an action to determine criminal guilt to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to determine liability for damages in a civil case requiring preponderance of evidence or in administrative proceedings requiring substantial evidence that will require lengthy proceedings. Take note this is a SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS, requiring only substantial evidence and only on the question on whether there was EXTRALEGAL KILLING and ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE and whether appropriate pleas should be granted. Now, in the case of ROXAS v MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, when she was abducted she have with her certain items, her journal, digital cam with memory card, many laptops with external hard disk, iPad, wrist watch, sphygmomanometer, stethoscope, medicines and cash. Now, among her petition is the return of her items, CA denied and the SC affirmed the denial, why? An order for the return of person belongings will be equivalent to conclusive pronouncement of liabilities. Again the WRIT OF AMPARO is not the venue for determining liability. So the return will only be granted once the liability of the respondent was already been fixed where in whole and assumptive proceeding. But why did the court denied, again the WRIT OF MAPARO is NOT A DETERMINATION OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS, right to property. Under the general rulings of Property rights which is already beyond the scope of the WRIT OF AMPARO. So again the scope is SPECIFIC and LIMITED ONLY on EXTRALEGAL KILLING and ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE.

PAGLAS V MONTIL

They file a WRIT OF AMPARO because according to them they lost in an ejectment case. They are supposed to be ejected. The decision was already at bar on appeal and their house is about to be demolished or some of them their houses were already been demolished. According to them it is a violation of their right of houses. The SC it is already beyond the scope of the WRIT OF AMPARO. This is purely property issue of litigation which is beyond the scope of a WRIT OF AMPARO. Again the scope is only EXTRALEGAL KILLING and ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE. It does not include the protection of the right to travel that is the case280 (2009) Father Robert Reyes was among those in Manila Peninsula Siege because of that they were caught. There was an inquest, there was an investigation on WON he will be charge with rebellion. In the meantime while the inquest was ongoing, there was hold departure order against all of them were caught. Actually the charge was never pursued against Father Robert Reyes but the hold departure order is still there. So every time that he travels he will be detained temporarily in the deputation office. So he filed petition for the WRIT OF AMPARO, according to him it is a violation of his liberty, right to travel. Is he correct? The SC said No. Focus is the EXTRALEGAL KILLING and ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE lang. It does not fix liabilities for disappearances, killings or theft thereof, whether criminal liabilities, civil liabilities or administrative liabilities. Again this is summary in nature.

The TWO FOLD ROLES of WRIT OF AMPARO: It is PREVENTIVE and CURATIVE. PREVENTIVE – brings the exculpation of immunity in the commission of EXTRALEGAL KILLINGS and ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES.

CURATIVE – as you can see in the RETURN, yung required, facilitates subsequent punishment of perpetrators, as it yield it leads to subsequent investigation and action. The public officers are actually required or mandated to take action, to conduct investigation, to identify suspects, arrests suspects and then litigate them.

What is the difference between the WRIT OF AMPARO & WRIT OF HABEAS DATA? REVIEW



WRIT OF HABEA CORPUS

WRIT OF AMPARO

-To bring or produce the body -The object is unlawful detention,

-EXTRALEGAL KILLING and ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE -RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

-To produce the data or information -More on the RIGHT TO PRIVACY



continuous detention

SECURITY

RIGHT TO SELF-INCRIMINATION WRIT OF HABEAS DATA Under this rule a WRIT is readily available to a person’s RIGHT TO

PRIVACY, LIFE, and LIBERTY AND SECURITY. So privacy in LIFE, privacy in LIBERTY, privacy in SECURITY is violated by a public officer or employee or by a private individual particularly those engaged or involve in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family home and correspondence of aggrieved party. The WRIT of HABEAS DATA in general is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the image, privacy, honor, information and freedom of information of an individual. This is meant to provide for the right to truth and the informational guarantee the safeguarding constitutional guarantee to protect against abuse. To protect breach of information and to help at least in the form of WRIT OF HABEAS DATA. In the case of ROXAS v MACAPAGAL- ARROYO, that US Citizen na na-involve sa BAYANMUNA, because actually she was allegedly abducted because she was included in the order of AMPARO of the Military, so may listahan pala to, there was actually a video footage and photograph wherein ROXAS to be allegedly among those in the photograph involved in a MILITARY EXERCISE by the rebels and in those videos, and this was being shown by Esqueron, this come to the public. So in this ROXAS case the petitioner is suppressed any existing governmental files or the linking her to the communist movement and with the issuance of the WRIT OF HABEAS DATA the respondents were enjoined further distributing or causing the distribution to the public of any records in whatever forms or reports documents of similar papers relative to her allege spies with the CPP-NPA. So, if you think that you are included in the list of the DDS, and you have special prove to that, what petition can you file so that you will be deleted from that list? WRIT OF HABEAS DATA. Like the WRIT OF AMPARO it will not issue to protect duly property or commercial concerns, if the petitions involve are vague or doubtful. In fact in the case of DEL ROSARIO, the judgment case again, now according to them they want to get the WRIT OF HABEAS DATA for the police report to be released. Police report na they were threaten na sinusunog yung bahay nila at may threats na may pumupunta sa bahay nila. Allegedly there was a police report, they wanted it to be shown and provided them. The SC said, ang dali-dali naming kumuha ng police report and beside it is in relation to your property rights, so the WRIT OF HABEAS DATA will not be a proper remedy. In MANILA COMPANY, it’s a labor case, wherein the employee was

terminated because of a confidential letter submitted by an anonymous person to the employer. Allegedly siniraan siya doon, she wanted that letter to be produced. So is a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA a proper remedy? NO. Again right to privacy in relation to right to life, liberty and security, that is a labor issue. Labor is under property rights also.

2 nd part Transcribed by Jade Canada b. Various Proceedings CHAVEZ VS. CA

24 SCRA 663 (1963)

In Chaves vs. CA, this is a petition for habeas corpus and then in this case criminal case against Chavez, the first witness called by the prosecution is the accused “ your honor may we call in the witness stand the accused himself, Chavez.” The accused said he

will not testify and he invokes the right to self-incrimination. The lower court judge however said that the prosecution has the right to call any witness in the witness stand including the accused. And the counsel for the accused cannot raise any objection thereof. In other words he is compelled to take the witness stand. Now he was convicted vis a vis his testimony so he filed for a case for habeas corpus. Was his right against self-incrimination violated? He refused to take the witness stand. And the SC said …. Ordinary

witness. Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand. How? Subpoena, you are required to appear in court. (case) Refused to take the witness stand and any and all questions…

He may all together refuse to take the witness stand. For in reality what is the purpose of witness stand? To incriminate himself. The mere fact of identifying himself is already incriminating himself. In criminal cases, the first thing the prosecution could do is to identify the accused. Now recall, in the movies that you’ve seen, diba may scenes na “do you know the accused? “, “is he around in this court?” , “if you look around and find the accused is he the one with black color”? Because it’s the first object of the

prosecution to identify the accused. Now when the accused is called to the witness stand, he already incriminates himself because he already identifies himself. So, his rights as an accused enjoys the right against self-incrimination all throughout. Recent jurisprudence however, extends this right to the accused even to respondents in administrative investigation. If the administrative case pertains to the nature of criminal proceeding or analogous to criminal proceedings. What do you mean by that? Since we’re

talking of conviction. If this administrative case has this effect of penalty equivalent to conviction, then the respondent may invoke his right against self-incrimination. And he may refuse to take the witness stand. As what happened in the case of Capunan

This case is an administrative case of illegally acquired assets. As a result of the case if he’s found guilty, his assets wil l be __ as a form of penalty. So when the respondent invoked his right against self-incrimination when he was called to take the witness stand, the SC said that is permissible. Also in the case of PASCUAL JR. VS. BOARD

REVIEW

28 SCRA 344 (1969)

WRIT OF HABEA CORPUS

WRIT OF AMPARO

-To bring or produce the body -The object is unlawful detention, continuous detention

-RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY specifically in relation to EXTRALEGAL KILLING and ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

- RIGHT TO PRIVACY in relation to RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY -To produce the data or information

In the cases you read their full text. In all the cases, like the Roxas case, Manalo case, at least you read the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE in MANALO CASE and in ROXAS CASE.

The respondent here is a doctor, case for medical malpractice before the court. So this is a case of administrative. if found guilty what would be his penalty for medical malpractice? Revoke his license, which according to the SC is a penalty, almost the same as conviction. So in this case, where the respondent was called to take the witness stand and refused to take the witness stand that he was compelled to give his testimony, the SC that was violation of his right against self-incrimination. Therefore, that is not the character of the suit involved but the nature of the proceeding . The constitutional guarantee, along with other rights granted an accused, stands for a belief that while crime should not go unpunished and that the truth must be revealed, such desirable objectives should not be accomplished according to means or


Atty. Rovynne Jumao-as methods offensive to the high sense of respect accorded the human personality. More 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 Chief Justice Warren, "the constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government ... must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens."

against you. Merely testifying and/or producing evidence do not render the witness immune from prosecution notwithstanding his invocation of the right against self- incrimination. He is merely saved from the use against him of such statement and nothing

What about in other proceedings? The witness may invoke the right at an appropriate time when incriminating question is asked. In other words, if you are not an accused in a criminal case, can you invoke the right against self incrimination? Yes but only when the incriminating question is asked. The difference is that you cannot refuse to take the witness stand because before that there is no way of knowing WON the question is incriminating. So an ordinary witness cannot refused to take the witness stand even if it is a criminal case except the accused.

Grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates. So he is immune from prosecution. An example of which is a state witness. Your immune from prosecution.

BAGADIONG VS. GONZALES

94 SCRA 906 (1979) In this case this is a CIVIL case for prohibition. When the counsel for the plaintiff started to present his evidence, the first witness that he called is lo and behold, the kalaban . Can the plaintiff call the kalaban to the witness the stand And that the defendant refused to take the witness stand? There is n o prohibiton to calling the other party to the witness stand because under the rules of evidence, presentation of witnesses, one can present a hostile witness (defendant). There are different sets of rules in examining a hostile witness. Under the rules there, there is no prohibition to call the other party as a witness. So as I have said earlier, there is no guarantee for person to refuse to take the witness stand. Again, the right against self-incrimination is first and foremost, only available to the accused in a criminal proceeding. The privilege however particularly in this case, is considered only an option to refuse to answer and incriminating question and not prohibition of inquiry. So this right is merely an option to refuse to answer an incriminating question. But how do we know if the question is incriminating? You have to hear the question first. Remember the case of IN: Re Sabio? Settlement of some GOCCs were summoned with subpoena before the legislative inquiry in the senate and they refuse to appear on the ground of violation of right to privacy and right against self incrimination. He refused to appear before the legislative inquiry. And the SC said, you cannot refuse to appear. You can only invoke the right against selfincrimination when the incriminating question is asked. Generally speaking, only at the time when the claim of privilege may be invoked. That’s why the rule of the lawyer or counsel in this instance is very

important. Why? Of the question is asked sometimes the witness would not know whether the question is incriminating .What the lawyer should do? To make a timely objection. And if the lawyer is ineffective, and did not make the timely objection? What’s the result? Waiver of the right to self-incrimination. You will learn this later in your rule of evidence because it matters whether there is objection. If you raise it before the question is asked, then there is no violation if you raise it after the question is answered, then there is already a waiver. Immunity statutes may be classified into 2 kinds: 1.) Use Immunity 2.) Transactional Immunity

Use immunity and transactional immunity

Use immunity –you are required to give testimony or to produce evidence in exchange whatever evidence you produce, will not be use against you. You may still be prosecuted but the testimony you use will not be used against you. Use immunity" prohibits use of witness' compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness. You may still be

more. In other words he’s still at risk of prosecution Transactional Immunity

GALMARAN VS. PAMARAN

138 SCRA 294 (1985)

This is a fact finding committee investigating the facts and circumstances surrounding the death, murder, homicide and killing of Benigno Aquino Sr . They were looking for suspects and they have interviewed witnesses even potential suspects. Now , Corazon Aquino __ finding the assailant and the authority to investigate. A law was enacted granting the authority to investigate. and let’s see if this is a use immunity or transactional

immunity. Section 5 of that law provides that Section 5 of P.D. 1886 SEC. 5. No person shall be excused from attending and testifying

or from producing books, records, correspondence, documents, or other evidence in obedience to a subpoena issued by the Board on the ground that his testimony or the evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him or subject him to penalty or forfeiture; but his testimony or any evidence produced by him shall not be used against him in connection with any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying, nor shall he be exempt from demotion or removal from office. (Emphasis supplied)

So in other words you cannot refuse to appear and you cannot refuse to testify even if the incriminating question is asked for this law says you cannot refuse to testify even if the question is incriminatory but your testimony will not be used against you in matter or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having invoked his privilege against self-incrimination except that such individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying, nor shall he be exempt from demotion or removal from office. Kasi kasaramihan ng inivestigate ay members of the military. Is this use immunity or transactional immunity? USE immunity. It grants merely immunity from use of any statement given before the Board, but not immunity from prosecution by reason or on the basis thereof. is this provision valid? Your are still mandated to appear/testify.

What’s the problem there? You cannot refuse to appear even if the

question is incriminating but the testimony will not be used against you. You cannot invoke self-incrimination but your immune to use your testimony. so there is legal poss ibility Section 4 of the however provides that the person who refuse to give his testimony will be under the pain of contempt or will be penalize for contempt. SEC. 4. The Board may hold any person in direct or indirect contempt, and impose appropriate penalties therefor. A person guilty of .... including ... refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness or to subscribe to an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so may be summarily adjudged in direct contempt by the Board. .

prosecuted only that the testimony that you give will not be used (3RD Exam Coverage ) Vol. 3 | 14


What do we have here, a law compelling a person to give a testimony … and the state said that is valid because what is required to the person is he can’t invoke his right against self incrimination so it seems to us that he cannot invoke his right against self-incrimination and the SC. . And the SC said first, how can he invoked it if he can only invoke it with pain of contempt 2nd, it is not for the state to wait for the accused to invoke it in this case. It is for the state to explain to the accused what will be the circumstances if he gives his testimony and the presumption is that person can invoke his right against self-incrimination and therefore he is immune. So the SC said, to avoid voiding this provision, the SC said it would be incompliance with the constitutional provision against right of self incrimination so the SC said, since the accused has already given his testimony it should be presumed that he invoke his right against self-incrimination and therefore the testimony whatever it is should not be used against them. Review

CRIMINAL CASE- prohibition of inquiry CIVIL CASE – an option to answer an incriminating question ADMINISTRATIVE CASE – when the punishment is equivalent to conviction (Pascual jr. vs. Board)

What is the effect if the court fails to comply with the mandatory period to dispose the case? Will it lead to the acquittal of the accused? No. The judge is mandated only to make a certification

with the defect of the reason of delay and further mandated to resolve the case ASAP. It does not affect the validity of the proceedings but the judge is or can be subject for administrative cases or discipline. Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

This is commonly called as a privilege against self incrimination. Being compelled the witness against himself is an inhuman act. During the time of the inquest of witches in the old centuries long ago, HOW ARE ThE VILLIgERS able to know that they are witches? It is by throwing them to the cliff.. If he survive he is a witch, if you die, your sins are f orgiven. Actually that compelling you to testify against you is indeed a inhuman act. SCOPE OF THIS RIGTH

Section 16 speedy deposition of cases

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. Speedy Disposition vs Speedy Trial

Remember in Article VI the judicial department that there are mandatory period for disposing cases. For Supreme Court it is 24 months. For low courts it is 12 months. For the lower courts 3 months WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DISPOSING CASES? From the time it is submitted from decision already. So

you count from there. WHAT IS SPEEDY TRIAL? When you say speedy trial you can impose it when the -

trial of the case is too long. It is only during the pendency of the trial but not after the case is submitted for decision. WHAT IS SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASE? Speedy disposition of case can be invoke when the

case is already for decision. From then on you can invoke the right for speedy disposition. SPEEDY TRIAL Speedy trial belongs to the accused. It is under the rights of the accused because his life liberty and property is involved here.

SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASE Whereas speedy disposition of cases can be invoke by anyone.

Speedy trial take note is available only in criminal proceedings.

Speedy disposition is available to all kinds of proceedings

WHEN THE TRIAL IS TOO LONG WHAT WILL YOU INVOKE? Speedy trial IF THE TRIAL IS A CIVIL CASE WHAT WILL YOU INVOKE? Not speedy disposition. Not yet until it is submitted for decision. NOTE: When we say in Speedy trial the delay would not refer to mere mathematical computation. It is a case to case basis.

This it covers testimonial compulsions. Testimonies are something that is spoken or uttered. While it also prescribes physical or moral compulsion to export communications it does not include the body of the accused in evidence when it tried. What do we mean by that? We have this case of

US vs TANG TENG OBJECT: Body Fluids SC ruled: No violations We don’t have the constitution that time and yet we have already the right against self incrimination. In this case, we have a cines men was hideous in obtains a 7 year old girl. What he did is place a powder in is organ and force herself to the girl. The older sister now discover that the girl develop a vaginal disease called gonorrhea. Now based on the information the police strips the clothes of the accused and collected the body fluids of the accused. According to him, is right to self incrimination was violated because the substance taken was without his consent. The judge in the lower court decided against him and admitted in evidence the test.

The judge in the RTC said that the accused was not compelled to make any admission and was not ask to answer any question. The mere fact that the object found in this person in sampling seems no more the infringement of the lingo that the introduction of evidence was a stolen property taken from the person thief. In other words there was no testimonial compulsion. The right to self incrimination is available to protect the person against testimonial compulsion. It does not protect against all kinds of compulsions. By analogy, The fluids or substance was taken from the accused the lower court judge said which is affirm by the supreme court was like taking stolen goods from a thief. Pag may nakita kang object taken by a thief, there can be no objection of taking it and introduce it as evidence against the thief. So it is just like that. So no violation of the right. The prohibition under the law at such time and the same was under our 1897 constitution is simply a prohibition which is a legal process to extract evidence from the defendants owns lips against its will and admission of his guilt. The accused shall not be compelled to admit is guilt.

VILLAFLOR VS SUMMERS OBJECT: Pregnancy Test Violation: No violation

The accused here was charged with adultery and the court order for her to undergo pregnancy test. She refuses to undergo pregnancy test by the court and such reason she was (3RD Exam Coverage ) Vol. 3 | 15


detain until she would take the test. She filed a petition for habeas corpus to ask for her release. She invokes the violation of the right against self incrimination. Was it proper? Of course no. It is because there was no testimonial compulsion. She was merely subjected to report herself for physical examination. What is prohibited is merely testimonial compulsion. Therefore, an ocular inspection of the body would be persuasive for. As long as the examination is done without embarrassment to the accused there would be no right that is violated. The court even ordered that she be examine by here own obi.

Example: requiring a person to reenact the crime scene. Kahit pa silent movie ang ginawa nya if it would amount to the disclosure of incriminating facts and communicative in nature then it is deemed covered. What are not covered are purely mechanical acts. WHAT are MECHANICAL ACTS? Acts which the accused are made to execute which are not meant or earned to disclose facts but was certain physical attributes determinable by simple observation. Not meant to earned undisclosed facts - the facts are already

People vs Rondero OBJECT: Hair strands Violation: No violation

This is rape with homicide case of a 9 year old girl. When they found the body of the girl, there are strands of hair in her hands. An order was made by the Judge to pull air strands of the accused to which the accused refuse. In this case the SC ruled that the right against self incrimination does not include the body in evidence. What is only covered is the testimonial compulsions. It is not required for the accused to admit is guilt.

People vs Yatar

known to the investigator , complainant and to the victim. It is only to confirm the presence of these known facts. Example: 1. Tattoo in the chest of the accused. The victim knows that the assailant has a tattoo. If the accused is required to remove his clothing to prove the existence of the tattoo what is only required to him is purely mechanical act. Therefore it is not part or covered in the prohibition. 2. What about being required to stand in a police lineup? Is it an evidence committed in the future or purely mechanical act? It is purely mechanical act. The features of the suspect are already known to the victim and it was not to earned undisclosed facts. Alam ng victim na may bigote so the victim will point to the accused. It was not meant for the accused to produce bigote diba.

OBJECT: blood samples and DNA test Violation: No violation People vs Gallarde

This also involves rape and homicide case. Found in the vaginal of the victim are semen or sperm specimen. It has to be tested for the DNA samples and compares it to the accused. So blood samples were taken from the accused. Was there violation of the said right? NO. People vs Paynor Object: Clothes and personal items Violation: No violations

Here the accused was stripped from is clothing and is personal belongings in the absence of his counsel and the same was presented as evidence during trial. Going back to the discussion of Tangteng. It is like taking stolen clothes from the body of a thief. So when the clothing are tainted with blood, it could be taken as evidence if it is material to the case and there would be no violation of the right under section 17.

REVIEW

The score covers testimonial compulsion and compulsion that is producing evidence which is testimonial act but this does not include the body in evidence. Purely mechanical act are not included in the prohibition. In this case , the accuse does not thereby speak of his guilt so the assistance of the counsel not required. WHAT IS PURELY MECHANICAL ACT? People vs. Codilla et al Object: Violation:

The accused here was charged with rape and was required to stand in a police lineup. He was identified by the victim. The right against self incrimination as we said includes or covers the protection against testimonial compulsion. It is now extended to any evidence communicative in nature. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY THAT? It means an act whether testimonial or passive. It is passive when it amounts to the disclosure of incriminatory facts. Take note of that Communicative in nature or passive

OBJECT: pull down his shorts and was photograph? VIOLATIONS: there was no violation

The accused here was required by the kagawad to pull down his shorts at the headquarters his he compiled and worst he was photograph. Was there a violation of his right against self incrimination? There was no violation of his right. GlowingGloriaNotes : Under mechanical act, it is permissible for the

person to be compelled like for example to put on a pair of pants belonging to the accused or to put gloves to determine if the same is the accused there would be no violation of sec 17. -

It would be permissible for the accused to remove his own clothing or shoes to fit his size or put a cap. There would be no violation.

WHAT ABOUT HANDWRITING? IS IT CONSIDERED TO BE PURELY MECHANICAL ACT OR AN ACT COMMUNICATIVE IN NATURE? Beltran vs Samson

It is a case of falsification against the accused. In order to prove that he falsified, the court order requiring the accused to appear before the fiscal and take down dictation and put it into writing. Result now will be compared to the writing of the falsifier. Can he invoke his right against self incrimination or can he be compelled to write? SC ruled in this that writing is more than doing the body (not clear). It is not purely mechanical act for it requires application of intelligence and attention. So don’t worry. When you

started writing during the examination of your consti 2 you are still performing an intelligent act. So this is still covered with the right. The SC also said that this case is more serious than that of compelling production papers and chattels. Because here the witness is in fact compelled to create an evidence which do not exist and which will identify him as the falsifier. Under ordinary circumstance the court cannot order the accused to produce documents containing your handwriting and compare it to the falsifier. It would violate the right under section 17. The court clearly cannot do that. If you want you can ask the prosecutor to produce evidence against the accused but not the accused to produce evidence against him. This is worst. WHO WILL INVOKE THIS RIGHT? OR IS IST AVAILABLE TO OTHER PROCEEDINGS? (3RD Exam Coverage ) Vol. 3 | 16


General rule: as established in the case of BERMUDEZ vs BATILES 1937

It is to prohibit the repetition and recurrence of certain inhuman proceedings of compelling the person in a criminal and any other case to furnish any evidence necessary for his conviction. So highlight the phrase “ criminal and other case necessary for his conviction”

TO WHOM THIS PRIVILEGE IS AVAILABLE AND IN WHAT PROCEEDING? -

It is to the accused in the criminal case. The right is even subsisting all throughout the proceeding. Relate this to his right to remain silent to the accused cannot be compelled to take the witness stand. Even without the right against self incrimination he still have the right to self incrimination he still have the right to remain silent and with the right he cannot be compelled to take the witness stand.


Constitutional law coverage 2

Recommend Documents