case digest_batch 9

8/17/2019 Case Digest_Batch 9

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-digestbatch-9 1/16

(Propriety of bail; issue centers on when a person is considered “in the custody of the law” as a necessary requisite before bail could be granted)G.R. No. !"#$ %ugust &' ! R*G%+%,- ./

PETITIONER: 01G2*+ P. P%,*R%NG%RESPONDENTS: 3-2R4 -5 %PP*%+6 and P*-P+* -5 47* P71+1PP1N*6

5%346/

8Petition for re9iew on certiorari of the 3%:s decision denying Paderanga:s right to bail

8Paderanga was ayor during the tie he was accused and filed against an amended inforation for the crie of ultiple urder for the death of the spouses <ucag andtheir son.

84he original inforation did not iplead Paderanga in the said crie. 7owe9er a person naed Ro=as was iplicated in the crie who not long after said that Paderanwas the asterind of the >illing.

8%tty. Paderanga assailed his indictent to the crie up to the 6upree 3ourt. 4he 63 howe9er sustained the inforation filed against hi. 7ence a warrant of arrest wassued. 7owe9er before the sae could be ser9ed to hi %tty. Paderanga filed a otion for adission to bail.

84he R43 held a hearing for the application for bail. 4his was granted on No9eber ! & at the aount of P&#####.

84he 6tate Prosecutor filed a otion for reconsideration of the appro9al of bail. 4he R43 denied this otion. 7ence 6tate Prosecutor ele9ated his otion to the 3% whore9ersed the R43 resolution granting bail to Paderanga.

83% ruling re9ersing the resolution of the R43 to grant otion for bail/

. %t the tie when bail was granted Paderanga was not “in the custody of the law” because he filed his otion for adission to bail before he was actually arrested or ha9oluntarily surrendered.

&. 3rie charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua and e9idence of guilt is strong. 7ence bail is iproper.?. Prosecution was not gi9en the chance to oppose Paderanga:s application for bail contrary to the requireents of due process.

8Paderanga:s contentions/

. 7e was in custody of the law upon his filing of his otion to bail. 4his ere act is an @in9ocation by the accused of the courtAs Burisdiction that is sufficient to 9est the courwith Burisdiction o9er the person of the accused and bring hi within the custody of the law.@&. No strong e9idence to preclude hi to bail.?. Cai9er of Regional 6tate Prosecutor %beBo was binding to all parties of the prosecution and hence 6tate Prosecutor cannot allege depri9ation of procedural due proces". +aches in the filing of the otion for reconsideration in the 3%.

662*D6/

C-N Paderanga:s otion to be aditted to bail is proper for grantingE

7*+,/

8 4he 3ourt finds erit for Paderanga.

8 <ail is the security gi9en for the release of a person in custody of the law furnished by hi or a bondsan conditioned upon his appearing before any court. 1ts ainpurpose then is to relie9e an accused fro the rigors of iprisonent until his con9iction and yet secure his appearance at the trial. %s bail is intended to obtain or securoneAs pro9isional liberty the sae cannot be posted before custody o9er hi has been acquired by the Budicial authorities either by his lawful arrest or 9oluntary surrenderthis 3ourt has put it in a case @it would be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free”.

8 % person is considered to be in the custody of the law/

(a) when he is arrested either by 9irtue of a 9alid warrant of arrest or by a 9alid warrantless arrest or(b) when he has 9oluntarily subitted hiself to the Burisdiction of the court by surrendering to the proper authorities.

8 Paderanga was found to be constructi9ely under the custody of the law as he 9oluntarily subitted hiself to the R43:s Burisdiction and that he ade >nown to the saecourt that he cannot personally appear to subit hiself to its Burisdiction because of physical incapacity as that tie he was confined in 3agayan 3apitol 3ollege Genera7ospital suffering fro acute costochondritis.

8 6ection ? %rticle 111 of the 3onstitution lays down the rule that before con9iction all indictees shall be allowed bail e=cept only those charged with offenses punishable breclusion perpetua when the e9idence of guilt is strong. 6ection " of Rule " pro9ides that all persons in custody shall before con9iction by a regional trial court of an offenot punishable by death reclusion perpetua or life iprisonent be aditted to bail as a atter of right. 4he right to bail which ay be wai9ed considering its personalnature and which arises fro the tie one is placed in the custody of the law springs fro the presuption of innocence accorded e9ery accused upon who should notnflicted iediate incarceration since after trial he ay be entitled to acquittal.

87ence adission to bail is a right guaranteed by the 3onstitution itself and ust be granted to all persons accused before con9iction e=cept if he is charged of a capitaloffense or those which are punishable by reclusion perpetua or life iprisonent and the e9idence of guilt is strong. 4he hearing held for this purpose will discuss wheththe e9idence of guilt is strong as ust be pro9ed by the prosecution and the ters of the pro9isional release if aditted to bail.



8-n the allegation of the 6tate Prosecutor of not pro9iding the procedural due process to oppose the otion to be aditted on bail by Paderanga the 3ourt found no eon their arguents. 4he 3ourt said that Regional Prosecutor %beBo has the authority to represent and thereby wai9e the prosecution:s right to present e9idence against thotion for bail of Paderanga as his authority was not yet withdrawn by 6ec of ustice ,rilon at the tie the hearing of the otion to bail was held.

85urther notwithstanding dispensation of the prosecution to present e9idence against Paderanga:s otion to be aditted to bail the R43 still proceeded to e=aine thee9idence adduced by the prosecution and the defense in the onibus order. -nly after this did the R43 decided that pro9isional release of Paderanga could be granted.

(1ssue on e=cessi9e bail; guidelines used in setting up the aount of bail)G.R. No. "!& une F &## G-N%G%8R*H*6 .PETITIONER/ 5R%N3163- H%P R. a>a *,C1N H%P

RESPONDENTS/ 3-2R4 -5 %PP*%+6 and 47* P*-P+* -5 47* P71+1PP1N*6

5%346/

8 5rancisco is charged of estafa for alleged isappropriation aounting to P!!#####. 5rancisco was con9icted as charged by the R43.

8,uring ele9ation of the case to the 3% 5rancisco filed a 0otion to 5i= <ail for the Pro9isional +iberty of %ccused %ppellant Pending %ppeal. 3oenting on the said otiothe -6G suggested the aount of P!.!0 as bail and a subission of a certification fro the ayor of the residence of 5rancisco that he is a resident of the area and that will reain to be so until final Budgent is rendered or in case he transfers residence it ust be with prior notice to the court and pri9ate coplainant. 4he -6G in e=pla inhis coent anent the P!.!0 bond said that the P!.!0 bail is proper considering the se9erity of the penalty iposed the weight of the e9idence against 5rancisco and gra9ity of the offense of which 5rancisco was con9icted by the R43. 7e asserted that the P!!#####.## not only corresponded to ci9il liability but also to the aount of frputed to 5rancisco.

85rancisco countered the coents of the -6G a9erring his right against e=cessi9e bail. Nonetheless the 3% upheld the suggestion of the -6G and granted to post bail the aount of P!.!0. 5rancisco appealed to reduce the bail aount but was denied. 7ence the present appeal before 63.

85rancisco challenged the legal basis of the 3% for setting a prohibitory aount of bail; for using his ci9il liability as basis for setting up the sae. 1nstead he proferred that

aount of bail be fi=ed at P"#### pro9ided under the F bail bond as the a=iu aount of bail that can be posted for the crie of estafa.

662*D6/

C-N the 3% erred in setting aount of bail to P!.!0 as based on the possible ci9il liabilityE

7*+,/

84he 3ourt found erit on the alleged 9iolation of 5rancisco:s right against e=cessi9e bail.

8 5rancisco:s case falls within the pro9isions of 6ection ! Rule " of the $ Rules of 3ourt which states/

6*3. !. <ail when discretionary. 88 2pon con9iction by the Regional 4rial 3ourt of an offense not punishable by death reclusion perpetua or life iprisonentthe court on application ay adit the accused to bail.

4he court in its discretion ay allow the accused to continue on pro9isional liberty under the sae bail bond during the period to appeal subBect to the consentof the bondsan.

1f the court iposed a penalty of iprisonent e=ceeding si= (F) years but not ore than twenty (&#) years the accused shall be denied bail or his bailpre9iously granted shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution with notice to the accused of the following or other siilar circustances/

(a) 4hat the accused is a recidi9ist quasi8recidi9ist or habitual delinquent or has coitted the crie aggra9ated by the circustance of reiteration;(b) 4hat the accused is found to ha9e pre9iously escaped fro legal confineent e9aded sentence or has 9iolated the conditions of his bail without 9alid Bustification;(c) 4hat the accused coitted the offense while on probation parole or under conditional pardon;(d) 4hat the circustances of the accused or his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or(e) 4hat there is undue ris> that during the pendency of the appeal the accused ay coit another crie.

8 6ection Rule " of the Re9ised Rules of 3riinal Procedure ad9ises courts to consider the following factors in the setting of the aount of bail/

(a) 5inancial ability of the accused to gi9e bail;(b) Nature and circustances of the offense;(c) Penalty for the offense charged;(d) 3haracter and reputation of the accused;(e) %ge and health of the accused;(f) Ceight of the e9idence against the accused;(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;(h) 5orfeiture of other bail;(i) 4he fact that the accused was a fugiti9e fro Bustice when arrested; and(B) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.

8 4he 3ourt held that appropriate conditions ha9e been iposed in the bail bond to ensure against the ris> of flight particularly the cobination of the hold8departure ordethe requireent that 5rancisco infor the court of any change of residence and of his whereabouts. %lthough an increase in the aount of bail while the case is on appeal be eritorious the 3ourt found that the fi=ing of the aount at P!!#####.## is unreasonable e=cessi9e and constitutes an effecti9e denial of 5rancisco:s right to bail. 4



purpose for bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial or whene9er so required by the 3ourt. 4he aount should be high enough to assure the presethe accused when required but no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.

84he 3ourt in deciding as to the proper aount of bail to be iposed ac>nowledged the erit in using the <ail <ond Guide issued by the ,epartent of ustice but declathat the sae is not binding to the courts and any increase thereto could be ade considering the attendant circustances.

84he 3ourt finally reduced the bail bond fro P!!##### to P&##### while affiring all other resolutions of the 3% anent the bail bond.

(4ac>led the applicability of the right to bail in extradition cases)G.R. No. "'!$ 6epteber &" &##& P%NG%N1<%N ./

PETITIONER: G-I*RN0*N4 -5 47* 2N14*, 64%4*6 -5 %0*R13% Represented by the Philippine ,epartent of usticeRESPONDENT/ 7-N. G21++*R0- P2RG%N%N Presiding udge Regional 4rial 3ourt of 0anila and 0%R3 10*N* a.>.a. 0%R31- <%4%3%N 3R*6P-

5%346/

8 4his is a petition for certiorari of the ff two orders of the R43/

) 26 Go9t application for the issuance of an arrest warrant for 0ar> ieneJ;&) Granted issuance of the warrant and siultaneously granting bail.

4he 26 Go9t filed this petition in 3ourt to annul the order granting bail and pro9isional release and ta>e 0ar> ieneJ into legal custody.

84his petition started when the 26 Go9t requested the Phil Go9t for the e=tradition of 0ar> ieneJ pursuant to the RP826 *=tradition 4reaty. <efore the ,- could file apetition for 0ar>:s e=tradition 0ar> filed for and was granted a 4R- prohibiting ,- fro filing of a case for 0ar>:s e=tradition. 4he R43 ordered too the 6- to pro9ide 0with a copy of the petition together with the attaching supporting docuents. 4his is one of the alleged errors of the R43 in this present pet ition saying that the R43 cogra9e abuse of discretion when it adopted this procedure of notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. 2pon appeal by the 6- before the 63 initially 3ourt affired the decision of the R43 but subsequently changed 1ts ind and fa9ored the 26 Go9t arguing that 0ar> is not clothed with the right to notice and hearing d

the e9aluation stage of the e=tradition process.

87ence the 26 Go9t represented by ,- filed before the R43 an e=tradition case where the ff allegations were laid down/

() conspiracy to defraud the 2nited 6tates and to coit certain offenses in 9iolation of 4itle ' 26 3ode 6ection ?$;(&) ta= e9asion;(?) wire fraud;(") false stateents; and(!) illegal capaign contributions

662*D6/

. 1n e=tradition proceedings are prospecti9e e=traditees entitled to notice and hearing before warrants for their arrest can be issuedE

&. %re they entitled to the right to bail and pro9isional liberty while the e=tradition proceedings are pendingE

7*+,/

8%s a general rule e=traditees are not entitled to notice and hearing before arrest warrants can be issued and e=traditees are not entitled to the right to bail while thee=tradition case is pending. 4he 3ourt finds erit in the petition.

Resolving procedural issues: On Alleged Prematurity of Present Petition:

84he 26 Go9t thru the Phil Go9t did not file a otion for reconsideration in the R43D*=tradition 3ourt and did not ele9ate the case to the 3% but directly filed the petitionbefore the 63.

84he 3ourt ruled as follows/

%s a general rule a petition for certiorari before a higher court will not prosper unless the inferior court has been gi9en through a otion for reconsideration a chance tocorrect the errors iputed to it. 4his rule though has certain e=ceptions/

() when the issue raised is purely of law(&) when public interest is in9ol9ed(?) in case of urgency or(") when the questions raised are the sae as those that ha9e already been squarely argued and e=hausti9ely passed upon by the lower court.

4he 3ourt resol9ed that aside fro being of no " abo9e in nature the issues in the present case also in9ol9e pure questions of law that are of public interest. 7ence a mfor reconsideration may be disensed with! Ce resol9e to ta>e priary Burisdiction o9er the present petition in the interest of speedy Bustice and to a9oid future litigatioas to proptly put an end to the present contro9ersy which as correctly obser9ed by petitioners has spar>ed national interest because of the agnitude of the proble.0oreo9er requiring the petitioners to file their petition first with the 3ourt of %ppeals would only result in a waste of tie and oney.

On resolving the substantive issues, the Court deemed it necessary to discuss first the Five Postulates of Extradition

. *=tradition 1s a 0aBor 1nstruent for the 6uppression of 3rie.



*=tradition treaties are entered into for the purpose of suppressing crie by facilitating the arrest and the custodial transfer of a fugiti9e fro one state to the other. 7encea aBor deterrent against affluent criinals who escape fro the place of coission of the crie and a9oid prosecution by escaping to another country.

&. 4he Requesting 6tate Cill %ccord ,ue Process to the %ccused

%n e=tradition treaty presupposes that both parties thereto ha9e e=ained and that both accept and trust each other:s legal syste and Budicial process. -ur affi=ing of osignature on an e=tradition treaty signifies our confidence in the capacity and the willingness of the other state to protect the basic rights of the person sought to be e=trad

?. 4he Proceedings %re 6ui Generis

%n e=tradition KproceedingL is sui generis. 1t is not a criinal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the <ill of Rights. 4o beg

with the process of e=tradition does not in9ol9e the deterination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. 7is guilt or innocence will be adBudged in the court of the statewhere he will be e=tradited. 7ence as a rule constitutional r ights that are only rele9ant to deterine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be in9o>ed by an e=trad

3riinal Proceeding *=tradition Proceeding

n9ol9e a fullblown trial suary in nature

requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for con9iction ay be ordered e=tradited Mupon showing of the e=istence of a pria facie case

udgent becoes e=ecutory upon being rendered final ay adBudge an indi9idual e=traditable but the President has the final discretion to e=tradite h i

The ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is only to determine whether the extradition request complies with the Extradition Treaty, and whether the personsought is extraditable.

". 3opliance 6hall <e in Good 5aith.

4he Phil Go9t ust fulfill its obligations under the *=tradition 4reaty as otherwise will paint a bad iage for the country and will hinder other countriesDstates to enter intotreaties with us.

!. 4here 1s an 2nderlying Ris> of 5light

Persons to be e=tradited are resumed to be flight ris>s. 4his rima facie resumtion finds reinforceent in the e=perience of the e=ecuti9e branch that nothing short confineent can ensure that the accused will not flee the Burisdiction of the requested state in order to thwart their e=tradition to the requesting state. 4he 3ourt too> noticthe fact that 0ar> left the 26 e9en before his indictent proceedings were copleted and that he stayed in the Phil despite >nowledge that the 26 is as>ing for his return4hese circustances anifest 0ar>:s propensity to flee.

5irst 6ubstanti9e 1ssue/Is Resondent Entitled to Notice and "earing #efore the Issuance of a $arrant of %rrest&

8No an e=tradite is not entitled to notice and hearing before arrest.

86ection F of P, #F (Prescribing the Procedure 5or 4he *=tradition -f Persons Cho 7a9e 3oitted 3ries 1n % 5oreign 3ountry) pro9ides/

6*3. F. 1ssuance of 6uons; 4eporary %rrest; 7earing 6er9ice of Notices.

() 1ediately upon receipt of the petition the presiding Budge of the court shall as soon as practicable suon the accused to appear and to answer thepetition on the day and hour fi=ed in the order. K7Le ay issue a warrant for the iediate arrest of the accused which ay be ser9ed anywhere within thePhilippines if it appears to the presiding Budge that the iediate arrest and teporary detention of the accused will best ser9e the ends of Bustice. 2pon receipt ofthe answer or should the accused after ha9ing recei9ed the suons fail to answer within the tie fi=ed the presiding Budge shall hear the case or set anotherdate for the hearing thereof.

(&) 4he order and notice as well as a copy of the warrant of arrest if issued shall be proptly ser9ed each upon the accused and the attorney ha9ing charge ofthe case.

84he 3ourt held that the word iediate odifiesDqualifies the word arrest. 4hereby concluding that a hearing is not necessary prior to the arrest as doing so will renderthe pro9ision in the *=tradition +aw for iediate arrest nugatory. 4he pro9ision only requires the e=tradition court to a>e a pria facie finding to a>e a speedy initialdeterination as regards the arrest and detention of the accused based on the aterials a9ailable to it and not to a>e an e=hausti9e inquiry.

84he 3ourt opined that udge Puruganan would ha9e been able to establish that pria facie ipression based on the attachents of the petition subitted by the 26Go9t. 3orollarily no notice and hearing was necessary before arrest could be ade. 4he 3ourt also sided with the 26 Go9t when it said that sending to persons soughtto be e=tradited a notice of the request for their arrest and setting it for hearing at soe future date would gi9e the aple opportunity to prepare and e=ecute anescape.

84he 3ourt also found it proper to restate in clear language for the guidance of lower courts the ff procedure in e=tradition cases/

2pon receipt of a petition for e=tradition and its supporting docuents the Budge ust study the and a>e as soon as possible a pria facie finding whether (a) theyare sufficient in for and substance (b) they show copliance with the *=tradition 4reaty and +aw and (c) the person sought is e=traditable. %t his discretion the Budgeay require the subission of further docuentation or ay personally e=aine the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner. 1f in spite of this study and e=aination nopria facie finding is possible the petition ay be disissed at the discretion of the Budge.

-n the other hand if the presence of a pria facie case is deterined then the Budge ust iediately issue a warrant for the arrest of the e=traditee who is at thesae tie suoned to answer the petition and to appear at scheduled suary hearings. Prior to the issuance of the warrant the Budge ust not infor or notify the



potential e=traditee of the pendency of the petition lest the latter be gi9en the opportunity to escape and frustrate the proceedings. 1n our opinion the foregoingprocedure will @best ser9e the ends of Bustice@ in e=tradition cases.

Second Substanti'e Issue:Is Resondent Entitled to #ail&

8 0ar> in9o>es his right to bail under %rt 111 6ec ? of the '$ 3onstitution. -n the other hand 26 Go9t a9ers this pro9ision does not apply to e=traditees.

8 4he 3ourt found erit in the subission of the 26 Go9t. 4he abo9e constitutional pro9ision only applies to a person who has been arrested and detained for 9iolation ofPhilippine criinal laws. 1t does not apply to e=tradition proceedings because e=tradition courts do not render Budgents of con9iction or acquittal. 0ar> should apply for bbefore the courts trying the criinal cases against hi not before the e=tradition court.

84he 3ourt also dispro9ed the a9erent of 0ar> that there was 9iolation of due process of his fundaental right that “@KnLo one shall be depri9ed of = = = liberty = = = withoudue process of law”. <ased on Burisprudence the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard but at the sae tie point out that the doctrine does not always for a rior opportunity to be heard where the circustances such as those present in an e=tradition case call for it a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough. 1n thepresent case 0ar> will be gi9en full opportunity to be heard subsequently when the e=tradition court hears the Petition for *=tradition. 7ence there is no 9iolation of his rto due process and fundaental fairness.

8Nonetheless there could be e=ceptions to the rule that the right to bail does not apply to e=traditees 9iJ/

-nly upon a clear and con9incing showing () that once granted bail the applicant will not be a flight ris> or a danger to the counity; and(&) that there e=ist special huanitarian and copelling circustances including as a atter of reciprocity those cited by the highest court in the requesting state when igrants pro9isional liberty in e=tradition cases therein.

6ince this e=ception has no e=press or specific statutory basis and since it is deri9ed essentially fro general principles of Bustice and fairness the applicant bears theburden of pro9ing the abo9e two8tiered requireent with clarity precision and ephatic forcefulness.

8-n this trac> 0ar> argued that he would qualify for the ff reasons/

Reason 3ourt opinion

%lleged ,isenfranchiseent of 0anila if he will be e=tradited since he was elected

7-R eber

4he 3ourt has resol9ed this issue in a prior case where 1t ruled that elected officia

are not substantially different to warrant another classification to e=ept fro the

equal protection of the laws doctrine and that being an elected official does not

e=ept hi fro being iprisoned. *lection to the position of 3ongressan is no

reasonable classification in criinal law enforceent.

ieneJ further contends that because the e=tradition proceedings are lengthy it

would be unfair to confine hi during the pendency of the case

e=tradition cases are suary in nature

ieneJ further clais that he is not a flight ris> because he has not left the country

e9en after learning of the e=tradition petition.

not fleeing upon receipt of the e=tradition petition does not ean that he will not

upon nearing affiration of the petition of the 26 Go9t.

(Right against e=cessi9e bail; guidelines for the lower courts in fi=ing the aount of bail)G.R. Nos. +8?&!8& 6epteber $ $ 5*RN%N,- ./

PETITIONER/ R13%R,- ,* +% 3%0%R%RESPONDENTS/ 7-N. 0%N2*+ +-P* *N%G* Presiding udge of the 3ourt of 5irst 1nstance of %gusan del Norte and <utuan 3ity (<ranch 11)

5%346/

8Present case is a petition for certiorari against the resolution of 351 fi=ing bail at P.&0 for being an effecti9e denial of the right to bail. 7owe9er during the pendency ofresolution to this petition Ricardo escaped fro the pro9incial Bail rendering this case oot and acadeic. Nonetheless the 3ourt deeed it appropriate to discuss hereinrele9ant points to ser9e as guide for lower courts in fi=ing the aount of bail.

8 Ricardo was then ayor of 0isais -riental and he was ipleaded in an inforation charging ultiple urder physical inBuries and ultiple frustrated urder. ,espitethese Ricardo aintained his innocence. 0oreo9er the prosecution has not presented any e9idence against Ricardo as of the tie of filing the instant petition.

8 udge *nage then issued an order granting Ricardo:s application for bail aditting that there was a failure on the part of the prosecution to pro9e that Ricardo would flee

had the opportunity and fi=ed the aount of the bail bond at the e=cessi9e aount of P!&##.## the su of P'"####.## for the inforation charging ultiple urdeP?!!&##.## for the offense of ultiple frustrated urder. 6ec of ustice notified udge *nage of the e=orbitance of the bail aount pegged. Ricardo otioned to reconsid7owe9er udge *nage sustained the aount at P.&0.

662*D6/

C-N the 351 coitted gra9e abuse of discretion in setting the aount of bail at P.&0E

7*+,/

8 4he 3ourt held that under the circustances there being only two offenses charged the aount required as bail could not possibly e=ceed P!####.## for the inforatfor urder and P&!###.## for the other inforation for frustrated urder. 4he 3ourt reinded the court a quos that when the right to bail e=ists it should not be renderednugatory by requiring a su that is e=cessi9e.



8 #efore con'iction( e'ery erson is bailable excet if charged with caital offenses when the e'idence of guilt is strong. 6uch a right flows fro the presuptionnnocence in fa9or of e9ery accused who should not be subBected to the loss of freedo as thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal unless his guilt be pro9ed beyondreasonable doubt.

81n the case of Iillaseor 9. %bano the guidelines in the fi=ing of bail was suariJed as follows/

() ability of the accused to gi9e bail;(&) nature of the offense;(?) penalty for the offense charged;(") character and reputation of the accused;(!) health of the accused;(F) character and strength of the e9idence;

($) probability of the accused appearing in trial;(') forfeiture of other bonds;() whether the accused was a fugiti9e fro Bustice when arrested; and(#) if the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases.

)!R! No! *+,-./ 0arch 12( /3,-

T"E PEOP*E O4 T"E P"I*IPPINES( plaintiff8appellee%56INO 0IN)O%( defendant8appellantPresuption of innocence.

4acts:

5ound short in his accounts and unable to produce the issing fund aounting to P??' upon deand by the pro9incial auditor unicipal treasurer officer8incharge %quino 0ingoa was prosecuted and con9icted for the crie of al9ersation of public funds.

7e now assails the constitutionality of %rt. &$ of the RP3 for authoriJing presuptions of guilt fro the ere fact of failure upon deand to produce any su

ac>ing in accountability. %rticle &$ of the RP3 reads/

“4he failure of a public officer to ha9e duly forthcoing any public funds or property with which he is chargeable upon deand by any duly

authoriJed officer shall be pria facie e9idence that he has put such issing funds or property to personal use.”

4he assailed pro9ision is as argued 9iolati9e to the presuption of innocence under 6ec " of the '$ constitution and is hence unconstitutional.

ssue:

C-N the said RP3 pro9ision 9iolates the constitutional right of the accused to be presued innocent until the contrary is pro9edE

Ruling:

+ No( the RP7 ro'ision is not 'iolati'e of the resumtion of innocence guarantee!

+1n any e9ents the 9alidity of statutes establishing presuptions in criinal cases is now settled atter. @ There is no constitutional ob8ection to the assage of law

ro'iding that the resumtion of innocence may be o'ercome by contrary resumtion founded uon the exerience of human conduct( and enacting whate'idence shall be sufficient to o'ercome such resumtion of innocence.@

81n line with this 9iew it is generally held in the 2nited 6tates that the legislature ay enact that when certain facts ha'e been ro'en( they shall be prima facie e'ideof the existence of the guilt of the accused and shift the burden of roof to the accused( ro'ided there be rational connection between that facts ro'ed and ultimate fact resumed so that the inference of the one fro proof of the others is not unreasonable and arbitrary because of lac> of connection between the two incoon e=perience.

84he statute in the present case creates a presuption of guilt once certain facts are pro9ed. 5urtherore the statute establishes only a prima facie presuption thus gi9

the accused an opportunity to present e9idence to rebut it. 4he presuption is reasonable and will stand the test of 9alidity.



)!R! No! *+,119, anuary 11( /3;<

PETITIONERS: P%TRI7IO D60*%O( RO0EO #! I)OT( and %*4REDO S%*%P%NT%N( R!

RESPONDENT: 7O00ISSION ON E*E7TIONS

4%7TS:

8Petitioner 6igot and 6alapantan r. assail the 9alidity of the following statutory pro9isions/

<atas Pabansa <lg. !& 6ec. ". ...

%ny person who has coitted any act of disloyalty to the 6tate including acts aounting to sub9ersion insurrection rebellion or other siilar cries shall not be qualifi

to be a candidate for any of the offices co9ered by this %ct or to participate in any partisan political acti9ity therein/

pro9ided that a Budgent of con9iction for any of the aforeentioned cries shall be conclusi9e e9idence of such fact and the filing of charges for the commission of s

crimes before a ci'il court or military tribunal after reliminary in'estigation shall be rima facie e'idence of such fact.

662*D6/

C-N the abo9e statutory pro9ision 9iolates the presuption of innocence pro9ided under the 3onstitutionE

7*+,/

8*=plicit is the constitutional pro9ision that in all criinal prosecutions the accused shall be presued innocent until the contrary is pro9ed and shall enBoy the right to beheard by hiself and counsel.

8%n accusation according to the fundaental law is not synonyous with guilt. 4he challenged pro9iso contra9enes the constitutional presuption of innocence as a

candidate is disqualified fro running for public office on the ground alone that charges ha9e been filed against hi before a ci9il or ilitary tribunal. 1t condens before o

s fully heard. 1n ultiate effect e=cept as to the degree of proof no distinction is ade between a person con9icted of acts of disloyalty and one against who charges h

been filed for such acts as both of the would be ineligible to run for public office

(Right to be heard personally or by a counsel)

)!R! No! *+1;<3 0arch 11( /3,<

T"E PEOP*E O4 T"E P"I*IPPINES( plaintiff8appellee

4RIS7O "O*)%DO( defendant8appellant.

5acts/

8%ppellant 5risco 7olgado was charged in the 351 with slight illegal detention. Per the inforation filed 7olgado as a pri9ate person >idnap and detain one %rteia 5abn the house of %ntero 7olgado for about eight hours thereby depri9ing her personal liberty. <ased on the transcripts 7olgado plead guilty with qualification/

O. do you ha9e an attorney or are you going to plead guiltyE %. 1 ha9e no lawyer and 1 will plead guilty.

3ourt/ %rraign the accused.

Note/

1nterpreter read the inforation to the accused in the local dialect after which he was as>ed this question.

O. Chat do you pleadE %. 1 plead guilty but 1 was instructed by one 0r. -capo.



O. Cho is that 0r. -capo what is his coplete naeE %. 0r. Nueriano -capo.

4he pro9incial fiscal is hereby ordered to in9estigate that an.

5iscal/

1 ha9e in9estigated this case and found out that this -capo has nothing to do with the case and 1 found no e9idence against this -capo.

3ourt/ 6entenced reser9ed.

ssue/

8C-N the =ualified lea gi9en by 7olgado who at that tie was unaided by a counsel without absolute any e9idence to deterine and clarify the true facts of the case isbinding to the courtE

Ruling/

8No. 4he proceedings in the trial court are irregular fro the beginning. 1t is e=pressly pro9ided in our rules of 3ourt Rule & section ? that/

1f the defendant appears without attorney he ust be infored by the court that it is his right to ha9e attorney being arraigned and ust be as>ed if he desires the ai

attorney the 3ourt ust assign attorney de oficio to defend hi. % reasonable tie ust be allowed for procuring attorney.

2nder this pro9ision when a defendant appears without attorney the court has four iportant duties to coply with/

1t ust infor the defendant that it is his right to ha9e attorney before being arraigned;

& %fter gi9ing hi such inforation the court ust as> hi if he desires the aid of an attorney;

? 1f he desires and is unable to eploy attorney the court ust assign attorney de oficio to defend hi; and

" 1f the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own the court ust grant hi a reasonable tie therefor.

8Not one of these duties had been coplied with by the trial court. 4he record discloses that said court did not infor the accused of his right to ha9e an attorney nor did it hi if he desired the aid of one. 4he trial court failed to inquire whether or not the accused was to eploy an attorney to grant hi reasonable tie to procure or assign an

attorney de oficio. 4he question as>ed by the court to the accused was @,o you ha9e an attorney or are you going to plead guiltyE@ Not only did such a question fail to inforthe accused that it was his right to ha9e an attorney before arraignent but what is worse the question was so fraed that it could ha9e been construed by the accuseda suggestion fro the court that he plead guilty if he had no attorney. %nd this is a denial of fair hearing in 9iolation of the due process clause contained in our 3onstitution.

8-ne of the great principles of Bustice guaranteed by our 3onstitution is that @no person shall be held to answer for a criinal offense without due process of law@ and thataccused @shall enBoy the right to be heard by hiself and counsel.@ 1n criinal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be gi9en the opportunity to be heardcounsel.

84he accused who was unaided by counsel pleaded guilty but with the following qualification/ @but 1 was instructed by one 0r. -capo.@ 4he trial court failed to inquire as the true iport of this qualification. 4he record does not show whether the supposed instructions was real and whether it had reference to the coission of the offense othe a>ing of the plea guilty.No in9estigation was opened by the court on this atter in the presence of the accused and there is now no way of deterining whether thesupposed instruction is a good defense or ay 9itiate the 9oluntariness of the confession. 4herefore the lower court:s Budgent is re9ersed and case was reanded bac>t.

(Right to be infored)

)!R! No! *+1-23- %ril 1.( /3;1



P*%INTI44+%PPE**EE: T"E PEOP*E O4 T"E P"I*IPPINESDE4END%NT+%PPE**%NT: R6D> RE)%*% and DE*4IN 4*ORES( defendants( R6D> RE)%*%

5acts/

8,efendants Rudy Regala and ,elfin 5lores were charged with the crie of murder with assault uon an agent of a erson in authority 6gt ,ecilos r.

84hat fateful night where the 9icti was guarding the 0agallanes gate in the poblacion of 0unicipality of 0asbate where he pre9ented the entry of the two accused as thegate was only utiliJed as an e=it for a crowded local beauty pageantDdance e9ent. Cherein apparently Regala suddenly stabbed the 9icti when the latter pushed 5lores.4his was witnessed by *rlinda4idon and uanito *9angelista who both testified that they were at the scene of the crie and saw and identified the accused Rudy Regalthe person who stabbed the 6gt ,ecilos.

8 Regala claied that prior to the >illing he was with his friends drin>ing beer in a canteen a short distance fro the scene of the crie.

81t was established in the trial that both suspects were already con9icted of a prior offense. 5lores was paroled and released for urder while Regala was con9icted ofphysical inBuries and other ischiefs. 4he R43 con9icted Regala of hoicide with insult to public authority because prosecution failed to establish any qualifyingcircustance. 5lores was con9icted as an accessory.

81t is the prior con9ictions of the accused that the appeal was anchored on which they accused the R43 Budge of ipartiality as he has ade up his ind to con9ict thebased on their pre9ious offense thus were denied due process of law.

ssue/

. C-N the accused were denied the right to ipartial trial as e=pressed in 6ection %rticle 1I (<ill of Rights)E

&. C-N Rudy Regala ay be con9icted of the cople= crie of urder with assault upon an agent of a person in authorityE

Ruling/

. No. %ppellant has not pointed to any part or stage of the trial betraying the trial udgeAs hostility bias and preBudice against the appellant after the prosecution had brou

forth the fact of appellantAs pre9ious criinal con9iction. %s a atter of fact appellantAs pre9ious con9iction of the cries of alicious ischief and slight physical inBuries w

testified to only by the witness last presented by the prosecution in its e9idence in chief. %nd the trial udge contrary to the clai of the appellant ga9e due consideration t

his e9idence as shown by the fact that in the decision of con9iction the trial udge e=ained e=tensi9ely the testionies of all the eight witnesses for the defense.

83onsequently while the quoted portions of the Budgent of con9iction are interspersed with stateents and phrases which properly should not ha9e been ade as they

be wrongly interpreted as indicati9e of bias and preBudice such aforestated stateents and phrases in the Budgent of con9iction do not per se constitute e9idence of biasand ipartiality in the conduct of the trial by the trial udge as to 9iolate appellantAs right to an ipartial trial. 4he 3ourt 9iew the trial udgeAs aforequoted stateents and

phrases as erely an e=pression in the 9ery words of appellantAs counsel de officio herself of the udgeAs @ ... fully Bustified indignation and re9ulsion at the coission o

such a onstrous crie ...@

84he trial court correctly reBected appellant RegalaAs defense of alibi and denial. 1ndeed such defenses cannot pre9ail o9er the affirati9e testionies of 4idon and *9ange

who positi9ely 1dentified appellant Rudy Regala as the one who inflicted the single but fatal wound on the deceased. %nd the e=it gate where the stabbing too> place was

n the 9icinity of about ! eters fro the canteen where appellant was allegedly drin>ing beer during the night until the early orning. %libi to be con9incing ust

preclude any possibility that the accused could ha9e been physically present at the place of the crie nor its iediate 9icinity at the tie of its coission. 5urtherore

appellant has not shown by e9idence of any e9il oti9e on the part of prosecution witnesses 4idon and *9angelista to testify in the anner they did. 4he absence of any su

proper oti9e enhances the credibility of said witnesses.

&. No Rudy Regala cannot be con9icted of the cople= crie of urder with assault upon an agent of a person in authority. 5irst there was no treachery or e9identpreeditation that can be gleaned fro the records of the case.

6econd in order to be con9icted of the crie of assault upon an agent of a person in authority the prosecution ust ha9e been able to establish that prior or at the tie ofassault the assailants >new that the person assaulted is a person in authority. %lthough it is undisputed that the 9icti was in unifor the Prosecution failed to allege?nowledge on the art of Rudy Regala that the 'ictim is a erson in authority in the information. 7ence Rudy Regala cannot be con9icted of this crie as doing swould 9iolate his constitutional right to be infored of the nature and cause of the accusation against hi. Refurnishing below inforation filed by the prosecution/

“4hat on or about the ?th day of une F" at the 0agallanes Gate in the poblacion of the 0unicipality of 0asbate Philippines and within the Burisdiction ofthis 7onorable 3ourt the abo9e8naed accused conspiring together and helping each other with deliberate intent to >ill with e9ident preeditation and

treachery and ta>ing ad9antage of nighttie did then and there wilfully unlawfully and feloniously attac> and stab with. a >nife (cuchillo) one 6gt. uan ,esilos



r. a eber of the Philippine 3onstabulary while he was then in the perforance of his official duty thereby inflicting upon the latter serious stab wounds atthe id8epigastric region penetrating abdoinal ca9ity and perforating cordial and cardiac regions which inBury directly caused his instantaneous death.”

81n Rodil case it was stated that @K+Li>e a qualifying circustance such >nowledge ust be e=pressly and specifically a9erred in the inforation; otherwise in the absenc

such allegation the required >nowledge li>e a qualifying circustance although pro9en would only be appreciated as aggra9ating circustance. %pplying this principle

attac> on the 9icti who was >nown to the appellant as a peace officer could be considered only as aggra9ated by being Ain contept or with insult to the public authoritie

or as an insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his ran> ...@

87ence the 3ourt ruled that Rudy Regala can only be con9icted of the crie of hoicide aggra9ated by the circustance of @in contept or with insult to the public

authorities@ or as an @insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of his ran> ...@

8C7*R*5-R* %PP*++%N4 R-,-+5- R*G%+% %+1%6 R2,H R*G%+% 16 7*R*<H 5-2N, G21+4H <*H-N, R*%6-N%<+* ,-2<4 -5 47* 3R10* -5 7-0131,

%))R%@%TED #> RE7IDI@IS0 %ND #> 7ONTE0PT 4OR OR INS6*T TO % P6#*I7 %6T"ORIT> OR DISRE)%RD O4 T"E RESPE7T D6E T"E O44ENDED P%R

ON %77O6NT O4 "IS R%NA C147-24 %NH 0141G%41NG 31R32064%N3*

)!R! No! *+//2</ une -<( /3,3

P+%1N41558%PP*++**: T"E PEOP*E O4 T"E P"I*IPPINES

,*5*N,%N48%PP*++%N4: DO0IN)O S%*%B%R alias D%R56EB

5%346/

8,oingo 6alaJar had suspicions that his wife has an illicit relationship with another an and that the child she bears is that of the latter. <ecause of this he went auc>

>illed frustrated in >illing and attepted in >illing se9eral people. 7e was charged and con9icted by the 351 of ultiple urder frustrated urder and attepted urder

qualified by treachery and e9ident preeditation.

86alaJar:s arguents/

. Plea of guilty did not e=tend to the adission of the correctness of the qualification of his acts i.e. treachery and e9ident preeditation

&.Running auc> or becoing a @Buraentado@ is a cult aong the 0oros that fors part of their religion

662*D6/

. C-N the plea of guilty e=tends to the qualifying circustances allegedly e=isting on the occasion of the crie chargedE



&. C-N running auc> or becoing a “Buraentado” fro religious origins can itigate the accused:s liabilityE

?. C-N the right to be infored of the accused was upheld by the courtsE

7*+,/

. No erit in the first arguent. Plea of guilty e=tends to treachery and e9ident preeditation. % lea of guilty is an admission of all the material facts alleged in the

nformation. % plea of guilty when forally entered on arraignent is sufficient to sustain con9iction of the offense charged without introduction of further e9idence upon t

theory that the defendant hiself has supplied the necessary proof by his plea of guilty. <y his plea the accused is deeed to ha9e aditted not only the coission of th

offense charged but the circustances surrounding their coission such as e9ident preeditation ta>ing ad9antage of superior strength ale9osia and dwelling.

Ce are therefore constrained to hold that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cries of ultiple urder frustrated urder and attepted urder all

qualified by e9ident preeditation as charged in the inforation.

&. No -ur penal laws enuerate the circustances which itigate criinal liability and the condition of running auc> is not one of the. 1n so far as they are applicabl

they ust be applied ali>e to all criinals be they 3hristians 0oros or Pagans. 0ore so in the case of the accused who though 0oro by blood has howe9er settled for

years before the occurrence of the tragedy in christian counity and li9ed there with a 3hristian coon8law wife and relati9es. 2nder such atosphere he ust ha9e

been indoctrinated into the 3hristian way of life to such e=tent that he should ha9e >nown that running auc> is abhorred in our society and punished by our law.

?. Hes the right of the accused to be infored was properly obser9ed by the courts.

8 %rraignent was held in the local dialect of the accused.

4he Pro9incial 3oander of Puerto Princesa who in9estigated the accused testified that he propounded the

questions to hi in 4agalog which is the dialect >nown to hi while ustice of the Peace -scar 6iat before who the confession was subscribed and sworn to testified t

he read the docuent and translated it into 4agalog for the benefit of the accused and when he as>ed hi if he was coerced into a>ing the stateent he ac>nowledged

that it was 9oluntarily gi9en by hi.

G.R. No. +8&$" anuary &! &"

PETITIONER/ %2R*+1% 3-N,*

RESPONDENTS/ P%<+- R1I*R% acting pro9incial fiscal of 4ayabas and 5*,*R13- 0. 2N6-N Bustice of the peace of +ucena 4ayabas

5%346/



8%urelia is a unicipal idwife and was charged with 9arious cries and isdeeanors. 6he appeared together with counsel at hearings for no less than ' occasions o

to find out that the hearings are postponed. 0ore than one year after the first inforation was filed trial has not yet coenced.

8%urelia now coes before this 3ourt to alle9iate her fro her agony by disissing the case on the ground of her right to speedy trial.

662*D6/

C-N the prayer to disiss the cases filed against her is proper on the ground of her right to speedy trialE

7*+,/

8Hes the 3ourt granted disissal of the case anchored on the subitted ground.

8

Philippine organic and statutory law e=pressly guarantee that in all criinal prosecutions the accused shall enBoy the right to ha9e a speedy trial. %urelia 3onde li>e all o

accused persons has a right to a speedy trial in order that if innocent she ay go free and she has been depri9ed of that right in defiance of law. ,isissed fro her hu

position and copelled to dance attendance on courts while in9estigations and trials are arbitrarily postponed without her consent is palpably and openly unBust to her an

detrient to the public.

8

Ce lay down the legal proposition that where a prosecuting officer without good cause secures postponeents of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a

reasonable period of tie as in this instance for ore than a year the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in andaus to copel a disissal of the inforation o

he be restrained of his liberty by habeas corpus to obtain his freedo.

(Right to public trial)

G.R. No. +8?##" uly &! $?

PETITIONERS/ 7-N. GR*G-R1-. N. G%R31% udge of the 3ity 3ourt of 0anila and 5R%N3163- +-R*N%N%

RESPONDENTS/ 7-N. 5*+1Q ,-01NG- udge of the 3ourt of 5irst 1nstance of 0anila *,G%R,- 3%+- and 610*-N 3%R<-NN*+

5%346/

84he 3ase arose fro a ere altercation between 5rancisco +orenJana and the two policeen *dgardo 3alo and 6ieon 3arbonnel at the tie when the policeen

accosted and adonished 5rancisco for a traffic 9iolation. 5rancisco asserts eployent of force by the policeen.



84he hearings for the trial was conducted not in open court but inside the chabers of udge Garcia. 4he parties had also agreed to hold the hearings on a 6aturday due

their utual desire to proceed and end the case as soon as possible as there were any cases scheduled for trial on the usual criinal trial days. 6e9eral hearings ha9e

passed and the policeen had not raised any concern on irregularity of the proceedings. 2ntil the policeen filed a case before udge ,oingo praying for preliinary

prohibitory and andatory inBunction alleging irregularity of the proceedings.

8udge ,oingo then released a restraining order and deferent of the proulgation of the Budgent by udge Garcia. 1n the sae order udge ,oingo declared that A

constitutional and statutory rights of the accusedA had been 9iolated ad9ersely affecting their Aright to a free and ipartial trialA KnotingL Athat the trial of these cases lasting

se9eral wee>s held e=clusi9ely in chabers and not in the court roo open the publicA;

80otion for reconsideration was filed by 5rancisco +orenJana but was denied. 7ence this petition.

662*D6/

C-N the right to a public trial was 9iolated by udge GarciaE

7*+,/

8 No right to public trial was not 9iolated.

8 4he trial ust be public. 1t possesses that character when anyone interested in obser9ing the anner a Budge conducts the proceedings in his courtroo ay do so. 4h

s to be no ban on such attendance. 7is being a stranger to the litigants is of no oent. No relationship to the parties need be shown. 4he thought that lies behind this

safeguard is the belief that thereby the accused is afforded further protection that his trial is li>ely to be conducted with regularity and not tainted with any ipropriety. %

deterrence to arbitrariness.

8 4here is the well recogniJed e=ception though that warrants the e=clusion of the public where the e9idence ay be characteriJed as @offensi9e to decency or public or

8

Chat did occasion difficulty in this suit was that for the con9enience of the parties and of the city court udge it was in the latterAs air8conditioned chabers that the trial w

held. 4here is no showing that the public was thereby e=cluded. 1t is to be aditted that the siJe of the roo allotted the udge would reduce the nuber of those who co

be our present. 6uch a fact though is not indicati9e of any transgression of this right. 3ourtroos are not of unifor diensions. 6oe are saller than others. 0oreo9er

aditted by ustice <lac> in his asterly 1n re -li9er opinion it suffices to satisfy the requireent of a trial being public if the accused could @ha9e his friends relati9es and

counsel present no atter with what offense he ay be charged.

G.R. No. "#!& 6epteber F &##

PETITIONER: -6* P. +-P* R.



RESPONDENTS/ -5513* -5 47* -0<2,60%N 7-N. %N1%N- %. ,*61*R4- and 7-N. 0%RG%R14- P. G*RI%31- R. in their official capacities as -buds

and ,eputy -budsan for 0indanao respecti9ely and the 6andiganbayan

6peedy 4rial4he constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases is not liited to the accused in criinal proceedings but e=tends to all parties in all cases including ci9iadinistrati9e cases and in all proceedings including Budicial and quasi8Budicial hearings. ( *oeC 's! Office of the Ombudsman G.R. No. "#!&. 6epteber F &##)

7ence under the 3onstitution any party to a case ay deand e=peditious action on all officials who are tas>ed with the adinistration of Bustice. ( *oeC 's! Office oOmbudsman G.R. No. "#!&. 6epteber F &##)

7owe9er the right to a speedy disposition of a case li>e the right to speedy trial is deeed 9iolated only when the proceedings is attended by 9e=atious capriciousoppressi9e delays; or when unBustified postponeents of the trial are as>ed for and secured or e9en without cause or Bustifiable oti9e a long period of tie is alloweelapse without the party ha9ing his case tried. *qually applicable is the balancing test used to deterine whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial speedy disposition of a case for that atter in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant is weighed and such factors as the length of the delay

reasons for such delay the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused and the preBudice caused by the delay. 4he concept of speedy disposition is a relati9e and ust necessarily be a fle=ible concept. (*oeC 's! Office of the Ombudsman G.R. No. "#!&. 6epteber F &##)

case digest_batch 9

Documents