Sec 12 & 13 digest.docx

7/30/2019 Sec 12 & 13 digest.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sec-12-13-digestdocx 1/10

BILL OF RIGHTS

SECTION 12

Section 12. (1) ” Any person under investigation for the commission of an

offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain

silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably

of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of

counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be

waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.”

(2) “ No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other

means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret

detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms

of detention are prohibited.”

(3) “Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or

Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.”

(4) “The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for

violations of this section as well as compensation to the

rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their

families.”

Rights under Custodial Investigation

MIRANDA vs. ARIZONA – “The Miranda Rights” In this case, the US Supreme Court

examined and discussed the common practice of ominously securing extra-

judicial and incriminating confessions from persons under custodial

investigation. The accused was placed in a secluded room w/ no access to theoutside, in an obviously police-dominated atmosphere. Interrogators are

often directed to use trickery or threat to extract confessions. The persons

are misinformed that their refusal to talk may suggest guilt. The person is

deprived of any outside support; his will is undermined and he is led into

affirming a preconceived story concocted by the police. Many people

succumb to this tactic and render self-incriminating statements. The USSupreme Court laid down the following rules to be observed duringcustodial investigation:

1. The person must be informed of his right to remain silent

2. That any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him

3. That he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained

or appointed

4. Any waiver should be made voluntarily and knowingly

Evidence obtained in violation thereof is inadmissible. The said rules intend

to protect the person against self-incrimination and to keep the arresting

officers from taking short-cuts to secure convictions. The rules intend to

preserve the public’s faith in the justice system.

MAGTOTO vs. MANGUERA – “prospective effect” Two persons under custodial

investigation were not informed of their right to remain silent and to

counsel; extra judicial admissions were obtained therefrom. The said

investigation took place before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution where

no such right had yet existed. The Constitutional provisions on the right toremain silent and to counsel, as well as the right to be informed of such, areto be applied prospectively. Since the confessions were obtained before the

effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, then the admissions are still admissible

as evidence, even if they were presented thereafter. Had the admissions

been obtained after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, they would have

been inadmissible.

PEOPLE vs. MAHINAY – “Updated set of rights” The following rules must be

complied with while the accused is under custodial investigation, he must be

informed of:

1. The reason for his arrest and must be shown the warrant

2. His right to remain silent

3. His right to counsel, preferably of his own choice

4. That if he has no lawyer, one will be provided for him

5. That no custodial investigation can be conducted except in the

presence of counsel

6. That at any time he is allowed to confer w/ his lawyer, immediate

family, priest, etc.

7. That he may waive the said rights knowingly and intelligently

8. That should he waive such right, it must be made in writing and in

the presence of counsel

9. That he may refuse, at any stage of the process, to answer

interrogations

10. That any previous waiver of such rights is not a bar to invoking them

again

11. That any evidence obtained in violation of such rules is inadmissible

against him

7/30/2019 Sec 12 & 13 digest.docx


PEOPLE vs. TAYLARAN – “the granny killer / voluntary surrender / no custodial

investigation yet” Taylaran surrendered to the police and admitted to Pat.

Basilad that he killed a certain Ofremia Atup (an old woman) because of her

alleged vow to kill him through witchcraft. The confession was made even

before the police investigation could be initiated. He now questions the

admissibility of the said confession for not having complied w/ the

constitutionally mandated procedure. The statement was not made while

under custodial investigation; hence the statement is admissible and

Section 12 does not yet operate. The constitutional safeguards thus cannotyet be invoked. He voluntarily admitted the killing for the exact purpose of

surrendering to the police.

PEOPLE v. MARCOSAccused was charged with the crime of kidnapping. He now questions the

admissibility of the sworn statement he rendered before the NBI.

Held:

The sworn statement is valid. When he gave the same before the NBI, he was not

then under police custody. He was merely invited for questioning so he can shed

light on the kidnapping. He was even allowed to go home after the investigation.

PEOPLE vs. JUDGE AYSON – “statement during administrative proceedings” Felipe

Ramos was a PAL ticket freight clerk. He was investigated for irregularities in

the sale of plane tickets. He executed a handwritten statement during theinvestigation saying that he is willing to settle the irregularities charged

against him. It was not executed in the presence of or w/ the assistance of a

lawyer, nor was he informed of his right to remain silent. He was then

charged for estafa. He assails the validity of the statements he made during

the administrative investigation for violating his right against self-

incrimination and his Miranda Rights. While the right against self-

incrimination may be invoked during civil, administrative, or criminalproceedings, the Miranda Rights apply only to persons under custodialinvestigation for the commission of offenses. The person must be taken into

custody or must otherwise be deprived of liberty in a significant way. Theabovementioned statement was not made under custodial investigation;

thus is not protected by the Miranda Doctrine. Ramos even voluntarily

answered the said questions during the administrative investigation.

There is a different set of rights for persons once the case is filed in court,

such as follows:

1. Right to refuse to testify

2. Right not to be prejudiced as a result of his refusal

3. Right to testify in his own behalf subject to cross examination

4.

Once he testified, the right against self-incrimination for other offenses than those for w/c he is being prosecuted

DD: The rights under prosecution are discussed extensively under Section 14.

PEOPLE vs. MARRA – “spontaneous statement / admissible” Sgt. De Vera reported

to crime scene to conduct an investigation and was informed that a man

wearing a security guard’s uniform perpetrated the incident. He was directed

to Marra who was eating in a nearby carinderia. Marra informed him that his

gun was at his house. They proceeded to the house. De Vera asked Marra

why he killed Tandoc, but the later initially denied. Eventually though, he

admitted the same and claimed self-defense. He was not assisted by counsel

nor was he informed of his Miranda Rights. The admissibility of the admission

was thus questioned in this case.

Marra was not under custodial investigation when he made the statement;thus they are admissible in evidence even if Marra has not been informedof his rights. He was never subjected to any form of restraint. Marra could

have validly refused to answer the questions from the very start, instead he

the statement spontaneously; De Vera was merely probing the possibilities.

DD: Take note that Marra was not deprived of liberty and he made the

confession spontaneously.

7/30/2019 Sec 12 & 13 digest.docx


PEOPLE vs. MAQUEDA – “Miranda Rights / any time prior to arraignment /

admission vs. confession” Maqueda was prosecuted for the commission of

an offense; evidence adduced against him included (1) a “Sinumpaang

Salaysay” as well as (2) extra-judicial admissions made by Maqueda toProsecutor Zarate for the purpose of negotiating his privileges as a possible

state witness. The Sinumpaang Salaysay was not made in the presence of

counsel and was executed after Maqueda has been arrested and prior to

arraignment .

As opposed to the ruling in People vs. Judge Ayson, the Miranda Rights covernot only custodial investigations, but also apply to persons not in custodyat any time prior to arraignment. Thus the Sinumpaang Salaysay, executedprior to arraignment, is inadmissible as evidence for not having beenexecuted w/ assistance from counsel. The Sinumpaang Salaysay, however,

was merely an extra-judicial admission, NOT an extra-judicial confession. Anadmission pertains only to pertinent facts, while a confession is adeclaration by the accused of his own guilt.

The admissions before the prosecutor, however, are admissible. They were

made freely and voluntarily and not during the course of an investigation butmerely for the purpose negotiating immunity as a state witness. They are not

covered by the exclusionary rule under the Bill of Rights.

PEOPLE vs. BALISTEROS – “Miranda Rights are personal ” Galvante executed a

sworn statement under pressure categorically admitting guilt w/o the

assistance of counsel and in the presence of the opposing counsel , the

brothers of the deceased (whom he allegedly killed), and a stranger. The

appellants (not Galvante, but other accuseds) assail the validity of Galvante’s

confession as having been made in violation of the Miranda Rights. Theobjection can only be raised by the confessant or the person whose rightshave been violated, and not by other persons. The r ight is a personal right.

DD: Simply put, an extra-judicial admission or confession made by the

confessant in violation of the Miranda Rights is inadmissible as evidence

against him (confessant), but is admissible against other persons.

GAMBOA vs. JUDGE CRUZ – “police line-up / vagrancy / no interrogation” Gamboa

was arrested and detained w/o warrant for vagrancy. He was “lined up” w/ 5

detainees and the complainant pointed to him saying “that one’s a

companion.” He was then made to sit down in front of the complainant while

the latter was being interrogated. The “line-up” was made w/o the presence

of counsel; thus its validity is being assailed. The right to counsel attaches

upon the start of investigation, when the officers start to interrogate andelicit information or confessions from the accused. The police line-up is not

a part of the custodial inquest, hence no right to counsel yet attaches.Gamboa did not have to give any statement to the police nor was he

interrogated. It was actually the complainant who was being interrogated by

the police. However, the moment that there is even a slight move to elicitinformation, then the accused should then be assisted by counsel.

PEOPLE vs. LOVERIA – “police line-up / hold-up men / no custodial investigation”

Upon learning that certain hold-up men were being detained, Manzanero

proceeded to the detention facility and identified to Pat. Bill Ayun theperpetrator Loveria during a police line-up. He made a sworn statement to

that effect w/c was presented in court. Loveria was not entitled to counselyet when he was in the process of being identified, because at that time hewas not being interrogated. The Miranda Rights may only be invoked by a

person under custodial investigation, w/c Loveria was not.

PEOPLE vs. HATTON – “line-up / may be part of custodial investigation / but not inthis case…” Hatton was subjected to a police line-up and invokes US vs.

Wade in asserting that his Miranda Rights, particularly to counsel, were

violated. In the case of US vs. Wade, a lawyer was present during the police

line-up to be identified by the prosecution witness. In the Wade Case, evenif he was subjected to a police line-up, such line-up was already part of thecustodial investigation because Wade was also being interrogated; thus hisright to counsel accrued. It was conducted already 15 days after his arrest.In this case, Hatton was only brought for the purpose of identification by a

witness for the killing of Algarme; hence he was not yet under custodial

investigation.

PEOPLE vs. FRAGO – “line-up / exception inapplicable / no peculiar circumstanceshere” Orlando Frago was identified by a certain Jicelyn during a police line-up

composing of 10 men; most of them were mustachioed. He invokes People

vs. Hassan asserting that he ought to have been assisted by counsel during

the police line-up. In the Hassan Case, there was a peculiar factual milieu.

Hassan was the only person brought for identification, w/c was held in the

funeral parlor, amidst the grieving relatives of the victim. It is as tainted as an

uncounselled confession. As a result, what purported to be a mereidentification was actually a confrontation; hence Hassan had the right tocounsel. No such facts are attendant in this case.

In short, the Hassan Case was attended by exceptional and anomalouscircumstances. In this case, there was nothing to show that during the police

line-up, the police sought to extract any information from Frago; hence his

right to counsel had yet to accrue.

7/30/2019 Sec 12 & 13 digest.docx


DD: From the foregoing we deduce the general rule that police lineups are

not part of custodial investigation because the accused is not asked

questions. He just has to be identified. But from the moment he is

interrogated or asked questions pertaining to the crime, the right to counsel

attaches.

PEOPLE vs. GAMBOA – “paraffin test / not testimonial compulsion / no right tocounsel” Gamboa was subjected to a paraffin test to determine if he indeed

had fired a gun. The results turned out positive. He asserts that he shouldhave been assisted by counsel and that it amounts to self-incrimination. Therights against self-incrimination as well as the right to counsel extend onlyto testimonial compulsion, and not when the body of the accused isexamined.

PEOPLE vs. LINSANGAN – “marked money / not basis for liability / no self -incrimination” Linsangan initialed the P 10.00 bills found tucked in his waist

w/o the presence of counsel. He acquired the marked money for the sale of

marijuana during a buy-bust operation. His possession of the marked billsdid not constitute the crime; what constituted the crime was his act of

selling marijuana. Thus his right against self-incrimination was not violatedby his possession of the marked bills. Law enforcers are presumed to have

performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of convincing

evidence to the contrary.

PEOPLE vs. DE LAS MARIÑAS – “Receipt signed by accused / r ight to remain silent”

De Las Mariñas and Torres were made to sign a Receipt for Property Seized,

acknowledging that they are the owners of the things seized in connection

w/ the commission of a felony. It was a clear violation of the right to remainsilent because it had the effect of an extrajudicial confession of thecommission of the offense – albeit not verbally expressed. They practically

admitted possessing certain articles in connection w/ an offense. It should be

the police who should have signed the receipts, not the accused. It was

merely a clever ploy to incriminate the suspects.

PEOPLE vs. ENRIQUE – “signed name in marijuana sticks/ tantamount to

admission” During investigation, Enrique was made to sign his name on

rolled marijuana cigarettes w/o the assistance of counsel. The arresting

officers did not even inform him of his Miranda Rights. In effect, the act wasobviously tantamount to an admission in clear violation of the Constitution.

PEOPLE vs. BANDIN – “Booking Sheet / mere record / not basis for conviction”

Bandin was arrested for possession of drugs. He signed the Booking Sheet

and Arrest Report at the Station. He also signed the Receipt of PropertySeized w/o the assistance of counsel. The Booking Sheet is merely a

statement of the accused’s being booked as well as the date of his arrest. It

cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be the basis for a judgment of conviction.

The accused’s signature on the Receipt (seizure of drugs) was tantamount to

an admission because mere possession of drugs is a crime in itself. It was an

extra-judicial and uncounselled admission made in clear violation of the Bill

of Rights.

ESTACIO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN – “waiver of rights / last minute arrival of lawyer /

ratified” While Estacio was under investigation, he was briefed by the

investigator of his rights under custodial investigation. When asked if he

wished to waive the said rights, he agreed and signed a waiver. He then

proceeded to make certain extra-judicial statements. Then, his lawyer, at the

last minute, arrived, read the waiver, and confirmed w/ Estacio whether

indeed he sought to waive his rights. Estacio confirmed the waiver. While theaccused was validly informed of his rights, the waiver was initially invalidfor having been made w/o the presence of counsel. However, when hiscounsel arrived at the last minute and Estacio signed the waiver in his

presence, the defect was cured. The statements were thus held admissibleas evidence.

DD: This ruling no longer holds under the present state of law. Counsel must

be present at every stage of the investigation, not only during the closing

stages as will be illustrated by the next cases.

PEOPLE vs. DE JESUS – “reduced to writing w/ counsel / right accrues at start of investigation” Tupaz and De Jesus were turned over to the investigating

officer by the CID for investigation. They were interrogated w/o the presence

of counsel for a certain robbery hold-up w/ homicide. The facts and

statements were reduced in writing and signed in the presence of a CLAO

lawyer, Atty. Saldivar. The right to counsel attaches from the START of thecustodial investigation, when the investigating officer starts to askquestions to elicit information or confessions from the accused. Thus, there

was a clear violation of the accused’s right to counsel in this case and the

evidence obtained therefrom is inadmissible. The Constitutional requirement

was not sufficiently satisfied.

DD: This is the more accurate rule as opposed to the Estacio Case provided

above.

PEOPLE vs. BOLANOS – “confession on board police jeep / already custodial

investigation” While Bolanos and Magtibay were boarded in the police jeep,and on their way to the station, Bolanos confessed killing the victim. This was

7/30/2019 Sec 12 & 13 digest.docx


the only evidence relied upon to convict him. As Bolanos was already onboard the police jeep, he was already under custodial investigation andshould have been informed of his Miranda Rights already. Given that the

extra-judicial confession is inadmissible, the accused must be acquitted.

DD: From the moment the accused is in any way significantly deprived of

liberty, he cannot be asked questions unless he is assisted by counsel and was

well informed of his rights. Otherwise, any confession or admission made by

him is inadmissible.

PEOPLE vs. LUCERO – “left by lawyer during interrogation / denial of right to

competent counsel” While Lucero was under custodial investigation, he was

provided w/ a lawyer from the CIS Legal Department (Atty. Peralta). Peralta

explained all his rights under custodial investigation and stated that even had

he made certain statements therein, he could still refuse to sign the same.

Atty. Peralta gathered the impression that Lucero understood. When the

investigation started, Atty. Peralta then left to attend the wake of his friend

and gave word that should he be needed, he could be reached at his

residence. The next day, Lucero, accompanied by CIS agents arrived at

Peralta’s residence carrying a signed statement by Lucero. Peralta explainedthe implications of such statements but Lucero nevertheless consented

thereto. Later, Lucero claimed that he signed the statement under duress

and in the absence of his lawyer.

When the Constitution requires the right to counsel, it means effective andvigilant counsel. Peralta left the accused during the most crucial point of the investigation. The result was an uncounselled confession. The right to

counsel attaches from the start of the investigation. In this case, Lucero was

practically denied his right to competent legal counsel.

PEOPLE vs. PAJORINOG – “choice of lawyer / acquiescence” Pajorinog, who was

arrested for triple murder, claims that the lawyer assigned to him, Atty.

Fuentes, was not of his choice and was only forced upon him. The evidence

however reveals that Atty. Fuentes was nevertheless w/ him throughout the

investigation; he complained regarding the matter only during trial. Whilethe initial choice of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators,the accused has the final choice and may reject the same and ask for a newlawyer. However, in this case, all throughout the proceedings, the accusednever voiced any objection as to the choice of his counsel. He thusacquiesced to the choice of the investigators and raised the matter onlyduring trial, which was too late.

DD: From the foregoing, it is clear that while generally the choice of counsel devolves upon the accused, the investigators may provide him w/ counsel if

he consents thereto. If he distrusts the counsel appointed, he has the right to

refuse and may request counsel of his own choosing. However, if he

acquiesces or does not object to the counsel appointed, and the latter

performs his duties properly, the accused cannot, all of a sudden, aver that

his right to choice of counsel was violated. Definitely, the matter cannot be

raised only during trial.

PEOPLE vs. PAMON – “lawyer appointed by investigator / conformity of confessor

/ valid confession” Pamon asserts that Atty. Ligorio was not his choice of counsel and that he was merely forced to sign a paper w/c turned out to be a

letter to Atty. Ligorio. Atty. Ligorio, however, was present during the time

when Pamon’s confession was made and sworn to and has participated

nonetheless during the investigation. If the counsel is appointed by theinvestigators, generally, admissions made before said counsel areinadmissible unless the appointment was made w/ the conformity of the

confessor. The rule is otherwise if the accused acquiesced to the choice of

counsel. Pamon never signified that he had a lawyer of choice, hence he was

merely provided w/ one and he clearly acquiesced thereto.

PEOPLE vs. BAELLO – “failure to ask for new counsel” While Baello was undercustodial investigation, he stated that he could not afford the services of a

lawyer; hence he was provided w/ one in Atty. Generoso. No objection was

voiced by Baello during the entire proceedings. Atty. Generoso informed him

in detail of his rights and the implications of his confessions. He even advised

against such but Baello insisted in confessing to robbery. Baello later on

asserts that he was not fully and duly assisted by counsel engaged by him.

Every lawyer is presumed to be knowledgeable about the law as well astraining in procedure. Baello’s failure to request for new counsel during the

proceedings negates his claim for denial of the right to choose his lawyer.

PEOPLE vs. AGUSTIN – “Ilocano farmer / lawyer foisted upon accused / associate

of the fiscal” Agustin, a farmer who understood only Ilocano, was unlawfully

arrested by military officers and was taken into custody for investigation. He

asserted that he wished to be assisted by counsel; automatically Atty.

Cajucom was foisted upon him and was to represent him. Atty. Cajucom was

an associate of the prosecutor in charge of interrogating him. Cajucom

informed him of his rights in English and Tagalog. He was interrogated in the

presence of military officers. An extra-judicial confession was extracted from

him under threat where he attested that he knew a certain “Jun” and

“Sonny” and had participated in the crime.

Atty. Cajucom could not have possibly been voluntarily and intelligently

accepted by the accused. Atty. Cajucom was merely foisted upon him. It iseven doubtful if he understood Atty. Cajucom’s briefings in English and

7/30/2019 Sec 12 & 13 digest.docx


Tagalog and there are likewise special circumstances w/c cast doubt upon

the integrity of his representation – being a close associate of the fiscal. The

extra-judicial admissions (not confessions) are thus inadmissible as evidence

– and they being the sole basis for conviction, the accused must be acquitted.

PEOPLE vs. BALISTEROS – “Miranda Rights are personal ” Galvante executed a

sworn statement under pressure categorically admitting guilt w/o the

assistance of counsel and in the presence of the opposing counsel , the

brothers of the deceased (whom he allegedly killed), and a stranger. Theappellants (not Galvante, but other accuseds) assail the validity of Galvante’s

confession as having been made in violation of the Miranda Rights. Theobjection can only be raised by the confessant or the person whose rightshave been violated, and not by other persons. The r ight is a personal right.

DD: Simply put, an extra-judicial admission or confession made by the

confessant in violation of the Miranda Rights is inadmissible as evidence

against him (confessant), but is admissible against other persons.

PEOPLE vs. GUILLERMO – “cavalier treatment of constitutional requirements”

Guillermo was sentenced to death for the murder of a certain Keyser. Uponbeing arrested he was only made to read his rights posted in the wall , he was

not provided counsel (allegedly because it was a Sunday and there were no

lawyers in touch), and there was no showing of any waiver of the said rights

other than the fact that he said that “he regrets nothing.” These facts are

actually affirmed upon testimony by the arresting officer SPO1 Reyes. Inshort, the arresting officers made no serious effort to comply w/ theconstitutional requirements. A confession, in order to be admissible mustbe:

1. Voluntarily made2. Made w/ the assistance of counsel

3. Expressly made4. It must be in writing

There was no showing that Guillermo waived his rights; but even if he so

intended, the waiver is still invalid because it was not made in the presence

of counsel. The right to be informed likewise entails an obligation on thepart of the investigators to explain the said rights and ensure that theaccused understood the same. However, even assuming that his extra-

judicial admissions during custodial investigation are inadmissible, Guillermo

spontaneously made confessions to private individuals. Such evidence is

admissible.

PEOPLE vs. MOJELLO – “right to counsel / final choice / acquiescence” When the

accused is granted the right to counsel “preferably of his own choice” it does

not preclude other equally competent lawyers from handling his case.

Otherwise, the accused could impede the progress of investigations. The

initial choice is lodged w/ the investigators, but the final choice is the

accused’s. If the accused fails to object to the appointment of his lawyerduring the course of the investigation, or subscribes to the veracity of thestatement before the swearing officer, then the accused is deemed to have

acquiesced thereto.

PEOPLE vs. SAYABOC – “silent lawyer / violation of right to competent counsel”

Sayaboc was convicted for the murder of Joseph Galam. During the custodial

investigation, he was represented by PAO lawyer Atty. Cornejo who

remained silent during the entire proceedings. As a result, Sayaboc made

extra-judicial admissions that led to his conviction. Extra-judicial confessionsare presumed to be voluntary provided that the prosecution establishesthat all constitutional safeguards are complied with.

Sayaboc was not afforded his right to competent legal counsel. It is Atty.

Cornejo’s task to make Sayaboc aware of the consequences of his actions ateach stage of the proceeding. He should be aware when his client ought to

remain silent and advise the same. Instead. Atty. Cornejo just remained silent

all throughout. If the advice given is useless, then the voluntariness of the

accused’s confession is impaired.

The court likewise found a violation of the right to be informed. Theinvestigating officers merely mechanically recited the said rights to theaccused w/o making sure if the latter understood the same. It should allow

the suspect to contemplate the consequences of his actions. The same

especially applies in the case at bar, where Sayaboc finished only Grade 4.

PEOPLE vs. MARLENE OLERMO – “absent lawyers / right to choose counsel notabsolute” Marlene Olermo was first represented by Atty. Domingo, since

Atty. Yuseco, her counsel of choice, was in Cagayan. During subsequent trials,

she was represented de officio by Atty. Perez, because her preferred lawyers

were likewise unavailable. This prejudiced her case; and she then asserts that

she was deprived her right to competent legal counsel because her lawyers

were not familiar w/ her case. When the accused is granted the right tocounsel “preferably of his own choice” it does not preclude other equally

competent lawyers from handling his case. Otherwise, the accused couldimpede the judicial process by choosing lawyers who are unavailable – justas in the present case.

7/30/2019 Sec 12 & 13 digest.docx


PEOPLE vs. PINLAC – “right to information / must be explained and understood”

The right to be informed is complied w/ not merely by mechanically and

ceremonially reciting to the accused the constitutional provisions, the

investigator must also explain the effects of the same in simple and practical

terms. The accused must be made to understand the implications of his

actions. The rights of persons under custodial investigation are reiterated:

1. The reason for his arrest and must be shown the warrant

2. His right to remain silent3. His right to counsel, preferably of his own choice

4. That if he has no lawyer, one will be provided for him

5. That no custodial investigation can be conducted except in the

presence of counsel

6. That at any time he is allowed to confer w/ his lawyer, immediate

family, priest, etc.

7. His right to waive the said rights knowingly and intelligently

8. That should he waive such right, it must be made in writing and in

the presence of counsel

9. That he may refuse, at any stage of the process, to answer

interrogations10. That any previous waiver of such rights is not a bar to invoking them

again

11. That any evidence obtained in violation of such rules is inadmissible

PEOPLE vs. ROUS – “right to remain silent / waiver w/o counsel / may be ratified”

Even if the waiver of the right to remain silent was not made in the presence

of counsel, the same may be ratified when the lawyer arrived at the closing

stage of the investigation and verified w/ the accused whether or not he

understood the implications and the accused nevertheless decided to

proceed w/ the admission.

DD: Under the present state of law, counsel must be present at every stage of the investigation.

BILL OF RIGHTS

SECTION 13

Section 13. “ All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by

reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before

conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on

recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not

be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is

suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.”

Right to Bail

PEOPLE vs. NITCHA – “appeal / right vs. discretion” Facts are not provided. Even if

the accused has posted bail, once the decision of conviction is promulgated,

the accused is subject to re-incarceration. Bail must not be granted duringthe pendency of appeal, because it implies that the trial court establishedguilt beyond reasonable doubt. Rules to remember:

1. Bail is a matter of right if the offense charged is punishable by anypenalty lower than reclusion perpetua.

2. If the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher, bail isa matter of discretion depending on whether evidence of guilt isstrong.

DD: Under the present state of law, when the case is on appeal, bail becomes

a matter of discretion.

CARDINES vs. ROSETE – “illegal recruitment / life imprisonment / bailable under

1985 Rules” Judge Rosete is being charged for misconduct and ignorance of the law for granting bail to Erlie & Emilio Claro, both charged for illegal

recruitment in large scale constituting economic sabotage, punishable by life

imprisonment under the Labor Code. The applicable law then was the 1985

Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the said rules, the only exceptions for

denying the right to bail are offenses punishable by capital punishment, or

reclusion perpetua – in both cases evidence of guilt must be strong. Therewas no mention of life imprisonment. Reclusion perpetua and lifeimprisonment are not synonymous. Reclusion perpetua is covered by the

Revised Penal Code, has a definite duration, and has accessory penalties; life

imprisonment is covered by special laws, and has neither a definite duration

nor accessory penalties. Thus the accuseds are entitled to bail.

7/30/2019 Sec 12 & 13 digest.docx


DD: Administrative Circular No. 12-94 amended the said rules; life

imprisonment is no longer bailable provided evidence of guilt is strong, but

the same cannot apply retroactively as it is not favorable to the accused.

PADERANGA vs. CA – “must be under custody / constructive custody” When Ely

Roxas was implicated for multiple murder, his counsel was Miguel

Paderanga, his former employer. Strangely, Roxas implicated Paderanga

alleging that he was the mastermind behind the “Bucag Massacre.” An arrest

warrant was issued for Paderanga but before the same can be served, hefiled a Motion for Admission to Bail. He was, however, then confined in a

hospital and manifested that he was submitting himself to the custody of the

law; the prosecution offered no objection. He managed to appear before the

court to post bail as well as attend the hearings. Bail cannot be postedunless custody is acquired, either through arrest or voluntary surrender. Itspurpose is to relieve the accused from the rigors of imprisonment until his

conviction, and yet secure appearance during trial.

While it is true that Paderanga posted bail before he was actually arrested,nevertheless, given the factual circumstances, he was constructively under

custody. He voluntarily submitted himself to the custody of the law and the jurisdiction of the trial court. Given that the offense is punishable by

reclusion perpetua or higher , the grant of bail is discretionary upon the court

depending on the strength of evidence. A trial, summary in nature, must thus

be held so that the prosecution may present evidence, and the court must

justify the grant or denial of bail based on the evidence.

YAP vs. CA – “P 5.5 million bail / excessive” Francisco Yap was convicted by the

trial court for estafa; he appealed the decision and prayed for provisional

liberty pending appeal. The court required him to post bail amounting to P

5.5 million corresponding to the amount he allegedly embezzled. He was also

required to secure a certification from the mayor that he was a resident of

that area, and that should he transfer, he should inform the court and thecomplainant. He prays that the amount be reduced to P 40,000 according to

the Bail Bond Guide, but the appellate court denied his petition.

The apparent rationale is to prevent him from leaving the country during the

pendency of the case considering that he himself admitted having gone out

several times. While the condition requiring him to present a mayor’s

certification is reasonable, the amount of bail is clearly excessive. Imposingexcessive bail renders illusory the right to bail altogether. The Supreme

Court reduced the amount of the bail to P 200,000.00.

NARCISO vs. STA. ROMANA-CRUZ – “parricide / hearing is mandatory / duties of the judge” Narciso was charged w/ parricide, punishable by reclusion

perpetua. He was granted bail by the trial court only 10 minutes after he filed

his motion to post bail. The prosecution objects. In order to determinewhether evidence of guilt is strong, a hearing is necessary – whethersummary or otherwise. This affords the prosecution the opportunity tosubmit the evidence before the court. Ten minutes could not have possiblybeen sufficient to receive or evaluate any evidence. The judge practically

denied the complainant the opportunity to be heard, in violation of due

process. The following are the duties of the trial judge in an application for

bail when the offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua, capitalpunishment, or life imprisonment:

1. To inform the prosecution or require him to submit a

recommendation

2. To conduct a hearing, even if the prosecution refuses or fails to

present evidence

3. Decide if evidence of guilt is strong based on the evidence

presented

4. Approve or deny provisional liberty based on the strength of the

evidence

PEOPLE vs. CABRAL – “evident guilt / great presumption / reviewable by the SC”

Cabral was charged w/ rape qualified w/ the use of deadly weapon w/c is

punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The grant of bail is thus

discretionary upon the court depending on whether evidence of guilt is

strong. The test is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but rather whetherthe evidence shows evident guilt or great presumption of guilt dependingon the facts, circumstances, and evidence presented. While the same is

discretionary upon the trial courts, the SC will not hesitate to overturn the

decision of there is grave abuse of discretion.

“Evident proof” means clear and strong evidence w/c leads a well-guarded

and dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has beencommitted and the accused is the guilty agent and that he will be punished

capitally if the law is administered. “Presumption great” exists when the

circumstances manifest a strong and convincing inference of guilt excluding

any other probable conclusion.

SERAPIO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN – “arraignment is not a prerequisite to bail” The

Sandiganbayan erred in ordering the arraignment of Serapio before

proceeding w/ the hearing for bail. As soon as a person is deprived of liberty, either through arrest or surrender, the right to bail accrues. Heneed not await arraignment before filing a petition for bail. In case the

offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua, capital punishment, or lifeimprisonment, the petition for bail may be heard ahead of arraignment.

7/30/2019 Sec 12 & 13 digest.docx


LEVISTE vs. CA – OWN DIGEST!

US vs. JUDGE PURUGANAN – “Mark Jimenez / extradition is not criminal in nature

/ no bail” While his case was pending in the US, Mark Jimenez fled to the

Phils. Thus, the US seeks to extradite him. During the extradition

proceedings, Jimenez applied for bail. Extradition proceedings are sui

generis. They are not criminal proceedings w/c call into operation the rights

of the accused under the Bill of Rights. Thus the right to bail does notaccrue. The only question that has to be resolved in such proceedings is

whether he is extraditable and the extraditing country complied w/ the

treaty. It is only a measure of international judicial assistance, usually

summary in nature, and requires merely a prima facie case. Final discretion

lies w/ the President. It is not concerned w/ his guilt or innocence, w/c will be

tried separately by the extraditing country. Further, Jimenez has

demonstrated the capacity and will to flee, w/c is precisely what the

Extradition Treaty guards against.

The general rule is that in extradition proceedings, bail is NOT a matter of

right. It may only be granted as anexception

if:

1. The defendant can demonstrate that he is not a “flight risk,” and2. Exceptional, humanitarian, or compelling circumstances.

Jimenez bears the burden of proving the existence of any of the 2 exceptions.

Dissent of Justice Puno

From the moment a person is arrested, the guarantees under the Bill of Rights operate, including his right to bail. This is more in accord w/ the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights.

7/30/2019 Sec 12 & 13 digest.docx


PEOPLE vs. JUDGE DONATO & RODOLFO SALAS – “if matter of right, no hearing

needed / waiver” Rodolfo Salas, along w/ Josefina Cruz & Jose Conception were

arrested and charged for robbery. At that time, the applicable law prescribed a

penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. EO No. 187 was enacted w/c reduced the

penalty to prision mayor , thus making the same a bailable offense. In this case, bail

has become a matter of right. If bail is a matter of right, the prosecution loses theright to present evidence for the denial thereof. The court has also repeatedly

held that the right to bail may be availed even during the pendency of the appeal. However, the court erred in fixing the bond to P 30,000 and then later changing it

to P 50,000 w/o hearing the prosecution. There are guidelines that must be

complied with. To this extent, a hearing should be held but only for the purpose of

determining the amount of bail.

However, the right to bail can be waived; and there is such a waiver in thiscase made by Rodolfo Salas. A compromise was entered into whereby the

arrest warrants for Cruz & Conception were to be lifted but Salas was to

remain in legal custody. Custody means nothing less than physical custody.

Such a waiver is not contrary to law, good customs, public order, and publicpolicy and is not prejudicial to any third person. The right to bail is apersonal right. The waiver was intelligently and knowingly entered into and

w/ the assistance of counsel.

DE LA CAMARA vs. ENAGE – “mayor / murders / excessive bail / guidelines for

computing” Mayor Ricardo de la Camara of Magsaysay, Misamis was

arrested for multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. He applied for

bail claiming that there was no evidence to link him to the crime. The

prosecution failed to present evidence but Judge Enage fixed the bail at some

P 1.2 million. De la Camara assailed the order of the judge; however, he later

escaped from jail. His petition to nullify the said order has thus become

moot. Nevertheless, the court found that the amount of bail fixed was

clearly excessive. It has the effect of rendering nugatory or illusory the rightto bail. At most, the bail should have been fixed at P 50,000.00, P25,000.00

for each charge.

The following rules must be considered in fixing the amount of bail:

1. Ability of the accused to give bail2. Nature of the offense3. Penalty for the offense charged4. Character and reputation of the accused5. Health of the accused

6. Character and strength of evidence7. Probability for the accused to appear on tr ial

8. Forfeiture of other bonds9. Whether accused was a fugitive when arrested10. If the accused is under bond for appearance in other cases

Sec 12 & 13 digest.docx

Documents

Transcript of Sec 12 & 13 digest.docx