Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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,
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
Page | 5
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 6
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 7
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
Page | 9
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 10
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 11
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 12
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 13
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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.
Page | 15
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 16
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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,
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
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
Page | 20
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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
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
Page | 24
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 25
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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
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
Page | 28
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 29
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 30
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Example:
Page | 31
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 32
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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:
Page | 34
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 35
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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.
Page | 38
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 39
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 40
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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
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
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
Page | 45
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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.
Page | 46
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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.
Page | 48
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
Page | 50
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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.
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;
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
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.
Page | 55
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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
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
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,
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,
Page | 61
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
Page | 62
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 63
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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.
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.
Page | 67
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 68
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
Page | 70
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 71
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 72
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
Page | 74
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
Page | 89
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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?
Page | 92
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
Page | 94
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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,
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
Page | 97
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
Page | 99
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Page | 107
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
Page | 109
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
Page | 122
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
RIGHT
TO
MEET
WITNESSES
FACE
TO
FACE
(RIGHT
OF
CONFRONTATION)
Page | 123
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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-‐
Page | 126
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(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
Page | 127
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 128
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 129
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 130
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
Page | 132
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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;
Page | 135
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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
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
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.
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.
Page | 140
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
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
Page | 143
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 144
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 145