RULE 115 : RIGHTS OF ACCUSED
RULE 115 Rights of Accused
Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. — In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled
to the following rights:
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.
(c) To be present and defend in person and by
counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from
arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The
accused may, however, waive his presence at the
trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail,
unless his presence is specifically ordered by the
court for purposes of identification. The absence of
the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of
which he had notice shall be considered a waiver
of his right to be present thereat. When an
accused under custody escapes, he shall be
deemed to have waived his right to be present on
all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is
regained. Upon motion, the accused may be
allowed to defend himself in person when it
sufficiently appears to the court that he can
properly protect his right without the assistance of
counsel.
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but
subject to cross-examination on matters covered
by direct examination. His silence shall not in any
manner prejudice him.
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a
witness against himself.
(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses
against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as
part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who
is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence
be found in the Philippines, unavailable or
otherwise unable to testify, given in another case
or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving
the same parties and subject matter, the adverse
party having the opportunity to cross-examine him.
(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure
the attendance of witnesses and production of
other evidence in his behalf.
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the
manner prescribed by law. (1a)
Take note that the rights of the accused actually
are clearly set for under Section 12, Article III of
the 1987 Constitution and the rights mentioned
therein are so called among others as Miranda
rights (Miranda vs. Arizona) which were formally
incorporated in the 1973 Constitution.
Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
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.
MIRANDA RIGHTS
1. Right to remain silent
2. R i g h t t o h a v e a c o m p e t e n t a n d
independent counsel
3. Right to be informed that he has the right
to remain silent and have a counsel
Now, one of the Miranda rights is the right to
remain silent, the other is the right to have a
competent and independent counsel, preferably
of his own choice and the right to be informed of
his rights.
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
Now, the right to remain silent merely signifies
that the person may not be compelled to say
anything. The person arrested or the person
under custodial investigation should be informed
that he has the right to remain silent that anything
he says may be used as evidence against him.
So, you better keep your mouth shut and invoke
your right to remain silent.
R I G H T TO H AV E A C O M P E T E N T A N D
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
Second, right of a person under custodial
investigation is the right to have a competent and
independent counsel, preferably of his own
choice. But take note that under the constitution if
the person cannot afford to hire services of a
lawyer, then he must be provided with one and it
should be provided for free. So if the person is
indigent, he cannot engage the services of the
lawyer then he must be provided with law
enforcement authorities. Normally, the lawyer
provided here is coming from the Public Attorney’s
Office, but when there is no lawyer available, any
lawyer may be assigned to him as his counsel.
But emphasis should be made that the lawyer
provided with must be among others be a
competent lawyer. Dili pwede ipadala didto katong
naa na sa departure area di na kadungog,
hearing impaired and lawyer cannot talk, that
does not satisfy the requirement or the right
accorded to the accused pursuant to Sec 12,
Article III. And far more important the lawyer that
should be provided for the person taking into
custody must be an independent lawyer. So, this
is not rather a _____ right that if the person
cannot afford the services of the lawyer then he
should be provided with a lawyer who happens to
be the chief of police or the NBI chief, or the
fiscal, patay kang bata ka, because these persons
work for the state. They work for the prosecution,
so one must be a competent and an independent
lawyer, but preference should be given to the one
which is the choice of the person or the accused.
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED THAT HE HAS THE
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND HAVE A
COUNSEL
And the third right which is formally expressed
under the 1987 Constitution as well as in the 1973
Constitution is the right of the person detained or
under custody to be informed that basically he
has two rights the right to remain silent and the
right to have a competent and independent
counsel. Take note that this 3rd right is equally
important, it is not enough that the person has the
right to remain silent that he has the right to have
a competent and independent counsel and that
he must be informed that he has these rights,
because how can he possibly invoke these rights
if in the first place he doesn’t know that he has
these rights. That’s the reason why in the 1973
Constitution there is this added right which is not
mentioned in the case of Miranda vs. Arizona that
the person detained or taken into custody must be
informed of his right to remain silent and the right
to have a competent and independent counsel. In
our Consti 2 class if you can recall I’ve mentioned
the case of People vs. Lucero.
People vs. Lucero
Where a person was given, or according to the
lawyer well undoubtedly he is an independent
lawyer but the thing is he did not perform his job
as a lawyer. In the middle of the interrogation he
left and returned the next day when the affidavit
of confession had already been prepared. The
lawyer subsequently asked the accused “Is this
your statement? Will you sign this confession?
Accused sign such confession.
SC said it is not in compliance with Section 12
because the lawyer must be a competent one,
one who is mindful and conscious of his duties
and responsibilities.
WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE A COUNSEL
And take note further that the right to remain
silent and the right to have a counsel may be
waived. But for that waiver to be valid, it must be:
1. Put into writing
2. Signed by the person detained, arrested or
under custody
3. It must be done in the presence of the lawyer,
meaning it must be signed also and attested to by
the lawyer.
It is not enough that the lawyer is around and that
he must attest to the execution of that waiver of
the right to remain silent and the right to have a
counsel preferably of his choice.
What is the reason behind that the lawyer should
be there or that the waiver of right must be done
in the presence of the lawyer?
To ensure that the person waiving the right knew
full well the repercussions of his having waived of
his rights to remain silent and the right to have a
counsel. And far more important is to ensure that
the execution thereof must not be coerce or
executed the same with free will and full
understating of such action.
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED THAT HE HAS THE
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND HAVE A
COUNSEL CAN NEVER BE WAIVED
But take note the right to be informed of the right
to remain silent and the right to have a counsel
CAN NEVER BE WAIVED.
The reason for that is plain and simple, because
again how can one possibly invoke of such rights
if he doesn’t know he has those rights or how can
he waive the same, if in the first place wa siya
kahibaw unsa ang I waive. What will he waive
when in the first place he doesn’t know that he
has these rights which however may be waived.
So of the three Miranda Rights, the third one can
never be waived.
Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
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.
And take note further that although it is not
mentioned under the rules, the Constitution
makes it clear that the use and the
implementation of torture, violence, force,
intimidation or threat is considered prohibited or a
taboo. When it does not call for any explanation at
all.
And more than that the Constitution provides
further that the employment of Secret detention
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention is likewise prohibited. So what
was implemented in the past during the dark ages
of martial law, as what was relay to me by
Gravador, because I was not born at that time,
when Marcos regime employed this solitary
confinement that happened to Ninoy Aquino so its
not considered prohibited at that time. But in
actual practice actually if one of the inmates kung
ma wada? Siya, he will be under solitary
confinement and it was permissible because
that’s a form of discipline and also that’s a form of
avoiding that person from injuring other inmates.
But as a rule the employment of Secret detention
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention is considered prohibited or a
taboo under Sec. 12 Art III.
RA 7438
But emphasis shall be made that there is a law
that grants additional rights to the person
detained ,arrested or taken under the custody of
law and that is RA 7438.
Section 2, R.A. 7438
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under
custodial investigation shall be allowed visits
by or conferences with any member of his
immediate family, or any medical doctor or
priest or religious minister chosen by him or by
any member of his immediate family or by his
counsel, or by any national non-governmental
organization duly accredited by the
Commission on Human Rights of by any
international non-governmental organization
duly accredited by the Office of the President.
The person's "immediate family" shall include
his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or
child, brother or sister, grandparent or
grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece,
and guardian or ward.
While under Sec 12, Art III it is clear that the
person has the right to confer with his lawyer, but
it has been expanded by RA 7438 in that the right
of the person to confer with another person not
only extends to his lawyer but that he has the
right also to confer with:
1. Any member of his immediate family
2. Medical Doctor
 3. Priest or religious minister chosen by him
or by any member of his immediate family
or by his counsel
4. A n y n a t i o n a l n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l
organization duly accredited by the
Commission on Human Rights
5. Any international non-governmental
organization duly accredited by the Office
of the President
Sa Atricle III, Section 12 ang gi ensure lang diha
is the right to confer with the lawyer but under the
law RA 7438, he can now confer with the member
of his family, medical doctor or priest so in the
context RA 7438 gives additional rights to the
person detained or arrested.
And the person's "immediate family" shall include
his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or
child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild,
uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or
ward. So, apil gyud dinhi ang di niya blood
relative ang iya uyab, ingna lang na minyounon.
You can avail of the kubol inside the jail where
you can have your private moments. But its for
rent, and I’m telling you its very expensive,
sigarilyo perting mahala, I have client na datu
gyapun kay negosyo mana.
WHEN THE LAWYER IS ABSENT BECAUSE
OF THE RIGHT TO HAVE A COUNSEL HAS
B E E N WA I V E D , T H E E X T R A J U D I C I A L
CONFESSION MUST BE ATTESTED TO AND
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
FOLLOWING TO BE VALID
But what is important under RA 7438, for the
extrajudicial confession to be admissible, the one
executed by the person detained, arrested or
under custody must be among others must be put
in writing, signed by him and must be done in the
presence of the lawyer meaning attested to by the
lawyer, and if the lawyer is absent because of the
right to have a counsel has been waived, the
extrajudicial confession must be attested to and
signed in the presence of the following to be valid:
1. Parents
2. Elder Brother or sister
3. Spouse
4. Municipal Mayor
5. Municipal Judge
6. School District Supervisor or Principal
7. Priest or Minister of his own choice
But there is this case of People vs. Ordoo.
People vs. Ordoo
Gi dakop sila duha then it is a far flung area, I
mentioned this to you in our consti 2 class,
then there wa no lawyer available in town, but
the accused executed affidavit of confession,
given there is no lawyer in town, then the
police officers took down their testimonies ,
reduced into writing, and made the accused
sign the affidavit and the police make sure
that the accused sign it in the presence of
their parents, spouses, parents , elder brother
or sister or in the presence of the municipal
mayor, because there was no lawyer in town.
But when it was presented in court It was
considered as inadmissible or not valid. Why?
When there was already attestation made by
their spouses, by their parents, elder brother
or sister and even the municipal mayor, how
come in the Ordoo still considered it
inadmissible.
SC: Any of the persons can only attest if
there is NO LAWYER PRESENT and SUCH
ABSENCE WAS DUE TO A VALID WAIVER,
and that the waiver must be put into
writing.
So, in that case, it is clear that the absence of the
lawyer is not pursuant to valid waiver because in
the first place there was no lawyer who can even
attest.
So you take note that he attestation done by the
parents, spouses, elder brother or sister,
municipal mayor, may only stand validity to an
extrajudicial confession if and only if the
ABSENCE OF THE LAWYER IS UPON A VALID
WAIVER of the rights.
So, an extrajudicial confession again for it to be
admissible must be:
1. Put into writing
2. Signed by the accused
3. Signed and attested to by the lawyer
So, the preference must be given to the lawyer,
more than the spouse, parents or elder brother or
sister. And when you become lawyers someday if
you are representing the accused, and the
accused executed an extrajudicial confession it
appears that he was assisted by the lawyer
because it has a signature of the lawyer, do not
be contented with that because in the cross
examination you ask him if he was assisted by the
lawyer. Or even if the one presented by the
Prosecution is a State Witness formally he was an
accused but he executed a confession favorable
to the prosecution such that he was discharge as
a State witness and it appears that his
extrajudicial confession is done in the presence of
the lawyer do not accept that extrajudicial
confession, you question the accused if truly he
was assisted by a lawyer in the execution and
signing thereof and when you ask questions do
not go to the tribunal meaning do not go direct to
the point because of you’re gonna ask him will
you admit that you sign and executed this one
without the presence of the lawyer expect that the
answer will be in the negative. Why? Because it is
already rehearsed by the prosecution.
So, during custodial investigation the person
detained , arrested or under custody undoubtedly
has these so called MIRANDA RIGHTS. The
rights mentioned under Sec 12 Article III, added

by the rights enumerated under RA 7438. And
when we say Custodial investigation or
interrogation it normally refers to the formal
questioning done by the law enforcement
authorities or done by persons in authority. The
questioning done by the prosecution would fall
under this category specially during inquest so if
you are the accused you need to be assisted by
the lawyer during preliminary investigation
because any questioning done by the prosecutor
would partake of the nature of rather a custodial
investigation or interrogation. More so if the
investigation is done or conducted by the judge,
because the judge is a person in authority, even
barangay official.
PERSONS IN INTEREST.
And take note that under RA 7438 the term
custodial investigation has been broadened to
include this practice of sending invitation letters to
this so called PERSONS IN INTEREST.
So if there is a crime committed and you are
considered as one as persons in interest then you
are sent with a letter an invitation letter for you to
go to the station or police authority for you to shed
light on the incident then it is already part of
custodial investigation.
So when you go there you should be already be
afforded with your Miranda rights so you should
already be informed of your right to remain silent
and right to have a counsel, far more important
you should be assisted by a lawyer. So if you
receive this kind of letter and you are guilty better
for you not to show up, anyways they cannot
cause your arrest. BUT if your conscience is clear
them there is no harm in going to the police
station upon the invitation.
W H E N I N V E S T I G AT I O N B Y T H E
MANAGEMENT
Where there is already a formal interrogation
conducted by authorities then it is already
custodial investigation. But not the one conducted
by the management, diba naa man usahay,
sometimes the management conducted the
investigation, is the employee entitled to be
assisted by the lawyer. The answer is NO.
Because is not custodial investigation, because it
is not conducted by police authorities, not
conducted by law enforcement authorities.
WHEN NO FORMAL INTERROGATION
So when there is formal questioning conducted
then we would have no problem in determining
whether the person is entitled to Miranda rights.
Problem arises if there is no formal interrogation
being conducted. A case in point, People vs.
Bolanos.
People vs. Bolanos
Nag inum silang duha pag ka ugma namatay
iya kainum, so he was arrested, of course kinsa
man lain suspect. Upon being conducted to the
police station in the patrol car, one of the
responding police officers casually ask him, Mr.
Bolanos unsa man to? Ni admit siya na iya
gpatay. During trial, the police officer testified
the confession of Bolanos in Court. SC said
that is inadmissible. Why? Because although
there was no formal interrogation at that case,
the fact remain that Bolanos has been arrested,
he was already restrained of movement and
action.
People vs. Dela Cruz
Case of Parricide. Gpatay ang asawa, gidakop.
Then it was pursuant to a warrant. Pagdakop
niya one of the police officer said asa man
glubong imu asawa, he pointed to the place
where the remains were buried.
In the trial the police testified the confession
made by the accused. SC said it was
inadmissible. Because at the time he was
asked, he was already arrested and was
deprived of his freedom.
Take note in the 2 cases above, there was no
formal investigation or interrogation conducted.
But the case of Bolanos and Ordoo and Medina is
in contrast with People vs Dy.
People vs. Ordoo and Medina
Rape with Homicide. Ordoo and Medina were
invited to the police station supposedly to shed
light on the incident but they deny any
involvement therein such that they were
released. 2 days after they were released, they
went back to the police station to confess
because according to them medyo di na sila
katulog. When they went back to the station
their statements were taken by the police
authorities without any lawyer because there
were no lawyers in town but in the presence of
their spouses, parents, elder brother or sister ,
municipal mayor and even the priest. SC said
the confession is inadmissible because it was
not done in the presence of the lawyer and
there was no valid waiver.
People vs. Dy
Owner sa bar and the Croatian nag away ug wa
nag kasinabot. So gdunggab ni Dy, then patay.
Dy went to the police station and confessed his
crime, he narrated to the police officer in duty
what happened. In the trial the police testified
the confession. SC said such confession is
admissible. Why? It was more on a
spontaneous declaration because he was not
interrogated at all in the case of Ordoo and
Medina when they went back to the police
station they were interrogated by the police
officer in duty. There lies the difference of the
two cases.
So, moral of the story when you are a law
enforcement officer, way lawyer ug mubalik kay
mu confess paminawa ayaw I interrogate.
People vs. Baloloy
Rape case. So in this case ang bata intawn
was summoned by the father to borrow rice
from the neighbor, then wala ni return. So
search was conducted wa gyud makit an.
Baloloy went to the house, that he saw a
person, they went to the site only to found out
that it was the body of the child. During the
wake the brgy. Captain was approached and
was told that they recover a black robe at the
crime scene, and the brgy captain asked who
was the owner. Baloloy said That’s mine. Then
the brgy. Captain bring him to the place not far
from where the people were and ask him about
what happened to the case. Baloloy confessed
to the brgy. captain that he did that. Baloloy
was detained in the police station and the
police officers conducted interrogation, prepare
the affidavit of confession. A day after he was
brought to the municipal judge for him to
subscribed the affidavit of confession, before he
subscribes the judge ask him what happened.
When the judge knew what happened he
became mad and conducted an interrogation in
the presence of court personnel. In trial, Brgy.
Captain, the judge and the court personnel
testified.
The extrajudicial confession turned out to be
inadmissible because clearly Baloloy was not
assisted by a lawyer. The judge cannot be
considered as an independent counsel.
As to the regards to the oral testimony made by
Baloloy to the judge, the SC said that is
inadmissible also. Because he is a person in
authority and when he conducted formal
questioning it is as if he was conducting
custodial investigation or interrogation.
As to the confession made by Baloloy to the
Brgy Captain, Sc said it was admissible.
Because clearly the Brgy captain did not ask or
interrogate Baloloy he merely incurs baloloy to
tell all about what he knew of the crime and
baloloy voluntary confess. It is more on a
spontaneous confession.
As to the court personnel testimony who heard
the responses of Baloloy, SC said that the
personnel concerned could well testify because
he just heard it and he was not the one who
conducted the interrogation.
People vs. Andan
Rape with homicide case. Ingun si Andan, can
you come in kay akong mother is having an
high blood pressure, it turns out that nobody
was there and rape was committed. Andan
escaped, pursued by the authorities and he
was arrested and detained at the police station.
When the Municipal Mayor known about the
arrest of andan the Mayor went to see Andan,
when the latter saw Mayor. He told the Mayor,
he said, mayroon akong sasabihin sayo. The
mayor brought andan to the office of the chief
of police. In the presence of the people who are
civilians who were curious. In the presence of
the media personnel, andan confided with the
Mayor. In the trial, the mayor testified in court.
Then media personalities testified as well.
Then Andan through his lawyer denied such
confession. He argued that the Mayor is a
person in authority and at that time he confided
to the mayor he was already under detention,
he argued that he should be assisted by the
lawyer when I confessed to the Mayor because
the fact remain that I was already arrested.
Citing the case of Bolanos and Dela Cruz.
SC disagreed with the arguments of Andan. SC
said in the first place ikaw ang nangayo ug
audience sa mayor, it was not the other way
around and the mayor simply listened to what
you confessed.So although you are under
detention but the fact remains that it was you
who voluntary confided with the mayor. So the
mayor’s testimony is admissible likewise the
reporters testimony is also admissible for the
reason that they were not the ones who
conducted the questioning.
So, moral of the story, if ikaw police officer,
interviewha lang, and make sure naay
nakapaminaw ngara. Because when you cannot
testified or when your testimony is inadmissible,
there testimony will be admissible as what was
rule in the case of Andan. That confessions of
media personalities or reporters are admissible
for the fact remains that they are not persons in
authority.
More so, confession given by private or
ordinary citizens, as what was obtaining in
the case of People vs. Malngan, G.R. No.
170470, September 26, 2008, case of Arson,
patay intawn ang pamilya, helper si Malngan,
then allegedly gi maltreat sa iyang amo,
pagkatulog si Malngan, a fan of Beyoncé was
singing to the tune “This Girl Is On Fire”,
iyang gisunog ang balay, patay intawn ang
iyang amo. She fled, but was arrested by the
corresponding Barangay Tanods. She was
brought to the Barangay Station, she was
interrogated by the Barangay Captain, and
then when she was brought to the Bureau of
the Fire and Protection Office, she was
interviewed also by the neighbor Gonzalez,
whose house happen to have been damaged
also. So, Malngan narrated and confided
what she did. In the trial, the Barangay
Captain testified as to what was confided to
him by Malngan, in like manner that the
neighbor Gonzalez likewise testified in court.
SC said as the regards the testimony of the
Barangay Captain, knowing that he is a
person in authority and considering that he
interrogated Malngan, then his testimony is
inadmissible. But as regards the testimony of
the neighbor then that is plainly admissible.
So, atleast you know what to do, if you are
for the law enforcement authorities, you do
what I advice you to do, but if you are the
accused ayaw nalang gyud ug tingog.
Because in the case of Ordonio(??), although
their confessions were inadmissible because
it was not done in the presence of the lawyer,
but lucky for the victim in that case, they were
interviewed by the media reporter, and the
media reporter testified in court. So, what
was deemed admissible was the testimony of
the media reporter who narrated and even
recorded the confessions of Ordonio.
NO RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN A MERE
POLICE LINE-UP
How about police line-up? Is the right to
counsel available in police line-up? The
answer is, It depends. Generally, If mere
police line-up, the right to counsel is not
available. But where the investigation has
been shifted from being inquisitorial to
accusatory as when police of authorities
already settles in a particular suspect, then
the right to counsel should be made available
during custodial investigation. And I trust that
you can still recall the case of People vs.
Escordial GR no. 138934, January 16,
2002, you can recall the case because of
what he did, you know what I mean, He did it
with the victim not just once but twice, and
the second time around he committed it with
ignominy, it was attended with treachery, ah
nevermind… and then what troubled me
because in the end Escordial was acquitted,
ofcourse he SC said he should be assisted
with a counsel during custodial investigation
because he was already named, he was
already the primary suspect in that case, but
more than that it was established that his
confession was extracted with the use of
torture, force, violence, and then there was
also testimony of the victim. So victim said,
that the culprit has keloid at the back of his
neck but it turned out that Escordial had none
of those, so in due of doubt, Escordial was
acquitted.
REENACTMENT, all the more, because if
you reenact the crime then it shows that you
are the one who did the same. That’s the
case of People vs. Luvendino, 211 SCRA
36 , that in reenact of crime, then the person
must already be assisted with a lawyer.
But how about, kini bang madakpan mo ug
kanang drugs, raid and then their is
C O N F I S C AT I O N R E C E I P T , t h e n p a
pirmahon mo, you are the person subject
matter of the warrant, so the police officer
would say “okay in compliance with Section
21, you sign the receipt” , then you signed
the receipt without the assistance of the
lawyer, would that be admissible? The
answer is NO. Because by signing the same,
it is as if you are owning up that indeed these
items were taken from your possession, that
amounts to a confession. That is the ruling of
the case of People vs Endaya, GR no.
205241, July 23, 2014, that confiscation
receipt, even if signed by the accused cannot
be admitted in evidence as proof or as
confession on the part of the accused. But
this case should be differentiated from the
case cited in your book, Marcelo vs
Sandiganbayan, that there was this person
who was arrested for supposedly stealing
mail matters, he was a postman. Upon the
arrest, the police officer directed him to sign
the mail matters that were confiscated from
his possession, he was convicted. On appeal
to the SC, he objected to the admissibility of
the signed mail matters, contending that it is
violative of his right against self-incrimination.
Because in the case of Beltran vs. Samson,
which we will discuss later on, the person
concerned may not be required or cannot be
required to give a sample of his specific
signature to be compared with the signature
purported to be a falsified signature. So in the
case of Marcelo, Marcelo said invoking the
case of Beltran that the evidence should be
declared inadmissible because he was made
to sign the same, that was violative of his
right against self incrimination because his
signature, according to him, was
communicative in nature citing the case of
Beltran vs. Samson. But SC, partly sustained
the objection but not on the basis of the
ground interposed by Marcelo. According to
our SC, the case of Beltran vs Samson
cannot be made applicable in the case of
Marcelo, because in the case of Beltran vs.
Samson, the accused there was directed by
the judge to give samples of his hand writing
to be compared with the so called falsified
document. SC said, that cannot be done,
because that will be violative of his right
against self-incrimination. But in the case of
Marcelo, the purpose why the police
authorities required Marcelo to affix his
signatures on the items that was confiscated
from him was not for the purpose of
comparing his signatures thereon with
another document containing his signature,
but the purpose of which was merely to
authenticate that the mail matters were
indeed taken from his possession. So the SC
said that Marcelo’s invocation of the right
against self-incrimination therefore is
misplaced because the purpose of affixing
his signatures therein was not for the
purpose of comparing it with another
signature purporting to his. But according to
our SC, the proper objection should have
been the on in the case of People vs.
Endaya, that he was made to sign without the
presence of a lawyer in violation of his
Miranda Rights. Because by signing the
same just like signing a confiscation receipt,
Marcelo, according to our SC, thereby
admitted that indeed those stolen mail
matters were taken from his possession. So
be careful what ground to raise in interposing
an objection. So the better objection in the
case of Marcelo should have been like that of
Endaya. That the confiscation receipt is
inadmissible even if signed by the accused, if
he signed it without the presence of a lawyer
because that could be violative of his so
called Miranda Rights.
Kining imong mga parafin test? Allowed? The
answer is Yes. How about dal.on ka sa police
station, pa pirmahon ka ug logbook nila -
ARREST REPORT, ming pirma ka. Is that
admissible? The answer is YES, People vs.
Manzano the one that we discussed before.
Because its nothing but a proof that indeed
you were conducted to the police stations.
But you take note that even if there is
violation of your Miranda rights, the rule is
that the evidence obtained thereby would be
considered as INADMISSIBLE. But you
should interpose a timely objection.
Otherwise, mag luya2 ka, then matinga lang
ka na ma convicted ka. So there has to be a
proper and timely objection. You object to the
admissibility of evidence invoking your
Miranda rights and invoking R.A. 7438. And if
the evidence is excluded, then if that is the
only good which the prosecutor has against
your client then, your client may be acquitted.
But other than the excluded evidence, there
are still other evidence tending to prove the
guilt of your client beyond reasonable doubt,
as when there are material witnesses who
were paraded by the constitution in court,
then of course, it doesn’t bring about an
acquittal of your client. But ug mao lang na
ebidensya, then chances are, ma acquit
imong client.
So those are the rights of a person taken into
custody or the person arrested, because in
the trial, if the case is filed in court, he has
additional rights, as granted under Section 14
of Article 3.
RIGHTS GRANTED UNDER SECTION 14,
ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION
SECTION 14 ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONSTITUTION
Section 14.
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of
law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be presumed innocent until
the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the
right to be heard by himself and counsel,
to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him, to have a
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the accused provided that he has been
duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT
Additional rights, as granted under Section
14 of Article 3, One of which is the right to
presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
So even if the person is arrested in flagrante
delicto committing the crime, but in the eyes
if the law he is still presumed innocent until
proven otherwise. That’s why it involves the
prosecution to prove by proof beyond
reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of
the crime. But there are situations where the
burden of evidence may be shifted. What
may be shifted is not the burden of proof, the
burden of proof always is on the prosecution.
But there are situations that the burden of
proof may be shifted from the prosecution to
the defense, as example in a crime of
homicide, the accused pleaded guilty to the
charge but interpose the alibi, that he was
merely acting in self-defense. When he
admitted to killing the victim, but interpose
that he was acting in self-defense, then the
burden of evidence may now be shifted. In
that, there may even be a reverse trial. Siyay
mo una ug present sa iyang evidence,
because in that context there was already
shifting of evidence but necessarily of proof.
Action of falsification of public document,
prosecution had already, when the accused
for example admitted to be in possession of
the document but said that has not forgery
thereof, well if that’s the case then there will
be shifting of evidence. He now has to prove
that he is not the one who forged the
instrument, and that he merely possesses the
same without knowing that its falsified
because of the presumption in law that the
holder of the forged document is the forger
thereof. You take note that consistent with
this presumption of innocence where the
evidence for the prosecution and that of the
defense are of equal weight then it has to be
shifted in favor of the defense because this is
consistent with the right to be presumed
innocent until proven otherwise.
RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND
BY A COUNSEL
Then the other right granted to a person once
a case is already filed in court is the right to
be heard by himself and by a counsel. During
custodial investigation, as mentioned before,
the right to counsel may be waived but it
should be done in writing signed by the
person and attested to by the lawyer but
during actual trial of a criminal case where
the accused is without a counsel, it is the
duty of the court to appoint a counsel for him
- a counsel de officio for the accused.
Because the right to counsel can never be
waived. Case in point is Flores vs. Ruiz 90
SCRA 428, where SC said that the right to
counsel may be waived in civil cases, the
right to counsel may be waived during
custodial investigation but not during actual
criminal trial. But if you are knowledgable in
law, because ikaw say accusado, nya ikaw
sad ang lawyer, kadtong nadakpan intawn sa
airport nagdala ug marijuana, then if he want
to defend himself, that is permissible, for as
long as the court is convinced that the person
can take up his defense. But my advise is
better be assisted by another lawyer, it’s not
good. Take it from me, nahitabo na nako.
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE
N AT U R E A N D T H E C A U S E O F
ACCUSATION WHETHER AGAINST HIM
Then another right granted to a person faced
in a criminal case, is the right to be informed
of the nature and the cause of accusation
whether against him. This normally happens
during arraignment that the right to be
informed of the nature and the cause of the
accusation whether against him. Case of
People vs Crisologo, kadto bitawng deaf-
mute, wala ma translate, postpone ug pila ka
years, then gipadayon sa court, the SC
nullified the proceedings because this is
based that the accused must be fairly
informed of the nature and accusation
leveled against him during arraignment.
Where the information would have to be read
aloud to the accused duly assisted by a
lawyer, and if the accused could not
understand English then it has to be
translated to him in a language or vernacular
known to him. The reason for this right is for
him to be able to prepare his defense, for him
to know if subsequently he will be
prosecuted with a similar case, for which he
can invoke double jeopardy and for the court
to know if indeed the information sufficiently
charge the case or the same may be
dismissed. So, ordinarily, the arraignment
would have to be done in such a manner that
the information would have to be read aloud,
makadungog nang tanan sa court. Exception
is CICL (Child In Conflict with the Law) ang
reading ani sa information e hagawhaw lang,
that’s for the protection of the CICL. Another
exception is if you want to invoke the
provision under the Revised Guidelines for
Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases pursuant
to Administrative Circular No. 15-06-10 SC,
where it is provided therein that a multiple
cases (kanang daghan counts, i.e., BP22)
because per count lain-lain ug information,
the court may just dispense with the reading
of the information. But ofcourse the defense
aided by the lawyer must waive the reading
of the information and the court must inquire
from him if he already read the contents of
the information. And ordinarily the court will
manifest to the lawyer and undertake all
record that he had already informed his client
about the charges and that his client rather
fully understood the accusations in the
information. So, there will be a valid waiver
and it must be on the record. So, that is one
permissible situation where the reading of
information in open court may be validly not
exercised, but that only applies in multiple
cases - kanang balik balik lang, repetitive, it
would take the time of the court. So you
waive, but sometimes its better for you to do
that especially if your client is a well known
personality in the locality, para dili ma
exposed to shame. And take note of the
requirement under the rules, that as a rule,
the information must only charge one specific
offfense, that’s the general rule, exception is
complex crimes among others. But where the
information charges multiple offenses but
there is no objection coming from the
defense, then the rule of mirisi applies. Case
of Dimayacyac vs. Court of Appeals G.R.
No. 136264 May 28, 2004, where the
information charges multiple information but
there is no objection then ofcourse there is
already waiver of the right, and as a rule the
person may only be convicted for an offense
that is charged in the information or an
offense that is necessarily included therein.
There is no way that he can be convicted for
an offense different from what was charged in
the information or of an offense higher than
what is charged in the information to which
he entered. Exception, is kadtong Judge
Cahigas, kadto bang ang designation sa
offense in homicide when the body of the
information is murder when that’s rather the
exception, that’s not the rule. But where the
body of the information is plainly for
homicide, there is no way that he could be
convicted for a higher offense and that is
murder. Because the rule is that if a person,
pursuant to his right to be informed of the
nature and the cause of accusation whether
against him, he can only be convicted with an
offense that is charged in the information or
one that is necessarily included therein.
Worthy of consideration however, is this case
that is cited in the book of Riano, People vs.
Noque, in this case, the charge is for illegal
possession of ephedrine, a prohibited drug,
but then after trial Noque was convicted not
for illegal possession and sale of ephedrine,
but for illegal sale and possession of shabu.
So, he objected. Defense argued that the
conviction is invalid because it was violative
of his right to be informed of the nature and
of cause accusation whether against him. But
SC said, it’s incorrect because according the
SC, nga ang formula kuno sa ephedrine is
C10H15NO, and formula sa shabu is C10H15N,
without O, so ingun ang SC “gamay naman
lang ang kulang, ug naa pani O, ephedrine
naman ni”. In other words, shabu therefore is
essential or is included in the substance of
ephedrine, gi dungan gamay component then
it becomes ephedrine. So SC said, following
the rule that one may be convicted of an
offense that is necessarily included in the
offense charge in the information,
considering that shabu is an ingredient of an
ephedrine or part thereof, thus he can be
convicted for it. But if other way around, the
charge is shabu then e convict ka ug
e p h e d r i n e , t h e r e ’s n o w a y b e c a u s e
ephedrine now will appear to be the bigger
compound. But of interest again is the case
of - , a case involving of a check, the
information for BP22 mentions about a
particular check, and then what was
introduced to him in the trial was another
check, duol ug check number, but after
conviction it was discovered that what was
presented by the prosecution was not the
check referred to in the information. SC
nullified the conviction because ofcourse it
was violative of the right of the accused to be
informed of the nature and the cause of
accusation whether against him
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
Then, there is this right afforded to the
accused, the right to have speedy in partial
and public trial. In fact it should be made of
speedy trial. Along that right, please be
informed that under the Revised Guidelines
On Continuous Trial on Criminal Cases, if
accused has been arrested then arraignment
must be conducted within 3 days following
his arrest, that is if he has been arrested prior
to the filing of the information in court. As
soon as the case is filed in court and already
raffled in a particular court, the court
concerned must schedule the arraignment of
the person detained within 10 days from the
time that the case is raffled to that particular
court. But when the person is up large, then
the arraignment must be had within 30 days
following the arrest of the person. And take
note further that under The Revised
Guideline on Mandatory or Continuous Trial
on Criminal Cases, if the case is for illegal
drugs or concerns illegal drug, the case has
to be decided within 30 days from the filing of
information in court. So drug cases, morning
or afternoon ang inyung e raise (??),
because it has to be decided within a period
of 30days, but as for other crimes it is
provided under that rule, Administrative
Circular No. 15-06-10 SC, that the perception
of evidence for the prosecution and the
defense must be completed within 6 months
or 180 days following the arraignment. If this
is not strictly followed and where the delay is
not justifiable, then this may be a good
ground for filing a motion to dismiss the case
for violation of the right of the accused to
speedy trial.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT TO
SPEEDY TRIAL AND RIGHT TO SPEEDY
DISPOSITION OF CASES
SECTION 14, ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONSTITUTION
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to
answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right
to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production
of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and
his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
SECTION 16, ARTICLE 3
Section 16. All persons shall have the right
to a speedy disposition of their cases before
all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
bodies.
Where delay happens in the course of the
trial or after the filing of the information in
court, the right your are going to invoke is
the right to speedy trial under Section 14 of
Article 3 of the Constitution. But where the
delay happens during the preliminary
investigation level, the right that you are
going to invoke is the right to speedy
disposition of cases before judicial, quasi-
judicial and administrative bodies provided
for under Section 16 of Article 3.
Allow me to direct your attention to this fairly
recent case, the case of Cagang vs
Sandiganbayan GR. no. 206438, July 31,
2018, where the SC made a categorical
distinction between the right to speedy trial
under Section 14, Article 3 and the right to
speedy disposition of cases under Section 16
of Article 3. Because what is provided for
under Section 16 (Right to speedy disposition
of cases) is broad and encompassing, in that
it covers any delay in cases pending before
administrative bodies, quasi-judicial or even
judicial bodies. But the right to speedy trial,
under Section 14 Article 3, only pertains to
criminal cases.
So this is the flow in the case of Cagang.
Flow: FACT FINDING -> PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION - > TRIAL
Let’s say for example there is a complaint
filed before the Ombudsman, administrative
complaint and it was acted upon favorably by
the Ombudsman, such that the Ombudsman
conducted fact finding investigation. Then
after conducting fact finding investigation,
the investigating prosecutor finds that there is
somehow an evidence to merit the filing of a
formal complaint, so the case now is
docketed for preliminary investigation. So,
there is preliminary investigation, so there
is also a formal complaint already. The
Administrative case before the Ombudsman,
the Formal Complaint before OMB. So OMB
now directed the accused to file his counter-
affidavits together with supporting documents
because it is now conducting a preliminary
investigation, then after conducting
preliminary investigation, the investigating
prosecutor finds probable cause, preparing
and recommending of the filing of the
information before the Sandiganbayan. So
there is a probable cause, so there will be
filing of information before the appropriate
court. Then, there is trial. If there is
unjustifiable delay during the Trial stage,
meaning repetitive postponements upon the
instance of the prosecution (dili ka present
kay dili mo tunga ka witness) over the
objection of the accused, then if the accused
wants the cases to be dismissed, then what e
should invoke is the Right to Speedy Trial
(Section 14, Article 3). But if there is
inordinate and inexplicable delay conducted
while this case was still at the preliminary
investigation level, if you want to move for
the dismissal of the case, the right that you
are going to invoke is the Right to Speedy
Disposition of Cases before judicial, quasi-
judicial and administrative bodies under,
Section 16, Article 3. But if the delay is during
the fact finding, you cannot move for the
dismissal.
Right to Speedy Trial (Section 14, Article 3)
- invoke once there is already a case before
the appropriate court.
Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
(Section 16, Article 3) - invoke if still at the
preliminary investigation level.
In the case cited in the book of Riano,
Coscolluela vs. Sandiganbayan 701 SCRA
188, the delay happened during the
preliminary investigation. Because the
complaint was filed 2001, then there was
recommendation around 2003, but for one
reason or another, there was a delay in
approving the recommendation of the Fiscal
so the information was filed only in 2009. So,
6 years. SC said, that’s too much, no
justifiable reason, hence the case should be
dismissed not because of speedy trial but
because of speedy disposition of cases
under Section 16 or Article 3.
RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CONDUCT
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Then another right afforded to the accused is
the right to meet the witnesses face to face,
referring to the Right to Conduct Cross-
examination. So, if the witnesses through the
prosecution have not been presensted for
cross-examination then their affidavits may
be declared as hearsay, hence the same may
be decreed as inadmissible. But where the
prosecution witnesses were paraded before
the court, but the defense opted not to
conduct cross-examination then, he only has
himself to blame. Because what is required is
merely opportunity to conduct cross
examination.
RIGHT TO AVAIL OF COMPULSORY
PROCESSES
Then another right granted to the accused is
the Right to Avail of Compulsory Processes
to Secure the Attendance of his witnesses.
So puede na niya nga pa issue siya ug
subpoena ad testificandum or a subpoena
duces tecum or the combination of the two.
And there is this trial in absencia where
accused may not participate all throughout
the proceedings except during arraignment or
except the time where he will be made to be
identified by the prosecution witnesses. But if
you circulated already on the identity, then
there is no need even for the accused to
show up supposedly for identification. But
trial in absencia is also beneficial for the
prosecution because if accused have already
been arraigned, then he has been notified of
the subsequent hearings, he opted not to
show up therein, then the trial will proceed
and he cannot later on invoke that there was
a violation of his right with procedural
process (?) Because of this trial in absencia.
So trial absencia works for the defense, in
like manner that it also works for the
prosecution.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
SECTION 17, ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONSTITUTION
Section 17. No person shall be compelled
to be a witness against himself.
Then another right granted to the accused is
the Right against Self-incrimination. This
provided for under Section 17, Article 3.
Which I think that you are very familiar of, in
the sense that where the said right is invoked
by the accused himself in a criminal case,
then he has the right not to take the witness
stand. But if this right is invoked by an
ordinary witness in a criminal case, then that
ordinary witness will have to take the stand
but the moment that he is being propounded
with an incrimination question then that is
when the witness would have to interpose
objection based on the right against self-
incrimination. But if it is the accused who
invokes this right there is no way that the
judge can compel the accused to take that
hot seat or the witness stand. But the
moment that he takes the witness stand, then
he can now be cross-examined by the
prosecution. But take note however, that
even where the accused takes the witness
stand thereby, allowing himself to be cross-
examined by the prosecution but the cross-
examination of the prosecution is only limited
to the things or matter that were stated by the
accused on the direct examination. Unlike the Police dayon gi set-up siya Jollibee fronting
cross-examination to be conducted on immaculada, Demands asawa bayari ko I
ordinary witnesses which may cover things rescue akong husband(?),Facts of the case
or issues which are not directly stated on
is (not in recording) Ariel (live-in partner of
direct (?) For as long as they are material to
the issue in the case. For as long as such Corazon) kay gidakop, unya ang police (dela
collateral matters are still relevant to the cruz) nga nag gunit ni Ariel (dinakpan)
issue at hand. So broader ang scope sa nangayo ug 100k para sa release ni Ariel.
cross-examination to be conducted on an Mao to nireport si Corazon( live-in partner sa
ordinary witness because of Section 6 or dinakpan) sa NBI mao to nag entrapment
Rule 132. But even when the accused takes operation. Then liable siya for extortion unta,
the witness stand, thereby waiving his right
gi kasohan siya drug use kay nag positive
against self-incrimination but the scope of the
cross-examination is limited only to matters man sa drugs. The wife reported to the NBI,
that were stated on the direct examination. NBI made an entrapment operation, during
Kadtong collateral matters, dili nato puede. the pay-out, elements of the NBI came in and
But take note, that what was discussed in our arrested Dela Cruz who is a police officer.
consti class, the colonel of the right against Dela cruz made to go to police station and
self-incrimination is only testimonial underwent drug test. Nag positive so two
compulsion or the giving of evidence that is
cases, extortion and 9165 drug use. SC
testimonial in character. So Beltran vs.
Samson, you cannot be compelled to give nullified the conviction for drug use. WHY?
example of your signature or handwriting to Ngano man nga physical raman to? Yes it is
be compared with the subject falsified merely physical but it was totally alien to the
document because that is communicative in offense in which he was arrested so it was in
character. It involves the working of your that context that it was declared invalid for it
mind. You cannot be compelled to give a was in the nature of a fishing expedition. Had
testimony against yourself because that is
it been that he was arrested for illegal
also communicative in character that is
violative of your right against self- possession of drugs then admissible, but
incrimination. But you take note that again extortion. You take note of the case of People
the scope of the right against self- vs. Dela cruz although it came out in 2017
incrimination is just speaking limited only to bar exams just like in the case of andal(?)
things that are testimonial in character or
communicative in character. Case in point
katong kaso diha Summers vs. Villaflor.
Rape intawn, accused was found out that
dunay tulo(?), so he was examined. Supreme
Court said that is admissible because that is RULE 114: BAIL
not testimonial in character much as
communicative in character. Then the case of RULE 114 - BAIL
US vs, no that was the case of US vs
Tanting, santi or shanti (di maklaro), ang Section 1. Bail defined. – Bail is the
villaflor is buntis, niduwa ug laing team ang security given for the release of a person in
asawa, pregnant, pregnancy test, ni object,
right against self- incrimination kuno, custody of the law, furnished by him or a
Supreme court said NO! because that Is
merely physical. Your body may be an bondsman, to guarantee his appearance
evidence against you. Your body may be a before any court as required under the
wonderland, but it may be used against you.
Dakpon ka, nay tsinelas, ang sapatos nabilin, conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may
ang sapatos ipa try nimo, that is admissible be given in the form of corporate surety,
because that is not testimonial. That is not
communicative in character, that is merely property bond, cash deposit, or
physical. The case of People vs Rondero
GR 125687, December 9, 1999. DNA recognizance.
sample, swab, that is allowed. People vs
Vallejo, GR 144656 May 9, 2002, blood
sample. Kuhaan kag gamay nga blood, that So, Ordinarily, when we talk of bail, it is
is even permissible Why? Because that is something given for the temporary release of
merely physical, that does not involve a person already taken into custody.
testimonial compulsion, much more it cannot
be characterized as communicative in
character. But lahi tong kang Beltran vs.
Samson, Signature kay you cannot write
without using your brain, pero kung abogado
okay rana, sulti sulti gani without using our
brain nay mga abogado mu argue walay utok
WORTHY of consideration, is the case of,
Cebu case, Dela Cruz vs People GR No.
200748 July 3 2014, kato bang extorsion,

But there are situations where bail may be
required of a person although technically
speaking even if that person is not yet in the
custody of the law.Example: Section 14 Rule
110.
SECTION 14 RULE 110
Section 14. Amendment or substitution. —
A complaint or information may be
amended, in form or in substance, without
leave of court, at any time before the
accused enters his plea. After the plea and
during the trial, a formal amendment may
only be made with leave of court and when
it can be done without causing prejudice to
the rights of the accused.
However, any amendment before plea,
which downgrades the nature of the offense
charged in or excludes any accused from
the complaint or information, can be made
only upon motion by the prosecutor, with
notice to the offended party and with leave
of court. The court shall state its reasons in
resolving the motion and copies of its order
shall be furnished all parties, especially the
offended party. (n)
If it appears at any time before judgment
that a mistake has been made in charging
the proper offense, the court shall dismiss
the original complaint or information upon
the filing of a new one charging the proper
offense in accordance with section 19, Rule
119, provided the accused shall not be
placed in double jeopardy. The court may
require the witnesses to give bail for their
appearance at the trial. (14a)
When there is substittion of information and it
is provided therein that the court may require
that the witnesses will have to put up bail to
ensure their appearance in the subsequent
proceedings.
Another situation where bail may be be given
even when the person is not yet arrested or
has not been taken into custody is again the
situation under section 10 of rule 119
SECTION 10 RULE 119
Section 10. Law on speedy trial not a bar to
provision on speedy trial in the Constitution.
— No provision of law on speedy trial and
no rule implementing the same shall be
interpreted as a bar to any charge of denial
of the right to speedy trial guaranteed by
section 14(2), article III, of the 1987
Constitution. (sec. 15, cir. 38-98)
In the process where the witness in the court
does not want to testify, then the court may
require the witness to put up bail to ensure
his appreance in court especially when there
is already a subpoena issued to the witness.
( wa ko kasabot sa connection sa rule pero
mao na nasa recording section 10) 1:25:50
So ordinarily when we speak of bail, the
person is already in the custody of the law ,
except in the situations which will just add
fine(?)
Well, bail or the right to put up bail flows from
the constitutional presumption of innocence
so it is allowed in the process of the case that
one is granted temporary liberty consistent
with presumption of innocence and there are
different kinds of bail.
We have cash bail, property, surety bond and
well this is not actually bail but release on
recognizance
Cash bail is preferred, cash nalang para di ka
mu say in jail kay peligro ka ana you ask
gravador.
You take note that under section 14, you can
put up bail by depositing the amount in the
clerk.
SECTION 14 RULE 114
Section 14. Deposit of cash as bail. —
The accused or any person acting in his
behalf may deposit in cash with the
nearest collector or internal revenue or
provincial, city, or municipal treasurer the
amount of bail fixed by the court, or
recommended by the prosecutor who
investigated or filed the case. Upon
submission of a proper certificate of
deposit and a written undertaking showing
compliance with the requirements of
section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall be
discharged from custody. The money
deposited shall be considered as bail and
applied to the payment of fine and costs
while the excess, if any, shall be returned
to the accused or to whoever made the
deposit. (14a)
It was state there that before the clerk in
court where the case is pending but take not
that mu put up ka cash bail. But take note
that mu put up ka cash bail …(di maklaro
nitingog ate kitty) dili ka pwede sa branch 24
lets say case is pending branch 12 before
judge uhh Sinkow(british accent) as
mentiowned in section 14 you need to file
before the court where the case is pending
before the clerk of court. Ayaw intawn ninyo
isumbong naa raba koy kaso niya. I can
argue that imitation is the highest form of
idolatry(?)
Take note under section 14, you can deposit
under any BIR Collector or even the treasurer
of the place municipal kung kinsa toy city
treasurer but I wouldn’t advice that you do
that why? Naa kay warrant of arrest ngano
adto paman ka sa municipal treasurer.
Tagaan kag resibo ipaabot pa nimo sa korte
so malangan . so you put up the bail directly
with the clerk of court Although that is
permissible to deposit the amount to the
collector of BIR or treasurer of municipality
but that is not practicable, you pay directly if
that is cash bail.
And in the case that the judge is not around ,
normally ang mu approve sa imo bail is a
judge of a co-equal court but in the absence
thereof kay the municipal judge or mctc judge
even if the case is cognizible by the rtc. But
that’s when if the RTc judge of the court is
pending is not around. First naa may
pairing(?) judge ibutang ta branch 22 so if
judge 5 is not around then seek before
pairing judge but 2 of them them is not
around then pwede mtc judge. In the city or
municipality where the case is pending.
What is rather important is it is approved by
the judge.
But what is the rule where the warrant of
arrest for example issued by a court in manila
then you are arrested here in cebu city. Can
you put up bail here in cebu city ? that
answer is YES
That is provided in Sec1on 17 Paragraph C of rule
114
SECTION 17 (C) RULE 114
Section 17. xxx
(c) Any person in custody who is
not yet charged in court may apply
for bail with any court in the
province, city, or municipality where
he is held. (17a)
Here, you can put up bail before any city
municipality or province where you are
arrested.
But if you are arrested in Cebu city by a
warrant issued in manila, you put up bail in
any court in Cebu City but do not put up bail
in Bogo City . Why? Because the rule is very
clear that it is in the court in the province city
or municipality where the person is held.
That is the ruling cited in the case of Ruiz vs
Beldia Cited in your text book and that is in
accordance with section 17 paragraph C of
rule 114
Where what you took up is a property bond,
well pwede gihapon but it is serious kay
daghan requirements Certified true copy that
the property is registered although sa rules
ingon okay ra but in actuality dili dawaton sa
korte kay dapat titled, naa pay tax clearance
nya annotate ten days so tanggong ang
prisohan
That is permissible naa pay affidavit sa
bondsmen stating that he is the resident
owner of real property in the ph and the value
is equal to or more than what was stated in
the bail, so may advice is cash bail.
So sa bonding companies okay rasad but
there are bonding companies di accredited
by sc so di dawaton sa korte. And you are
required to pray premium and this premium
will not be returned to you whereas what u
put up is cash bail bond upon termination of
the case whether from acquittal or conviction
of the accused and if there is no liabilities
imposed on the bail or cash bail then it will
be ordered returned so advice nako put up
cash bail.
Recognizance on the other hand is
applicable in certain situations like violation of
traffic ordinance, municipal ordinance where
the imposable penalty is not exceeding 6
months or a fine not exceeding 2000 for
example too is when the accused is detained
has not put up bail but he has served the
minimum of the penalty to be imposed
nothwithstanding or without applying the ISL
then under section 16 paragraph 2 of rule
114 he may be released or reduced bail or
even recognizance upon the discretion of the
court
SECTION 16 (2), RULE 114
Section 16.
xxx
When a person has been in custody for a
period equal to or more than the possible
maximum imprisonment prescribe for the
offense charged, he shall be released
immediately, without prejudice to the
continuation of the trial or the proceedings
on appeal. If the maximum penalty to
which the accused may be sentenced
is destierro, he shall be released after thirty
(30) days of preventive imprisonment.
xxx
Or if after conviction the accused wants to
apply for probation, and he may avail of the
same then he may be released on
recognizance or recognizance may also be
had if the offender is Child in conflict with the
law or if the case falls under the rules on
summary procedure, accused was
summoned to appear in court and cited in
contempt or bench warrant against him(? Di
maklaro) then he may be released in
recognizance.
So you take note of these circumstances in
page 320 riano.
So those are the cases where you may be
released on recognizance.
Take note that ordinarily, as soon as the
information is filed in court, the fiscal will
already state therein the amount of
recommended bail because there is such
thing as bail bond guide. But at the end of the
day it is up to the judge to reduce or even
increase the amount of bail notwithstanding
the recommendation of the fiscal. So the
recommendation of the fiscal merely guides
the courts as to the amount of bail but it is not
binding to court as the court may increase or
reduce taking into account the factors in
section 9 of rule 114
SECTION 9 RULE 114
Section 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. —
The judge who issued the warrant or
granted the application shall fix a
reasonable amount of bail considering
primarily, but not limited to, the following
factors:(a) Financial ability of the accused
to give bail;
(b) Nature and circumstances of
the offense;
(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the
accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against
the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused
appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
(i) The fact that accused was a
fugitive from justice when arrested;
and
j) Pendency of other cases where
the accused is on bail.
Excessive bail shall not be required. (9a)
T h e f i n a n c i a l c a p a b i l i t y, n a t u r e ,
circumstances, penalty, occupation of
accused , health, gravador mo drop na kay
tiguwang na, weight of evidence, probability
of flight, forfeiture of other bail probably
committed an offense when out on bail when
under probation, previous forfeiture of other
bails in other cases.
These factors may be taken into account by
judge in fixing bail notwithstanding
recommendation by fiscal but almost always
court will abide by grant by fiscal but my
advice there is no harm in filing a motion for
reduction of bail and on my experience when
you file a motion for reduction of bail, you can
ask by as much by ½ for what was
recommended by fiscal as long as you put up
cash bail. My advice is normally the fiscal will
conform and will not object. So in your
motion for reduction of bail so that you can
avoid delay kay if otherwise walay motion sa
fiscal there will be hearing mga 5 days or 10
days. So in filing a motion for reduction of bail
musugot ang fiscal wan.a butangi didto “ with
my conformity “ or no objection signed with
the fiscal the court will approve the motion
right on the very day. Otherwise if there is no
conformity, it will still be calendared. Some
will take days from the filing t hereof so it may
be too late. Disgrasya verina.
So another question is, when can you apply
for bail? Must you wait or is it necessary for
the information to be filed in court or is it not
when the accused has been under arrest ?
As what was clearly stated in the rules, (di
maklaro), There is no need to wait for the
filing of the information in court. But if the
information has already been filed in court,
then undoubtedly if the offense is a bailable
offense, then you can already put up bail
First preference, in the court where the case
is pending, but if you are arrested in another
place then in the municipality, city, or
province where you are arrested and when
that happens the record for the application for
bail and the order of release will be
forwarded by the court which issued the
same to the proper court.
But the proper court may demand to another
bail
Basin magduda ang proper court nga amigo
ni nga judge so the proper court may require
to put up another bail.
So arrest Manila, ari ka madakpan, you don’t
have to fly to manila
Take note again, that in the information filed
in court , if the offense is bailable then you
can already put up bail, so if you cannot
afford to put up bail cause you have no
money, you cant even pay for the premium,
but then you already served the minimum
sentence of the imposable penalty, diba
graduating penalty, 2 years and 4 months to
say 6 years or like that , wa kay ma pyansa 6
years to 12 years, na serve ang 6 years
minimum, you can already apply for a
reduced bail, or at the discretion of the court,
you may be released on recognizance.
BUT, if you have been detained equal to or
more than the imposable penalty, then you
should be released even without bail, but
without prejudice to the case to continue.
Ang imo penalty 6 years pero wa gyud k aka
pyansa kay wala kay kwarta, but you were
detained already for 6 years, then the court
must order your release without requiring you
to put up for bail. Because that is under your
right. But the proceedings will continue, kung
convicted ka, ofcourse you will serve the …
(di clear)
Kung dili convicted hala pangitaa tong
complainant. File-I to ug kaso malicious
prosecution. Is that clear? Kung minimum
imo na serve, you can have a reduced bail or
kung wa gyuy kwarta, apply for recognizance
. normally ang recognizance I grant sa korte
tan.awn if wala bakay infraction sa penal
institution .
BUT AGAIN! Even the case has not yet been
filed in court , for as long as you are already
detained, then you can already apply for bail .
because what is important is that you have
already been deprived of liberty or freedom.
So you file a petition of bail in the court where
you are arrested pursuant to section 17
paragraph C of rule 114
SECTION 17 (C) RULE 114
Section 17. xxx
(c) Any person in custody who is
not yet charged in court may apply
for bail with any court in the
province, city, or municipality where
he is held. (17a)
Gidakop ka, then PI pa, then you can apply
for bail. especially if the offense is merely a
bailable offense. You file it in the court. Mtc
rtc of the province city municipality where you
are arrested. Mao tong sayop sa lawyer ni
kato bitawng road rage David Lim Jr, iyang gi
voluntarily surrender pagkahuman ni opt siya
ug regular PI Pursuant to section 6 of rule
112.
SECTION 6 RULE 112
Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.
— (A) By the Regional Trial Court. — Within
ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint
or information, the judge shall personally
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and
its supporting evidence. He may immediately
dismiss the case if the evidence on record
clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he
finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant
of arrest, or a commitment order if the
accused has already been arrested pursuant
to a warrant issued by the judge who
conducted the preliminary investigation or
when the complaint or information was filed
pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of
doubt on the existence of probable cause, the
judge may order the prosecutor to present
additional evidence within five (5) days from
notice and the issue must be resolved by the
court within thirty (30) days from the filing of
the complaint of information.
(B) By the Municipal Trial Court. — When
required pursuant to the second paragraph of
section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary
investigation of cases falling under the
original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial
Court may be conducted by either the judge
or the prosecutor. When conducted by the
prosecutor, the procedure for the issuance of
a warrant or arrest by the judge shall be
governed by paragraph (a) of this section.
When the investigation is conducted by the
judge himself, he shall follow the procedure
provided in section 3 of this Rule. If the
findings and recommendations are affirmed
by the provincial or city prosecutor, or by the
O m b u d s a n o r h i s d e p u t y, a n d t h e
corresponding information is filed, he shall
issue a warrant of arrest. However, without
waiting for the conclusion of the investigation,
the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he
finds after an examination in writing and
under oath of the complainant and his
witnesses in the form of searching question
and answers, that a probable cause exists
and that there is a necessity of placing the
respondent under immediate custody in order
not to frustrate the ends of justice.
(C) When warrant of arrest not necessary. —
A warrant of arrest shall not issue if the
accused is already under detention pursuant
to a warrant issued by the municipal trial court
in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section, or if the complaint or information was
filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule or is for
an offense penalized by fine only. The court
shall then proceed in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction. (6a)
But then naghuwat pa siya mu file ang
information before siya mu bail. ASUS!
Pirting sayupa! Nadisgrasya nuon si david na
stuck up sa prisohan. Pagkahibaw niya ato,
gi terminate ang lawyer, corporate lawyer pa
naman , because he used to handle cases
here.
He can already put up bail unta because his
client was already deprived of liberty. Is that
clear
And even if a person is submitted for bail,
there is still a chance that the court may
increase or decrease the bail upon further
motion and pwede pa I double ang bail ..
kung tan.aw medyo dako dako ang kwarta
you can file a motion. But that is subject to
the sound wisdom of the court. That is under
section 20 of rule 114
SECTION 20 RULE 114
Sec. 20. Increase or reduction of bail. –
After the accused is admitted to bail, the
court may, upon good cause, either
increase or reduce its amount. When
increased, the accused may be committed
to custody if he does not give bail in the
increased amount within a reasonable
period. An accused held to answer a
criminal charge, who is released without
bail upon filing of the complaint or
information, may, at any subsequent stage
of the proceedings and whenever a strong
showing of guilt appears to the court, be
required to give bail in the amount fixed, or
in lieu thereof, committed to custody.
But take note of the substantive basis of the
right to bail. This is provided therein in
section 13 article 3 of the 1987 constitution.
Art 3 1987 Constitution Sec 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
That all persons except those charged with
crimes punishable with reclusion perpetua
when the evidence of guilt is strongk shall be
before conviction be bailable by sufficient
sureties or released on recognizance .
So based on that provision, it is very clear
that if the penalty imposable for the offense is
lower than or less than reclusion perpetua
then bail therefore is a matter of right.
Reclusion perpetua then down the line the
offense is clearly bailable . what is taken into
consideration is the penalty imposable and
not the penalty imposed
So when the penalty imposable is lower than
reclusion perpetua, bail is a matter of right
even if the evidence of evidence is strong.
Because what is decisive is the penalty
imposable which is lower than RP.
But when the evidence where the penalty
imposable for the offense and the evidence
of guilt is strong, then bail therefore may then
be a matter of right .
Exception is de rama vs CA nga for health
reasons, old age then the accused there
needed medical attendance it is cited in the
book of riano but I mentioned this in our
consti class. For humanitarian reasons .
But even if the offense is a bailable offense,
but the case is tried by a military tribunal,
because the accused is a military personnel,
bail is not a matter of right as what was cited
in commendador vs de villa 200 scra
because military they are governed by
separate rules and matawag ni nato sila nga
high risk because they know how to kill.
So hadlok sad ang chago basin buhian
mapatyan . so that was why trillianes in the
past was detained even if the offense against
trillianes was a bailable offense, he could not
put up bail as a matter of right because bail is
not a matter of right before military court
martial or military tribunal
BUT again in regular courts if the offense is
less than RP, bail is a matter of right
notwithstanding the gravity or weight of the
evidence even if the evidence of guilt is
strong but if the penalty imposable for the
offense and evidence of guilt is strong then
bail is not a matter of right BUT! You still have
a remedy!
Because even if the penalty for the offense
charged is reclusion perpetua and the
evidence is supposedly strong, if you are the
lawyer for the accused, there is no harm in
trying to file a petition for bail. Because when
you file a petition for bail, there will be a
summary hearing and that the prosecution is
now directed or must present evidence to the
court tending to show that the evidence
against the accused is strong but when we
say evidence is strong it does not equate to
proof beyond reasonable doubt that is
sampling of evidence.
And you take note that under the revised
guidelines on continuous trial in criminal
cases, bail application must be terminated
within 30 days, the hearing thereof must be
terminated within 30 days BUT! When the
bail application is with respect to drug cases,
it must be terminated within 20 days. So
that’s how summary hearing is done.
Sampling of evidence. TN too that hearing is
a requirement such that if the prosecution
does not interpose any objection, the judge
must still conduct a hearing. Bisan pag
petition for bail evidence of guilt is strong, the
prosecution made a conformity, he is
mandated to conduct a hearing. WITHOUT
THAT THE GRANTING OF BAIL IS INVALID.
TN: that the evidence presented during the
bail hearing are automatically reproduced
and take note that there is no prohibition for
calling back a witness for further cross-
examination. Knowing well that the bail-
hearing is summary in nature. But what is
important again is that if the penalty
imposable for the offense is reclusion
perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong,
ikaw abogado you can file petition or motion
for bail specially if you believe that evidence
of guilt is not strong.
We did that not just once but on multiple
occasions sometimes granted sometimes di
depends on judge. Moral is there is a remedy
TN: that if you are granted bail, if you want to
leave for the US, for other states or other
countries, you need to ask permission from
the court, because if you are required to
show in court and you will not attend then the
court will issue a bench warrant against and if
you are a bondsmen you will be asked to
explain within 30 days why he failed to
appear in the hearing where he was directed
to.
Here if the bondsmen could not do that or if
the explanation is non satisfactory, then an
order may be issued against the cash bail ,
bail bond. .
When that happens if you are the bondsmen
you can even arrest the person. Karahoa ka
ako maangin diri akong property
Ako for example put up bail for gravador.
Akong property. I can arrest gravador even
without warrant because that is permissible
under the rules that is section 20 of rule 114.
Otherwise akong property ma prejudice
akong property makuha.,
And take note also that if an accused is on
bail and he travels without the permission of
the court, he can be arrested without warrant
and that is permissible under the rules
section 21.
So that is the consequence.
Take note of the rulings in USA vs purgnan
and judge olalia vs Government of Hongkong
we discussed this in consti
Ni USA vs purganan, Bail is not a matter of
right in extradition cases because in
extradition cases, it is not a criminal case
because there is no presumption of guilt
therein. There is no judgment of conviction
whatsoever so bail therefore is not a matter
of right moreso that in such cases there is a
presumption that such extradite is a…( di
maklaro) flight risk?
RULE 114
Sec. 20. Increase or reduction of bail. –
After the accused is admitted to bail, the
court may, upon good cause, either
increase or reduce its amount. When
increased, the accused may be committed
to custody if he does not give bail in the
increased amount within a reasonable
period. An accused held to answer a
criminal charge, who is released without
bail upon filing of the complaint or
information, may, at any subsequent stage
of the proceedings and whenever a strong
showing of guilt appears to the court, be
required to give bail in the amount fixed, or
in lieu thereof, committed to custody.
Section 21. Forfeiture of bond. — When
the presence of the accused is required by
the court or these Rules, his bondsmen
shall be notified to produce him before the
court on a given date and time. If the
accused fails to appear in person as
required, his bail shall be declared forfeited
and the bondsmen given thirty (30) days
within which to produce their principal and
to show cause why no judgment should be
rendered against them for the amount of
their bail. Within the said period, the
bondsmen must:
(a) produce the body of their
principal or give the reason for his
non-production; and
(b) explain why the accused did not
appear before the court when first
required to do so.
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment
shall be rendered against the bondsmen,
jointly and severally, for the amount of the
bail. The court shall not reduce or
otherwise mitigate the liability of the
bondsmen, unless the accused has been
surrendered or is acquitted. (21a)
In the case of Govt of hongkong vs olalia, the
burden is now on the applicant to show that
he is not a flight risk and the court will
normally require him to put up big(?) bail and
require him to surrender his travel documents
that he will not batsi. But sige lang surrender
nya adto ka agi Malaysia or osamis. That is
in extradition cases
TN: as stated in section 13 of article 3 Even if
there is declaration of martial law or
suspension, bail may still be availed of if the
offense is bailable.
And take note of section 6 rule 114
Rule 114 Section 6
Section 6. Capital offense defined. — A
capital offense is an offense which, under the
law existing at the time of its commission and
of the application for admission to bail, may
be punished with death. (6a)
That even if you put up bail, that does not
foreclose your right to question validity of
arrest and I forgot to mention that if you put
up bail it is not a requirement that you be
arraigned first before the court grants your
application for bail. That is in the case of
Lavides vs CA (?). it is an error for the court
to require that the accused be arraigned first
before it grants the petition for bail.
But you take note of the provisions of section
4 rule 114. It is difficult to understand.
SECTION 14 RULE 114
Section 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception.
— All persons in custody shall be admitted
to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient
sureties, or released on recognize as
prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or
after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, and (b) before conviction by the
Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment. (4a)
Excessive bail shall not be required
Lets say criminal case cognizable by MTC,
well bail matter of right during pendency of
the case, but then if there is conviction , if
you interpose an appeal on the RTC, during
pendency of the appeal will accused be
entitled to bail? YES, a matter of right, clear
from the provision of 4A before or after
conviction by the mtcc, mtc and before
conviction by the RTC on appeal.
BUT! If the RTC affirms the conviction and
accused elevated the case to CA, now
discretionary but discretion lies with RTC.
After the CA to the SC, then you are already
high risk, bail should not be granted.
THEN another situation, Case cognizable by
RTC and offense is a bailable one, is it a
matter of right? YES, now suppose there is
judgment on conviction then there is an
appeal in the CA, may the accused be
admitted to bail? GENERAL RULE IS YES,
but that is discretionary and Discretion lies
with the Trial Court and from the CA to SC,
bail is no longer allowed.
BUT! What if case is cognizable by RTC and
it is a non-bailable offense, ofcourse it cannot
be granted here, but suppose after trial the
court rendered a judgment of a conviction
which is a bailable offense instead,
Kidnapping but court found wa man diay
intent to detain, so coercion lang which is
bailable, may de accused be admitted to bail
now where the offense was originally non-
bailable? YES! Discretionary, discretion of the
CA. to SC? Follows, no bail.
BUT TAKE NOTE that in situation number 2
where the offense is bailable then if there is a
judgment of conviction then if there’s an
appeal then accused may be admitted to bail
but discretion lies with the RTC. But you do
note here now under section 5 of rule 114
Section 5 of rule 114
Section 5. Bail, when discretionary. —
Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court
of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, admission to bail is
discretionary. The application for bail may
be filed and acted upon by the trial court
despite the filing of a notice of appeal,
provided it has not transmitted the original
record to the appellate court. However, if
the decision of the trial court convicting the
accused changed the nature of the offense
from non-bailable to bailable, the
application for bail can only be filed with
and resolved by the appellate court.
To the end that if the penalty imposed after
conviction is exceeding 6 years and in the
situation mentioned therein, bail should be
and must be denied. Supposedly it may be
granted by way of discretion. So when it
appears that accused have been convicted of
an offense where the penalty imposed by the
court is imprisonment exceeding 6 years is a
recidivist, quasi recidivist, or habitual
offender, then bail here must be denied
Or when it appears that the person convicted
of an offense , where the penalty imposed by
court is imprisonment exceeding 6 years
committed the offense in violation of his bail
or when has previously escaped from penal
institution or evaded service of sentence,
then it should be denied . or when it appears
to the court that the accused convicted with
penalty exceeding 6 years violated the
conditions of his parole, or propbation or
conditional pardon, then should be denied.

OR if it appears that person is a flight risk,

then it should be denied even pending
appeal, or when it appears to the court that
the accused will probably commit another
crime, during the appeal the bail should be
denied, it should be denied even if it may be
granted by way of discretion.

That’s what happened to palparan(?)

Ikaw judge balbla blabla, if ikaw judge imo I

grant? No sunod kaso ana ikaw na victim . so
even if di discretionary so take note of these
situations of section 5.