Sunteți pe pagina 1din 145

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017

MENDIOLA, MANILA

CONSTITUTIONAL   counsel,   c.   right   to   be   informed   of   the  


nature  and  cause  of  accusation,  d.  Right  to  
RIGHTS  OF  THE   speedy,  impartial  and  public  trial,  e.  Right  
to   meet   witness   face   to   face  
ACCUSED   (confrontation),   f.   Right   to   compulsory  
processes  
 
 
SEC.  14,  ART.  III:  
Q:  What  is  the  part  that  is  not  relevant?  
1) No   person   shall   be   held   to   answer  
for   a   criminal   offense   without   due   ANS   –   Trial   in   absentia;   not   right   of   the  
process  of  law.   accused,  right  of  the  prosecution.  
 
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   What  is  the  difference  between  section  
himself  and  counsel,  to  be  informed   1  and  section  7  (both  in  article  3  or  the  
of   the   nature   and   cause   of   the   1987  consti)?  
accusation   against   him,   to   have   a  
speedy,   impartial   and   public   trial,   ANS  –  Section  14  only  pertains  to  criminal  
to   meet   the   witnesses   face   to   face,   proceedings,   and   it   applies   to   criminal  
and   to   have   compulsory   process   to   due  process.  Section  14  also  applies  to  the  
secure   the   attendance   of   witnesses   rights   of   an   accused.   On   the   other   hand,  
and   the   production   of   evidence   in   section   1   pertains   to   any   kind   of  
his   behalf.   However,   after   proceedings.   It   also   covers   both  
arraignment,   trial   may   proceed   substantive   and   procedural   due   process;  
notwithstanding   the   absence   of   the   thus,   it   applies   to   all   parties   in   the  
accused,   provided   that   he   has   been   proceedings.  
duly   notified   and   his   failure   to  
 
appear  is  unjustifiable.  
   
GABBY  RECIT:    
Q:   What   are   the   rights   of   the   person   /    
accused  during  trial?  
 
ANS   –   a.   right   to   criminal   due   process,   b.  
right   to   be   heard   by   himself   and   his    

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 1

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

CRIMINAL  DUE  PROCESS   the   Ombudsman   to   act   promptly   on  


complaints  and  the  right  of  the  petitioner  
Q.   Explain   the   requirement   of   due   process   to  due  process  of  law  and  to  speedy  trial.  
in  criminal  cases.   In   such   event,   the   aggrieved   party   is  
entitled  to  the  dismissal  of  the  complaint.  
A.   The   requirement   that   no   person   shall   A   similar   ruling   was   made   in   Cervantes   v.  
be   held   to   answer   for   a   criminal   offense   Sandiganbayan,   G.R.   No.   108595,   May  
without   “due   process   of   law”   simply   that   18,   1999,   and   in   Tatad   v.  
the  rules  prescribed  by  Section  14  and  all   Sandiganbayan,   159   SCRA   70,   where   it  
other   provisions   related   to   criminal   was   held   that   the   unreasonable   delay   in  
prosecution  are  followed.   the   termination   of   the   preliminary  
investigation  by  the  
In  Mejia  v.  Pamaran,  160  SCRA  457,  the  
Supreme   Court   enumerated   the   Tanodbayan   violated   the   due   process  
ingredients   of   due   process   as   applied   to   clause.  
criminal  proceedings,  as  follows:  
 
1) The   accused   has   been  
heard   in   a   court   of   However,   in   Santiago   v.   Garchitorena,  
competent  jurisdiction;   228   SCRA   214,   although   the   offense   was  
2) The   accused   is   allegedly  committed  on  or  before  October  
proceeded   against   17,   1988   and   the   information   was   filed  
under   the   orderly   only   on   May   9,   1991,   and   an   amended  
processes  of  law;   information   filed   on   December   8,   1992,  
3) The   accused   has   been   the   delay   did   not   constitute   a   denial   of  
given   notice   and   the   due   process,   because   there   was  
opportunity  to  be  heard;   continuing   investigation,   snarled   only  
and   because   of   the   complexity   of   the   issues  
4) The   judgment   rendered   involved.   In   Socrates   v.   Sandiganbayan,  
was  within  the  authority   253   SCRA   559,   it   was   found   that   the   six-­‐
of  a  constitutional  law.   year   delay   in   the   termination   of   the  
  preliminary   investigation   was   caused   by  
petitioner’s   own   acts,   not   by   inaction   of  
Unreasonable   delay   in   resolving   the   prosecution.   Accordingly,   there   was  
complaint.   In   Roque   v.   Ombudsman,   G.R.   no   violation   of   the   petitioner’s   right   to  
No.   129978,   May   12,   1999,   it   was   held   due   process   of   law   or   of   his   right   to  
that   the   failure   of   the   Office   of   the   speedy  disposition  of  the  case.  
Ombudsman   to   resolve   a   complaint   that  
had   been   pending   for   six   years   clearly    
violates   the   constitutional   command   for  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 2

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

TATAD  VS.  SANDIGANBAYAN  [G.R.  NOS.   In   the   first   place,   such   a   statement  
L-­‐72335-­‐39,  MARCH  21,  1988]   suggests   a   double   standard   of   treatment,  
which   must   be   emphatically   rejected.  
We  find  the  long  delay  in  the  termination   Secondly,   three   out   of   the   five   charges  
of   the   preliminary   investigation   by   the   against   the   petitioner   were   for   his   alleged  
Tanodbayan   in   the   instant   case   to   be   failure   to   file   his   sworn   statement   of  
violative  of  the  constitutional  right  of  the   assets  and  liabilities  required  by  Republic  
accused   to   due   process.   Substantial   Act   No.   3019,   which   certainly   did   not  
adherence  to  the  requirements  of  the  law   involve   complicated   legal   and   factual  
governing   the   conduct   of   preliminary   issues   necessitating   such   "painstaking  
investigation,   including   substantial   and   grueling   scrutiny"   as   would   justify   a  
compliance   with   the   time   limitation   delay  of  almost  three  years  in  terminating  
prescribed  by  the  law  for  the  resolution  of   the   preliminary   investigation.   The   other  
the   case   by   the   prosecutor,   is   part   of   the   two   charges   relating   to   alleged   bribery  
procedural   due   process   constitutionally   and   alleged   giving   of   unwarranted  
guaranteed   by   the   fundamental   law.   Not   benefits   to   a   relative,   while   presenting  
only  under  the  broad  umbrella  of  the  due   more   substantial   legal   and   factual   issues,  
process   clause,   but   under   the   certainly   do   not   warrant   or   justify   the  
constitutional   guarantee   of   "speedy   period   of   three   years,   which   it   took   the  
disposition"   of   cases   as   embodied   in   Tanodbayan  to  resolve  the  case.  
Section  16  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  (both  in  the    
1973   and   the   1987   Constitutions),   the   It   has   been   suggested   that   the   long   delay  
inordinate   delay   is   violative   of   the   in   terminating   the   preliminary  
petitioner's   constitutional   rights.   A   delay   investigation   should   not   be   deemed   fatal,  
of   close   to   three   (3)   years   can   not   be   for   even   the   complete   absence   of   a  
deemed   reasonable   or   justifiable   in   the   preliminary   investigation   does   not  
light  of  the  circumstance  obtaining  in  the   warrant   dismissal   of   the   information.  
case   at   bar.   We   are   not   impressed   by   the   True-­‐but   the   absence   of   a   preliminary  
attempt   of   the   Sandiganbayan   to   sanitize   investigation   can   be   corrected   by   giving  
the   long   delay   by   indulging   in   the   the   accused   such   investigation.   But   an  
speculative   assumption   that   "the   delay   undue   delay   in   the   conduct   of   a  
may   be   due   to   a   painstaking   and   gruelling   preliminary   investigation   can   not   be  
scrutiny  by  the  Tanodbayan  as  to  whether   corrected,   for   until   now,   man   has   not   yet  
the   evidence   presented   during   the   invented  a  device  for  setting  back  time.  
preliminary   investigation   merited    
prosecution   of   a   former   high   ranking   After   a   careful   review   of   the   facts   and  
government  official."     circumstances   of   this   case,   we   are  
  constrained   to   hold   that   the   inordinate  
delay   in   terminating   the   preliminary  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 3

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

investigation  and  filing  the  information  in   against   former   Minister   Tatad   and  
the   instant   case   is   violative   of   the   Antonio   L.   Cantero.   By   October   1982,   all  
constitutionally   guaranteed   right   of   the   affidavits   and   counter-­‐affidavits   were   in  
petitioner  to  due  process  and  to  a  speedy   the   case   was   already   for   disposition   by  
disposition   of   the   cases   against   him.   the   Tanodbayan.   However,   it   was   only   in  
Accordingly,  the  informations  in  Criminal   July  1985  that  a  resolution  was  approved  
Cases   Nos.   10499,   10500,   10501,   10502   by   the   Tanodbayan,   recommending   the  
and   10503   should   be   dismissed.   In   view   filing   of   the   corresponding   criminal  
of  the  foregoing,  we  find  it  unnecessary  to   informations   against   the   accused  
rule   on   the   other   issues   raised   by   Francisco   Tatad.   Five   (5)   criminal  
petitioner.   informations   were   filed   with   the  
  Sandiganbayan   in   June   1985,   all   against  
  petitioner   Tatad.   Petitioner   claims   that  
GABBY:   the   Tanodbayan   culpably   violated   the  
Tatad   vs   Sandiganbayad   –   Lack   of   constitutional   mandate   of   "due   process"  
preliminary   investigation   is   a   defect.   in   unduly   prolonging   the   termination   of  
Delay  is  not  a  defect.   the  preliminary  investigation  and  in  filing  
  the  corresponding  informations  only  after  
more   than   a   decade   from   the   alleged  
TATAD  VS.  SANDIGANBAYAN  [G.R.  NOS.   commission  of  the  purported  offenses.  
L-­‐72335-­‐39,  MARCH  21,  1988]  
ISSUE:   Whether   or   not   petitioner   was  
FACTS:   Complainant,   Antonio   de   los   deprived  of  his  constitutional  right  to  due  
Reyes,   originally   filed   what   he   termed   "a   process.  
report"   with   the   Legal   Panel   of   PSC   on  
October   1974,   containing   charges   of   RULING:   We   find   the   long   delay   in   the  
alleged   violations   of   RA   No.   3019   against   termination   of   the   preliminary  
then   Secretary   of   Public   Information   investigation   by   the   Tanodbayan   in   the  
Francisco  S.  Tatad.  The  "report"  was  made   instant   case   to   be   violative   of   the  
to   "sleep"   in   the   office   of   the   PSC   until   constitutional   right   of   the   accused   to   due  
December   1979,   when   the   1974   process.   Substantial   adherence   to   the  
complaint  was  resurrected  in  the  form  of   requirements   of   the   law   governing   the  
a   formal   complaint   filed   with   the   conduct   of   preliminary   investigation,  
Tanodbayan.   The   Tanodbayan   acted   on   including  substantial  compliance  with  the  
the   complaint   in   April   1980   by   referring   time   limitation   prescribed   by   the   law   for  
the   complaint   to   the   CIS,   PSC,   for   the   resolution   of   the   case   by   the  
investigation  and  report.  In  June  1980,  the   prosecutor,   is   part   of   the   procedural   due  
CIS   report   was   submitted   to   the   process   constitutionally   guaranteed   by  
Tanodbayan,   recommending   the   filing   of   the   fundamental   law.   Not   only   under   the  
charges   for   graft   and   corrupt   practices   broad  umbrella  of  the  due  process  clause,  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 4

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

but  under  the  constitutional  guarantee  of   It   has   been   suggested   that   the   long   delay  
"speedy  disposition"  of  cases  as  embodied   in   terminating   the   preliminary  
in  Section  16  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  (both  in   investigation   should   not   be   deemed   fatal,  
the   1973   and   the   1987   Constitutions),   the   for   even   the   complete   absence   of   a  
inordinate   delay   is   violative   of   the   preliminary   investigation   does   not  
petitioner's   constitutional   rights.   A   delay   warrant   dismissal   of   the   information.  
of   close   to   three   (3)   years   cannot   be   True-­‐but   the   absence   of   a   preliminary  
deemed   reasonable   or   justifiable   in   the   investigation   can   be   corrected   by   giving  
light  of  the  circumstance  obtaining  in  the   the   accused   such   investigation.   But   an  
case   at   bar.   We   are   not   impressed   by   the   undue   delay   in   the   conduct   of   a  
attempt   of   the   Sandiganbayan   to   sanitize   preliminary   investigation   cannot   be  
the   long   delay   by   indulging   in   the   corrected,   for   until   now,   man   has   not   yet  
speculative   assumption   that   "the   delay   invented  a  device  for  setting  back  time.  
may   be   due   to   a   painstaking   and   gruelling  
scrutiny  by  the  Tanodbayan  as  to  whether   After   a   careful   review   of   the   facts   and  
the   evidence   presented   during   the   circumstances   of   this   case,   we   are  
preliminary   investigation   merited   constrained   to   hold   that   the   inordinate  
prosecution   of   a   former   high   ranking   delay   in   terminating   the   preliminary  
government   official."   In   the   first   place,   investigation  and  filing  the  information  in  
such   a   statement   suggests   a   double   the   instant   case   is   violative   of   the  
standard   of   treatment,   which   must   be   constitutionally   guaranteed   right   of   the  
emphatically  rejected.  Secondly,  three  out   petitioner  to  due  process  and  to  a  speedy  
of   the   five   charges   against   the   petitioner   disposition   of   the   cases   against   him.  
were   for   his   alleged   failure   to   file   his   Accordingly,  the  informations  in  Criminal  
sworn   statement   of   assets   and   liabilities   Cases   Nos.   10499,   10500,   10501,   10502  
required  by  Republic  Act  No.  3019,  which   and   10503   should   be   dismissed.   In   view  
certainly   did   not   involve   complicated   of  the  foregoing,  we  find  it  unnecessary  to  
legal  and  factual  issues  necessitating  such   rule   on   the   other   issues   raised   by  
"painstaking   and   gruelling   scrutiny"   as   petitioner.  
would  justify  a  delay  of  almost  three  years  
in   terminating   the   preliminary    
investigation.   The   other   two   charges  
relating   to   alleged   bribery   and   alleged   NACHURA:  
giving   of   unwarranted   benefits   to   a  
Impartial   court   or   tribunal.   A   critical  
relative,   while   presenting   more  
component   of   due   process   of   law   is   a  
substantial   legal   and   factual   issues,  
hearing   before   an   impartial   and  
certainly   do   not   warrant   or   justify   the  
disinterested   tribunal.   In   order   to  
period   of   three   years,   which   it   took   the  
disqualify   a   judge   on   the   ground   of   bias  
Tanodbayan  to  resolve  the  case.  
and   prejudice,   the   movant   must   prove  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 5

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

such   bias   by   clear   and   convincing   clarify   ambiguous   remarks   by   witnesses,  


evidence.   In   this   case,   the   petitioners   and   address   the   points   overlooked   by  
failed  to  adduce  any  extrinsic  evidence  to   counsel.  See  also  People  v.  Medenilla,  G.R.  
prove   that   the   respondent   judge   was   No.  131638-­‐39,  March  26,  2001.  
motivated   by   malice   or   bad   faith   when  
she   issued   the   assailed   rulings   [Webb   v.    
People,  G.R.  No.  127262,  July  24,  1997].    Right   to   a   hearing.   In   Alonte   v.  
In   Imelda   Romualdez   Marcos   v.   Savellano,   G.R.   No.   131652,   March   9,  
Sandiganbayan,   G.R.   No.   126995,   1998,   and   in   Concepcion   v.   Savellano,  
October   6,   1998,   the   Supreme   Court,   G.R.   No.   131728,   March   9,   1998,   the  
reiterating   its   ruling   in   Tabuena   v.   Supreme   Court   held   that   the   accused  
Sandiganbayan,  268  SCRA  332,  declared   were  denied  due  process  of  law  when  the  
that  the  cross-­‐examination  of  the  accused   trial   court   convicted   them   (after   having  
and   the   witnesses   by   the   trial   court   declared  that  they  had  waived  their  right  
indicated   bias,   and   thus   violated   due   to   present   evidence),   but   it   was   shown  
process.   that   there   were   deviations   from   the  
regular   course   of   trial,   e.g.,   petitioners  
  were   not   directed   to   present   evidence   to  
prove  their  defenses  nor  dates  set  for  that  
But   where   the   questions   propounded   by   purpose,   petitioners   were   not   given   an  
the   court   are   merely   for   clarification,   to   opportunity   to   present   rebuttal   evidence  
clear  up  dubious  points  and  elicit  relevant   nor   dates   set   for   that   purpose,   and  
evidence,   such   questioning   will   not   petitioners   had   not   admitted   the   offense  
constitute   bias   [People   v.   Castillo,   289   charged   in   the   information   which   would  
SCRA   213;   Cosep   v.   People,   290   SCRA   have   justified   any   modification   in   the  
378;   People   v.   Galleno,   291   SCRA   761],   order  of  the  trial.    
Thus,   in   People   v.   Herida,   G.R.   No.  
127158,   March   5,   2001,   where   the   trial   In   Defensor-­‐   Santiago   v.   Sandiganbayan,  
court   intensively   questioned   the   G.R.   No.   123792,   March   8,   1999,   it   was  
witnesses   and   the   accused   held   that   the   re-­‐opening   of   a   case   without  
(approximately   43%   of   the   questions   giving   the   accused   the   opportunity   to  
asked   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   and   introduce   controverting   evidence   is   an  
the   accused   were   propounded   by   the   error  and  a  denial  of  due  process  of  law.  
judge),   it   was   held   that   the   questioning  
was   necessary.   Judges   have   as   much    
interest   as   counsel   in   the   orderly   and   GABBY  RECIT:  
expeditious   presentation   of   evidence   and  
have   the   duty   to   ask   questions   that   would   Q:   What   essential   elements   of   due  
elicit   the   facts   on   the   issues   involved,   process  was  violated?  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 6

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

ANS   -­‐   Impartial   trial.   The   Supreme   court    


cannot   permit   such   a   sham   trial   and   No   court   whose   Presiding   Justice   has  
verdict   and   travesty   to   stand   unrectified.   received  "orders  or  suggestions"  from  the  
The  courts  of  the  land  under  it  are  courts   very   President   who   by   an   amendatory  
of  law  and  justice  as  well  as  equity.   decree   (disclosed   only   at   the   hearing   of  
oral  arguments  on  November  8,  1984  on  a  
  petition   challenging   the   referral   of   the  
GALMAN  VS.  SANDIGANBAYAN  [G.R.  NO.   Aquino-­‐Galman   murder   cases   to   the  
72670,  SEPTEMBER  12,  1986]   Tanodbayan   and   Sandiganbayan   instead  
of   to   a   court   martial,   as   mandatory  
The   fact   of   the   secret   Malacañang   required   by   the   known   P.D.   1850   at   the  
conference   of   January   10,   1985   at   which   time   providing   for   exclusive   jurisdiction  
the   authoritarian   President   discussed   of   courts   martial   over   criminal   offenses  
with   the   Presiding   Justice   of   the   committed   by   military   men   made   it  
Sandiganbayan   and   the   entire   possible   to   refer   the   cases   to   the  
prosecution   panel   the   matter   of   the   Sandiganbayan,   can   be   an   impartial   court,  
imminent   filing   of   the   criminal   charges   which   is   the   very   essence   of   due   process  
against   all   the   twenty-­‐six   accused   (as   of   law.   As   the   writer   then   wrote,  
admitted   by   respondent   Justice   "jurisdiction   over   cases   should   be  
Fernandez  to  have  been  confirmed  by  him   determined   by   law,   and   not   by   preselection  
to   the   then   President's   "Coordinator"   of   the   Executive,   which   could   be   much   too  
Manuel   Lazaro   on   the   preceding   day)   is   easily   transformed   into   a   means   of  
not   denied.   It   is   without   precedent.   This   predetermining   the   outcome   of   individual  
was   illegal   under   our   penal   laws,   supra.   cases."  
This   illegality   vitiated   from   the   very    
beginning   all   proceedings   in   the   This  criminal  collusion  as  to  the  handling  
Sandiganbayan   court   headed   by   the   very   and   treatment   of   the   cases   by   public  
Presiding   Justice   who   attended.   As   the   respondents   at   the   secret   Malacanang  
Commission   noted:   "The   very   acts   of   conference   (and   revealed   only   after  
being   summoned   to   Malacañang   and   their   fifteen  months  by  Justice  Manuel  Herrera)  
ready   acquiescence   thereto   under   the   completely   disqualified   respondent  
circumstances   then   obtaining,   are   in   Sandiganbayan   and   voided   ab   initio   its  
themselves   pressure   dramatized   and   verdict.  This  renders  moot  and  irrelevant  
exemplified.   ...   Verily,   it   can   be   said   that   for   now   the   extensive   arguments   of  
any   avowal   of   independent   action   or   respondents   accused,   particularly  
resistance   to   presidential   pressure   Generals   Ver   and   Olivas   and   those  
became   illusory   from   the   very   moment   categorized   as   accessories,   that   there   has  
they  stepped  inside  Malacanang  Palace  on   been   no   evidence   or   witness   suppressed  
January  10,  1985."   against   them,   that   the   erroneous  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 7

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

conclusions   of   Olivas   as   police   sovereign  people  as  the  aggrieved  parties  


investigator   do   not   make   him   an   plead   once   more   for   due   process   of   law  
accessory   of   the   crimes   he   investigated   and   a   retrial   before   an   impartial   court  
and   the   appraisal   and   evaluation   of   the   with   an   unbiased   prosecutor.   The   Court   is  
testimonies   of   the   witnesses   presented   constrained   to   declare   the   sham   trial   a  
and   suppressed.   There   will   be   time   and   mock  trial  the  non-­‐trial  of  the  century-­‐and  
opportunity   to   present   all   these   that   the   pre-­‐determined   judgment   of  
arguments   and   considerations   at   the   acquittal  was  unlawful  and  void  ab  initio.  
remand   and   retrial   of   the   cases   herein    
ordered   before   a   neutral   and   impartial  
court.    
  GALMAN  VS.  SANDIGANBAYAN  [G.R.  NO.  
The  Supreme  Court  cannot  permit  such  a   72670,  SEPTEMBER  12,  1986]  
sham   trial   and   verdict   and   travesty   of  
justice   to   stand   unrectified.   The   courts   of   FACTS:   On   October   22,   1983,   then  
the  land  under  its  aegis  are  courts  of  law   President   Marcos   created   a   Fact-­‐   Finding  
and   justice   and   equity.   They   would   have   Board   to   investigate   the   assassination   of  
no  reason  to  exist  if  they  were  allowed  to   Ninoy  Aquino.  The  minority  and  majority  
be   used   as   mere   tools   of   injustice,   reports   of   the   Board   both   agreed   that  
deception   and   duplicity   to   subvert   and   Rolando  Galman  was  not  the  assassin  but  
suppress   the   truth,   instead   of   repositories   was   merely   a   fall   guy   of   the   military  
of  judicial  power  whose  judges  are  sworn   which   plotted   the   assassination   itself.   The  
and   committed   to   render   impartial   justice   minority   report   tags   26   persons,   headed  
to   all   alike   who   seek   the   enforcement   or   by  General  Ver,  as  respondents  to  the  case.  
protection  of  a  right  or  the  prevention  or   Marcos   rejected   the   reports   of   the   Board  
redress   of   a   wrong,   without   fear   or   favor   and  stuck  to  his  claim  that  it  was  Galman  
and   removed   from   the   pressures   of   who   killed   Aquino.   Thereafter,  
politics  and  prejudice.  More  so,  in  the  case   Sandiganbayan   and   Tanodbayan  
at  bar  where  the  people  and  the  world  are   acquitted   the   respondents   of   the   crime  
entitled   to   know   the   truth,   and   the   charged,   declaring   them   innocent   and  
integrity   of   our   judicial   system   is   at   stake.   totally  absolving  them  of  any  civil  liability.  
In   life,   as   an   accused   before   the   military   In   this   petition,   Petitioners   Saturnina  
tribunal,   Ninoy   had   pleaded   in   vain   that   Galman,   wife   of   the   late   Rolando   Galman,  
as   a   civilian   he   was   entitled   to   due   and   29   others   filed   the   present   action  
process  of  law  and  trial  in  the  regular  civil   alleging   that   respondent   courts  
courts   before   an   impartial   court   with   an   committed   serious   irregularities  
unbiased   prosecutor.   In   death,   Ninoy,   as   constituting   mistrial   and   resulting   in  
the  victim  of  the  "treacherous  and  vicious   miscarriage   of   justice   and   gross   violation  
assassination"   and   the   relatives   and   of   the   constitutional   rights   of   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 8

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

sovereign  people  of  the  Philippines  to  due   circumstances   then   obtaining,   are   in  
process  of  law.     themselves   pressure   dramatized   and  
exemplified...   Verily,   it   can   be   said   that  
Allegedly,   then   President   Marcos   had   any   avowal   of   independent   action   or  
ordered   the   respondent   courts   to   resistance   to   presidential   pressure  
whitewash   the   criminal   cases   against   the   became   illusory   from   the   very   moment  
26   respondents   accused   and   produce   a   they  stepped  inside  Malacanang  Palace  on  
verdict   of   acquittal.   In   his   comment,   the   January  10,  1985."  
Deputy   Tanodbayan   Manuel   Herrera,  
affirmed  the  allegations  and  revealed  that   No   court   whose   Presiding   Justice   has  
Malacañang   had   planned   the   scenario   of   received  "orders  or  suggestions"  from  the  
the  trial.  Respondents-­‐accused  prayed  for   very   President   who   by   an   amendatory  
its  denial.   decree   (disclosed   only   at   the   hearing   of  
oral  arguments  on  November  8,  1984  on  a  
ISSUE:   Whether   or   not   the   trial   was   a   petition   challenging   the   referral   of   the  
mock   trial   and   that   the   predetermined   Aquino-­‐Galman   murder   cases   to   the  
judgment   of   acquittal   was   unlawful   and   Tanodbayan   and   Sandiganbayan   instead  
void  ab  initio.   of   to   a   court   martial,   as   mandatory  
RULING:   The   fact   of   the   secret   required   by   the   known   P.D.   1850   at   the  
Malacañang   conference   of   January   10,   time   providing   for   exclusive   jurisdiction  
1985  at  which  the  authoritarian  President   of   courts   martial   over   criminal   offenses  
discussed  with  the  Presiding  Justice  of  the   committed   by   military   men   made   it  
Sandiganbayan   and   the   entire   possible   to   refer   the   cases   to   the  
prosecution   panel   the   matter   of   the   Sandiganbayan,   can   be   an   impartial   court,  
imminent   filing   of   the   criminal   charges   which   is   the   very   essence   of   due   process  
against   all   the   twenty-­‐six   accused   (as   of   law.   As   the   writer   then   wrote,  
admitted   by   respondent   Justice   "jurisdiction   over   cases   should   be  
Fernandez  to  have  been  confirmed  by  him   determined   by   law,   and   not   by  
to   the   then   President's   "Coordinator"   preselection  of  the  Executive,  which  could  
Manuel   Lazaro   on   the   preceding   day)   is   be   much   too   easily   transformed   into   a  
not   denied.   It   is   without   precedent.   This   means   of   predetermining   the   outcome   of  
was   illegal   under   our   penal   laws,   supra.   individual   cases.   "This   criminal   collusion  
This   illegality   vitiated   from   the   very   as   to   the   handling   and   treatment   of   the  
beginning   all   proceedings   in   the   cases  by  public  respondents  at  the  secret  
Sandiganbayan   court   headed   by   the   very   Malacanang   conference   (and   revealed  
Presiding   Justice   who   attended.   As   the   only   after   fifteen   months   by   Justice  
Commission   noted:   "The   very   acts   of   Manuel   Herrera)   completely   disqualified  
being   summoned   to   Malacañang   and   their   respondent   Sandiganbayan   and   voided   ab  
ready   acquiescence   thereto   under   the   initio   its   verdict.   This   renders   moot   and  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 9

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

irrelevant   for   now   the   extensive   as   a   civilian   he   was   entitled   to   due  


arguments   of   respondents   accused,   process  of  law  and  trial  in  the  regular  civil  
particularly   Generals   Ver   and   Olivas   and   courts   before   an   impartial   court   with   an  
those   categorized   as   accessories,   that   unbiased   prosecutor.   In   death,   Ninoy,   as  
there   has   been   no   evidence   or   witness   the  victim  of  the  "treacherous  and  vicious  
suppressed   against   them,   that   the   assassination"   and   the   relatives   and  
erroneous   conclusions   of   Olivas   as   police   sovereign  people  as  the  aggrieved  parties  
investigator   do   not   make   him   an   plead   once   more   for   due   process   of   law  
accessory   of   the   crimes   he   investigated   and   a   retrial   before   an   impartial   court  
and   the   appraisal   and   evaluation   of   the   with   an   unbiased   prosecutor.   The   Court   is  
testimonies   of   the   witnesses   presented   constrained   to   declare   the   sham   trial   a  
and   suppressed.   There   will   be   time   and   mock  trial  the  non-­‐trial  of  the  century-­‐and  
opportunity   to   present   all   these   that   the   pre-­‐determined   judgment   of  
arguments   and   considerations   at   the   acquittal  was  unlawful  and  void  ab  initio.  
remand   and   retrial   of   the   cases   herein  
ordered   before   a   neutral   and   impartial    
court.   Q.   May   the   Supreme   Court   review   decisions  
The  Supreme  Court  cannot  permit  such  a   of  military  tribunals?  
sham   trial   and   verdict   and   travesty   of   A.   Generally,   the   Supreme   Court   has   no  
justice   to   stand   unrectified.   The   courts   of   supervisory  authority  over  military  courts.  
the  land  under  its  aegis  are  courts  of  law   Kuroda   v.   Jalandoni,   83   Phil.   171;  
and   justice   and   equity.   They   would   have   Martelino   v.   Alejandro,   32   SCRA   106  
no  reason  to  exist  if  they  were  allowed  to   (March   25,   1970).   By   the   National  
be   used   as   mere   tools   of   injustice,   Security   Code,   P.D.   1498,   June   11,   1978  
deception   and   duplicity   to   subvert   and   (74   O.G.   11066),   the   SC   does   not   review  
suppress  the  truth,  instead  of  repositories   decisions   of   military   commissions   but   of  
of  judicial  power  whose  judges  are  sworn   the   Court   of   Military   Appeals   in   cases  
and   committed   to   render   impartial   justice   appealed   to   the   latter   by   military  
to   all   alike   who   seek   the   enforcement   or   commissions.   Therefore,   the   issue   of  
protection  of  a  right  or  the  prevention  or   denial   of   the   right   to   present   evidence  
redress  of  a  wrong,  without  fear  or  favour   should   first   be   passed   upon   by   military  
and   removed   from   the   pressures   of   authorities.  Buscayno  &  Sison  v.  Military  
politics  and  prejudice.  More  so,  in  the  case   Commissions,  109  SCRA  273  (November  
at  bar  where  the  people  and  the  world  are   19,  1981).  But  see  dissents  of  Fernando  
entitled   to   know   the   truth,   and   the   and  Teehankee  and  Art  VIII,  Section  1.  
integrity   of   our   judicial   system   is   at   stake.  
In   life,   as   an   accused   before   the   military    
tribunal,   Ninoy   had   pleaded   in   vain   that  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 10

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Q.   May   military   commissions   or   tribunals   4. That   judgment   is   rendered   only  


have   jurisdiction   to   try   civilians   for   upon  lawful  hearing.  
offenses   allegedly   committed   during  
martial   law   when   civil   courts   were   open    
and  functioning?   ALONTE   VS.   SAVELLANO   [G.R.   NO.  
A.   No.   Olaguer   v.   Military   Commission   131652,  MARCH  9,  1998]  
No.   34,   150   SCRA   144   (1987),   explicitly   INDISPENSABLE   ELEMENTS   OF  
reversing   Aquino,   Jr.   v.   Military   CRIMINAL   DUE   PROCESS.   It   does   seem  
Commission   No.   2,   63   SCRA   264   (1975)   to   the   Court   that   there   has   been   undue  
and  all  decided  cases  affirming  the  same.   precipitancy   in   the   conduct   of   the  
  proceedings.   Perhaps   the   problem   could  
have  well  been  avoided  had  not  the  basic  
Q.   The   rule   is   that   jurisdiction   over   a   procedures   been,   to   the   Court's  
person   is   acquired   only   upon   arrest.   Does   perception   taken   lightly.   And   in   this  
this  apply  to  military  jusrisdiction?   shortcoming,   looking   at   the   records   of   the  
case,   the   trial   court   certainly   is   not   alone  
A.   No.   This   is   a   rule   for   ordinary   courts.   to  blame.  
See   Article   of   War   2   and   Section   8   of  
Manual   for   Courts   Martial,   AFP.   Abadilla   Section   14,   paragraphs   (1)   and   (2),   of  
v.   Ramos,   156   SCRA   92   (December   1,   Article  III,  of  the  Constitution  provides  the  
1987).   [The   reasoning   here   is   fundamentals.  
unconvincing.]  
1) No  person  shall  be  held  to  answer  
  for   a   criminal   offense   without   due  
process  of  law.  
GABBY  RECIT:   2) In   all   criminal   prosecutions,   the  
Q:   What   are   the   four   (4)   essential   accused   shall   be   presumed  
elements  of  criminal  due  process?   innocent   until   the   contrary   is  
proved,  and  shall  enjoy  the  right  to  
ANS  –     be  heard  by  himself  and  counsel,  to  
be   informed   of   the   nature   and  
1. Court  or  tribunal  trying  the  case  is   cause  of  the  accusation  against  him,  
properly   clothed   with   judicial   to   have   a   speedy,   impartial,   and  
power   to   her   and   determine   the   public   trial,   to   meet   the   witnesses  
matter  before  it.   face   to   face,   and   to   have  
2. Jurisdiction  is  lawfully  acquired  by   compulsory   process   to   secure   the  
it  over  the  person  of  the  accused.   attendance   of   witnesses   and   the  
3. Accused   is   given   the   opportunity   production   of   evidence   in   his  
to  be  heard   behalf.  However,  after  arraignment,  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 11

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

trial  may  proceed  notwithstanding   FACTS:   Juvie-­‐lyn   Punongbayan   charged  


the   absence   of   the   accused   Bayani   Alonte,   the   incumbent   mayor   of  
provided   that   he   has   been   duly   Biñan,   Laguna,   with   the   crime   of   rape.  
notified  and  his  failure  to  appear  is   According   to   Punongbayan,   on   or   about  
unjustifiable.   September  12,  1996,  Alonte  offered  her  a  
  drinking  water  which  made  her  dizzy  and  
weak.   Thereafter,   Alonte   unlawfully   and  
Jurisprudence   acknowledges   that   due   feloniously   had   carnal   knowledge   with  
process   in   criminal   proceedings,   in   her   against   her   will   and   consent.   During  
particular,  require:   the   pendency   case,   however,   Juvie-­‐lyn  
a) that   the   court   or   tribunal   trying   Punongbayan,  assisted  by  her  parents  and  
the   case   is   properly   clothed   with   counsel,   executed   an   affidavit   desisting  
judicial   power   to   hear   and   her   testimonies   against   Alonte.  
determine  the  matter  before  it;   Nonetheless,   respondent   Judge   Savellano  
b) that   jurisdiction   is   lawfully   found   Alonte   guilty   beyond   reasonable  
acquired   by   it   over   the   person   of   doubt   of   the   heinous   crime   of   rape.  
the  accused;   Accordingly,   the   accused   did   not   present  
c) that   the   accused   is   given   an   any   countervailing   evidence   during   the  
opportunity  to  be  heard;  and   trial.    
d) that   judgment   is   rendered   only   They   did   not   take   the   witness   stand   to  
upon  lawful  hearing.   refute  or  deny  under  oath  the  truth  of  the  
  contents   of   the   private   complainant's  
The   above   constitutional   and   aforementioned   affidavit.   They   left  
jurisprudential   postulates,   by   now   everything  to  the  so-­‐called  "desistance"  of  
elementary   and   deeply   imbedded   in   our   the   private   complainant.   In   this   petition,  
own   criminal   justice   system,   are   Alonte   avers   that   respondent   Judge  
mandatory   and   indispensable.   The   committed   grave   abuse   of   discretion  
principles   find   universal   acceptance   and   amounting  to  lack  or  excess  of  jurisdiction  
are   tersely   expressed   in   the   oft-­‐quoted   when   respondent   Judge   rendered   a  
statement   that   procedural   due   process   decision   in   the   case   thereby   depriving  
cannot   possibly   be   met   without   a   "law   him   of   his   Constitutional   right   to   be  
which   hears   before   it   condemns,   which   presumed  innocent.  
proceeds   upon   inquiry   and   renders   ISSUE:   Whether   or   not   the   presumption  
judgment  only  after  trial."   of  innocence  stands  in  favor  of  Alonte.  
  RULING:  NO.  In  the  trial  of  criminal  cases,  
ALONTE   VS.   SAVELLANO   [G.R.   NO.   the   constitutional   presumption   of  
131652,  MARCH  9,  1998]   innocence  in  favor  of  an  accused  requires  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 12

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

that   an   accused   be   given   sufficient    


opportunity   to   present   his   defense.   So,  
with   the   prosecution   as   to   its   evidence.    
Hence,   any   deviation   from   the   regular   NACHURA:  
course   of   trial   should   always   take   into  
consideration   the   rights   of   all   the   parties   In   People   v.   Hubert   Webb,   G.R.   No.  
to   the   case,   whether   in   the   prosecution   or   132577,   August   17,   1999,   the   Supreme  
defense.  There  can  be  no  short-­‐cut  to  the   Court   said   that   there   was   no   denial   of   due  
legal  process,  and  there  can  be  no  excuse   process   where   the   trial   court   refused   to  
for  not  affording  an  accused  his  full  day  in   grant   the   petition   of   Webb   to   take   the  
court.   Due   process,   rightly   occupying   the   deposition   of   witnesses   residing   abroad,  
first   and   foremost   place   of   honor   in   our   considering   that   the   testimony   of   the  
Bill   of   Rights,   is   an   enshrined   and   witnesses  would  be  merely  corroborative,  
invaluable   right   that   cannot   be   denied   the   defense   had   already   presented   57  
even  to  the  most  undeserving.  In  the  case   witnesses  and  464  documentary  exhibits,  
at  bar,  the  affidavit  of  desistance  of  Juvie-­‐ and   the   trial   court   had   already   admitted  
Lyn   Punongbayan   does   not   contain   any   the   exhibits   on   which   the   said   witnesses  
statement   that   disavows   the   veracity   of   would  have  testified.  
her   complaint   against   petitioners   but  
merely   seeks   to   "be   allowed   to   withdraw"   In   Joseph   Ejercito   Estrada   v.  
her  complaint  and  to  discontinue  with  the   Sandiganbayan,   G.R.   No.   148560,  
case  for  varied  other  reasons.  In  People  vs.   November   19,   2001,   RA   7080   (Plunder  
Ballabare   we   have   said   that   any   Law),   as   amended   by   RA   7659,   was  
recantation   must   be   tested   in   a   public   challenged  on  the  following  grounds:  
trial   with   sufficient   opportunity   given   to  
1) it  is  vague;  
the  party  adversely  affected  by  it  to  cross-­‐
2) it   dispenses   with   the  
examine   the   recanting   witness.   A  
“reasonable   doubt”  
retraction   does   not   necessarily   negate   an  
standard   in   criminal  
earlier   declaration.   Hence,   when  
prosecutions;  and  
confronted   with   a   situation   where   a  
3) it   abolishes   the   element  
witness   recants   his   testimony,   courts  
of   mens   rea   in   crimes  
must   not   automatically   exclude   the  
already   punishable  
original   testimony   solely   on   the   basis   of  
under  the  Revised  Penal  
the   recantation.   They   should   determine  
Code;  
which   testimony   should   be   given  
 
credence   through   a   comparison   of   the  
original  testimony  and  the  new  testimony,   All  of  which  are  purportedly  violations  of  
applying  the  general  rules  of  evidence.   the  right  of  the  accused  to  due  process  of  
law  and  to  be  informed  of  the  nature  and  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 13

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

the   cause   of   the   accusation   against   him.   a   pattern   involving   an  


The   Court   ruled   that   every   legislative   amount   no   less   than  
measure   is   presumed   constitutional,   and   P50-­‐  million.  
the   petitioner   failed   to   discharge   the   3) The   legislative  
burden   to   overcome   the   presumption   of   declaration   in   RA   7659  
constitutionality:   that   plunder   is   a  
heinous   offense   implies  
1) The   law   contains   that   it   is   malum   in   se.   If  
ascertainable   standards   the   acts   punished   are  
and   well-­‐defined   inherently   immoral   or  
parameters   which   inherently   wrong,   they  
would   enable   the   are   mala   in   se   even   if  
accused   to   determine   punished   under   special  
the   nature   of   the   laws,   particularly  
violation.   Sec.   2   is   because   in   plunder   the  
sufficiently   explicit   in   its   predicate   crimes   are  
description   of   the   acts,   mainly  mala  in  se.  
conduct   and   conditions    
required   or   forbidden,  
and   prescribes   the   Plea   of   guilt   to   a   capital   offense.   In  
elements   of   the   crime   People   v.   Sta.   Teresa,   G.R.   No.   130663,  
with   reasonable   March   20,   2001,   the   Court   enumerated  
certainty   and   the   stringent   constitutional   standards  
particularity.   impelled   by   the   due   process   clause  
2) Sec.   4   does   not   whenever   the   accused   pleads   guilty   to   a  
circumvent   the   capital  offense,  viz:  
immutable   obligation   of  
the  prosecution  to  prove   1) The   trial   court   must  
beyond   reasonable   conduct   a   searching  
doubt  the  predicate  acts   inquiry   into   the  
showing   unlawful   voluntariness  of  the  plea  
scheme   or   conspiracy.   and   the   full  
The   prosecution   has   to   comprehension   of   the  
prove   beyond   consequences  thereof;  
reasonable   doubt   the   2) The  prosecution  shall  be  
number   of   acts   required   to   present  
sufficient   to   form   a   evidence   to   prove   the  
combination   or   a   series   guilt   of   the   accused   and  
which   would   constitute   the   precise   degree   of   his  
culpability;  and  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 14

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

3) The   accused   must   be   could   not   claim   that   it   was   denied   due  
asked   if   he   desires   to   process,   because   there   was   a   public  
present   evidence   on   his   prosecutor   who   represented   it   at   every  
behalf   and   allow   him   to   stage   of   the   proceedings   —   from  
do  so  if  he  so  desires.   arraignment   to   promulgation   of   the  
  dismissal  order  —  to  protect  its  interest.  
In   People   v.   Ostia,   G.R.   No.   131804,    
February   26,   2003,   the   Supreme   Court  
said   that   the   procedure   is   mandatory,   and    
a   judge   who   fails   to   observe   with   fealty    
the   said   rule   commits   grave   abuse   of  
discretion.   The   Court   has   cautioned   trial    
judges   to   proceed   with   meticulous   care  
whenever   the   imposable   penalty   for   the    
crime  charged  is  death.  
 
 
 
The   State   and   the   offended   party   are  
 
entitled   to   due   process.   The   State,   and  
more   so,   the   offended   party,   is   also    
entitled  to  due  process  of  law.  In  Galman  
v.  Pamaran,  138  SCRA  274,  the  judgment    
of  acquittal  was  vacated  upon  a  finding  by  
the   Supreme   Court   that   there   was   bias    
and   partiality   on   the   part   of   the   judge   and    
the  prosecutor.    
 
In   Merciales   v.   Court   of   Appeals,   G.R.   No.  
124171,  March  18,  2002,  it  was  held  that    
the   petitioner   (mother   of   the   victim   in   a  
rape  with  homicide  case)  was  denied  due    
process  when  the  public  prosecutor,  who  
 
was   under   legal   obligation   to   pursue   the  
action   on   her   behalf,   reneged   on   that    
obligation   and   refused   to   perform   his  
sworn  duty.      

But,  in  People  v.  Verra,  G.R.  No.  134732,    


May   29,   2002,   it   was   held   that   the   People  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 15

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

  *presumption   does   not   apply   to  


corporate  persons  
 
 
 
 
PRESUMPTION  OF  INNOCENCE   People   vs.   Dramayo   [G.R.   No.   L-­‐21325,  
October  29,  1971]  
Q.   What  is  the  reason  for  the  presumption    
of  innocence?   ACCUSATION   IS   NOT   SYNONYMOUS  
A.   It   is   based   on   the   principle   of   justice.   WITH  GUILT.  It  is  to  be  admitted  that  the  
The   presumption   is   not   designed   to   starting   point   is   the   presumption   of  
protect   the   guilty   but   to   prevent   the   innocence.  So  it  must  be,  according  to  the  
conviction   of   one   who   is   innocent,   for   it   is   Constitution.   That   is   a   right   safeguarded  
a   rule   that   accusation   is   not   synonymous   both   appellants.   Accusation   is   not,  
with   guilt.   Proof   must   survive   the   test   of   according   to   the   fundamental   law,  
reason.   The   conviction   must   be   based   on   synonymous  with  guilt.  It  is  incumbent  on  
moral  certainty,  for  it  is  better  to  acquit  a   the   prosecution   to   demonstrate   that  
guilty   person   rather   than   to   convict   an   culpability   lies.   Appellants   were   not   even  
innocent   man.   (People   v.   Dramayo,   42   called   upon   then   to   offer   evidence   on  
SCRA  60).   their   behalf.   Their   freedom   is   forfeit   only  
if   the   requisite   quantum   of   proof  
GABBY  RECIT:   necessary   for   conviction   be   in   existence.  
Their   guilt   must   be   shown   beyond  
Q:   Is   accusation   synonymous   with   reasonable  doubt.  To  such  a  standard,  this  
guilt?   Court   has   always   been   committed.   There  
ANS   –   this   is   enunciated   in   the   case   of   is   need,   therefore,   for   the   most   careful  
scrutiny   of   the   testimony   of   the   state,  
people  vs,  dramayo.  
both   oral   and   documentary,  
  independently   of   whatever   defense   is  
offered   by   the   accused.   Only   if   the   judge  
Q:   What   is   the   degree   of   proof   to   below   and   the   appellate   tribunal   could  
destroy  the  innocence  of  the  accused?   arrive   at   a   conclusion   that   the   crime   had  
been   committed   precisely   by   the   person  
ANS   –   proof   beyond   reasonable   doubt.  
on   trial   under   such   an   exacting   test  
That   doubt   engendered   by   an   should  the  sentence  be  one  of  conviction.  
investigation   of   its   whole   proof   and   an  
It   is   thus   required   that   every  
inability   after   such   investigation   to   let   the   circumstance   favoring   his   innocence   be  
mind  out  easy  upon  the  certainty  of  guilt.    
duly  taken  into  account.  The  proof  against  
him   must   survive   the   test   of   reason;   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 16

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

strongest   suspicion   must   not   be   prosecution's   prime   duty   to   the   court,   to  


permitted   to   sway   judgment.   The   the   accused,   and   to   the   state."   It   is  
conscience   must   be   satisfied   that   on   the   understandable   why   the   stress   should   be  
defendant  could  be  laid  the  responsibility   on   the   absence   of   sufficient   evidence   to  
for  the  offense  charged;  that  not  only  did   establish   the   guilt   of   appellants   beyond  
he  perpetrate  the  act  but  that  it  amounted   reasonable   doubt,   the   defense   of   alibi  
to  a  crime.   interposed   hardly   meriting   any   further  
  discussion.   It   cannot   be   denied   though  
What   is   required   then   is   moral   that  the  credible  and  competent  evidence  
certainty.   So   it   has   been   held   from   the   of   record   resulted   in   moral   certainty  
1903   decision   of   United   States   v.   Reyes.   being   entertained   not   only   by   the   trial  
United   States   v.   Lasada,   decided   in   1910,   judge   but   by   us   as   to   the   culpability   of  
yields   this   excerpt:   "By   reasonable   doubt   appellants.  
is  not  meant  that  which  of  possibility  may    
arise,   but   it   is   that   doubt   engendered   by   The   force   of   the   controlling   doctrines,   on  
an  investigation  of  the  whole  proof  and  an   the   other   hand,   required   that   the   other  
inability,   after   such   investigation,   to   let   three   accused   be   acquitted   precisely  
the   mind   rest   easy   upon   the   certainty   of   because,   unlike   in   the   case   of   appellants,  
guilt.   Absolute   certainty   of   guilt   is   not   the   requisite   quantum   of   proof   to   show  
demanded   by   the   law   to   convict   of   any   guilt   beyond   reasonable   doubt   was   not  
criminal   charge   but   moral   certainty   is   present.   There   is   no   question   as   to   the  
required,  and  this  certainty  is  required  as   other  two  who  testified  for  the  state  being  
to  every  proposition  of  proof  requisite  to   likewise   no   long   subject   to   any   criminal  
constitute   the   offense."   To   the   same   effect   liability.   The   reference   then   to   opinion   of  
is  an  excerpt  form  the  opinion  of  the  late   the   late   Justice   Laurel,   stressing   the   need  
Justice  Tuason  in  People  v.  Esquivel.     for   adhering   to   the   fundamental   postulate  
  that   a   finding   of   guilt   is   allowable   only  
Thus;   "In   this   connection   it   may   not   be   when   no   reasonable   doubt   could   be  
out   of   place   to   bring   to   the   attention   of   entertained,   is   unavailing.   This   is   evident  
prosecuting   attorneys   the   absolute   from   the   very   citation   in   the   brief   of  
necessity   of   laying   before   the   court   the   appellants  of  the  opinion  of  Justice  Laurel  
pertinent   facts   as   their   disposal   with   in  People  v.  Manoji.    
methodical   and   meticulous   attention,    
clarifying   contradictions   and   filling   up   Thus:   "Upon   the   other   hand   there   are  
gaps   and   loopholes   in   their   evidence,   to   certain   facts   which   if   taken   together   are  
the  end  that  the  court's  mind  may  not  be   sufficient  to  raise  in  the  mind  of  the  court  
tortured   by   doubts,   that   the   innocent   may   a   grave   doubt   as   to   the   guilt   of   the  
not   suffer   and   the   guilty   not   escape   defendant-­‐appellant,   'that   doubt  
unpunished.   Obvious   to   all,   this   is   the   engendered   by   an   investigation   of   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 17

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

whole   proof   and   an   inability   after   such   repeatedly   stabbed   him   with   a   short  
investigation,   to   let   the   mind   rest   easy   pointed  bolo.  The  next  morning,  Dramayo  
upon   the   certainty   of   guilt.'   (U.S.   v.   went   to   the   house   of   the   deceased   and  
Lasada   [1910],   18   Phil.   90,   96.)   The   informed  the  latter's  widow  Corazon  that  
finding   of   the   two   gold   teeth   of   the   he   had   just   seen   the   cadaver   of   Estelito.  
deceased   the   suitcase   of   Maradani,   and   Upon   interview,   the   Chief   of   Police  
the   testimony   of   Erajio   Ello   that   he   gave   noticed   blood   stains   on   the   trousers   of  
the   hat   ...   to   Maradani   not   only   engender   Dramayo   and   asked   the   latter   to   explain  
serious  doubt  in  our  minds  as  to  the  guilt   where  he  obtained  it.    
of  the  appellant  but  also  seems  to  sustain  
the   theory   of   the   defense   and   strengthen   Dramayo  answered  that  it  was  caused  by  
the   suspicion   of   the   trial   court,   that   his   daughter   who   has   a   skin   ailment.   It  
Maradani   and   Salupudin   are   not   foreign   was   on   this   basis   that   Dramayo   and  
to,   or   entirely   ignorant   of,   the   killing   of   Ecubin   were   charged   of   the   crime   of  
Seijin   Ige.   In   the   light   of   the   facts   and   murder.  Upon  trial,  the  lower  court  found  
circumstances  of  record,  we  feel  that  it  is   Dramayo   and   Ecubin   guilty   beyond  
better   to   acquit   a   man   upon   the   ground   of   reasonable   doubt   basing   on   the  
reasonable  doubt,  even  though  he  may  in   testimonies   offered   by   the   prosecution.   In  
reality   be   guilty,   than   to   confine   in   the   this   appeal,   Accused-­‐Appellants   invoke  
penitentiary  for  the  rest  of  his  natural  life   their   constitutional   right   to   be   declared  
a   person   who   may   be   innocent.   ..."   The   presumptively  innocent.  
facts   of   the   present   case   certainly   do   not   ISSUE:   Whether   or   not   the   Accussed-­‐
fit  within  the  above  mold.  Reliance  on  the   Appellants   constitutional   right   to   be  
part  of  appellants  on  the  above  decision  is   presumed   innocent   can   stand   against  
therefore  futile.   judgment  of  conviction  against  them.  
 
RULING:   NO.   The   presumption   of  
  innocence   could   not   come   to   appellants’  
PEOPLE   VS.   DRAMAYO   [G.R.   NO.   L-­‐ rescue   as   it   was   more   than   sufficiently  
21325,  OCTOBER  29,  1971]   overcome   by   the   proof   that   was   offered  
by  the  prosecution.  
FACTS:   In   a   drinking   session,   Pableo  
Dramayo   and   Paterno   Ecubin   brought   up   ACCUSATION   IS   NOT   SYNONYMOUS  
the  idea  of  killing  Estelito  Nogaliza  so  that   WITH  GUILT.   It   is   to   be   admitted   that   the  
he   could   not   testify   in   the   robbery   case   starting   point   is   the   presumption   of  
which   Dramayo   and   Ecubin   was   a   prime   innocence.  So  it  must  be,  according  to  the  
suspect   thereof.   That   same   night,   Ecubin   Constitution.   That   is   a   right   safeguarded  
hit   Estelito   with   a   piece   of   wood   on   the   both   appellants.   Accusation   is   not,  
side   of   the   head   while   Dramayo   according   to   the   fundamental   law,  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 18

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

synonymous  with  guilt.  It  is  incumbent  on   may   arise,   but   it   is   that   doubt  
the   prosecution   to   demonstrate   that   engendered   by   an   investigation   of  
culpability   lies.   Appellants   were   not   even   the   whole   proof   and   an   inability,  
called   upon   then   to   offer   evidence   on   after   such   investigation,   to   let   the  
their   behalf.   Their   freedom   is   forfeit   only   mind   rest   easy   upon   the   certainty  
if   the   requisite   quantum   of   proof   of   guilt.   Absolute   certainty   of   guilt  
necessary   for   conviction   be   in   existence.   is   not   demanded   by   the   law   to  
Their   guilt   must   be   shown   beyond   convict   of   any   criminal   charge   but  
reasonable  doubt.  To  such  a  standard,  this   moral   certainty   is   required,   and  
Court   has   always   been   committed.   There   this   certainty   is   required   as   to  
is   need,   therefore,   for   the   most   careful   every   proposition   of   proof  
scrutiny   of   the   testimony   of   the   state,   requisite  to  constitute  the  offense."  
both   oral   and   documentary,  
independently   of   whatever   defense   is   To  the  same  effect  is  an  excerpt  from  the  
offered   by   the   accused.   Only   if   the   judge   opinion   of   the   late   Justice   Tuason   in  
below   and   the   appellate   tribunal   could   People  v.  Esquivel.  Thus:  
arrive   at   a   conclusion   that   the   crime   had   "In   this   connection   it   may  
been   committed   precisely   by   the   person   not   be   out   of   place   to   bring   to   the  
on   trial   under   such   an   exacting   test   attention   of   prosecuting   attorneys  
should  the  sentence  be  one  of  conviction.   the   absolute   necessity   of   laying  
It   is   thus   required   that   every   before  the  court  the  pertinent  facts  
circumstance   favoring   his   innocence   be   as   their   disposal   with   methodical  
duly  taken  into  account.  The  proof  against   and   meticulous   attention,  
him   must   survive   the   test   of   reason;   the   clarifying   contradictions   and   filling  
strongest   suspicion   must   not   be   up   gaps   and   loopholes   in   their  
permitted   to   sway   judgment.   The   evidence,   to   the   end   that   the  
conscience   must   be   satisfied   that   on   the   court's   mind   may   not   be   tortured  
defendant  could  be  laid  the  responsibility   by   doubts,   that   the   innocent   may  
for  the  offense  charged;  that  not  only  did   not  suffer  and  the  guilty  not  escape  
he  perpetrate  the  act  but  that  it  amounted   unpunished.   Obvious   to   all,   this   is  
to   a   crime.   What   is   required   then   is   moral   the   prosecution's   prime   duty   to  
certainty.   the   court,   to   the   accused,   and   to  
So   it   has   been   held   from   the   1903   the  state."  
decision  of  United  States  v.  Reyes.  United   It   is   understandable   why   the   stress  
States   v.   Lasada,   decided   in   1910,   yields   should   be   on   the   absence   of   sufficient  
this  excerpt:   evidence   to   establish   the   guilt   of  
"By  reasonable  doubt  is  not   appellants   beyond   reasonable   doubt,   the  
meant   that   which   of   possibility   defense   of   alibi   interposed   hardly  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 19

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

meriting  any  further  discussion.  It  cannot   theory   of   the   defense   and   strengthen   the  
be   denied   though   that   the   credible   and   suspicion  of  the  trial  court,  that  Maradani  
competent   evidence   of   record   resulted   in   and   Salupudin   are   not   foreign   to,   or  
moral   certainty   being   entertained   not   entirely   ignorant   of,   the   killing   of   Seijin  
only  by  the  trial  judge  but  by  us  as  to  the   Ige.   In   the   light   of   the   facts   and  
culpability   of   appellants.   The   force   of   the   circumstances  of  record,  we  feel  that  it  is  
controlling   doctrines,   on   the   other   hand,   better   to   acquit   a   man   upon   the   ground   of  
required   that   the   other   three   accused   be   reasonable  doubt,  even  though  he  may  in  
acquitted   precisely   because,   unlike   in   the   reality   be   guilty,   than   to   confine   in   the  
case   of   appellants,   the   requisite   quantum   penitentiary  for  the  rest  of  his  natural  life  
of  proof  to  show  guilt  beyond  reasonable   a   person   who   may   be   innocent.   ..."   The  
doubt   was   not   present.   There   is   no   facts   of   the   present   case   certainly   do   not  
question   as   to   the   other   two   who   testified   fit  within  the  above  mold.  Reliance  on  the  
for   the   state   being   likewise   no   long   part  of  appellants  on  the  above  decision  is  
subject   to   any   criminal   liability.   The   therefore  futile.  
reference   then   to   opinion   of   the   late  
Justice   Laurel,   stressing   the   need   for    
adhering   to   the   fundamental   postulate   Q.   What   is   the   principal   effect   of   the  
that   a   finding   of   guilt   is   allowable   only   guarantee  of  presumption  of  innocence?  
when   no   reasonable   doubt   could   be  
entertained,   is   unavailing.   This   is   evident   A.   Its   principal   effect   is   that   no   person  
from   the   very   citation   in   the   brief   of   shall   be   convicted   unless   the   prosecution  
appellants  of  the  opinion  of  Justice  Laurel   has  proved  him  guilty  beyond  reasonable  
in  People  v.  Manoji.  Thus:  "Upon  the  other   doubt.  
hand  there  are  certain  facts  which  if  taken  
together  are  sufficient  to  raise  in  the  mind    
of  the  court  a  grave  doubt  as  to  the  guilt  of  
Q.   For   purposes   of   disqualification   in   an  
the   defendant-­‐appellant,   'that   doubt  
election,   Section   4   of   Batas   Blg.   52   says:  
engendered   by   an   investigation   of   the  
“the  filing  of  charges  for  the  commission  of  
whole   proof   and   an   inability   after   such  
such  crimes  before  a  civil  court  or  military  
investigation,   to   let   the   mind   rest   easy  
tribunal   after   preliminary   investigation  
upon   the   certainty   of   guilt.'   (U.S.   v.   Lasada  
shall   be   prima   facie   evidence   of   such   fact  
[1910],   18   Phil.   90,   96.)   The   finding   of  the  
(disqualification).”  Valid?  
two   gold   teeth   of   the   deceased   the  
suitcase  of  Maradani,  and  the  testimony  of   A.   No.   This   violates   the   guarantee   of  
Erajio   Ello   that   he   gave   the   hat   ...   to   presumption   of   innocence.   The  
Maradani   not   only   engender   serious   disqualification   put   the   candidates   in   the  
doubt   in   our   minds   as   to   the   guilt   of   the   category   of   convicts   without   first   finally  
appellant   but   also   seems   to   sustain   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 20

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

convicting   them.   Dumlao   v.   COMELEC,   right   to   be   heard   by   himself   and   counsel  


G.R.  No.  52245,  January  22,  1980.   (Article   IV,   section   19,   1973  
Constitution).  An  accusation,  according  to  
  the   fundamental   law,   is   not   synonymous  
  with   guilt.   The   challenged   proviso  
contravenes   the   constitutional  
DUMLAO   VS.   COMELEC   [G.R.   NO.   L-­‐ presumption  of  innocence,  as  a  candidate  
52245,  JANUARY  22,  1980]   is   disqualified   from   running   from   public  
office   on   the   ground   alone   that   charges  
PRESUMPTION   OF   GUILT   UPON   THE   have   been   filed   against   him   before   a   civil  
FILING   OF   CHARGES   VIOLATES   THE   or   military   tribunal.   It   condemns   before  
CONSTITUTIONAL   PRESUMPTION   OF   one   is   fully   heard.   In   ultimate   effect,  
INNOCENCE.   In   so   far   as   the   petition   of   except   as   to   the   degree   of   proof,   no  
Igotand   Salapantan   are   concerned,   the   distinction   is   made   between   a   person  
second   paragraph   of   section   4   of   convicted   of   acts   of   disloyalty   and   one  
BatasPambansa   Blg.   52,   quoted   in   full   against  whom  charges  have  been  filed  for  
earlier,   and   which   they   challenged,   may   such   acts,   as   both   of   them   would   be  
be   divided   in   two   parts.   The   first   ineligible  to  run  for  public  office.  A  person  
provides:"     disqualified  to  run  for  public  office  on  the  
ground   that   charges   have   been   filed  
a  judgment  of  conviction  for  any  of  the  
against  him  is  virtually  placed  in  the  same  
aforementioned   crimes   shall   be  
category  as  a  person  already  convicted  of  
conclusive  evidence  of  such  fact.  .  .  .  "  
a   crime   with   the   penalty   of   arresto,   which  
The  supremacy  of  the  Constitution  stands   carries   with   it   the   accessory   penalty   of  
out   as   the   cardinal   principle.   We   are   suspension   of   the   right   to   hold   office  
aware  of  the  presumption  of  validity  that   during   the   term   of   the   sentence   (Art.   44,  
attached   to   a   challenged   statute,   of   the   Revised  Penal  Code).  
well-­‐settled   principle   that   "all   reasonable  
And   although   the   filing   of   charges   is  
doubts   should   be   resolved   in   favor   of  
considered   as   but   prima   facie   evidence,  
constitutionality,"  and  that  Courts  will  not  
and  therefore,  may  be  rebutted,  yet,  there  
set   aside   a   statute   as   constitutionally  
is  "clear  and  present  danger"  that  because  
defective  "except  in  a  clear  case."  (People  
the   proximity   of   the   elections,   time  
vs.   Vera,   supra).   We   are   constrained   to  
constraints  will  prevent  one  charged  with  
hold  that  this  in  one  such  clear  case.  
acts   of   disloyalty   from   offering   contrary  
Explicit   is   the   constitutional   provision   proof   to   overcome   the   prima   facie  
that,   in   all   criminal   prosecutions,   the   evidence  against  him.  
accused  shall  be  presumed  innocent  until  
Additionally,   it   is   best   that   evidence   pro  
the  contrary  is  proved,  and  shall  enjoy  the  
and   con   of   acts   of   disloyalty   be   aired  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 21

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

before   the   Courts   rather   than   before   an   such   crimes   before   a   civil   court   or  
administrative   body   such   as   the   military   tribunal   after   preliminary  
COMELEC.   A   highly   possible   conflict   of   investigation   shall   be   prima   facie  
finding   between   two   government   bodies,   evidence  of  such  fact".  
to   the   extreme   detriment   of   a   person    
charged,   will   thereby   be   avoided.   ISSUES:    
Furthermore,   a   legislative   administrative   1.   Whether   or   not   the   first   paragraph   of  
determination   of   guilt   should   not   be   Section  4,  BP  Blg.  52  is  valid.  
allowed   to   be   substituted   for   a   judicial   2.   Whether   or   not   the   second   paragraph  
determination.   of  Section  4,  BP  Blg.  52  is  valid.  
 
  HELD:  
DUMLAO   VS.   COMELEC   [G.R.   NO.   L-­‐ 1.   YES.   Retirement   from   government  
52245,  JANUARY  22,  1980]   service   may   or   may   not   be   a   reasonable  
disqualification   for   elective   local   officials.  
FACTS:   Petitioners   question   the   For   one   thing,   there   can   also   be   retirees  
constitutionality   of   section   4   of   Batas   from   government   service   at   ages,   say  
Pambansa   Blg.   52   as   discriminatory   and   below  65.  It  may  neither  be  reasonable  to  
contrary   to   the   equal   protection   and   due   disqualify  retirees,  aged  65,  for  a  65  year  
process   guarantees   of   the   Constitution.   old   retiree   could   be   a   good   local   official  
Said  Section  4  provides:   just  like  one,  aged  65,  who  is  not  a  retiree.  
   
SEC.   4.   Special   disqualification.   —   In   But,   in   the   case   of   a   65-­‐year   old   elective  
addition   to   violation   of   Section   10   of   local   official,   who   has   retired   from   a  
Article   XII(C)   of   the   Constitution   and   provincial,   city   or   municipal   office,   there  
disqualifications   mentioned   in   existing   is   reason   to   disqualify   him   from   running  
laws   which   are   hereby   declared   as   for   the   same   office   from   which   he   had  
disqualification   for   any   of   the   elective   retired,   as   provided   for   in   the   challenged  
officials   enumerated   in   Section   1   hereof,   provision.   The   need   for   new   blood  
any   retired   elective   provincial,   city   or   assumes   relevance.   The   tiredness   of   the  
municipal   official,   who   has   received   retiree   for   government   work   is   present,  
payment   of   the   retirement   benefits   to   and   what   is   emphatically   significant   is  
which   he   is   entitled   under   the   law   and   that   the   retired   employee   has   already  
who  shall  have  been  65  years  of  age  at  the   declared   himself   tired   and   unavailable   for  
commencement   of   the   term   of   office   to   the   same   government   work,   but,   which,  
which  he  seeks  to  be  elected,  shall  not  be   by   virtue   of   a   change   of   mind,   he   would  
qualified  to  run  for  the  same  elective  local   like   to   assume   again.   It   is   for   this   very  
office  from  which  he  has  retired.  2)  "...  the   reason   that   inequality   will   neither   result  
filing   of   charges   for   the   commission   of   from   the   application   of   the   challenged  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 22

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

provision.   Just   as   that   provision   does   not   heard  by  himself  and  counsel  (Article  IV,  
deny   equal   protection   neither   does   it   section   19,   1973   Constitution).   An  
permit  of  such  denial  (see  People  vs.  Vera,   accusation,   according   to   the   fundamental  
65   Phil.   56   [1933]).   Persons   similarly   law,   is   not   synonymous   with   guilt.   The  
situated  are  similarly  treated.   challenged  proviso  
  contravenes   the   constitutional  
In   fine,   it   bears   reiteration   that   the   equal   presumption  of  innocence,  as  a  candidate  
protection  clause  does  not  forbid  all  legal   is   disqualified   from   running   for   public  
classification.   What   is   proscribes   is   a   office   on   the   ground   alone   that   charges  
classification   which   is   arbitrary   and   have   been   filed   against   him   before   a   civil  
unreasonable.   That   constitutional   or   military   tribunal.   It   condemns   before  
guarantee  is  not  violated  by  a  reasonable   one   is   fully   heard.   In   ultimate   effect,  
classification   based   upon   substantial   except   as   to   the   degree   of   proof,   no  
distinctions,   where   the   classification   is   distinction   is   made   between   a   person  
germane   to   the   purpose   of   the   law   and   convicted   of   acts   of   disloyalty   and   one  
applies   to   all   Chose   belonging   to   the   same   against  whom  charges  have  been  filed  for  
class   (Peralta   vs.   Comelec,   82   SCRA   30   such   acts,   as   both   of   them   would   be  
[1978]   citing   Felwa   vs.   Salas,   18   SCRA   ineligible  to  run  for  public  office.  A  person  
606   [1966];   Rafael   v.   Embroidery   and   disqualified  to  run  for  public  office  on  the  
Apparel   Control   and   Inspection   Board,   ground   that   charges   have   been   filed  
21  SCRA  336  [1967];  Inchong  etc.,  et  al.   against  him  is  virtually  placed  in  the  same  
vs.  Hernandez  101  Phil.  1155  [1957]).     category  as  a  person  already  convicted  of  
  a   crime   with   the   penalty   of   arresto,   which  
The   purpose   of   the   law   is   to   allow   the   carries   with   it   the   accessory   penalty   of  
emergence   of   younger   blood   in   local   suspension   of   the   right   to   hold   office  
governments.   The   classification   in   during   the   term   of   the   sentence   (Art.   44,  
question   being   pursuant   to   that   purpose,   Revised  Penal  Code).  
it  cannot  be  considered  invalid  "even  it  at    
times,   it   may   be   susceptible   to   the   And   although   the   filing   of   charges   is  
objection   that   it   is   marred   by   theoretical   considered   as   but   prima   facie   evidence,  
inconsistencies"  (Chief  Justice  Fernando,   and  therefore,  may  be  rebutted,  yet.  there  
The   Constitution   of   the   Philippines,   is  "clear  and  present  danger"  that  because  
1977  ed.,  p.  547).   of   the   proximity   of   the   elections,   time  
  constraints  will  prevent  one  charged  with  
2.   NO.   Explicit   is   the   constitutional   acts   of   disloyalty   from   offering   contrary  
provision   that,   in   all   criminal   proof   to   overcome   the   prima   facie  
prosecutions,   the   accused   shall   be   evidence  against  him.  
presumed   innocent   until   the   contrary   is    
proved,   and   shall   enjoy   the   right   to   be  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 23

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Additionally,   it   is   best   that   evidence   pro   to   the   lower   court   for   determination   of  
and   con   of   acts   of   disloyalty   be   aired   the  fact  of  being  a  “fugitive  from  justice.”)  
before   the   Courts   rather   than   before   an  
administrative   body   such   as   the    
COMELEC.   A   highly   possible   conflict   of   MARQUEZ   VS.   COMELEC   [G.R.   NO.  
findings   between   two   government   bodies,   112889,  APRIL  18,  1995]  
to   the   extreme   detriment   of   a   person  
charged,   will   thereby   be   avoided.   Petitioner's  position  is  perspicuous  and  to  
Furthermore,   a   legislative/administrative   the   point.   The   law,   he   asseverates,   needs  
determination   of   guilt   should   not   be   no   further   interpretation   and  
allowed   to   be   substituted   for   a   judicial   construction.   Section   40(e)   of   Republic  
determination.   Act   No.   7160,   is   rather   clear,   he   submits,  
  and   it   disqualifies   "fugitive   from   justice"  
Wherefore,   paragraph   1   being   consistent   includes   not   only   those   who   flee   after  
with   the   equal   protection   clause   is   conviction   to   avoid   punishment   but  
declared   valid;   while   paragraph   2   is   likewise   those   who,   after   being   charged  
declared  null  and  void  for  being  violative   flee   to   avoid   prosecution.   This   definition  
of   th   e   constitutional   presumption   of   truly   finds   support   from   jurisprudence  
innocence,guaranteed  to  an  accused.   (Philippine   Law   Dictionary,   Third  
  Edition,   p.   399,   by   F.B.   Moreno;   Black's  
Law   Dictionary,   Sixth   Edition,   p.   671;  
Q.  Section  40  of  the  Local  Government  Code   King   vs.   Noe,   244   S.C.   344,   137   S.E.   2d  
disqualifies  from  running  from  office  a  “(e)   102,   103;   Hughes   vs.   PFlanz,   138  
Fugitive   from   justice   in   criminal   or   non-­‐ Federal  Reporter  980;  Tobin  vs.  Casaus,  
political   cases   here   or   abroad.”   If   applied   275  Pacific  Reporter,  2d.,  p.  792),  and  it  
to   one   who   has   not   yet   been   convicted   of   may   be   so   conceded   as   expressing   the  
any   offense   but   was   merely   fleeing   from   general   and   ordinary   connotation   of   the  
trial,   would   there   be   violation   of   the   term.  
presumption  of  innocence?  
Private   respondent   reminds   us   that   the  
A.   This   was   defended   against   the   construction   placed   upon   law   by   the  
suggestion  that  it  violates  presumption  of   officials   in   charge   of   its   enforcement  
innocence   on   the   argument   that   the   deserves   great   and   considerable   weight  
disqualification   is   not   a   penalty   and   that   (Atlas   Consolidated   Mining   and  
Congress   is   allowed   to   prescribe   Development  Corp.  vs.  CA,  182  SCRA  166,  
reasonable   qualifications   for   local   181).   The   Court   certainly   agrees;  
candidates   both   by   Article   V,   Section   1   however,   when   there   clearly   is   no  
and   Article   X,   Section   3.   Marquez,   Jr.   v.   obscurity   and   ambiguity   in   an   enabling  
COMELEC,   G.R.   No.   112889,   April   18,   law,   it   must   merely   be   made   to   apply   as   it  
1995.   (But   the   Court   remanded   the   case  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 24

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

is   so   written.   An   administrative   rule   or   a   petition   for   certiorari   praying   for   the  


regulation   can   neither   expand   nor   reversal   of   the   COMELEC   Resolution  
constrict   the   law   but   must   remain   which   dismissed   his   petition   for   quo  
congruent   to   it.   The   Court   believes   and   warranto   against   Eduardo   Rodriguez,   for  
thus   holds,   albeit   with   some   personal   being  allegedly  a  fugitive  from  justice.  
reservations   of   the   ponente   (expressed  
during  the  Court's  en  banc  deliberations),   It   is   averred   that   at   the   time   private  
that   Article   73   of   the   Rules   and   respondent   filed   his   certificate   of  
Regulations   Implementing   the   Local   candidacy,   a   criminal   charge   against   him  
Government   Code   of   1991,   to   the   extent   for   ten   (10)   counts   of   insurance   fraud   or  
that   it   confines   the   term   "fugitive   from   grand  theft  of  personal  property  was  still  
justice"   to   refer   only   to   a   person   (the   pending  before  the  Municipal  Court  of  Los  
fugitive)   "who   has   been   convicted   by   final   Angeles   Judicial   District,   County   of   Los  
judgment."   is   an   inordinate   and   undue   Angeles,   State   of   California,   U.S.A.   A  
circumscription  of  the  law.   warrant   issued   by   said   court   for   his  
arrest,   it   is   claimed,   has   yet   to   be   served  
Unfortunately,   the   COMELEC   did   not   on   private   respondent   on   account   of   his  
make   any   definite   finding   on   whether   or   alleged  “flight”  from  that  country.  
not,   in   fact,   private   respondent   is   a  
"fugitive   from   justice"   as   such   term   must   Petitioner’s   subsequent   recourse   (in   G.R.  
be   interpreted   and   applied   in   the   light   of   No.   105310)   from   the   COMELEC’s   May   8,  
the   Court's   opinion.   The   omission   is   1992   resolution   was   dismissed   without  
understandable   since   the   COMELEC   prejudice,   however,   to   the   filing   in   due  
dismissed   outrightly   the   petition   for   quo   time   of   a   possible   post-­‐election   quo  
warranto  on   the   basis   instead   of   Rule   73   warranto   proceeding   against   private  
of   the   Rules   and   Regulations   promulgated   respondent.  
by   the   Oversight   Committee.   The   Court  
itself,   not   being   a   trier   of   facts,   is   thus   Before   the   11th   May   1992   elections,  
constrained   to   remand   the   case   to   the   petitioner   filed   a   petition   with   the  
COMELEC   for   a   determination   of   this   COMELEC  for  cancellation  of  respondent’s  
unresolved  factual  matter.   CoC   on   account   of   the   candidate’s  
  disqualification   under   Sec.   40   (e)   of   the  
LGC.  
MARQUEZ   VS.   COMELEC   [G.R.   NO.  
112889,  APRIL  18,  1995]   Private   respondent   was   proclaimed  
Governor-­‐elect   of   Quezon   on   29   May  
FACTS:   1992.   Forthwith,   petitioner   instituted   quo  
Bienvenido   Marquez,   a   defeated   warranto   proceedings   (EPC   92-­‐28)  
candidate  in  the  Province  of  Quezon  filed  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 25

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

against   private   respondent   before   the   been   convicted   by   final   judgment”   is   an  


COMELEC.   inordinate   and   undue   circumscription   of  
the  law.  
ISSUE:   Whether   private   respondent   who,  
at   the   time   of   the   filing   of   his   certificate   of   Unfortunately,   the   COMELEC   did   not  
candidacy   (and   to   date),   is   said   to   be   make   any   definite   finding   on   whether   or  
facing   a   criminal   charge   before   a   foreign   not   private   respondent   is   in   fact   a  
court  and  evading  a  warrant  for  his  arrest   “fugitive   from   justice”   as   such   term   must  
comes   within   the   term   “fugitive   from   be   interpreted   and   applied   in   the   light   of  
justice”  contemplated  by  Section  40(e)  of   the   Court’s   opinion.   The   omission   is  
the   LGC   and   is,   therefore,   disqualified   understandable   since   the   COMELEC  
from   being   a   candidate   for,   and   thereby   outrightly   dismissed   the   petition   for   quo  
ineligible   from   holding   on   to,   an   elective   warranto   on   the   basis   instead   of   Rule   73  
local  office.   of   the   Rules   and   Regulations   promulgated  
by   the   Oversight   Committee.   The   Court,  
HELD:   not   being   a   trier   of   facts,   is   thus  
Section   40(e)   of   the   LGC   (RA   7160)   constrained   to   remand   the   case   to   the  
provide   that   a   “Fugitive   from   justice   in   COMELEC   for   a   determination   of   this  
criminal   cases   here   and   abroad”   are   unresolved  factual  matter.  
“disqualified   from   running   for   any  
elective  local  position”.    

It   has   been   held   that   construction   placed   Q.  Does  preventive  suspension  pendent  lite  
upon   law   by   the   officials   in   charge   of   its   violate  the  right  to  be  presumed  innocent?  
enforcement   deserves   great   and   A.   No,   because   preventive   suspension   is  
considerable   weight   (Atlas   Consolidated   not   a   penalty.   Gonzaga   v.   Sandiganbayan,  
Mining   and   Development   Corp.   vs.   CA,   G.R.  No.  96131,  September  6,  1991.  
182  SCRA  166,181).  However,  when  there  
clearly   is   no   obscurity   and   ambiguity   in    
an   enabling   law,   it   must   merely   be   made  
to   apply   as   it   is   so   written.   An   Q.   Does   presumption   of   innocence   preclude  
administrative   rule   or   regulation   can   the  State  from  shifting  the  burden  of  proof  
neither   expand   nor   constrict   the   law   but   to  the  accused?  
must  remain  congruent  to  it.  
A.   The   State   having   the   right   to   declare  
what  acts  are  criminal,  within  certain  well  
The   confinement   of   the   term   “fugitive  
defined   limitations,   has   a   right   to   specify  
from  justice”  in  Article  73  of  the  Rules  and  
Regulations   Implementing   the   LGC   of   what   act   or   acts   shall   constitute   a   crime,  
as   well   as   what   proof   shall   constitute  
1991   to   refer   only   to   a   person   “who   has  
prima   facie   evidence   of   guilt,   and   then   to  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 26

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

put   upon   the   defendant   the   burden   of   had   difficulty   in   identifying   the   accused  
showing  that  such  act  or  acts  are  innocent   not  only  during  the  hospital  confrontation  
and   are   not   committed   with   any   criminal   but   also   in   open   court   [People   v.  
intent   or   intention.   US   v.   Luling,   34   Phil.   Alcantara,   240   SCRA   122];   or   where   the  
725  (1916).   prosecution   failed   to   present   the   alleged  
poseur-­‐buyer,   because   without   the  
  testimony   of   the   latter,   there   is   no  
NACHURA:   convincing  evidence  that  the  accused  was  
a   marijuana   peddler   and   not   merely   a  
Every   circumstance   favoring   the   victim   of   instigation   [People   v.   Tapeda,  
innocence   of   the   accused   must   be   taken   244   SCRA   339];   or   where   the   testimony  
into  account.  The  proof  against  him  must   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   is   marred   by  
survive   the   test   of   reason;   the   strongest   inconsistencies   [Layug   v.  
suspicion   must   not   be   permitted   to   sway   Sandiganbayan,  245  SCRA  123].  
judgment   [People   v.   Austria,   195   SCRA  
700],   Thus,   in   Dumlao   v.   Comelec,   95   The   presumption   that   official   duty   was  
SCRA   392,   the   provision   of   an   election   regularly   performed   cannot,   by   itself,  
statute   which   disqualified   from   running   prevail   over   the   constitutional  
for   public   office   any   person   who   has   presumption   of   innocence.   If   the  
committed   any   act   of   disloyalty   to   the   inculpatory   facts   and   circumstances   are  
State   “provided   that   the   filing   of   charges   capable  of  two  or  more  explanations,  one  
for  the  commission  of  such  crimes  before   of  which  is  consistent  with  the  innocence  
a   civil   court   or   military   tribunal   shall   be   of   the   accused,   and   the   other   consistent  
prima   facie   evidence   of   such   fact”,   was   with   guilt,   then   the   evidence   does   not  
declared   unconstitutional   for   being   fulfill  the  test  of  moral  certainty  and  is  not  
violative  of  the  presumption  of  innocence   sufficient  to  support  a  conviction  [People  
clause.     v.  Martos,  211  SCRA  805].    

Likewise,   in   People   v.   Lomboy,   G.R.   No.   Thus,  in  People  v.  Briones,  266  SCRA  254,  
129691,   June   29,   1999,   it   was   held   that   the  fact  that  SP01  Alilio  was  presumed  to  
the   acquittal   of   the   accused   is   inevitable   if   have  regularly  performed  his  official  duty  
inculpatory   facts   and   circumstances   are   was   held   insufficient   to   overcome   the  
capable  of  two  or  more  explanations,  one   presumption   of   innocence,   as   it   was  
consistent   with   the   innocence   of   the   inconceivable  that  the  accused  would  still  
accused  and  the  other  consistent  with  his   sell  shabu  to  SP01  Alilio  when  the  accused  
guilt.   knew   Alilio   to   be   the   police   officer   who  
earlier   arrested   his   friend,   Ormos,   for  
The   presumption   of   innocence   was   held   allegedly  selling  shabu.  
not   to   have   been   overcome   by  
prosecution   evidence   where   the   victim  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 27

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

But   where   it   is   not   the   sole   basis   for   custody   requirement,   as   provided  
conviction,   the   presumption   of   regularity   in   R.A.   9165,   performs   this  
of   performance   of   official   functions   may   function   for   it   ensures   that   there  
prevail   over   the   constitutional   are   no   unnecessary   doubts  
presumption   of   innocence   [People   v.   concerning   the   identity   of   the  
Acuram,  209  SCRA  281].   evidence.   [People   v.   De   Guzman,  
G.R.  No.  186498,  March  26,  2010]  
The   constitutional   presumption   will   not    
apply   as   long   as   there   is   some   logical  
connection   between   the   fact   proved   and   The   seizure   and   custody   of   the   drugs  
the   ultimate   fact   presumed,   and   the   remain   valid   despite   failure   to   comply  
inference   of   one   fact   from   proof   of   with  the  chain  of  custody  procedure,  if:  
another  shall  not  be  so  unreasonable  as  to  
be   a   purely   arbitrary   mandate.   In   such   a   1) the   non-­‐compliance   is   attended  
case  the  burden  of  proof  is  thus  shifted  to   by  justifiable  grounds;  and  
the   possessor   of   the   dangerous   drug   to   2) the   integrity   and   evidentiary  
explain  the  absence  of  animus  possedendi   value   of   the   seized   items   are  
[People   v.   Burton,   268   SCRA   531,   citing   properly  preserved.  
Dizon-­‐   Pamintuan   v.   People,   234   SCRA    
63].   This   is   reiterated   in   People   v.   However,   in   the   case,   not   only   did   the  
Balluda,  G.R.  No.  114198,  November  19,   prosecution   fail   to   present   any   justifiable  
1999.   ground  for  non-­‐compliance,  but  there  is  a  
In   order   that   this   constitutional   gaping   hole   in   the   chain   of   custody.   The  
presumption   may   be   overcome   in   a   length   of   time   that   lapsed   from   the  
prosecution   for   the   illegal   sale   of   seizure  of  the  items  until  they  were  given  
dangerous   drugs,   the   following   elements   to   the   investigating   officer   for   marking  
must  be  proven:   took   all   of   3-­‐1/2   hours,   despite   the   fact  
that   De   Guzman’s   house   was   walking  
a. that   the   transaction   or   sale   took   distance   from   the   police   station.  
place;   Moreover,   it   took   more   time   before   the  
. b.   that   the   corpus   delicti   or   the   items   were   submitted   to   the   PNP   Crime  
illicit   drug   was   presented   as   Laboratory,   without   any   explanation   on  
evidence;  and   who   had   custody   in   the   meantime.  
c. that   the   buyer   and   seller   [People  v.  De  Guzman,  supra.]  
are  identified.  
d. To   comply   with   the   second   This   constitutional   presumption   may   be  
element,   it   is   imperative   that   the   overcome   by   contrary   presumptions  
integrity   of   the   corpus   delicti   be   based   on   the   experience   of   human  
preserved,   and   the   chain   of   conduct,  such  as  unexplained  flight  which  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 28

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

may   lead   to   an   inference   of   guilt,   or   the   protection   and   enforcement   of  


inability   of   an   accountable   officer   to   constitutional   rights.   It   was   held   that   the  
produce   funds   or   property   entrusted   to   law   is   not   vague,   because   it   defines   with  
him   which   is   considered   prima   facie   sufficient   particularity   “unlawfully  
evidence  of  misappropriation.   acquired   property”,   and   provides   a  
definition  of  what  is  legitimately  acquired  
However,   in   Madarang   v.   property.   Neither   is   the   presumption   of  
Sandiganbayan,  G.R.  No.  112314,  March   innocence   by   Sec.   2   thereof,   which   states  
28,   2001,   and   in   Agullo   v.   that  property  acquired  by  a  public  officer  
Sandiganbayan,  G.R.  No.  132926,  July  20,   during   his   incumbency   in   an   amount  
2001,   it   was   held   that   the   prima   facie   which   is   manifestly   out   of   proportion   to  
presumption   of   accountability   does   not   his   salary   as   such   public   officer   or  
shatter   the   presumption   of   innocence   employee   and   to   his   other   lawful   income  
which  the  petitioner  enjoys,  because  even   and   the   income   from   legitimately  
if  prima  facie  evidence  arises,  certain  facts   acquired   property   shall   be   prima   facie  
still   have   to   be   proved,   and   the   presumed   to   have   been   unlawfully  
Sandiganbayan   must   be   satisfied   that   the   acquired.   The   Court   held   that   under   the  
petitioner   is   guilty   beyond   reasonable   principle   of   presumption   of   innocence,   it  
doubt.  And  this  finding  must  rest  upon  the   is   merely   required   that   the   State   establish  
strength   of   the   prosecution’s   own   a   prima   facie   case,   after   which   the   burden  
evidence,  not  on  the  weakness,  deficiency   of  proof  is  shifted  to  the  accused.  
or  absence  of  evidence  for  the  defense.    
 
In   Monteverde   v..People,   G.R.   No.  
139610,   August   12,   2002,   it   was   held   Q.   When   does   presumption   of   innocence  
that   the   presumption   that   the   possessor   end?  
of   a   forged   or   falsified   document   is   the  
author   of   the   forgery   or   falsification   will   A.   Moreover,   where   the   conviction   by   a  
not   prevail   over   the   presumption   of   lower  court  is  still  on  appeal,  it  has  not  yet  
innocence.   reached   finality   and   the   accused   still  
enjoys   the   constitutional   presumption   of  
In   Ong   v.   Sandiganbayan,   G.R.   No.   innocence.   It   must   be   remembered   that  
126858,   September   16,   2005,   the   the   existence   of   a   presumption  
constitutionality   of   R.A.   1379   (Forfeiture   indicateing   the   guilt   of   the   accused   does  
of   Unlawfully   Acquired   Property)   was   not   in   itself   destroy   the   constitutional  
challenged   because   it   is   vague,   violates   presumption   of   innocence   unless   the  
the   presumption   of   innocence   and   the   inculpating   presumption,   together   with  
right   against   self-­‐incrimination,   and   all   the   evidence,   or   the   lack   of   any  
breaches   the   authority   of   the   Supreme   evidence   or   explanation,   proves   the  
Court  to  promulgate  rules  concerning  the   accused’s  guilt  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 29

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Until   the   accused’s   guilt   is   shown   in   this   “Enshrined   in   the   Bill   of  


manner,   the   presumption   of   innocence   Rights  is  the  right  of  the  accused  to  
continues.   Thus   in   Mangubat   v.   be   presumed   innocent   until   the  
Sandiganbayan,   the   Court   held   that   contrary   is   proved.   To   overcome  
respondent   Sandiganbayan   did   not   act   the   presumption,   nothing   but  
with  grave  abuse  of  discretion,  correctible   proof   beyond   reasonable   doubt  
by   certiorari,   when   it   ruled   that   despite   must   be   established   by   the  
her   conviction,   the   accused   still   enjoyed   prosecution.   Save   in   certain  
presumption   of   innocence.   Re:   Judge   circumstances   as   where,   for  
Angeles,   A.M.   No.   06-­‐9-­‐545-­‐RTC,   January   instance,   the   accused   admits   the  
31,  2008.   commission   of   the   acts   alleged   to  
constitute   a   crime   but   interposes  
  justifying   circumstances,   the  
Q.   What   do   you   understand   by   the   burden   never   shifted   to   the  
conscience  test  for  conviction?   accused   or   diminished   by   the  
weakness   of   his   defense.   Indeed,  
A.  It  means  that  only  when  the  conscience   unless  the  prosecution  successfully  
is   satisfied   that   the   crime   has   been   discharges   that   burden,   the  
committed   by   the   person   on   trial   should   accused   need   not   even   offer  
the   sentence   be   for   conviction.   If   the   evidence   in   his   behalf.”   (People   v.  
prosecutions’s  evidence  miserably  fails  to   Garcia,  215  SCRA  349).  
pass  the  conscience  test,  then,  the  accused  
must   be   acquitted.   (People   v.   Frago,   51   “In   our   jurisdiction,  
SCAD   497,   G.R.   Nos.   104492-­‐93,   May   31,   accusation  is  not  synonymous  with  
1994;  People  v.  Abellanosa,  et  al.,  76  SCAD   guilt.  The  freedom  of  the  accused  is  
596,   G.R.   No.   121195,   November   27,   forfeited   only   in   the   requisite  
1996).   quantum   of   proof   necessary   for  
conviction   be   in   existence.   This,   of  
  course,   requires   the   most   careful  
scrutiny   of   the   evidence   for   the  
Q.   What   is   the   basis   of   the   conscience   test   State,   both   oral   and   documentary,  
of  conviction?  Explain.   independent   of   whatever   defense  
is   offered   by   the   accused.   Every  
A.  It  is  based  on  the  right  of  the  accused  to  
circumstance   favouring   the  
be   presumed   innocent.   In   the   case   of  
accused’s   innocence   must   be   duly  
People   v.   Mejia,   et   al.,   84   SCAD   245,   G.R.  
taken   into   account.   The   proof  
Nos.  118940-­‐41  and  G.R.  No.  119407,  July  
aginst   the   accused   must   survive  
7,  1997,  it  was  said:  
the   test   of   reason.   Strongest  
suspicion  must  not  be  permitted  to  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 30

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

sway   judgment.   The   conscience   Circumstantial   evidence.   In   People   v.  


must   be   satisfied   that   on   the   Bato,  G.R.  No.  113804,  January  16,  1998,  
accused   could   be   laid   the   the  Supreme  Court  held  that  in  order  that  
responsibility   of   the   offense   circumstantial   evidence   may   warrant  
charged.   (People   v.   Dramayo,   42   conviction,   the   following   requisites   must  
SCRA   59).   If   the   prosecution   fails   concur:  
to   discharge   the   burden,   then   it   is  
not   only   the   accused’s   right   to   be   1) there   is   more   than   one  
freed,   it   is,   even   more,   the   court’s   circumstance;  
constitutional   duty   to   acquit   him.   2) the  facts  from  which  the  
(People   v.   Pido,   200   SCRA   45;   inferences   are   derived  
People   v.   Cordova,   43   SCAD   135,   are  proven;  and  
G.R.  Nos.  83373-­‐74,  July  5,  1993)   3) the   combination   of   all  
the   circumstances   is  
  such   as   to   produce   a  
conviction   beyond  
Q.   Give   the   concept   of   derivative,   not   reasonable  doubt.  
positive,   identification   of   an   accused   and   Thus,   where   the   conviction   is   based   on  
cite  an  example.   circumstantial  evidence  gleaned  from  the  
A.   Derivative   identification   is   one   sole  testimony  of  the  son  of  the  deceased,  
patterned   from   the   identification   of   an   the   prosecution   evidence   does   not  
accused   by   another   person,   not   by   the   constitute   an   unbroken   chain   leading,  
witness  himself/herself.  (People  v.  Frago,   beyond   reasonable   doubt,   to   the   guilt   of  
51   SCAD   497,   G.R.   Nos.   104492-­‐93,   May   the   accused   and,   therefore,   cannot  
31,   1994,   citing   People   v.   Domingo,   165   overthrow   the   constitutional  
SCRA  620  [1988]).   presumption  of  innocence.  

Example:    

The   accused   was   identified   Equipoise   rule.   The   equipoise   rule  


by  two  (2)  sisters  on  September  28,   invoked   by   the   petitioner   is   applicable  
1960.  The  victim  identified  him  on   only   where   the   evidence   adduced   by   the  
October   8,   1990.   They   are   parties   are   evenly   balanced,   in   which   case  
neighbours.   The   possibility   that   the   constitutional   presumption   of  
they  conferred  with  one  another  is   innocence  should  tilt  the  scales  in  favor  of  
not   remote,   hence,   she   got   the   the  accused  [Corpus  v.  People,  194  SCRA  
identification  from  them.   73].  

  The   right   to   presumption   of   innocence  


can   be   invoked   only   by   an   individual  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 31

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

accused  of  a  criminal  offense;  a  corporate   amount   of   P72,823.08   which   was  


entity   has   no   personality   to   invoke   the   discovered   to   be   a   shortage   from   the  
same  [Feeder  International  Line  v.  Court   government   funds   contending   that   the  
of  Appeals,  197  SCRA  842].   P50,000.00   was   the   unliquidated  
withdrawal   made   by   their   paymaster  
  Pineda   thru   the   4   checks   he   issued   while  
  the   petitioner   was   on   leave   and   that   he  
was   forced   by   their   Provincial   Treasurer  
CORPUS   VS.   PEOPLE   [G.R.   NO.   74259,   Aluning   to   post   said   amount   in   his   cash  
FEBRUARY  14,  1991]   book   despite   not   actually   receiving   the  
amount.    
EQUIPOISE   RULE.   The   equipoise   rule  
invoked   by   the   petitioner   is   applicable   Issue:   Whether   or   not   the   court   erred   in  
only   where   the   evidence   of   the   parties   is   observing   the   presumption   of   innocence  
evenly   balanced,   in   which   case   the   of  the  accused  of  the  charge  against  him  
constitutional   presumption   of   innocence    
should   tilt   the   scales   in   favor   of   the   Held:   It   is   held   that   presumption   of  
accused.  There  is  no  such  equipoise  here.   innocence   of   the   accused   should   yield   to  
The   evidence   of   the   prosecution   is   the   positive   findings   that   he   malversed  
overwhelming   and   has   not   been   the   government   funds   considering   all   the  
overcome   by   the   petitioner   with   his   evidences   presented   that   point   out   to   his  
nebulous   claims   of   persecution   and   guilt   on   the   charge   imputed   against   him.  
conspiracy.   The   presumed   innocence   of   Records  shows  that  the  checks  issued  for  
the   accused   must   yield   to   the   positive   the  paymaster  were  duly  liquidated  to  the  
finding   that   he   malversed   the   sum   of   accused   and   there   were   inconsistent  
P50,310.87   to   the   prejudice   of   the   public   entries  on  his  cash  books  and  that  he  was  
whose   confidence   he   has   breached.   His   not   really   on   leave   on   the   day   the   said  
conviction  must  be  affirmed.   checks  were  disbursed  by  the  paymaster.  
 
 
 
CORPUS   VS.   PEOPLE   [G.R.   NO.   74259,  
FEBRUARY  14,  1991]   FEEDER   INTERNATIONAL   LINE   VS.   CA  
[G.R.  NO.  94262  MAY  31,  1991]  
Facts:   Petitioner   seeks   reversal   of   the  
lower   court’s   decision   finding   him   guilty   Before   we   proceed   to   a   discussion   of   the  
for   malversation   of   public   funds.   The   factual  findings  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  it  
accused   was   the   acting   supervising   bears   mention   that   petitioner,   which   is   a  
cashier  at  the  Provincial  Treasurer’s  office.   corporate   entity,   has   no   personality   to  
He   denied   having   misused   the   whole   invoke  the  right  to  be  presumed  innocent  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 32

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

which   right   is   available   only   to   an   Acting   District   Collector   of   Iloilo  


individual   who   is   an   accused   in   a   criminal   dispatched   a   Customs   team   on   19   May  
case.   1986  to  verify  the  report.    
 
NOTE:  The  equipoise  rule  provides   The   Customs   team   found   out   that   the  
that   where   the   evidence   of   the   vessel   did   not   have   on   board   the   required  
parties  in  a  criminal  case  is  evenly   ship  and  shipping  documents,  except  for  a  
balanced,   the   constitutional   clearance   from   the   port   authorities   of  
presumption   of   innocence   should   Singapore   clearing   the   vessel   for  
tilt   the   scales   in   favour   of   the   "Zamboan."   In   view   thereof,   the   vessel  
accused.   There   is   no   equipoise   if   and  its  cargo  were  held  and  a  Warrant  of  
the   evidence   is   not   evenly   Seizure  and  Detention  over  the  same  was  
balanced.   The   equipoise   rule   issued   after   due   investigation.   Feeder  
cannot   be   invoked   where   the   International   Line   PTE   Ltd,   through   its  
evidence   of   the   prosecution   is   agent   Feeder   International   (Phils.)   Inc.  
overwhelming.   [Malana   v.   People,   then   filed   its   Motion   to   Dismiss   and   to  
G.R.  No.  173612,  March  26,  2008]   Quash   the   Warrants   of   Seizure   and  
  Detention   which   the   District   Collector  
denied   in   his   Order   dated   12   December  
  1986.   In   the   course   of   the   forfeiture  
proceedings,   the   parties,   through   their  
FEEDER   INTERNATIONAL   LINE   VS.   CA   respective   counsel,   agreed   on   a  
[G.R.  NO.  94262  MAY  31,  1991]   stipulation  of  facts.    
 
Facts:    
On   17   March   1987,   the   District   Collector  
The   M/T   "ULU   WAI"   a   foreign   vessel   of  
issued   his   decision,   finding   the   M/Tm  
Honduran   registry,   owned   and   operated  
"ULU   WAI"   guilty   of   violating   Section  
by  Feeder  International  Shipping  Lines  of  
2530   (a)   of   the   Tariff   and   Customs   Code  
Singapore,   left   Singapore   on   6   May   1986  
of  the   Philippines   (PD   1464),   as   amended,  
carrying   1,100   metric   tons   of   gas   oil   and  
while  her  cargo  of  1,100  M/T  Gas  Oil  and  
1,000  metric  tons  of  fuel  oil  consigned  to  
1,000   M/T   Fuel   Oil   are   found   guilty   of  
Far   East   Synergy   Corporation   of  
violating  Section  2530  (a),  (f),  and  (1-­‐1)  
Zamboanga,   Philippines.   On   14   May   1986,  
under   the   same   Code   and   are   hereby  
the   vessel   anchored   at   the   vicinity   of  
forfeited   in   favor   of   the   Republic   of   the  
Guiuanon   Island   in   Iloilo   without  
Philippines.   Feeder   International  
notifying   the   Iloilo   customs   authorities.  
appealed  to  the  Commissioner  of  Customs  
The   presence   of   the   vessel   only   came   to  
who   rendered   a   decision   dated   13   May  
the  knowledge  of  the  Iloilo  authorities  by  
1987,  affirming  the  decision  of  the  District  
information   of   the   civilian   informer   in   the  
Collector   of   Customs   of   Iloilo   in   toto.   On  
area.   Acting   on   said   information,   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 33

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

25  June  1987,  Feeder  International  filed  a   A   forfeiture   proceeding   under   tariff   and  
petition  for  review  of  the  decisions  of  the   customs   laws   is   not   penal   in   nature,  
Collector   and   the   Commissioner   of   contrary   to   the   argument   advanced   by  
Customs   with   the   Court   of   Tax   Appeals,   Feeder  International.  In  the  case  of  People  
praying   for   the   issuance   of   a   writ   of   vs.  Court  of  First  Instance  of  Rizal,  etc.,  et  
preliminary   injunction   and/or   a   al.,  the  Court  made  an  exhaustive  analysis  
restraining   order   to   enjoin   the   of  the  nature  of  forfeiture  proceedings,  in  
Commissioner   from   implementing   his   relation   to   criminal   proceedings,   holding  
decision.  On  14  December  1988,  the  Court   therein   that   "seizure   and   forfeiture  
of   Tax   Appeals   issued   its   decision   proceedings  under  the  tariff  and  customs  
affirmed   the   decision   of   the   laws  are  not  criminal  in  nature  as  they  do  
Commissioner   of   Customs.   Feeder   not  result  in  the  conviction  of  the  offender  
International,  on  19  January  1990,  filed  a   nor   in   the   imposition   of   the   penalty  
petition   for   review   of   the   Court   of   Tax   provided  for  in  Section  3601  of  the  Code.  
Appeals'   decision   with   the   Supreme   Court.   As   can   be   gleaned   from   Section   2533   of  
On   21   March   1990,   the   Supreme   Court   the   code,   seizure   proceedings   are   purely  
issued   a   resolution   referring   the   civil   and   administrative   in   character,   the  
disposition   of   the   case   to   the   Court   of   main   purpose   of   which   is   to   enforce   the  
Appeals  in  view  of  the  Court's  decision  in   administrative  fines  or  forfeiture  incident  
Development   Bank   of   the   Philippines   vs.   to  unlawful  importation  of  goods  or  their  
Court   of   Appeals,   et   al.   holding   that   final   deliberate   possession.   The   penalty   in  
judgments   or   decrees   of   the   Court   of   Tax   seizure  cases  is  distinct  and  separate  from  
Appeals  are  within  the  exclusive  appellate   the   criminal   liability   that   might   be  
jurisdiction   of   the   Court   of   Appeals.   On   8   imposed   against   the   indicted   importer   or  
May  1990,  the  Court  of  Appeals  rendered   possessor   and   both   kinds   of   penalties  
its   questioned   decision   affirming   the   may   be   imposed.   Considering,   therefore,  
decision   of   the   Court   of   Tax   Appeals.   that   proceedings   for   the   forfeiture   of  
Feeder   International's   motion   for   goods   illegally   imported   are   not   criminal  
reconsideration   having   been   denied   on   4   in   nature   since   they   do   not   result   in   the  
July   1990,   it   interposed   the   present   conviction   of   the   wrongdoer   nor   in   the  
petition.   imposition   upon   him   of   a   penalty,   proof  
  beyond   reasonable   doubt   is   not   required  
Issue:   in   order   to   justify   the   forfeiture   of   the  
Whether   a   forfeiture   proceeding   is   penal   goods.   The   degree   of   proof   required   is  
in   nature,   and   whether   the   corporation   merely  substantial  evidence  which  means  
can   invoke   the   right   to   be   presumed   such   relevant   evidence   as   a   reasonable  
innocent.   mind  might  accept  as  adequate  to  support  
  a  conclusion.    
Held:      

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 34

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Further,   a   corporate   entity   has   no    


personality   to   invoke   the   right   to   be  
presumed   innocent   which   right   is    
available   only   to   an   individual   who   is   an    
accused   in   a   criminal   case.   Herein,   the  
Court   finds   and   so   hold   that   the    
Government   has   sufficiently   established  
that   an   illegal   importation,   or   at   least   an    
attempt  thereof,  has  been  committed  with  
 
the  use  of  the  vessel  M/T  "ULU  WAI,"  thus  
warranting   the   forfeiture   of   said   vessel    
and   its   cargo   pursuant   to   the   provisions  
of   the   Tariff   and   Customs   Code.   Feeder    
International   is   guilty   of   illegal  
importation,   there   having   been   an   intent    
to   unload,   is   amply   supported   by    
substantial   evidence.   The   findings   of   fact  
of  the  Court  of  Appeals  are  in  consonance    
with  the  findings  of  both  the  Collector  and  
the  Commissioner  of  Customs,  as  affirmed    
by   the   Court   of   Tax   Appeals.   The   Court  
 
finds   no   compelling   reason   to   deviate  
from   the   elementary   principle   that    
findings   of   fact   of   the   Court   of   Appeals,  
and   of   the   administrative   and   quasi-­‐  
judicial   bodies   for   that   matter,   are  
entitled   to   great   weight   and   are    
conclusive   and   binding   upon   this   Court    
absent   a   showing   of   a   grave   abuse   of  
discretion   amounting   to   lack   of    
jurisdiction  
   

   

   

   

   

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 35

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

  diluted   without   tampering   the   scales   of  


justice.  
 
 
 
GABBY  RECIT:  
 
Q:  What  are  the  four  (4)  obligations  of  
  the  court?  
  ANS  –    
  1. to  inform  the  defendant  his  right  to  
have   an   attorney   before   being  
RIGHT  TO  BE  HEARD  BY   arraigned.  
HIMSELF  AND  COUNSEL   2. To   ask   if   he   wishes   to   be  
represented  by  a  counsel  
  3. If   he   so   desires,   and   is   unable   to  
employ  an  attorney,  the  court  must  
Q.   Discuss   the   importance   of   the   right   to  
assign   attorney  de  officio     to   assist  
counsel.  
him.  
A.  The  right  to  be  heard  would  be  of  little   4. If   the   accused   decided   to   procure  
avail  if  it  does  not  include  the  right  to  be   an   attorney   of   its   own,   the   court  
heard   by   counsel.   Even   the   most   must   grant   him   a   reasonable   time  
intelligent   person   may   not   have   the   skill   thereof.    
in   law,   especially   the   rules   of   procedure,  
 
hence,   the   accused   may   be   convicted   not  
because   he   is   guilty   but   because   he   may   Q:   Can   an   accused   waive   his   right   to  
not  know  how  to  establish  his  innocence.   counsel?  
(Borja  v.  Mendoza,  77  SCRA  422;  Abriol  v.  
Homeras,  84  Phil.  525;  People  v.  Holgado,   ANS   –   No.   It   was   enunciated   in   the   case   of  
85   Phil.   752).   In   People   v.   Lucero,   61   people   vs.   holgado.   The   right   to   counsel  
SCAD   401,   G.R.   No.   97936,   May   29,   1995,   during  trial  is  not  waivable;  regardless  of  
it  was  said  that  if  the  Constitution  has  any   the  desire  of  the  accused,  the  court  should  
value,   it   is   because   it   stands   up   for   those   appoint  counsel  to  represent  the  accused.  
who  cannot  stand  for  themselves.  Thus,  it  
protected   those   under   custodial   That   is   based   on   Rule   116   of   the   rules   of  
investigation   with   the   all-­‐important   right   court…”court   shall   appoint   a   counsel   de  
to  counsel.  The  right  to  counsel  cannot  be   officio,  even  if  the  accused  does  not  want  
one”  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 36

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

RATIONALE:  Even  the  most  intelligent  or   2) After   giving   him   such   information  
educated   men   may   have   no   skills   in   the   the   court   must   ask   him   if   he  
science  of  the  law,  particularly  in  the  rules   desires  the  aid  of  an  attorney;  
of   procedure.   And   without   counsel,   he   3) If   he   desires   and   is   unable   to  
may  be  convicted  not  because  he  is  guilty   employ   attorney,   the   court   must  
but   because   he   does   not   know   how   to   assign  attorney  de  oficio  to  defend  
establish  and  justify  his  innocence.     him;  and  
4) If   the   accused   desires   to   procure  
  an   attorney   of   his   own   the   court  
PEOPLE  VS.  HOLGADO  [G.R.  NO.  L-­‐2809,   must   grant   him   a   reasonable   time  
MARCH  22,  1950]   therefor.  
 
DUTIES   OF   THE   COURT   OF   JUSTICE  
WHENEVER   AN   ACCUSED   APPEARS   One   of   the   great   principles   of   justice  
BEFORE   IT   WITHOUT   COUNSEL.   The   guaranteed  by  our  Constitution  is  that  "no  
proceedings   in   the   trial   court   are   person   shall   be   held   to   answer   for   a  
irregular   from   thebeginning.   It   is   criminal   offense   without   due   process   of  
expressly   provided   in   our   Rules   of   Court,   law",  and  that  all  accused  "shall  enjoy  the  
Rule  112,  section  3,  that:   right  to  be  heard  by  himself  and  counsel."  
In   criminal   cases   there   can   be   no   fair  
"If   the   defendant   appears   hearing   unless   the   accused   be   given   an  
without   attorney,   he   must   be   opportunity   to   be   heard   by   counsel.   The  
informed   bythe   court   that   it   is   his   right  to  be  heard  would  be  of  little  avail  if  
right   to   have   attorney   before   being   it   does   not   include   the   right   to   be   heard  
arraigned,  and  must  be  asked  if  he   by   counsel.   Even   the   most   intelligent   or  
desires   the   aid   of   attorney.   If   he   educated   man   may   have   no   skill   in   the  
desires   and   is   unable   to   employ   science  of  the  law,  particularly  in  the  rules  
attorney,   the   Court   must   assign   of   procedure,   and,   without   counsel,   he  
attorney  de  oficio  to  defend  him.  A   may  be  convicted  not  because  he  is  guilty  
reasonable   time   must   be   allowed   but   because   he   does   not   know   how   to  
for  procuring  attorney."   establish   his   innocence.   And   this   can  
happen   more   easily   to   persons   who   are  
Under   this   provision,   when   a   defendant   ignorant   or   uneducated.   It   is   for   this  
appears   without   attorney,   the   court   has   reason   that   the   right   to   be   assisted   by  
four  important  duties  to  comply  with:   counsel  is  deemed  so  important  that  it  has  
become   a   constitutional   right   and   it   is   so  
1) It   must   inform   the   defendant   that  
implemented   that   under   our   rules   of  
it   is   his   right   to   have   attorney  
procedure  it  is  not  enough  for  the  Court  to  
before  being  arraigned;  
apprise  an  accused  of  his  right  to  have  an  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 37

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

attorney,   it   is   not   enough   to   ask   him   such   a   heavy   penalty   as   ten   years   and   one  
whether   he   desires   the   aid   of   an   attorney,   day   of   prision   mayor   to   twenty   years,  
but   it   is   essential   that   the   court   should   without   absolute   any   evidence   to  
assign   one   de   oficio   for   him   if   he   so   determine  and  clarify  the  true  facts  of  the  
desires   and   he   is   poor   or   grant   him   a   case.  
reasonable   time   to   procure   an   attorney   of  
his  own.    

  PEOPLE  VS.  HOLGADO  [G.R.  NO.  L-­‐2809,  


MARCH  22,  1950]  
PEOPLE  VS.  HOLGADO  [G.R.  NO.  L-­‐2809,  
MARCH  22,  1950]   Facts:   Appellant   Frisco   Holgado   was  
charged   in   the   court   of   First   Instance   of  
FACTS:   Appellant   Frisco   Holgado   was   Romblon   with   slight   illegal   detention  
charged   in   the   court   of   First   Instance   of   because   according   to   the   information,  
Romblon   with   slight   illegal   detention   being  a  private  person,  he  did  "feloniously  
because   according   to   the   information,   and   without   justifiable   motive,   kidnap  
being  a  private  person,  he  did  "feloniously   and   detain   one   Artemia   Fabreag   in   the  
and   without   justifiable   motive,   kidnap   house   of   Antero   Holgado   for   about   eight  
and   detain   one   Artemia   Fabreag   in   the   hours.   On   the   day   set   for   trial,   he  
house   of   Antero   Holgado   for   about   eight   appeared   alone   without   the   assistance   of  
hours.   On   the   day   set   for   trial,   he   a   lawyer.   He   was   subsequently   arraigned  
appeared   alone   without   the   assistance   of   and  pleaded  guilty  upon  the  instruction  of  
a   lawyer.   He   was   subsequently   arraigned   a   certain   Mr.   Numeriano  
and  pleaded  guilty  upon  the  instruction  of   Ocampo.   .Judgement   was   rendered  
a   certain   Mr.   Numeriano   Ocampo.   convicting  him  of  the  crime  of  kidnapping  
Judgement   was   rendered   convicting   him   and  serious  illegal  detention.  
of   the   crime   of   kidnapping   and   serious    
illegal  detention.   Issue:  Whether  the  accused  was  afforded  
of   his   right   to   be   heard   by   himself   and  
ISSUE:   Whether   the   accused   was   afforded   counsel?  
of   his   right   to   be   heard   by   himself   and    
counsel.   Held:   No.   Under   the   circumstances,  
RULING:   NO.   Under   the   circumstances,   particularly   the   qualified   plea   given   by  
particularly   the   qualified   plea   given   by   the  accused  who  was  unaided  by  counsel,  
the  accused  who  was  unaided  by  counsel,   it  was  not  prudent,  to  say  the  least,  for  the  
it  was  not  prudent,  to  say  the  least,  for  the   trial   court   to   render   such   a   serious  
trial   court   to   render   such   a   serious   judgment   finding   the   accused   guilty   of   a  
judgment   finding   the   accused   guilty   of   a   capital   offense,   and   imposing   upon   him  
capital   offense,   and   imposing   upon   him   such   a   heavy   penalty   as   ten   years   and   one  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 38

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

day   of   prision   mayor   to   twenty   years,   employ   an   attorney,   to   grant   him  


without   absolute   any   evidence   to   reasonable   time   to   procure   or   assign   an  
determine  and  clarify  the  true  facts  of  the   attorney  de  oficio.  The  question  asked  by  
case.   the  court  to  the  accused  was  "Do  you  have  
  an   attorney   or   are   you   going   to   plead  
The   proceedings   in   the   trial   court   are   guilty?"   Not   only   did   such   a   question   fail  
irregular   from   the   beginning.   It   is   to   inform   the   accused   that   it   was   his   right  
expressly   provided   in   our   rules   of   Court,   to   have   an   attorney   before   arraignment,  
Rule  112,  section  3,  that:  If  the  defendant   but,   what   is   worse,   the   question   was   so  
appears   without   attorney,   he   must   be   framed  that  it  could  have  been  construed  
informed  by  the  court  that  it  is  his  right  to   by   the   accused   as   a   suggestion   from   the  
have   attorney   being   arraigned.,   and   must   court   that   he   plead   guilt   if   he   had   no  
be  asked  if  he  desires  the  aid  of  attorney,   attorney.   And   this   is   a   denial   of   fair  
the   Court   must   assign   attorney   de   oficio   hearing   in   violation   of   the   due   process  
to  defend  him.  A  reasonable  time  must  be   clause  contained  in  our  Constitution.  
allowed  for  procuring  attorney.    
 
Under   this   provision,   when   a   defendant   Q.   What   are   the   elements   of   the   general  
appears   without   attorney,   the   court   has   right  to  be  heard?  
four  important  duties  to  comply  with:     A.  It  includes:  
(1)  It  must  inform  the  defendant  that  it  is  
his   right   to   have   attorney   before   being   1) the  right  to  be  present  at  trial;  
arraigned;   (2)   After   giving   him   such   2) the  right  to  counsel;  
information   the   court   must   ask   him   if   he   3) the  right  to  an  impartial  judge;  
desires  the  aid  of  an  attorney;     4) the  right  of  confrontation;  and  
(3)   If   he   desires   and   is   unable   to   employ   5) the   right   to   compulsory  
attorney,   the   court   must   assign   attorney   process   to   secure   the  
de  oficio  to  defend  him;  and     attendance  of  witnesses.  
(4)   If   the   accused   desires   to   procure   an    
attorney   of   his   own   the   court   must   grant  
him  a  reasonable  time  therefor.   Q.  Why  must  an  accused  enjoy  the  right  to  
  counsel?  
Not   one   of   these   duties   had   been  
A.   This   is   a   realistic   recognition   of   the  
complied   with   by   the   trial   court.   The  
obvious   truth   that   the   average   defendant  
record   discloses   that   said   court   did   not  
does   not   have   the   professional   skill   to  
inform  the  accused  of  his  right  to  have  an  
protect   himself   when   brought   before   a  
attorney   nor   did   it   ask   him   if   he   desired  
tribunal   with   power   to   take   his   life   or  
the   aid   of   one.   The   trial   court   failed   to  
liberty,   wherein   the   prosecution   is  
inquire  whether  or  not  the  accused  was  to  
represented   by   an   experienced   and  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 39

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

learned   counsel.   Johnson   v.   Zerbist,   304   must   grant   him   reasonable  


US  458  (1938).   time  to  do  so;  and  
4) if  he  so  desires  to  have  counsel  
  but   is   unable   to   employ   one,  
Q.   What   duty   is   imposed   on   the   judge   by   the   court   must   assign   counsel  
the  guarantee  of  the  right  to  counsel?   de   oficio   to   defend   him.”  
People   v.   Agbayani,   G.R.   No.  
A.   If   the   defendant   appears   without   122770,   January   16.   1998,   284  
counsel  he  must  be  informed  by  the  court   SCRA  315,  333  (citing  People  v.  
that  he  has  a  right  to  have  counsel  before   Holgado,   85   Phil.   752,   756  
being   arraigned,   and   must   be   asked   if   he   [1950]).  
desires   the   aid   of   counsel.   If   he   desires    
and  is  unable  to  employ  counsel,  the  court  
must  assign  counsel  to  defend  him.  This  is    
a   right   which   the   defendant   should   not   be   GABBY  RECIT:  
deprived   of,   and   the   failure   of   the   court   to  
assign   counsel   or,   after   counsel   has   been   Q:   Transcript   of   stenographic   notes  
assigned,   require   him   to   perform   this   does   not   include   all   the   facts   (did   not  
duty   by   appearing   and   defending   the   read  all  4-­‐fold)  is  it  valid?  
accused   would   be   sufficient   cause   for   the  
reversal  of  the  case.  US  v.  Gimeno,  1  Phil.   ANS   –   In   the   case   of   people   vs   agbayani,  
236  (1905).   there   is   a   presumption   that   the   court  
complied   with   the   procedure.   It   is  
  incumbent   upon   the   accused   to   prove  
otherwise.   Mere   failure   of   the   records   of  
Q.  What  are  the  pre-­‐arraignment  duties  of   the   court   to   indicate   that   the   courts  
the  trial  judge?   complied   with   the   4-­‐fold   obligation   does  
A.   Under   Section   6   of   Rule   116   of   the   not   necessarily   mean   that   it   failed   to  
Rules  of  Court,  the  four-­‐fold  duties  are:   acquire  the  accysed  of  such  rights.  
“for   it   is   often   less   difficult   to   do   things  
1) to   inform   the   accused   that   he  
has   the   right   to   have   his   own   correctly   than   to   describe   them  
counsel  before  being  arraigned;   correctly.  
2) after   giving   such   information,    
to   ask   accused   whether   he  
desires  the  aid  of  counsel;   PEOPLE   VS.   AGBAYANI   [G.R.   NO.  
3) if   he   so   desires   to   procure   the   122770,  JANUARY  16,  1998]  
services   of   counsel,   the   court  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 40

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

THE   FAILURE   OF   THE   RECORDS   TO    


DISCLOSE   THAT   THE   ACCUSED   WAS  
INFORMED  OF  HIS  RIGHT  TO  COUNSEL   It   is   settled   that   the   failure   of   the   record  
DOES   NOT   CONSTITUTE   VIOLATION   OF   to   disclose   affirmatively   that   the   trial  
HIS   CONSTITUTIONAL   RIGHTS.   This   judge   advised   the   accused   of   his   right   to  
obviously   means   that   the   appointment   counsel  is  not  sufficient  ground  to  reverse  
had   taken   place   earlier.   The   trial   court's   conviction.   The   reason   being   that   the   trial  
order   of   22   December   1994   states   that   court  must  be  presumed  to  have  complied  
said   de   oficioc   ounsel   were   "duly   with  the  procedure  prescribed  by  law  for  
appointed   by   the   Court   with   the   consent   the   hearing   and   trial   of   cases,   and   that  
of   the   accused."   Since   appellant   has   such  a  presumption  can  only  be  overcome  
miserably   failed   to   show   that   he   was   not   by  an  affirmative  showing  to  the  contrary.  
informed   of   his   right   to   counsel,   the   Thus   it   has   been   held   that   unless   the  
presumptions   that   the   law   has   been   contrary   appears   in   the   record,   or   that   it  
obeyed   and   official   duty   has   been   is   positively   proved   that   the   trial   court  
regularly   performed   by   the   trial   court   failed   to   inform   the   accused   of   his   right   to  
stand.   In   other   words,   the   trial   court   is   counsel,   it   will   be   presumed   that   the  
presumed  to  have  complied  with  its  four-­‐ accused   was   informed   by   the   court   of  
fold  duties  under  Section  6  of  Rule  116  of   such  right.  
the  Rules  of  Court,  namely:   In  U  .S.  v.  Labial,  this  Court  held:  
1) to   inform   the   accused   that   Adhering   to   the   doctrine  
he  has  the  right  to  have  his   laid   down   in   that   case,   the   only  
own   counsel   before   being   question   to   be   determined   in   this  
arraigned;   case   is   whether   the   failure   of   the  
2) after   giving   such   record   to   disclose   affirmatively  
information,   to   ask   accused   that   the   trial   judge   advised   the  
whether   he   desires   the   aid   accused   of   their   right   to   have  
of  counsel;   counsel   is   sufficient   ground   to  
3) if   he   so   desires   to   procure   reverse   the   judgment   of   conviction  
the   services   of   counsel,   the   and   to   send   the   case   back   for   a  
court   must   grant   him   new   trial.   Upon   this   point   we   are  
reasonable   time   to   do   so;   all   agreed   that   in   the   absence   of   an  
and   affirmative   showing   that   the   court  
4) if   he   so   desires   to   have   below   did   in   fact   fail   to   advise   the  
counsel   but   is   unable   to   accused   of   their   rights   under   the  
employ  one,  the  court  must   provisions   of   sections   17   of  
assign   counsel   de   oficio   to   General  Orders  No.  58,  as  amended  
defend  him.   by   section   1   of   Act   No.   440,   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 41

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

mere   omission   from   the   record   The   right   to   counsel   proceeds   from   the  
brought   here   upon   appeal   of   an   fundamental   principle   of   due   process  
entry   affirmatively   disclosing   that   which   basically   means   that   a   person   must  
he  did  so,  is  not  reversible  error.   be   heard   before   being   condemned.   It   is  
more  than  just  the  presence  of  a  lawyer  in  
In   the   absence   of   an   affirmative   showing   the   courtroom   or   the   mere   propounding  
to   the   contrary,   the   court   below   must   be   of   standard   questions   and   objections.   It  
presumed   in   matters   of   this   kind   to   have   means  that  the  accused  is  amply  accorded  
complied   with   the   provisions   of   law   legal   assistance   extended   by   a   counsel  
prescribing   the   procedure   to   be   followed   who   commits   himself   to   the   cause   of   the  
in   the   trial   had   before   him.   While   in   defense  and  acts  accordingly.  Tersely  put,  
People   v.   Miranda   this   Court   explicitly   it   means   an   efficient   and   truly   decisive  
stated:   However,   said   counsel   calls   legal   assistance,   and   not   simply   a  
attention   to   the   fact   that   the   record   is   perfunctory   representation   [People   v.  
silent   as   to   whether   or   not,   at   the   time   Bermas,   G.R.   No.   120420,   April   21,  
appellant   was   arraigned,   the   trial   court   1999].  In  Estrada  v.  Badoy,  A.M.  No.  01-­‐
informed  him  of  his  right  to  be  assisted  by   12-­‐01-­‐SC,  January  16,  2003,  the  Supreme  
an   attorney,   under   section   3   of   Rule   112   Court   said   that   a   PAO   lawyer   is  
of  the  Rules  of  Court.   considered   an   independent   counsel  
This   precise   issue   was   determined   in   within   the   contemplation   of   the  
United   States   vs.   Labial   (27   Phil.   87,   88),   Constitution   since   he   is   not   a   special  
in   the   sense   that   unless   the   contrary   counsel,   public   or   private   prosecutor,  
appears   in   the   records,   it   will   be   counsel   of   the   police,   or   a   municipal  
presumed   that   the   defendant   was   attorney   whose   interest   is   admittedly  
informed   by   the   court   of   his   right   to   adverse  to  that  of  the  accused.  
counsel.   ".   .   .   If   we   should   insist   on   finding    
every   fact   fully   recorded   before   a   citizen  
can  be  punished  for  an  offense  against  the   PEOPLE   VS.   AGBAYANI   [G.R.   NO.  
laws,   we   should   destroy   public   justice,   122770,  JANUARY  16,  1998]  
and  give  unbridled  license  to  crime.  Much  
must   be   left   to   intendment   and   FACTS:  
presumption,  for  it  is  often  less  difficult  to      
do  things  correctly  than  to  describe  them   On   25   May   1992   at   about   8:00   A.M.,  
correctly."   (United   States   vs.   Labial,   Apollo   Romero   was   home   sitting   by   the  
supra.)  The  same  doctrine  was  reiterated   window  and  drinking  coffee  when  he  saw  
in   People   vs.   Abuyen   (52   Phil.   722)   and   in   4   men   in   Santolan   Street   block   the   path   of  
United  States  vs.  Custan  (28  Phil.  19).  We   2   Indian   nationals   (bombay)   on   a  
see  no  reason  to  modify  it  now.   motorcycle.  Oscar  Conde  y  Lutoc  poked  a  
gun   at   the   two   Indians   while   his   three  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 42

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

companions   (Alejandro   Perez   Jr.   y   Conde,   et.   al.   appealed.   However,   the  
Carsillar,   Allan   Atis   y   Abet,   and   another   counsel   de   parte   for   Perez,   Atty.   Jose   M.  
unidentified   man)   approached   and   Marquez,   failed   to   file   brief   for   Perez,  
stabbed   the   Indians.   Atis   took   the   goods   prompting   this   Court   to   dismiss   his  
which   were   being   sold   by   the   two   Indians   appeal.   The   decision   of   the   trial   court  
on   installment.   After   the   stabbing,   the   became   final   and   executory   with   respect  
four   men   fled   from   the   crime   scene   to   Perez.   Hence   the   present   appeal  
towards   Mabolo   Street.   PO3   Rodencio   concerns   only   Atis   and   Conde,   who   filed  
Sevillano   of   the   Intelligence   and   their  separate  briefs.  
Investigation   Division   (IID)   of   the   PNP,    
Kalookan   City   investigated   the   incident.   ISSUE:   Whether   the   illegal   warrantless  
On   30   May   1992,   the   police   arrested   arrest,   which   was   waived,   is   sufficient  
Conde,   Perez   and   Atis.   Police   recovered   cause   for   setting   aside   a   valid   judgment  
the   weapons   used   in   the   robbery,   when   rendered   upon   a   sufficient   complaint  
Felicidad   Macabare,   Conde's   wife,   went   to   after  trial  free  of  error.  
the   police   station   to   talk   to   Conde.   These    
weapons   were   discovered   inside   her   bag   RULING:  
after  a  routine  inspection.     The   arrests   of   Conde,   et.   al.   came   after   the  
  lapse   of   5   days   from   the   time   they   were  
Sevillano  admitted,  however,  that  they  did   seen   committing   the   crime.   At   the   time  
not   have   a   warrant   of   arrest   when   they   they   were   arrested,   the   police   were   not  
apprehended   the   accused.   Nor   did   they   armed  with  any  warrants  for  their  arrests.  
have   a   search   warrant   when   they   Section  5  of  Rule  113,  of  the  Revised  Rules  
inspected   Felicidad's   bag   and   when   they   of  Criminal  Procedure  27  enumerates  the  
searched   the   house   of   a   certain   Jimmy   instances   when   an   arrest   can   be   made  
where  they  found  the  stolen  items.  Conde,   without  warrant,  namely:    
Perez   and   Atis   were   charged   with   the   (a)  When,  in  his  presence  the  person  to  be  
crime   of   robbery   with   homicide.   The   arrested   has   committed,   is   actually  
accused   entered   pleas   of   not   guilty.   On   15   committing,  or  is  attempting  to  commit  an  
December   1993   the   Regional   Trial   Court,   offense;    
Branch   129,   Kalookan   City   found   Conde,   (b)  When  an  offense  has  in  fact  just  been  
Atis   and   Perez   guilty   of   the   special   committed,   and   he   has   probable   cause   to  
complex   crime   of   robbery   with   homicide   believe   based   on   personal   knowledge   of  
and   sentenced   each   of   them   to   suffer   the   facts   or   circumstances   that   the   person   to  
penalty   of   reclusion   perpetua   with   the   be  arrested  has  committed  it;  and    
accessory  penalties  under  the  law,  and  to   (c)   When   the   person   to   be   arrested   is   a  
jointly   and   severally   indemnify   the   heirs   prisoner   who   has   escaped   from   a   penal  
of  each  of  the  victims,  Sukhdev  Singh  and   establishment   or   place   where   he   is  
Biant  Singh,  in  the  amount  of  P50,000.00.   serving   final   judgment   or   temporarily  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 43

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

confined  while  his  case  is  pending,  or  has   pleas.  It  is  much  too  late  for  them  to  raise  
escaped   while   being   transferred   from   one   the   question   of   their   warrantless   arrests.  
confinement  to  another.     Their   pleas   to   the   information   upon  
  arraignment   constitute   clear   waivers   of  
None   of   the   above   circumstances   is   their   rights   against   unlawful   restraint   of  
present  herein.  Conde,  et.  al.  were  merely   liberty.   Furthermore,   the   illegal   arrest   of  
walking   along   Tandang   Sora   Avenue   and   an   accused   is   not   sufficient   cause   for  
were   not   committing   any   crime.   Neither   setting   aside   a   valid   judgment   rendered  
can   it   be   said   that   the   crime   had   just   been   upon   a   sufficient   complaint   after   trial   free  
committed   as   5   days   had   already   passed   from  error.  The  warrantless  arrest,  even  if  
from   the   time   of   the   robbery   with   illegal,   cannot   render   void   all   other  
homicide.   It   cannot   also   be   said   that   the   proceedings   including   those   leading   to  
arresting   officers   had   probable   cause   the   conviction   of   the   appellants   and   his  
based   on   personal   knowledge,   as   PO3   co-­‐accused,  nor  can  the  state  be  deprived  
Sevillano   admitted   that   they   learned   of   its   right   to   convict   the   guilty   when   all  
about   the   suspects   from   Apollo   Romero   the   facts   on   record   point   to   their  
and  certain  unnamed  informants.  Further,   culpability.  
the   lapse   of   5   days   gave   the   police   more    
than  enough  time  to  conduct  surveillance  
of  the  appellants  and  apply  for  a  warrant    
of   arrest.   Clearly,   the   rights   of   Conde,   et.   Q.   Both   the   transcript   of   stenographic  
al.,   provided   in   Sec.   2,   Art.   III   of   the   notes   and   the   order   issued   by   the   trial  
Constitution   28   were   violated.   judge   failed   to   disclose   categorically   that  
Unfortunately,   they   did   not   assert   their   the  court  informed  the  accused  of  his  right  
constitutional   rights   prior   to   their   to   counsel.   Is   this   sufficient   ground   to  
arraignment.   This   is   fatal   to   their   case.   An   reverse  conviction?  
accused   is   estopped   from   assailing   the  
legality   of   his   arrest   if   he   failed   to   move   A.   No.   The   trial   court   must   be   presumed  
for   the   quashing   of   the   Information   to   have   complied   with   the   procedure  
against  him  before  his  arraignment.  When   prescribed  by  law  for  the  hearing  and  trial  
they   entered   their   pleas   on   arraignment   of   cases,   and   such   a   presumption   can   only  
without   invoking   their   rights   to   question   be  overcome  by  an  affirmative  showing  to  
any   irregularity,   which   might   have   the  contrary.   People  v.  Agbayani,  G.R.  No.  
accompanied   their   arrests,   they   122770,  January  16,  1998,  284  SCRA  315,  
voluntarily   submitted   themselves   to   the   334.   However,   the   Court   admonished   all  
jurisdiction   of   the   court   and   the   judicial   trial  courts  to  have  their  compliance  with  
process.   Any   objection,   defect,   or   their   pre-­‐arraignment   duties   put   on  
irregularity   attending   their   arrests   should   record.  Id.  at  335-­‐36  
had   been   made   before   they   entered   their  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 44

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

The   right   to   counsel   during   the   trial   is   not   as  counsel  de  officio,  and  proceeded  with  
subject   to   waiver   [Flores   v.   Ruiz,   90   the   trial,   there   was   deemed   a   denial   of  
SCRA   428],   because   “even   the   most   this   constitutional   guarantee   [People   v.  
intelligent   or   educated   man   may   have   no   Malunsing,   63   SCRA   493].   Likewise,   in  
skill   in   the   science   of   law,   particularly   in   People   v.   Cuizon,   256   SCRA   325,   where  
the   rules   of   procedure,   and   without   the   accused,   a   Cantonese,   could   not  
counsel,  he  may  be  convicted  not  because   understand   English,   Pilipino   or   any  
he   is   guilty   but   because   he   does   not   know   Philippine  dialect,  it  was  held  that  he  was  
how  to  establish  his  innocence”  [People  v.   denied   the   right   to   counsel   because  
Holgado,   86   Phil   752].   Thus,   the   although   he   was   provided   with   one,   he  
conviction   of   the   accused   in   the   lower   could   not   understand   or   communicate  
court   was   set   aside   and   the   case   with  his  counsel  concerning  his  defense.  
remanded   for   new   trial,   as   the   accused  
was   represented   by   someone   who   was   Although   the   right   to   counsel   is   not  
not   a   member   of   the   Philippine   Bar   indispensable   to   due   process   of   law  
[People   v.   Santociles,   G.R.   No.   109149,   [Feeder   International   Line   v.   Court   of  
December   21,   1999],   But   the   failure   of   Appeals,   supra.],   there   are   instances  
the   record   to   disclose   affirmatively   that   when   the   Constitution   and/or   the   laws  
the   trial   court   advised   the   accused   of   his   provide  that  the  same  may  not  be  waived.    
right  to  counsel  is  not  sufficient  ground  to   Thus,   the   accused   cannot   waive   the   right  
reverse   conviction.   The   trial   court   must   during  the  trial,  and  no  valid  waiver  of  the  
be   presumed   to   have   complied   with   the   right   to   remain   silent   or   to   counsel   can   be  
procedure   prescribed   by   law   for   the   made   by   a   person   under   custodial  
hearing   and   trial   of   cases,   and   such   interrogation   without   the   assistance   of  
presumption  can  be  overcome  only  by  an   counsel.   However,   while   the   right   to   be  
affirmative   showing   to   the   contrary   represented  by  counsel  during  the  trial  is  
[People   v.   Agbayani,   G.R.   No.   122770,   absolute,   the   option   of   the   accused   to   hire  
January  16,  1998].   one   of   his   own   choice   is   limited.   Such  
The   decision   of   conviction   was   set   aside   option   cannot   be   used   to   sanction  
where   it   appeared   that   there   was   merely   reprehensible   dilatory   tactics,   to   trifle  
a   pro   forma   appointment   of   a   counsel   de   with   the   Rules   of   Court,   or   to   prejudice  
officio   who   did   not   exert   his   best   efforts   the   equally   important   rights   of   the   State  
for   the   protection   of   the   accused   [People   and   the   offended   party   to   speedy   and  
v.   Magsi,   124   SCRA   64].   Where   the   adequate  justice  [People  v.  Serzo,  G.R.  No.  
accused   manifested   that   he   had   lost   118435,  June  20,  1997].  
confidence   in   his   counsel   de   officio   and    
wanted   to   retain   a   counsel   de   parte,   but  
the  court  still  appointed  the  same  lawyer  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 45

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Q.   The   accused   contends   that   the   judge’s   GABBY  RECIT:  


appointment  of  a  counsel  de  oficio  deprives  
him   of   his   constitutional   right   to   be   Q:   During   trial,   is   it   the   right   of   the  
defended   by   counsel   of   his   own   choice.   accused   to   choose   his   preferred  
Decide.   counsel?  

A.  The  ‘preference  in  the  choice  of  counsel’   ANS  –  Yes.  Always  preferred,  See  the  case  
pertains   more   aptly   and   specifically   to   a   of   Amion   (3x   change   imba!   Ampopo!).  
person   under   investigation   rather   than   Preference   in   the   choice   of   counsel  
one   who   is   the   accused   in   criminal   pertains  more  aptly  and  significantly  to  a  
prosecution.   Amion   v.   Judge   Chiongson,   person   under   investigation   rather   than  
A.M.  No.  RTJ-­‐97-­‐1371,  January  22,  1999.   the   one   who   is   the   accused   in   a   criminal  
prosecution.  
An   examination   of   related   provisions   in  
the   Constitution   concerning   the   right   to   Preference   are   not   exclusive.   Just   like   all  
counsel   will   show   that   the   “preference   in   other  constitutional  rights,  the  right  of  the  
the  choice  of  cqunsel”  pertains  more  aptly   accused  to  counsel  during  trial  cannot  be  
and   specifically   to   a   person   under   exercised   arbitrarily   to   the   prejudice   of  
custodial   investigation   rather   than   one   other   equally   entitled   to   other  
who   is   accused   in   criminal   prosecution.   constitutional  guarantees.  
And  even  if  the  application  of  the  concept    
were   to   be   extended   to   an   accused   in   a  
criminal   prosecution,   such   preferential    
discretion  cannot  partake  of  discretion  so  
absolute   and   arbitrary   as   would   make   the   AMION  VS.  JUDGE  CHIONGSON  [A.M.  NO.  
choice   of   counsel   refer   exclusively   to   the   RTJ-­‐97-­‐1371,  JANUARY  22,  1999]  
predilection  of  the  accused.  Thus,  there  is  
THE   CONSTITUTIONAL   RIGHT   OF   THE  
no  denial  of  the  right  to  counsel  where  the  
ACCUSED   TO   BE   HEARED   BY   COUNSEL  
counsel   de   oficio   was   appointed   during  
CANNOT   BE   EXERCISED   TO   THE  
the   absence   of   the   accused’s   counsel   de  
PREJUDICE   OF   OTHER   PARTIES.   The  
parte   pursuant   to   the   court’s   desire   to  
claim   of   accused-­‐complainant   that  
finish   the   case   as   early   as   possible   under  
respondent   judge's   appointment   of   a  
the   continuous   trial   system   [Amion   v.  
counsel   de   oficio   constitutes   a   clear  
Judge   Chiongson,   A.M.   No.   RTJ-­‐97-­‐1371,  
violation  of  his  right  to  due  process  and  a  
January   22,   1999].   This   is   reiterated   in  
deprivation   of   his   constitutional   right   to  
People   v.   Rivera,   G.R.   No.   139180,   July  
be  defended  by  counsel  of  his  own  choice  
31,  2001.  
cannot  be  countenanced  by  this  Court.  
 

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 46

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

An   examination   of   related   provisions   in   contemplated  by  the  framers  of  the  


the   Constitution   concerning   the   right   to   charter"  
counsel,  will  show  that  the  "preference  in  
the  choice  of  counsel"  pertains  more  aptly   Applying  this  principle  enunciated  by  the  
and   specifically   to   a   person   under   Court,   we   may   likewise   say   that   the  
investigation   rather   than   one   who   is   the   accused's   discretion   in   a   criminal  
accused  in  a  criminal  prosecution.   prosecution   with   respect   to   his   choice   of  
counsel   is   not   so   much   as   to   grant   him   a  
Even  if  we  were  to  extend  the  application   plenary   prerogative   which   would  
of  the  concept  of  "preference  in  the  choice   preclude   other   equally   competent   and  
of   counsel"   to   an   accused   in   a   criminal   independent   counsels   from   representing  
prosecution,   such   preferential   discretion   him.   Otherwise,   the   pace   of   a   criminal  
cannot   partake   of   a   discretion   so   absolute   prosecution   will   be   entirely   dictated   by  
and  arbitrary  as  would  make  the  choice  of   the   accused   to   the   detriment   of   the  
counsel   refer   exclusively   to   the   eventual  resolution  of  the  case.  
predilection  of  the  accused.  
Accused-­‐complainant  was  not,  in  any  way,  
As   held   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   People   deprived   of   his   substantive   and  
vs.  Barasina:   constitutional   right   to   due   process   as   he  
was  duly  accorded  all  the  opportunities  to  
"Withal,   the   word   be   heard   and   to   present   evidence   to  
"preferably"   under   Section   12(1),   substantiate   his   defense   but   he   forfeited  
Article   3   of   the   1987   Constitution   this   right,   for   not   appearing   in   court  
does   not   convey   the   message   that   together  with  his  counsel  at  the  scheduled  
the  choice  of  a  lawyer  by  a  person   hearings.  
under   investigation   is   exclusive   as  
to   preclude   other   equally   Accused-­‐complainant   had   more   than  
competent   and   independent   sufficient   time   and   every   available  
attorneys   from   handling   his   opportunity   to   present   his   side   which  
defense.  If  the  rule  were  otherwise,   would   have   led   to   the   expeditious  
then,   the   tempo   of   a   custodial   termination   of   the   case.   A   party   cannot  
investigation,   will   be   solely   in   the   feign   denial   of   due   process   when   he   had  
hands   of   the   accused   who   can   the  opportunity  to  present  his  side.  
impede,  nay,  obstruct  the  progress  
of   the   interrogation   by   simply   Moreover,  there  is  no  denial  of  the  right  to  
selecting   a   lawyer,   who   for   one   counsel   where   a   counsel   de   oficio   was  
reason   or   another,   is   not   available   appointed   during   the   absence   of   the  
to  protect  his  interest.  This  absurd   accused's   counsel   de   parte   pursuant   to  
scenario   could   not   have   been   the   court's   desire   to   finish   the   case   as  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 47

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

early  as  practicable  under  the  continuous   appointed   Atty.   Jacildo   of   PAO   as   counsel  
trial  system.   de  oficio  who  was  however,  prohibited  to  
represent   a   party   who   has   retained   the  
Thus,  it  has  been  held  by  this  Court  in  the   services   of   a   counsel   of   his   own   choice.   At  
case  of  Lacambra  v.  Ramos:   the   next   scheduled   hearing   Atty.  
"The  Court  cannot  help  but  note  the  series   Depasucat   still   did   not   show   up   in   court.  
of   legal   maneuvers   resorted   to   and   In   view   of   the   fact   that   the   victim's   wife,  
repeated   importunings   of   the   accused   or   Mrs.   Vaflor   and   another   government  
his   counsel,   which   resulted   in   the   witness   both   reside   about   70   to   80  
protracted  trial  of  the  case,  thus  making  a   kilometers  from  Bacolod  City,  and  that  the  
mockery   of   the   judicial   process,   not   to   appearance   of   Atty.   Depasucat   remained  
mention   the   injustice   caused   by   the   delay   uncertain,   Judge   Chiongson,   appointed  
to  the  victim's  family."   Atty.   Lao-­‐Ong   from   the   Free   Legal   Aid  
Office   to   represent   Amion   without  
Undoubtedly,   it   was   accused-­‐ prejudice   to   the   appearance   of   Amion's  
complainant's  own  strategic  machinations   counsel  de  parte.  Amion  filed  a  complaint  
which   brought   upon   the   need   for   the   charging   respondent   judge   with  
appointment   of   a   counsel   de   oficio   in   as   Ignorance   of   the   Law   and   Oppression  
much   as   the   criminal   case   had   been   relative   to   the   former's   criminal   case.  
dragging  on  its  lethargic  course.   Amion   asserts   that   his   right   to   due  
process   was   violated   and   that   he   was  
  deprived   of   his   constitutional   and  
statutory  right  to  be  defended  by  counsel  
 
of  his  own  choice.  
 
ISSUE:   Whether   or   not   respondent  
AMION  VS.  JUDGE  CHIONGSON  [A.M.  NO.   judge's  appointment  of  a  counsel  de  oficio  
RTJ-­‐97-­‐1371,  JANUARY  22,  1999]   constitutes   a   violation   of   accused-­‐
complainant's   right   to   due   process   and   a  
FACTS:   At   the   scheduled   hearing   of   the   deprivation   of   his   constitutional   right   to  
criminal  case  against  Amion,  trial  was  not   be  defended  by  counsel  of  his  own  choice.  
held   because   on   the   day   before   the  
scheduled   hearing,   he   was   informed   that   RULING:   The   accused's   discretion   in   a  
his  retained  counsel,  Atty.  Depasucat,  was   criminal   prosecution   with   respect   to   his  
ill.   The   hearing   was   reset   with   a   warning   choice   of   counsel   is   not   so   much   as   to  
that   no   further   postponement   would   be   grant   him   a   plenary   prerogative   which  
entertained.   On   the   date   of   re-­‐scheduled   would   preclude   other   equally   competent  
hearing,   Atty.   Depasucat   again   failed   to   and   independent   counsels   from  
appear.   To   avoid   further   delay,   the   court   representing  him.  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 48

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

  prejudice   to   the   appearance   of   Amion's  


counsel  de  parte.  Amion  filed  a  complaint  
AMION  V.  CHIONGSON  A.M.  No.  RTJ-­‐97-­‐ charging   respondent   judge   with  
137,  January  22,  1999,  Martinez,  J.   Ignorance   of   the   Law   and   Oppression  
  relative   to   the   former's   criminal   case.  
Doctrine:   Amion   asserts   that   his   right   to   due  
The   accused's   discretion   in   a   criminal   process   was   violated   and   that   he   was  
prosecution   with   respect   to   his   choice   of   deprived   of   his   constitutional   and  
counsel   is   not   so   much   as   to   grant   him   a   statutory  right  to  be  defended  by  counsel  
plenary   prerogative   which   would   of  his  own  choice.  
preclude   other   equally   competent   and    
independent   counsels   from   representing   ISSUE:   Whether   or   not   respondent  
him.   judge's  appointment  of  a  counsel  de  oficio  
  constitutes   a   violation   of   accused-­‐
FACTS:   At   the   scheduled   hearing   of   the   complainant's   right   to   due   process   and   a  
criminal  case  against  Amion,  trial  was  not   deprivation   of   his   constitutional   right   to  
held   because   on   the   day   before   the   be  defended  by  counsel  of  his  own  choice.  
scheduled   hearing,   he   was   informed   that    
his  retained  counsel,  Atty.  Depasucat,  was   RULING:   The   concept   of   "preference   in  
ill.   The   hearing   was   reset   with   a   warning   the  choice  of  counsel"  pertains  more  aptly  
that   no   further   postponement   would   be   and   specifically   to   a   person   under  
entertained.   On   the   date   of   re-­‐scheduled   investigation.   Even   if   application   would  
hearing,   Atty.   Depasucat   again   failed   to   be   extended   to   an   accused   in   a   criminal  
appear.   To   avoid   further   delay,   the   court   prosecution,   such   preferential   discretion  
appointed   Atty.   Jacildo   of   PAO   as   counsel   cannot   partake   of   one   so   absolute   and  
de  oficio  who  was  however,  prohibited  to   arbitrary   as   would   make   the   choice   of  
represent   a   party   who   has   retained   the   counsel   refer   exclusively   to   the  
services   of   a   counsel   of   his   own   choice.   At   predilection  of  the  accused  and  thus  make  
the   next   scheduled   hearing   Atty.   the   pace   of   criminal   prosecution   entirely  
Depasucat  still  did  not  show  up  in  court.     dictated   by   the   accused   to   the   detriment  
  of  the  eventual  resolution  of  the  case.    
In   view   of   the   fact   that   the   victim's   wife,    
Mrs.   Vaflor   and   another   government   Moreover,  Amion  was  not  deprived  of  his  
witness   both   reside   about   70   to   80   substantive   and   constitutional   right   to  
kilometers  from  Bacolod  City,  and  that  the   due   process   as   he   was   duly   accorded   all  
appearance   of   Atty.   Depasucat   remained   the   opportunities   to   be   heard   and   to  
uncertain,   Judge   Chiongson,   appointed   present   evidence   to   substantiate   his  
Atty.   Lao-­‐Ong   from   the   Free   Legal   Aid   defense  but  he  forfeited  this  right,  for  not  
Office   to   represent   Amion   without   appearing   in   court   together   with   his  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 49

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

counsel  at  the  scheduled  hearings.  Finally,   notwithstanding  that  his  motion  for  leave  
there   is   no   denial   of   the   right   to   counsel   of   court   was   denied,   thus   precluding   the  
where   a   counsel   de   oficio   was   appointed   accused  to  present  his  evidence.  In  Reyes  
during   the   absence   of   the   accused's   v.   Court   of   Appeals,   G.R.   No.   111682,  
counsel   de   parte   pursuant   to   the   court's   February  6,  1997,  a  new  trial  was  ordered  
desire   to   finish   the   case   as   early   as   after   a   showing   that   counsel   for   the  
practicable   under   the   continuous   trial   accused   abandoned   the   accused   without  
system.   The   administrative   complaint   is   explanation.   In   People   v.   Bascuguin,   G.R.  
dismissed.   No.   1444o4,   September   4,   2001,   it   was  
  held   that   the   counsel   de   officio’s   haste   in  
proceeding   with   the   arraignment   falls  
NACHURA:   short   of   the   standard   mandated   by   the  
The   long   standing   rule   is   that   a   client   is   rules   of   effective   and   adequate  
bound   by   the   mistakes   of   his   lawyer   counselling.  
[Andrada   v.   People,   G.R.   No.   135222,    
March   4,   2005],   except   when   the  
negligence   or   incompetence   of   counsel   is    
deemed  so  gross  as  to  have  prejudiced  the  
constitutional   right   of   the   accused   to   be    
heard.      
Thus,   in   U.S.   v.   Gimenez,   34   Phil.   74,   the    
case   was   remanded   for   new   trial   when  
counsel   for   the   accused   inadvertently    
substituted   a   plea   of   guilty   for   an   earlier  
plea   of   not   guilty,   thus   resulting   in   the    
precipitate  conviction  of  his  client.    
 
In  Aguilar  v.  Court  of  Appeals,  320  Phil.  
 
456,   the   dismissed   appeal   from   a  
conviction   for   estafa   was   reinstated   after    
it   was   shown   that   the   failure   to   file   the  
appellant’s   brief   on   time   was   due   to   the    
sheer   irresponsibility   on   the   part   of  
appellant’s   counsel.   In   De   Guzman   v.    
Sandiganbayan,   G.R.   No.   103276,   April    
11,   1996,   the   case   was   remanded   for  
reception  of  evidence  after  counsel  filed  a    
demurrer   to   the   evidence  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 50

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

  A.   The   accused   must   be   informed   of   the  


nature   of   the   accusation   against   him   in  
  order   to   prepare   his   defense.   He   should  
  not   be   made   to   guess   the   charge   against  
him.  
 
 
 
Q.   What   is   the   purpose   and   scope   of   the  
  right  to  be  informed?  

  A.  The  object  of  the  written  accusation  is  –  


first,   to   furnish   the   accused   with   such   a  
  description   of   the   charge   against   him   as  
will   enable   him   to   make   his   defense;   and  
 
second,   to   avail   himself   of   his   conviction  
  or   acquittal   for   prosecution   against   a  
further   prosecution   for   the   same   cause;  
  and  third,  to  inform  the  court  of  the  facts  
alleged,   so   that   it   may   decide   whether  
  they   are   sufficient   in   law   to   support   a  
  conviction,  if  one  should  be  had.  In  order  
that   this   requirement   may   be   satisfied,  
  facts   must   be   stated,   not   conclusions   of  
law.   Every   crime   is   made   up   of   certain  
  acts  and  intent;  these  must  be  set  forth  in  
the   complaint   with   reasonable  
 
particularity   of   time,   place,   names  
  (plaintiff   and   defendant),   and  
circumstances.   In   short,   the   complaint  
RIGHT  TO  BE  INFORMED  OF  THE   must   contain   a   specific   allegation   of   every  
NATURE  AND  CAUSE  OF  THE   fact   and   circumstance   necessary   to  
ACCUSATION  AGAINST  HIM   constitute   the   crime   charged.   US   v.  
Karelsen,  3  Phil.  223  (1904).  
 
 
Q.   What   are   the   purposes   of   the  
Rationale.  In  People  v.  Valdesancho,  G.R.  
requirement   that   the   accused   should   be  
No.  137051-­‐52,  May  30,  2001,  reiterated  
informed   of   the   nature   of   the   accusation  
in   People   v.   Monteron,   G.R.   No.   130709,  
filed  against  him?  
March  06,  2002,  the  Supreme  Court  said  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 51

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

that   the   reasons   for   this   guarantee,   as   Q:   What   are   the   contents   of   criminal  
explained  in  US  v.  Karlsen,  are:   information?  
ANS  –    
1) to   furnish   the   accused   a. Name  of  the  accused  
with   such   a   description   b. Designation  given  to  the  offense  by  
of   the   charge   against   the  statute  
him   as   will   enable   him   c. Statements  of  acts  or  omissions  
to   prepare   for   his   d. Name  of  the  offended  party  
defense;   e. Approximate  time  and  date  
2) to   avail   himself   of   his   f. Place   of   the   commission   of   the  
conviction   or   acquittal   crime  
for   protection   against   a    
further   prosecution   for   Q;   What   if   there   is   a   conflict   between  
the  same  cause;  and   the   name   of   the   offense   and   acts  
3) to   inform   the   Court   of   between   the   one   provided,   is   the   right  
the  facts  alleged,  so  that   violated?  
it   may   decide   whether   ANS   –   No.   It   is   enunciated   in   the   case   of  
they  are  sufficient  in  law   Soriano   vs.   Sandiganbayan.   What   is  
to  support  a  conviction.   controlling   is   the   description   in   the  
  complaint  or  information.  
   
Q:     What   are   the   three   (3)   reasons   of  
the   right   to   be   informed   of   the   nature   In  People  v.  Crisologo,  150  SCRA  653,  the  
and  case  of  accusations  during  trial.   conviction   of   the   accused   who   was   a   deaf-­‐
  mute  was  reversed  by  the  Supreme  Court  
ANS  –     because   no   one   who   knew   how   to  
1. To   enable   him   to   make   his   proper   communicate   with   the   accused   was  
defense.   utilized   by   the   trial   court   during   the  
2. To   avail   himself   of   his   conviction   entire  proceedings.  Similarly,  in  People  v.  
or   acquittal   for   protection   against   Parazo,  G.R.  No.  121176,  July  8,  1999,  the  
a  further  prosecution  for  the  same   judgment   of   conviction   rendered   by   the  
cause.     trial   court   was   vacated   where   there   was  
3. To   inform   the   court   of   the   facts   no  showing  that  the  accused,  a  deaf-­‐  mute,  
alleged,   so   that   it   may   decide   was   aided   by   a   competent   sign   language  
whether   they   are   sufficient   in   law   expert   able   to   fully   understand   and  
to   support   a   conviction,   if   one   interpret   the   actions   and   mutterings   of  
should  be  had.   the  appellant.  See  also  People  v.  Ramirez,  
  69   SCRA   144;   People   v.   Montes,   122  
SCRA  409.  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 52

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Settled   is   the   rule   that   when   a   judge   is   6) the  place  where  the  offense  had  
informed   or   discovers   that   an   accused   is   been   committed.   People   v.  
apparently   in   a   condition   of   insanity   or   Quitlong,  G.R.  No.  121562,  July  
imbecility,   it   is   within   his   discretion   to   10,  1998,  292  SCRA  360.  
investigate   the   matter.   If   it   be   found   that    
by   reason   of   such   affliction   the   accused  
could  not,  with  the  aid  of  counsel,  make  a    
proper  defense,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  court   PEOPLE   VS.   QUITLONG   [G.R.   NO.  
to   suspend   proceedings   and   commit   the   121562,  JULY  10,  1998]  
accused   to   a   proper   place   of   detention  
until   he   recovers   his   faculties.   To   arraign   Overwhelming,   such   as   it   may   have   been  
the   accused   while   he   is   in   a   state   of   thought   of   by   the   trial   court,   evidence   of  
insanity   will   violate   the   right   of   the   conspiracy   is   not   enough   for   an   accused  
accused  to  be  informed  of  the  nature  and   to   bear   and   to   respond   to   all   its   grave  
cause   of   the   accusation   against   him   legal  consequences;  it  is  equally  essential  
[People   v.   Alcalde,   G.R.   Nos.   139225-­‐26,   that   such   accused   has   been   apprised  
May  29,  2002].   when   the   charge   is   made   conformably  
with   prevailing   substantive   and  
  procedural   requirements.   Article   III,  
Q.   What   must   a   criminal   information   Section   14,   of   the   1987   Constitution,   in  
contain   in   order   to   comply   with   the   particular,   mandates   that   no   person   shall  
constitutional   right   of   the   accused   to   be   be  held  answerable  for  a  criminal  offense  
informed   of   the   nature   and   cause   of   the   without  due  process  of  law  and  that  in  all  
accusation  against  him?   criminal   prosecutions   the   accused   shall  
first  be  informed  of  the  nature  and  cause  
A.   According   to   Sections   6   and   8   of   Rule   of  the  accusation  against  him.  The  right   to  
110  of  the  Rules  of  Court,  it  must  state  the   be   informed   of   any   such   indictment   is  
following:   likewise   explicit   in   procedural   rules.   The  
practice   and   object   of   informing   an  
1) the  name  of  the  accused;   accused   in   writing   of   the   charges   against  
2) the   designantion   given   to   the   him   has   been   explained   as   early   as   the  
offense  by  the  statute;   1904   decision   of   the   Court   in   U.S.  
3) a   statement   of   the   acts   or   vs.Karelsen;  viz:  
omissions   so   complained   of   as  
constituting  the  offense;    
4) the  name  of  the  offended  party;  
5) the   approximate   time   and   date   “First.   To   furnish   the  
of   the   commission   of   the   accused  with  such  a  description  of  
offense;  and   the   charge   against   him   as   will  
enable   him   to   make   his   defense;  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 53

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

and   second,   to   avail   himself   of   his   have   a   bearing   on   the   culpability   and  
conviction   or   acquittal   for   liability  of  the  accused  so  that  the  accused  
protection   against   a   further   can   properly   prepare   for   and   undertake  
prosecution   for   the   same   cause;   his  defense.  One  such  fact  or  circumstance  
and   third,   to   inform   the   court   of   in   a   complaint   against   two   or   more  
the   facts   alleged,   so   that   it   may   accused   persons   is   that   of   conspiracy.  
decide   whether   they   are   sufficient   Quite   unlike   the   omission   of   an   ordinary  
in   law   to   support   a   conviction,   if   recital  of  fact  which,  if  not  excepted  from  
one   should   be   had.   (United   States   or   objected   to   during   trial,   may   be  
vs.   Cruikshank,   92   U.S.,   542).   In   corrected  or  supplied  by  competent  proof,  
order   that   this   requirement   may   an   allegation,   however,   of   conspiracy,   or  
be   satisfied,   facts   must   be   stated,   one   that   would   impute   criminal   liability  
not   conclusions   of   law.   Every   to   an   accused   for   the   act   of   another   or  
crime   is   made   up   of   certain   acts   others,   is   indispensable   in   order   to   hold  
and  intent;  these  must  be  set  forth   such  person,  regardless  of  the  nature  and  
in   the   complaint   with   reasonable   extent   of   his   own   participation,   equally  
particularity   of   time,   place,   names   guilty   with   the   other   or   others   in   the  
(plaintiff   and   defendant),   and   commission   of   the   crime.   Where  
circumstances.   In   short,   the   conspiracy   exists   and   can   rightly   be  
complaint   must   contain   a   specific   appreciated,   the   individual   acts   done   to  
allegation   of   every   fact   and   perpetrate   the   felony   becomes   of  
circumstance   necessary   to   secondary   importance,   the   act   of   one  
constitute  the  crime  charged.”   being   imputable   to   all   the   others.   Verily,  
an   accused   must   know   from   the  
An   information,   in   order   to   ensure   that   information   whether   he   faces   a   criminal  
the   constitutional   right   of   the   accused   to   responsibility   not   only   for   his   acts   but  
be  informed  of  the  nature  and  cause  of  his   also  for  the  acts  of  his  co-­‐accused  as  well.  
accusation   is   not   violated,   must   state   the  
name   of   the   accused;   the   designation   A   conspiracy   indictment   need   not,   of  
given   to   the   offense   by   the   statute;   a   course,   aver   all   the   components   of  
statement   of   the   acts   or   omissions   so   conspiracy  or  allege  all  the  details  thereof,  
complained  of  as  constituting  the  offense;   like   the   part   that   each   of   the   parties  
the   name   of   the   offended   party;   the   therein   have   performed,   the   evidence  
approximate   time   and   date   of   the   proving   the   common   design   or   the   facts  
commission   of   the   offense;   and   the   place   connecting   all   the   accused   with   one  
where   the   offense   has   been   committed.   In   another   in   the   web   of   the   conspiracy.  
embodying   the   essential   elements   of   the   Neither   is   it   necessary   to   describe  
crime   charged,   the   information   must   set   conspiracy   with   the   same   degree   of  
forth   the   facts   and   circumstances   that   particularity   required   in   describing   a  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 54

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

substantive   offense.   It   is   enough   that   the   The   defense   gave   no   alibi   and   admitted  
indictment   contains   a   statement   of   the   the  presence  of  accused-­‐appellants  at  the  
facts  relied  upon  to  be  constitutive  of  the   vicinity  of  the  crime  scene  but  interposed  
offense  in  ordinary  and  concise  language,   denial   by   appellants   of   any   participation  
with   as   much   certainty   as   the   nature   of   in  the  commission  of  the  crime.  
the   case   will   admit,   in   a   manner   that   can  
enable   a   person   of   common   Nonita   de   los   Reyes   and   Lydia   Cultura,  
understanding   to   know   what   is   intended,   both   sidewalk   vendors,   corroborated   the  
and   with   such   precision   that   the   accused   story   of   the   Quitlong   brothers.   According  
may  plead  his  acquittal  or  conviction  to  a   to   Nonita   and   Lydia,   it   was   a   certain  
subsequent  indictment  based  on  the  same   Mendoza  who  stabbed  Calpito.    
facts.   It   is   said,   generally,   that   an  
indictment   may   be   held   sufficient   "if   it   On   21   April   1995,   the   trial   court,  
follows   the   words   of   the   statute   and   following   his   evaluation   of   the   respective  
reasonably   informs   the   accused   of   the   submissions   of   the   prosecution   and   the  
character   of   the   offense   he   is   charged   defense,  including  their  rebuttal  and  sub-­‐
with   conspiring   to   commit,   or,   following   rebuttal  evidence,  rendered  its  decision:  
the   language   of   the   statute,   contains   a  
sufficient   statement   of   an   overt   act   to   “RONNIE   QUITLONG   Y   FRIAS,  
effect   the   object   of   the   conspiracy,   or   SALVADOR   QUITLONG   Y   FRIAS  
alleges   both   the   conspiracy   and   the   and   EMILIO   SENOTO,   JR.   Y  
contemplated  crime  in  the  language  of  the   PASCUA   were   adjudged   by   the  
respective  statutes  defining  them."   Regional   Trial   Court   of   Baguio  
guilty   beyond   reasonable   doubt  
  of   the   crime   of   murder   and  
sentenced   to   suffer   an  
PEOPLE   VS.   QUITLONG   [G.R.   NO.  
121562,  JULY  10,  1998]   indeterminate   penalty   of  
TWENTY   (20)   YEARS   of  
reclusion  temporal,  as  minimum,  
FACTS.   On   October   1994,   the   victim  
Jonathan   Calpito   Y   Castro,   along   with   his   to   FORTY   (40)   YEARS   of  
friends  and  Gosil  and  Adjaro  were  caught   reclusion   perpetua,   as   maximum;  
in   an   argument   with   a   fishball   vendor   to   indemnify,   jointly   and  
severally,   the   heirs   of   the  
when   they   claimed   to   shortchanged   by  
the   vendor.   The   accused   were   seen   to   deceased   Jonathan   Calpito   y  
have  rushed  to  them  and  cornered  Calpito   Castro  in  the  sums  of  P50,000.00  
for  the  latter's  death;  P35,700.00  
which   lead   to   his   being   stabbed.   He   was  
rushed  to  the  hospital  but  he  was  not  able   as   consequential   damages;   and  
P100,000.00   as   moral   damages,  
to  survive.  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 55

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

plus   their   proportionate   shares   two   or   more   individuals.   It   occurred   at  


in  the  costs.   the  spur  of  moment.    

There   being   no   indication   that   The  two  accomplices,  appellants  Salvador  


the   remaining   accused,   Jesus   Quitlong   and   Emilio   Senoto,   Jr.,   were  
Mendoza,  whom  they  claim  to   subject   to   the   imposition   of   the   penalty  
be   the   one   who   stabbed   the   next   lower   in   degree   than   reclusion  
victim,   and   several   John   Does   temporal   maximum   to   death   or,  
could   be   arrested/identified   accordingly,   prision   mayor   in   its  
and   arrested   shortly,   let   the   maximum   period   to   reclusion  temporal   in  
case   against   them   be,   as   it   is   its  medium  period.    
hereby,   archived   without  
prejudice   to   its   prosecution   Applying   the   Indeterminate   Sentence   Law  
upon  their  apprehension.”   to   them,   each   may   be   held   to   suffer   the  
indeterminate  sentence  of  anywhere  from  
Ronnie   Quitlong   appealed   with   the   prision   correccional   in   its   maximum  
Supreme   Court   averring   that   the   RTC   period   to   prision   mayor   in   its   medium  
erred   in   its   judgement.Senoto   averred   period,   as   the   minimum   penalty,   to  
that   the   trial   court   has   erred   in   finding   anywhere   within   the   range   of   reclusion  
conspiracy  among  the  accused  and  argues   temporal   minimum,   as   the   maximum  
that   the   crime   committed   is   homicide,   not   penalty.  
murder,  given  the  circumstances.  
The   trial   court   correctly   imposed   the  
ISSUE.   Whether   or   not   the   herein   three   payment   of   a   civil   indemnity   of  
accused   may   be   held   guilty   as   co-­‐ P50,000.00   in   favor   of   the   heirs   of   the  
principals  by  reason  of  conspiracy  for,  the   victim.   The   consequential   (actual)  
fatal  stabbing  of  the  victim,  Calpito,  there   damages  in  the  amount  of  P35,700.00  not  
being   no   dispute   that   the   latter   died   due   having   been   substantiated,   except   for   the  
to  the  solitary  stab  inflicted  on  him.   amount   P12,000.00   paid   to   the   memorial  
chapel,  is  disallowed.  The  award  of  moral  
RULING:   The  Supreme  Court  established,   damages   recoverable   under   Article   2219  
through   witnesses,   that   it   was   Ronnie   (1),   in   relation   to   Article   2206,   of   the   Civil  
Quitlong   who   stabbed   Calpito.   And   that   Code   is   reduced   from   P100,000.00   to  
the  rest  were  just  mere  accomplices  since   P20,000.00.  
the  act  of  holding  the  victim  while  Ronnie  
Quitlong   was   about   to   stab   him   does   not   Appellant  Ronnie  Quitlong  is  found  guilty  
demonstrate   the   concurrence   of   will   or   of   the   crime   of   murder   for   the   killing   of  
the   unity   of   action   and   purpose   that   could   Jonathan   Calpito   and   sentenced   to   suffer  
be   a   basis   for   collective   responsibility   of   the   penalty   of   reclusion   perpetua   and  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 56

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

further   ordered   to   indemnify   the   heirs   of   so   that   the   accused   can   prepare   for   and  
the  victim  in  the  amount  of  P50,000.00,  to   undertake   his   defense.   One   such   fact   or  
reimburse   them   the   actual   damages   of   circumstance   in   a   complaint   against   two  
P12,000.00   and   to   pay   moral   damages   of   or  more  persons  is  conspiracy.  Where  no  
P50,000.00.   Appellants   Salvador   Quitlong   such  allegation  is  made  in  the  information,  
and  Emilio  Senoto,  Jr.,  are  found  guilty  as   the   court’s   finding   of   conspiracy   violates  
accomplices   in   the   commission   of   the   the  constitutional  requirement  [People  v.  
crime,   and   each   shall   suffer   the   Quitlong,  G.R.  No.  121502,  July  10,  1998].  
indeterminate   sentence   of   nine   (9)   years   Every   element   of   the   offense   must   be  
and   four   (4)   months   of   prision   mayor   alleged   in   the   complaint   or   information,  
minimum  period,  as  minimum  penalty,  to   because  the  accused  is  presumed  to  have  
thirteen   (13)   years   and   nine   (9)   months   no   independent   knowledge   of   the   facts  
and   ten   (10)   days   of   reclusion   temporal   that   constitute   the   offense   charged  
minimum   period,   as   maximum   penalty.   [People   v.   Tabion,   G.R.   No.   132715,  
Appellants   Salvador   Quitlong   and   Emilio   October  20,  1999]  
Senoto,  Jr.,  are  also  hereby  held  solidarily  
liable   with   appellant   Ronnie   Quitlong   in   But   it   is   not   necessary   to   state   in   the  
the  payment  of  the  damages  hereinabove   complaint   or   information   the   precise   time  
mentioned.     when   the   offense   was   committed,   except  
when   time   is   a   material   ingredient   of   the  
  offense.   The   act   may   be   alleged   to   have  
been  committed  at  any  time  as  near  to  the  
NACHURA:   actual   date   at   which   the   offense   was  
committed   as   the   information   or  
Requisites.   In   order   that   the   complaint   will   permit   [People   v.   Marcelo,  
constitutional   right   of   the   accused   to   be   G.R.   No.   126714,   March   22,   1999],   This  
informed   of   the   nature   and   cause   of   the   rule   was   reiterated   in   People   v.   Alba,   G.R.  
accusation   against   him   may   not   be   Nos.   131858-­‐59,   April   15,   1999   and   in  
violated,   the   information   must   state   the   People  v.  Flores,  Jr.,  G.R.  No.  128823-­‐24,  
name   of   the   accused,   the   designation   December   27,   2002,   where   it   was   held  
given   to   the   offense   by   statute,   a   that   the   exact   date   the   rape   was  
statement   of   the   acts   or   omission   so   committed  is  not  an  element  of  the  crime.  
complained  of  as  constituting  the  offense,  
the   name   of   the   offended   party,   the   Due   process   requires   that   the   acts   or  
approximate   time   and   date   of   the   omissions  constitutive  of  the  offense  must  
commission   of   the   offense   and   the   place   be   stated   in   the   information   to   fully  
where   the   offense   had   been   committed.   apprise  the  accused  of  the  charge  against  
The   information   must   set   forth   the   facts   him   [People   v.   Garcia,   281   SCRA   463;  
and  circumstances  that  have  a  bearing  on   People   v.   Bolatete,   G.R.   No.   127570,  
the  culpability  and  liability  of  the  accused,   February   25,   1999].   The   nature   and   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 57

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

cause   of   the   accusation   must   be   because   they   were   not   properly   charged  
reasonably   stated   in   the   information   in  the  information.  
[People   v.   Ambray,   G.R.   No.   127177,  
February   25,   1999],   Thus,   in   People   v.   While  the  trial  court  can  hold  a  joint  trial  
Puertollano,   G.R.   No.   122423,   June   17,   of   two   or   more   criminal   cases   and   can  
1999,   where   the   information   (for   rape)   render   a   consolidated   decision,   it   cannot  
failed   to   allege   the   victim’s   exact   age,   it   convict  the  accused  of  the  complex  crime  
was  held  that  the  imposition  of  the  death   constitutive   of   the   various   crimes   in   the  
penalty   was   not   warranted,   considering   two  informations.  To  do  so  would  violate  
that   for   the   imposition   of   the   death   the  right  of  the  accused  to  be  informed  of  
penalty   the   special   qualifying   the  nature  and  the  cause  of  the  accusation  
circumstance   of   the   victim’s   age   and   her   against  him  [People  v.  De  Vera,  G.R.  Nos.  
relationship   to   the   offender   must   be   121462-­‐63,  June  9,  1999].  
alleged.     The   fundamental   test   to   determine   the  
Likewise,   in   People   v.   Bonghanoy,   G.R.   adequacy   of   the   averments   in   an  
No.   124097,   June   17,   1999,   because   the   information  is  whether  the  facts  alleged,  if  
information   failed   to   allege   the   hypothetically   admitted,   would   establish  
relationship  between  the  accused  and  the   the   essential   elements   of   the   crime.  
victim,  the  death  penalty  was  not  imposed.   [People  v.  Robert  Balao,  G.R.  No.  176819,  
See  also  People  v.  De  la  Cuesta,  G.R.  No.   January  26,  2011]  
126134,  March  2,  1999.    
The   description   not   the   designation   of   the   SORIANO   VS.   SANDIGANBAYAN   [G.R.  
offense   controls   [Soriano   v.   NO.  L-­‐65952,  JULY  31,  1984]  
Sandiganbayan,   131   SCRA   184;   Santos  v.  
People,   181   SCRA   487;   Pecho   v.   People,   THE  DESCRIPTION  IN  THE  COMPLAINT  
262   SCRA   918],   The   accused   can   be   OR   INFORMATION   CONTROLS   OVER  
convicted   only   of   the   crime   alleged   or   THE   DESIGNATION   OF   THE   OFFENSE.  
necessarily   included   in   the   allegations   in   The   principal   issue   in   this   petition   to  
th,e   information   [People   v.   Legaspi,   246   review  a  decision  of  the  Sandiganbayan  is  
SCRA  206],     whether   or   not   the   preliminary  
investigation   of   a   criminal   complaint  
Thus,   in   People   v.   Paglinawan,   G.R.   No.   conducted   by   a   Fiscal   is   a   "contract   or  
123094,   January   31,   2000,   where   during   transaction"   so   as   to   bringit   within   the  
the  trial  for  murder,  it  was  shown  that  the   ambit  of  Section  3  (b)  of  Republic  Act  No.  
mother  and  the  brother  of  the  victim  were   3019,   otherwise   known   asthe   Anti-­‐Graft  
also   injured   during   the   same   incident,   it   and  Corrupt  Practices  Act.  
was   held   that   the   accused-­‐appellant   could  
not   be   convicted   of   the   said   injuries  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 58

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

The   petitioner   also   claims   that   he   cannot   does   not   constitute   a   "contract   or  
be   convicted   of   bribery   under   the   Revised   transaction"   and   thus   he   cannot   be  
Penal   Code   because   to   do   so   would   be   convicted  for  violation  of  R.A.  3019.  And  if  
violative   of   his   constitutional   right   to   be   acquitted,   he   cannot   be   subsequently  
informed   of   the   nature   and   cause   of   the   convicted   of   direct   bribery   because   that  
accusation  against  him.  Wrong.  A  reading   would   violate   his   right   to   be   informed   of  
of   the   information   which   has   been   the  nature  of  the  accusation  against  him.  
reproduced   herein   clearly   makes   out   a  
case   of   bribery   so   that   the   petitioner    
cannot  claim  deprivation  of  the  right  to  be   ISSUES:  
informed.  
1) Whether   or   not   preliminary  
  investigation   constitutes   a  
SORIANO   VS.   SANDIGANBAYAN   [G.R.   "transaction  or  contract."  
NO.  L-­‐65952,  JULY  31,  1984]   2) Whether   or   not,   if   previous  
conviction   for   violation   of   R.A.  
FACTS:   Thomas   Tan   was   accused   of   3019   were   wrong,   he   can   now   be  
qualified  theft  in  a  complaint  lodged  with   convicted   for   direct   bribery  
the  City  Fiscal  of  Quezon  City,  assigned  for   without   violating   his   right   to   be  
investigation   to   the   petitioner   who   was   informed.  
then  an  Assistant  City  Fiscal.  In  the  course    
of   the   investigation   the   petitioner  
demanded   P4,000.00   from   Tan   as   the   RULING:  
price   for   dismissing   the   case.   Tan   1) NO.  The  term  'transaction'  as  used  
reported   the   demand   to   the   National   thereof   is   not   limited   in   its   scope  
Bureau   of   Investigation   which   set   up   an   or   meaning   to   a   commercial   or  
entrapment.   The   Sandiganbayan   business   transaction   but   includes  
convicted  petitioner  as  guilty  for  violation   all   kinds   of   transaction,   whether  
of   Section   3,   paragraph   (b)   of   R.A.   3019   commercial,  civil  or  administrative  
which   penalizes:   "Directly   or   indirectly   in   nature,   pending   with   the  
requesting   or   receiving   any   gift,   present,   government.   This   must   be   so,  
share,   percentage,   or   benefit,   for   himself   otherwise,   the   Act   would   have   so  
or   for   any   other   person,   in   connection   stated   in   the   "Definition   of   Terms",  
with  any  contract  or  transaction  between   Section   2   thereof.   But   it   did   not.  
the   Government   and   any   other   party,   The   investigation   was   also   not   a  
wherein   the   public   officer   in   his   official   contract.   Neither   was   it   a  
capacity   has   to   intervene   under   the   transaction  because  this  term  must  
law."Petitioner   contends   that   the   be   construed   as   analogous   to   the  
preliminary   investigation   of   a   complaint   term   which   precedes   it.   A  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 59

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

transaction,   like   a   contract,   is   one   nevertheless,  be  convicted  of  the  complex  
which  involves  some  consideration   crime   ofattempted   estafa   through  
as   in   credit   transactions   and   this   falsification   of   official   and   commercial  
element   (consideration)   is   absent   documents,   whichis   necessarily   included  
in   the   investigation   conducted   by   in  the  crime  charged.  
the   petitioner.   We   agree   with   the  
petitioner  that  it  was  error  for  the   Section   4,   Rule   120   of   the   Rules   of   Court  
Sandiganbayan   to   have   convicted   provides:  
him   of   violating   Sec.   3   (b)   of   R.A.   "Sec.   4.   Judgment   in   case   of  
No.  3019.   variance   between   allegation   and  
2) YES.  The  petitioner  also  claims  that   proof.   —   When   there   is   variance  
he   cannot   be   convicted   of   bribery   between  the  offense  charged  in  the  
under   the   Revised   Penal   Code   complaint  or  information,  and  that  
because   to   do   so   would   be   proved   or   established   by   the  
violative   of   as   constitutional   right   evidence,   and   the   offense   as  
to   be   informed   of   the   nature   and   charged   is   included   in   or  
cause  of  the  accusation  against  him.   necessarily   includes   the   offense  
Wrong.   A   reading   of   the   proved,   the   accused   shall   be  
information   which   has   been   convicted   of   the   offense   proved  
reproduced   herein   clearly   makes   included   in   that   which   is   charged,  
out   a   case   of   bribery   so   that   the   or   of   the   offense   charged   included  
petitioner   cannot   claim   in  that  which  is  proved.”  
deprivation   of   the   right   to   be  
informed.   Analyzing   this   provision,   this   Court   stated  
  in  Esquerra  vs.  People:  
PECHO   VS.   PEOPLE   [G.R.   NO.   111399,   "Stated   differently,   an  
SEPTEMBER  27,  1996]   accused   may   be   convicted   of   an  
offense   provided   it   is   included   in  
AN   ACCUSED   MAY   BE   CONVICTED   OF   the   charge,   or   of   an   offense  
AN   OFFENSE   WHICH   IS   NECESSARILY   charged   which   is   included   in   that  
INCLUDED   IN   OR   NECESSARILY   proved.   Still   stated   differently,   an  
INCLUDES   THE   OFFENSE   PROVEN.   In   accused   can   be   convicted   of   an  
short,   weheld   that   although   the   petitioner   offense   only   when   it   is   both  
could   not   be   convicted   of   the   crime   charged   and   proved.   If   it   is   not  
charged,   viz.,violation   of   Section   3(e)   of   charged  although  proved,  or  if  it  is  
R.A.  No.  3019,  as  amended  -­‐-­‐  because  the   not   proved   although   charged,   the  
said   sectionpenalizes   only   consummated   accused   cannot   be   convicted  
offenses   and   the   offense   charged   in   this   thereof.   In   other   words,   variance  
case   was   notconsummated   -­‐-­‐   he   could,  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 60

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

between   the   allegation   and   proof   b. When   the   offense   proved   is   more  
cannot  justify  conviction  for  either   serious   than   and   includes   the  
the   offense   charged   or   the   offense   offense   charged   (as   when   the  
proved  unless  either  is  included  in   offense   proved   is   serious   physical  
the  other."   injuries  and  the  offense  charged  is  
slight   physical   injuries),   in   which  
Section   of   Rule   120   states   when   an   case   the   defendant   shall   be  
offense   includes   or   is   included   in   the   convicted   only   of   the   offense  
other:   charged   (U.S.   vs.   Guzman,   8   Phil.  
"Sec.   5.   When   an   offense   21).  
includes   or   is   included   in   another.    
—   An   offense   charged   necessarily   As   earlier   adverted   to,   the   evidence  
includes   that   which   is   proved,   established   by   the   prosecution   proves  
when   some   of   the   essential   beyond   reasonable   doubt   that   the   crime  
elements   or   ingredients   of   the   of   estafa   was   only   at   its   attempted   stage  
former,   as   this   is   alleged   in   the   and  that  it  was  sought  to  be  consummated  
complaint   or   information,   through   the   falsification   of   the   following  
constitute   the   latter.   And   an   documents:   the   packing   list   (Exhibit   "A-­‐
offense   charged   is   necessarily   3")   and   Invoice   (Exhibit   "A-­‐4"),   which  
included   in   the   offense   proved,   appear   to   be   prepared   by   the   exporter,  
when   the   essential   ingredients   of   Kowa   Tsusho   Co.   Ltd.   through   one  
the   former   constitute   or   form   a   Masayuki   Higuchi,   its   general   manager;  
part   of   those   constituting   the   Bill   of   Lading   (Exhibit   "A-­‐5")   which  
latter.”   appears  to  be  issued  in  Yokohama  by  the  
Kisen  Kaishe  Ltd.;  the  sworn  Import  Entry  
  Declaration   (Exhibit   "A-­‐6")   all   of   which  
show   that   the   cargoes   imported   were  
In   view   of   the   aforesaid   rules,   it   follows   "agricultural   disc   blades   and   irrigation  
then  that:   water  pumps;  as  well  as  the  Import  Entry  
and   Internal   Revenue   Declaration   signed  
a. When   the   offense   proved   is   less  
by  customs  broker  Constantino  Calica  and  
serious   than,   and   is   necessarily  
prepared   on   the   basis   of   the   foregoing  
included   in,   the   offense   charged  
documents.   The   falsifications   consist   in  
(as   when   the   offense   proved   is  
making   it   appear   that   the   importer-­‐
homicide   and   the   offense   charged  
consignee   indicated   is   a   legitimate  
is   murder),   in   which   case   the  
importer   or   an   existing   importer   which  
defendant   shall   be   convicted   of   the  
had   participated   in   such   importation   and  
offense  proved  (U.S.  vs.  Macalintal,  
authorized   the   accused   to   request   the  
2  Phil.  448;  .  .  .)  
release   of   the   imported   articles   although,  
 

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 61

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

in   truth,   it   is   non-­‐existent   and,   therefore,   such,   he   could   not   be   convicted   without  


had   no   participation   in   the   importation;   violating   his   right   to   be   informed   of   the  
and   in   the   untruthful   statements   that   accusation  against  him.  
what   were   imported   were   agricultural  
disc   blades   and   irrigation   water   pumps   ISSUE:   Whether   or   not   the   conviction   for  
when   in   truth   they   were   automotive   estafa   after   acquittal   from   the   original  
diesel  engines.   crime   charged   violates   his   right   to   be  
informed   of   the   nature   of   the   accusation  
  against  him.  

PECHO   VS.   PEOPLE   [G.R.   NO.   111399,   RULING:   NO.   Under   the   Rules   of   Court,  
SEPTEMBER  27,  1996]   when   there   is   variance   between   the  
offense   charged   in   the   complaint   of  
FACTS:   Petitioner   and   his   co-­‐accused   Joe   information,   and   that   proved   or  
Catre   were   alleged   to   have   conspired   in   established   by   the   evidence,   and   the  
representing  Pecho  as  a  representative  of   offense   as   charged   is   included   in   or  
Everson   Commercial   Trading   of   Cotabato   necessarily   includes   the   offense   proved,  
City,   which   turned   out   to   be   not-­‐existent.   the   accused   shall   be   convicted   of   the  
Pecho  was  then  tried  and  convicted  by  the   offense   proved   included   in   that   which   is  
Sandiganbayan   for   violation   of   Section   charged,   or   of   the   offense   charged  
3(e)  of  R.A  No.  3019.  The  SC  modified  the   included  in  that  which  is  proved.  
Sandiganbayan   decision,   holding   the  
petitioner   guilty   of   the   complex   crime   of   The   Court   explained   the   objectives   of   the  
attempted   estafa   through   falsification   of   right   to   be   informed:   to   furnish   the  
official   and   commercial   documents.   accused   with   such   a   description   of   the  
Although   the   petitioner   could   not   be   charge   against   him   as   will   enable   him   to  
convicted   of   the   crime   charged,   viz.,   make  his  defense;  second,  to  avail  himself  
violation   of   Section   3(e)   of   R.A   No.   3019,   of   his   conviction   or   acquittal   for  
as   amended   —   because   the   said   section   protection   against   a   further   prosecution  
penalizes  only  consummated  offenses  and   for   the   same   cause;   and   third,   to   inform  
the   offense   charged   in   this   case   was   not   the   court   of   the   facts   alleged,   so   that   it  
consummated   —   he   could,   nevertheless,   may  decide  whether  they  are  sufficient  in  
be   convicted   of   the   complex   crime   of   law  to  support  a  conviction,  if  one  should  
attempted   estafa   through   falsification   of   be  had.  
official  and  commercial  documents,  which    
is   necessarily   included   in   the   crime   In   order   that   this   requirement   may   be  
charged.   Petitioner   filed   a   motion   for   satisfied   facts   must   be   stated:   not  
reconsideration   as   the   conviction   for   conclusions   of   law.   What   determines   the  
estafa  after  his  acquittal  from  violation  of   real   nature   and   cause   of   accusation  
R.A.  3019  constitutes  double  jeopardy.  As   against   an   accused   is   the   actual   recital   of  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 62

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

facts   stated   in   the   information   or   Ejercito   Estrada   v.   Sandiganbayan,   G.R.  


complaint   and   not   the   caption   or   No.  148560,  November  19,  2001.  
preamble   of   the   information.   It   follows  
then  that  an  accused  may  be  convicted  of    
a   crime   which   although   not   the   one   In   Romualdez   v.   Sandiganbayan,   435  
charged,   is   necessarily   included   in   the   SCRA  371,  the  petitioner  argued  that  Sec.  
latter.   5   of   the   Anti-­‐Graft   and   Corrupt   Practices  
  Act   —   which   penalizes   any   relative   by  
  consanguinity   or   affinity   within   the   third  
civil   degree   of   the   President   who  
Q.   Accused   is   charged   with   two   intervenes   in   any   business   or   contract  
informations   containing   two   set   of   facts.   with  the  Government  —  is  void  for  being  
May   the   facts   in   the   two   informations   be   vague.   The   Supreme   Court   said   that   the  
combined   to   allow   a   conviction   for   a   term  “intervene”  should  be  understood  in  
complex   crime   consisting   of   the   allegation   its  ordinary  acceptance,  which  is  “to  come  
in  the  two  informations?   between”.   The   challenged   provision   is   not  
vague.  
A.  No.  Although  the  trial  of  the  two  cases  
may   be   joint,   there   should   be   two    
separate   verdicts   for   the   two  
informations.   To   combine   the   two   set   of   NOTE:   Void   for   Vagueness   and   Strict  
facts   to   form   one   complex   crime   would   Scrutiny  
violate   his   right   to   be   informed   of   the   The  doctrine  of  strict  scrutiny  is  different  
accusation  against  him.  People  v.  Ramirez,   from   void   for   vagueness   rule.   Strict  
G.R.  No.  92167-­‐68,  July  14,  1995.   scrutiny   and   overbreadth   are   analytical  
  tools  developed  for  testing  “on  their  face”  
statutes   in   free   speech   cases   or,   as   they  
NACHURA:     are   called   in   American   law,   First  
Amendment   cases.   They   cannot   be   made  
Void  for  Vagueness  Rule:  The  accused  is   to   do   service   when   what   is   involved   is   a  
also  denied  the  right  to  be  informed  of  the   criminal   statute.   With   respect   to   such  
charge  against  him,  and  to  due  process  as   statute,   the   established   rule   is   that   ‘one   to  
well,  where  the  statute  itself  is  couched  in   whom   application   of   a   statute   is  
such   indefinite   language   that   it   is   not   constitutional   will   not   be   heard   to   attack  
possible   for   men   of   ordinary   intelligence   the  statute  on  the  ground  that  impliedly  it  
to   determine   therefrom   what   acts   or   might   also   be   taken   as   applying   to   other  
omissions   are   punished.   In   such   a   case,   persons   or   other   situations   in   which   its  
the   law   is   deemed   void.   See   Joseph   application  might  be  unconstitutional.’  As  
has   been   pinted   out,   ‘vagueness  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 63

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

challenges   in   the   First   Amendment   COMELEC,   G.R.   No.   167011,   December  


context,   like   overbreadth   challenges   11,  2008.    
typically   produce   facial   invalidation,  
while  statutes  found  vague  as  a  matter  of    
due   process   typically   are   invalidated   Waiver.   Concededly,   the   right   to   be  
[only]   ‘as   applied’   to   a   particular   informed   of   the   nature   and   cause   of   the  
defendant.’”   The   rule   established   in   our   accusation  against  him  may  not  be  waived,  
jurisdiction   is,   only   statutes   on   free   but   the   defense   may   waive   the   right   to  
speech,   religious   freedom,   and   other   enter  a  plea  and  let  the  court  enter  a  plea  
fundamental   rights   may   be   facially   of   “not   guilty”   [People   v.   Bryan  
challenged.   Under   no   case   may   ordinary   Ferdinand   Dy,   G.R.   Nos.   115236-­‐37,  
penal   statutes   be   subjected   to   facial   January   29,   2002].   The   right   cannot   be  
challenge.   The   rationale   is   obvious.   If   a   waived  for  reasons  of  public  policy.  Hence,  
facial   challenge   to   a   penal   statute   is   it   is   imperative   that   the   complaint   or  
permitted,  the  prosecution  of  crimes  may   information   filed   against   the   accused   be  
be   hampered.   No   prosecution   would   be   complete   to   meet   its   objectives.   As   such,  
possible.   A   strong   criticism   against   an   indictment   must   fully   state   the  
employing   a   facial   challenge   in   tha   case   of   elements   Of   the   specific   offense   alleged   to  
penal   statutes,   if   the   same   is   allowed,   have   been   committed.   For   an   accused  
would   effectively   go   against   the   grain   of   cannot  be  convicted  of  an  offense,  even  if  
the   doctrinal   requirement   of   an   existing   duly   proven,   unless   it   is   alleged   or  
and   concrete   controversy   before   judicial   necessarily   included   in   the   complaint   or  
power   may   be   appropriately   exercised.   A   information  [People  v.  Flores,  Jr.,  G.R.  No.  
facial  challenge  against  a  penal  statute  is,   128823-­‐24,  December  27,  2002].  
at   best,   amorphous   and   speculative.   It  
would,   essentially,   force   the   court   to   However,   it   is   altogether   a   different  
consider  third  parties  who  are  not  before   matter  if  the  accused  themselves  refuse  to  
it.   As   I   have   said   in   my   opposition   to   the   be  informed  of  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  
allowance   of   a   facial   challenge   to   attack   accusation   against   them.   The   defense  
penal  statutes,  such  a  test  will  impair  the   cannot   hold   hostage   the   court   by   such  
State’s   ability   to   deal   with   crime.   If   refusal.  Thus,  in  this  case,  it  was  held  that  
warranted,   there   would   be   nothing   that   there   was   substantive   compliance   with  
can  hinder  an  accused  from  defeating  the   this  right  when  the  counsel  of  the  accused  
State’s   power   to   prosecute   on   a   mere   received   a   copy   of   the   Prosecutor’s  
showing   that,   as   applied   to   third   parties,   resolution   sustaining   the   charge   for   rape  
the   penal   statute   is   vague   or   overbroad,   and   acts   of   lasciviousness.   The   failure   to  
notwithstanding   that   the   law   is   clear   as   read   the   information   to   the   accused   was   a  
applied   to   him.   Spouses   Romualdez   v.   procedural   infirmity   that   was   eventually  
non-­‐prejudicial   to   the   accused.   Not   only  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 64

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

did  they  receive  a  copy  of  the  information,   political   offense,   are   devisted   of   their  
they   likewise   participated   in   the   trial,   character   as   ‘common’   offenses   and  
cross-­‐examined   the   complainant   and   her   assume   the   political   complexion   of   the  
witnesses   and   presented   their   own   main   crime   of   which   they   are   mere  
witnesses   to   deny   the   charges   against   ingredients,   and   consequently,   cannot   be  
them.   The   conduct   of   the   defense,   punished   separately   from   the   principal  
particularly  their  participation  in  the  trial,   offense,   or   complexed   with   the   same,   to  
clearly   indicates   that   they   were   fully   justify  the  imposition  of  a  graver  penalty.”  
aware   of   the   nature   and   cause   of   the   [People   v.   Hernandez,   99   Phil.   515.   541  
accusation  against  them.   (1956)].  
Failure   to   object   to   the   multiple   offenses   Thus,   when   a   killing   is   committed   in  
alleged  in  the  criminal  information  during   furtherance  of  rebellion,  the  killing  is  not  
the   arraignment   is   deemed   a   waiver   of   homicide   or   murder.   Rather,   the   killing  
the   right   [Abalos   v.   People,   G.R.   No.   assumes   the   political   complexion   of  
136994,   September   17,   2002],   Thus,   in   rebellion  as  its  mere  ingredient  and  must  
Dimayacyac   v.   Court   of   Appeals,   G.R.   No.   be   prosecuted   and   punished   as   rebellion  
136264,   May   18,   2004,   the   Supreme   alone.   However,   this   is   not   to   say   that  
Court   said   that   the   accused   may   be   public   prosecutors   are   obliged   to  
convicted   of   as   many   offenses   charged   in   consistently   charge   respondents   with  
the   information   and   proved   during   the   simple   rebellion   instead   of   common  
trial,   where   he   fails   to   object   to   such   crimes.   No   one   disputes   the   well-­‐
duplicitous   information   during   the   entrenched   principle   in   criminal  
arraignment.   procedure   that   the   institution   of   criminal  
charges,   including   whom   and   what   to  
An   information   which   lacks   certain   charge,   is   addressed   to   the   sound  
material   allegations   (in   this   case,   rape   discretion  of  the  public  prosecutor.  
through   force   and   intimidation)   may   still  
sustain   a   conviction   when   the   accused   But  when  the  political  offense  doctrine  is  
fails  to  object  to  its  sufficiency  during  the   asserted   as   a   defense   in   the   trial   court,   it  
trial,   and   the   deficiency   is   cured   by   becomes   crucial   for   the   court   to  
competent   evidence   presented   therein   determine   whether   the   act   of   killing   was  
[People   v.   Palarca,   G.R.   No.   146020,   May   done   in   furtherance   of   a   political   end,   and  
29,  2002].   for   the   political   motive   of   the   act   to   be  
conclusively  demonstrated.    
 
Thus,   in   Saturnino   Ocampo   v.   Hon.  
Political   Offense   Doctrine.   Under   the   Ephrem   Abando,   G.R.   No.   176830,  
political   offense   doctrine,   “common   February   11,   2014,   the   Court   said   that  
crimes,   perpetrated   in   furtherance   of   a   the   burden   of   demonstrating   political  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 65

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

motivation   must   be   discharged   by   the   includes   the   offense   proved,   the   accused  
defense;   the   proof   showing   political   shall   be   convicted   of   the   offense   proved  
motivation   is   adduced   during   trial   where   which   is   included   in   the   offense   charged,  
the   accused   is   assured   an   opportunity   to   or   of   the   offense   charged   which   is  
present  evidence.  It  is  not  for  this  Court  to   included  in  the  offense  proved.  
determine   this   factual   matter   in   the  
instant  petition  for  certiorari.    

  BORJA  VS.  MENDOZA  [G.R.  NO.  L-­‐45667,  


JUNE  20,  1977]  
GABBY  RECIT:  
ARRAIGNMENT   IS   AN   INDISPENSABLE  
Q:  What  is  arraignment?   REQUIREMENT   OF   THE   RIGHT   OF   THE  
ACCUSED   TO   BE   INFORMED   OF   THE  
ANS  –  it  is  a  stage  where  in  the  mode  and   NATURE   AND   CAUSE   OF   THE  
manner   required   by   the   rules,   for   the   first   ACCUSATION   AGAINST   HIM.   An  
time   is   granted.   It   is   the   opportunity   to   arraignment   thus   becomes   indispensable  
know   the   precise   charge   that   confronts   as   the   means   "forbringing   the   accused  
him.   It   is   not   a   useless   formality,   much   into   court   and   notifying   him   of   the   cause  
less  an  idle  ceremony.   he  is  required  tomeet  .  .  ."  Its  importance  
  was  stressed  by  Justice  Moreland  as  early  
as   1916   in   theleading   case   of   United  
Q:   What   is   the   relevance   of   States   v.   Binayoh.   He   pointed   out   that  
arraignment?   upon   the   accusedbeing   arraigned,   "there  
is  a  duty  laid  by  the  Code  [now  the  Rules  
ANS   –   In   the   case   of   Borja   vs   Mendoza,   of  Court]  upon  thecourt  to  inform  [him]  of  
arraignment  is  said  to  be  an  indispensable   certain   rights   and   to   extend   to   him,   on   his  
requirement  of  the  right  of  an  accused  to   demand,   certainothers.   This   duty   is   an  
be   informed   of   the   nature   and   cause   of   affirmative   one   which   the   court,   on   its  
accusation  against  him.   own   motion,   mustperform,   unless  
waived."  To  emphasize  its  importance,  he  
 
added:   "No   such   duty,however,   is   laid   on  
MEMORIZE  RULE  120  SECTION  4!!!!   the   court   with   regard   to   the   rights   of   the  
accused   which   he   maybe   entitled   to  
Sec.   4.   Judgment   in   case   of   variance   exercise  during  the  trial.  Those  are  rights  
between   allegation   and   proof.   –   When   which   he   must   asserthimself   and   the  
there   is   variance   between   the   offense   benefits  of  which  he  himself  must  demand.  
charged   in   the   complaint   or   information   In   other   words,   in   thearraignment   the  
and   that   proved,   and   the   offense   as   court  must  act  of  its  own  volition,  .  .  .  ."  In  
charged   is   included   in   or   necessarily   the  terse  and  aptlanguage  of  the  Solicitor  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 66

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

General:  "Arraignment  is  an  indispensable   BORJA  VS.  MENDOZA  [G.R.  NO.  L-­‐45667,  
requirement   inany   criminal   prosecution."   JUNE  20,  1977]  
Procedural  due  process  demands  no  less.  
FACTS:   Petitioner   Manuel   Borja,   accused  
Nor   is   it   only   the   due   process   guarantee   of   slight   physical   injuries,   was   convicted  
that   calls   for   the   accused   being   duly   and  sentenced  to  suffer  imprisonment  for  
arraigned.   As   noted,   it   is   at   that   stage   a  period  of  twenty  days  of  arresto  menor  
where   in   the   mode   and   manner   required   by  respondent  Judge  Senining,  despite  the  
by  the  Rules,  an  accused,  for  the  first  time,   absence   of   an   arraignment.   The   judge  
is   granted   the   opportunity   to   know   the   proceeded   with   the   trial   in   absentia   and  
precise   charge   that   confronts   him.   It   is   promulgated   the   assailed   decision.   An  
imperative   that   he   is   thus   made   fully   appeal   was   duly   elevated   to   the   Court   of  
aware   of   possible   loss   of   freedom,   even   of   First   Instance   of   Cebu   presided   by  
his   life,   depending   on   the   nature   of   the   respondent   Judge   Mendoza.   Without   any  
crime   imputed   to   him.   At   the   very   least   notice   to   petitioner   and   without   requiring  
then,   he   must   be   fully   informed   of   why   him   to   submit   his   memorandum,   a  
the   prosecuting   arm   of   the   state   is   decision   on   the   appealed   case   was  
mobilized   against   him.   An   arraignment   rendered  against  him.  
serves   that   purpose.   Thereafter,   he   is   no  
longer  in  the  dark.  It  is  true,  the  complaint   ISSUE:   Whether   or   not   the   decision   was  
or   information   may   not   be   worded   with   validly  rendered  despite  the  absence  of  an  
sufficient   clarity.   He   would   be   in   a   much   arraignment.  
worse   position   though   if   he   does   not   even   RULING:   NO.   Arraignment   is   an  
have   such   an   opportunity   to   plead   to   the   indispensable   requirement   in   any  
charge.  With  his  counsel  by  his  side,  he  is   criminal   prosecution.   The   Constitution  
thus   in   a   position   to   enter   his   plea   with   requires  that  the  accused  be  arraigned  so  
full  knowledge  of  the  consequences.  He  is   that  he  may  be  informed  as  to  why  he  was  
not   even   required   to   do   so   immediately.   indicted  and  what  penal  offense  he  has  to  
He   may   move   to   quash.   What   is   thus   face.  This  duty  is  an  affirmative  one  which  
evident   is   that   an   arraignment   assures   the   court,   on   its   own   motion,   must  
that   he   be   fully   acquainted   with   the   perform,  unless  waived.  To  emphasize  its  
nature   of   the   crime   imputed   to   him   and   importance,   no   such   duty   is   laid   on   the  
the   circumstances   under   which   it   is   court   with   regard   to   the   rights   of   the  
allegedly   committed.   It   is   thus   a   vital   accused   which   he   may   be   entitled   to  
aspect   of   the   constitutional   rights   exercise  during  the  trial.  Those  are  rights  
guaranteed  him.  It  is  not  useless  formality,   which   he   must   assert   himself   and   the  
much  less  an  idle  ceremony.   benefits  of  which  he  himself  must  demand.  
  In   other   words,   in   the   arraignment   the  
court  must  act  of  its  own  volition.  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 67

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

  RIGHT  TO  SPEEDY,  


It  is  imperative  that  he  is  thus  made  fully  
aware   of   possible   loss   of   freedom,   even   of   IMPARTIAL  AND  PUBLIC  
his   life,   depending   on   the   nature   of   the   TRIAL  
crime   imputed   to   him.   At   the   very   least  
then,   he   must   be   fully   informed   of   why    
the   prosecuting   arm   of   the   state   is   Q.  What  is  the  concept  of  a  speedy  trial?  
mobilized   against   him.   He   is   thus   in   a  
position   to   enter   his   plea   with   full   A.   It   is   one   that   is   free   from   vexatious,  
knowledge  of  the  consequences.  He  is  not   capricious   and   oppressive   delays,   the  
even   required   to   do   so   immediately.   He   purpose   of   which   is   to   free   the   accused  
may  move  to  quash.   from   anxiety   and   expenses   of   a   court  
  litigation.   (Andres   v.   Cacdac,   113   SCRA  
216;   People   v.   Jardin,   124   SCRA   167;  
  Gonzales  v.  SB,  et  al.,  G.R.  No.  94750,  July  
  16,   1991;   Hipolito   v.   CA,   et   al.,   48   SCAD  
385,  G.R.  No.  108478-­‐79,  Feb.  21,  1994)  
 
Q.  What  is  the  meaning  of  “speedy  trial?”  
 
A.   The   concept   of   speedy   trial   is  
  necessarily   relative   and   determination   of  
whether  the  right  has  been  violated  must  
  be   based   on   the   balancing   of   various  
  factors.   Length   of   delay   is   certainly   a  
factor  to  consider,  but  other  factors  must  
  also  be  considered  such  as  the  reason  for  
the   delay,   the   effort   of   the   defendant   to  
  assert   his   right,   and   the   prejudice   caused  
by   the   defendant.   Conde   v.   Rivera,   59  
 
Phil.   650   (1924),   is   the   leading   case   on  
  the   subject   of   speedy   trial.   After   reciting  
the   pitiful   plight   of   petitioner   Conde,  
  Justice  Malcolm  concluded:  
  “We   lay   down   the   legal  
proposition   that,   where   a  
prosecuting   officer,   without   good  
cause,   secures   postponements   of  
the  trial  of  a  defendant  against  his  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 68

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

protest   beyond   a   reasonable   defendant   to   assert   his   right,   as   well   as  


period   of   time,   as   in   this   instance   the   prejudice   and   damage   caused   to   the  
for   more   than   a   year,   the   accused   accused.  
is   entitled   to   relief   by   a   proceeding  
in   mandamus   to   compel   a   The   Speedy   Trial   Act   of   1998,   provides  
dismissal   of   the   information,   or   if   that   the   trial   period   for   criminal   cases   in  
he   be   restrained   of   his   liberty,   by   general  shall  be  one  hundred  eighty  (180)  
habeas   corpus   to   obtain   freedom.”   days.  However,  in  determining  the  right  of  
Id.  at  652.   an   accused   to   speedy   trial,   courts   should  
do   more   than   a   mathematical  
  computation   of   the   number   of  
postponements  of  the  scheduled  hearings  
PEOPLE   VS.   TEE   [G.R.   NOS.   140546-­‐47,   of   the   case.   The   right   to   a   speedy   trial   is  
JANUARY  20,  2003]   deemed  violated  only  when:  
RIGHT  TO  SPEEDY  TRIAL.  A  speedy  trial   1) the   proceedings   are  
means   a   trial   conducted   according   to   the   attended   by   vexatious,  
law   of   criminal   procedure   and   the   rules   capricious,   and   oppressive  
and   regulations,   free   from   vexatious,   delays;  or  
capricious,   and   oppressive   delays.   In   2) when   unjustified  
Conde  v.  Rivera  and  Unson,  45   Phil.  650,   postponements   are   asked  
652  (1924),  the  Court  held  that  "where  a   for  and  secured;  or  
prosecuting   officer,   without   good   cause,   3) when   without   cause   or  
secures   postponements   of   the   trial   of   a   justifiable   motive   a   long  
defendant   against   his   protest   beyond   a   period  of  time  is  allowed  to  
reasonable   period   of   time,   as   in   this   elapse   without   the   party  
instance,   for   more   than   a   year,   the   having  his  case  tried.  
accused   is   entitled   to   relief   by   a    
proceeding   in   mandamus   to   compel   a  
dismissal   of   the   information,   or   if   he   be   Even   if   the   arrest   of   a   person   is   illegal,  
restrained  of  his  liberty,  by  habeas  corpus   supervening  events  may  bar  his  release  or  
to  obtain  his  freedom."     discharge   from   custody.   What   is   to   be  
inquired   into   is   the   legality   of   his  
The  concept  of  speedy  trial  is  necessarily   detention  as  of,  at  the  earliest,  the  filing  of  
relative.   A   determination   as   to   whether   the  application  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  
the   right   has   been   violated   involves   the   for   even   if   the   detention   is   at   its   inception  
weighing   of   several   factors   such   as   the   illegal,   it   may,   by   reason   of   same  
length   of   the   delay,   the   reason   for   the   supervening   events   such   as   the   instances  
delay,  the  conduct  of  the  prosecution  and   mentioned   in   Section   4,   Rule   102,   be   no  
the  accused,  and  the  efforts  exerted  by  the   longer   illegal   at   the   time   of   the   filing   of  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 69

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

the   application.   Any   such   supervening   virtue   of   allegedly   general   search   warrant.  
events   are   the   issuance   of   a   judicial   They   further   contend   that   the   accused  
process   preventing   the   discharge   of   the   was   deprived   of   his   right   to   speedy   trial  
detained  person.   by   failure   of   the   prosecution   to   produce  
their  witness  who  failed  to  appear  during  
As   a   general   rule,   the   burden   of   proving   the   20   hearing   dates   thereby   slowing  
illegal   restraint   by   the   respondents   rests   down   the   trial   procedure.    
on   the   petitioner   who   attaches   such    
restraints.   Whether   the   return   sets   forth   Issue  
process   where   on   its   face   shows   good   Whether   or   not   the   substantive   right   of  
ground  for  the  detention  of  the  petitioner,   the   accused   for   a   speedy   trial   prejudiced  
it  is  incumbent  on  him  to  allege  and  prove   during   the   hearing   of   the   case.  
new   matter   that   tends   to   invalidate   the    
apparent  effects  of  such  process.   Held  
Moreover,  the  petitioner,  in  his  motion  for   The  court  ruled  that  the  substantive  right  
reconsideration   with   the   CID,   offered   to   of   the   accused   for   a   fair   and   speedy   trial  
post   a   bail   bond   for   his   provisional   was   not   violated.   It   held   that   the   Speedy  
release   to   enable   him   to   secure   the   Trial   Act   of   1998   provides   that   the   trial  
necessary   documents   to   establish   the   period  for  the  criminal  cases  should  be  in  
appropriate   grounds   for   his   permanent   general   180   days.   However,   in  
stay   in   the   Philippines.   By   offering   to   post   determining   the   right   of   an   accused   to  
a   bail   bond,   the   petitioner   thereby   speedy  trial,  courts  should  do  more  than  a  
admitted  that  he  was  under  the  custody  of   mathematical  computation  of  the  number  
the   CID   and   voluntarily   accepted   the   of   postponements   of   the   scheduled  
jurisdiction  of  the  CID.   hearings  of  the  case.The  right  to  a  speedy  
trial   is   deemed   violated   only   when:   (1)  
  the   proceedings   are   attended   by  
vexatious,   capricious,   and   oppressive  
PEOPLE   VS   TEE   GR   No.   140546-­‐47   delays;  or   (2)   when   unjustified  
(January   20,   2003)     postponements   are   asked   for   and  
  secured;  or   (3)   when   without   cause   or  
Facts   justifiable  motive  a  long  period  of  time  is  
The  case  involves  an  automatic  review  of   allowed   to   elapse   without   the   party  
judgment   made   against   Tee   who   was   having   his   case   tried.  
convicted   for   illegal   possession   of    
marijuana   and   sentenced   to   death.   The   It   was   shown   by   the   records   that   the  
defense  assailed  the  decision  of  the  court   prosecution  exerted  efforts  in  obtaining  a  
for   taking   admissible   as   evidence   the   warrant   to   compel   the   witness   to   testify.  
marijuana   seized   from   the   accused   by   The  concept  of  speedy  trial  is  necessarily  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 70

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

relative   where   several   factors   are   "The   remedy   in   the   event   of  


weighed   such   as   the   length   of   time   of   a  non-­‐observance  of  this  right  is  by  
delay,   the   reason   of   such   delay,   and   habeas  corpus  if  the  accused  were  
conduct   of   prosecution   and   the   accused   restrained   of   his   liberty,   or   by  
and  the  prejudice  and  damaged  caused  to   certiorari,   prohibition,   or  
the   accused   of   such   delay.   The   court   did   mandamus   for   the   final   dismissal  
not   find   the   20   days   of   delayed   hearing   of  the  case."  
unreasonable   length   of   time   as   to  
constitute   deprivation   of   the   The   above   ruling   is   a   reiteration   of   the  
constitutional   rights   of   the   accused   for   a   doctrine   announced,   even   before   the  
speedy   trial   in   addition   to   the   fact   that   1935   Constitution,   in   Conde   v.   Rivera,   a  
court   trial   may   be   always   subjected   to   1924   decision.   In   that   case,   Justice  
postponement   for   reasonable   cause   of   Malcolm  announced  categorically  that  the  
delay.   In   the   absence   of   showing   that   the   trial,   to   comply   with   the   requirement   of  
reason   for   delay   was   capricious   or   the   then   organic   law,   the   Philippine  
oppressive,   the   State   must   not   be   Autonomy   Act,   must   be   "free   from  
deprived   of   reasonable   opportunity   in   vexatious,   capricious,   and   oppressive  
prosecuting  the  accused.   delays."   Further:   "We   lay   down   the   legal  
proposition   that,   where   a   prosecuting  
  officer,   without   good   cause,   secures  
postponements  of  the  trial  of  a  defendant  
FLORES   VS.   PEOPLE   [G.R.   NO.   L-­‐25769,   against   his   protest   beyond   a   reasonable  
DECEMBER  10,  1974]   period  of  time,  as  in  this  instance  for  more  
than   a   year,   the   accused   is   entitled   to  
WHEN   PROCEEDINGS   ANTERIOR   TO   relief   by   a   proceeding   in   mandamus   to  
THE   TRIAL   IS   DELAYED,   THE   TRIAL   IS   compel   a   dismissal   of   the   information,   or  
LIKEWISE   DELAYED.   The   constitutional   if   he   be   restrained   of   his   liberty,   by  
right  to  a  speedy  trial,  as  was  noted  in  ar   habeas  corpus  to  obtain  his  freedom."  
ecent   decision,   Acebedo   v.   Sarmiento,  
"means   one   free   from   vexatious,   In   the   first   Supreme   Court   decision   after  
capricious   and   oppressive   delays,   .   .   ."   the   1935   Constitution   took   effect,   People  
Thus,  if  the  person  accused  were  innocent,   v.  Castañeda,  where  it  was  shown  that  the  
he   may   within   the   shortest   time   possible   criminal   case   had   been   dragging   on   for  
be  spared  from  anxiety  and  apprehension   almost   five   years   and   that   when   the   trial  
arising  from  a  prosecution,  and  if  culpable,   did   finally   take   place,   it   was   tainted   by  
he  will  not  be  kept  long  in  suspense  as  to   irregularities,   this   Court   set   aside   the  
the   fate   in   store   for   him,   within   a   period   appealed   decision   of   conviction   and  
of  course  compatible  with  his  opportunity   acquitted   the   accused.   As   was   pointed   out  
to   present   any   valid   defense.   As   was   also   by  the  ponente,  Justice  Laurel:  
pointed  out  in  Sarmiento:  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 71

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

"The   Government   should   be   There  was  another  occasion  where  Justice  


the  last  to  set  an  example  of  delay   Laurel  spoke  for  this  Court  on  this  specific  
and   oppression   in   the   issue.  That  was  in  Mercado  v.  Santos.  Here,  
administration   of   justice   and   it   is   for   a   period   of   about   twenty   months,   the  
the   moral   and   legal   obligation   of   accused   was   arrested   four   times   on   the  
this   court   to   see   that   the   criminal   charge   of   falsifying   his   deceased   wife's  
proceedings   against   the   accused   will.   Twice,   the   complaints   were  
come   to   an   end   and   that   they   be   subsequently   withdrawn.   The   third   time  
immediately   discharged   from   the   he  was  prosecuted  on  the  same  charge,  he  
custody  of  the  law."   was   able   to   obtain   a   dismissal.   Then   came  
on   the   part   of   the   provincial   fiscal,   a  
It  was  on  the  basis  of  the  above  judgment   motion   for   reinvestigation.   The   lower  
that   the   dismissal   of   a   second   information   court  was  in  a  receptive  mood.  It  ordered  
for   frustrated   homicide   was   ordered   by   that  the  case  be  heard  on  the  merits.  The  
this   Court,   where   the   evidence   disclosed   accused  moved  to  dismiss,  but  he  did  not  
that   the   first   information   had   been   succeed.   He   tried   the   Court   of   Appeals,  
dismissed   after   a   lapse   of   one   year   and   but  he  failed  again.  He  elevated  the  matter  
seven   months   from   the   time   the   original   to  this  Court;  he  prevailed.  It  was  stressed  
complaint  was  filed  during  which  time  on   in  Justice  Laurel's  opinion:  
the   three   occasions   the   case   was   set   for  
trial,   the   private   prosecutor   twice   asked   "An   accused   person   is  
for   postponements   and   once   the   trial   entitled   to   a   trial   at   the   earliest  
court   itself   cancelled   the   entire   calendar   opportunity.   .   .   .   He   cannot   be  
for   the   month   it   was   supposed   to   have   oppressed   by   delaying   the  
been   heard.   The   same   result   followed   in   commencement   of   trial   for   an  
Esguerra   v.   De   la   Costa,   where   the   first   unreasonable  length  of  time.  If  the  
complaint   was   filed   on   August   29,   1936,   proceedings   pending   trial   are  
the   accused   having   been   criminally   deferred,   the   trial   itself   is  
prosecuted   for   an   alleged   abuse   of   necessarily  delayed."  
chastity  in  a  justice  of  the  peace  court  but  
after   over   a   year   and   three   months,   with   The   opinion   likewise   considered   as   not  
the   lower   court   twice   dismissing   the   case,   decisive   the   fact   that   the   provincial   fiscal  
he   still   had   to   face   trial   for   the   same   did   not   intervene   until   an   information  
offense   on   a   new   information,   thus   was   filed   charging   the   accused   with   the  
compelling   him   to   resort   to   a   mandamus   crime  of  falsification  the  third  time.  Thus:  
suit   to   compel   the   lower   court   to   "The   Constitution   does   not   say   that   the  
terminate   the   case   was   his   right   to   a   right   to   a   speedy   trial   may   be   availed   of  
speedy   trial   was   violated,   a   remedy   only   where   the   prosecution   for   crime   is  
deemed  appropriate  by  this  Court.   commenced  and  undertaken  by  the  fiscal.  
It   does   not   exclude   from   its   operation  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 72

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

cases   commenced   by   private   individuals.   end   to   suits   elevated   to   them.   What   is  


Where   once   a   person   is   prosecuted   decisive   is   that   with   the   setting   aside   of  
criminally,  he  is  entitled  to  a  speedy  trial,   the  previous  decision  in  the  resolution  of  
irrespective  of  the  nature  of  the  offense  or   August   5,   1959,   petitioners   could   validly  
the  manner  in  which  it  is  authorized  to  be   premise   their   plea   for   dismissal   on   this  
commenced."  The  latest  decision  in  point,   constitutional   safeguard.   That   is   the   sole  
Acebedo   v.   Sarmiento,   presented   an   even   basis  for  the  conclusion  reached  by  us  —  
clearer   case.   The   information   for   damage   considering   the   controlling   doctrine  
to   property   was   filed   on   August   3,   1959.   announced   with   such   emphasis   by   this  
There   the   matter   rested   until   May   19,   Court  time  and  time  again.  
1965,  when  the  accused  moved  to  dismiss.  
The  lower  court  denied  the  motion  in  his    
order   of   July   10,   1965.   Two   more   years   FLORES   VS   PEOPLE   GR   L-­‐25769   |  
elapsed,   the   period   now   covering   almost   December  10,  1974  
eight   years,   when   the   trial   was    
commenced.   When   one   of   the   witnesses   FACTS:  
for   the   prosecution   failed   to   appear,   the   Petitioners,   Francisco   Flores   and  
provincial   fiscal   sought   the   postponement,   Francisco   Angel,   were   accused   for  
but   the   accused   countered   with   a   motion   robbery.     Information   was   filed   in  
for   dismissal.   The   lower   court   acceded,   December   1951.     They   were   found   guilty  
and   this   Court   sustained   him,   even   if   of   the   crime   charged   in   November   1955.      
thereafter   it   changed   its   mind   and   Notice   of   appeal   was   file   in   December  
reinstated  the  case.   1955.     It   was   until   February   1958   that  
Petitioners   can   thus   invoke   the   action   was   taken   by   CA—a   resolution  
constitutional   guarantee   that   the   trial   remanding   the   records   of   the   case   to   the  
should   be   speedy.   In   the   absence   of   any   lower   court   for   a   rehearing   of   the  
valid   decision,   the   stage   of   trial   has   not   testimony   of   a   certain   witness   deemed  
been   completed.   In   this   case   then,   as   of   material   for   the   disposition   of   the   case.    
May   10,   1965,   when   they   moved   to   Such   resolution   was   amended   dated  
dismiss   in   the   Court   of   Appeals,   August   1959   which   granted   the  
petitioners   could   validly   contend   that   petitioners   to   set   aside   the   decision   so  
they  had  not  been  accorded  their  right  to   that  evidence  for  the  defense  on  new  facts  
be   tried   as   promptly   as   circumstances   may   be   received   and   a   new   decision   in  
permit.   It   was   not   the   pendency   in   the   lieu  of  the  old  one  may  be  rendered.    The  
Court  of  Appeals  of  their  cases  that  should   case  was  returned  to  the  lower  court  but  
be   deemed   material.   It   is   at   times   nothing   was   done   for   about   a   year  
unavoidable   that   appellate   tribunals   because   the   offended   party   failed   to  
cannot,   even   with   due   diligence,   put   an   appear  despite  the  6/7  dates  set  for  such  
hearing.     Furthermore,   when   the   offended  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 73

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

party   took   the   witness   stand,   his   may   be   availed   only   where   the  
testimony   was   characterized   as   a   mere   prosecution  of  a  crime  is  commenced  and  
fiasco   as   he   could   no   longer   remember   undertaken   by   the   fiscal.     It   does   not  
the   details   of   the   alleged   crime   and   even   exclude   from   its   operation   cases  
failed  to  identify  the  2  accused.     commenced   by   private   individuals.    
  “Where   a   person   is   prosecuted   criminally,  
The   trial   court   instead   of   rendering   a   he   is   entitled   to   a   speedy   trial,  
decision   sent   back   the   records   to   the   irrespective  of  the  nature  of  the  offense  or  
appellate   tribunal.     5   more   years   elapsed   the  manner  in  which  it  is  authorized  to  be  
without   anything   being   done,   petitioners   commenced”.      
sought  dismissal  of  the  case  against  them    
due  to  inordinate  delay  in  the  disposition   Technicalities   should   give   way   to   the  
(from   December   1955-­‐   May   1965).     CA   realities   of   the   situation.     There   should  
was   unresponsive   notwithstanding   the   not   be   too   much   significance   attached   to  
vigorous   plea   of   the   petitioners,   its   last   the   procedural   defect   (refer   to   CA’s  
order  being  a  denial  of  a  second  MR  dated   defense).     CA   failed   to   accord   respect   to  
January   1966.     CA’s   defense   is   that   the   this   particular   constitutional   right  
case   was   not   properly   captioned   as   amounting   at   the   very   least   to   a   grave  
“People   of   the   Philippines”   and   without   abuse  of  discretion.  
“Court   of   Appeals”   being   made   a   party   to    
the  petition.      
  Q.   What   is   the   remedy   for   violation   of   the  
ISSUE:     WON   constitutional   right   to   a   right  to  speedy  trial?  
speedy  trial  was  violated.   A.   The   accused   is   entitled   to   dismissal   of  
  the   case,   and,   if   he   is   under   detention,   to  
HELD:   YES.     Petition   for   certiorari   was   release   by   habeas   corpus.   Moreover,  
granted.     Orders   denying   Motion   to   dismissal   for   violation   of   the   right   to  
dismiss  as  Motion  to  Reconsideration  are   speedy  trial  is  equivalent  to  acquittal  and  
set   aside   and   nullified.       Criminal   Case   is   a   bar   to   another   prosecution   for   the  
against  petitioners  was  dismissed.     same  offense.  
 
Constitutional   right   to   a   speedy   trial   Q.  May  the  right  to  speedy  trial  be  invoked  
means  one  free  from  vexatious,  capricious   even  if  it  would  result  in  deprivation  of  the  
and   oppressive   delays.     An   accused   is   State’s  right  to  due  process?  Explain.  
entitled   to   a   trial   at   the   earliest  
opportunity.     He   cannot   be   oppressed   by   A.  No.  The  right  to  speedy  trial  cannot  be  
delaying   the   commencement   of   the   trial   invoked  where  to  sustain  the  same  would  
for   an   unreasonable   length   of   time.     The   result   in   a   clear   denial   of   due   process   to  
Constitution   does   not   say   that   such   right   the   prosecution.   It   should   not   operate   in  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 74

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

depriving   the   State   of   its   inherent    


prerogative  to  prosecute  criminal  cases  or  
generally   in   seeing   to   it   that   all   those   who   Q.   What   are   the   different   interests   of   a  
approach  the  bar  of  justice  is  afforded  fair   defendant   that   may   be   affected   by   the  
opportunity  to  present  their  side.  For  it  is   violation   of   his   right   to   speedy   trial?  
not   only   the   State;   more   so,   the   offended   Explain.  
party   who   is   entitled   to   due   process   in   A.   The   different   interests   of   a   defendant  
criminal   cases.   In   essence,   the   right   to   a   which  may  be  affected  by  the  violation  of  
speedy   trial   does   not   preclude   the   the  right  to  a  speedy  trial  were  identified.  
people’s  equally  important  right  to  public   It   was   held   that   prejudice   should   be  
justice.  (Uy  v.  Hon.  Arsenio  P.  Adriano,  et   assessed   in   the   light   of   the   interests   of   a  
al.,  G.R.  No.  159098,  October  27,  2006).   defendant   which   the   speedy   trial   right  
Q.  State  the  effect  if  a  party  to  a  case  fails   was  designed  to  protect,  namely:  
to   timely   question   the   delay   in   the   trial   of   1) to   prevent   oppressive   pre-­‐trial  
the  case.  Explain.   incarceration;  
A.   One’s   failure   to   timely   question   the   2) to   minimize   anxiety   and  
delay   in   the   trial   to   a   case   would   be   an   concern  of  the  accused;  and  
implied   acceptance   of   such   delay   and   a   3) to   limit   the   possibility   that   the  
waiver   of   the   right   to   question   the   same.   defense  will  be  impaired.  
Except   when   otherwise   expressly   so    
provided,   the   speedy   trial   right,   like   any   Of   these,   the   most   serious   is   the   last,  
other   right   conferred   by   the   Constitution   because   the   inability   of   a   defendant   to  
or   statute,   may   be   waived   when   not   adequately   prepare   his   case   skews   the  
positively   asserted.   A   party’s   silence   may   fairness  of  the  entire  system.  If  witnesses  
amount   to   laches.   The   right   to   a   speedy   die   or   disappear   during   delay,   the  
trial   is   a   privilege   of   the   accused.   If   he   prejudice   is   obvious.   There   is   also  
does  not  claim  it,  he  should  not  complain.   prejudice  if  defense  witnesses  are  unable  
R.A.   No.   8493   (Speedy   Trial   Act   of   to   recall   accurately   events   of   the   distant  
1998)   is   a   means   of   enforcing   Section   past.   Loss   of   memory,   however,   is   not  
14(2),   Art.   III   of   the   Constitution.   The   always   reflected   in   the   record   because  
spirit   of   the   law   is   that   the   accused   must   what   has   been   forgotten   can   rarely   be  
go   on   record   in   the   attitude   of   demanding   shown.   Even   if   an   accused   is   not  
a  trial  or  resisiting  delay.  If  he  does  not  do   incarcerated   prior   to   trial,   he   is   still  
this,   he   must   be   held,   in   law,   to   have   disadvantaged  by  restraints  on  his  liberty  
waived  the  privilege.  (Uy  v.  Hon.  Arsenio   and   by   living   under   a   cloud   of   anxiety,  
P.   Adriano,   et   al.,   G.R.   No.   159098,   suspicion,   and   often   hostility.   After   all,  
October  27,  2006).   arrest   is   a   public   act   that   may   seriously  
interfere   with   the   defendant’s   liberty,  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 75

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

whether  he  is  free  on  bail  or  not,  and  that   In  Go  v.  Court  of  Appeals,  221  SCRA  397,  
may   disrupt   his   employment,   drain   his   the   Supreme   Court   said   that   the   “cold  
financial   resources,   curtail   his   neutrality   of   an   impartial   judge”,   although  
associations,   subject   him   to   public   required  for  the  benefit  of  litigants,  is  also  
obloquy,   and   create   anxiety   in   him,   his   designed   to   preserve   the   integrity   of   the  
family  and  friends.  (Uy  v.  Hon.  Arsenio  P.   judiciary   and   more   fundamentally,   to   gain  
Adriano,   et   al.,   G.R.   No.   159098,   October   and   maintain   the   people’s   faith   in   the  
27,  2006).   institutions   they   have   erected   when   they  
adopted  our  Constitution.  
 
In   People   v.   Sanchez,   G.R.   Nos.   121039-­‐
NACHURA:   45,  January  25,  1999,  the  Supreme  Court,  
Impartial  trial.  The  accused  is  entitled  to   citing   People   v.   Teehankee,   Jr.,   249   SCRA  
the  “cold  neutrality  of  an  impartial  judge”.   54,   rejected   the   appellant’s   contention  
In   People   v.   Opida,   142   SCRA   295,   the   that   he   was   denied   the   right   to   an  
judgment   of   conviction   was   reversed   impartial   trial   due   to   prejudicial   publicity.  
upon   showing   that   the   trial   judge   was   Pervasive   publicity   is   not   per   se  
biased   because   of   the   appearance   and   prejudicial  to  the  right  of  the  accused  to  a  
criminal  record  of  the  accused.  In  Imelda   fair  trial.  
Romualdez   Marcos   v.   Sandiganbayan,    
supra.,   reiterating   Tabuena   v.  
Sandiganbayan,   supra.,   the   cross   Q.   Give   an   example   of   a   judge   who   lacks  
examination   of   the   accused   and   the   impartiality.  
witnesses   by   the   court   constituted   bias  
and   partiality.   But   the   impartiality   of   the   A.  The  application  of  the  right  to  criminal  
judge   cannot   be   assailed   on   the   ground   prosecution   was   recently   emphasized   in  
that   he   propounded   clarificatory   Mateo,  Jr.  v.  Villaluz,   50  SCRA  18  (1972).  
questions   to   the   accused   [People   v.   One   of   the   accused   in   the   case   had   made  
Castillo,  G.R.  No.  120282,  April  20,  1998],   an   extrajudicial   statement,   which   he  
Indeed,   trial   judges   must   be   accorded   a   subsequently  subscribed  before  the  judge,  
reasonable   leeway   in   asking   questions   as   implicating   his   co-­‐accused.   Later,  
may   be   essential   to   elicit   relevant   facts   however,   the   same   accused   repudiated  
and  to  bring  out  the  truth.  This  is  not  only   his   statement   claiming   that   he   had   made  
the   right   but   the   duty   of   the   judge   who   it  as  a  result  of  a  threat  by  a  government  
feels   the   need   to   elicit   information   to   the   agent.   The   co-­‐accused   then   sought   the  
end   that   justice   will   be   served   [People   v.   disqualification  of  the  judge  claiming  that  
Vaynaco,   G.R.   No.   126286,   March   22,   the   repudiation   of   the   statement   would  
1999].   not  sit  well  with  the  judge  before  whom  it  
had   been   subscribed.   The   Court,   noting  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 76

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

“the  imperative  character  of  the  safeguard   upon   the   appropriate   information,   could  
of  due  process  connoting  at  the  very  least,   have   attended   to   the   formal   preliminary  
an   impartial   tribunal,”   disqualified   the   examination,  and  could  have  prepared  the  
judge.   case   for   a   trial   free   from   vexatious,  
capricious,  and  oppressive  delays.  
 
Once   before,   as   intimated,   the   petitioner  
CONDE   VS.   RIVERA   [G.R.   NO.   21741,   had   to   come   to   us   for   redress   of   her  
JANUARY  25,  1924]   grievances.   We   thought   then   we   had  
RIGHT   TO   SPEEDY   TRIAL.  Aurelia  Conde,   pointed   out   the   way   for   the   parties.   We  
formerly   a   municipal   midwife   in   Lucena,   hope   propose   to   do   all   in   our   power   to  
Tayabas,  has  been  forced  to  respond  to  no   assist   this   poor   woman   to   obtain   justice.  
less   the   five   information   for   various   On   the   one   hand   has   been   the   petitioner,  
crimes   and   misdemeanors,   has   appeared   of  humble  station,  without  resources,  but  
with   her   witnesses   and   counsel   at   fortunately   assisted   by   a   persistent  
hearings   no   less   than   on   eight   different   lawyer,  while  on  the  other  hand  has  been  
occasions  only  to  see  the  cause  postponed,   the   Government   of   the   Philippine   Islands  
has   twice   been   required   to   come   to   the   which  should  be  the  last  to  set  an  example  
Supreme   Court   for   protection,   and   now,   of   delay   and   oppression   in   the  
after   the   passage   of   more   than   one   year   administration   of   justice.   The   Court   is  
from   the   time   when   the   first   information   thus   under   a   moral   and   legal   obligation   to  
was   filed,   seems   as   far   away   from   a   see  that  these  proceedings  come  to  an  end  
definite   resolution   of   her   troubles   as   she   and   that   the   accused   is   discharged   from  
was  when  originally  charged.   the  custody  of  the  law.  

Philippine   organic   and   statutory   law   We   lay   down   the   legal   proposition   that,  
expressly   guarantee   that   in   all   criminal   where   a   prosecuting   officer,   without   good  
prosecutions   the   accused   shall   enjoy   the   cause,  secures  postponements  of  the  trial  
right  to  have  a  speedy  trial.  Aurelia  Conde,   of  a  defendant  against  his  protest  beyond  
like  all  other  accused  persons,  has  a  right   a   reasonable   period   of   time,   as   in   this  
to   a   speedy   trial   in   order   that   if   innocent   instance  for  more  than  a  year,  the  accused  
she   may   go   free,   and   she   has   been   is   entitled   to   relief   by   a   proceeding   in  
deprived   of   that   right   in   defiance   of   law.   mandamus   to   compel   a   dismissal   of   the  
Dismissed  from  her  humble  position,  and   information,   or   if   he   be   restrained   of   his  
compelled   to   dance   attendance   on   courts   liberty,   by   habeas   corpus   to   obtain   his  
while   investigations   and   trials   are   freedom.   (16   C.J.,   439   et   seq.;   In   the  
arbitrarily  postponed  without  her  consent,   matter   of   Ford   [1911],   160   Cal.,   334;   U.S.  
is   palpably   and   openly   unjust   to   her   and   a   vs.   Fox   [1880],   3   Montana,   512.   See  
detriment   to   the   public.   By   the   use   of   further   our   previous   decision   in   Conde  
vs.   Judge   of   First   Instance,   Fourteenth  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 77

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Judicial   District,   and   the   Provincial   out   of   the   facts   set   forth   in  
Fiscal  of  Tayabas,  No.  21236.   previous  informations  
• Law   expressly   guarantee   that   in   all  
  criminal  prosecutions,  the  accused  
CONDE   VS   RIVERA   GR   No   L-­‐21741;   shall   enjoy   the   right   to   have   a  
January  25,  1924;  Malcolm  J   speedy  trial.  
  • Compelled  to  dance  attendance  on  
DOCTRINE:   where   a   prosecuting   officer,   courts   while   investigations   and  
without   good   cause,   secures   trials   are   arbitrarily   postponed  
postponements  of  the  trial  of  a  defendant   without   her   consent   ispalpably  
against   his   protest   beyond   a   reasonable   and   openly   unjust   to   her   and   a  
period  of  time,  as  in  this  instance  for  more   detriment  to  the  public  
than   a   year,   the   accused   is   entitled   to   • By   use   of   reasonable   diligence,  
relief   by   a   proceeding   in   mandamus   to   prosecution   could   have   settled  
compel   a   dismissal   of   the   information,   or   upon   the   appropriate   information,  
if   he   be   restrained   of   his   liberty,   by   could   have   attended   tothe  
habeas  corpus  to  obtain  his  freedom   preliminary   investigation   and  
  prepared  a  case  without  vexatious,  
FACTS:   capricious  and  oppressive  delays  
• Petitioner:   Aurelia   Conde  –      
formerly   a   municipal   midwife   in   DOCTRINE:   where   a   prosecuting   officer,  
Lucena  Tayabas   without   good   cause,   secures  
• Respondents:   Pablo   Rivera   postponements  of  the  trial  of  a  defendant  
(provincial   fiscal   of   Tayabas);   against   his   protest   beyond   a   reasonable  
Federico  Unson  (justice  of  peace)   period  of  time,  as  in  this  instance  for  more  
• 5   informations   for   various   crimes   than   a   year,   the   accused   is   entitled   to  
filed  against  Conde.   relief   by   a   proceeding   in   mandamus   to  
compel   a   dismissal   of   the   information,   or  
• Conde   appeared   with   witness   and  
if   he   be   restrained   of   his   liberty,   by  
counsel   on   eight   different  
habeas  corpus  to  obtain  his  freedom  
occasions   only   to   see   the   cause  
 
postponed.   For   over   a   year   from  
the   time   when   the   1st   information   CONDE   VS   RIVERA   GR   No   L-­‐21741;  
was  filed.   January  25,  1924;  Malcolm  J  
   
SC  RULING:     FACTS:  
• All   informations   ordered   Aurelia   Conde,   formerly   a   municipal  
dismissed;   fiscal   shall   abstain   from   midwife   in   Lucena,   Tayabas,   has   been  
further   attempts   to   prosecute   forced   to   respond   to   no   less   the   five  
pursuant   to   informations   growing  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 78

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

information   for   various   crimes   and   which  should  be  the  last  to  set  an  example  
misdemeanors,   has   appeared   with   her   of   delay   and   oppression   in   the  
witnesses  and  counsel  at  hearings  no  less   administration   of   justice.   The   Court   is  
than   on   8   different   occasions   only   to   see   thus   under   a   moral   and   legal   obligation   to  
the   cause   postponed,   has   twice   been   see  that  these  proceedings  come  to  an  end  
required   to   come   to   the   Supreme   Court   and   that   the   accused   is   discharged   from  
for  protection,  and  now,  after  the  passage   the  custody  of  the  law.  
of   more   than   1   year   from   the   time   when    
the   first   information   was   filed,   seems   as   Thus,   where   a   prosecuting   officer,  
far  away  from  a  definite  resolution  of  her   without   good   cause,   secures  
troubles   as   she   was   when   originally   postponements  of  the  trial  of  a  defendant  
charged.     against   his   protest   beyond   a   reasonable  
  period   of   time,   the   accused   is   entitled   to  
ISSUE:   relief   by   a   proceeding   in   mandamus   to  
Whether   mandamus   will   lie   to   compel   the   compel   a   dismissal   of   the   information,   or  
dismissal   of   the   information   in   light   of   if   he   be   restrained   of   his   liberty,   by  
delays  in  the  trial  of  the  case.   habeas   corpus   to   obtain   his   freedom.  
  Hence,   the   Supreme   Court   ordered   the  
HELD:     Provincial   Fiscal   of   Tayabas   to   abstain  
The   Philippine   organic   and   statutory   law   from   further   attempts   to   prosecute   Conde  
expressly   guarantee   that   in   all   criminal   pursuant   to   informations,   and   dismissed  
prosecutions   the   accused   shall   enjoy   the   the   charges   pending   before   the   justice   of  
right  to  have  a  speedy  trial.  Aurelia  Conde,   the  of  Lucena,  Tayabas.  
like  all  other  accused  persons,  has  a  right    
to   a   speedy   trial   in   order   that   if   innocent  
she   may   go   free,   and   she   has   been   Q.  What  is  the  test  in  determining  whether  
deprived   of   that   right   in   defiance   of   law.   there   is   a   violation   of   the   right   to   speedy  
Dismissed  from  her  humble  position,  and   trial?  
compelled   to   dance   attendance   on   courts   A.   The   test   for   a   violation   of   the   right   to  
while   investigations   and   trials   are   speedy   trial   has   always   been   made   to  
arbitrarily  postponed  without  her  consent,   begin   from   the   time   of   the   filing   of   the  
is   palpably   and   openly   unjust   to   her   and   a   information   (People   v.   Orsal,   113   SCRA  
detriment   to   the   public.   By   the   use   of   262).   In   Martin   v.   Ver,   123   SCRA   745,   it  
upon   the   appropriate   information,   could   was   said   that   the   conduct   of   the   parties,  
have   attended   to   the   formal   preliminary   the   length   of   delay,   the   reason   for   delay,  
examination,  and  could  have  prepared  the   the   defendant’s   assertion   or   non-­‐
case   for   a   trial   free   from   vexatious,   assertion  of  the  right  are  some  of  the  tests  
capricious,   and   oppressive   delays.   The   in   determining   whether   there   has   been   a  
Government   of   the   Philippine   Islands   violation.   (See   also   Hon.   Adelina  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 79

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Calderon-­‐Bargas,  et  al.  v.  Hon.  Padolina,   1) the   proceedings   are   attended  
45  SCAD  165,  G.R.  Nos.  103259-­‐61,  Oct.  1,   by   vexatious,   caprcious,   and  
1993)   oppressive  delays;  or  
2) when   unjustified  
  postponements   are   asked   for  
Q.   A   speedy   trial   means   a   trial   conducted   and  secured;  or  
according  to  the  law  of  criminal  procedure   3) when   without   cause   or  
and   the   rules   and   regulations,   free   from   justifiable  motive  a  long  period  
vexations,   capricious   and   oppressive   delays.   of   time   is   allowed   to   elapse  
In   Conde   v.   Rivera   and   Unson,   45   Phil.   without   the   party   having   his  
650,   652   (1924),   the   Court   held   that   case  tried.  
“where  a  prosecuting  officer,  without  good    
cause,  secures  postponements  of  the  trial  of   Speedy   trial:   a   trial   free   from   vexatious,  
a   defendant   against   his   protest   beyond   a   capricious   and   oppressive   delays.   But  
reasonable   period   of   time,   as   in   this   justice   and   fairness,   not   speed,   are   the  
instance,   for   more   than   a   year,   the   accused   objectives.  See  Acevedo  v.  Sarmiento,  36  
is   entitled   to   relief   by   a   proceeding   in   SCRA  247;  Martin  v.  Ver,  123  SCRA  745.  
mandamus   to   compel   a   dismissal   of   the   Accused   is   entitled   to   dismissal,  
information,   or   if   he   be   restrained   of   his   equivalent   to   acquittal,   if   trial   is  
liberty,   by   habeas   corpus   to   obtain   his   unreasonably  delayed.  
freedom.”   The   concept   of   speedy   trial   is  
necessarily   relative.   A   determination   as   to   The   right   to   speedy   trial   is   relative,  
whether   the   right   has   been   violated   subject   to   reasonable   delays   and  
involves   the   weighing   of   several   factors   postponements   arising   from   illness,  
such   as   the   length   of   delay,   the   reason   for   medical   attention,   body   operations,   etc.  
the   delay,   the   conduct   of   the   prosecution   Speedy   trial   means   one   that   can   be   had   as  
and  the  accused,  and  the  efforst  exerted  by   soon   after   indictment   is   filed   as   the  
the  defendant  to  assert  his  rights,  as  well  as   prosecution   can,   with   reasonable  
the   prejudice   and   damage   caused   to   the   diligence,  prepare  for  trial.  While  accused  
accused.  When  is  the  right  of  the  accused  to   persons   do   have   rights,   many   of   them  
speedy  trial  violated?   choose   to   forget   that   the   aggrieved   also  
have  the  same  rights  [People  v.  Ginez,  197  
A.   In   determining   the   right   of   an   accused   SCRA  481].  In  determining  the  right  of  the  
to   speedy   trial,   courts   should   do   more   accused   to   speedy   trial,   courts   should   do  
than   a   mathematical   computation   of   the   more  than  a  mathematical  computation  of  
number   of   postponements   of   the   the   number   of   postponements   of  
scheduled   hearings   of   the   case.   The   right   scheduled   hearings,   of   the   case.   What  
to   a   speedy   trial   is   deemed   violated   only   offends   the   right   are   unjustified  
when:   postponements  which  prolong  trial  for  an  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 80

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

unreasonable   length   of   time.   In   this   case,   A   separate   trial   is   consonant   with   the  
the  hearing  was  only  postponed  twice  and   right   of   the   accused   to   a   speedy   trial.   In  
for  a  period  of  less  than  two  months;  thus,   this  case,  it  has  been  eight  years  since  the  
there   was   no   violation   of   the   information   was   filed,   and   the   case   has  
constitutional   right   to   speedy   trial   yet  to  be  tried.  The  long  delay  has  clearly  
[People   v.   Tampal,   244   SCRA   202].   The   prejudiced   the   petitioner   who   is   more  
right  to  speedy  trial  is  violated  only  when   than  73  years  old.  The  inconvenience  and  
the   proceeding   is   attended   by   vexatious,   expense   on   the   part   of   the   government  
capricious   and   oppressive   delays,   or   resulting   from   separate   trial   cannot   be  
when   unjustified   postponements   of   the   given   preference   over   the   right   to   a  
trial   are   asked   for   and   secured,   or   when   speedy   trial   [Dacanay   v.   People,   240  
without   cause   or   justifiable   motive,   a   long   SCRA  490]  
period   of   time   is   allowed   to   elapse  
without   the   party   having   his   case   tried   See  Republic  Act  No.  8493  [The  Speedy  
[De   la   Rosa   v.   Court   of   Appeals,   253   Trial  Act],  which  provides,  among  others,  
SCRA   499;   Tai   Lim   v.   Court   of   Appeals,   that   the   arraignment   of   an   accused   shall  
G.R.  No.  131483,  October  26,  1999].   be   held   within   30   days   from   filing   of   the  
information,  or  from  the  date  the  accused  
The   different   interests   of   the   defendant   has   appeared   before   the   justice,   judge   or  
which   the   right   to   speedy   trial   are   court   in   which   the   charge   is   pending,  
designed  to  protect  are:   whichever   date   last   occurs.   Thereafter,  
where   a   plea   of   not   guilty   is   entered,   the  
1) to   prevent   accused   shall   have   at   least   15   days   to  
oppressive   pre-­‐trial   prepare   for   trial.   Trial   shall   commence  
incarceration;   within  30  days  from  arraignment  as  fixed  
2) to   minimize   anxiety   by   the   court.   In   no   case   shall   the   entire  
and  concern  of  the  accused;   trial  period  exceed  180  days  from  the  first  
and   day   of   trial,   except   as   otherwise  
3) to   limit   the   authorized   by   the   Chief   Justice   of   the  
possibility   that   the   defense   Supreme  Court.  
will  be  impaired.  
  R.   A.   8493   is   a   means   of   enforcing   the  
But   the   right   to   speedy   trial   cannot   be   right  of  the  accused  to  a  speedy  trial.  The  
invoked  where  to  sustain  the  same  would   spirit   of   the   law   is   that   the   accused   must  
result   in   a   clear   denial   of   due   process   to   go   on   record   in   the   attitude   of   demanding  
the  prosecution.  In  essence,  the  right  to  a   a  trial  or  resisting  delay.  If  he  does  not  do  
speedy   trial   does   not   preclude   the   this,   he   must   be   held,   in   law,   to   have  
people’s  equally  important  right  to  public   waived  the  privilege  [Uy  v.  Hon.  Adriano,  
justice   [Uy   v.   Hon.   Adriano,   G.R.   No.   G.R.  No.  159098,  October  27,  2006].  
159098,  October  27,  2006]  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 81

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

The   right   to   a   speedy   trial,   as   well   as   and   concern   to   the   cause   of   justice  
other   rights   conferred   by   the   Constitution   according   to   legal   norms,   a   cerebral   man  
or   statute,   may   be   waived   except   when   who   deliberately   holds   in   check   the   tug  
otherwise   expressly   provided   by   law.   and   pull   of   purely   personal   preferences  
One’s   right   to   speedy   disposition   of   his   and   prejudices   which   he   shares   with   the  
case   must,   therefore,   be   asserted.   Due   to   rest   of   his   fellow   mortals."   A   judge   then,  
the   failure   of   the   petitioner   to   assert   this   to  quote  from  the  latest  decision  in  point,  
right,   he   is   considered   to   have   waived   it.   Geotina   v.   Gonzales,   penned   by   Justice  
[Barcelona  v.  Lim,  G.R.  No.  189171,  June   Castro,   should   strive   to   be   at   all   times  
3,  2014].   "wholly   free,   disinterested,   impartial   and  
independent.   Elementary   due   process  
  requires   a   hearing   before   an   impartial  
  and   disinterested   tribunal.   A   judge   has  
both  the  duty  of  rendering  a  just  decision  
MATEO,   JR.   VS.   VILLALUZ   [G.R.   NOS.   L-­‐ and   the   duty   of   doing   it   in   a   manner  
34756-­‐59,  MARCH  31,  1973]   completely   free   from   suspicion   as   to   its  
fairness  and  as  to  his  integrity."  Nor  is  this  
IMPARTIAL   JUDGE.   It   is   now   beyond   to   imply   that   prior   to   Gutierrez,   there   had  
dispute   that   due   process   cannot   be   been   no   awareness   of   the   due   process  
satisfied   in   the   absence   of   that   degree   of   aspect  of  an  impartial  tribunal  even  if  not  
objectivity  on  the  part  of  a  judge  sufficient   explicitly   referred   to.   As   noted   by   Justice  
to   reassure   litigants   of   his   being   fair   and   Street  as  far  back  as  1926  in  Government  
being  just.  Thereby  there  is  the  legitimate   v.  Abella,  a  1926  decision,  if  the  Supreme  
expectation   that   the   decision   arrived   at   Court   "were   of   the   opinion   that   the  
would  be  the  application  of  the  law  to  the   litigant   had   not   had   a   fair   trial,   a   new   trial  
facts   as   found   by   a   judge   who   does   not   could  be  granted."  There  was  a  reiteration  
play   favorites.   For   him,   the   parties   stand   of   such   a   view   in   a   case   decided   in   1933,  
on  equal  footing.  In  the  language  of  Justice   Dais   v.   Torres,   with   Justice   Vickers   as  
Dizon:   ponente,  in  these  words:  
"It   has   been   said,   in   fact,   "Although   a   judge   may   not  
that   due   process   of   law   requires   a   have   been   disqualified   [according  
hearing   before   an   impartial   and   to   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure],  
disinterested   tribunal,   and   that   nevertheless   if   it   appears   to   this  
every  litigant  is  entitled  to  nothing   court   that   the   appellant   was   not  
less   than   the   cold   neutrality   of   an   given   a   fair   and   impartial   trial  
impartial  judge."   because  of  the  trial  judge's  bias  or  
prejudice,   this   court   will   order   a  
He  should,  to  quote  from  another  decision  
"at   all   times   manifest   depth   commitment  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 82

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

new   trial,   if   it   deems   it   necessary,   where   their   capacity   to   try   and   decide   a  
in  the  interest  of  justice."   case   fairly   and   judiciously   comes   to   the  
fore  by  way  of  challenge  from  any  one  of  
Conformably   to   what   was   so   emphatically   the   parties.   A   judge   may   not   be   legally  
asserted   in   Gutierrez   as   the   fundamental   prohibited  from  sitting  in  a  litigation.  But  
requisite   of   impartiality   for   due   process   when  suggestion  is  made  of  record  that  he  
to   be   satisfied,   the   Rules   of   Court   might   be   induced   to   act   in   favor   of   one  
provision   on   disqualification   when   party   or   with   bias   or   prejudice   against   a  
revised  three  years  later  in  1964  contains   litigant   arising   out   of   circumstance  
this  additional  paragraph:   reasonably  capable  of  inciting  such  a  state  
"A   judge   may,   in   the   of  mind,  he  should  conduct  a  careful  self-­‐
exercise   of   his   sound   discretion,   examination.   He   should   exercise   his  
disqualify  himself  from  sitting  in  a   discretion  in  a  way  that  the  people’s  faith  
case,  for  just  or  valid  reasons  other   in   the   courts   of   justice   is   not   impaired.   A  
than  those  mentioned  above."   salutary   norm   is   that   he   reflects   the  
probability   that   a   losing   party   might  
Thereby,  it  is  made  clear  to  the  occupants   nurture   at   the   back   of   his   mind   the  
of   the   bench   that   outside   of   pecuniary   thought   that   the   judge   had  
interest,   relationship   or   previous   unmeritoriously  tilted  the  scales  of  justice  
participation   in   the   matter   that   calls   for   against  him.    
adjudication,   there   may   be   other   causes  
that   could   conceivably   erode   the   trait   of   That   passion   on   the   part   judge   may   be  
objectivity,   thus   calling   for   inhibition.   generated   because   of   serious   charges  
That   is   to   betray   a   sense   of   realism,   for   misconduct  against  him  by  a  suitor  or  his  
the   factors   that   lead   to   preferences   or   counsel,   is   not   altogether   remote.   He   is   a  
predilections   are   many   and   varied.   It   is   man,  subject  to  the  frailties  of  other  men.  
well,   therefore,   that   if   any   such   should   He   should,   therefore,   exercise   great   care  
make  its  appearance  and  prove  difficult  to   and   caution   before   making   up   his   mind   to  
resist,   the   better   course   for   a   judge   is   to   act   or   withdraw   from   a   suit   where   that  
disqualify   himself.   That   way,   he   avoids   party   or   counsel   is   involved.   He   could   in  
being   misunderstood.   His   reputation   for   good  grace  inhibit  himself  where  that  case  
probity  and  objectivity  is  preserved.  What   could   be   heard   by   another   judge   and  
is   even   more   important,   the   ideal   of   an   where  no  appreciable  prejudice  would  be  
impartial   administration   of   justice   is   lived   occasioned  to  others  involved  therein.  On  
up   to.   Thus   is   due   process   vindicated.   the   result   of   his   decisions   to   sit   or   not   to  
There   is   relevance   to   what   was   said   by   sit   may   depend   to   a   great   extent   the   all-­‐
Justice   Sanchez   in   Pimentel   v.   Salanga,   important   confidence   in   the   impartiality  
drawing   "attention   of   all   judges   to   of   the   judiciary.   If   after   reflection   he  
appropriate   guidelines   in   a   situation   should   resolve   to   voluntarily   desist   from  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 83

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

sitting   a   case   where   his   motives   or   a  move  did  not  fall  squarely  within  one  of  
fairness  might  be  seriously  impugned,  his   the   specific   grounds   to   inhibit   judges.   2  
action   is   to   be   interpreted   as   giving   Respondent   Judge   turned   down   this   plea  
meaning   and   substance   to   the   second   for   disqualification.   Hence,   this   petition,  
paragraph   of   Section   1,   Rule   137.   He   based   on   the   asserted   violation   of   a  
serves  the  cause  of  the  law  who  forestalls   constitutional  right  not  to  be  convicted  of  
miscarriage  of  justice."   an   offense   without   due   process   of   law.  
This  Court,  after  a  careful  consideration  of  
  the   matter   and   in   the   light   of   past  
MATEO,   JR.   VS.   VILLALUZ   [G.R.   NOS.   L-­‐ decisions   to   be   hereafter   noted,   looks  
34756-­‐59,  MARCH  31,  1973]   upon   such   failure   of   respondent   Judge   to  
disqualify   himself   as   a   grave   abuse   of  
DOCTRINE:   The  novel  issue  presented  in   discretion   correctible   by   prohibition.   The  
this   prohibition   proceeding   arose   from   petition  is  meritorious.  
the   gnawing   fear   that   the   prized   ideal   of  
"the  cold  neutrality  of  an  impartial  judge"   FACTS:   On   or   about   June   4,   1971,   the  
1   implicit   in   the   due   process   guarantee   American   Express   Bank   at   Sangley   Point,  
may   be   set   at   naught.   Petitioners   are   Cavite,   was   robbed   and   an   American  
among   those   being   tried   by   respondent   serviceman   was   killed.   In   connection   with  
Judge   for   the   offense   of   robbery   in   band   that   robbery,   and   the   death   of   the  
with   homicide.   Thereafter,   an   serviceman,   four   (4)   criminal   actions  
extrajudicial   statement   by   one   Rolando   were   filed   against   petitioners   and  
Reyes,  who  was  later  on  likewise  indicted   docketed   as   Criminal   Cases   Nos.   CCC-­‐VII-­‐
for   the   same   offense,   implicating   843   to   846,   Cavite,   for   robbery   in   band  
petitioners,   was   subscribed   before   with   homicide,   all   captioned   'People  of  the  
respondent   Judge.   That   was   the   Philippines,   Plaintiff,   vs.   Manuel   Mateo,   et  
background   of   a   motion   for   his   al.,  Accused'.    
disqualification,   as   the   aforesaid   Rolando  
Reyes,   when   called   upon   to   testify   as   an   ...   The   Information   fell   in   the   sala   of   the  
additional   witness   for   the   prosecution   Honorable  Respondent  Judge  because  the  
impugned   his   written   declaration   stating   complaints  were  filed  there;  and,  in  fact,  it  
that   it   was   executed   as   a   result   of   a   threat   was   the   Honorable   Respondent   Judge  
by   a   government   agent.   It   is   now   who   ordered   District   State   Prosecutor  
contended   that   such   a   repudiation   would   Cornelio   Melendres   [or]   Assistant   City  
not   sit   well   with   respondent   Judge,   who   Fiscal   Enrique   A.   Cube   to   conduct   the  
had   thus   placed   himself   in   a   position   of   preliminary   investigation.   Petitioners  
being   unable   to   pass   on   such   question   Manuel   Mateo,   Jr.   and   Esmeraldo   Cruz  
with   that   degree   of   objectivity   required   were   arraigned   on   June   24,   1971   while  
by   due   process,   although   admittedly,   such   petitioners   Roberto   Martinez   @   Ruben  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 84

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Martinez   filed   a   Motion   To   Dismiss   on   the   its  evidence  as  against  Rolando  Reyes.  ...  It  
ground   of   "insufficiency   of   evidence   for   appears   that   the   said   Rolando   Reyes   had  
failure  of  prosecution     executed   an   extra-­‐judicial   statement   on  
October   1,   1971   and   had   signed   and  
(1)   to   prove   the   existence   of   conspiracy,   sworn   to   its   truth   before   the   Honorable  
and     Respondent  Judge;  and,  in  that  statement  
had   implicated   petitioners;   evidently,   the  
(2)   to   identify   the   accused   by   competent   Honorable   Respondent   Judge   was   aware  
evidence."     of   this,   and   it   was   for   this   reason   that   he  
had   deferred   ruling   on   petitioner   Ruben  
On   September   25,   1971,   petitioner   Martinez'   motions   and   supplemental  
Roberto   Martinez   Ruben   Martinez   motion   to   dismiss   'until   after   the  
amplified   his   motion   to   dismiss   with   a   prosecution   has   presented   and   rested   its  
Supplemental   Motion   based   on   the   claim   evidence   as   against   Rolando   Reyes.'  
that   "the   pre-­‐trial   identification   by   Rolando   Reyes,   however,   was   tried  
prosecution   witness   Elliot   Grey   of   your   separately   from   and   in   the   absence   of  
accused   Roberto   Martinez   in   a   police   line-­‐ petitioners;   so   that   the   proceedings  
up   in   the   absence   of   defendant's   counsel   against   him   did   not   constitute   evidence  
is   unconstitutional;   and   the   in-­‐court   against  petitioner.    
testimony   of   said   Elliot   Grey   identifying  
your   accused   Roberto   Martinez   is   So,   on   November   26,   1971,   while  
inadmissible   in   evidence   and   should   be   petitioner   Martinez'   Motion   and  
stricken   out   from   the   records".   The.   Supplemental   Motion   to   Dismiss  
prosecution   opposed   the   motion   to   remained   unresolved,   the   prosecution  
dismiss.   To   date,   the   motions   to   dismiss   filed   a   'Motion   to   Present   Additional  
have   not   been   decided   by   the   Honorable   Evidence.'   ...   On   December   4,   1971,  
Respondent   Judge.   ...   In   the   meantime,   petitioner   Manuel   Mateo   filed   an  
another   suspect   in   the   Sangley   Point   Opposition  to  the  prosecution's  Motion  to  
Robbery   —   one   Rolando   Reyes   —   was   Present   Additional   Evidence   on   the  
arrested.     ground   that   'to   allow   the   prosecution   to  
present  additional  evidence  in  favor  of  the  
On   October   5,   1971,   when   petitioner's   State   after   the   prosecution   has   rested,  
Motion   to   Dismiss   together   with   the   while   the   accused   has   a   pending   motion  
Opposition   thereto   were   submitted   for   to   dismiss   under   consideration   would   be  
resolution,  the  Honorable  Presiding  Judge   prejudicial   to   the   substantial   rights   of  
in  an  Order  ruled  that  'pursuant  to  Sec.  6,   herein   accused   because   it   would  
Rule  135  of  the  New  Rules  of  Court,  let  the   effectively  deprive  him  of  a  fair  trial.'    
Motion   to   Dismiss   be   resolved   until   after  
the  prosecution  has  presented  and  rested  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 85

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

On  December  24,  1971,  respondent  Judge   latter   perforce   would   have   to   pass   upon  
granted   the   prosecution's   'Motion   to   that   repudiation.   ...   On   February   11,   1972,  
Present   Additional   Evidence'   ruling   that   the   prosecution   filed   an   Opposition   to  
'it   is   well   settled   jurisprudence   in   this   petitioners'   Joint   Motion   for  
jurisdiction   and   elsewhere   that   it   is   Disqualification.  ...  On  February  12,  1972,  
within   the   sound   discretion   of   the   court   respondent   Judge   denied   petitioners'  
whether   or   not   to   allow   the   presentation   Joint  Motion  for  Disqualification."  3    
of   additional   evidence   after   the   parties  
have   rested   their   case.'   ...   On   February   3,   ISSUE:   The   specific   question   raised   not  
1972,   the   prosecution   called   Rolando   having   been   passed   upon   previously,  
Reyes  as  an  additional  witness,  and  in  the   coupled   with   the   exhaustive   petition  
course   of   his   testimony,   marked   an   submitted   by   counsel   for   petitioners,  
extrajudicial   statement   purportedly   Senator  Jose  W.  Diokno,  led  this  Court,  in  
executed   by   him   on   October   1,   1971   as   its   resolution   of   February   25,   1972   to  
Exh.   'P'.   ...   Rolando   Reyes   repudiated   it,   require  comment  from  respondent  Judge,  
stated  that  he  had  executed  it  because  he   with   a   temporary   restraining   order  
had   been   threatened   by   a   government   likewise   being   issued.   The   then   Solicitor  
agent.  The  statement,  Exh.  'P'  ...,  purports   General,   now   Associate   Justice,   Felix  
to   have   been   subscribed   and   sworn   to   Antonio,   did   so   in   an   equally   well-­‐
before   the   respondent   Judge   on   October   researched   pleading   on   March   16,   1972  
1,   1971.   As   soon   as   the   foregoing   facts   which,  by  our  resolution  of  March  22,  was  
were   made   of   record   in   the   case,   considered   his   answer.   Thereafter,   with  
defendants   [petitioners   herein)   verbally   memoranda   being   submitted   by   both  
moved   to   suspend   the   proceedings   to   parties,   the   case   was   deemed   submitted  
enable  them  to  file  a  motion  to  disqualify   for   decision   on   August   4   last   year.   There  
the  Honorable  Respondent  Judge;  and  the   is,   to   repeat,   a   highly   persuasive   and  
motion  for  suspension  was  granted.     scholarly   quality   in   the   manner   in   which  
the   plea   for   petitioners   was   made.  
On   February   5,   1971,   petitioners   filed   a   Nonetheless,   with   due   recognition   of   the  
Joint   Motion   for   Disqualification   of   imperative   character   of   the   safeguard   of  
respondent   Judge   contending   that   due   process   connoting,   at   the   very   least,  
respondent   Judge   'in   the   exercise   of   his   an   impartial   tribunal,   the   Court   cannot  
sound   discretion   [should]   disqualify   consider   the   circumstances   disclosed   as  
himself   from   sitting   in   this   case   under   the   sufficient  to  call  for  the  disqualification  of  
second  paragraph  of  Section  1  of  Rule  137   respondent  Judge.  
of   the   Rules   of   Court,'   because   Rolando  
Reyes   had   repudiated   the   statement   that   RULING  OF  THE  SC  
he,   Reyes,   had   sworn   to   before   the  
Honorable   Respondent   Judge   and   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 86

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

1.   It   is   now   beyond   dispute   that   due   explicitly   referred   to.   As   noted   by   Justice  
process   cannot   be   satisfied   in   the   absence   Street   as   far   back   as   1926   in   Government  
of   that   degree   of   objectivity   on   the   part   of   v.  Abella,  8  a   1926   decision,   if   the   Supreme  
a   judge   sufficient   to   reassure   litigants   of   Court   "were   of   the   opinion   that   the  
his   being   fair   and   being   just.   Thereby   litigant   had   not   had   a   fair   trial,   a   new   trial  
there   is   the   legitimate   expectation   that   could   be   granted."   9   There   was   a  
the   decision   arrived   at   would   be   the   reiteration   of   such   a   view   in   a   case  
application  of  the  law  to  the  facts  as  found   decided   in   1933,   Dais   v.   Torres,   10   with  
by   a   judge   who   does   not   play   favorites.   Justice   Vickers   as   ponente,   in   these  
For   him,   the   parties   stand   on   equal   words:   "Although   a   judge   may   not   have  
footing.   In   the   language   of   Justice   Dizon:   been   disqualified   [according   to   the   Code  
"It  has  been  said,  in  fact,  that  due  process   of   Civil   Procedure],   nevertheless   if   it  
of   law   requires   a   hearing   before   an   appears   to   this   court   that   the   appellant  
impartial   and   disinterested   tribunal,   and   was   not   given   a   fair   and   impartial   trial  
that   every   litigant   is   entitled   to   nothing   because   of   the   trial   judge's   bias   or  
less   than   the   cold   neutrality   of   an   prejudice,  this  court  will  order  a  new  trial,  
impartial   judge."   4   He   should,   to   quote   if   it   deems   it   necessary,   in   the   interest   of  
from   another   decision   "at   all   times   justice."  11    
manifest   depth   of   commitment   and  
concern   to   the   cause   of   justice   according   2.   Conformably   to   what   was   so  
to   legal   norms,   a   cerebral   man   who   emphatically   asserted   in   Gutierrez   as   the  
deliberately   holds   in   cheek   the   tug   and   fundamental   requisite   of   impartiality   for  
pull   of   purely   personal   preferences   and   due   process   to   be   satisfied,   the   Rules   of  
prejudices   which   he   shares   with   the   rest   Court   provision   on   disqualification   when  
of   his   fellow   mortals."   5   A   judge   then,   to   revised  three  years  later  in  1964  contains  
quote   from   the   latest   decision   in   point,   this   additional   paragraph:   "A   judge   may,  
Geotina   v.   Gonzales,   6   penned   by   Justice   in   the   exercise   of   sound   discretion,  
Castro,   should   strive   to   be   at   all   times   disqualify   himself   from   sitting   in   a   case,  
"wholly   free,   disinterested,   impartial   and   for  just  or  valid  reasons  other  than  those  
independent.   Elementary   due   process   mentioned   above."   12   Thereby,   it   is   made  
requires   a   hearing   before   an   impartial   clear   to   the   occupants   of   the   bench   that  
and   disinterested   tribunal.   A   judge   has   outside   of   pecuniary   interest,   relationship  
both  the  duty  of  rendering  a  just  decision   or   previous   participation   in   the   matter  
and   the   duty   of   doing   it   in   a   manner   that   calls   for   adjudication,   there   may   be  
completely   free   from   suspicion   as   to   its   other   causes   that   could   conceivably   erode  
fairness   and   as   to   his   integrity."   7   Nor   is   the   trait   of   objectivity,   thus   calling   for  
this   to   imply   that   prior   to   Gutierrez,   there   inhibition.   That   is   to   betray   a   sense   of  
had  been  no  awareness  of  the  due  process   realism,   for   the   factors   that   lead   to  
aspect  of  an  impartial  tribunal  even  if  not   preferences   or   predilections   are   many  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 87

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

and   varied.   It   is   well,   therefore,   that   if   any   before   making   up   his   mind   to   act   or  
such   should   make   its   appearance   and   withdraw  from  a  suit  where  that  party  or  
prove  difficult  to  resist,  the  better  course   counsel   is   involved.   He   could   in   good  
for   a   judge   is   to   disqualify   himself.   That   grace   inhibit   himself   where   that   case  
way,   he   avoids   being   misunderstood.   His   could   be   heard   by   another   judge   and  
reputation   for   probity   and   objectivity   is   where  no  appreciable  prejudice  would  be  
preserved.   What   is   even   more   important,   occasioned  to  others  involved  therein.  On  
the   ideal   of   an   impartial   administration   of   the   result   of   his   decisions   to   sit   or   not   to  
justice  is  lived  up  to.  Thus  is  due  process   sit   may   depend   to   a   great   extent   the   all  
vindicated.   There   is   relevance   to   what   important   confidence   in   the   impartiality  
was  said  by  Justice  Sanchez  in  Pimentel   v.   of   the   judiciary.   If   after   reflection   he  
Salanga,   13   drawing   "attention   of   all   should   resolve   to   voluntarily   desist   from  
judges   to   appropriate   guidelines   in   a   sitting   in   a   case   where   his   motives   or  
situation   where   their   capacity   to   try   and   fairness  might  be  seriously  impugned,  his  
decide  a  case  fairly  and  judiciously  comes   action   is   to   be   interpreted   as   giving  
to   the   fore   by   way   of   challenge   from   any   meaning   and   substance   to   the   second  
one   of   the   parties.   A   judge   may   not   be   paragraph   of   Section   1,   Rule   137.   He  
legally   prohibited   from   sitting   in   a   serves  the  cause  of  the  law  who  forestalls  
litigation.  But  when  suggestion  is  made  of   miscarriage  of  justice."  14    
record  that  he  might  be  induced  to  act  in  
favor   of   one   party   or   with   bias   or   3.   The   imperfections   of   human  
prejudice   against   a   litigant   arising   out   of   institutions   being   such,   what   is   fit   and  
circumstance   reasonably   capable   of   proper   is   not   always   achieved.   The  
inciting   such   a   state   of   mind,   he   should   invitation   to   judges   to   disqualify  
conduct   a   careful   self-­‐examination.   He   themselves   is   not   always   heeded.   For   that  
should   exercise   his   discretion   in   a   way   matter,  it  is  not  always  desirable  that  they  
that:   the   people's   faith   in   the   courts   of   should   do   so.   It   could   amount   in   certain  
justice   is   not   impaired.   A   salutary   norm   is   cases  to  their  being  recreant  to  their  trust.  
that   he   reflect   on   the   probability   that   a   Justice   Perfecto's   warning   is   not   to   be  
losing   party   might   nurture   at   the   back   of   ignored;   "to   shirk   the   responsibility"  
his   mind   the   thought   that   the   judge   had   entails   "the   risk   of   being   called   upon   to  
unmeritoriously  tilted  the  scales  of  justice   account  for  his  dereliction."   15   It  could  be  
against  him.  That  passion  on  the  part  of  a   an   instrument   whereby   a   party   could  
judge   may   be   generated   because   of   inhibit   a   judge   in   the   hope   of   getting  
serious   charges   of   misconduct   against   another  more  amenable  to  his  persuasive  
him   by   a   suitor   or   his   counsel,   is   not   skill.  With  all  such  considerations  in  mind,  
altogether  remote.  He  is  a  man,  subject  to   there  is  still  cogency  in  the  approach  that  
the   frailties   of   other   men.   He   should,   would   look   with   favor   on   the   exercise   of  
therefore,  exercise  great  care  and  caution   discretion   in   favor   of   disqualification,  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 88

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

given  the  likelihood  that  bias  or  prejudice   rendering   a   right   judgment   is   that   of  
is   unavoidable.   Even   before   the   doing  it  in  such  a  manner  as  will  beget  no  
amendment  of  Section  1  of  Rule  137,  this   suspicion   of   the   fairness   and   integrity   of  
Court,   in   at   least   two   decisions,   16  gave   its   the   judge."   Let   it   be   said   that   the  
approval   to   such   a   move.   Then   came   administration   of   justice   in   this   country  
People   v.   Gomez,   17   where   this   Court,   the   suffers   from   too   many   human  
ponente   being   Justice   J.   P.   Bengzon,   held:   imperfections.   To   our   mind,   respondent  
"Now   considering   that   the   Revised   Rules   judge   should   inhibit   himself   since   it   has  
of   Court,   already   in   effect   when   become   apparent   that   his   further  
respondent   Judge   filed   his   answer   herein   continuance   in   Case   4871   would   be   in   the  
containing   the   prayer   to   be   disqualified   best  interest  of  justice,  which  he  is  bound  
from   the   case,   although   not   yet   in   effect   to   serve."   20   There   was   a   reiteration   of  
when  the  proceedings  at  issue  were  taken   such  a  principle  in  Paredes  v.  Gopengco,   21  
in   the   court   below,   states   in   Section   1   of   where   the   following   appears   in   the  
Rule   137   that,   "A   judge   may,   in   the   opinion   Justice   Teehankee   for   the   Court:  
exercise   of   his   sound   discretion,   "It   is   pertinent   to   state   the   restriction  
disqualify   himself   from   sitting   in   a   case,   provided   in   the   Rule   against   appeal   or  
for   just   or   valid   reasons'   other   than   the   stay   of   the   proceedings   where   the   trial  
usual   grounds   for   disqualification,   this   judge  denies  a  motion  for  disqualification  
Court,   after   considering   all   the   is  not  an  absolute  rule  even  in  civil  cases,  
circumstances   of   the   case,   finds   as'   has  not  been  taken  as  precluding  a  resort  
reasonable,   respondent   Judge's   afore-­‐ in   appropriate   to   the   special   civil   actions  
stated   request   for   disqualification   from   of   prohibition   and   certiorari   the   higher  
further  sitting  in  the  Richard  case,  and  We   courts   for   determination,   ahead   of   the  
rule  that  he  is  thereby  deemed,  in  light  of   judgment   the   merits,   whether   the   trial  
the   new   Rules,   to   have   inhibited   himself   judge   committed   a   grave   abuse   of  
from   further   taking   cognizance   of   the   discretion   amounting   to   lack   or   excess   of  
case."  18     jurisdiction   refusing   to   disqualify  
himself."   22   There   is   thus   respectable  
There   is   even   greater   deference   paid   to   authority   for   the   view   that   with   the  
the   due   process   requirement   of   possibility   of   a   trial   tainted   by   partiality,  
impartiality  when,  in  Luque  v.  Kayanan,   19   this   Court   can   step   in   to   assure   for   the  
decided   in   1969,   this   Court,   through   demands  of  due  process.  
justice   Sanchez,   could   categorically   rule:  
"All   suitors,   we   must   say,   are   entitled   to   4.  Petitioners  can  assert  then,  and  rightly  
nothing   short   of   the   cold   neutrality   of   an   so,   that   we   the   power   to   set   aside   the  
independent,   wholly   free,   disinterested   order  denying  the  motion  disqualification.  
and   impartial   tribunal.   It   has   been   said   While   the   discretion   in   the   first   instance  
that   "next   in   importance   to   the   duty   of   belongs   to   respondent   Judge,   its   exercise  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 89

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

is   subject   to   our   corrective   authority.   resolution   was   deferred   by   respondent  


Certainly,   there   can   be   no   question   as   to   Judge   until   after   the   prosecution   had  
its   being   considered   abused   if   it   can   be   presented  and  rested  its  evidence  against  
shown   that   to   refuse   inhibition   is   to   cast   affiant,   who   was   himself   indicted   and  
valid   doubts   as   to   a   court's   impartiality.   tried   for   the   same   offense,   but   in   a  
The   specific   issue   then   that   must   be   separate  proceeding.  It  cannot  be  doubted  
resolved  is  whether  the  circumstance  of  a   then   that   respondent   Judge   in   effect   ruled  
party   having   subscribed   before   that   such   extra-­‐judicial   statement   was  
respondent   Judge   an   extra-­‐judicial   executed   freely.   With   its   repudiation   on  
statement   purporting   to   describe   the   the   ground   that   it   was   not   so   at   all,  
manner   in   which   an   offense   was   coercion   having   come   into   the   picture  
committed,  later  on  repudiated  by  him  as   there   is   apparent   the   situation   of   a   judge  
the   product   of   intimidation   in   the   course   having   to   pass   on   a   question   that   by  
of  his  having  been  asked  to  testify  against   implication   had   already   been   answered  
petitioners,   would   suffice   to   negate   that   by   him.   Such   a   fact   became   rather  
degree   of   objectivity   the   Constitution   obvious.  For  respondent  Judge  was  called  
requires?   The   answer   must   be   in   the   upon  to  review  a  matter  on  which  he  had  
affirmative.   Petitioners   are   thus   entitled   previously   given   his   opinion.   It   is   this  
to   the   relief   sought.   Respondent   Judge   inroad   in   one's   objectivity   that   is   sought  
could   not   be   totally   immune   to   what   to   be   avoided   by   the   law   on  
apparently   was   asserted   before   him   in   disqualification.   The   misgivings   then   as   to  
such  extrajudicial  statement.  Moreover,  it   the   requirement   of   due   process   for   "the  
is  unlikely  that  he  was  not  in  the  slightest   cold   neutrality   of   an   impartial   judge"   not  
bit   offended   by   the   affiant's   turnabout   being   met   are   more   titan   justified.   Hence  
with   his   later   declaration   that   there   was   the  conclusion  reached  by  us.  
intimidation   by   a   government   agent  
exerted  on  him.  That  was  hardly  flattering   5.   To   avoid   any   further   controversies   of  
to   respondent   Judge.   It   is   not   only   that.   this   nature,   lower   court   judges   are   well-­‐
His   sense   of   fairness   under   the   advised  to  limit  themselves  to  the  task  of  
circumstances   could   easily   be   blunted.   adjudication   and   to   leave   to   others   the  
The   absence   of   the   requisite   due   process   role   of   notarizing   declarations.   The   less  
element   is   thus   noticeable.   There   is   this   an   occupant   of   the   bench   fritters   away   his  
circumstance  even  more  telling.  It  was  he   time  and  energy  in  tasks  more  incumbent  
who   attested   to   its   due   execution   on   on   officials   of   the   executive   branch   the  
October   1,   1971   wherein   Rolando   Reyes   less   the   danger   of   his   being   a   participant  
admitted   his   participation   in   the   crime   in   any   event   that   might   lend   itself   to   the  
and   in   addition   implicated   petitioners.   At   interpretation   that   his   impartiality   has  
that  time,  their  motion  for  dismissal  of  the   been   compromised.   There   is   much   to   be  
charges   against   them   was   pending;   its   said   for   displaying   zeal   and   eagerness   in  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 90

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

stamping   out   criminality,   but   that   role   is   A.   The   purpose   of   this   guarantee   is   to  
hardly   fit   for   a   judge   who   must   bide   his   serve  “as  a  safeguard  against  any  attempt  
time  until  the  case  is  before  him.  He  must   to   employ   our   courts   as   instruments   of  
ever  be  on  guard  lest  what  is  done  by  him,   persecution.   The   knowledge   that   every  
even   from   the   best   of   motives,   may   be   criminal   trial   is   subject   to  
thought  of  as  eroding  that  objectivity  and   contemporaneous   review   in   the   form   of  
sobriety   which   are   the   hallmarks   of   public  opinion  is  an  effective  restraint  on  
judicial   conduct.   Thus   should   he   attend   to   possible   abuse   of   judicial   power.”   Garcia  
the  performance  of  the  sacred  trust  that  is   v.  Domingo,  supra.  
his.  
 
WHEREFORE,  the  petition  for  prohibition   GARCIA   VS.   DOMINGO   [G.R.   NO.   L-­‐
granted.   The   restraining   order   is   issued   30104,  JULY  25,  1973]  
by   this   Court   on   February   25,   1972   is  
made   permanent.   Without   PUBLIC   TRIAL.   The   1935   Constitution  
pronouncement  as  to  costs.   which   was   in   force   at   the   time   of   the  
antecedents  of  this  petition,  as  set  forth  at  
Q.  When  is  a  trial  “public?”   the  outset,  explicitly  enumerated  the  right  
to   a   public   trial   to   which   an   accused   was  
A.  It  is  public  when  attendance  is  open  to   entitled.   So   it   is,   as   likewise   made   clear,  
all   irrespective   of   relationship   to  
under   the   present   dispensation.   As   a  
defendants.   However,   when   the   evidence   matter  of  fact,  that  was  one  constitutional  
to   be   presented   may   be   characterized   as   provision  that  needed  only  a  single,  terse  
“offensive   to   decency   or   public   morals,”   summation   from   the   Chairman   of   the  
the  proceeding  may  be  limited  to  friends,   Committee  on  the  Bill  of  Rights,  Delegate,  
relatives   and   counsel.   Garcia   v.   Domingo,  
later   Justice,   Jose   P.   Laurel,   to   gain  
L-­‐30104,  July  25,  1973.   acceptance.  As  was  stressed  by  him:  
 
"Trial   should   also   be   public  
Q.  What  is  the  meaning  of  public  trial?   in   order   to   offset   any   danger   of  
conducting   it   in   an   illegal   and  
A.   It   is   one   held   openly   or   publicly.   It   is   unjust  manner."  
sufficient   that   relatives   and   friends,   who  
want   to   watch   the   proceedings   are   given   It   would   have   been   surprising   if   its  
the  opportunity  to  witness  the  same.   proposed   inclusion   in   the   Bill   of   Rights  
had  provoked  any  discussion,  much  less  a  
  debate.   It   was   merely   a   reiteration   of  
what   appeared   in   the   Philippine  
Q.  What  is  the  purpose  of  the  guarantee  of   Autonomy   Act   of   1916,   popularly   known  
a  public  trial?   as   the   Jones   Law.   Earlier,   such   a   right  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 91

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

found   expression   in   the   Philippine   Bill   of   Offhand   it   does   seem   fairly   obvious   that  
1902,   likewise   an   organic   act   of   the   then   here   is   an   instance   where   language   is   to  
government   of   this   country   as   an   be   given   a   literal   application.   There   is   no  
unincorporated   territory   of   the   United   ambiguity   in   the   words   employed.   The  
States.  Historically,  as  was  pointed  out  by   trial   must   be   public.   It   possesses   that  
Justice   Black,   speaking   for   the   United   character   when   anyone   interested   in  
States   Supreme   Court   in   the   leading   case   observing   the   manner   a   judge   conducts  
of  In  re  Oliver:   the  proceedings  in  his  courtroom  may  do  
so.   There   is   to   be   no   ban   on   such  
"This   nation's   accepted   attendance.   His   being   a   stranger   to   the  
practice   of   guaranteeing   a   public   litigants  is  of  no  moment.  No  relationship  
trial   to   an   accused   has   its   roots   in   to  the  parties  need  be  shown.  The  thought  
[the]   English   common   law   that  lies  behind  this  safeguard  is  the  belief  
heritage."   that   thereby   the   accused   is   afforded  
He  then  observed  that  the  exact  date  of  its   further  protection,  that  his  trial  is  likely  to  
origin   is   obscure,   "but   it   likely   evolved   be   conducted   with   regularity   and   not  
long   before   the   settlement   of   [the   United   tainted   with   any   impropriety.   It   is   not  
States]   as   an   accompaniment   of   the   amiss  to  recall  that  Delegate  Laurel  in  his  
ancient   institution   of   jury   trial."   It   was   terse  summation  of  the  importance  of  this  
then   noted   by   him   that   there,   "the   right  singled  out  its  being  a  deterrence  to  
guarantee   to   an   accused   of   the   right   to   a   arbitrariness.   It   is   thus   understandable  
public   trial   first   appeared   in   a   state   why   such   a   right   is   deemed   embraced   in  
constitution   in   1776."   Later   it   was   procedural   due   process.   Where   a   trial  
embodied  in  the  Sixth  Amendment  of  the   takes   place,   as   is   quite   usual,   in   the  
Federal   Constitution   ratified   in   1791.   He   courtroom   and   a   calendar   of   what   cases  
could  conclude  his  historical  survey  thus:   are   to   be   heard   is   posted,   no   problem  
arises.   It   is   the   usual   course   of   events   that  
"Today   almost   without   individuals   desirous   of   being   present   are  
exception   every   state   by   free   to   do   so.   There   is   the   well   recognized  
constitution,   statute,   or   judicial   exception   though   that   warrants   the  
decision,   requires   that   all   criminal   exclusion   of   the   public   where   the  
trials  be  open  to  the  public."   evidence   may   be   characterized   as  
"offensive  to  decency  or  public  morals."  
Such   is   the   venerable,   historical   lineage   of  
the  right  to  a  public  trial.   What   did   occasion   difficulty   in   this   suit  
was   that   for   the   convenience   of   the  
The  crucial  question  of  the  meaning  to  be   parties,  and  of  the  city  court  Judge,  it  was  
attached   this   provision   remains.   The   in   the   latter's   air-­‐conditioned   chambers  
Constitution   guarantees   an   accused   the   that  the  trial  was  held.  Did  that  suffice  to  
right  to  a  public  trial.  What  does  it  signify?  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 92

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

vitiate  the  proceedings  as  violative  of  this    


right?  The  answer  must  be  in  the  negative.   (1)   Criminal   Case   F-­‐109197,   for  
There   is   no   showing   that   the   public   was   maltreatment;    
thereby   excluded.   It   is   to   be   admitted   that   (2)   Criminal   Case   F-­‐109196,   for   slight  
the   size   of   the   room   allotted   the   Judge   physical  injuries;  and    
would   reduce   the   number   of   those   who   (3)   Criminal   Case   F-­‐109198   for   light  
could  be  present.  Such  a  fact  though  is  not   threats;   (c)   Against   Francisco   Lorenzana  
indicative   of   any   transgression   of   this   (on  complaint  of  Calo  and  Carbonnel)    
right.   Courtrooms   are   not   of   uniform   (1)   Criminal   Case   F-­‐109201,   for   violation  
dimensions.   Some   are   smaller   than   others.   of   Sec.   887   of   the   Revised   Ordinances   of  
Moreover,  as  admitted  by  Justice  Black  in   Manila  (resisting  an  officer);  and    
his   masterly   In   re   Oliver   opinion,   it   (2)   Criminal   Case   F-­‐109200,   for   slander.  
suffices   to   satisfy   the   requirement   of   a   The   trial   of   the   cases   was   jointly   held   on  
trial   being   public   if   the   accused   could   March  4,  18,  23,  and  30;  April  17  and  20;  
"have   his   friends,   relatives   and   counsel   May  4  and  11;  June  1,  15,  22,  and  29;  and  
present,   no   matter   with   what   offense   he   August   3   and   10,   1968.   All   14   trial   dates  
may  be  charged."   —   except   March   4   and   18,   and   April   17,  
1968  —  fell  on  a  Saturday.  
   
GARCIA   VS   DOMINGO   [GR   L-­‐30104,   25   This  was  arranged  by  the  parties  and  the  
July  1973]   Court   upon   the   insistence   of   Calo   and  
  Carbonnel   who,   as   police   officers   under  
FACTS:     suspension   because   of   the   cases,   desired  
In   Branch   I   of   the   City   Court   of   Manila   the   same   to   be   terminated   as   soon   as  
presided   over   by   Judge   Gregorio   N.   Garcia,   possible   and   as   there   were   many   cases  
there   were   commenced,   by   appropriate   scheduled   for   trial   on   the   usual   criminal  
informations  all  dated  16  January  1968,  8   trial   days.   The   trial   of   the   cases   in  
criminal   actions   against   Edgardo   Calo,   question   were   held,   with   the   conformity  
and   Simeon   Carbonnel   and   Francisco   of   the   accused   and   their   counsel,   in   the  
Lorenzana,  as  follows:  a.  Against  Edgardo   chambers   of   Judge   Garcia.   During   all   14  
Calo   (on   complaint   of   Francisco   days  of  trial,  spanning  a  period  of  several  
Lorenzana)   months,   the   accused   were   at   all   times  
(1)   Criminal   Case   F-­‐109191,   for   slight   represented   by   their   respective   counsel,  
physical  injuries;     who   acted   not   only   in   defense   of   their  
(2)  Criminal  Case  F-­‐109192,  also  for  slight   clients,   but   as   prosecutors   of   the  
physical  injuries;  and     accusations  filed  at  their  clients'  instance.    
(3)   Criminal   Case   F-­‐109193,   for    
maltreatment;   b.   Against   Simeon   There   was   only   1   day   when   Atty.  
Carbonnel  (id.)     Consengco,   representing   Calo   and  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 93

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Carbonnel,   was   absent.   This   was   on   20   proceedings   duly   had,   Judge   Felix  
April   1968.   But   at   the   insistence   of   Pat.   Domingo   (CFI   Manila)   issued   an   order  
Carbonnel,   the   trial   proceeded,   and   declaring   that   the   constitutional   and  
Carbonnel   cross-­‐examined   one   of   the   statutory   rights   of   the   accused   had   been  
witnesses  presented  by  the  adverse  party.   violated,  adversely  affecting  their  right  to  
At   the   conclusion   of   the   hearings   the   a   free   and   impartial   trial   noting   that   the  
accused,  thru  counsel,  asked  for  and  were   trial   of   these   cases   lasting   several   weeks  
granted   time   to   submit   memoranda.   Calo   were   held   exclusively   in   chambers   and  
and   Carbonnel,   thru   counsel,   Atty.   Rafael   not  in  the  court  room  open  to  the  public;  
Consengco,   submitted   a   14-­‐page   and  ordering  the  city  court  Judge  (Garcia)  
memorandum   with   not   less   than   35   "to   desist   from   reading   or   causing   to   be  
citations   of   relevant   portions   of   the   read  or  promulgated  the  decisions  he  may  
transcript   of   stenographic   notes   in   have   rendered   already   in   the   criminal  
support   of   their   prayer   for   exoneration,   cases   in   question   pending   in   his   Court,  
and   for   the   conviction   of   Lorenzana   in   until   further   orders   of   the   CFI.   A   motion  
respect   of   their   countercharges   against   for   reconsideration   proving   unavailing,  
the   latter.   The   promulgation   of   judgment   Garcia  and  Lorenzana  on  28  January  1969,  
was   first   scheduled   on   23   September   elevated  the  matter  to  the  Supreme  Court  
1968.     by   means   of   a   suit   for   certiorari   and  
  prohibition.    
This   was   postponed   to   28   September    
1968,   at   the   instance   of   Atty.   Rafael   ISSUE:  
Consengco,   as   counsel   for   respondents   Whether   the   conduct   of   the   trial   inside  
Calo   and   Carbonnel,   and   again   to   1   the   Judge’s   air-­‐conditioned   chambers,  
October  1968,  this  time  at  the  instance  of   rather   than   the   usual   open   court,   render  
Atty.   Consengco   and   Atty.   Francisco   Koh   the   proceedings   violative   of   the  
who   had,   in   the   meantime,   also   entered   constitutional  mandate  for  public  trial.  
his   appearance   as   counsel   for   Calo   and    
Carbonnel.   The   applications   for   RULING:    
postponement   were   not   grounded   upon   The   1935   Constitution   which   was   in   force  
and  supposed  defect  or  irregularity  of  the   at   the   time   of   the   antecedents   of   the  
proceedings.   Early   in   the   morning   of   1   petition  explicitly  enumerated  the  right  to  
October   1968,   Calo   and   Carbonnel,   thru   a   public   trial   to   which   an   accused   was  
their   counsel,   Atty.   Rafael   S.   Consengco,   entitled.   Trial   should   also   be   public   in  
filed   with   the   Court   of   First   Instance   a   order  to  offset  any  danger  of  conducting  it  
petition   for   certiorari   and   prohibition,   in   an   illegal   and   unjust   manner,   and   thus  
with   application   for   preliminary   serve   as   a   deterrence   to   arbitrariness.  
prohibitory   and   mandatory   injunction,   There   is   no   ambiguity   in   the   words  
alleging   jurisdictional   defects.   After   employed.   The   trial   must   be   public.   It  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 94

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

possesses   that   character   when   anyone    


interested   in   observing   the   manner   a   Courtrooms   are   not   of   uniform  
judge   conducts   the   proceedings   in   his   dimensions.   Some   are   smaller   than   others.  
courtroom   may   do   so.   There   is   to   be   no   It   suffices   to   satisfy   the   requirement   of   a  
ban   on   such   attendance.   His   being   a   trial   being   public   if   the   accused   could  
stranger   to   the   litigants   is   of   no   moment.   "have   his   friends,   relatives   and   counsel  
No   relationship   to   the   parties   need   be   present,   no   matter   with   what   offense   he  
shown.   The   thought   that   lies   behind   this   may   be   charged."   Reference   may   also   be  
safeguard   is   the   belief   that   thereby   the   made   to   the   undisputed   fact   at   least   14  
accused   is   afforded   further   protection,   hearings  had  been  held  in  chambers  of  the  
that  his  trial  is  likely  to  be  conducted  with   city  court  Judge,  without  objection  on  the  
regularity   and   not   tainted   with   any   part   of   policemen.   An   objective   appraisal  
impropriety.   It   is   understandable   why   of   conditions   in   municipal   or   city   courts  
such   a   right   is   deemed   embraced   in   would   have   gone   far   in   dispelling   the  
procedural  due  process.   apprehension   that   there   was   an   evasion  
  of   a   constitutional   command.   The  
Where  a  trial  takes  place,  as  is  quite  usual,   crowded  daily  calendar,  the  nature  of  the  
in   the   courtroom   and   a   calendar   of   what   cases   handled,   civil   as   well   as   criminal,  
cases   are   to   be   heard   is   posted,   no   the   relaxed   attitude   on   procedural   rules  
problem   arises.   It   is   the   usual   course   of   not  being  strictly  adhered  to  all  make  for  
events   that   individuals   desirous   of   being   a   less   tense   atmosphere.   As   a   result   the  
present  are  free  to  do  so.  There  is  the  well   attendance   of   the   general   public   is   much  
recognized   exception   though   that   more   in   evidence;   nor   is   its   presence  
warrants   the   exclusion   of   the   public   unwelcome.    
where  the  evidence  may  be  characterized    
as  "offensive  to  decency  or  public  morals."   When   it   is   remembered   further   that   the  
Still,   herein,   when   the   trial   was   held   on   occupants   of   such   courts   are   not   chosen  
Saturdays   and   in   the   air-­‐conditioned   primarily   for   their   legal   acumen,   but  
chambers   of   the   City   Judge   for   the   taken   from   that   portion   of   the   bar   more  
convenience   of   the   parties   and   of   the   considerably   attuned   to   the   pulse   of  
Judge,  the  proceedings  were  not  violative   public   life,   it   is   not   to   be   rationally  
of   the   right   to   public   trial.   There   is   no   expected  that  an  accused  would  be  denied  
showing   that   the   public   was   thereby   whatever   solace   and   comfort   may   come  
excluded.   It   is   to   be   admitted   that   the   size   from   the   knowledge   that   a   judge,   with   the  
of   the   room   allotted   the   Judge   would   eyes   of   the   persons   in   court   alert   to   his  
reduce  the  number  of  those  who  could  be   demeanor   and   his   rulings,   would   run   the  
present.   Such   a   fact   though   is   not   risk   of   being   unjust,   unfair,   or   arbitrary.  
indicative   of   any   transgression   of   this   Nor   does   it   change   matters,   just   because,  
right.   it  was  in  the  air-­‐conditioned  chambers  of  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 95

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

a  city  court  judge  rather  than  in  the  usual   Chapman   felt   his   upper   body,   staggered  
place  that  the  trial  took  place.   for   a   moment,   and   asked:   “Why   did   you  
  shoot   me?”   Chapman   crumpled   on   the  
sidewalk.   Leino   knelt   beside   Chapman   to  
  assist   him   but   accused   ordered   him   to   get  
up   and   leave   Chapman   alone.   Accused  
PEOPLE   VS   CLAUDIO   TEEHANKEE   Jr.,   then   turned   his   ire   on   Leino.   He   pointed  
G.R.  Nos.  111206-­‐08,  6  October  1995   gun   at   him   and   asked:   “Do   you   want   a  
trouble?”   Leino   said   “no”   and   took   a   step  
FACTS:   In   1991,   Jussi   Olavi   Leino   was   backward.  
taking   Maureen   Hultman   to   her   home   at  
Campanilla   Street,   Dasmarinas   Village,   The   shooting   initially   shocked   Maureen.  
Makati.   Roland   John   Chapman   went   with   When  she  came  to  her  senses,  she  became  
them.   When   they   entered   the   village,   hysterical  and  started  screaming  for  help.  
Maureen   asked   Leino   to   stop   about   a   She  repeatedly  shouted:  “Oh,  my  God,  he’s  
block  away  from  her  house,  as  she  wanted   got   a   gun.   He’s   gonna   kill   us.   Will  
to   walk   the   rest   of   the   way   for   she   did   not   somebody  help  us?”   All   the   while,   accused  
want   her   parents   to   know   that   she   was   was   pointing   his   gun   to   and   from   Leino   to  
going   home   that   late.   Leino   offered   to   Maureen,   warning   the   latter   to   shut   up.  
walk   with   her   while   Chapman   stayed   in   Accused  ordered  Leino  to  sit  down  on  the  
the  car  and  listened  to  the  radio.   sidewalk.   Leino   obeyed   and   made   no  
attempt  to  move  away.  Accused  stood  2-­‐3  
While  Leino  and  Maureen  were  walking,  a   meters   away   from   him.   Maureen  
light-­‐colored   Mitsubishi   box-­‐type   Lancer   continued   to   be   hysterical.   She   could   not  
car,  driven  by  accused  Claudio  Teehankee,   stay   still.   She   strayed   to   the   side   of  
Jr.,   came   up   from   behind   them   and   accused’s   car.   Accused   tried   but   failed   to  
stopped   on   the   middle   of   the   road.   grab   her.   Maureen   circled   around  
Accused   alighted   from   his   car,   accused’s  car,  trying  to  put  some  distance  
approached   them,   and   asked:   “Who   are   between  them.  The  short  chase  lasted  for  
you?   (Show   me   your)   I.D.”   When   Leino   a   minute   or   two.   Eventually,   accused  
handed   his   I.D.,   the   accused   grabbed   and   caught   Maureen   and   repeatedly   enjoined  
pocketed   the   I.D.,   without   bothering   to   her  to  shut  up  and  sit  down  beside  Leino.  
look  at  it.   Maureen   finally   sat   beside   Leino   on   the  
sidewalk.  
Chapman   saw   the   incident.   He   stepped  
down   on   the   sidewalk   and   asked   accused:   For   a   moment,   the   accused   turned   his  
“Why   are   you   bothering   us?”   Accused   back   from   the   two.   He   faced   them   again  
pushed   Chapman,   dug   into   his   shirt,   and   shot   Leino.   Leino   was   hit   on   the  
pulled   out   a   gun   and   fired   at   him.   upper  jaw,  fell  backwards  on  the  sidewalk,  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 96

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

but   did   not   lose   consciousness.   Leino   car   since   then.   Accused   conceded   that  
heard  another  shot  and  saw  Maureen  fall   although  the  car  was  not  in  good  running  
beside  him.  He  lifted  his  head  to  see  what   condition,  it  could  still  be  used.  
was  happening  and  saw  accused  return  to  
his   car   and   drive   away.   Leino   struggled   to   RULING:   Eyewitness   identification   and  
his  knees  and  shouted  for  help.  He  noticed   out-­‐of-­‐court  identification.    
at  least  3  people  who  saw  the  incident.  
The   accused   was   convicted   on   the  
As   a   result   of   the   incident,   3   separate   strength   of   the   testimonies   of   3  
criminal   cases   were   filed   against   accused   eyewitnesses   who   positively   identified  
Claudio   Teehankee,   Jr.   Initially,   he   was   him   as   the   gunman.   However,   he  
charged   with:   MURDER   for   the   killing   of   vigorously   assails   his   out-­‐of-­‐court  
ROLAND   CHAPMAN,   and   two   (2)   identification  by  these  eyewitnesses.  
FRUSTRATED   MURDER   for   the   shooting  
and   wounding   of   JUSSI   LEINO   and   He  starts  by  trying  to  discredit  the  eyeball  
MAUREEN   HULTMAN.   When   Hultman   account  of  Leino,  the  lone  surviving  victim  
subsequently   died   after   97   days   of   of  the  crimes  at  bar.  Appellant  urges:  First,  
confinement   at   the   hospital   and   during   that   Leino’s   identification   of   him   outside  
the   course   of   the   trial,   the   Information   for   an   unoccupied   house   in   Forbes   Park   was  
Frustrated   Murder   was   amended   to   highly   irregular;   Second,   that   Leino   saw  
MURDER.   his   pictures   on   television   and   the  
newspapers   before   he   identified   him;  
DEFENSE:   Accused   relied   on   the   defense   Third,   that   Leino’s   interview   at   the  
of   denial   and   alibi.   Accused   claimed   that   hospital  was  never  put  in  writing;  Fourth,  
during   the   shooting   incident,   he   was   not   that   the   sketch   of   appellant   based   on   the  
anywhere  near  the  scene  of  the  crime,  but   description   given   by   Leino   to   the   CIS  
in   his   house   in   Pasig.   Accused   averred   agents   was   suppressed   by   the   NBI.   It   is  
that  he  only  came  to  know  the  3  victims  in   surmised  that  the  sketch  must  have  been  
the   Dasmarinas   shooting   when   he   read   among   the   evidence   turned   over   to   the  
the   newspaper   reports   about   it.   Accused   NBI   when   the   latter   assumed   jurisdiction  
admitted   ownership   of   a   box-­‐type,   silver   over   the   investigation;   and,   lastly,   that  
metallic   gray   Mitsubishi   Lancer,   with   Leino   could   not   have   remembered   the  
plate   number   PDW   566.   He,   however,   face   of   the   accused.   The   shooting   lasted  
claimed  that  said  car  ceased  to  be  in  good   for   only   five   (5)   minutes.   During   that  
running   condition   after   its   involvement   in   period,   his   gaze   could   not   have   been   fixed  
an  accident.  Until  the  day  of  the  shooting,   only   on   the   gunman’s   face.   His   senses  
his   Lancer   car   had   been   parked   in   the   were  also  dulled  by  the  five  (5)  bottles  of  
garage   of   his   mother’s   house   in   beer  he  imbibed  that  night.  
Dasmarinas   Village.   He   has   not   used   this  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 97

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

It   is   understandable   for   the   accused   to   done   thru   line-­‐ups   where   a   witness  


assail   his   out-­‐of-­‐court   identification   by   identifies   the   suspect   from   a   group   of  
the   prosecution   witnesses   in   his   first   persons   lined   up   for   the   purpose.   Since  
assignment   of   error.   Eyewitness   corruption   of   out-­‐of-­‐court   identification  
identification   constitutes   vital   evidence   contaminates   the   integrity   of   in-­‐court  
and,  in  most  cases,  decisive  of  the  success   identification   during   the   trial   of   the   case,  
or   failure   of   the   prosecution.   Yet,   while   courts  have  fashioned  out  rules  to  assure  
eyewitness   identification   is   significant,   it   its   fairness   and   its   compliance   with   the  
is   not   as   accurate   and   authoritative   as   the   requirements   of   constitutional   due  
scientific   forms   of   identification   evidence   process.   In   resolving   the   admissibility   of  
such   as   the   fingerprint   or   DNA   testing.   and   relying   on   out-­‐of-­‐court   identification  
Some   authors   even   describe   eyewitness   of   suspects,   courts   have   adopted   the  
evidence   as   “inherently   suspect.”   The   totality   of   circumstances   test   where   they  
causes   of   misidentification   are   known,   consider  the  following  factors,  viz:  (1)  the  
thus:   witness’  opportunity  to  view  the  criminal  
at   the   time   of   the   crime;   (2)   the   witness’  
Identification  testimony  has  at  least  three   degree   of   attention   at   that   time;   (3)   the  
components.   First,   witnessing   a   crime,   accuracy  of  any  prior  description  given  by  
whether   as   a   victim   or   a   bystander,   the   witness;   (4)   the   level   of   certainty  
involves   perception   of   an   event   actually   demonstrated   by   the   witness   at   the  
occurring.   Second,   the   witness   must   identification;   (5)   the   length   of   time  
memorize   details   of   the   event.   Third,   the   between  the  crime  and  the  identification;  
witness   must   be   able   to   recall   and   and,   (6)   the   suggestiveness   of   the  
communicate   accurately.   Dangers   of   identification  procedure.  
unreliability   in   eyewitness   testimony  
arise   at   each   of   these   three   stages,   for   Using   the   totality   of   circumstances   test,  
whenever   people   attempt   to   acquire,   the   alleged   irregularities   cited   by   the  
retain,   and   retrieve   information   accused   did   not   result   in   his  
accurately,   they   are   limited   by   normal   misidentification   nor   was   he   denied   due  
human   fallibilities   and   suggestive   process.  There  is  nothing  wrong  in  Leino’s  
influences.   identification   of   the   accused   in   an  
unoccupied   house   in   Forbes   Park.   The  
Out-­‐of-­‐court   identification   is   conducted   records   reveal   that   this   mode   was  
by   the   police   in   various   ways.   It   is   done   resorted  to  by  the  authorities  for  security  
thru  show-­‐ups  where  the  suspect  alone  is   reasons.   The   need   for   security   even  
brought   face   to   face   with   the   witness   for   compelled   that   Leino   be   fetched   and  
identification.   It   is   done   thru   mug   shots   escorted  from  his  house  in  Forbes  Park  by  
where   photographs   are   shown   to   the   U.S.   embassy   security   officials   and  
witness   to   identify   the   suspect.   It   is   also   brought   to   the   house   where   he   was   to  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 98

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

make   the   identification.   The   Leinos   lighted   by   a   lamp   post.   The   accused   was  
refused   to   have   the   identification   at   the   merely   2-­‐3   meters   away   when   he   shot  
NBI  office  as  it  was  cramped  with  people   Leino.   The   incident   happened   for   a   full   5  
and   with   high   security   risk.   Leino’s   fear   minutes.   Leino   had   no   ill-­‐motive   to   falsely  
for   his   safety   was   not   irrational.   He   and   testify   against   the   accusedt.   His   testimony  
his   companions   had   been   shot   in   cold   at   the   trial   was   straightforward.   He   was  
blood   in   one   of   the   exclusive,   supposedly   unshaken  by  the  brutal  cross-­‐examination  
safe  subdivisions  in  the  metropolis.   of   the   defense   counsels.   He   never  
wavered   in   his   identification   of   the  
There   is   no   hard   and   fast   rule   as   to   the   accused.   When   asked   how   sure   he   was  
place   where   suspects   are   identified   by   that   the   accused   was   responsible   for   the  
witnesses.   Identification   may   be   done   in   crime,   he   confidently   replied:   “I’m   very  
open   field.   It   is   often   done   in   hospitals   sure.  It  could  not  have  been  somebody  else.”  
while   the   crime   and   the   criminal   are   still  
fresh  in  the  mind  of  the  victim.   The  accused  cannot  likewise  capitalize  on  
the   failure   of   the   investigators   to   reduce  
Accused   can’t   also   gripe   that   Leino   saw   to   a   sworn   statement   the   information  
his   pictures   and   heard   radio   and   TV   revealed   by   Leino   during   his   hospital  
accounts   of   the   shooting   before   he   interviews.   It   was   sufficiently   established  
personally   identified   him.   The   records   that   Leino’s   extensive   injuries,   especially  
show   that   while   Leino   was   still   in   the   the   injury   to   his   tongue,   limited   his  
hospital,   he   was   shown   3   pictures   of   mobility.   The   day   he   identified   appellant  
different   men   by   the   investigators.   He   in   the   line-­‐up,   he   was   still   physically  
identified   the   accused   as   the   gunman   unable  to  speak.  He  was  being  fed  through  
from   these   pictures.   He,   however,   a  tube  inserted  in  his  throat.  There  is  also  
categorically   stated   that,   before   the   mug   no   rule   of   evidence   which   requires   the  
shot   identification,   he   has   not   seen   any   rejection   of   the   testimony   of   a   witness  
picture   of   accused   or   read   any   report   whose   statement   has   not   been   priorly  
relative   to   the   shooting   incident.   The   reduced  to  writing.  
burden   is   on   accused   to   prove   that   his  
mug   shot   identification   was   unduly   The   SC   also   rejected   the   accused’s  
suggestive.  Failing  proof  of  impermissible   contention   that   the   NBI   suppressed   the  
suggestiveness,   he   cannot   complain   about   sketch   prepared   by   the   CIS   on   the   basis   of  
the   admission   of   his   out-­‐of-­‐court   the   description   given   by   Leino.   There   is  
identification  by  Leino.   nothing   on   the   record   to   show   that   said  
sketch   was   turned   over   by   the   CIS   to   the  
There   is   no   reason   to   doubt   the   NBI   which   could   warrant   a   presumption  
correctness  of  the  accused’s  identification   that   the   sketch   was   suppressed.   The  
by  Leino.  The  scene  of  the  crime  was  well-­‐ suspicion  that  the  sketch  did  not  resemble  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 99

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

the   accused   is   not   evidence.   It   is   reticence   of   witnesses   to   get   involved   in  


unmitigated  guesswork.   the  solution  of  crimes  considering  the  risk  
to   their   lives   and   limbs.   In   light   of   these  
The   SC   was   also   not   impressed   with   the   all   too   real   risks,   the   court   has   not  
contention  that  it  was  incredible  for  Leino   considered   the   initial   reluctance   of   fear-­‐
to   have   remembered   the   accused’s   face   gripped   witnesses   to   cooperate   with  
when   the   incident   happened   within   a   authorities   as   an   authorities   as   an  
span   of   5   minutes.   Five   minutes   is   not   a   indicium   of   credibility.   As   to   the  
short   time   for   Leino   to   etch   in   his   mind   testimony   of   Mangubat,   the   SC   found  
the   picture   of   the   accused.   Experience   nothing   in   the   records   to   suspect   that  
shows   that   precisely   because   of   the   Mangubat  would  perjure  himself.  
unusual   acts   of   bestiality   committed  
before  their  eyes,  eyewitnesses,  especially   2.  Proof  beyond  reasonable  doubt  
the  victims  to  a  crime,  can  remember  with  
a  high  degree  of  reliability  the  identity  of   According   to   the   the   accused,   the   trial  
criminals.   The   natural   reaction   of   victims   court   erred   in   not   holding   that   the  
of  criminal  violence  is  to  strive  to  see  the   prosecution   failed   to   establish   his   guilt  
appearance   of   their   assailants   and   beyond  reasonable  doubt.  First,  he  claims  
observe   the   manner   the   crime   was   the   trial   court   erred   in   citing   in   its  
committed.  Most  often,  the  face  end  body   Decision   his   involvement   in   previous  
movements   of   the   assailant   create   an   shooting  incidents.  Second,  the  NBI  failed  
impression  which  cannot  be  easily  erased   to  conduct  an  examination  to  compare  the  
from   their   memory.   In   this   case,   there   is   bullets   fired   from   the   gun   at   the   scene   of  
absolutely   no   improper   motive   for   Leino   the   crime   with   the   bullets   recovered   from  
to  impute  a  serious  crime  to  the  accused.   the   body   of   Chapman.   Third,   the  
The   victims   and   the   accused   were   prosecution   eyewitnesses   described   the  
unknown   to   each   other   before   their   gunman’s  car  as  white,  but  the  trial  court  
chance   encounter.   If   Leino   identified   the   found   it   to   be   silver   metalic   gray.   Fourth,  
accused,   it   must   be   because   the   accused   the   accused   could   not   have   been   the  
was  the  real  culprit.   gunman,   for   Mangubat   said   that   he  
overheard   the   victim   Hultman   plead   to  
The   SC   also   gave   credence   to   the   the   gunman,   thus:   “Please,  don’t  shoot  me  
testimony   of   the   other   two   witnesses.   As   and   don’t   kill   me.   I   promise   Mommy,  
to   the   testimony   of   Cadenas,   his   initial   Daddy.”  The  accused  also  contends  that  a  
reluctance   to   reveal   to   the   authorities   maid   in   a   house   near   the   scene   of   the  
what   he   witnessed   was   sufficiently   crime   told   Makati   police   Alberto  
explained   during   the   trial   –   he   feared   for   Fernandez   that   she   heard   Maureen   say:  
his   and   his   family’s   safety.   The   Court   has   “Daddy   don’t   shoot.   Don’t.”   Fifth,   the   NBI  
taken   judicial   notice   of   the   natural   towed   accused’s   car   from   Dasmarinas  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 100

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Village  to  the  NBI  office  which  proved  that   convicting  the  accused.  As  aforestated,  the  
the   same   was   not   in   good   running   accused   was   convicted   mainly   because   of  
condition.   Lastly,   the   result   of   the   paraffin   his   identification   by   3   eyewitnesses   with  
test   conducted   on   appellant   showed   he   high  credibility.  
was  negative  of  nitrates.  
The  NBI  may  have  also  failed  to  compare  
The   accused   points   to   other   possible   the   bullets   fired   from   the   fatal   gun   with  
suspects,   viz:.   ANDERS   HULTMAN,   since   the  bullets  found  at  the  scene  of  the  crime.  
one  of  the  eyewitnesses  was  quoted  in  the   The   omission,   however,   cannot   exculpate  
newspapers   as   having   overheard   the   accused.   The   omitted   comparison  
Maureen   plead   to   the   gunman:   “Huwag,   cannot   nullify   the   evidentiary   value   of   the  
Daddy.”;   and,   (b)   JOSE   MONTAÑO,   positive  identification  of  the  accused.  
another   resident   of   Dasmariñas   Village,  
who  had  a  white  Lancer  car,  also  bearing   There  is  also  little  to  the  contention  of  the  
license  plate  number  566.   accused   that   his   Lancer   car   was   not   in  
running   condition.   Allegedly,   this   was  
The   accused,   however,   cannot   hope   to   vicariously   proved   when   the   NBI   towed  
exculpate   himself   simply   because   the   trial   his  car  from  Dasmariñas  Village  where  it  
judge   violated   the   rule   on   res   inter   alios   was   parked   to   the   NBI   office.   Again,   the  
acta  when  he  considered  his  involvement   argument  is  negated  by  the  records  which  
in   previous   shooting   incidents.   This   rule   show  that  said  car  was  towed  because  the  
has   long   been   laid   to   rest.   The   harmless   NBI   could   not   get   its   ignition   key   which  
error   rule   is   also   followed   in   our   was  then  in  the  possession  of  the  accused.  
jurisdiction.   In   dealing   with   evidence   Clearly,   the   car   was   towed   not   because   it  
improperly   admitted   in   trial,   the   court   was   not   in   running   condition.   Even   the  
examines   its   damaging   quality   and   its   accused’s   evidence   show   that   said   car  
impact   to   the   substantive   rights   of   the   could   run.   After   its   repairs,   the   accused’s  
litigant.   If   the   impact   is   slight   and   son,   Claudio   Teehankee   III,   drove   it   from  
insignificant,   the   court   disregards   the   the  repair  shop  in  Banawe,  Quezon  City  to  
error  as  it  will  not  overcome  the  weight  of   Dasmarinas   Village,   in   Makati,   where   it  
the   properly   admitted   evidence   against   was  parked.  
the  prejudiced  party.  
Nor   was   the   SC   impressed   by   the   alleged  
In   the   case   at   bar,   the   reference   by   the   discrepancies   in   the   eyewitnesses’  
trial   judge   to   reports   about   the   description   of   the   color   of   the   gunman’s  
troublesome   character   of   appellant   is   a   car.   Leino   described   the   car   as   light-­‐
harmless   error.   The   reference   is   not   the   colored;   Florece   said   the   car   was  
linchpin   of   the   inculpatory   evidence   somewhat   white   (“medyo   puti”);  
appreciated   by   the   trial   judge   in   Mangubat  declared  the  car  was  white;  and  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 101

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Cadenas   testified   it   was   silver   metallic   thing  that  it  can  definitely  establish  is  the  
gray.  These  alleged  discrepancies  amount   presence   or   absence   of   nitrates   or   nitrites  
to  no  more  than  shades  of  differences  and   on  the  hand.  It  cannot  be  established  from  
are  not  meaningful,  referring  as  they  do  to   this   test   alone   that   the   source   of   the  
colors   white,   somewhat   white   and   silver   nitrates  or  nitrites  was  the  discharge  of  a  
metallic   gray.   Considering   the   speed   and   firearm.   The   person   may   have   handled  
shocking   nature   of   the   incident   which   one   or   more   of   a   number   of   substances  
happened  before  the  break  of  dawn,  these   which  give  the  same  positive  reaction  for  
slight   discrepancies   in   the   description   of   nitrates   or   nitrites,   such   as   explosives,  
the   car   do   not   make   the   prosecution   fireworks,   fertilizers,   pharmaceuticals,  
eyewitnesses  unworthy  of  credence.   and   leguminous   plants   such   as   peas,  
beans,   and   alfalfa.   A   person   who   uses  
The  accused’s  attempt  to  pin  the  crimes  at   tobacco   may   also   have   nitrate   or   nitrite  
bar   on   Anders   Hultman,   the   adoptive   deposits   on   his   hands   since   these  
father   of   Maureen   Hultman,   deserves   substances  are  present  in  the  products  of  
scant   consideration.   The   accused   cites   a   combustion   of   tobacco.”   In   numerous  
newspaper   item   where   Maureen   was   rulings,   we   have   also   recognized   several  
allegedly   overheard   as   saying   to   the   factors   which   may   bring   about   the  
gunman:   “Huwag,   Daddy.   Huwag,   Daddy.”   absence   of   gunpowder   nitrates   on   the  
The   evidence   on   record,   however,   hands   of   a   gunman,   viz:   when   the  
demonstrates  that  Anders  Hultman  could   assailant   washes   his   hands   after   firing   the  
not  have  been  the  gunman.  It  was  clearly   gun,   wears   gloves   at   the   time   of   the  
established   that   Maureen   could   not   have   shooting,   or   if   the   direction   of   a   strong  
uttered   said   statement   for   two   (2)   wind  is  against  the  gunman  at  the  time  of  
reasons:   Maureen   did   not   speak   Tagalog,   firing.   In   the   case   at   bar,   NBI   Forensic  
and   she   addressed   Anders   Hultman   as   Chemist,   Leonora   Vallado,   testified   and  
“Papa,”   not   “Daddy.”   Moreover,   Leino   confirmed   that   excessive   perspiration   or  
outrightly  dismissed  this  suspicion.  While   washing   of   hands   with   the   use   of   warm  
still   in   the   hospital   and   when   informed   water   or   vinegar   may   also   remove  
that   the   Makati   police   were   looking   into   gunpowder   nitrates   on   the   skin.   She  
this   possibility,   Leino   flatly   stated   that   likewise   opined   that   the   conduct   of   the  
Anders   Hultman   was   NOT   the   gunman.   paraffin  test  after  more  than  seventy-­‐two  
Leino  is  a  reliable  witness.   (72)   hours   from   the   time   of   the   shooting  
may   not   lead   to   a   reliable   result   for,   by  
The  accused  cannot  also  capitalize  on  the   such  time,  the  nitrates  could  have  already  
paraffin   test   showing   he   was   negative   of   been  removed  by  washing  or  perspiration.  
nitrates.   Scientific   experts   concur   in   the   In   the   Report   on   the   paraffin   test  
view  that  the  paraffin  test  has  “.  .  .  proved   conducted  on  appellant,  Forensic  Chemist  
extremely   unreliable   in   use.   The   only   Elizabeth   Ayonon   noted   that   when   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 102

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

accused   was   tested   for   the   presence   of   press  does  not  simply  publish  information  
nitrates,   more   than   72   hours   has   already   about   trials   but   guards   against   the  
lapsed   from   the   time   of   the   alleged   miscarriage  of  justice  by  subjecting  in  the  
shooting.   police,  prosecutors,  and  judicial  processes  
to  extensive  public  scrutiny  and  criticism.”  
3.  The  right  to  an  impartial  trial.  
Pervasive   publicity   is   not   per   se  
The   the   accused   blames   the   press   for   his   prejudicial   to   the   right   of   an   accused   to  
conviction   as   he   contends   that   the   fair   trial.   The   mere   fact   that   the   trial   of  
publicity   given   to   his   case   impaired   his   appellant   was   given   a   day-­‐to-­‐day,   gavel-­‐
right   to   an   impartial   trial.   He   postulates   to-­‐gavel  coverage  does  not  by  itself  prove  
there   was   pressure   on   the   trial   judge   for   that   the   publicity   so   permeated   the   mind  
high-­‐ranking   government   officials   avidly   of   the   trial   judge   and   impaired   his  
followed   the   developments   in   the   case   (as   impartiality.   For   one,   it   is   impossible   to  
no   less   than   then   Vice-­‐President   Estrada   seal   the   minds   of   members   of   the   bench  
and   then   DOJ   Secretary   Drilon   attended   from   pre-­‐trial   and   other   off-­‐court  
some   of   the   hearings   and,   President   publicity   of   sensational   criminal   cases.  
Aquino   even   visited   Hultman   while   she   The  state  of  the  art  of  our  communication  
was   still   confined   at   the   hospital).   He   system   brings   news   as   they   happen  
submits   that   the   trial   judge   failed   to   straight   to   our   breakfast   tables   and   right  
protect  him  from  prejudicial  publicity  and   to  our  bedrooms.  These  news  form  part  of  
disruptive   influences   which   attended   the   our   everyday   menu   of   the   facts   and  
prosecution  of  the  cases.   fictions   of   life.   For   another,   our   idea   of   a  
fair   and   impartial   judge   is   not   that   of   a  
The  SC  did  not  sustain  the  accused’s  claim   hermit  who  is  out  of  touch  with  the  world.  
that   he   was   denied   the   right   to   impartial   We   have   not   installed   the   jury   system  
trial   due   to   prejudicial   publicity.   It’s   true   whose   members   are   overly   protected  
that   the   print   and   broadcast   media   gave   from   publicity   lest   they   lose   their  
the   case   at   bar   pervasive   publicity,   just   impartiality.  Our  judges  are  learned  in  the  
like   all   high   profile   and   high   stake   law   and   trained   to   disregard   off-­‐court  
criminal   trials.   Then   and   now,   we   rule   evidence  and  on-­‐camera  performances  of  
that  the  right  of  an  accused  to  a  fair  trial  is   parties   to   a   litigation.   Their   mere  
not   incompatible   to   a   free   press.   To   be   exposure   to   publications   and   publicity  
sure,   responsible   reporting   enhances   an   stunts   does   not   per   se   fatally   infect   their  
accused’s   right   to   a   fair   trial   for,   as   well   impartiality.  
pointed   out,   “a   responsible   press   has  
always  been  regarded  as  the  handmaiden   At   best,   the   accused   can   only   conjure  
of   effective   judicial   administration,   possibility   of   prejudice   on   the   part   of   the  
especially   in   the   criminal   field   .   .   .   The   trial  judge  due  to  the  barrage  of  publicity  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 103

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

that   characterized   the   investigation   and   investigation  of  the  case  at  bar  and  which  
trial   of   the   case.   The   SC   had   previously   appeared   to   cast   doubt   on   his   guilt.   The  
rejected   this   standard   of   possibility   of   press   cannot   be   fair   and   unfair   to  
prejudice   and   adopted   the   test   of   actual   appellant  at  the  same  time.  
prejudice   as   we   ruled   that   to   warrant   a  
finding  of  prejudicial  publicity,  there  must   Finally,   it   would   not   be   amiss   to   stress  
be   allegation   and   proof   that   the   judges   that   the   trial   judge   voluntarily   inhibited  
have   been   unduly   influenced,   not   simply   himself  from  further  hearing  the  case,  but  
that   they   might   be,   by   the   barrage   of   the   SC,   nothing   in   the   conduct   of   the  
publicity.   In   the   case   at   bar,   the   records   proceedings   to   stir   any   suspicion   of  
do  not  show  that  the  trial  judge  developed   partiality   against   the   trial   judge,   directed  
actual   bias   against   appellant   as   a   the  trial  judge  to  proceed  with  the  trial  to  
consequence   of   the   extensive   media   speed  up  the  administration  of  justice.  
coverage   of   the   pre-­‐trial   and   trial   of   his  
case.   The   totality   of   circumstances   of   the   4.  The  presence  of  treachery  
case   does   not   prove   that   the   trial   judge  
acquired   a   fixed   opinion   as   a   result   of   The   accused   claims   that   treachery   was  
prejudicial  publicity  which  is  incapable  of   not   present   in   the   killing   of   Hultman   and  
change   even   by   evidence   presented   Chapman,   and   the   wounding   of   Leino   for  
during   the   trial.   The   accused   has   the   it   was   not   shown   that   the   gunman  
burden   to   prove   this   actual   bias   and   he   consciously   and   deliberately   adopted  
has   not   discharged   the   burden.   There   is   particular   means,   methods   and   forms   in  
no   evidence   showing   that   the   trial   judge   the   execution   of   the   crime.   The   accused  
allowed   the   proceedings   to   turn   into   a   asserts   that   mere   suddenness   of   attack  
carnival.   Nor   did   he   consent   to   or   does  not  prove  treachery.  
condone   any   manifestation   of   unruly   or  
improper   behavior   or   conduct   inside   the   The   3   Informations   charged   the   accused  
courtroom   during   the   trial   of   the   case   at   with   having   committed   the   crimes   with  
bar.   treachery   and   evident   premeditation.  
Evident   premeditation   was   correctly  
Parenthetically,   the   accused   should   be   the   ruled  out  by  the  trial  court  for,  admittedly,  
last   person   to   complain   against   the   press   the  shooting  incident  was  merely  a  casual  
for   prejudicial   coverage   of   his   trial.   The   encounter   or   a   chance   meeting   on   the  
records   reveal   he   presented   in   court   no   street  since  the  victims  were  unknown  to  
less   than   7   newspaper   reporters   and   the   accused   and   vice-­‐versa.   It,   however,  
relied  heavily  on  selected  portions  of  their   appreciated  the  presence  of  the  qualifying  
reports   for   his   defense.   The   defense’s   circumstance  of  treachery.  
documentary   evidence   consists   mostly   of  
newspaper   clippings   relative   to   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 104

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

On  the  other  hand,  the  prosecution  failed   Hence,   absent   any   qualifying  
to   prove   treachery   in   the   killing   of   circumstance,  the  accused  should  only  be  
Chapman.   Prosecution   witness   Leino   held   liable   for   Homicide   for   the   shooting  
established   the   sequence   of   events   and  killing  of  Chapman.  
leading   to   the   shooting.   He   testified   that  
for   no   apparent   reason,   the   accused   As   to   the   wounding   of   Leino   and   the  
suddenly   alighted   from   his   car   and   killing   of   Hultman,   treachery   clearly  
accosted   him   and   Maureen   Hultman   who   attended   the   commission   of   the   crimes.  
were  then  walking  along  the  sidewalk.   The   evidence   shows   that   after   shooting  
Chapman   in   cold   blood,   the   accused  
Appellant   questioned   who   they   were   and   ordered   Leino   to   sit   on   the   pavement.  
demanded   for   an   I.D.   After   Leino   handed   Maureen   became   hysterical   and  
him   his   I.D.,   Chapman   appeared   from   wandered   to   the   side   of   appellant’s   car.  
behind   Leino   and   asked   what   was   going   When   the   accused   went   after   her,  
on.   Chapman   then   stepped   down   on   the   Maureen   moved   around   his   car   and   tried  
sidewalk   and   inquired   from   appellant   to  put  some  distance  between  them.  After  
what   was   wrong.   There   and   then,   the   a   minute   or   two,   the   accused   got   to  
accused   pushed   Chapman,   pulled   a   gun   Maureen   and   ordered   her   to   sit   beside  
from   inside   his   shirt,   and   shot   him.   The   Leino   on   the   pavement.   While   seated,  
gun  attack  was  unexpected.  “Why  did  you   unarmed   and   begging   for   mercy,   the   two  
shoot   me?”   was   all   Chapman   could   utter.   were   gunned   down   by   the   accused   .  
Concededly,  the  shooting  of  Chapman  was   Clearly,   the   accused   purposely   placed   his  
carried   out   swiftly   and   left   him   with   no   two   victims   in   a   completely   defenseless  
chance  to  defend  himself.  Even  then,  there   position  before  shooting  them.  There  was  
is   no   evidence   on   record   to   prove   that   the   an  appreciable  lapse  of  time  between  the  
accused   consciously   and   deliberately   killing   of   Chapman   and   the   shooting   of  
adopted   his   mode   of   attack   to   insure   the   Leino   and   Hultman   –   a   period   which   the  
accomplishment   of   his   criminal   design   accused   used   to   prepare   for   a   mode   of  
without  risk  to  himself.  The  accused  acted   attack   which   ensured   the   execution   of   the  
on   the   spur   of   the   moment.   Their   meeting   crime  without  risk  to  himself.  
was   by   chance.   They   were   strangers   to  
each   other.   The   time   between   the   initial   PENALTIES:  
encounter  and  the  shooting  was  short  and  
unbroken.   The   shooting   of   Chapman   was    (1)  guilty  beyond  reasonable  doubt  of  the  
thus   the   result   of   a   rash   and   impetuous   crime   of   Homicide   for   the   shooting   of  
impulse  on  the  part  of  the  accused  rather   Roland   John   Chapman.   He   was   sentenced  
than   a   deliberate   act   of   will.   Mere   to   suffer   an   indeterminate   penalty   of  
suddenness   of   the   attack   on   the   victim   imprisonment   of   8   years   and   1   day   of  
would   not,   by   itself,   constitute   treachery.   prision  mayor  as  minimum  to  14  years,  8  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 105

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

months   and   1   day   of   reclusion   temporal   (5)  To  pay  the  costs  in  all  3  cases.  
as   maximum,   and   to   pay   the   heirs   of   the  
said   deceased   the   following   amounts:   NACHURA:  
P50,000   as   indemnity   for   the   victim’s  
death;  and,  P1,000,000  as  moral  damages.   Public   trial.   This   is   intended   to   prevent  
possible  abuses  which  may  be  committed  
(2)  guilty  beyond  reasonable  doubt  of  the   against   the   accused.   The   rule   is   not  
crime   of   Murder,   qualified   by   treachery,   absolute.   See   Garcia   v.   Domingo,   52  
for   the   shooting   of   Maureen   Navarro   SCRA  143.  
Hultman.   He   was   sentenced   to   suffer   An   accused   has   a   right   to   a   public   trial,  
imprisonment   of   reclusion   perpetua,   and   but  it  is  a  right  that  belongs  to  him  more  
to   pay   the   heirs   of   the   said   deceased   the   than  anyone  else,  where  his  life  or  liberty  
following  amounts:  P50,000  as  indemnity   can   be   held   critically   in   balance.   A   public  
for   her   death;   P2,350,461.83   as   actual   trial  aims  to  ensure  that  he  is  fairly  dealt  
damages;  P564,042.57  for  loss  of  earning   with   and   would   not   be   unjustly  
capacity   of   said   deceased;   P1,000,000   as   condemned   and   that   his   rights   are   not  
moral   damages;   and   P2,000,000   as   compromised   in   secret   conclaves   of   long  
exemplary  damages.   ago.  A  public  trial  is  not  synonymous  with  
a   publicized   trial;   it   only   implies   that   the  
(3)  guilty  beyond  reasonable  doubt  of  the   court   doors   must   be   open   to   those   who  
crime   of   Frustrated   Murder,   qualified   by   wish   to   come,   sit   in   the   available   seats,  
treachery,   for   the   shooting   of   Jussi   Olavi   conduct   themselves   with   decorum   and  
Leino,   and   sentenced   to   suffer   the   observe   the   trial   process   [Re:   Request   for  
indeterminate   penalty   of   8   years   of   Live   TV   Coverage   of   the   Trial   of   former  
prision   mayor   as   minimum,   to   14   years   President  Joseph  Estrada,  A.M.  No.  01-­‐4-­‐
and   8   months   of   reclusion   temporal   as   03-­‐SC,  June  29,  2001]  
maximum,   and   to   pay   the   said   offended  
party   the   following   amounts:   P30,000   as    
indemnity   for   his   injuries;   P118,369.84  
and   equivalent   in   Philippine   Pesos   of   IN   RE:   REQUEST   FOR   LIVE   RADIO   AND  
U.S.$55,600.00,   both   as   actual   damages;   TV   COVERAGE   OF   THE   TRIAL   IN   THE  
P1,000,000   as   moral   damages;   and,   SANDIGANBAYAN   OF   THE   PLUNDER  
P2,000,000  as  exemplary  damages.   CASES   AGAINST   FORMER   PRESIDENT  
JOSEPH   ESTRADA   [A.M.   NO.   00-­‐1-­‐4-­‐03-­‐
(4)  In  all  three  cases,  to  pay  each  of  the  3   SC,  SEPTEMBER  13,  2001]  
offended   parties   the   sum   of   P1,000,000,  
COURT  PROCEEDINGS  MAY  BE  FILMED  
or   a   total   of   P3,000,000,   for   attorney’s  
fees  and  expenses  of  litigation;  and   FOR   RECORD   PURPOSES   ONLY,   AND  
NOT   FOR   PUBLIC   SHOWING.  Thus,  many  
important   purposes   for   preserving   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 106

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

recordof  the  trials  can  be  served  by  audio-­‐ moving.   An   educational   television  
visual   recordings   without   impairing   the   network  filmed  a  trial  in  Denver  of  
right  ofthe  accused  to  a  fair  trial.   a   Black   Panther   leader   on   charges  
of   resisting   arrest,   and   broadcast  
Nor  is  the  right  of  privacy  of  the  accused  a   the   document   in   full,   in   four  
bar   to   the   production   of   such   installments,   several   months   after  
documentary.   In   Ayer   Productions   Pty.   the   case   was   concluded   —  
Ltd.   v.   Capulong,   this   Court   set   aside   a   concluded   incidentally,   with   a  
lower   court's   injunction   restraining   the   verdict  of  acquittal.  
filming   of   "Four   Day   Revolution,"   a  
documentary  film  depicting,  among  other   No   one   could   witness   the   trial   without   a  
things,   the   role   of   then   Minister   of   feeling   of   profound   respect   for   the  
National  Defense  Juan  Ponce  Enrile  in  the   painstaking   way   in   which   the   truth   was  
1986   EDSA   people   power.   This   Court   searched   for,   for   the   ways   whereby   law  
held:   "A   limited   intrusion   into   a   person's   copes   with   uncertainties   and   ambiguities  
privacy   has   long   been   regarded   as   through   presumptions   and   burden   of  
permissible  where  that  person  is  a  public   proof,  and  the  sense  of  gravity  with  which  
figure   and   the   information   sought   to   be   judge   and   jury   carried   out   their  
elicited  from  him  or  to  be  published  about   responsibilities.  
him   constitute   matters   of   a   public  
character."   I   agree   in   general   with   the   exclusion   of  
television   from   the   courtroom,   for   the  
No  one  can  prevent  the  making  of  a  movie   familiar   good   reasons.   And   yet   the   use   of  
based   on   the   trial.   But,   at   least,   if   a   television   at   a   trial   for   documentary  
documentary   record   is   made   of   the   purposes,   not   for   the   broadcast   of   live  
proceedings,  any  movie  that  may  later  be   news,   and   with   the   safeguards   of  
produced  can  be  checked  for  its  accuracy   completeness   and   consent,   is   an  
against   such   documentary   and   any   educational   experiment   that   I   would   be  
attempt   to   distort   the   truth   can   thus   be   prepared   to   welcome.   Properly  
averted.   safeguarded   and   with   suitable  
commentary,   the   depiction   of   an   actual  
Indeed,   a   somewhat   similar   proposal   for   trial   is   an   agency   of   enlightenment   that  
documentary   recording   of   celebrated   could   have   few   equals   in   its   impact   on   the  
cases   or   causes   célèbres   was   made   way   public   understanding.   Understanding   of  
back   in   1971   by   Paul   Freund   of   the   our   legal   process,   so   rarely   provided   by  
Harvard  Law  School.  As  he  explained:   our   educational   system,   is   now   a  
In   fairness   let   me   refer   to   desperate  need.  
an   American   experience   many   of   Professor   Freund's   observation   is   as   valid  
my   lay   friends   found   similarly   today   as   when   it   was   made   thirty   years  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 107

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

ago.   It   is   perceptive   for   its   recognition   of   annotations   of   scenes  


the   serious   risks   posed   to   the   fair   depicted   therein   as   may   be  
administration   of   justice   by   live   TV   and   necessary  to  explain  them;  
radio   broadcasts,   especially   when   d) the   live   broadcast   of   the  
emotions   are   running   high   on   the   issues   recordings   before   the  
stirred   by   a   case,   while   at   the   same   time   Sandiganbayan   shall   have  
acknowledging   the   necessity   of   keeping   rendered   its   decision   in   all  
audio-­‐visual   recordings   of   the   the  cases  against  the  former  
proceedings   of   celebrated   cases,   for   President   shall   be  
public   information   and   exhibition,   after   prohibited   under   pain   of  
passions  have  subsided.   contempt  of  court  and  other  
sanctions   in   case   of  
WHEREFORE,   an   audio-­‐visual   recording   violations   of   the  
of   the   trial   of   former   President   Estrada   prohibition;  
before   the   Sandiganbayan   is   hereby   e) to   ensure   that   the  
ordered  to  be  made,  for  the  account  of  the   conditions   are   observed,  
Sandiganbayan,   under   the   following   the   audio-­‐visual   recording  
conditions:   of   the   proceedings   shall   be  
a) the   trial   shall   be   recorded   made  under  the  supervision  
in   its   entirety,   excepting   and   control   of   the  
such   portions   thereof   as   the   Sandiganbayan   or   its  
Sandiganbayan   determine   Division   concerned   and  
should   not   be   held   public   shall   be   made   pursuant   to  
under   Rule   119,   §21   of   the   rules   promulgated   by   it;  
Rules   of   Criminal   and  
Procedure;   f) simultaneously   with   the  
b) cameras   shall   be   installed   release   of   the   audio-­‐visual  
inconspicuously   inside   the   recordings   for   public  
courtroom   and   the   broadcast,   the   original  
movement   of   TV   crews   thereof   shall   be   deposited  
shall   be   regulated   in  the  National  Museum  and  
consistent   with   the   dignity   the   Records   Management  
and   solemnity   of   the   and   Archives   Office   for  
proceedings;   preservation  and  exhibition  
c) the   audio-­‐visual   recordings   in  accordance  with  law.  
shall   be   made   for    
documentary   purposes   only  
and   shall   be   made   without  
comment   except   such  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 108

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Q.   If   the   trial   of   the   accused   is   conducted   RE:  REQUEST  RADIO-­‐TV  COVERAGE  OF  
inside   the   Bilibid   Prisons   without   THE   TRIAL   IN   THE   SANDIGANBAYAN  
objections,  is  this  a  public  trial?  Why?   OF  THE  PLUNDER  CASES  AGAINST  THE  
FORMER   PRESIDENT   JOSEPH   E.  
A.   Yes,   for   as   long   as   the   public   has   not   ESTRADA,   SECRETARY   OF   JUSTICE  
been   excluded.   (Garcia   v.   Domingo,   52   HERNANDO   PEREZ,   KAPISANAN   NG  
SCRA   143;   US   v.   Mercado,   4   Phil.   304;   MGA   BRODKASTER   NG   PILIPINAS,  
People  v.  Tampus,  96  SCRA  625).   CESAR   SARINO,   RENATO   CAYETANO  
  and   ATTY.   RICARDO  
ROMULO,petitioners,   vs.     JOSEPH   E.  
Q.  When  is  the  exclusion  of  the  public  valid   ESTRADA   and   INTEGRATED   BAR   OF  
without  violating  the  right  to  public  trial?   THE   PHILIPPINES,  oppositors.   A.M.   No.  
01-­‐4-­‐03-­‐SC.      June  29,  2001  
A.   The   exclusion   of   the   public   from   the    
trial  is  valid  without  violating  the  right  to   FACTS:  On  13  March  2001,  the  Kapisanan  
public   trial   when   the   evidence   to   be   ng  mgaBrodkaster  ng  Pilipinas  (KBP)  sent  
produced  is  offensive  to  decency  or  public   a  letterrequesting  this  Court  to  allow  live  
morals.  (Rule  119,  Sec.  13,  Rules  of  Court).   media  coverage  of  the  anticipated  trial  of  
the  plunder  and  other  criminal  cases  filed  
 
against   former   President   Joseph   E.  
Q.   When   does   publicity   prejudice   due   Estrada   before   the   Sandiganbayan.   The  
process?   petitioners   invoked   other   than   the  
freedom   of   the   press,   the   constitutional  
A.   The   rule   is   that   “to   warrant   a   finding   of   right   of   the   people   to   be   informed   of  
prejudicial   publicity   there   must   be   matters   of   public   concern   which   could  
allegation   and   proof   that   the   judges   have   only   be   recognized,   served   and   satisfied  
been   unduly   influenced,   not   simply   that   by   allowing   live   radio   and   television  
they   might   be,   by   the   barrage   of   publicity.”   coverage   of   the   court   proceedings.  
“Petitioners   cannot   just   rely   on   the   Moreover,   the   live   radio   and   television  
subliminal   effects   of   publicity...   because   coverage   of   the   proceedings   will   also  
these   are   basically   unbeknown   and   serve   the   dual   purpose   of   ensuring   the  
beyond   knowing.”   Webb   v.   De   Leon,   G.R.   desired   transparency   in   the  
No.   121234,   August   23,   1995.   See   also   administration  of  justice.  
People   v.   Teehankee,   Jr.,   G.R.   No.    
111206-­‐08,  October  6,  1995.   However,   in   the   Resolution   of   the   Court  
on   October   1991,   in   a   case   for   libel   filed  
  by   then   President   Corazon   C.   Aquino   read  
  that   the   Court   resolved   to   prohibit   live  
radio   and   television   coverage   of   court  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 109

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

proceedings   in   view   of   protecting   the   changes   in   the   behavior   of   the   people   it  


parties’   right   to   due   process,   to   prevent   focuses  on."The  conscious  or  unconscious  
distraction   of   the   participants   in   the   effect   that   such   coverage   may   have   on   the  
proceedings   and   to   avoid   miscarriage   of   testimony   of   witnesses   and   the   decision  
justice.   of   judges   cannot   be   evaluated   but,   it   can  
  likewise  be  said,  it  is  not  at  all  unlikely  for  
ISSUE:   Whether   the   constitutional   a  vote  of  guilt  or  innocence  to  yield  to  it.  
guarantees   of   freedom   of   the   press   and    
right   to   information   of   public   concern   be   Although   an   accused   has   a   right   to   a  
given  more  weight    than  the  fundamental   public   trial   but   it   is   a   right   that   belongs   to  
rights  of  the  accused.   him,  more  than  anyone  else,  where  his  life  
  or   liberty   can   be   held   critically   in  
RULING:   The  petition  is  denied.   balance.    A  public  trial  aims  to  ensure  that  
The   courts   recognize   the   constitutionally   he   is   fairly   dealt   with   and   would   not   be  
embodied   freedom   of   the   press   and   the   unjustly   condemned   and   that   his   rights  
right   to   public   information.    It   also   are  not  compromised.  A  public  trial  is  not  
approves   of   media's   exalted   power   to   synonymous   with   publicized   trial;   it   only  
provide   the   most   accurate   and   implies  that  the  court  doors  must  be  open  
comprehensive   means   of   conveying   the   to   those   who   wish   to   come,   sit   in   the  
proceedings   to   the   public   and   in   available   seats,   conduct   themselves   with  
acquainting   the   public   with   the   judicial   decorum  and  observe  the  trial  process.    In  
process  in  action;  nevertheless,  within  the   the   constitutional   sense,   a   courtroom  
courthouse,   the   overriding   consideration   should   have   enough   facilities   for   a  
is  still  the  paramount  right  of  the  accused   reasonable   number   of   the   public   to  
to   due   process  which   must   never   be   observe  the  proceedings,  not  too  small  as  
allowed   to   suffer   diminution   in   its   to  render  the  openness  negligible  and  not  
constitutional  proportions.       too   large   as   to   distract   the   trial  
  participants   from   their   proper   functions,  
Due   process   guarantees   the   accused   a   who   shall   then   be   totally   free   to   report  
presumption   of   innocence   until   the   what   they   have   observed   during   the  
contrary   is   proved   in   a   trial   that   is   not   proceedings.  
lifted   above   its   individual   settings   nor    
made   an   object   of   public's   attention   and  
where   the   conclusions   reached   are   Re:   Petition   for   radio   and   television  
induced   not   by   any   outside   force   or   coverage  of  the  multiple  murder  cases  
influencebut   only   by   evidence   and   against   Maguindanao   Governor   Zaldy  
argument   given   in   open   court,   where   Ampatuan,   et   al.,  A.M.   No.   10-­‐11-­‐5-­‐
fitting   dignity   and   calm   ambiance   is   SC/A.M.  No.  10-­‐11-­‐6-­‐SC/A.M.  No.  10-­‐11-­‐
demanded."Television   can   work   profound   7-­‐SC.  June  14,  2011.    

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 110

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Right   to   fair   trial   v.   freedom   of   the   article  from  the  Supreme  Court's  website  
press.    (J.  Abad)   as  is.  
SC   Allows   Live   Broadcast   of  
On   the   possible   influence   of   media   Maguindanao   Massacre   Trial  
coverage  on  the  impartiality  of  trial  court   Posted   June   14,   2011;   By   Jay   B.   Rempillo  
judges,   the   Court   found   that   prejudicial    
publicity   insofar   as   it   undermines   the   Voting   unanimously,   the   Supreme   Court  
right  to  a  fair  trial  must  pass  the  “totality   today   partially   granted   pro   hac   vice   (for  
of  circumstances”  test,  applied  in  People  v.   this   one   particular   occasion)   the   request  
Teehankee,   Jr.   and   Estrada   v.   Desierto,   for   live   broadcast   by   television   and   radio  
that  the  right  of  an  accused  to  a  fair  trial  is   of   the   trial   court   proceedings   of   the  
not   incompatible   to   a   free   press,   that   Maguindanao   Massacre   cases   subject   to  
pervasive   publicity   is   not   per   se   the   guidelines   set   by   the   Court.  
prejudicial  to  the  right  of  an  accused  to  a    
fair  trial,  and  that  there  must  be  allegation   In  a  15-­‐page  resolution  penned  by  Justice  
and   proof   of   the   impaired   capacity   of   a   Conchita   Carpio   Morales,   the   Court   said:  
judge  to  render  a  bias-­‐free  decision.  Mere   “It   is   about   time   to   craft   a   win-­‐win  
fear   of   possible   undue   influence   is   not   situation  that  shall  not  compromise  rights  
tantamount   to   actual   prejudice   resulting   in   the   criminal   administration   of   justice,  
in   the   deprivation   of   the   right   to   a   fair   sacrifice   press   freedom   and   allied   rights,  
trial.   and   interfere   with   the   integrity,   dignity  
The   Supreme   Court   has   allowed   the   live   and   solemnity   of   judiciary   proceedings.”  
media   coverage   of   the   Maguindanao    
Massacre  Trial.  While  the  High  Tribunal's   The   Court   held   that   one   apparent  
decision   was   lauded   by   Malacanang,   the   circumstance   that   sets   the   Maguindanao  
families   of   massacre   victims   and   the   Massacre   cases   apart   from   the   libel   case  
public,  broadcast  media  organizations  are   filed   by   the   late   President   Corazon   C.  
complaining   of   the   strict   conditions   Aquino   and   the   trial   against   deposed  
(guidelines)   for   the   purpose.   President   Joseph   E.   Estrada   at   the  
  Sandiganbayan   is   the   impossibility   of  
Even   the   counsel   of   some   of   the   accommodating   all   interested   parties,  
complainants  said  it's  as  if  the  SC  did  not   even  the  private  complainants/families  of  
grant   the   request   because   of   the   stringent   the   victims   and   other   witnesses,   inside  
rules.   The   complainants'   camp   filed   a   the   courtroom.   “Technology   tends   to  
Petition   for   Clarification   for   the   SC   to   provide   the   only   solution   to   break   the  
make   the   rules   as   clear   as   possible.   inherent   limitations   of   the   courtroom,   to  
  satisfy   the   imperative   of   a   transparent,  
For   information   and   reference   purposes,   open   and   public   trial,”   held   the   Court.  
we   are   reposting   the   Courtnews   Flash    

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 111

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

The   Court   said   that   the   indication   of   single   wide-­‐angle   full-­‐view   of   the  
“serious   risks”   posed   by   live   media   sala   of   the   trial   court;   no   panning  
coverage   to   the   accused’s   right   to   due   and   zooming   shall   be   allowed   to  
process,   left   unexplained   and   unexplored   avoid   unduly   highlighting   or  
in   the   era   obtaining   in   Aquino   and   downplaying   incidents   in   the  
Estrada,  has  left  a  blow  to  the  exercise  of   proceedings;   The   SC   Public  
press   freedom   and   the   right   to   public   Information  Office  and  the  Office  of  
information.   the   Court   Administrator   shall  
  coordinate   and   assist   the   trial  
“The   rationale   for   an   outright   total   court  on  the  physical  set-­‐up  of  the  
prohibition   was   shrouded,   as   it   is   now,   camera  and  equipment;  
inside  the  comfortable  cocoon  of  a  feared   4. The   transmittal   of   the   AVR   from  
speculation   which   no   scientific   study   in   inside  the  courtroom  to  the  media  
the  Philippine  setting  confirms,  and  which   entities  shall  be  conducted  in  such  
fear,   if   any,   may   be   dealt   with   by   a   way   that   the   least   physical  
safeguards  and  safety  nets  under  existing   disturbance  shall  be  ensured;  
rules   and   exacting   regulations,”   it   said.   5. The   broadcasting   of   the  
  proceedings   for   a   particular   day  
The  following  are  the  guidelines:   must   be   continuous   and   in   its  
entirety;  
1. An   audio-­‐visual   recording   of   the   6. No  commercial  break  or  any  other  
Maguindanao   massacre   cases   may   gap  shall  be  allowed  until  the  day’s  
be   made   both   for   documentary   proceedings   are   adjourned,   except  
purposes   and   for   transmittal   to   during   the   period   of   recess   call   by  
live  broadcast  broadcasting;   the  trial  court  and  during  portions  
2. Media   entities   must   file   with   the   of   the   proceedings   wherein   the  
trial   court   a   letter   of   application,   public  is  ordered  excluded;  
manifesting   that   they   intend   to   7. The  proceedings  shall  be  broadcast  
broadcast   the   audio-­‐visual   without   any   voice-­‐overs,   except  
recording   (AVR)   of   the   brief   annotations   of   scenes  
proceedings;  no  selective  or  partial   depicted   therein   as   may   be  
coverage   shall   be   allowed   and   no   necessary   to   explain   them   at   the  
media   entity   shall   be   allowed   to   start  or  at  the  end  of  the  scene;  
broadcast  the  proceedings  without   8. No   repeat   airing   of   the   AVR   shall  
an   application   duly   approved   by   be  allowed  until  after  the  finality  of  
the  trial  court;   judgment,   except   brief   footages  
3. A   single   fixed   compact   camera   and   still   images   derived   from   or  
shall   be   installed   inconspicuously   cartographic   sketches   of   scenes  
inside   the   courtroom   to   provide   a   based   on   the   recording,   only   for  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 112

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

news   purposes,   which   shall   letter   dated   November   22,   2010   to   Chief  
likewise   observe   the   sub   judice   Justice   Renato   C.   Corona   of   President  
rule   and   be   subject   to   the   Benigno  “Noynoy”  S.  Aquino  III,  who  came  
contempt  power  of  the  court;   out   “in   support   of   those   who   have  
9. The   original   AVR   shall   be   petitioned  [the  Supreme  Court]  to  permit  
deposited   in   the   National   Museum   television   and   radio   broadcast   of   the  
and   the   Records   Management   and   trial,”which   was   also   treated   as   a   petition.  
Archives   Office   for   preservation    
and  exhibition;  and   “Indeed,   the   Court   cannot   gloss   over   what  
10. The   AVR   of   the   proceedings   shall   advances   technology   has   to   offer   in  
be   made   under   the   supervision   distilling   the   abstract   discussion   of   key  
and  control  of  the  trial  court.   constitutional  precepts  into  the  workable  
context.   Technology   per   se   has   always  
The   Supreme   Court   shall   create   a   special   been   neutral.   It   is   the   use   and   regulation  
committee   which   shall   forthwith   study,   thereof   that   need   fine-­‐tuning.   Law   and  
design,   and   recommend   appropriate   technology  can  work  to  the  advantage  and  
arrangements,   implementing   regulations,   furtherance   of   the   various   rights   herein  
and   administrative   matters   referred   to   it   involved,   within   the   contours   of   defined  
by   the   Court   concerning   the   live   guidelines,”   the   Court   said.   (AM   No.   10-­‐
broadcast  of  the  proceedings  pro  hac  vice,   11-­‐5-­‐SC,   Re:   Petition   for   Radio   and  
in   accordance   with   the   above-­‐outlined   Television   Coverage   of   the   Multiple  
guidelines.   Murder   Cases   against   Maguindanao  
  Governor   Zaldy   Ampatuan,   et   al.;   AM   No.  
Likewise,   all   other   present   directives   in   10-­‐11-­‐7-­‐SC,   Re:   Letter   of   President  
the   conduct   of   the   proceedings   of   the   trial   Benigno   S.   Aquino   III   for   the   Live   Media  
court   (i.e.,   prohibition   on   recording   Coverage   of   the   Maguindanao   Massacre  
devices   such   as   still   cameras,   tape   Trial,  June  14,  2011)  
recorders;   and   allowable   number   of   These   conditions   have   now   become   a  
media  practitioners  inside  the  courtroom)   subject   of   discussions   over   the   radio   and  
shall   be   observed   in   addition   to   these   television   as   well   as   internet.   In   a   TV  
guidelines.   interview   on   Wednesday,   court  
  administrator   and   SC   spokesman   Midas  
One   of   the   petitions   was   filed   by   the   Marquez   said   the   guidelines   are   not   yet  
National   Union   of   Journalists   of   the   final.  
Philippines,   ABS-­‐CBN   Broadcasting  
Corporation,  GMA  Network,  Inc.,  relatives    
of  the  victims,  individual  journalists  from   People   vs.   Mapalao   [G.R.   No.   92415,  
various   media   entities,   and   members   of   May  14,  1991]  
the   academe,   while   the   other   was   the    

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 113

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

AN   ACCUSED   WHO   IS   TRIED   IN   not   lost   upon   the   instance   of   parties   but  
ABSENTIA   WAIVES   HIS   RIGHT   TO   continues  until  the  case  is  terminated.  
PRESENT   EVIDENCE   AS   WELL   AS   HIS    
RIGHTS   TO   BAIL   AND   APPEAL.   By   the   To   capsulize   the   foregoing   discussion,  
same   token,   an   accused   who,   after   the   suffice   it   to   say   that   where   the   accused  
filing  of  an  information,  is  at  large  and  has   appears   at   the   arraignment   and   pleads  
not   been   apprehended   or   otherwise   has   not   guilty   to   the   crime   charged,  
not   submitted   himself   to   the   jurisdiction   jurisdiction   is   acquired   by   the   court   over  
of   the   court,   cannot   apply   for   bail   or   be   his   person   and   this   continues   until   the  
granted   any   other   relief   by   the   courts   termination   of   the   case,   notwithstanding  
until  he  submits  himself  to  its  jurisdiction   his  escape  from  the  custody  of  the  law.  
or  is  arrested.    
  Going   to   the   second   part   of   Section   19,  
In   Gimenez   vs.   Nazareno,   this   Court   had   Article   IV   of   the   1973   Constitution  
occasion   to   rule   on   a   similar   case   in   this   aforecited  a  'trial  in  absentia'  may  be  had  
wise  —   when   the   following   requisites   are  
  present;    
"First   of   all,   it   is   not   disputed   that   the    
lower   court   acquired   jurisdiction   over   the   (1)  that  there  has  been  an  arraignment;    
person  of  the  accused-­‐private  respondent   (2)   that   the   accused   has   been   notified;  
when   he   appeared   during   the   and    
arraignment   on   August   22,   1973   and   (3)   that   he   fails   to   appear   and   his   failure  
pleaded   not   guilty   to   the   crime   charged.   to  do  so  is  unjustified.  
In   criminal   cases,   jurisdiction   over   the    
person   of   the   accused   is   acquired   either   In  this  case,  all  the  above  conditions  were  
by   his   arrest   or   voluntary   appearance   in   attendant   calling   for   a   trial   in   absentia.   As  
court.   Such   voluntary   appearance   is   the   facts   show,   the   private   respondent  
accomplished   by   appearing   for   was  arraigned  on  August  22,  1973  and  in  
arraignment   as   what   accused-­‐private   the   said   arraignment   he   pleaded   not  
respondent  did  in  this  case.   guilty.   He   was   also   informed   of   the  
  scheduled   hearings   set   on   September   18  
But   the   question   is   this   —   was   that   and  19,  1973  and  this  is  evidenced  by  his  
jurisdiction   lost   when   the   accused   signature   on   the   notice   issued   by   the  
escaped   from   the   custody   of   the   law   and   lower   court.   It   was   also   proved   by   a  
failed   to   appear   during   the   trial?   We   certified   copy   of   the   Police   Blotter   that  
answer   this   question   in   the   negative.   As   private   respondent   escaped   from   his  
We   have   consistently   ruled   in   several   detention   center.   No   explanation   for   his  
earlier   cases,   jurisdiction   once   acquired   is   failure   to   appear   in   court   in   any   of   the  
scheduled   hearings   was   given.   Even   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 114

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

trial   court   considered   his   absence   and   his   failure   to   appear   is   unjustified,  
unjustified.   such  an  abuse  could  be  remedied.  That  is  
  the  way  it  should  be,  for  both  society  and  
The   lower   court   in   accordance   with   the   the   offended   party   have   a   legitimate  
aforestated   provisions   of   the   1973   interest   in   seeing   to   it   that   crime   should  
Constitution,   correctly   proceeded   with   not  go  unpunished.'  
the   reception   of   the   evidence   of   the    
prosecution   and   the   other   accused   in   the   The   contention   of   the   respondent   judge  
absence   of   private   respondent,   but   it   that   the   right   of   the   accused   to   be  
erred  when  it  suspended  the  proceedings   presumed   innocent   will   be   violated   if   a  
as   to   the   private   respondent   and   judgment   is   rendered   as   to   him   is  
rendered   a   decision   as   to   the   other   untenable.   He   is   still   presumed   innocent.  
accused  only.   A   judgment   of   conviction   must   still   be  
  based   upon   the   evidence   presented   in  
Upon  the  termination  of  a  trial  in  absentia,   court.   Such   evidence   must   prove   him  
the   court   has   the   duty   to   rule   upon   the   guilty   beyond   reasonable   doubt.   Also,  
evidence   presented   in   court.   The   court   there   can   be   no   violation   of   due   process  
need   not   wait   for   the   time   until   the   since   the   accused   was   given   the  
accused  who  escaped  from  custody  finally   opportunity   to   be   heard.   Nor   can   it   be  
decides   to   appear   in   court   to   present   his   said  that  an  escapee  who  has  been  tried  in  
evidence   and   cross-­‐examine   the   absentia   retains   his   rights   to   cross-­‐
witnesses  against  him.  To  allow  the  delay   examine   and   to   present   evidence   on   his  
of   proceedings   for   this   purpose   is   to   behalf.  By  his  failure  to  appear  during  the  
render   ineffective   the   constitutional   trial   of   which   he   had   notice,   he   virtually  
provision   on   trial   in   absentia.   As   it   has   waived   these   rights.   This   Court   has  
been  aptly  explained:   consistently   held   that   the   right   of   the  
  accused   to   confrontation   and   cross-­‐
'.   .   .   The   Constitutional   Convention   felt   the   examination   of   witnesses   is   a   personal  
need   for   such   a   provision   as   there   were   right  and  may  be  waived.  In  the  same  vein,  
quite   a   number   of   reported   instances   his  right  to  present  evidence  on  his  behalf,  
where   the   proceedings   against   a   a   right   given   to   him   for   his   own   benefit  
defendant   had   to   be   stayed   indefinitely   and  protection,  may  be  waived  by  him.  
because   of   his   non-­‐appearance.   What   the    
Constitution  guarantees  him  is  a  fair  trial,   Finally,   at   this   point,   We   note   that   Our  
not   continued   enjoyment   of   his   freedom   pronouncement   in   this   case   is   buttressed  
even   if   his   guilt   could   be   proved.   With   the   by   the   provisions   of   the   1985   Rules   on  
categorical   statement   in   the   fundamental   Criminal   Procedure,   particularly   Section  
law  that  his  absence  cannot  justify  a  delay   1(c)   of   Rule   115   which   clearly   reflects   the  
provided   that   he   has   been   duly   notified  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 115

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

intention   of   the   framers   of   our   Paragraph  (2),  Section  14,  Article  III  of  the  
Constitution,  to  wit:   Constitution  permits  trial  in  absentia  after  
  the   accused   has   been   arraigned   provided  
'.   .   .   The   absence   of   the   accused   without   he   has   been   duly   notified   of   the   trial   and  
any   justifiable   cause   at   the   trial   on   a   his  failure  to  appear  thereat  is  unjustified.  
particular   date   of   which   he   had   notice   One   who   jumps   bail   can   never   offer   a  
shall  be  considered  a  waiver  of  his  right  to   justifiable   reason   for   his   non-­‐appearance  
be   present   during   that   trial.   When   an   during   the   trial.   Accordingly,   after   the  
accused   under   custody   had   been   notified   trial   in   absentia,   the   court   can   render  
of   the   date   of   the   trial   and   escapes,   he   judgment   in   the   case   and   promulgation  
shall   be   deemed   to   have   waived   his   right   may   be   made   by   simply   recording   the  
to   be   present   on   said   date   and   on   all   judgment   in   the   criminal   docket   with   a  
subsequent   trial   dates   until   custody   is   copy   thereof   served   upon   his   counsel,  
regained  .  .  .'   provided  that  the  notice  requiring  him  to  
  be   present   at   the   promulgation   is   served  
Accordingly,  it  is  Our  considered  opinion,   through   his   bondsmen   or   warden   and  
and  We  so  hold,  that  an  escapee  who  has   counsel.  
been   duly   tried   in   absentia   waives   his    
right   to   present   evidence   on   his   own  
behalf  and  to  confront  and  cross-­‐examine    
witnesses  who  testified  against  him."    
 
 
 
People  vs.  Valeriano  [G.R.  Nos.  103604-­‐ [REPUBLIC  ACT  NO.  8493]  
05,  September  23,  1993]  
 
A   JUDGMENT   OF   CONVICTION   MAY   BE  
PROMULGATED   AFTER   THE   ACCUSED   AN   ACT   TO   ENSURE   A   SPEEDY   TRIAL  
HAS  BEEN  TRIED  IN  ABSENTIA.  The  trial   OF   ALL   CRIMINAL   CASES   BEFORE   THE  
court   further   erred   in   holding   that   no   SANDIGANBAYAN,   REGIONAL   TRIAL  
penalty   could   be   imposed   on   accused   COURT,   METROPOLITAN   TRIAL  
Engracio   Valeriano   in   Criminal   Case   No.   COURT,  MUNICIPAL  TRIAL  COURT,  AND  
4584   because   he   "is   nowhere   to   be   found,   MUNICIPAL   CIRCUIT   TRIAL   COURT,  
hence,  not  brought  to  the  bar  of  justice,  he   APPROPRIATING   FUNDS   THEREFOR,  
being   a   fugitive   or   at   large."   The   court   AND  FOR  OTHER  PURPOSES
ignored  the  fact  that  Engracio  jumped  bail  
after   he   had   been   arraigned,   just   before    
the   retaking   of   evidence   commenced.  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 116

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Be   it   enacted   by   the   Senate   and   House   of   the  agreement  on  the  plea  of  the  accused  
Representatives   of   the   Philippines   in   to   a   lesser   offense   may   only   be   revised,  
Congress  assembled:   modified,   or   annulled   by   the   court   when  
the  same  is  contrary  to  law,  public  morals,  
SECTION   1.   Title.   –   This   Act   shall   be   or  public  policy.  
known  as  the  “Speedy  Trial  Act  of  1998.”  
SEC.   4.   Nonappearance   at   Pre-­‐Trial  
SEC.   2.   Mandatory   Pre-­‐Trial   in   Criminal   Conference.   –   Where   counsel   for   the  
Cases.   –   In   all   cases   cognizable   by   the   accused   or   the   prosecutor   does   not  
Municipal   Trial   Court,   Municipal   Circuit   appear   at   the   pre-­‐trial   conference   and  
Trial   Court,   Metropolitan   Trial   Court,   does   not   offer   an   acceptable   excuse   for  
Regional   Trial   Court,   and   the   his/her   lack   of   cooperation,   the   pre-­‐trial  
Sandiganbayan,   the   justice   or   judge   shall,   justice   or   judge   may   impose   proper  
after   arraignment,   order   a   pre-­‐trial   sanctions  or  penalties.  
conference  to  consider  the  following:  
SEC.   5.   Pre-­‐Trial   Order.   –   After   the   pre-­‐
(a)  Plea  bargaining;   trial   conference,   the   court   shall   issue   an  
order  reciting  the  actions  taken,  the  facts  
(b)  Stipulation  of  Facts;   stipulated,   and   evidence   marked.   Such  
order  shall  bind  the  parties,  limit  the  trial  
(c)   Marking   for   identification   of   evidence   to  matters  not  disposed  of  and  control  the  
of  parties;   course   of   action   during   the   trial,   unless  
modified   by   the   court   to   prevent   manifest  
(d)   Waiver   of   objections   to   admissibility   injustice.  
of  evidence;  and  
SEC.   6.   Time  Limit  for  Trial.   –   In   criminal  
(e)   Such   other   matters   as   will   promote   a   cases   involving   persons   charged   of   a  
fair  and  expeditious  trial.   crime,   except   those   subject   to   the   Rules  
on   Summary   Procedure,   or   where   the  
SEC.   3.   Pre-­‐Trial   Agreement.   –   All   penalty   prescribed   by   law   does   not  
agreements   or   admissions   made   or   exceed  six  (6)  months  imprisonment,  or  a  
entered   into   during   the   pre-­‐trial   fine  of  One  thousand  pesos  (P1,000.00)  or  
conference   shall   be   reduced   to   writing   both,   irrespective   of   other   imposable  
and   signed   by   the   accused   and   counsel,   penalties,   the   justice   or   judge   shall,   after  
otherwise   the   same   shall   not   be   used   in   consultation   with   the   public   prosecutor  
evidence   against   the   accused.   The   and   the   counsel   for   the   accused,   set   the  
agreements   in   relation   to   matters   case   for   continuous   trial   on   a   weekly   or  
referred   to   in   Sec.   2   hereof   is   subject   to   other   short-­‐term   trial   calendar   at   the  
the   approval   of   the   court:   Provided,   That   earliest   possible   time   so   as   to   ensure  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 117

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

speedy   trial.   In   no   case   shall   the   entire   for   a   new   trial   becomes   final,   except   that  
trial   period   exceed   one   hundred   eighty   the   court   retrying   the   case   may   extend  
(180)   days   from   the   first   day   of   trial,   such   period   but   in   any   case   shall   not  
except   as   otherwise   authorized   by   the   exceed   one   hundred   eighty   (180)   days  
Chief   Justice   of   the   Supreme   Court   from   the   date   the   order   for   a   new   trial  
pursuant  to  Sec.  3,  Rule  22  of  the  Rules  of   becomes   final   if   unavailability   of  
Court.   witnesses   or   other   factors   resulting   from  
passage   of   time   shall   make   trial   within  
SEC.   7.   Time   Limit   Between   Filing   of   thirty  (30)  days  impractical.  
Information   and   Arraignment   and  
Between   Arraignment   and   Trial.   –   The   SEC.   9.   Extended   Time   Limit.   –  
arraignment   of   an   accused   shall   be   held   Notwithstanding   the   provisions   of   SEC.   7  
within   thirty   (30)   days   from   the   filing   of   of   this   Act,   for   the   first   twelve-­‐calendar-­‐
the   information,   or   from   the   date   the   month  period  following  its  effectivity,  the  
accused   has   appeared   before   the   justice,   time   limit   with   respect   to   the   period   from  
judge   or   court   in   which   the   charge   is   arraignment   to   trial   imposed   by   Sec.   7   of  
pending,   whichever   date   last   occurs.   this  Act  shall  be  one  hundred  eighty  (180)  
Thereafter,   where   a   plea   of   not   guilty   is   days.  For  the  second  twelve-­‐month  period  
entered,   the   accused   shall   have   at   least   the   time   limit   shall   be   one   hundred  
fifteen  (15)  days  to  prepare  for  trial.  Trial   twenty   (120)   days,   and   for   the   third  
shall   commence   within   thirty   (30)   days   twelve-­‐month   period   the   time   limit   with  
from  arraignment  as  fixed  by  the  court.   respect   to   the   period   from   arraignment   to  
trial  shall  be  eighty  (80)  days.  
If   the   accused   pleads   not   guilty   to   the  
crime  charged,  he/she  shall  state  whether   SEC.   10.   Exclusions.   –   The   following  
he/she   interposes   a   negative   or   periods   of   delay   shall   be   excluded   in  
affirmative   defense.   A   negative   defense   computing   the   time   within   which   trial  
shall  require  the  prosecution  to  prove  the   must  commence:  
guilt   of   the   accused   beyond   reasonable  
doubt,   while   an   affirmative   defense   may   (a)   Any   period   of   delay   resulting   from  
modify   the   order   of   trial   and   require   the   other   proceedings   concerning   the  
accused   to   prove   such   defense   by   clear   accused,   including   but   not   limited   to   the  
and  convincing  evidence.   following:  

SEC.   8.   Time  Limit  Following  an  Order  for   (1)   delay   resulting   from   an   examination  
New   Trial.   –   If   the   accused   is   to   be   tried   of   the   accused,   and   hearing   on   his/her  
again   following   an   order   of   a   court   for   a   mental   competency,   or   physical  
new  trial,  the  trial  shall  commence  within   incapacity;  
thirty   (30)   days   from   the   date   the   order  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 118

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

(2)   delay   resulting   from   trials   with   cannot   be   obtained   by   due   diligence   or  
respect  to  charges  against  the  accused;   he/she   resists   appearing   at   or   being  
returned  for  trial.  
(3)   delay   resulting   from   interlocutory  
appeals;   (c)  Any  period  of  delay  resulting  from  the  
fact   that   the   accused   is   mentally  
(4)  delay  resulting  from  hearings  on  pre-­‐ incompetent  or  physically  unable  to  stand  
trial   motions:   Provided,   That   the   delay   trial.  
does  not  exceed  thirty  (30)  days,  
(d)   If   the   information   is   dismissed   upon  
(5)   delay   resulting   from   orders   of   motion   of   the   prosecution   and   thereafter  
inhibition,   or   proceedings   relating   to   a   charge   is   filed   against   the   accused   for  
change  of  venue  of  cases  or  transfer  from   the  same  offense,  or  any  offense  required  
other  courts;   to  be  joined  with  that  offense,  any  period  
of   delay   from   the   date   the   charge   was  
(6)   delay   resulting   from   a   finding   of   the   dismissed   to   the   date   the   time   limitation  
existence   of   a   valid   prejudicial   question;   would   commence   to   run   as   to   the  
and   subsequent   charge   had   there   been   no  
previous  charge.  
(7)   delay   reasonably   attributable   to   any  
period,   not   to   exceed   thirty   (30)   days,   (e)  A  reasonable  period  of  delay  when  the  
during   which   any   proceeding   concerning   accused   is   joined   for   trial   with   a   co-­‐
the  accused  is  actually  under  advisement.   accused   over   whom   the   court   has   not  
acquired   jurisdiction,   or   as   to   whom   the  
(b)   Any   period   of   delay   resulting   from   the   time   for   trial   has   not   run   and   no   motion  
absence   or   unavailability   of   the   accused   for  severance  has  been  granted.  
or  an  essential  witness.  
(f)   Any   period   of   delay   resulting   from   a  
For   purposes   of   this   subparagraph,   an   continuance   granted   by   any   justice   or  
accused   or   an   essential   witness   shall   be   judge   motu   propio   or   on   motion   of   the  
considered   absent   when   his/her   accused   or   his/her   counsel   or   at   the  
whereabouts   are   unknown   and,   in   request   of   the   public   prosecutor,   if   the  
addition,   he/she   is   attempting   to   avoid   justice  or  judge  granted  such  continuance  
apprehension   or   prosecution   or   his/her   on   the   basis   of   his/her   findings   that   the  
whereabouts   cannot   be   determined   by   ends   of   justice   served   by   taking   such  
due   diligence.   An   accused   or   an   essential   action   outweigh   the   best   interest   of   the  
witness   shall   be   considered   unavailable   public  and  the  defendant  in  a  speedy  trial.  
whenever   his/her   whereabouts   are   No   such   period   of   delay   resulting   from   a  
known   but   his/her   presence   for   trial   continuance   granted   by   the   court   in  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 119

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

accordance   with   this   subparagraph   shall   SEC.   12.   Public   Attorney’s   Duties   Where  
be   excludable   under   this   section   unless   Accused   is   Imprisoned.   –   If   the   public  
the   court   sets   forth,   in   the   record   of   the   attorney  knows  that  a  person  charged  of  a  
case,   either   orally   or   in   writing,   its   crime   is   preventively   detained,   either  
reasons  for  finding  that  the  ends  of  justice   because   he/she   is   charged   of   a   bailable  
served   by   the   granting   of   such   crime  and  has  no  means  to  post  bail,  or  is  
continuance   outweigh   the   best   interests   charged   of   a   non-­‐bailable   crime,   or   is  
of  the  public  and  the  accused  in  a  speedy   serving   a   term   of   imprisonment   in   any  
trial.   penal   institution,   the   public   attorney   shall  
promptly:  
SEC.  11.  Factors   for   Granting   Continuance.  
–   The   factors,   among   others,   which   a   (a)   Undertake   to   obtain   the   presence   of  
justice   or   judge   shall   consider   in   the  prisoner  for  trial,  or  cause  a  notice  to  
determining   whether   to   grant   a   be  served  on  the  person  having  custody  of  
continuance   under   subparagraph   (f)   of   the  prisoner  mandating  such  person  to  so  
Sec.  10  of  this  Act  are  as  follows:   advise   the   prisoner   of   his/her   right   to  
demand  trial.  
(a)   Whether   the   failure   to   grant   such   a  
continuance   in   the   proceeding   would   be   (b)   Upon   receipt   of   a   notice,   the   person  
likely   to   make   a   continuation   of   such   having   custody   of   the   prisoner   shall  
proceeding   impossible,   or   result   in   a   promptly   advise   the   prisoner   of   the  
miscarriage  of  justice.   charge   and   of   his/her   right   to   demand  
trial.  If  at  any  time  thereafter  the  prisoner  
(b)   Whether   the   case   taken   as   a   whole   is   informs   the   person   having   custody   that  
so  novel,  so  unusual  and  so  complex,  due   he/she   demands   trial,   such   person   shall  
to  the  number  of  accused  or  the  nature  of   cause   notice   to   that   effect   to   be   sent  
the   prosecution   or   otherwise,   that   it   is   promptly  to  the  public  attorney.  
unreasonable   to   expect   adequate  
preparation   within   the   periods   of   time   (c)   Upon   receipt   of   such   notice,   the   public  
established  by  this  Act.   attorney  shall  promptly  seek  to  obtain  the  
presence  of  the  prisoner  for  trial.  
No  continuance  under  subparagraph  (f)  of  
Sec.   10   shall   be   granted   because   of   (d)   When   the   person   having   custody   of  
general  congestion  of  the  court’s  calendar,   the   prisoner   receives   from   the   public  
or  lack  of  diligent  preparation  or  failure  to   attorney  a  properly  supported  request  for  
obtain   available   witnesses   on   the   part   of   temporary   custody   of   the   prisoner   for  
the  public  prosecutor.   trial,  the  prisoner  shall  be  made  available  
to  that  public  attorney.  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 120

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

SEC.   13.   Remedy   Where   Accused   is   Not   (c)   makes   a   statement   for   the   purpose   of  
Brought  to  Trial  Within  the  Time  Limit.   –   If   obtaining   continuance   which   he/she  
an   accused   is   not   brought   to   trial   within   knows  to  be  false  and  which  is  material  to  
the   time   limit   required   by   Sec.   7   of   this   the  granting  of  a  continuance;  or  
Act   as   extended   by   Sec.   9,   the   information  
shall   be   dismissed   on   motion   of   the   (d)   otherwise   willfully   fails   to   proceed   to  
accused.   The   accused   shall   have   the   trial   without   justification   consistent   with  
burden   of   proof   of   supporting   such   the   provisions   of   this   Act,   the   court   may,  
motion  but  the  prosecution  shall  have  the   without   prejudice   to   any   appropriate  
burden   of   going   forward   with   the   criminal  and/or  administrative  charges  to  
evidence   in   connection   with   the   exclusion   be   instituted   by   the   proper   party   against  
of  time  under  Sec.  10  of  this  Act.   the  erring  counsel  if  and  when  warranted,  
punish   any   such   counsel   or   attorney,   as  
In   determining   whether   to   dismiss   the   follows:  
case   with   or   without   prejudice,   the   court  
shall   consider,   among   other   factors,   the   (1)   in   the   case   of   a   counsel   privately  
seriousness   of   the   offense,   the   facts   and   retained  in  connection  with  the  defense  of  
circumstances  of  the  case  which  led  to  the   an   accused,   by   imposing   a   fine   not  
dismissal,   and   the   impact   of   a   exceeding;   fifty   percent   (50%)   of   the  
reprosecution   on   the   implementation   of   compensation  to  which  he/she  is  entitled  
this   Act   and   on   the   administration   of   in  connection  with  his/her  defense  of  the  
justice.  Failure  of  the  accused  to  move  for   accused;  
dismissal   prior   to   trial   or   entry   of   a   plea  
of   guilty   shall   constitute   a   waiver   of   the   (2)  by  imposing  on  any  appointed  counsel  
right  to  dismissal  under  this  section.   de   officio   or   public   prosecutor   a   fine   not  
exceeding   Ten   thousand   pesos  
SEC.  14.  Sanctions.  –  In  any  case  in  which   (10,000.00);  and  
counsel   for   the   accused,   the   public  
prosecution  or  public  attorney:   (3)   by   denying   any   defense   counsel   or  
public   prosecutor   the   right   to   practice  
(a)  knowingly  allows  the  case  to  be  set  for   before  the  court  considering  the  case  for  a  
trial   without   disclosing   the   fact   that   a   period  not  exceeding  thirty  (30)  days.  
necessary   witness   would   be   unavailable  
for  trial;   The   authority   to   punish   provided   for   by  
this   section   shall   be   in   addition   to   any  
(b)  files  a  motion  solely  for  the  purpose  of   other   authority   or   power   available   to   the  
delay   which   he/she   knows   is   totally   court.   The   court   shall   follow   the  
frivolous  and  without  merit;   procedures   established   in   the   Rules   of  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 121

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Court   in   punishing   any   counsel   or   public   Act   are   hereby   repealed   or   modified  
prosecutor  pursuant  to  this  section.   accordingly.  

SEC.   15.   Rules   and   Regulations.   –   The   SEC.  19.  Separability  Clause.  –  In  case  any  
Supreme   Court   shall   promulgate   rules,   provision   of   this   Act   is   declared  
regulations,   administrative   orders   and   unconstitutional,   the   other   provisions  
circulars   which   shall   seek   to   accelerate   shall  remain  in  effect.  
the   disposition   of   criminal   cases.   The  
rules,   regulations,   administrative   orders   SEC.   20.   Effectivity.   –   This   Act   shall   take  
and   circulars   formulated   shall   provide   effect   after   fifteen   (15)   days   following   its  
sanctions  against  justices  and  judges  who   publication   in   the   Official   Gazette   or   in  
willfully   fail   to   proceed   to   trial   without   any   newspaper   of   general   circulation:  
justification   consistent   with   the   Provided,   That   Sec.   7   of   this   Act   shall  
provisions  of  this  Act.   become   effective   after   the   expiration   of  
the  aforementioned  third-­‐calendar-­‐month  
SEC.   16.   Funding.   –   For   the   effective   period  provided  in  Sec.  9  of  this  Act.  
implementation   of   the   rules,   regulations,  
administrative   orders   and   circulars    
promulgated   under   this   Act,   the   amount  
of  Twenty  million  pesos  (P20,000,000.00)    
annually   shall   be   appropriated   from   the    
allocation  of  the  Supreme  Court  under  the  
General   Appropriations   Act.   Thereafter,    
such   additional   amounts   as   may   be  
necessary   for   its   continued    
implementation   shall   be   included   in   the  
 
annual  General  Appropriations  Act.  
 
SEC.   17.   Act   Not   a   Bar   to   Speedy   Trial  
Claim   Under   the   Constitution.   –   No    
provision   of   this   Act   shall   be   interpreted  
as   a   bar   to   any   claim   of   denial   of   speedy    
trial   as   required   by   Article   III,   Sec.   14(2)    
of  the  1987  Constitution.  
 
SEC.   18.   Repealing   Clause.   –   All   laws,  
presidential   decrees,   executive   orders,    
rules   and   regulations   or   parts   thereof  
 
inconsistent   with   the   provisions   of   this  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 122

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

   

   
   
  RIGHT  TO  MEET  
  WITNESSES  FACE  TO  
  FACE  (RIGHT  OF  
  CONFRONTATION)  
   

  Q.   What   is   the   concept   of   the   right   to  


confrontation?  
 
A.  It  is  the  right  of  the  accused  to  meet  the  
  witnesses  against  him  face  to  face.  It  is  the  
right  of  the  accused  to  cross  –examine  the  
 
witnesses.  
 
 
 
Q.   What   are   the   purposes   of   the   right   to  
  confrontation?  

  A.  The  purposes  are:  

  1) to  cross-­‐examine  the  witness  to  


test  their  credibility.  (Anciro  v.  
  People,   46   SCAD   967,   G.R.   No.  
107819,  Dec.  17,  1993);  and  
  2) to   enable   the   court   to   observe  
  the  demeanor  of  the  witnesses.  
(US  v.  Javier,  37  Phil.  449).  
   

   

  UNITED  STATES  VS.  JAVIER  [G.R.  NO.  L-­‐


12990,  JANUARY  21,  1918]  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 123

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

AFFIDAVIT   OF   A   DECEASED   PERSON   witness   in   the   exercise   of   the   right   of  


WHO  HAS  NOT  BEEN  CROSS-­‐EXAMINED   cross-­‐examination."   In   other   words,  
IS   INADMISSIBLE   IN   EVIDENCE.   The   confrontation   is   essential   because   cross-­‐
foregoing   statement   of   the   facts   and   the   examination  is  essential.  A  second  reason  
law  disposes  of  all  but  one  assignment  of   for   the   prohibition   is   that   a   tribunal   may  
error,   namely,   that   the   lower   court   erred   have   before   it   the   deportment   and  
in   admitting   Exhibit   B   of   the   prosecution   appearance  of  the  witness  while  testifying.  
as   evidence.   Exhibit   B   is   the   sworn   (U.S.  vs.  Anastasio[1906],  6  Phil.,  413.)    
statement   of   sergeant   Presca,   now  
deceased,   whose   signature   was   identified,   The   Supreme   Court   of   the   Philippine  
before   the   justice   of   the   peace   of   the   Islands   has   applied   this   constitutional  
municipality   of   Santo   Tomas,   Province   of   provision  on  behalf  of  accused  persons  in  
Batangas.   Appellant's   argument   is   a   number   of   cases.   (See   forexample   U.S.  
predicated   on   the   provision   of   the   vs.   Tanjuanco   [1902],   1   Phil.,   374;   U.S.  
Philippine  Bill  of  Rights  which  says,  "That   vs.   Bello   [1908,   12   Phil.   87.)It   is   for   us  
in   all   criminal   prosecutions   the   accused   now   to   determine   whether   the   present  
shall   enjoy   the   right   .   .   .to   meet   the   facts  entitle  the  accused  to  the  protection  
witnesses  face  to  face,"  and  the  provision   of   the   Bill   of   Rights   or   whether   the   facts  
of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  section   fall  under  some  exception  thereto.  
15   (5),   which   say   that   "In   all   criminal    
prosecutions   the   defendant   shall   be  
entitled:   .   .   .   to   be   confronted   at   the   trial    
by   and   to   cross   examine   the   witnesses   UNITED   STATES   VS   JAVIER   [GR   L-­‐
against  him."  With  reference  to  the  clause   12990,  21  January  1918]  
of   the   Bill   of   Rights,   which   we   have    
quoted,   Justice   Day   said   in   a   case   of   FACTS:    
Philippine   origin   (Dowdell   vs.   U.S.   [1911],   Doroteo  Natividad  on  the  afternoon  of  22  
221   U.S.   325)   that   it   "intends   to   secure   October   1915,   fastened   his   carabao  
the  accused  in  the  right  to  be  tried,  so  far   valued  at  P150  in  his  corral  situated  in  the  
as   facts   provable   by   witnesses   are   barrio   of   Trapiche,   municipality   of  
concerned,   by   only   such   witnesses   as   Tananuan,   Province   of   Batangas.   On   the  
meet  him  face  to  face  at  the  trial,  who  give   following   morning   when   he   went   to   look  
their   testimony   in   his   presence,   and   give   after  the  animal,  he  found  the  gate  to  the  
to   the   accused   an   opportunity   of   cross-­‐ corral   open   and   that   the   carabao   had  
examination.   It   was   intended   to   prevent   disappeared.   He   reported   the   matter   to  
the   conviction   of   the   accused   upon   the   Constabulary,   and   a   patrol   of   the  
depositions   or   ex   parte   affidavits,   and   Constabulary   under   the   leadership   of  
particularly   to   preserve   the   right   of   the   sergeant   Presa   (+)   on   November   20,  
accused   to   test   therecollection   of   the   encountered   Lazaro   Javier,   Apolinario  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 124

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Mendoza,  and  Placido  de  Chavez  leading  a   trial   by   and   to   cross-­‐examine   the  
carabao.   When   the   ladrones   saw   the   witnesses  against  him."  With  reference  to  
Constabulary,   they   scattered   in   all   the  clause  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  it  "intends  
directions.     to   secure   the   accused   in   the   right   to   be  
  tried,  so  far  as  facts  provable  by  witnesses  
On   the   following   day,   the   Constabulary   are  concerned,  by  only  such   witnesses  as  
found   the   carabao   tied   in   front   of   the   meet  him  face  to  face  at  the  trial,  who  give  
house   of   one   Pedro   Monterola   in   the   their   testimony   in   his   presence,   and   give  
barrio   of   Santa   Clara,   municipality   of   San   to   the   accused   an   opportunity   of   cross-­‐
Pablo.   The   carabao   was   identified   by   examination.   It   was   intended   to   prevent  
Doroteo   Natividad   as   the   one   which   had   the   conviction   of   the   accused   upon  
been  taken  from  his  corral  on  the  night  of   depositions   or   ex   parte   affidavits,   and  
22  October  1915,  and  by  the  Constabulary   particularly   to   preserve   the   right   of   the  
as  the  one  seen  in  the  possession  of  Javier.   accused   to   test   the   recollection   of   the  
Javier   was   charged   for   stealing   the   witness   in   the   exercise   of   the   right   of  
carabao  before  the  justice  of  the  peace  of   cross-­‐examination."   In   other   words,  
the  municipality  of  Santo  Tomas,  Province   confrontation   is   essential   because   cross-­‐
of   Batangas.   During   trial,   the   sworn   examination  is  essential.  A  second  reason  
statement   of   sergeant   Presca,   now   for   the   prohibition   is   that   a   tribunal   may  
deceased,   was   presented   in   court   by   the   have   before   it   the   deportment   and  
prosecution.   Presca's   signature   in   the   appearance  of  the  witness  while  testifying.  
statement   was   identified.   Javier   alleged   The   sworn   statement   of   Presa   was   not  
that   the   lower   court   erred   in   admitting   made   by   question   and   answer   under  
said  sworn  statement  as  evidence.   circumstances  which  gave  the  defense  an  
  opportunity  to  cross-­‐examine  the  witness.    
ISSUE:   Whether   the   sworn   statement,    
which   was   executed   by   a   person   now   The   proviso   of   the   Code   of   Criminal  
deceased,   is   inadmissible   inasmuch   as   the   Procedure  as  to  confrontation  is  therefore  
accused   is   not   given   the   opportunity   to   inapplicable.   Presa's   statement   again   is  
cross-­‐examine  the  author  thereof.   not   the   testimony   of   a   witness   deceased,  
  given   in   a   former   action   between   the  
HELD:     The   Philippine   Bill   of   Rights   same   relating   to   the   same   matter.  
provides   "That   in   all   criminal   Consequently,   the   exception   provided   by  
prosecutions   the   accused   shall   enjoy   the   section   298,   No.   8,   of   the   Code   of   Civil  
right   to   meet   the   witnesses   face   to   face,"   Procedure   and   relied   upon   by   the  
and  the  provision  of  the  Code  of  Criminal   prosecution   in   the   lower   court   is   also  
Procedure,   section   15   (5),   states   that   "In   inapplicable.   Nor   is   the   statement   of  
all   criminal   prosecutions   the   defendant   Presca  a  dying  declaration  or  a  deposition  
shall   be   entitled:   to   be   confronted   at   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 125

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

in  a  former  trial  or  shown  to  be  a  part  of   examination   —   are   inadmissible   because  
the  preliminary  examination.     they  are  hearsay  [People  v.  Quidato,  G.R.  
  No.  117401,  October  1,  1998;  Cariago  v.  
Under   these   circumstances,   the   sworn   Court   of   Appeals,   G.R.   No.143561,   June   6,  
statement   was   improperly   received   in   2001].  Thus,  in  People  v.  Monje,  G.R.  No.  
evidence  in  the  lower  court.  Still,  although   146689,   September   27,   2002,   the  
the   Court   could   find   this   to   be   reversible   Supreme  Court  said  that  to  administer  by  
error   and,   ordinarily,   should   remand   the   final   judgment   the   dreaded   lethal  
case  for  a  new  trial.  The  Court  however  is   injection   on   the   basis   of   circumstantial  
convinced   that   this   would   gain   the   evidence   consisting   mainly   of   the  
accused   nothing   except   delay   for   the   testimony   of   a   witness   who   failed   and  
testimony  of  the  owner  of  the  carabao  and   refused   to   return   to   court   and   submit   to  
of  the  two  Constabulary  soldiers,  rebutted   cross-­‐examination   four   times   is   judicial  
by   no   reasonable   evidence   on   behalf   of   tyranny   of   the   highest   order.   But   the   right  
the  accused,  is  deemed  sufficient  to  prove   to   cross-­‐examine   witnesses   may   be  
guilt  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.   waived.  
 
  In   People   v.   Lacbanes,   G.R.   No.   88684,  
  March   20,   1997,   it   was   held   that   the  
Q.   What   is   the   purpose   of   the   right   of   failure   to   present   as   witness   the   poseur-­‐
confrontation?   buyer   in   a   prosecution   for   illegal   sale   of  
marijuana,  is  not  fatal  to  the  prosecution’s  
A.  The  right  has  a  two-­‐fold  purpose:   case,   because   what   is   required   is   merely  
proof   of   the   consummation   of   the   sale  
1) primarily,   to   afford   the   accused   transaction,   and   in   this   case,   the   entire  
an   opportunity   to   test   the   transaction   was   witnessed   by   Pfc.   Rosales  
testimony   of   the   witness   by   who   testified   on   the   same.   Distinguish  
cross-­‐examination;  and   this   case   from   People   v.   Tapeda,   244  
2) secondarily   to   allow   the   judge   SCRA  339,  where  the  Supreme  Court  said  
to   observe   the   deportation   of   that   the   failure   of   the   prosecution   to  
the  witness.   present   as   witness   the   poseur-­‐buyer   in   a  
  buy-­‐bust   operation   was   fatal   to   the  
Right   to   cross-­‐examine   complainant   and   prosecution’s   case,   because   without   the  
witnesses.   The   testimony   of   a   witness   testimony   of   the   latter   there   is   no  
who   has   not   submitted   himself   to   convincing  evidence  that  the  accused  was  
crossexamination   is   not   admissible   in   a   marijuana   peddler   and   not   simply   the  
evidence.  The  affidavits  of  witnesses  who   victim  of  instigation.  
are   not   presented   during   the   trial   —   and    
thus,   are   not   subjected   to   cross-­‐

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 126

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Q.   Is   the   right   of   confrontation   absolute?   to  determine  whether  or  not  there  


Why?   is   sufficient   reason   to   issue   a  
warrant   of   arrest.   The   provision  
A.   No,   because   there   is   an   express   commanding   the   determination   of  
exception   which   is   the   admission   of   dying   probable   cause   prior   to   the  
declaration.   This   is   because   the   dying   issuance   of   a   warrant   of   arrest,  
declaration   may   be   the   only   evidence   of   requires   no   notice   to   an   accused.   A  
the   prosecution.   (People   v.   Gueron,   121   preliminary   examination   is  
SCRA  115).   generally   a   proceeding   ex   parte   in  
  which   the   person   charged   has   no  
right   to   participate   or   to   be  
Q.   What   are   the   principal   exceptions   to   the   present.”   Marinas   v.   Siochi,   104  
right  of  confrontation?   SCRA   423,   437   (L-­‐25707   &  
25753-­‐4,  May  14,  1981).  
A.   (1)   the   admissibility   of   “dying  
declarations;”  and    

(2)   trial   in   absentia   under   Section   Q.   Several   accused   were   tried   separately.  
14(2).   May   one   be   convicted   on   the   basis   of   the  
testimony   of   another   who   was   not   cross-­‐
  examined?  Why?  
Q.  Is  the  right  of  confrontation  available  in   A.   No,   because   that   is   violative   of   his   right  
preliminary  investigation?   to  cross-­‐examine  the  witness  against  him.  
(Talino   v.   Sandiganbayan,   148   SCRA  
A.   No.   It   is   a   right   available   during   trial  
598).  
which   begins   only   upon   arraignment.  
Dequito  v.  Arellano,  81  Phil.  128  (1948).    
 
 
TALINO  VS.  SANDIGANBAYAN  [G.R.  NOS.  
NOTE:  “From  Section  5  of  Rule  112  
L-­‐75511-­‐14,  MARCH  16,  1987]  
it   is   clear   that   unlike   in   the  
preliminary   investigagtion   proper,   IF   SEVERAL   CO-­‐ACCUSED   WERE   TRIED  
an   accused   is   not   entitled   as   a   SEPARATELY,   TESTIMONIES   MADE   IN  
matter   of   right   to   be   present   ONE  CASE  CANNOT  BE  CONSIDERED  IN  
during   the   preliminary   THE   OTHERS   UNLESS   THEY   ARE  
examination   nor   to   cross-­‐examine   ACCORDED   THEIR   RIGHT   TO  
the   witnesses   presented   against   CONFRONTATION.   It   is   settled   that   if   a  
him   before   his   arrest,   the   purpose   separate   trial   is   allowed   toone   of   two   or  
of   said   examination   being   merely   more   defendants,   his   testimony   therein  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 127

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

imputing   guilt   to   any   of   theco-­‐accused   is    


not  admissible  against  the  latter  who  was   FACTS:                        
not   able   to   cross-­‐examine   him.   The   issue   It   is   settled   that   if   a   separate   trial   is  
in   this   case   is   whether   or   not   such   allowed  to  one  of  two  or  more  defendants,  
testimony   was   considered   by   the   his   testimony   therein   imputing   guilt   to  
respondent   court   against   the   petitioner,   any   of   the   co-­‐accused   is   not   admissible  
who   claims   that   it   was   in   fact   the   sole   against   the   latter   who   was   not   able   to  
basis  of  his  conviction.   cross-­‐examine  him.  
 
The   right   of   confrontation   is   one   of   the   The  petitioner,  along  with  several  others,  
fundamental   rights   guaranteed   by   the   were   charged   in   four   separate  
Constitution  to  the  person  facing  criminal   informations   with   estafa   through  
prosecution  who  should  know,  in  fairness,   falsification   of   public   documents   for  
who  his  accusers  are  and  must  be  given  a   having  allegedly  conspired  to  defraud  the  
chance   to   cross-­‐examine   them   on   their   government   in   the   total   amount   of  
charges.  No  accusation  is  permitted  to  be   P26,523.00,   representing   the   cost   of  
made   against   his   back   or   in   his   absence   repairs  claimed  to  have  been  undertaken,  
nor   is   any   derogatory   information   but   actually   not   needed   and   never   made,  
accepted   if   it   is   made   anonymously,   as   in   on   four   government   vehicles,   through  
poison   pen   letters   sent   by   persons   who   falsification   of   the   supporting   papers   to  
cannot   stand   by   their   libels   and   must   authorize   the   illegal   payments.   Docketed  
shroud  their  spite  in  secrecy.  That  is  also   as   CC   Nos.   6681,   6682,   6683   and   6684,  
the  reason  why  ex  parte  affidavits  are  not   these   cases   were   tried   jointly   for   all   the  
permitted   unless   the   affiant   is   presented   accused   until   after   the   prosecution   had  
in   court   and   hearsay   is   barred   save   only   rested,   when   Genaro   Basilio,   Alejandro  
in  the  cases  allowed  by  the  Rules  of  Court,   Macadangdang   and   petitioner   Talino  
like  the  dying  declaration.   asked   for   separate   trials,   which   were  
  allowed.   They   then   presented     their  
evidence   at   such   trials,   while   the   other  
Q.  Must  an  informant  who  led  the  police  to   accused   continued   defending   themselves  
the   arrest   of   the   accused   be   presented   for   in   the   original   proceedings,   at   which   one  
cross  examination?   of   them,   Pio   Ulat   gave   damaging  
testimony   against   the   petitioner,   relating  
A.   No.   There   is   no   right   of   confrontation   in   detail   his   participation   in   the  
against  informants  who  are  not  witnesses.   questioned  transactions.    
 
 
In  due  time,  the  Sandiganbayan  rendered  
TALINO   VS   SANDIGANBAYAN   G.R.   Nos.   its   decision   in   all   the   four   cases   finding  
L-­‐75511-­‐14,  March  16,  1987   Talino,   Basilio,   Macadangdang   Ulat   and  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 128

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Renato   Valdez   guilty   beyond   reasonable    


doubt   of   the   crimes   charged   while   The   grant   of   a   separate   trial   rests   in   the  
absolving   the   other   defendants   for   sound  discretion  of  the  court  and  is  not  a  
insufficient  evidence.  This  decision  is  now   matter   of   right   to   the   accused,   especially  
challenged   by   the   petitioner   on   the   where,  as  in  this  case,  it  is  sought  after  the  
ground   that   it   violates   his   right   of   presentation   of   the   evidence   of   the  
confrontation   as   guaranteed   by   the   prosecution.   6   While   it   is   true   that   Rule  
Constitution.   119,  Section  8,  of  the  Rules  of  Court  does  
  not   specify   when   the   motion   for   such   a  
ISSUE:   trial   should   be   filed,   we   have   held   in  
The   issue   in   this   case   is   whether   or   not   several   cases   that   this   should   be   done  
the   testimony   in   a   separate   trial   was   before   the   prosecution   commences  
considered   by   the   respondent   court   presenting   its   evidence,   although,   as   an  
against   the   petitioner,   who   claims   that   it   exception,   the   motion   may   be   granted  
was  in  fact  the  sole  basis  of  his  conviction.   later,   even   after   the   prosecution   shall  
  have  rested,  where  there  appears  to  be  an  
DECISION:   antagonism   in   the   respective   defenses   of  
NO.  It  was  not  considered  in  its  finding  of   the   accused.   7   In   such   an   event,   the  
facts   but   the   court   has   this   to   say   on   the   evidence   in   chief   of   the   prosecution   shall  
issue.   remain  on  record  against  an  accused,  with  
  right  of  rebuttal  on  the  part  of  the  fiscal  in  
In   its   decision,   the   respondent   court   *   the  separate  trial  of  the  other  accused.    
makes   the   following   remarks   about   the    
separate  trial:   The   rule   in   every   case   is   that   the   trial  
  court   should   exercise   the   utmost  
It   would   really   have   been   simpler   had   circumspection   in   granting   a   motion   for  
there   been   no   separate   trial   because   the   separate   trial,   allowing   the   same   only  
accused   Pio   B.   Ulat   said   so   many   after   a   thorough   study   of   the   claimed  
incriminatory   things   against   the   other   justification   therefor,   if   only   to   avoid   the  
accused   when   he   took   the   stand   in   his   serious  difficulties  that  may  arise,  such  as  
own   defense.   But   because   Basilio,   Talino   the  one  encountered  and  regretted  by  the  
and   Macadangdang   were   granted   respondent   court,   in   according   the  
separate   trials   and   they   did   not   cross   accused  the  right  of  confrontation.  
examine  Ulat  because,  as  a  matter  of  fact,    
they  were  not  even  required  to  be  present   The   right   of   confrontation   is   one   of   the  
when   the   other   accused   were   presenting   fundamental   rights   guaranteed   by   the  
their   defenses,   the   latter's   testimonies   Constitution   9   to   the   person   facing  
cannot   now   be   considered   against   said   criminal  prosecution  who  should  know,  in  
three  accused.   fairness,   who   his   accusers   are   and   must  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 129

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

be   given   a   chance   to   cross-­‐examine   them   WHEREFORE,   the   judgment   appealed  


on   their   charges.   No   accusation   is   from  is  AFFIRMED,  with  costs  against  the  
permitted  to  be  made  against  his  back  or   petitioner.  
in   his   absence   nor   is   any   derogatory    
information   accepted   if   it   is   made    
anonymously,   as   in   poison   pen   letters  
sent   by   persons   who   cannot   stand   by    
their  libels  and  must  shroud  their  spite  in    
secrecy.   That   is   also   the   reason   why   ex  
parte   affidavits   are   not   permitted   unless   RIGHT  TO  COMPULSORY  
the   affiant   is   presented   in   court   10   and  
hearsay   is   barred   save   only   in   the   cases   PROCESS  TO  SECURE  THE  
allowed   by   the   Rules   of   Court,   like   the   ATTENDANCE  OF  WITNESSES  
dying  declaration.   AND  THE  PRODUCTION  OF  
 
We   have   carefully   studied   the   decision   EVIDENCE  
under   challenge   and   find   that   the  
 
respondent   court   did   not   consider   the  
testimony   given   by   Ulat   in   convicting   the   Q.  What   is   the   basic   purpose   of   the   right   of  
petitioner.   The   part   of   that   decision   the  accused  to  have  compulsory  process  to  
finding   Talino   guilty   made   no   mention   of   secure   the   attendance   of   the   witnesses   in  
Ulat   at   all   but   confined   itself   to   the   his  behalf?  
petitioner's   own   acts   in   approving   the  
questioned   vouchers   as   proof   of   his   A.   The   purpose   is   to   assure   a   full   and  
complicity   in   the   plot   to   swindle   the   unimpeded   opportunity   for   him   to   meet  
government.     what  in  the  end  could  be  a  baseless  suit  or  
  accusation.  The  due  process  clause  simply  
The   factual   findings   of   the   respondent   requires,   too,   that   before   a   person   may   be  
court   being   supported   by   substantial   deprived   of   his   life,   lipberty   or   property,  
evidence   other   than   Ulat's   testimony,   we   he   must   be   given   the   opportunity   to   be  
see   no   reason   to   disturb   them.   It   is   futile   heard.  
for   the   petitioner   to   invoke   his  
constitutional   presumption   of   innocence    
because   his   guilt   has   in   the   view   of   the   Q.   What   processes   may   be   resorted   to  
trial   court   been   established   beyond   compel   the   attendance   of   a   person   in  
reasonable  doubt,  and  we  agree.   court?  
 
A.   The   different   processes   that   may   be  
resorted   to   compel   attendance   of   parties  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 130

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

in   court   as   well   as   witnesses   are:   2) such   books   must   be  


subpoena,   subpoena   duces   tecum,   reasonably  described  by  
warrant  of  arrest,  contempt,  perpetuation   the  parties  to  be  readily  
of  testimony  and  modes  of  discovery.   identified   (test   of  
definiteness)   [Roco   v.  
  Contreras,   G.R.   No.  
  158275,  June  28,  2005].  
 
 
 
NACHURA:  
ROCO   VS.   CONTRERAS   [G.R.   NO.  
A   subpoena   is   a   process   directed   to   a   158275,  JUNE  28,  2005]  
person   requiring   him   to   attend   and   to  
A   subpoena   is   a   process   directed   to   a  
testify   at   the   hearing   or   trial   of   an   action  
or   at   any   investigation   conducted   under   person   requiring   him   to   attend   and   to  
the   laws   of   the   Philippines,   or   for   the   testify   at   the   hearing   or   trial   of   an   action  
taking   of   his   deposition   [Caamic   v.   or   at   any   investigation   conducted   under  
Galapon,   237   SCRA   390],   In   this   the   laws   of   the   Philippines,   or   for   the  
jurisdiction,   there   are   two   kinds   of   taking  of  his  deposition.  
subpoena,   to   wit:   subpoena   ad   In   this   jurisdiction,   there   are   two   (2)  
testificandum  and  subpoena  duces  tecum.     kinds   of   subpoena,   to   wit:   subpoena   ad  
The   first   is   used   to   compel   a   person   to   testificandum   and   subpoena   duces   tecum.  
testify,  while  the  second  is  used  to  compel   The   first   is   used   to   compel   a   person  
the   production   of   books,   records,   things   totestify,   while   the   second   is   used   to  
or   documents   therein   specified.   Well-­‐   compel   the   production   of   books,   records,  
settled  is  the  rule  that  before  a  subpoena   thingsor   documents   therein   specified.   As  
duces   tecum   may   issue,   the   court   must   characterized   in   H.C.   Liebenow   vs.   The  
first   be   satisfied   that   the   following   Philippine  Vegetable  Oil  Company:  
requisites  are  present:   The   subpoena   duces   tecum   is,   in   all  
1) the   books,   documents,   respects,   like   the   ordinary   subpoena   ad  
or   other   things   testificandum   with   the   exception   that   it  
requested   must   appear   concludes   with   an   injunction   thatthe  
prima   facie   relevant   to   witness  shall  bring  with  him  and  produce  
the   issue   subject   of   the   at   the   examination   the   books,documents,  
controversy   (test   of   or  things  described  in  the  subpoena.  
relevancy);  and   Well-­‐settled   is   the   rule   that   before   a  
subpoena   duces   tecum   may   issue,   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 131

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

court   must   first   be   satisfied   that   the   appear,   by   clear   and   unequivocal  
following  requisites  are  present:   proof,   that   the   book   or   document  
sought   to   be   produced   contains  
1) the   books,   documents   or   other   evidence  relevant  and  material  to  
things   requested   must   appear   the   issue   before   the   court,   and  
prima   facie   relevant   to   the   issue   that   the   precise   book,   paper   or  
subject   of   the   controversy   (test   of   document   containing   such  
relevancy);  and   evidence   has   been   so   designated  
2) such   books   must   be   reasonably   or   described   that   it   may   be  
described   by   the   parties   to   be   identified.”  (Emphasis  supplied)  
readily   identified   (test   of  
definiteness).    
 
Again,  to  quote  from  H.C.  Liebenow:   b)   In   People   v.   Chua,   G.R.   No.  
128280,   April   4,   2001,   the   Court  
“In   determining   whether   the   reiterated   what,   in   US   v.   Ramirez,  
production   of   the   documents   it   declared   as   the   requisites   for  
described   in   a   subpoena   duces   compelling   the   attendance   of  
tecum   should   be   enforced   by   the   witnesses   and   the   production   of  
court,  it  is  proper  to  consider,  first,   evidence,  as  follows:  
whether   the   subpoena   calls   for  
the   production   of   specific   1) the   evidence   is   really  
documents,   or   rather   for   specific   material;  
proof,  and  secondly,  whether  that   2) accused   is   not   guilty   of  
proof   is   prima   facie   sufficiently   neglect   in   previously  
relevant   to   justify   enforcing   its   obtaining   the  
production.   A   general   inquisitorial   production   of   such  
examination   of   all   the   books,   evidence;  
papers,   and   documents   of   an   3) the   evidence   will   be  
adversary,   conducted   with   a   view   available   at   the   time  
to   ascertain   whether   something   of   desired;  and  
value   may   not   show   up,   will   not   be   4) no   similar   evidence   can  
enforced.”  (Emphasis  supplied)   be  obtained.  
 
“Further,   in   Universal   Rubber  
Products,   Inc.   vs.   CA,   et   al.,[9]   we   NOTE:   In   Webb   v.   De   Leon,   G.R.  
held:   Well-­‐settled   is   Our   No.  121234,  August  23,  1995,  the  
jurisprudence   that,   in   order   to   Court   ruled   that,   since   a  
entitle   a   party   to   the   issuance   of   a   preliminary   investigation   can  
'subpoena   duces   tecum,   it   must   result   in   arrest   and   therefore   in   a  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 132

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

deprivation   of   liberty,   the   accused   private   respondent   Cals   Poultry   Supply  


should   not   be   denied   access   to   Corporation  (Cals  Corporation,  for  short),  
evidence  favourable  to  him,  in  this   a   domestic   corporation   controlled   and  
case   an   earlier   version   of   an   managed   by   one   Danilo   Yap.   As   payment  
affidavit  made  by  a  witness  for  the   for   his   purchases,   petitioner   drew   five   (5)  
prosecution.   checks   payable   to   Cals   Corporation  
against   his   account   with   the   Philippine  
  Commercial   and   Industrial   Bank   (PCIB),  
  which   checks   bear   the   following  
particulars:  
 
ROCO   VS.   CONTRERAS   [G.R.   NO.   Check  No.  Date  Amount  
004502  26  April  1993  P329,931.40  
158275,  JUNE  28,  2005]   004503  4  May  1993  P319,314.40  
004507  19  May  1993  P380,560.20  
Assailed  and  sought  to  be  set  aside  in  this   004511  26  May  1993  P258,660.20  
appeal  by  way  of  a  petition  for  review  on   004523  22  May  1993  P141,738.55.  
certiorari   under   Rule   45   of   the   Rules   of  
Court   are   the   following   issuances   of   the   Cals   Corporation   deposited   the   above  
Court  of  Appeals  in  CA-­‐G.R.  SP  No.  66038,   checks   in   its   account   with   PCIB   but   the  
to  wit:   bank   dishonored   them   for   having   been  
drawn   against   a   closed   account.  
1.   Decision   dated   20   August   2002,   Thereafter,   Cals   Corporation   filed  
dismissing   the   appeal   filed   by   herein   criminal  complaints  against  petitioner  for  
petitioner   Domingo   Roco   contra   the   18   violation   of   Batas   Pambasa   Blg.   22   (BP  
October   2000   resolution   of   the   Regional   22),   otherwise   known   as   the   Bouncing  
Trial   Court   (RTC)   at   Roxas   City,   denying   Checks  Law.  
due  course  to  and  dismissing  his  petition  
for  certiorari  in  SP  Case  No.  7489;  and   After   preliminary   investigation,   five   (5)  
informations   for   violation   of   BP   22   were  
2.   Resolution   dated   12   May   2003,   filed   against   petitioner   before   the  
denying   petitioners   motion   for   Municipal   Trial   Court   in   Cities   (MTCC),  
reconsideration.   Roxas   City,   thereat   docketed   as   Crim.  
Cases   No.   94-­‐2172-­‐12   to   94-­‐2176-­‐12,   all  
The  material  facts  are  not  at  all  disputed:   of  which  were  raffled  to  Branch  2  of  said  
court.  
Petitioner   Domingo   Roco   was   engaged   in  
the  business  of  buying  and  selling  dressed   Meanwhile,   and   even   before   trial   could  
chicken.  Sometime  in  1993,  he  purchased   commence,   petitioner   filed   with   the  
his   supply   of   dressed   chicken   from   Bureau  of  Internal  Revenue  (BIR)  at  Iloilo  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 133

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

City   a   denunciation   letter   against   Cals   the   cases   to   it   for   the   reception   of  
Corporation   for   the   latters   alleged   petitioners  evidence.  
violation   of   Section   258   in   relation   to  
Section   263   of   the   National   Internal   On   11   March   1999,   during   the   pendency  
Revenue   Code   in   that   it   failed   to   issue   of   the   remanded   cases,   petitioner   filed  
commercial   invoices   on   its   sales   of   with   the   MTCC   a   Request   for   Issuance   of  
merchandise.   Upon   BIRs   investigation,   it   Subpoena  Ad  Testificandum  and  Subpoena  
was   found   that   Cals   Corporations   sales   on   Duces  Tecum,   requiring   Vivian   Deocampo  
account   were   unavoidable,   hence,   the   or   Danilo   Yap,   both   of   Cals   Corporation   or  
corporation   had   to   defer   the   issuance   of   their   duly   authorized   representatives,   to  
Sales   Invoices   until   the   purchases   of   its   appear   and   testify   in   court   on   19   May  
customers  were  paid  in  full.  With  respect   1999   and   to   bring   with   them   certain  
to   the   sales   invoices   of   petitioner,   the   documents,   records   and   books   of  
investigation   disclosed   that   the   same   accounts  for  the  years  1993-­‐1999,  to  wit:  
could   not,   as   yet,   be   issued   by   the  
corporation   precisely   because   the   checks   a)  Sales  Journal  for  the  year  1993;  
drawn   and   issued   by   him   in   payment   of  
his   purchases   were   dishonored   by   PCIB   b)   Accounts   Receivable   Journal   for   the  
for  the  reason  that  the  checks  were  drawn   year  1993;  
against  a  closed  account.  Accordingly,  the  
BIR   found   no   prima  facia  evidence   of   tax   c)  Sales  Ledger  for  the  year  1993;  
evasion  against  Cals  Corporation.  
d)   Accounts   Receivable   Ledger   for   the  
Thereupon,   trial   of   the   criminal   cases   year   1993   (in   its   absence,   Accounts  
proceeded.   After   the   prosecution   rested,   Receivable   Ledger   for   the   years   1994,  
the   MTCC   declared   the   cases   submitted   1995,  1996,  1997,  1998  or  1999);  
for   decision   on   account   of   petitioners  
failure   to   adduce   evidence   in   his   behalf.   e)   Audited   Income   Statement   for   the  
Later,   the   same   court   rendered   a   years  1993,  1994,  1995,  1996,  1997,  1998  
judgment  of  conviction  against  petitioner.   and   Income   Statements   as   of   February  
1999;  
Therefrom,   petitioner   went   on   appeal   to  
the   Regional   Trial   Court,   contending   that   f)   Audited   Balance   Sheet   for   the   years  
he  was  unlawfully  deprived  of  his  right  to   1993,   1994,   1995,   1996,   1997,   1998   and  
due   process   when   the   MTCC   rendered   Balance  Sheet  as  of  February  1999;  and  
judgment   against   him   without   affording  
him   of   the   right   to   present   his   evidence.   g)  Income  Tax  Returns  for  the  years  1993,  
Agreeing   with   the   petitioner,   the   RTC   1994,  1995,  1996  and  1997.  
vacated   the   MTCC   decision   and   remanded  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 134

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

The   prosecution   did   not   object   to   this   2.   Audited   Balance   Sheet   for  
request.   the   years   1993,   1994,  
1995,   1996,   1997,   1998  
When   the   cases   were   called   on   19   May   and   Balance   Sheet   as   of  
1999,   the   MTCC,   then   presided   by   Acting   February  1999;  and  
Judge   Geomer   C.   Delfin,   issued   an   order  
granting   petitioners   aforementioned   3.  Income  Tax  Returns  for  the  
request   and   accordingly   directed   the   years  1993,  1994,  1995,  
issuance  of  the  desired  subpoenas.     1996  and  1997.  

During   the   trial   of   14   July   1999,   the   b)  the  Sales  Ledger  for  the  year  1993  cannot  
private  prosecutor  manifested  that  it  was   be   produced   because   Cals   Corporation  
did  not  maintain  such  ledger;  and  
improper   for   the   trial   court   to   have  
directed   the   issuance   of   the   requested   c)   the   account   Receivable   Ledger   for   the  
subpoenas,   to   which   the   petitioner   periods   from   1993,   the   Income  
countered   by   saying   that   Judge   Delfins   Statement   for   1993   and   the   Balance  
order   of   19   May   1999   had   become   final   Sheet   as   of   February   1999,   cannot   also  
and   hence,   immutable.   Nonetheless,   the   be   produced   because   Cals   Corporation  
recently   computerized   its   accounting  
trial   court   issued   an   order   allowing   the   records   and   was   still   in   the   process   of  
prosecution   to   file   its   comment   or   completing  the  same.  
opposition   to   petitioners   request   for   the  
issuance  of  subpoenas.   For   its   part,   the   corporation   itself  
maintained   that   the   production   of   the  
The   prosecution   did   file   its   opposition,   above-­‐mentioned   documents   was  
thereunder  arguing  that:   inappropriate   because   they   are  
immaterial   and   irrelevant   to   the   crimes  
a)  Vivian  Deocampo,  who  previously  testified   for   which   the   petitioner   was   being  
for  Lota  Briones-­‐Roco  in  Criminal  Cases  
Nos.   94-­‐2177-­‐12   to   94-­‐2182-­‐12   before  
prosecuted.  
Branch   1   of   the   MTC,   had   earlier  
attested   to   the   fact   that   the   following   In   a   resolution   dated   19   October   1999,  
documents,   records   and   books   of   the   MTCC,   this   time   thru   its   regular  
accounts   for   1993   sought   by   petitioner   Presiding   Judge,   Judge   Edward   B.  
were  already  burned:  
Contreras,   denied   petitioners   request   on  
the   following   grounds:   (a)   the   requested  
1.  Audited  Income  Statement  
documents,   book   ledgers   and   other  
for   the   years   1993,  
records   were   immaterial   in   resolving   the  
1994,  1995,  1996,  1997,  
issues  posed  before  the  court;  and  (b)  the  
1998   and   Income  
issuance   of   the   subpoenas   will   only  
Statement   as   of  
February  1999;  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 135

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

unduly   delay   the   hearing   of   the   criminal   I.  


cases.  
XXX   THE   DENIAL   OF   THE   REQUEST   FOR   THE  
His   motion   for   reconsideration   of   the   ISSUANCE   OF   SUBPOENA   AD   TESTIFICANDUM  
AND  SUBPOENA  DUCES  TECUM  IS  VIOLATIVE  OF  
denial   resolution   having   been   similarly   THE   CONSTITUTIONAL   RIGHT   OF   THE   ACCUSED  
denied   by   Judge   Contreras,   petitioner   AS   ENSHRINED   IN   ART.   III,   SEC.   14   (2)   OF   THE  
then   went   to   the   RTC   on   a   petition   for   CONSTITUTION;  and  
certiorari   with   plea   for   the   issuance   of   a  
writ   of   preliminary   injunction   and/or   II.  
temporary   restraining   order,   imputing  
grave   abuse   of   discretion   on   the   part   of   XXX   THERE   MUST   BE   A   BALANCING   OF  
Judge   Contreras,   which   petition   was   INTEREST   BETWEEN   THE   RIGH   [sic]   OF   AN  
ACCUSED   TO   PROVE   HIS   INNOCENCE   AND   THE  
docketed   in   the   RTC   as   SP   Case   No.   V-­‐ RIGHT   OF   A   COMPLAINANT   TO   THE   SPEEDY  
7489.     DISPOSITION  OF  HIS  CASE.  

In   a   resolution   dated   18   October   2000,   As   we   see   it,   the   pivotal   issue   is   whether  
the   RTC   denied   due   course   to   and   or   not   the   three   (3)   courts   below  
dismissed   the   petition   for   petitioners   committed   reversible   error   in   denying  
failure   to   show   that   Judge   Contreras   petitioners   request   for   the   issuance   of  
committed   grave   abuse   of   discretion   subpoena   ad  testificandum   and   subpoena  
amounting   to   excess   or   lack   of   duces   tecum   in   connection   with   the   five  
jurisdiction.  A  motion  for  reconsideration   (5)   criminal   cases   for   violation   of   BP   22  
was   thereafter   filed   by   petitioner,   but   it,   filed   against   him   and   now   pending   trial  
too,  was  likewise  denied.   before  the  MTCC.  

Undaunted,  petitioner  went  on  appeal  via   We  rule  in  the  negative.  
certiorari   to   the   Court   of   Appeals   in   CA-­‐
G.R.  SP  No.  66038.   A   subpoena   is   a   process   directed   to   a  
person   requiring   him   to   attend   and   to  
As  stated  at  the  outset  hereof,  the  Court  of   testify   at   the   hearing   or   trial   of   an   action  
Appeals,   in   a   decision   dated   20   August   or   at   any   investigation   conducted   under  
2002,dismissed   the   petition   and   the   laws   of   the   Philippines,   or   for   the  
accordingly   affirmed   the   impugned   taking  of  his  deposition.  
resolutions   of   the   RTC.   With   his   motion  
for   reconsideration   having   been   denied   In   this   jurisdiction,   there   are   two   (2)  
by   the   same   court   in   its   resolution   of   12   kinds   of   subpoena,   to   wit:   subpoena   ad  
May   2003   petitioner   is   now   with   us   via   testificandum   and   subpoena   duces   tecum.  
the   present   recourse   on   his   submissions   The   first   is   used   to   compel   a   person   to  
that  -­‐   testify,  while  the  second  is  used  to  compel  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 136

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

the   production   of   books,   records,   things   Well-­‐settled  is  Our  jurisprudence  that,  in  order  to  
or   documents   therein   specified.   As   entitle  a  party  to  the  issuance  of  a  subpoena   duces  
tecum,   it   must   appear,   by   clear   and   unequivocal  
characterized   in   H.C.   Liebenow   vs.   The   proof,   that   the   book   or   document   sought   to   be  
Philippine  Vegetable  Oil  Company:   produced   contains   evidence   relevant   and  
material  to  the  issue  before  the  court,  and  that  
The   subpoena   duces   tecum   is,   in   all   respects,   like   the   precise   book,   paper   or   document  
the   ordinary   subpoena   ad   testificandum   with   the   containing   such   evidence   has   been   so  
exception   that   it   concludes   with   an   injunction   that   designated   or   described   that   it   may   be  
the   witness   shall   bring   with   him   and   produce   at   identified.  (Emphasis  supplied)    
the   examination   the   books,   documents,   or   things  
described  in  the  subpoena.   Going   by   established   precedents,   it   thus  
behooves   the   petitioner   to   first   prove,   to  
Well-­‐settled   is   the   rule   that   before   a   the  satisfaction  of  the  court,  the  relevancy  
subpoena   duces   tecum   may   issue,   the   and   the   definiteness   of   the   books   and  
court   must   first   be   satisfied   that   the   documents  he  seeks  to  be  brought  before  
following   requisites   are   present:   (1)   the   it.  
books,   documents   or   other   things  
requested   must   appear   prima   facie   Admittedly,   the   books   and   documents  
relevant   to   the   issue   subject   of   the   that   petitioner   requested   to   be  
controversy   (test   of   relevancy);   and   (2)   subpoenaed  are  designated  and  described  
such  books  must  be  reasonably  described   in   his   request   with   definiteness   and  
by  the  parties  to  be  readily  identified  (test   readily   identifiable.   The   test   of  
of  definiteness).  Again,  to  quote  from  H.C.   definiteness,   therefore,   is   satisfied   in   this  
Liebenow:   case.    
In   determining   whether   the   production   of   the  
documents   described   in   a   subpoena   duces   tecum  
It   is,   however,   in   the   matter   of   relevancy  
should   be   enforced   by   the   court,   it   is   proper   to   of   those   books   and   documents   to   the  
consider,   first,   whether   the   subpoena   calls   for   pending   criminal   cases   that   petitioner  
the  production  of  specific  documents,  or  rather   miserably  failed  to  discharge  his  burden.  
for   specific   proof,   and   secondly,   whether   that  
proof   is   prima   facie   sufficiently   relevant   to  
justify   enforcing   its   production.   A   general  
In   the   recent   case   of   Aguirre  vs.  People  of  
inquisitorial   examination   of   all   the   books,   papers,   the   Philippines,   the   Court   reiterated   the  
and  documents  of  an  adversary,  conducted  with  a   following  discussions  regarding  violations  
view   to   ascertain   whether   something   of   value   may   of  BP  22:  
not   show   up,   will   not   be   enforced.   (Emphasis  
supplied)  
xxx  what  the  law  punishes  is  the  issuance  
of   a   bouncing   check   not   the   purpose   for  
Further,   in   Universal   Rubber   Products,  
which   it   was   issued   nor   the   terms   and  
Inc.  vs.  CA,  et  al.,  we  held:  
conditions   relating   to   its   issuance.   The  
mere   act   of   issuing   a   worthless   check   is  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 137

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

malum   prohibitum.   (Cruz   vs.   Court   of   Here,   petitioner   would   want   it   appear  
Appeals,   233   SCRA   301).   All   the   elements,   that   the   books   and   documents   subject   of  
therefore,   of   the   violation   of   Batas   his  request  for  subpoena  duces  tecum  are  
Pambansa   Blg.   22   are   all   present   in   the   indispensable,   or,   at   least,   relevant   to  
instant   criminal   cases   and   for   which   the   prove  his  innocence.  The  Court  disagrees.  
accused   is   solely   liable,   to   wit:   [a]   the  
making,  drawing  and  issuance  of  any  check   Based   on   the   records   below   and   as  
to   apply   to   account   or   for   value;   [2]   the   correctly   pointed   out   by   the   Court   of  
knowledge   of   the   maker,   drawer   or   issuer   Appeals,   petitioner   had   been   issued   by  
that   at   the   time   of   issue   he   does   not   have   Cals  Corporation  with  temporary  receipts  
sufficient   funds   in   or   credit   with   the   in   the   form   of   yellow   pad   slips   of   paper  
drawee  bank  for  the  payment  of  such  check   evidencing  his  payments,  which  pad  slips  
in   full   upon   its   presentment;   and   [3]   had   been   validated   by   the   corporation  
subsequent   dishonor   of   the   check   by   the   itself.  Clear  it  is,  then,  that  the  production  
drawee   bank   for   insufficiency   of   funds   or   of   the   books   and   documents   requested   by  
credit  or  dishonor  for  the  same  reason  had   petitioner   are   not   indispensable   to   prove  
not   the   drawer,   without   any   valid   cause,   his   defense   of   payment.   In   the   words   of  
ordered   the   bank   to   stop   payment.   the  appellate  court:  
(Navarro   vs.   Court   of   Appeals,   234   SCRA  
639).   The   Petitioner   admitted,   when   he   testified   in   the  
Regional   Trial   Court,   that   he   had   been   issued  
temporary  receipts  in  the  form  of  yellow  pad  slips  
We   stress   that   the   gravamen   of   the   of   paper,   by   the   Private   Respondent,   for   his  
offense   under   BP   22   is   the   act   of   making   payments  which  were  all  validated  by  the  Private  
or   issuing   a   worthless   check   or   a   check   Respondent   (Exhibits   8   and   F   and   their  
that   is   dishonored   upon   its   presentment   submarkings).   Even   if   the   temporary   receipts  
for   payment.   The   offense   is   already   issued   by   the   Private   Respondent   may   not   have  
been   the   official   receipts   for   Petitioners   payments,  
consummated   from   the   very   moment   a   the   same   are   as   efficacious   and   binding   on   the  
person   issues   a   worthless   check,   albeit   Private   Respondent   as   official   receipts   issued   by  
payment   of   the   value   of   the   check,   either   the  latter.    
by   the   drawer   or   by   the   drawee   bank,  
within   five   (5)   banking   days   from   notice   We  do  not  find  any  justifiable  reason,  and  
of   dishonor   given   to   the   drawer   is   a   petitioner   has   not   shown   any,   why   this  
complete  defense  because  the  prima   facie   Court   must   have   to   disbelieve   the   factual  
presumption   that   the   drawer   had   findings   of   the   appellate   court.   In   short,  
knowledge   of   the   insufficiency   of   his   the   issuance   of   a   subpoena   duces  tecum  or  
funds  or  credit  at  the  time  of  the  issuance   ad  testificandum  to  compel  the  attendance  
of   the   check   and   on   its   presentment   for   of  Vivian  Deocampo  or  Danilo  Yap  of  Cals  
payment   is   thereby   rebutted   by   such   Corporation   or   their   duly   authorized  
payment.   representatives,   to   testify   and   bring   with  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 138

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

them   the   records   and   documents   desired   WHEREFORE,   the   instant   petition   is  
by   the   petitioner,   would   serve   no   purpose   DENIED   and   the   challenged   decision   and  
but   to   further   delay   the   proceedings   in   resolution   of   the   Court   of   Appeals  
the  pending  criminal  cases.   AFFIRMED.  

Besides,  the  irrelevancy  of  such  books  and   Costs  against  petitioner.  
documents   would   appear   on   their   very  
face   thereof,   what   the   fact   that   the   SO  ORDERED.  
requested   Audited   Income   Statements,  
Audited   Balance   Sheets,   Income   Tax    
Returns,   etc.   pertained   to   the   years   1994  
to   1999   which   could   not   have   reflected    
petitioners   alleged   payment   because   the    
subject   transaction   happened   in   1993.  
Again,   we   quote   from   the   assailed    
decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals:  
 
The   checks   subject   of   the   criminal   indictments  
against   the   Petitioner   were   drawn   and   dated   in    
1993.   The   Petitioner   has   not   demonstrated   the  
justification,   for   the   production   of   the    
books/records  for  1994,  and  onwards,  up  to  1999.  
Especially   so,   when   the   Informations   against   the  
Petitioner,  for  violations  of  BP  22,  were  filed,  with  
TRIAL  IN  ABSENTIA  
the  Trial  Court,  as  early  as  1994.  
 
We  are  inclined  to  believe,  along  with  that   Q.   What   are   the   purposes   of   trial   in  
court,   that   petitioner   was   just   embarking   absentia?  
on  a  fishing  expedition  to  derail  the  placid  
flow  of  trial.   A.  The  basic  purpose  of  trial  in  absentia  is  
to   speed   up   the   disposition   of   criminal  
With  the  above,  it  becomes  evident  to  this   cases   considering   that   if   the   accused  
Court   that   petitioners   request   for   the   would   not   always   be   present,   that   would  
production   of   books   and   documents   derail  the  trial  of  the  cases.  
referred   to   in   his   request   are   nakedly  
calculated   to   merely   lengthen   the    
proceedings  in  the  subject  criminal  cases,  
Q.  What  are  the  requisites  of  a  valid  trial  in  
if   not   to   fish   for   evidence.   The   Court  
absentia?  
deeply   deplores   petitioners   tactics   and  
will  never  allow  the  same.    

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 139

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

A.   (1)   the   accused   has   already   been   case   on   trial.   Reason   for   requiring   the  
arraigned;   presence   of   the   accused,   despite   his  
waiver,   is,   if   allowed   to   be   absent   in   all  
(2)  he  has  been  duly  notified  of  the   stages   of   the   proceeding   without   giving  
trial;  and   the  People’s  witnesses  the  opportunity  to  
(3)   his   failure   to   appear   is   identify   him   in   court,   he   may   in   his  
unjustifiable.”   Parada   v.   defense   say   that   he   was   never   identified  
Veneracion,   A.M.   No.   RTJ-­‐96-­‐1353,   as   the   person   charged   in   the   information  
March   11,   1997,   269   SCRA   371,   and,   therefore,   is   entitled   to   acquittal.”  
376   (citing   People   v.   Salas,   143   People   v.   Presiding   Judge,   G.R.   No.   L-­‐
SCRA  163  [1986]).   64731,   October   26,   1983;   Aquino   ,   Jr.   v.  
Military   Commission   No.   2,   L-­‐37364.  
  April  24,  1975.  

Q.   What   is   the   scope   of   the   right   to   be    


present  at  trial?  
Q.   What   are   the   effects   of   the   waiver   of   the  
A.   It   covers   only   the   period   from   right  to  appear  by  the  accused?  
arraignment  to  promulgation  of  sentence.  
US   v.   Beecham,   23   Phil.   259   (1972).   A.  The  effects  are:  
However,   this   has   been   modified   by   (1)  there  is  a  waiver  of  the  right  to  
Section   14(2)   which   says   that   “after   present  evidence;  
arraignment,   trial   may   proceed  
notwithstanding   the   absence   of   the   (2)   the   prosecution   can   present  
accused   provided   that   he   has   been   duly   evidence  if  accused  fails  to  appear;  
notified   and   his   failure   to   appear   is   and  
unjustifiable.”  
(3)   the   court   can   decide   without  
  the  accused’s  evidence.  
Q.   What   are   the   conditions   for   waiver   of    
the  right  to  be  present  at  the  trial?  
Q.   Is   trial   in   absentia   violative   of   the  
A.  The  right  may  be  waived  “provided  that   accused’s  right  to  due  process?  Why?  
after  arraignment  he  may  be  compelled  to  
appear   for   the   purpose   of   identification   A.   No,   because   it   does   not   mean   that   the  
by   the   witness   of   the   prosecution,   or   judgment  will  result  in  conviction.  It  is  not  
provided  he  unqualifiedly  admits  in  open   also  violative  of  the  right  to  be  presumed  
court   after   his   arraignment   that   he   is   the   innocent   because   the   judgment   may   not  
person   named   as   the   defendant   in   the   necessarily   result   in   conviction.   The  
judgment   will   still   be   based   on   the  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 140

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

evidence   presented   as   the   prosecution   is   date/s   of   hearing,   and   his   absence   is  


still   bound   to   prove   the   guilt   of   the   unjustified.   See   Gimenez   v.   Nazareno,  
accused   beyond   reasonable   doubt.   There   160   SCRA   1;   People   v.   Judge   Salas,   143  
is  no  violation  of  the  right  to  due  process   SCRA   163;   Aquino   v.   Military  
because   he   was   given   the   opportunity   to   Commission  No.  2,  63  SCRA  546.  
be   heard.   (Jimenez   v.   Nazareno,   L-­‐37933,  
April  15,  1988).   a)  Waiver  of  appearance  or  trial  in  
absentia   does   not   mean   that   the  
  prosecution  is  thereby  deprived  of  
the  right  to  require  the  presence  of  
Q.   Does   the   provision   on   trial   in   absentia   the   accused   for   purposes   of  
preclude   forfeiture   of   bail   bond   under   the   identification   by   its   witnesses  
Rules  of  Court  for  one  who  jumps  bail?   which   is   vital   for   the   conviction   of  
A.   No,   the   new   provision   “does   not   lend   the   accused   [People   v.   Macaraeg,  
itself   to   a   latitudinarian   construction.”   141   SCRA   37].   Even   after   the  
People   v.   Judge   Prieto,   Jr.,   L-­‐46542,   July   accused   has   waived   further  
21,  1978.  (Prieto’s  argument  was  that  the   appearance   during   the   trial,   he   can  
time   to   forfeit   bail   should   be   after   be   ordered   arrested   by   the   court  
conviction,  not  upon  jumping  bail.)   for   non-­‐appearance   upon  
summons   to   appear   for   purposes  
The  purpose  of  this  rule  is  to  speed  up  the   of   identification   [Carredo   v.  
disposition   of   criminal   cases,   trial   of   People,  183  SCRA  273].  
which   could,   in   the   past,   be   indefinitely  
deferred,   and   many   times   completely   b)   Thus,   the   presence   of   the  
abandoned,   because   of   the   defendant’s   accused  is  mandatory:  
escape  [People  v.  Agbulos,  222  SCRA  196].   1) during   arraignment   and  
Sec.   6,   Rule   120   of   the   Revised   Rules   on   plea;  
Criminal   Procedure   authorizes   the   2) during   trial,   for  
promulgation   of   judgment   in   absentia   in   identification;  and  
view   of   the   failure   of   the   accused   to   3) during   promulgation   of  
appear  despite  notice.  This  is  intended  to   sentence,   unless   for   a  
obviate   the   situation   where   the   judicial   light   offense   wherein  
process   could   be   subverted   by   the   the  accused  may  appear  
accused   jumping   bail   to   frustrate   the   by   counsel   or   a  
promulgation   of   judgment   [People   v.   representative.    
Court   of   Appeals,   G.R.   No.   140285,    
September   27,   2006].   Trial   in   absentia   is   c)   An   accused   who   escapes   from  
mandatory   upon   the   court   whenever   the   confinement,  or  jumps  bail,  or  flees  
accused   has   been   arraigned,   notified   of   to   a   foreign   country,   loses   his  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 141

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

standing   in   court,   and   unless   he   until  he  submits  himself  to  its  jurisdiction  
surrenders   or   submits   himself   to   or  is  arrested.  
the   jurisdiction   of   the   court,   he   is  
deemed  to  have  waived  his  right  to   In   Gimenez   vs.   Nazareno,   this   Court   had  
seek   relief   from   the   court,   occasion   to   rule   on   a   similar   case   in   this  
including   the   right   to   appeal   his   wise  —   "First   of   all,   it   is   not   disputed   that  
conviction   [People   v.   Mapalao,   the   lower   court   acquired   jurisdiction   over  
197  SCRA  79],  One  who  jumps  bail   the   person   of   the   accused-­‐private  
can  never  offer  a  justifiable  reason   respondent  when  he  appeared  during  the  
for   his   non-­‐appearance   during   the   arraignment   on   August   22,   1973   and  
trial.   Accordingly,   after   the   trial   in   pleaded   not   guilty   to   the   crime   charged.  
absentia,   the   court   can   render   In   criminal   cases,   jurisdiction   over   the  
judgment   in   the   case   and   person   of   the   accused   is   acquired   either  
promulgation   can   be   made   by   by   his   arrest   or   voluntary   appearance   in  
simply   recording   the   judgment   in   court.   Such   voluntary   appearance   is  
the   criminal   docket   with   a   copy   accomplished   by   appearing   for  
thereof   served   upon   his   counsel,   arraignment   as   what   accused-­‐private  
provided   that   the   notice   requiring   respondent  did  in  this  case.  
him   to   be   present   at   the   But   the   question   is   this   —   was   that  
promulgation   of   judgment   is   jurisdiction   lost   when   the   accused  
served   through   his   bondsmen   or   escaped   from   the   custody   of   the   law   and  
warden   and   counsel   [People   v.   failed   to   appear   during   the   trial?   We  
Acabal,   G.R:   No.   103604-­‐05,   answer   this   question   in   the   negative.   As  
September  23,  1993].   We   have   consistently   ruled   in   several  
  earlier   cases,   jurisdiction   once   acquired   is  
not   lost   upon   the   instance   of   parties   but  
PEOPLE  VS.  MAPALAO  [G.R.  NO.  92415,   continues  until  the  case  is  terminated.  
MAY  14,  1991]  
To   capsulize   the   foregoing   discussion,  
AN   ACCUSED   WHO   IS   TRIED   IN   suffice   it   to   say   that   where   the   accused  
ABSENTIA   WAIVES   HIS   RIGHT   TO   appears   at   the   arraignment   and   pleads  
PRESENT   EVIDENCE   AS   WELL   AS   HIS   not   guilty   to   the   crime   charged,  
RIGHTS   TO   BAIL   AND   APPEAL.   By   the   jurisdiction   is   acquired   by   the   court   over  
same   token,   an   accused   who,   after   the   his   person   and   this   continues   until   the  
filing  of  an  information,  is  at  large  and  has   termination   of   the   case,   notwithstanding  
not   been   apprehended   or   otherwise   has   his  escape  from  the  custody  of  the  law.  
not   submitted   himself   to   the   jurisdiction  
of   the   court,   cannot   apply   for   bail   or   be   Going   to   the   second   part   of   Section   19,  
granted   any   other   relief   by   the   courts   Article   IV   of   the   1973   Constitution  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 142

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

aforecited  a  'trial  in  absentia'  may  be  had   Upon  the  termination  of  a  trial  in  absentia,  
when   the   following   requisites   are   the   court   has   the   duty   to   rule   upon   the  
present:   evidence   presented   in   court.   The   court  
need   not   wait   for   the   time   until   the  
(1)   that   there   has   been   an   accused  who  escaped  from  custody  finally  
arraignment;   decides   to   appear   in   court   to   present   his  
(2)   that   the   accused   has   been   evidence   and   cross-­‐examine   the  
notified;  and   witnesses  against  him.  To  allow  the  delay  
of   proceedings   for   this   purpose   is   to  
(3)   that   he   fails   to   appear   and   his   render   ineffective   the   constitutional  
failure  to  do  so  is  unjustified.   provision   on   trial   in   absentia.   As   it   has  
been  aptly  explained:  
In  this  case,  all  the  above  conditions  were  
attendant   calling   for   a   trial   in   absentia.   As   '.   .   .   The   Constitutional  
the   facts   show,   the   private   respondent   Convention   felt   the   need   for   such   a  
was  arraigned  on  August  22,  1973  and  in   provision   as   there   were   quite   a  
the   said   arraignment   he   pleaded   not   number   of   reported   instances  
guilty.   He   was   also   informed   of   the   where   the   proceedings   against   a  
scheduled   hearings   set   on   September   18   defendant   had   to   be   stayed  
and  19,  1973  and  this  is  evidenced  by  his   indefinitely   because   of   his   non-­‐
signature   on   the   notice   issued   by   the   appearance.  What  the  Constitution  
lower   court.   It   was   also   proved   by   a   guarantees   him   is   a   fair   trial,   not  
certified   copy   of   the   Police   Blotter   that   continued   enjoyment   of   his  
private   respondent   escaped   from   his   freedom   even   if   his   guilt   could   be  
detention   center.   No   explanation   for   his   proved.   With   the   categorical  
failure   to   appear   in   court   in   any   of   the   statement   in   the   fundamental   law  
scheduled   hearings   was   given.   Even   the   that   his   absence   cannot   justify   a  
trial   court   considered   his   absence   delay   provided   that   he   has   been  
unjustified.   duly   notified   and   his   failure   to  
appear   is   unjustified,   such   an  
The   lower   court   in   accordance   with   the   abuse   could   be   remedied.   That   is  
aforestated   provisions   of   the   1973   the   way   it   should   be,   for   both  
Constitution,   correctly   proceeded   with   society   and   the   offended   party  
the   reception   of   the   evidence   of   the   have   a   legitimate   interest   in   seeing  
prosecution   and   the   other   accused   in   the   to   it   that   crime   should   not   go  
absence   of   private   respondent,   but   it   unpunished.'  
erred  when  it  suspended  the  proceedings  
as   to   the   private   respondent   and   The   contention   of   the   respondent   judge  
rendered   a   decision   as   to   the   other   that   the   right   of   the   accused   to   be  
accused  only.   presumed   innocent   will   be   violated   if   a  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 143

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

judgment   is   rendered   as   to   him   is   trial   and   escapes,   he   shall   be  


untenable.   He   is   still   presumed   innocent.   deemed  to  have  waived  his  right  to  
A   judgment   of   conviction   must   still   be   be   present   on   said   date   and   on   all  
based   upon   the   evidence   presented   in   subsequent   trial   dates   until  
court.   Such   evidence   must   prove   him   custody  is  regained  .  .  .'  
guilty   beyond   reasonable   doubt.   Also,  
there   can   be   no   violation   of   due   process   Accordingly,  it  is  Our  considered  opinion,  
since   the   accused   was   given   the   and  We  so  hold,  that  an  escapee  who  has  
opportunity  to  be  heard.   been   duly   tried   in   absentia   waives   his  
right   to   present   evidence   on   his   own  
Nor  can  it  be  said  that  an  escapee  who  has   behalf  and  to  confront  and  cross-­‐examine  
been   tried   in   absentia   retains   his   rights   to   witnesses  who  testified  against  him."  
cross-­‐examine  and  to  present  evidence  on  
his  behalf.  By  his  failure  to  appear  during   d)   Under   Sec.   6,   Rule   120   of   the  
the   trial   of   which   he   had   notice,   he   Rules   of   Court,   an   accused   who  
virtually   waived   these   rights.   This   Court   failed   to   appear   at   the  
has  consistently  held  that  the  right  of  the   promulgation   of   the   judgment   of  
accused   to   confrontation   and   cross-­‐ conviction   shall   lose   the   remedies  
examination   of   witnesses   is   a   personal   available  against  the  judgment  and  
right  and  may  be  waived.  In  the  same  vein,   the   court   shall   order   his   arrest.  
his  right  to  present  evidence  on  his  behalf,   The   accused   on   bail   who   fails   to  
a   right   given   to   him   for   his   own   benefit   present   himself   during  
and  protection,  may  be  waived  by  him.   promulgation   of   judgment   loses  
his   standing   in   court.   Without   any  
Finally,   at   this   point,   We   note   that   Our   standing   in   court,   the   accused  
pronouncement   in   this   case   is   buttressed   cannot   invoke   its   jurisdiction   to  
by   the   provisions   of   the   1985   Rules   on   seek   relief.   Sec.   6,   Rule   120   does  
Criminal   Procedure,   particularly   Section   not  take  away  substantive  rights;  it  
1(c)   of   Rule   115   which   clearly   reflects   the   merely   provides   the   manner  
intention   of   the   framers   of   our   through   which   an   existing   right  
Constitution,  to  wit:   may   be   implemented.   Like   an  
appeal,   a   motion   for  
'.   .   .   The   absence   of   the   reconsideration   is   a   statutory  
accused   without   any   justifiable   grant   or   privilege.   As   a   statutory  
cause   at   the   trial   on   a   particular   right,   the   filing   of   a   motion   for  
date   of   which   he   had   notice   shall   reconsideration   is   to   be   exercised  
be  considered  a  waiver  of  his  right   in  the  manner  provided  by  law;  the  
to   be   present   during   that   trial.   party   filing   such   a   motion   must  
When   an   accused   under   custody   strictly   comply   with   the   requisites  
had  been  notified  of  the  date  of  the   laid  down  by  the  Rules.  [Reynaldo  

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 144

 
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Jaylo   v.   Sandiganbayan,   G.R.   No.  


183152,  January  21,  2015]  
 

PEOPLE   VS.   VALERIANO   [G.R.   NOS.  


103604-­‐05,  SEPTEMBER  23,  1993]  

A   JUDGMENT   OF   CONVICTION   MAY   BE  


PROMULGATED   AFTER   THE   ACCUSED  
HAS  BEEN  TRIED  IN  ABSENTIA.  The  trial  
court   further   erred   in   holding   that   no  
penalty   could   be   imposed   on   accused  
Engracio   Valeriano   in   Criminal   Case   No.  
4584   because   he   "is   nowhere   to   be   found,  
hence,  not  brought  to  the  bar  of  justice,  he  
being   a   fugitive   or   at   large."   The   court  
ignored  the  fact  that  Engracio  jumped  bail  
after   he   had   been   arraigned,   just   before  
the   retaking   of   evidence   commenced.  
Paragraph(2),   Section   14,   Article   III   of   the  
Constitution  permits  trial  in  absentia  after  
the   accused   has   been   arraigned   provided  
he   has   been   duly   notified   of   the   trial   and  
his  failure  to  appear  thereat  is  unjustified.  
One   who   jumps   bail   can   never   offer   a  
justifiable   reason   for   his   non-­‐appearance  
during   the   trial.   Accordingly,   after   the  
trial   in   absentia,   the   court   can   render  
judgment   in   the   case   and   promulgation  
may   be   made   by   simply   recording   the  
judgment   in   the   criminal   docket   with   a  
copy   thereof   served   upon   his   counsel,  
provided  that  the  notice  requiring  him  to  
be   present   at   the   promulgation   is   served  
through   his   bondsmen   or   warden   and  
counsel.  
 
 

MILK TEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM


"If  Plan  A  didn’t  work,  the  alphabet  has  25  more  letters,  Chill  ka  lang!."  
 
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DIOKNO , ANNE LORRAINE | REYES, LOUIS | CAPCO, REINIER | SALUD, VANIA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA

Page | 145

S-ar putea să vă placă și