SECTION 12 [CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION] against him.

It may in a sense be also regarded as part

List of Cases of the res gestae.
HGN
PEOPLE vs. DBM PAJA The rule is that, any person, otherwise competent as a
witness, who heard the confession, is competent to
Ho Wai Pang vs. People testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard
Gamboa vs. Cruz and understood all of it. An oral confession need not
Navallo vs. Sandiganbayan be repeated verbatim, but in such a case it must be
given in substance.

PEOPLE versus What was told by the Accused to Pat, Padilla was a
Dy spontaneous statement not elicited through
Bolanos questioning, but given an ordinary manner. No written
Macam confession was sought to be presented in evidence as a
result of formal custodial investigation.
Pinlac
Andan PEOPLE vs. BOLANOS
Judge Ayson Considering the clear requirements of the Constitution
Alicando with respect to the manner by which confession can be
admissible in evidence, and the glaring fact that the
HO WAI PANG vs. PEOPLE alleged confession obtained while on board the police
The admissibility of other evidence, provided they are vehicle was the only reason for the conviction, besides
relevant to the issue and [are] not otherwise excluded appellant's conviction was not proved beyond
by law or rules, [are] not affected even if obtained or reasonable doubt, this Court has no recourse but to
taken in the course of custodial investigation. reverse the subject judgment under review.

[a]ny allegation of violation of rights during custodial PEOPLE vs. MACAM

investigation is relevant and material only to cases in It is therefore appropriate to extend the counsel
which an extrajudicial admission or confession guarantee to critical stages of prosecution even
extracted from the accused becomes the basis of their before the trial. The law enforcement machinery at
conviction. present involves critical confrontations of the accused
by the prosecution at pre-trial proceedings "where the
result might well settle the accused's fate and reduce
GAMBOA vs. CRUZ the trial itself to a mere formality." A police line-up is
The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an considered a "critical" stage of the proceedings.
investigation, i.e. when the investigating officer
starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or PEOPLE vs. PINLAC
confessions or admissions from the When the Constitution requires a person under
respondent/accused. investigation "to be informed" of his right to remain
silent and to counsel, it must be presumed to
the waiver shall be made in writing and in the contemplate the transmission of a meaningful
presence of counsel. information rather than just the ceremonial and
perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
NAVALLO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN principle.
A person under a normal audit examination is not
under custodial investigation. An audit examiner As a rule, therefore, it would not be sufficient for a
himself can hardly be deemed to be the law police officer just to repeat to the person under
enforcement officer contemplated in the above rule. investigation the provisions of the Constitution. He is
not only duty-bound to tell the person the rights to
PEOPLE vs. DY which the latter is entitled; he must also explain their
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his effects in practical terms.
guilt of the offense charged may be given in evidence
 PEOPLE vs. ANDAN
Beginning of the Investigation
An investigation begins when it is no longer a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a
particular person as a suspect, i.e., when the police
investigator starts interrogating or exacting a
confession from the suspect in connection with an
alleged offense.

Constitutional Procedure does not apply to

spontaneous statement
Thus, it has been held that the constitutional
procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a
spontaneous statement, not elicited through
questioning by the authorities, but given in an
ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted
having committed the crime.

The Constitution bars compulsory disclosure

What the Constitution bars is the compulsory
disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. The
rights under Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude the
slightest use of coercion by the state as would lead the
accused to admit something false, not to prevent him
from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. Hence we
hold that appellant's confession to the mayor was
correctly admitted by the trial court.

Spontaneous statements to news reporters admissible

Appellant's confessions to the media were likewise
properly admitted. The confessions were made in
response to questions by news reporters, not by the
police or any other investigating officer. We have held
that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to
news reporters on a televised interview are deemed
voluntary and are admissible in evidence.

PEOPLE vs. JUDGE AYSON

Custodial Investigation meant "questioning initiated by
law enforcement officers after a person has been taken
into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
action in any significant way."
 SECTION 13 [RIGHT TO BAIL] sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed
List of Cases by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague
2PM-2B2GC and fanciful; but legal and regular."

People vs. Judge Donato BAYLON vs. JUDGE SISON

People vs. Fortes . . . The prosecution must first be accorded an
Manotoc vs. CA opportunity to present evidence because by the very
nature of deciding applications for bail, it is on the
Basco vs. Rapatalo basis of such evidence that judicial discretion is
Baylon vs. Judge Sison weighed against in determining whether the guilt of
Government of US vs. Judge Puruganan the accused is strong. In other words, discretion must
Government of HK vs. Hon. Olalia be exercised regularly, legally and within the confines
Comendador vs. De Villa of procedural due process, that is, after evaluation of
the evidence submitted by the prosecution. Any order
PEOPLE vs. JUDGE DONATO issued in the absence thereof is not a product of sound
Therefore, before conviction bail is either a matter of judicial discretion but of whim and caprice and
right or of discretion. It is a matter of right when the outright arbitrariness.
offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower
than reclusion perpetua. To that extent the right is GOVERNMENT OF US vs. JUDGE PURUGANAN
absolute. International Extradition is a process under which a
sovereign state surrenders to another sovereign state a
Upon the other hand, if the offense charged is person accused in a case or a fugitive offender in the
punishable by reclusion perpetua bail becomes a latter state.
matter of discretion.
Starting with the declaration that the right to bail is
It shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. The available to all persons, the Constitution proceeds to
court's discretion is limited to determining whether or define its exceptions and qualifications —
not evidence of guilt is strong. But once it is 1. when a criminal offense is a capital one and the
determined that the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail evidence of guilt is strong, and
also becomes a matter of right. 2. when granted the bail shall not be excessive.

PEOPLE vs. FORTES
Bail must not then be granted to the accused during the the main decision anchors its refusal to grant bail is
pendency of his appeal from the judgment of conspicuously absent from the recital.
conviction.
MANOTOC vs. CA
The condition imposed upon petitioner to make
himself available at all times whenever the court
requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on
his right to travel.
BASCO vs. RAPATALO
In theory, the only function of bail is to ensure the
appearance of the defendant at the time set for
trial. The sole purpose of confining the accused in jail
before conviction, it has been observed, is to assure his
presence at the trial.
Lord Mansfield, speaking of the discretion to be
exercised in granting or denying bail said: "But
discretion when applied to a court of justice, means
The circumstance of "high risk of flight" upon which
GOVERNMENT OF HK vs. HON. OLALIA
Reexamination of the PURGANAN Ruling
1. First, we note that the exercise of the State’s
power to deprive an individual of his liberty is
not necessarily limited to criminal
proceedings. Respondents in administrative
proceedings, such as deportation and
quarantine, have likewise been detained.
2. Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings
would be to close our eyes to our
jurisprudential history. Philippine
jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of the
right to bail to criminal proceedings only. This
Court has admitted to bail persons who are not
involved in criminal proceedings. In fact, bail
has been allowed in this jurisdiction to
 persons in detention during the pendency of
administrative proceedings, taking into
cognizance the obligation of the Philippines
under international conventions to uphold
human rights.

It is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence

of the potential extraditee. Nor is it a full-blown civil
action, but one that is merely administrative in
character. Its object is to prevent the escape of a
person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure
his return to the state from which he fled, for the
purpose of trial or punishment.

COMENDADOR vs. DE VILLA

We find that the right to bail invoked by the private
respondents in G.R. Nos. 95020 has traditionally not
been recognized and is not available in the military, as
an exception to the general rule embodied in the Bill
of Rights. This much was suggested in ARULA, where
we observed that "the right to a speedy trial is given
more emphasis in the military where the right to bail
does not exist.

Reasons:
1. The unique structure of the military
2. Fiduciary use of firearms by the government
3. National security considerations
 SECTION 14 [CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS] or redress of a wrong, without fear or favor and
List of Cases removed from the pressures of politics and prejudice.
TAG

Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan

Alonte vs. Savellano
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan

TATAD vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

We find the long delay in the termination of the
preliminary investigation by the Tanodbayan in the
instant case to be violative of the constitutional right
of the accused to due process. Substantial adherence
to the requirements of the law governing the conduct
of preliminary investigation, including substantial
compliance with the time limitation prescribed by
the law for the resolution of the case by the prosecutor,
is part of the procedural due process constitutionally
guaranteed by the fundamental law.

ALONTE vs. SAVELLANO

Jurisprudence acknowledges that due process in
criminal proceedings, in particular, require
(a) that the court or tribunal trying the case is
properly clothed with judicial power to hear
and determine the matter before it;
(b) that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over
the person of the accused;
(c) that the accused is given an opportunity to be
heard; and
(d) that judgment is rendered only upon lawful
hearing

The principles find universal acceptance and are

tersely expressed in the oft-quoted statement that
procedural due process cannot possibly be met without
a "law which hears before it condemns, which
proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only
after trial.”

GALMAN vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

The Supreme Court cannot permit such a sham trial
and verdict and travesty of justice to stand unrectified.
The courts of the land under its aegis are courts of
law and justice and equity. They would have no
reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere
tools of injustice, deception and duplicity to subvert
and suppress the truth, instead of repositories of
judicial power whose judges are sworn and committed
to render impartial justice to all alike who seek the
enforcement or protection of a right or the prevention
SECTION 14 [PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE] CORPUS vs. PEOPLE
List of Cases The equipoise rule invoked by the petitioner is
PDMCF applicable only where the evidence of the parties is
evenly balanced, in which case the constitutional
People vs. Dramayo presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in
Dumlao vs. COMELEC favor of the accused. There is no such equipoise here.
Marquez vs. COMELEC The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and
Corpus vs. People has not been overcome by the petitioner with his
Feeder International Line vs. CA nebulous claims of persecution and conspiracy.

PEOPLE vs. DRAMAYO FEEDER INTERNATIONAL LINE vs. CA

It is thus required that circumstance favoring his
innocence be duly taken into count. The proof against
him must survive the reason; the strongest suspicion
must not be permitted to sway away judgment. The
conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant
could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged;
that not only did he perpetrate the act but that it
amounted to a crime. What is required then is moral
certainty.
Besides, if ever there was any doubt as to the veracity
of the sworn statements of Deposa and Torres, they
should have been presented during any appropriate
stage of the proceedings to refute or deny the
statements they made. This was not done by petitioner.
Hence, the presumption that official duty was regularly
performed stands.

By Reasonable Doubt
"By reasonable doubt is meant that which of possibility
may arise, but it is doubt engendered by an
investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after
such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the
certainty of guilt. Absolute certain of guilt is not SECTION 14 [RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY
demanded by the law to convict of any carnal charge HIMSELF AND COUNSEL]
but moral certainty is required, and this certainty is List of Cases
required as to every proposition of proof regular to PAP
constitute the offense."
People vs. Holgado
DUMLAO vs COMELEC Amion vs. Judge Chiongson
An accusation, according to the fundamental law, is People vs. Agbayani
not synonymous with guilt. The challenged proviso
contravenes the constitutional presumption of PEOPLE vs. HOLGADO
innocence, as a candidate is disqualified from running Four important duties of the courts
for public office on the ground alone that charges have Under this provision, when a defendant appears
been filed against him before a civil or military without attorney, the court has four important duties to
tribunal. comply with:

MARQUEZ vs. COMELEC 1. — It must inform the defendant that it is his

The Court believes and thus holds, albeit with some
personal reservations of the ponente (expressed during
the Court's en banc deliberations), that Article 73 of
the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local
Government Code of 1991, to the extent that it
confines the term "fugitive from justice" to refer only
to a person (the fugitive) "who has been convicted by
final judgment." is an inordinate and undue
circumscription of the law.
right to have attorney before being arraigned;
2. — After giving him such information the court
must ask him if he desires the aid of an
attorney;
3. — If he desires and is unable to employ
attorney, the court must assign attorney de
oficio to defend him; and
4. — If the accused desires to procure an attorney
of his own the court must grant him a
reasonable time therefor.
 Right to be heard
Even the most intelligent or educated man may have
no skill in the science of the law, particularly in the
rules of procedure, and, without counsel, he may be
convicted not because he is guilty but because he
does not know how to establish his innocence.

AMION vs. JUDGE AYSON

Even if we were to extend the application of the
concept of preference in the choice of counsel to an
accused in a criminal prosecution, such preferential
discretion cannot partake of a discretion so absolute
and arbitrary as would make the choice of counsel
refer exclusively to the predilection of the accused.

PEOPLE vs. AGBAYANI

If we should insist on finding every fact fully recorded
before a citizen can be punished for an offense against
the laws, we should destroy public justice, and give
unbridled license to crime. Much must be left to
intendment and presumption, for it is often less
difficult to do things correctly than to describe them
correctly. 
 SECTION 14 [RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF the nature and cause of his accusation is not violated,
THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION] must state
List of Cases (a) the name of the accused;
BSPP (b) the designation given to the offense by the
statute;
Borja vs. Mendoza (c) a statement of the acts or omissions so
Soriano vs. Sandiganbayan complained of as constituting the offense;
People vs. Quitlong (d) the name of the offended party;
Pecho vs. People (e) the approximate time and date of the
commission of the offense; and
BORJA vs. MENDOZA (f) the place where the offense has been
At the very least then, he must be fully informed of committed.
why the prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized
against him. An arraignment serves that purpose. PECHO vs. PEOPLE
Thereafter he is no longer in the dark. It is true, the What determines the real nature and cause of
complaint or information may not be worded with accusation against an accused is the actual recital of
sufficient clarity. He would be in a much worse facts stated in the information or complaint and not
position though if he does not even have such an the caption or preamble of the information or
opportunity to plead to the charge. complaint nor the specification of the provision of law
alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions
It is not useless formality, much less an Idle of law. An incorrect caption is not a fatal mistake.
ceremony.
Accused may convicted of a crime not charged
It follows then that an accused may be convicted of a
crime which, although not the one charged, is
necessarily included in the latter. Section 4, Rule 120
SORIANO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN of the Rules of Court thus provides:
The petitioner also claims that he cannot be convicted
of bribery under the Revised Penal Code because to do SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between
so would be violative of as constitutional right to be allegation and proof. -- When there is variance
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation between the offense charged in the complaint or
against him. Wrong. A reading of the information information, and that proved or established by the
which has been reproduced herein clearly makes out a evidence, and the offense as charged is included in or
case of bribery so that the petitioner cannot claim necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused
deprivation of the right to be informed. shall be convicted of the offense proved included in
that which is charged, or of the offense charged
PEOPLE vs. QUITLONG included in that which is proved.
Informing must be in writing of the charges
(1) First. To furnish the accused with such a SECTION 14 [RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL
description of the charge against him as will AND PUBLIC TRIAL]
enable him to make his defense; List of Cases
(2) Second, to avail himself of his conviction or CFM-GRIPPPP
acquittal for protection against a further
prosecution for the same cause; Conde vs. Rivera
(3) Third, to inform the court of the facts Flores vs. People
alleged, so that it may decide whether they are Mateo Jr. vs. Villaluz
sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one
should be had. Garcia vs. Domingo
Re Maguindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan
What must be included in the Information In Re: Plunder Cases
An information, in order to ensure that the People vs. Tee
constitutional right of the accused to be informed of People vs. Teehankee Jr.
People vs. Mapalao rights are not compromised in secrete conclaves of
People vs. Valeriano long ago. 

CONDE vs. RIVERA IN RE: PLUNDER CASES (ESTRADA)

We lay down the legal proposition that, where a
prosecuting officer, without good cause, secures
postponements of the trial of a defendant against his
protest beyond a reasonable period of time, as in this
instance for more than a year, the accused is entitled to
relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a
dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of
his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.
FLORES vs. PEOPLE
"The Government should be the last to set an example
of delay and oppression in the administration of justice
and it is the moral and legal obligation of this court to
see that the criminal proceedings against the accused
come to an end and that they be immediately
discharged from the custody of the law." 
Reasons for televised recording
1. the hearings are of historic significance. They
are an affirmation of our commitment to the
rule that "the King is under no man, but he is
under God and the law." (Quod Rex non debet
esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et Lege.) 
2. the Estrada cases involve matters of vital
concern to our people who have a fundamental
right to know how their government is
conducted. This right can be enhanced by
audio-visual presentation. 
3. audio-visual presentation is essential for the
education and civic training of the people.

MATEO JR. vs. VILLALUZ

every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge."  PEOPLE vs. TEE
The concept of speedy trial is necessarily relative. A
He should, to quote from another decision "at all times determination as to whether the right has been
manifest depth of commitment and concern to the violated involves the weighing of several factors such
cause of justice according to legal norms, a cerebral as
man who deliberately holds in cheek the tug and pull (a) the length of the delay,
of purely personal preferences and prejudices which he (b) the reason for the delay,
shares with the rest of his fellow mortals."  (c) the conduct of the prosecution and the accused,
and
A judge then, to quote from the latest decision in (d) the efforts exerted by the defendant to assert his
point, Geotina v. Gonzales, penned by Justice Castro, right, as well as
should strive to be at all times "wholly free, (e) the prejudice and damage caused to the
disinterested, impartial and independent. accused.

GARCIA vs. DOMINGO The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only
It possesses that character when anyone interested in when:
observing the manner a judge conducts the proceedings (1) the proceedings are attended by vexatious,
in his courtroom may do so. There is to be no ban on capricious, and oppressive delays; or
such attendance. His being a stranger to the litigants (2) when unjustified postponements are asked for
is of no moment. and secured; or
(3) when without cause or justifiable motive a long
RE MAGUINDANAO GOVERNOR ZALDY period of time is allowed to elapse without the
AMPATUAN party having his case tried.
An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right
that belongs to him, more than anyone else, where his PEOPLE vs. TEEHANKEE JR.
life or liberty can be held critically in balance. Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right
of an accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of
A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with appellant was given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel
and would not be unjustly condemned and that his coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity
so permeated the mind of the trial judge and It is settled that if a separate trial is allowed to one of
impaired his impartiality. two or more defendants, his testimony therein
imputing guilt to any of the co-accused is not
we rejected this standard of possibility of prejudice and admissible against the latter who was not able to cross-
adopted the test of actual prejudice as we ruled that examine him.
to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must
be allegation and proof that the judges have been No accusation is permitted to be made against his back
unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by or in his absence nor is any derogatory information
the barrage of publicity. accepted if it is made anonymously, as in poison pen
letters sent by persons who cannot stand by their libels
PEOPLE vs. MAPALAO and must shroud their spite in secrecy.
What the Constitution guarantees him is a fair trial, not
continued enjoyment of his freedom even if his guilt SECTION 14 [COMPULSORY PROCESSES]
could be proved. With the categorical statement in the
fundamental law that his absence cannot justify a delay ROCO vs. CONTRERAS
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure In this jurisdiction, there are two (2) kinds of
to appear is unjustified, such an abuse could be subpoena, to wit:
remedied. That is the way it should be, for both society
and the offended party have a legitimate interest in 1. subpoena ad testificandum and
seeing to it that came should not go unpunished. 2. subpoena duces tecum.

PEOPLE vs. VALERIANO
. Paragraph (2), Section 14, Article III of the
Constitution permits trial in absentia after the accused
has been arraigned provided he has been duly notified
of the trial and his failure to appear thereat is
unjustified. One who jumps bail can never offer a
justifiable reason for his non-appearance during the
trial. Accordingly, after the trial in absentia, the court
can render judgment in the case and promulgation may
be made by simply recording the judgment in the
criminal docket with a copy thereof served upon his
counsel, provided that the notice requiring him to be
present at the promulgation is served through his
bondsmen or warden and counsel.  must appear prima facie relevant to the issue
SECTION 14 [RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION]
List of Cases
UT
US vs. Javier
Talino vs. Sandiganbayan
The first is used to compel a person to testify, while
the second is used to compel the production of books,
records, things or documents therein specified.
The subpoena duces tecum is, in all respects, like the
ordinary subpoena ad testificandum with the
exception that it concludes with an injunction that the
witness shall bring with him and produce at the
examination the books, documents, or things described
in the subpoena.
Requisites for Subpoena duces tecum
(1) the books, documents or other things requested
subject of the controversy (test of relevancy);
and
(2) such books must be reasonably described by
the parties to be readily identified (test of
definiteness).

US vs. JAVIER
In other words, confrontation is essential because
cross-examination is essential.

A second reason for the prohibition is that a tribunal

may have before it the department and appearance of
the witness while testifying.

TALINO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

 SECTION 15 [SUSPENSION OF THE SECTION 16 [RIGHT TO SPEEDY
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS DISPOSITION OF CASES]
CORPUS]
List of Cases PADUA vs. ERICTA
JIL Courts should not brook undue delays in the
ventilation and determination of causes.
Jackson vs. Macalino
In Re Aurora Parong vs. Ponce Enrile It should be their constant effort to assure that
Lansang vs. Garcia litigations are prosecuted and resolved with
dispatch.
JACKSON vs. MACALINO
What is to be inquired into is the legality of his Postponements of trials and hearings should not be
detention as of, at the earliest, the filing of the allowed except on meritorious grounds; and the grant
application for a writ of habeas corpus, for even if the or refusal thereof rests entirely in the sound discretion
detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by reason of of the Judge.
same supervening events such as the instances
mentioned in Section 4, Rule 102, be no longer illegal
at the time of the filing of the application. Any such
supervening events are the issuance of a judicial
process preventing the discharge of the detained
person.

IN RE AURORA PARONG vs. PONCE ENRILE

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus must, indeed, carry with it the suspension of the
right to bail, if the government's campaign to suppress
the rebellion is to be enhanced and rendered effective.

Reason: If the right to bail may be demanded during

the continuance of the rebellion, and those arrested,
captured and detained in the course thereof will be
released, they would, without the least doubt, rejoin
their comrades in the field thereby jeopardizing the
success of government efforts to bring to an end the
invasion, rebellion or insurrection.

LANSANG vs. GARCIA

Indeed, the grant of power to suspend the privilege is
neither absolute nor unqualified. The authority
conferred by the Constitution, both under the Bill of
Rights and under the Executive Department, is limited
and conditional.

FIVE TYPES OF WRIT OF AMPARO

1. amparo libertad
2. amparo contra leyes
3. amparo casacion
4. amparo administrative
5. amparo agrario