Constitutional Law 2 Doctrine Digest

1-B Constitutional Law 2 SECTION 12 CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION, DEFINITION PEOPLE VS PAVILLARE G.R. NO. 129970, APRIL 5, 2000

The stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to stand in a police line-up has been held to be outside the mantle of the right to counsel because it involves a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and is purely investigatory in nature.

PEOPLE VS BANDULA, 232 SCRA 566

The Constitution requires that the counsel assisting a person under investigation be independent and a legal officer of the municipality cannot qualify as an independent counsel.

NAVALLO VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 234 SCRA 175

The right to counsel could not be invoked during the COA audit since the procedure is not within the ambit of “custodial investigation” and a person may be subject to malversation of funds even in the absence of direct proof of misappropriation as long as there is evidence of fund shortage, which the petitioner failed to explain with convincing justification.

SEBASTIAN VS GARCHITORENA G.R. NO. 114028, OCT. 18, 2000

The fact-finding investigation relative to the missing postage stamps at the Postage Stock Section conducted by the Chief Postal Service Officer is not a custodial investigation but merely an administrative investigation.

OCA VS SUMULONG, 271 SCRA 316

Custodial investigation has been defined as "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any way.

PEOPLE VS ALMANZOR G.R. NO. 124918, JULY 11, 2002

Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements.

PEOPLE VS VALDEZ G.R. NO. 129296, SEPT. 25, 2000

The moment the police try to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information from a person suspected of having committed an offense, he should at the juncture be assisted by counsel unless he waives the right in writing and in the presence of counsel.

PEOPLE VS MARRA, 236 SCRA 565

It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that Custodial Investigation begins.

PEOPLE VS LABTAN, G.R. NO. 127493, DEC. 8, 1999

Accused Orlando Labtan was denied of his right to a competent and independent counsel when questioned in the Cagayan de Oro Police Station. The questioning was regarding his involvement in the killing of the jeepney driver, thus, he was already subjected to custodial investigation without counsel.

MANUEL VS NC CONSTRUCTION, 282 SCRA 326

Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who had been taken into custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements.

PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R. NO. 137405, SEPT. 27, 2002

It is a matter of settled jurisprudence that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment.

PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA 52

Amboy Camat and Willie Del Rosario were accused of robbery with homicide and admitted to it in custodial investigation. The Supreme Court ruled that the extrajudicial confession was obtained without advising accused of their Constitutional rights and is, hence, inadmissible.

PEOPLE VS EVANGELISTA, 256 SCRA 611

The inadmissibility of a confession given before a Miranda warning applies only when the investigation has ceased to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and has begun to focus on the guilt of a suspect and the latter is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in a substantial way.

PEOPLE VS ANDAN, 269 SCRA 95

When an accused talks to a mayor as a confidant and not as a law enforcement officer who interrogates him, his uncounselled confession does not violate his constitutional rights.

PEOPLE VS ARTELLERO, G.R. NO. 129211, OCTOBER 2, 2000

“Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person as a suspect”; when the accused were arrested as suspects to a particular crime, they are entitled to the rights stated in Article III Section 12 of the Constitution.

PEOPLE VS DE JESUS, 213 SCRA 345

Admissions obtained during custodial interrogations without the benefit of counsel although later reduced to writing and signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the Constitution.

PEOPLE VS LEGASPI, G.R. NO. 117802, APRIL 27, 2000

Neither constitutional rights under Art 3 of the constitution no their statutory rights under R.A. 7438 were transgressed inasmuch as Legaspi and Franco were not yet singled out as perpetrators of crime as they were merely invited for questioning and no custodial investigation occurred inasmuch as the query was merely a part of the “general exploratory stage.”

RATIONALE MIRANDA VS ARIZONA, 384 US 436

A person must first be warned of his rights before he may knowingly and intelligently waive his rights. The warning to be given is that: he has the right to remain silent; anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law; he has a right to an attorney, and if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for him; only after these warnings are given may incriminating statements made by the person being taken to custody, be used against him.

PEOPLE VS CANTON, G.R. NO. 148825, DECEMBER 27, 2000

The need for a counsel during custodial investigation roots from the objective of prohibiting incommunicado”interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere that would result in selfincriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights.

INSTANCES OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS PEOPLE VS ISLA, 278 SCRA 47

The law does not distinguish between preliminary questions during custodial investigation, as any question asked of a person while under detention, is considered as a question asked while under custodial investigation; thus the suspect should be assisted by counsel, unless he waives his right, but the waiver should be made in writing and in the presence of counsel.

PEOPLE VS SALAZAR, 266 SCRA 607 PEOPLE VS CASIMIRO, G.R. NO. 146277, JUNE 20, 2002

A buy-bust operation has been considered as an effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. If carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial Casimirosanction. signed the receipt stating that marijuana was seized from him which is an equivalent of confession without counsel and it is deemed inadmissible in evidence.

PEOPLE VS CASTRO, 274 SCRA 115

Accused-appellant’s signature on the “Receipt of Property” is inadmissible as evidence as there is no showing that he was assisted by counsel when he signed the same.

PEOPLE VS BOLANOS, 211 SCRA 262

Appellant should have been informed of his constitutional rights under Art. 3 Sec. 12 of the 1987 Constitution before confessions can be admissible in evidence, and the glaring fact that the alleged confession obtained while on board the police vehicle was the only reason for the conviction, this court has to deny the admissibility of the confession.

PEOPLE VS LIM, 196 SCRA 809

Extrajudicial confession, without assistance of a counsel, is inadmissible except in cases with corpus delicto.

MIRANDA RIGHTS SAFEGUARDED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN RELATION TO CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS MIRANDA VS ARIZONA, 384 US 436

The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from 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, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.

PEOPLE VS MAHINAY, G.R. NO. 122485, FEBRUARY 1, 1999

Mahinay claims that his extrajudicial confession was in violation of his constitutional right to counsel but according to the testimony of an assisting lawyer in court, he was well informed of his constitutionally guaranteed pre-interrogatory and custodial rights – it was explained to him in tagalog and there were documents showing that it was reduced to writing which the accused signed in the presence of the assisting lawyer.

PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA 52

Camat mugged two soldiers along Quirino avenue, and Camat’s extrajudicial confession cannot be admissible as evidence if the prosecution has not proven that he was informed of his Miranda rights before he made said confession.

DUTY OF AN OFFICER DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R. NO. 137405, SEPT. 27, 2002

In ruling that death penalty was a proper penalty for the crime of rape committed by the accused, the Court rules that there is no higher evidence of guilt than the voluntary testimony of the accused himself.

PEOPLE VS SALCEDO, 273 SCRA 473

Salcedo is convicted for murder because even though no attorney was present during his custodial investigation, thus making the same inadmissible as evidence, a competent witness was able to satisfy the court of his guilt.

WHEN THE RIGHTS OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION MAY BE INVOKED PEOPLE VS LOVERIA, 187 SCRA 47

Loveria committed Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide in Marikina, and the court held that Loveria was not investigated when the complainant was in the process of identifying him, hence he cannot claim that his right to counsel was violated because at that stage, he was not entitled to the constitutional guarantee invoked.

SEBASTIAN VS GARCHITORENA G.R. NO. 114028, OCT. 18, 2000

The case of Sebastian vs. Garchitorena provides that the fact finding investigation relative to the missing postage stamps conducted by the Chief Postal Officer is not a custodial investigation, it is administrative.

PEOPLE VS TAN, 286 SCRA 207

A person cannot be convicted of a crime when he provides a confession before a police investigator upon invitation and without the benefit of counsel, such confession is inadmissible and inadequate in the courts to warrant a conviction.

THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT PEOPLE VS BANDIN, 226 SCRA 299

When an arrested person signs a Booking Sheet and Arrest Report at a police station, he does not admit the commission of an offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance; The Booking Sheet is merely a statement of the accused’s being booked and of the date which accompanies the fact of an arrest, such is not an extrajudicial statement and cannot be the basis of a judgment of conviction.

PEOPLE VS LACBANES, 270 SCRA 193

It is the police officers who confiscate articles from an accused who should sign the receipt, otherwise it would be a violation of the accused’s right to remain silent for it is tantamount to an extra-judicial confession.

PEOPLE VS MORICO, 246 SCRA 214

It is a violation of one’s constitutional rights to be informed of the charges against him and his right to due process when an accused is convicted of an offense not charged in the information.

PEOPLE VS ANG CHUN KIT, 251 SCRA 660

Ang Chin Kit’s signature on the list of items confiscated from him is inadmissible in evidence as his right as a person under custodial investigation was violated since there was no showing that he was then assisted by counsel.

PEOPLE VS LAMSING, 248 SCRA 471

The right to counsel guaranteed in Art. III §12(1) of the Constitution does not extend to police lineups because they are not part of custodial investigations since at that point, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory and the accused’s right to counsel attaches only from the time that adversary judicial proceedings are taken against him.

PEOPLE VS DE LAS MARINAS, 196 SCRA 504

The accused was the victim of a clever ruse, which in effect, was an extra-judicial confession to the commission of the offense when the police made him sign the Receipt for Property Seized.

PEOPLE VS CASTRO, 274 SCRA 115

Mere denials cannot prevail against the positive identification of an accused as the seller of prohibited drugs and in the prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.

PEOPLE VS ENRIQUEZ, 204 SCRA 674

Appellant’s contention is unmeritorious because there was no need to present the testimony of the NARCOM informer as the same would merely be corroborative and cumulative when appellant signed his name without a counsel hence not a denial of the due process right of the people.

THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL: WHEN TO INVOKE PEOPLE VS SUNGA, G.R. NO. 126029, MARCH 29, 2003

A suspect was denied his right to counsel where the lawyer who assisted him in the execution of extrajudicial admission before the police was the City Legal Officer.

PEOPLE VS LABTAN, G.R. NO. 127493, DEC. 8, 1999

The lawyer must be present and able to advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession.

PEOPLE VS SAPAL, G.R. NO. 124526, MARCH 17, 2000

Republic Act No. 7438. Section 2(a) of said law provides that "any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel."

PEOPLE VS LAMSING, 248 SCRA 471

The right to counsel does not extend to police line ups because they are not part of custodial investigations.

PEOPLE VS MAQUEDA, 242 SCRA 565

The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.

PEOPLE VS MACAM, 238 SCRA 306

Accused Macan appealed the validity of the out-of-court identification through a police line up at the hospital which was done without counsel. The Court upheld the validity since the prosecution did not present evidence regarding such police line-up identification and appellants did not object to in-court identification made by witnesses.

PEOPLE VS DE JESUS, 213 SCRA 345

An interview with the arrested suspect is not a general inquiry but a custodial investigation.

PEOPLE VS DIMAANO, 209 SCRA 819

Police line-up is not part of the custodial inquest

PEOPLE VS COMPIL, 244 SCRA 135

Compil’s extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because he was immediately interrogated without a counsel’s assistance. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation—when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from respondent/accused.

PEOPLE VS LOVERIA, 187 SCRA 47

During the line-up, the defendant can’t invoke his right to counsel since the right to counsel of a person under custodial investigation can’t be invoked until such time that the police investigation start questioning, interrogating or exacting a confession from the person under investigation.

WHEN PRESENCE OF COUNSEL IS REQUIRED PEOPLE VS RODRIGUEZ, 232 SCRA 227

The assistance of counsel during custodial investigation is required upon the instance of confession of the accused, not only when one is about to put his confession in writing.

ESTACIO VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 183 SCRA 12

No custodial investigation could be conducted without a counsel and no waiver of right to remain silent and to assistance to counsel shall be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel.

PEOPLE VS BANDULA, 232 SCRA 566

Competent and independent counsel is required during custodial investigation.

PEOPLE VS ISLA, 278 SCRA 47

Courts are not allowed to distinguish preliminary questioning and custodial investigation proper when applying the exclusionary rule, any information or admission given by a person while in custody which may appear harmless or innocuous at the time without the competent assistance of an independent counsel should be struck down as inadmissible.

PEOPLE VS JIMENEZ, 204 SCRA 719

Any confession or admission obtained in violation of the rights guaranteed in custodial investigations shall be inadmissible, even if it be shown that the statements attributed to the accused were voluntarily made, or are afterwards confirmed to be true by external circumstances.

PEOPLE VS CORTES, 323 SCRA 131

In a criminal case where testimony is required, a presence of counsel is required since to determine whether if a witness is competent, the trial court only has a singular opportunity to determine the truth to his testimony.

PEOPLE VS ROUS, 242 SCRA 732

The fact that Atty. Datlag arrived shortly after the investigation of Laygo (accused) had begun and left before the confession was concluded does not negate the validity and admissibility of said confession for the reason that after the confession was put down in writing, accused-appellant and the investigating officer proceeded to the office of Atty. Datlag and the latter then read the confession, conferred with Laygo and then advised Laygo to sign the confession; thus it can be readily seen that the confession was voluntary and the signing thereof by Laygo was done upon advice of counsel, therefore the constitutional requirements were fully complied with. Moreover, the presence of Rolando's uncle, Tiburcio Laygo and the latter’s wife, Fely, clearly precluded the use of coercion in extracting the confession.

PEOPLE VS ESPANOLA, 271 SCRA 689

Appellants contend that the trial court erred when it ruled that the sworn statement of Jimmy Paquingan was voluntarily given by him though he refused to sign the same. an extra-judicial confession must be rejected where there is doubt as to its voluntariness.

PEOPLE VS ZUELA, 325 SCRA 589

Velarde gave an uncounselled extra-judicial statement without waiving right to counsel therefore it is inadmissible in evidence.

PEOPLE VS MACABALANG, 508 SCRA 282

It is settled that the signature of the accused in “Receipt of Property Seized”, being tantamount to admission of guilt, is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel.

EFFECTIVE AND VIGILANT COUNSEL DEFINED PEOPLE VS SUNGA, G.R. NO. 126029, MARCH 29, 2003

The right to counsel involves more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom, but also efficient and decisive legal assistance; a suspect is denied his right to counsel where the lawyer who assisted him was the City Legal Officer.

PEOPLE VS VELARDE, G.R. NO. 139333, JULY 18, 2002

A mayor cannot be considered the independent lawyer and the right to counsel contemplates not just the mere presence of a lawyer but should be present in all stages.

PEOPLE VS CULALA, G.R. NO. 83466, OCTOBER 13, 1999

The extra-judicial confession was not admissible because it was the municipal attorney who assisted the accused and it has been held that a municipal attorney cannot be considered as an independent counsel as required by the Constitution because as a legal officer of the municipality, his job is to provide legal assistance and support to the mayor and the municipality so, it’s doubted that he can effectively undertake the defense of the accused without running into conflict of interests.

PEOPLE VS GEROLAGO, 263 SCRA 143

Gerolago implicated Ruado-Sy and Ativo as his co-accused in the crime of homicide in a sworn statement but this statement is void and has no legal effect because it was not made in the presence of a counsel; to waive such right, it must also be done with the assistance of a counsel; Ruado-Sy and Ativo were acquitted.

PEOPLE VS PAULE, 261 SCRA 649

Paule murdered somebody in Olongapo City, and the prosecution failed to discharge the state's burden of proving with clear and convincing evidence that Paule enjoyed effective and vigilant counsel before he extrajudicially admitted his guilt to the police authorities hence said admission cannot be admissible.

PEOPLE VS DELMO, G.R. NO. 130078, OCT. 4, 2002

Danilo Lapiz was acquitted by the Court since his counsel was not present at the very start of his custodial investigation and was called only when the accused was about to put his confession in writing.

PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R. NO. 137405, SEPT. 27, 2002

No issue on effective and vigilant counsel in People v Dela Cruz

PEOPLE VS LUCERO, 249 SCRA 425

Lucero committed robbery with homicide in Quezon City, and the court held that Lucero’s confession cannot be admissible since the prosecution did not prove that he was assisted by an effective and vigilant counsel during the said confession.

PEOPLE VS ESPANOLA, 271 SCRA 689

In the case of People vs. Espanola the SC held that a City Legal Officer can not qualify as independent counsel due to a conflict of interest. The City Legal officer provides legal interest and support to the mayor and the city, which includes that duty to maintaining peace and order. Thus he is akin to a prosecutor who undoubtedly can not represent the accused during custodial investigation.

PEOPLE VS BACOR, G.R. NO. 122895, APRIL 30, 1999

Retractions of confessions are generally unreliable and results to serious doubts on the credibility of the testimony of the accused and is deemed as an alibi to escape the clutches of the justice.

PEOPLE VS SAHAGUN, 274 SCRA 208

Confessions given without the benefit of an effective, vigilant and independent counsel are inadmissible in evidence.

PEOPLE VS TALIMAN, G.R. NO. 109143, OCTOBER 11, 2000

A municipal mayor cannot be considered as an independent counsel of purposes of assisting a suspect during custodial investigation.

PEOPLE VS ESPIRITU, G.R. NO. 128287, FEBRUARY 2, 1999

The right to counsel does not mean that accused should hire his own counsel, it is satisfied when a counsel acts on behalf of an interested third person or is appointed by the court.

PEOPLE VS BARASINA, 229 SCRA 450

Rejecting the accused claim that the extrajudicial statement cannot be utilized against him since a lawyer different from whom he chose assisted during the interrogation, the Supreme Court held that the word “preferably” under Section 12 (1) does not convey that the choice of a lawyer by the person under investigation is exclusive.

PEOPLE VS ALEGRIA, 190 SCRA 122

Any confession obtained from a suspect in the absence of counsel and without his assistance shall be inadmissible in evidence against him, except when accused categorically waived his right to counsel and such waiver is made in writing and in the presence of counsel.

PEOPLE VS SUAREZ, 267 SCRA 119

The presence of a lawyer, is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything which might incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false.

PEOPLE VS PAROJINOG, 203 SCRA 473

The accused really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one, but when no objection was voiced by the accused throughout the proceedings of the investigation and afterwards when he subscribed to its veracity before the fiscal, he is deemed to have acquiesced to the choice of the investigators.

PEOPLE VS BAELLO, 224 SCRA 218

Atty. Generoso conferred with the accused, warned the latter of the consequences of his confession and even advised him not to make any; however, the accused insisted on going ahead with his confession, although he only confessed to the robbery.

GALMAN VS PAMARAN, 138 SCRA 295

The pleadings, annexes, oral arguments, manifestations and admissions of both counsel and the manner in which testimonies were taken failed to reveal adherence to due process.

PEOPLE VS JEREZ, 285 SCRA 393

A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection against the former's appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity before the swearing officer.

PEOPLE VS RANIS, G.R. NO. 129113, SEPT. 17, 2000

A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where the accused never raised any objection against the lawyer’s appointment during the course of the investigation, and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer.

PEOPLE VS DUMALAHAY, 380 SCRA 37

When the details narrated in an extrajudicial confession are such that they could not have been concocted by one who did not take part in the acts narrated, where the claim of maltreatment in the extraction by the confession is unsubstantiated and where abundant evidence exists showing that the statement was voluntarily executed, the confession is admissible against the defendant.

PEOPLE VS PAMON, 217 SCRA 501

No in-custody investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person in his behalf or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by someone in his behalf.

PEOPLE VS CABILES, 284 SCRA 199

Appellant Cabiles's free will and volition in signing his confession will not cure the defect that it was made without assistance of counsel. An uncounselled extrajudicial confession without a valid waiver of the right to counsel, made in in writing and in the presence of counsel, is inadmissible in evidence

PEOPLE VS GALLARDO, 323 SCRA 318 PEOPLE VS BASE, G.R. NO. 109773, MARCH 30, 2000

An effective counsel is one who does not prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. The counsel should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.

PEOPLE VS OBRERO, G.R. NO. 122142, MAY 17, 2000

Jimmy Obrero gave an extrajudicial confession with the assistance of Atty. De los Reyes, who was also the station commander of the precinct he was taken into after being accused of robbery. The confession was held inadmissible because he was not assisted by a competent and INDEPENDENT counsel.

CARIAGA VS PEOPLE, 626 SCRA 231

The negligence of counsel generally binds the client unless the slapdash work of the counsel, where reckless or gross negligence is apparent, deprives the client of due process as it will result to the outright deprivation of the client’s liberty, property or where the interest of justice so requires.

PEOPLE VS BASE, G.R. NO. 109773, MARCH 30, 2000

To be an effective counsel "a lawyer need not challenge all the questions being propounded to his client” ; he should only make sure that there be no questions asked that may coerce him to say something false and he should never prevent an accused from freely telling the truth.

INDEPENDENCE PEOPLE VS PORIO, 376 SCRA 596

In order for a lawyer to be considered as competent and independent for the purpose of assisting an accused during a custodial investigation, it is required that the lawyer be willing to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused rather than a meaningless recital of one’s constitutional rights.

COMPETENCE PEOPLE VS SUELA, 373 SCRA 163

A counsel who interviewed the accused for only five minutes, who simply listened nonchalantly to the answers the accused gave during extrajudicial confession without explaining its consequences, and who was attending to another task, is not the competent and independent counsel required under the Constitution.

ASSISTANCE AFTER START OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION PEOPLE VS MATIGUNAS, 379 SCRA 56

The right to confrontation was observed when complainant was presented on the witness stand and, after her testimony, the counsel for accused-appellant conducted his cross-examination.

PEOPLE VS SUELA, 373 SCRA 163

An effective and vigilant counsel necessarily and logically requires that the lawyer be present and be able to advise and assist his client from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the extrajudicial confession; that he must properly explain the choices or options open to appellant, his constitutional rights and what they entailed or the nature and the consequences of extra-judicial confessions.

VALID CONFESSION WITH COUNSEL PEOPLE VS TABLON, 379 SCRA 280

The fact that the appellant made the statement spontaneously without any kind of irregularity or duress made the his extrajudicial confession valid since a dispute regarding an extrajudicial confession can be allayed when it is shown that the confession has been made freely and voluntarily, without compulsion or inducement, or hope of reward of any sort.

PEOPLE VS PRINCIPE, G.R. NO. 135862, MAY 2, 2002

The Constitution, R.A. No. 7438, and case law lay down four fundamental requirements for the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions in general, to wit: (a) the confession must be voluntary; (b) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (c) the confession must be express; and (d) it must be in writing. In this case, after accused-appellant was read his rights in Tagalog, he signified his intention to confess his participation in the rape and killing of Arlene. He did this in the presence of his father and with the assistance of Atty. Cesar Villar, who had been chosen by his father for him.

PEOPLE VS ORANZA, G.R. NO. 127748, JULY 25, 2002

Under rules laid down by the Constitution, existing laws and jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible must satisfy all four fundamental requirements, namely: (1) the confession must be voluntary; (2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) the confession must be express; and (4) the confession must be in writing. All the above requirements were complied with and therefore the extrajudicial confession of guilt is admissible in evidence against him. Canicula confessed extra-judicially with counsel that he boxed the victim four times until the said victim fell to the river but did not mention that he raped her therefore he is only guilty of homicide without the crime of rape.

PEOPLE VS CANICULA, G.R. NO. 131802, AUGUST 6, 2002

CONFESSION WITHOUT COUNSEL PEOPLE VS CASIMIRO, G.R. NO. 146277, JUNE 20, 2002

Accused-appellant signed the receipt without the assistance of counsel, making it inadmissible as evidence, despite the fact that the police issued such in accordance with their standard operating procedure in a buy-bust operation to show what property was seized.

PEOPLE VS OCHATE, G.R. NO. 127154, JULY 30, 2002

An admission of guilt without counsel and being informed of his constitutional rights are inadmissible as evidence, even if the confessions are made to a barangay captain because the conversation was part of the ongoing police investigation.

PEOPLE VS MENDEZ, G.R. NO. 147671, NOVEMBER 21, 2002

Records do not show the accused-appellants were assisted by counsel in the course of investigation, only the police investigators were present, thus creating irregularities entitled for acquittal.

PEOPLE VS LAUGA, 615 SCRA 548

Barangay-based volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups, as in the case of the "bantay bayan," are recognized by the local government unit to perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at the barangay level, therefore, any inquiry it makes has the color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional rights is concerned.

LUMANOG VS PEOPLE, 630 SCRA 42

Joel’s questioning has already started even before had an assistance of counsel; the moment a police officer tries to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information from a suspect, the latter should, at juncture, be assisted by counsel, unless he waives this right in writing and at the presence of counsel.

PEOPLE VS TUMACO, 610 SCRA 350

Tuniaco murdered somebody in General Santos City, and Tuniaco’s confession was admissible since it met all the requisites namely: a) voluntary; b) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; c) express; and d) in writing.

PEOPLE VS BOKINGO, 655 SCRA 313

The extrajudicial confession of Bokingco was inadmissible against him because he was not assisted at all by counsel during the time his confession was taken before a judge.

PEOPLE VS UY, 649 SCRA 236

Uy was convicted of robbery with homicide upon his confession to his uncle because when confession is made to a competent witness, that person is able to testify as to the substance of what he heard even without the presence of counsel.

FAILURE TO OBJECT TO CONFESSION MADE WITHOUT COUNSEL PEOPLE VS GONZALES, G.R. NO. 142932, MAY 29, 2002

Gonzales committed robbery with homicide in Davao Oriental, and the court held that the constitutional provision on custodial investigation does not apply to a spontaneous statement which was not elicited through questioning by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner by his co-accused and hence such statement can be admissible as evidence against Gonzales.

PEOPLE VS TAMAYO, G.R. NO. 137856, JULY 30, 2002

In the case of People vs. Tamayo the SC held that oral confession that was done before the barangay officer can be taken into consideration, this is because this was not done during custodial investigation, thus there is no need for a lawyer.

PEOPLE VS SAMUS, G.R. NO. 135957, SEPT. 17, 2002

Confession made by the accused even without presence of a counsel is admissible in evidence if there is failure of objecting them during the trial.

PEOPLE VS AVENDANO, G.R. NO. 137407, JAN. 28, 2003

Failure to timely question the defect in the information is deemed a waiver of his objection thereto.

PEOPLE VS MOLE, G.R. NO. 137366, NOV. 27, 2003

Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in evidence in any proceeding, notwithstanding failure to object by the defense of its admission.

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED PEOPLE VS MANRIQUEZ, G.R. NO. 122510-511, MARCH 17, 2000

A flawed waiver of rights renders extra judicial confessions null and inadmissible.

MAGTOTO VS MANGUERA, 63 SCRA 4

A confession obtained from a person under investigation for the commission of an offense, who has not been informed of his right (to silence and) to counsel, is inadmissible in evidence if the same had been obtained after the effectivity of the New Constitution on January 17, 1973 since the Constitution must be given a prospective and not a retrospective effect.

PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA 52

Absent any showing that the accused were duly advised of the mandatory guarantees under the Bill of Rights, their extrajudicial confessions are inadmissible against them and cannot be used in support of their conviction.

PEOPLE VS ALEGRIA, 190 SCRA 122

Written extra-judicial confession made by a person of limited education do not persuade that the accused was fully and fairly informed of his rights in the sense that they were each painstakingly explained to him and he was apprised of the effects of their waiver or forfeiture.

PEOPLE VS SABBAN, 360 SCRA 630

A lawyer is an officer of the court and he has in his favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of his sworn duties and responsibilities and so an executed sworn statement of an extra-judicial confession in the presence of an executive director of the IBP can validly be admissible as evidence in court.

PEOPLE VS BARLIS, 231 SCRA 426

Appelant voluntarily agreed to be assisted by no less than the Chairman of the Legal Aid Assistance Office of the IBP-Quezon City Chapter, Atty. Confesor Sansano wherein a lawyer is an officer of the court and upon his shoulders lies the responsibility to see to it that protection has been accorded the rights of the accused and that no injustice to him has been committed and with the presence of Atty. Sansano, we believe that the rights of the appellant were duly protected.

PEOPLE VS AGUSTIN, 240 SCRA 541

The right to be informed carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain and contemplates effective communication. Hence, it is doubtful for a suspect to understand his constitutional right if he was informed in Tagalog and English when he could only understand Ilocano.

PEOPLE VS SAMOLDE, G.R. NO. 128551, JULY 31, 2000

The giving to a suspect of no more than a perfunctory recitation of his rights, signifying nothing more than a feigned compliance with the constitutional requirements, is considered as merely ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect, rendering any extrajudicial confession obtained invalid.

PEOPLE VS SEVILLA, G.R. NO. 124077, SEPT. 5, 2000

The right to be informed of one’s right contemplates the “transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.” The right to be informed consists of no less than effective communication which results in a full understanding of what is conveyed.

PEOPLE VS MULETA, G.R. NO. 130189, JUNE 25, 1999

A confession obtained in violation of the rights of an accused cannot be used as evidence.

PEOPLE VS TIZON, G.R. NO. 133228, JULY 30, 2002

The right to be informed of one's constitutional rights during custodial investigation refers to an effective communication between the investigating officer and the suspected individual, with the purpose of making the latter understand these rights such that information transmitted was effectively received and comprehended; the Constitution requires that the person under investigation be "informed."

PEOPLE VS LLENARESES, 248 SCRA 629

Appellant Llenaresas’s claim that he was not informed of his constitutional rights before the extraction of extrajudicial confession is contradicted by his own written confession and the testimony of police officers who had directly participated in the custodial investigation.

PEOPLE VS CAJARA, G.R. NO. 122498, SEPT. 27, 2000

Neither can the accused be convicted of qualified rape on the basis of the circumstance that the rape was committed in full view of the relatives of the victim within the third degree of consanguinity because this qualifying circumstance was not pleaded in the Information or in the Complaint against the accused; thus, it is fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information.

PEOPLE VS MANRIQUEZ, G.R. NO. 122510-511, MARCH 17, 2000

The right to be informed carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain, and contemplates effective communication which results in the subject's understanding of what is conveyed.

PEOPLE VS SAMOLDE, G.R. NO. 128551, JULY 31, 2000

Samolde was arrested for murder. Before he was interrogated, accused was given only a perfunctory recitation of his rights, which is inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect. Hence the confession is inadmissible in trial.

WAIVER OF RIGHTS: REQUISITES OF A VALID WAIVER PEOPLE VS TALIMAN, G.R. NO. 109143, OCTOBER 11, 2000

The Constitution expressly provides that the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel hence the defect was not cured even assuming that the right to counsel was orally waived during custodial investigation.

PEOPLE VS GOMEZ, 270 SCRA 432

Section 12(1), Article III, of the Constitution requires the assistance of counsel to a person under custody even when he waives the right to counsel.

PEOPLE VS CABINTOY, 247 SCRA 442

A waiver of the right to counsel is valid if it is in writing and done in the presence of counsel. An uncounselled confession and waiver could be subsequently validated by later signature of counsel but there must be manifest intent to own and adopt retroactively their extrajudicial confession; extreme care must be employed in examining the matter lest the constitutional right be eroded into an empty formality.

PEOPLE VS CORULLO, 289 SCRA 481

Even before March 20, 1985 and the present Constitution, waiver by an accused of the assistance of a counsel during custodial must be done with the assistance of counsel, otherwise the confessions obtained from the accused would be inadmissible.

PEOPLE VS OLIVAREZ, G.R. NO. 77865, DECEMBER 4, 1998

Knowing full well that the arrest that they had conducted was illegal, the police interposed that Olivarez et were only invited to the precinct. Nevertheless, the court found that the circumstances are actually in the nature of an arrest designed for the purpose of conducting an investigation wherein the fruit of the poisonous doctrine applies.

PEOPLE VS RUELAN, 231 SCRA 650

A confession is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved and the burden of proof is upon the person making the confession.

PEOPLE VS SIMON, 234 SCRA 555

Although the accused manifested during the custodial investigation that he waived his right to counsel, the waiver was not made in writing and whatever admission may be extracted from him, is not allowable as evidence.

MALACAT VS CA, 283 SCRA 159

Even assuming that petitioner admitted possession of the grenade during his custodial investigation by police officer Serapio, such admission was inadmissible in evidence for it was taken in palpable violation of Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution.

!Serapio conducted the custodial investigation on petitioner the day following his arrest when no lawyer was

present and Serapio could not have requested a lawyer to assist petitioner as no PAO lawyer was then available. Thus, even if petitioner consented to the investigation and waived his rights to remain silent and to counsel, the waiver was invalid as it was not in writing, neither was it executed in the presence of counsel. PEOPLE VS BACOR, 306 SCRA 522

By voluntarily executing his extrajudicial confession, which he did in the presence of and with the assistance of counsel and after having been informed of his constitutional rights, accused-appellant effectively waived his right to remain silent.

PEOPLE VS QUIDATO, G.R. NO. 117160, OCTOBER 1, 1998

There was no presence of a counsel when Malita brothers gave their extra-judicial statements and these are considered inadmissible in evidence even if they signed their affidavits the next day in the presence of a counsel.

MUST BE VOLUNTARY, KNOWING, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE VS NICOLAS, 204 SCRA 191

Admissions made by accused-appellant during custodial investigation, as reflected in his sworn statement, cannot be admissible in evidence for his statement before the Patrolman was given in gross violation of his constitutional rights guaranteed under Article IV, section 20 of the 1973 constitution where confessions without assistance of counsel is inadmissible.

PEOPLE VS AGUSTIN, 240 SCRA 541

The right to information carries with it the obligation of the investigator to explain for the understanding of accused, and even if the confession of an accused speaks the truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.

EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMISSION AND CONFESSION LADIANA VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 144293, DECEMBER 4, 2002

According to Sec. 26 on the Revised Rules on Evidence, admission is the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him, while Sec. 33 states that confession is the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged.

PEOPLE VS MAQUEDA, 242 SCRA 565

In a confession, there is acknowledgement of guilt by the accused while in admission, there is only an acknowledgment of facts or circumstances regarding the issue which has to be corroborated with other facts in order to establish guilt.

REQUISITES FOR VALID EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION PEOPLE VS DANO, G.R. NO. 117690, SEPTEMBER 1, 2000

For an extrajudicial confession to be valid, it must be (a) voluntary, (b) made with the assistance of a competent and in dependent counsel, (c) express, and (d) in writing.

PEOPLE VS PAGAURA, 267 SCRA 17

Pagaura was in possession of Marijuana ,and the prosecution failed to prove that Pagaura was assisted by a lawyer during the interrogation and that a certain waiver that he signed was void since it was made without the assistance of a lawyer.

PEOPLE VS CALVO, 269 SCRA 676

A confession is not rendered involuntary merely because defendant was told that he should tell the truth or that it would be better for him to tell the truth. For an accused’s confession to be inadmissible, the threats and promises which the accused must prove must take the form of violence, intimidation, a promise of reward or leniency.

PEOPLE VS TAN, 286 SCRA 207

Herson Tan who was charged with highway robbery with murder was acquitted because his extrajudicial confession which failed to meet the following requisites was inadmissible as evidence: (1) it must be voluntary, (2) it must be made with assistance of competent and independent counsel, (3) it must be express, (4)it must be in writing.

PEOPLE VS OLIVAREZ, G.R. NO. 77865, DECEMBER 4, 1998

Olivarez committed robbery with homicide in Valenzuela, and the court held that Olivarez’s manifestation that he did need assistance of a counsel was not a valid waiver since in order for a waiver of the right to counsel to be valid, it must be made with the assistance or in the presence of counsel, therefore any statement he made is inadmissible as evidence.

PEOPLE VS BASE, G.R. NO. 109773, MARCH 30, 2000

For an extrajudicial confession to be valid it must be 1.) Voluntary, 2.) Made with the assistance of competent counsel, 3.) Express, 4.) In Writing. But this rule is not a deterrent of an accused voluntarily and intelligently so desires, but to protect the accused to admit things which are untrue.

PEOPLE VS CONTINENTE, G.R. NO. 100801-02, AUGUST 25, 2000

A counsel should never prevent the accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth and whether it is an extrajudicial statement or testimony in open court, the intention is always to ascertain the truth of the facts and evidences pertaining to a crime.

PEOPLE VS NAAG, 322 SCRA 710

While accused-appellant was told what his rights were and answered in the affirmative when asked whether he understood what he had been told, the crucial question is whether he effectively waived the effectuation of these rights. We find that he did not and, therefore, his confession (Exh. O) is inadmissible in evidence.

PEOPLE VS FABRO, 277 SCRA 19

A confession is defined in jurisprudence as a declaration made voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement by a person, stating or acknowledging that he has committed or participated in the commission of a crime. In jurisprudence, no confession can be admitted in evidence unless it is given: 1. Freely and voluntarily, without compulsion, inducement or trickery; 2. Knowingly based on an effective communication to the individual under custodial investigation of his constitutional rights; and 3. Intelligently with full appreciation of its importance and comprehension of its consequences.

PEOPLE VS SINOC, 275 SCRA 357

A narration of events by the accused without his counsel present cannot be used against him.

PEOPLE VS ALICANDO, 251 SCRA 293

Due process was not observed since the defendant was not informed oh his right to counsel upon making his extrajudicial confession to the police and so the trial court erred in admitting as evidence the T-shirt of the accused with bloodstains in convicting him for rape with homicide since it is not only uncounselled confession that is condemned as inadmissible but also evidence derived therefrom in cases of custodial interrogation where the accused confessed to the crime without the benefit of counsel.

PEOPLE VS MANENG, G.R. NO. 123147, OCT. 13, 2000

For an extrajudicial confession to be admissible as evidence, it must be satisfactorily shown that it was (1) voluntary, and (2) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel.

!Details disclosed in the confession that could have been known only to the declarant indicate the voluntariness in executing the same.

PEOPLE VS LLANES, G.R. NO. 140268, SEPT. 18, 2000

The extra-judicial confession was made by Roland Gamba after he was duly informed of his rights and after he was asked if he wanted to avail the services of a layer to which he answered in the affirmative.

PEOPLE VS DEANG, G.R. NO. 128045, AUG. 24, 2000

When an accused is informed of his constitutional custodial rights and was represented by a counsel of his choice, the extrajudicial confessions he made may be used as evidence admissible in court.

PEOPLE VS AVENDANO, G.R. NO. 137407, JAN. 28, 2003

With regard to the legality of the arrest and confinement of appellant, it was shown that upon arraignment, appellant voluntarily entered a plea of "not guilty" without first questioning the legality of his arrest and by so pleading, he has submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest wherein such act amounted to a waiver of the right to question any irregularity in his arrest.

PEOPLE VS ESPANOLA, 271 SCRA 689

The fact that appellant Paquingan did not sign his sworn statement casts serious doubt as to the voluntariness of its execution and therefore, it is inadmissible evidence.

PEOPLE VS NICOLAS, G.R. NO. 135877, AUG. 22, 2002

The rule is that when the offended party has executed and subscribed to a complaint, the prosecution before the court may be initiated by means of an information signed by the prosecutor alone.

PEOPLE VS SABALONES, 294 SCRA 751

Extrajudicial confession, especially those which are adverse to the declarant’s interests are presumed voluntary, and in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that the declarant’s consent in executing the same has been vitiated, such confession shall be upheld. It is binding only upon himself and not against his co-accused.

PEOPLE VS MAHINAY, 302 SCRA 455

The Investigating offcier or his companions must do and observe the guidelines laid down by the courts at the time of making the arrest and again at the time of the custodial interrogation in accordance with the constitution.

PEOPLE VS LISING, 285 SCRA 595

(Interlocking Confessions; an exception to the rule that an extrajudicial statement is evidence only against the person making it) Where several extrajudicial statements had been made by several persons charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said several confessions, and that the statements are in all material respects identical, is confirmatory of the confession of the co-defendants and is admissible against other persons implicated therein, which are admissible as circumstantial evidences against the person implicated therein to show the probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the crime.

PEOPLE VS OBRERO, G.R. NO. 122142, MAY 17, 2000

The extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because it lacks the requisite of a competent and independent counsel. The counsel present during the custodial investigation, thought competent, cannot be said to be independent since he was also the station commander in the police station.

PEOPLE VS CAPITLE, 639 SCRA 373

An extrajudicial confession is admissible if it is (1) voluntary; (2) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; (3) express; and (4) in writing.

JESALVA VS PEOPLE, 640 SCRA 253

The assailed statements herein were spontaneously made by petitioner and were not at all elicited through questioning, hence it is admissible.

VOLUNTARINESS PEOPLE VS SANTOS, 283 SCRA 443

If the extrajudicial confession satisfies these constitutional standards, it is subsequently tested for voluntariness, i.e., if it was given freely -- without coercion, intimidation, inducement, or false promises; and credibility, i.e., if it was consistent with the normal experience of mankind.

PEOPLE VS ALVAREZ, G.R. NO. 140388-91, NOV. 11, 2003

When a victim of rape says that she has been violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed against her and so long as her testimony meets tha test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.

ASTUDILLO VS PEOPLE, 509 SCRA 302

There is the presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience such that it is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved.

JESALVA VS PEOPLE, 640 SCRA 253

Statements made spontaneously and voluntarily which were not elicited through questioning does not fall under the constitutional procedure for custodial investigation.

PRESUMPTIONS PEOPLE VS ALICANDO, 251 SCRA 293

The arraignment of the accused cannot be presumed to be regularly conducted when life is at stake.

PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA 52

Absent any showing that appellants were dully advised of the mandatory guarantee under the Bill of Rights, their confession made before Carino are inadmissible against them, and cannot be used I support of their conviction.

PEOPLE VS FIGUEROA, G.R. NO. 134056, JULY 6, 2000

Any waiver of such rights should be in writing and made in the presence of a counsel, and such rights attach from the moment the investigation starts (i.e. when the investigating officers begin to ask question to elicit information). The presumption of regularity does not prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. Admissions made contrary to Sec 12 are inadmissible even against third persons.

PEOPLE VS DANO, G.R. NO. 117690, SEPTEMBER 1, 2000

The confession without counsel is inadmissible since a suspect’s confession, when taken without the assistance of counsel without a valid waiver of such right regardless of the absence of coercion or the fact that it had been voluntarily given, is inadmissible in evidence, even if it is the truth.

PEOPLE VS MANENG, G.R. NO. 123147, OCT. 13, 2000

Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that declarant's consent in executing the same has been vitiated, such confession will be sustained.

!Alibi is a weak defense against extrajudicial confessions made by the accused. !The right to counsel does not mean that the accused must personally hire his own counsel. The constitutional requirement is satisfied when a counsel is (1) engaged by anyone acting on behalf of the person under investigation or (2) appointed by the court upon petition of the said person or by someone on his behalf.

PEOPLE VS VALLEJO, G.R. NO. 144656, MAY 9, 2002 PEOPLE VS SAHAGUN, 274 SCRA 208

Indeed, extrajudicial confessions are presumed to be voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that the declarantÊs consent in executing the same has been vitiated, the confession will be sustained. Villareal’s extra-judicial confessions, without the benefit of an effective, vigilant and independent counsel, are inadmissible in evidence.

PEOPLE VS SABBAN, 360 SCRA 630

The confession is admissible in court, considering that the accused Eduardo Sabban gave his statement to the investigating officer in the presence of his counsel, who also signed the statement.

PEOPLE VS RANIS, G.R. NO. 129113, SEPT. 17, 2000

A failure of the accused to question the vigilance of his provided counsel and maltreatment from police officers casts doubt on the allegations, and confessions of the accused constitutes evidence of a high order of voluntariness.

PEOPLE VS ROUS, 242 SCRA 732

Confession obtained through coercion whether physical, mental or emotional is inadmissible.

PEOPLE VS PAROJINOG, 203 SCRA 473

While the initial choice of a lawyer falls upon the police investigators in case the accused cannot afford the services of a counsel, he still has the final choice because he can reject the one given to him and ask for another one AND that a confession made by him is admissible unless he successfully proves that he was intimidated, forced or promised a reward or leniency.

PEOPLE VS MONTIERO, 246 SCRA 786

A confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience; it is admissible until the accused successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat, or promise of reward or leniency, and the evidence failed to show that the SPO coerced appellant to confess.

PEOPLE VS RUELAN, 231 SCRA 650

Ruelan murdered somebody in Davao City, and by voluntarily executing his extrajudicial confession after having been informed by Atty. Luz Cortez of his constitutional rights, and in the presence of and with the assistance of said counsel, appellant Ruelan effectively waived his right to remain silent.

PEOPLE VS AQUINO, G.R. NO. 123550-51, JULY 19, 1999

The Court, in finding the accused guilty of rape with homicide, ruled that the confession made by the appellant Catap was presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved and the declarant bears the burden of proving that his confession is involuntary.

PEOPLE VS TOLENTINO, 423 SCRA 448

Tolentino was judged guilty of statutory rape after being positively identified in a police line-up. A police line-up is not considered custodial investigation and therefore there is no need for counsel.

PEOPLE VS DE VERA, G.R. NO. 128966, AUG. 18, 1999

De Vera murdered somebody in Quezon City, and the court held that the prosecution has proved through overwhelming evidence that De Vera’s right to counsel was not infringe hence De Vera’s statements are admissible as evidence.

PEOPLE VS SANTOS, 283 SCRA 443

There is no presumption of constitutionality which may be accorded to any extrajudicial confession until the prosecution convincingly establishes the regularity of its taking and compliance with the constitution. In this case the the extrajudicial confession was struck down because of the failure of the prosecution to show that the accused was assisted by counsel during custodial investigation.

SANTOS VS SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 71523-25, DECEMBER 8, 2000

When a confession be deliberately given with a full comprehension of its importance, there is no impediment to its admissibility as evidence, that no person will deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience to confess his guilt.

PEOPLE VS MAGDAMIT, 279 SCRA 423

Where there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by any improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is thus entitled to full faith and credit.

PEOPLE VS AQUINO, G.R. NO. 130742, JULY 18, 2000

An accused cannot be presumed to have knowledge of the non-existence or insufficiency of the funds in the bank account of her co-accused at the time the latter issued post-dated checks since such legal presumption applies to the drawer or issuer of the checks.

PEOPLE VS HERNANDEZ, 282 SCRA 387

Testimonial and documentary evidence are given great weight by the court in rendering a criminal judgment.

PEOPLE VS SABALONES, 294 SCRA 751

Extrajudicial confessions, especially those which are adverse to the declarant’s interests are presumed voluntary, and in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that the declarant’s consent in executing the same has been vitiated, such confession shall be upheld.

PEOPLE VS CALVO, 269 SCRA 676

A confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience.

PEOPLE VS DEL ROSARIO, G.R. NO. 131036, JUNE 20, 2001

As officers of the court, lawyers who assist in the extrajudicial confession of an accused are presumed to perform their sworn duties and responsibilities with regularity.

TO WHOM SUCH CONFESSION CAN BE USED AGAINST PEOPLE VS LISING, 285 SCRA 595

A man’s act, conduct and declarations wherever made, provided they be voluntary, are admissible against him, for the reason that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth and it is his fault if they are not and an extrajudicial statement having a confession is evidence only against the person making it.

SANTOS VS SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 71523-25, DECEMBER 8, 2000

It is also to be noted that APPELLANTS' extrajudicial confessions were independently made without collusion, are identical with each other in their material respects and confirmatory of the other and hey are what is commonly known as interlocking confession and constitute an exception to the general rule that extrajudicial confessions/admissions are admissible in evidence only against the declarants thereof.

TAN VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 134298, AUGUST 26, 1999

An admission or confession acknowledging guilt of an offense may be given in evidence only against the person admitting or confessing.

LAWYER GIVEN BY POLICE INVESTIGATOR, VALID CONFESSION AQUINO VS PAISTE, 555 SCRA 255

When the accused never raised any objection against the lawyer’s appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribed to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer, the accused is deemed to have engaged such lawyer.

EXCEPTIONS: WHEN CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS MAY NOT APPLY, PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION PEOPLE VS JUDGE AYSON, 175 SCRA 216

Not every statement made to the police by a person involved in some crime is within the scope of the constitutional protection. If not made "under custodial interrogation," or "under investigation for the commission of an offense," the statement is not protected.

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER PEOPLE VS TAYLARAN, 108 SCRA 373

If one voluntarily admits the crime and it was precisely because of this intent to admit he surrendered to the police, the constitutional safeguards under section 12 cannot be invoked.

AUDIT EXAMINATION NAVALLO VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 234 SCRA 175

A person under a normal audit examination is not under custodial investigation.

KIMPO VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 232 SCRA 53

Petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of his constitutional rights when Sandiganbayan considered the questioned exhibits is untenable since said exhibits pertain to a report of audit examination performed in the normal course of audit by the COA. Petitioner is not under custodial investigation under such time.

ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION MANUEL VS NC CONSTRUCTION, 282 SCRA 326

An administrative investigation is a type of investigation conducted by the employer and is not considered a criminal investigation since it is not done by police officers; hence the information elicited from this type of investigation is admissible in court.

REMOLONA VS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, G.R. NO. 13747, AUGUST 2, 2001

While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that under existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent’s capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel; The right to counsel is not always imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measure against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.

SEBASTIAN VS GARCHITORENA G.R. NO. 114028, OCT. 18, 2000

Post office employees were investigated. During interrogation, they submitted sworn statements, which prosecution later presented as evidence. Although not assisted by counsel, the statements are admissible as the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigation.

ESCLEO VS DURADO, AM NO. P-99-1312, JULY 31, 2002

In administrative proceedings, the change of procedure is not a denial of due process since technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied unless he was completely denied of the opportunity to be heard.

NOT IN POLICE CUSTODY PEOPLE VS TOBIAS, 266 SCRA 229

When an admission was made before the accused's arrest (as he was only asked why he was holding a gun), the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the accused did not yet come into operation, and the accused’s statement becomes a confession as defined by the Rules of Evidence, which is admissible against the accused.

OCA VS SUMULONG, 271 SCRA 316

Custody investigation is defined as questioning performed by law enforcement officers after a person has been deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way; the Office of the Court Administrator does not fall under the concept of enforcement authority contemplated in the constitutional provision.

POLICE LINE UP: GENERAL RULE PEOPLE VS PIEDAD, G.R. NO. 131923, DEC. 5, 2002

A police line up is not necessary to identify the accused for as long as the accused is positively identified by the witnesses as the perpetrator of the crime.

PEOPLE VS LAMSING, 248 SCRA 471

The right to counsel does not extend to police line-ups investigation because they are not part of custodial investigation.

PEOPLE VS FRAGO, 232 SCRA 653

If the accused, in the course of his identification in the police line-up, is not yet held to answer for a criminal offense, he is therefore not deprived of his right to be assisted by counsel because the accusatory process had not yet set in.

GAMBOA VS JUDGE CRUZ, 162 SCRA 675

If the police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest, an accused is not yet entitled to counsel, however, if there would be an urge of the investigators to elicit admissions or confessions from the accused, he should be entitled to counsel.

PEOPLE VS SALVATIERRA, 276 SCRA 55

The right to counsel guaranteed in Art. III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution does not extend to police lineups because they are not part of custodial investigations. The reason for this is that at that point, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory; therefore the accused’s right to counsel attaches only from the time that adversary judicial proceedings are taken against him.

DELA TORRE VS CA, 294 SCRA 196

A police line-up is not considered part of any custodial inquest because it is conducted before that stage is reached.

PEOPLE VS PAVILLARE, G.R. NO. 129970, APRIL 5, 2000

The inadmissibility of “custodial investigation” which starts when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect and the police officers begin to ask questions regarding the suspect’s participation.

PEOPLE VS TIMPLE, 237 SCRA 52

There is no need to afford the potential suspect that assistance of counsel as it has been held that police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation, where the suspects had not yet been held then to answer for the criminal offense which they were later charged and convicted.

PEOPLE VS DIMAANO, 209 SCRA 819

Right to counsel is not required in police line-ups since the confrontation between the state and them had not yet begun.

PEOPLE VS LOVERIA, 187 SCRA 47

Use of “I think” does not necessarily indicate uncertainty & failure to reveal at once the identity of the accused does not necessarily affect much less impairs the credibility of the witness.

PEOPLE VS TOLENTINO, 423 SCRA 448

The constitutional rights of the accused were not violated when he was made to join the police line up because a police line up was not part of a custodial inquest – the accused not being investigated but only the witness was in the process of identifying him, his right to counsel is not violated and in addition, there is no law providing that a police line up is essential to proper identification.

PEOPLE VS MARTINEZ, 425 SCRA 525

The right to counsel attaches only when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information, confession or admission from the accused; when one is identified in a police line-up, he has not yet been held to answer for the criminal offense, a police line-up os outside the mantle of protection of the right to counsel.

PEOPLE VS SULTAN, G.R. NO. 130594, JULY 5, 2000

Sultan committed carnapping with homicide in General Santos City, and the court, in applying the totality of circumstances test, held that his identification in the “police line-up” was not in violation of his constitutional right to counsel.

PEOPLE VS ESCORDIAL, 373 SCRA 585

Any identification of an uncounselled accused made in a police line-up, or in a show-up for that matter, after the start of the custodial investigation is inadmissible as evidence against him.

EXCEPTIONS PEOPLE VS HATTON, 210 SCRA 1

Aside from the fact that Ongue, the witness, could not positively identify the defendant as he made only fleeting glances at him after the incident, it was shown that he was identified by the police as a suspect.

PEOPLE VS GARNER, 326 SCRA 660

Garner committed the crime of carnapping in Angeles City, and the court held that the statements he made were inadmissible as evidence since from the moment Garner was invited to the CIS office, he was clearly placed under "custodial investigation" for there the questioning was never a "general inquiry into an unsolved crime" but already focused on appellant as a "particular suspect”, hence he should have been informed of his Miranda rights before being questioned.

PEOPLE VS TEEHANKEE, JR. 249 SCRA 54

Out of court identifications contaminate the integrity of in court identifications, but the courts have to use the totality of circumstances test where there consider the ff. factors: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. This mode was resorted to by the authorities for security purposes.

PEOPLE VS MENESES, 288 SCRA 95

The mere assertion by a police officer that after an accused was informed of his constitutional right to remain silent and to counsel he readily admitted his guilt, does not make the supposed confession admissible when it is not shown that the admissions of guilt were made with benefit of counsel.

SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS PEOPLE VS BARRIENTOS, 285 SCRA 221

The matter testified to was appellant’s spontaneous statement of having asked for the forgiveness of the offended party. It was a statement uttered by appellant, overheard by the Chief of Police Motalib Banding, that had not been elicited from him through any questioning.

ARROYO VS CA, 203 SCRA 750

An accused cannot claim the right against self-incrimination when the admission was made to her husband in the privacy of their conjugal home since the husband was not a peace officer nor an investigation officer conducting a custodial investigation.

PEOPLE VS ANDAN, 269 SCRA 95

A spontaneous confession by the accused outside of any interrogation is considered admissible evidence in court.

PEOPLE VS DUMANTAY, 307 SCRA 1

The rights guaranteed in Section 12(1) applied to accused since he was already under custodial investigation when he was brought to the Malasiqui police station as a suspect in slaying Jennifer Domantay and in any case, his waiver of his right to counsel was void since it was neither put in writing nor made in the presence of counsel.

PEOPLE VS MORADA, G.R. NO. 129723, MAY 19, 1999

The constitutional guarantees during custodial investigation do not apply to spontaneous statements not elicited through questioning by the authorities and given during an ordinary conversation or during media interviews, whereby the suspect orally admits the commission of the crime. This does not, however, authorize the police to obtain confessions they cannot otherwise obtain through media reporters who are actually acting for the police.

PEOPLE VS DANO, G.R. NO. 117690, SEPT. 1, 2000

The constitutional requirements on custodial investigation do not apply to spontaneous statements made in a voluntary manner whereby appellant orally admitted authorship of the crimes before the barangay captain, who is neither a police officer nor a law enforcement agent.

PEOPLE VS ULIT, 423 SCRA 374

Improvident pleas of guilty to a capital offense on the part of the accused must be averted since by admitting his guilt before the trial court, the accused would forfeit his life and liberty without having fully understood the meaning, significance and the dire consequences of his plea.

MARKED MONEY PEOPLE VS LINSANGAN, 195 SCRA 784

Although he was not assisted by counsel when he initialed the P10-bills that the police found tucked in his waist, his right against self-incrimination was not violated for his possession of the marked bills did not constitute a crime; the subject of the prosecution was his act of selling marijuana cigarettes.

BOOKING SHEETS PEOPLE VS ANG CHUN KIT, 251 SCRA 660

When an arrested person signs a booking sheet at a police station, he does not admit the confession of an offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance since it is merely a statement of the accused’s being booked which accompanies the fact of an arrest.

PARAFFIN TEST PEOPLE VS GAMBOA, 194 SCRA 372

Paraffin test conducted without the presence of the accused’s lawyer does not violate the right against selfincrimination.

WHEN BODY OF THE ACCUSED IS EXAMINED PEOPLE VS SINOC, 275 SCRA 357

It must additionally be pointed out that apart from Sinoc’s protestations that his extrajudicial confession was the result of torture and threats, no competent evidence exists on record to substantiate that claim. There must be a medical examination to confirm such revelation.

PEOPLE VS PIEDAD, G.R. NO. 131923, DEC. 5, 2002

The right to counsel accrues only after an investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and commences an interrogation aimed at a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police would then propound questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements.

GUTANG VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 135406, JULY 11, 2000

(exemption under the freedom from testimonial compulsion) The Constitution prohibits the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material - an accused may validly be compelled to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done, without running afoul of the proscription against testimonial compulsion.

PEOPLE VS PAYNOR, 256 SCRA 611

The rights of the accused were not infringed when he was stripped of his clothing by the police investigators and later submitting his items as evidence. The constitutional protection refers to testimonial evidence and not physical examination.

TAKING OF PICTURES PEOPLE VS GALLARDE, 325 SCRA 835

The taking of pictures of an accused without the assistance of his counsel is not a violation of his right against self-incrimination because the right only protects testimonial compulsion against the accused or that of the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act.

INCIDENT LAWFUL TO ARREST PEOPLE VS ENRIQUEZ, 204 SCRA 674

The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful.

MARCELO VS SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 109242, JANUARY 26, 1999

Lito Marcelo and Ronnie Romero were found guilty of qualified theft before the Sandiganbayan. The signed letters presented as evidence were valid because these were seized incidental to a lawful arrest.

THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE: VIOLATION OF RIGHTS PEOPLE VS SIMON, 234 SCRA 555

Although appellant manifested during the custodial investigation that he waived his right to counsel, the waiver was not made in writing and in the presence of counsel, hence whatever incriminatory admission or confession may be extracted from him, either verbally or in writing, is not allowable in evidence.

PEOPLE VS HERMOSO, G.R. NO. 130590, OCT. 18, 2000

As a general rule, confession made without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence; however, if it appears that the defense failed to object immediately when a witness was presented for prosecution or when specific questions concerning the confession were asked, it is deemed that the accused has waived his right to object to the inadmissibility of such witness’s testimony.

PEOPLE VS PINLAC, 165 SCRA 675

Verbal admissions made during custodial investigation are inadmissible if the rights of the accused were violated. The right of a person to be informed “implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain and contemplates an effective communication that results in understanding what is conveyed.”

PEOPLE VS BACAMANTE, 248 SCRA 47

Extrajudicial confessions given without the benefit of an effective and vigilant counsel is inadmissible in court.

PEOPLE VS ANDAN, 269 SCRA 95

the following are not custodial investigations and confessions freely obtained here are admissible: Meeting with the mayor which the accused freely sought and the accused spontaneously made the confessions without the mayor’s prodding. Confessions made to the media in answer to media’s questions even while in custody.

PEOPLE VS MONTES, G.R. NO. 117166, DEC. 13, 1998

A confession to be admissible must satisfy all of four fundamental requirements: 1) the confession must be voluntary; 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; 3) the confession must be express; and 4) the confession must be in writing. Verbal admissions allegedly made by the accused, at the time of their arrest and before the formal investigation, are inadmissible, both as violative of their constitutional rights and as hearsay evidence.

PEOPLE VS SALCEDO, 273 SCRA 473

 Even if the extrajudicial confession of the accused was the truth and there was no coercion enforced, the failure of the police to afford to him his rights during a custodial investigation, even when waived, rendered the confession inadmissible.

PEOPLE VS MACOY, 275 SCRA 1

Although we are in agreement with the accused-appellant that his extrajudicial confession, as testified upon by Pat. Tumakay, was inadmissible, because it was taken during custodial investigation and without benefit of a counsel, the other evidences of the prosecution fully sustains Macoy’s conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE VS ARCEO, 202 SCRA 170

Librado subsequently denied having pointed to Pancho as his supplier. Librado's confession was thus not only unfounded, but obtained in gross violation of his fundamental right to counsel.

PEOPLE VS ATREJENIO, G.R. NO. 120160, JULY 13, 1999

The statement of Patrolman Fradejas is deemed inadmissible in evidence because he was able to obtain such information from the oral confession made by the accused which is violation of the latter’s constitutional rights provided in Art. 3 Section 12(1) of the constitution.

TAN VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 134298, AUG. 26, 1999

Petitioner is not affected by the confession of the witness as any admission of guilt of an offense may be given in evidence only against the person admitting or confessing.

PEOPLE VS BINAMIRA, 277 SCRA 232

Binamira was not adequately informed of his constitutional right to engage a counsel of his own choic, and, and if the lawyer’s role is reduced to being a mere witness to the signing of a prepared document albeit indication therein compliance with the accused’s constitutional rights, the constitutional standard is not met.

PEOPLE VS TURINGAN, 282 SCRA 424

Alternative plea should be rejected since he was not denied of full opportunity to be heard.

PEOPLE VS PAGAURA, 267 SCRA 17

The evidence against the accused was inadmissible because one, he signed the waiver without the assistance of a counsel, not knowing its content because he was threatened by the police officers and there was no proof that a lawyer assisted during the interrogation.

PEOPLE VS QUIDATO, G.R. NO. 117401, OCT. 1, 1998

The affidavits obtained by the police are inadmissible in evidence even though they were voluntarily given because they were made without counsel; it cannot be said that the right was waived because to waive it, if must first be indicated in writing and in the presence of counsel.

PEOPLE VS SEQUINO, 264 SCRA 79

Sequiño committed robbery with homicide in Cebu City, and the court held that no statement made during the custodial investigation can be admissible since the police did not remind the accused of their right to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel.

PEOPLE VS ALICANDO,, 251 SCRA 293

Physical evidences gathered by the police were declared inadmissible as evidence since they were results of custodial interrogation where appellant verbally confessed to the crime without the benefit of counsel.

PEOPLE VS AGUSTIN, 240 SCRA 541

Agustin was acquitted, the court refusing to use evidence against him because it was observed that his lawyer did not fully apprise him of his rights in a way that he was able to fully understand the consequences of his admission.

PEOPLE VS PAGLINAWAN, 324 SCRA 97

Paglinawan was charged of murdering somebody in Butuan City, and the court held that Paglinawan should not be liable for the injuries which were proven to be suffered by some of the witnesses, since the case is about murder and said injuries were not properly charged in the information, hence violating Paglinawan’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the offense charged against him.

PEOPLE VS ALEGRIA, 190 SCRA 122

In the case of People vs. Algeria an extrajudicial confession made without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible except with the accused waives them in writing and in the presence of counsel.

PEOPLE VS BRAVO, G.R. NO. 13562

Admission made during an “informal talk” prior to custodial investigation proper is not acceptable, any information or admission given by a person while in custody which may appear harmless at the time without the competent assistance of an independent counsel is deemed as inadmissible as evidence.

PEOPLE VS BARIQUIT, G.R. NO. 122733, OCT. 2, 2000

After an exhaustive perusal of the records, we find inadmissible the uncounselled extra-judicial admission of accused-appellants, as well as the testimonies of the police officers pertaining thereto, for having been obtained in clear violation of accused-appellantsÊ rights enshrined in the Constitution; Courts are not allowed to distinguish between preliminary questioning and custodial investigation proper when applying the exclusionary rule

PEOPLE VS MALIMIT, 264 SCRA 167

Infractions of the so-called “Miranda rights” render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation—the admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation (i.e. stolen wallet, ID, residence certificate, and keys from the accused).

PEOPLE VS RIVERA, 245 SCRA 421

The right of the accused to cross-examine a witness is, however, not without limits but is subject to the rules on the admissibility and relevance of evidence.

PEOPLE VS MENESES, 288 SCRA 95

Though the it is pointed out that the accused had verbally admitted having committing the crime at the time of his arrest and during the investigation, mere assertions by a police office that after an accused was informed of his constitutional right to remain silent and to counsel he readily admitted his guilt, does not make the supposed confession admissible against the purported confessant.

PEOPLE VS FIGUEROA, G.R. NO. 134056, JULY 6, 2000

In the absence of proof that the arresting officers, prior to in-custody questioning, informed the confessant of his constitutional rights, the extrajudicial statements made during custodial investigation, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, are inadmissible and cannot be considered in the adjudication of a case.

PEOPLE VS PABURADA, G.R. NO. 137118, DEC. 5, 2000

The extrajudicial confession given by accused-appellant to SPO1 Garana is inadmissible in evidence for having been taken without the assistance of counsel even if it speaks the truth and was given voluntarily.

PEOPLE VS LAPITAJE, G.R. NO. 132042, FEB. 19, 2003

A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.

IMMUNITY AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION GALMAN VS PAMARAN, 138 SCRA 295

Even if the Agrava Board is and administrave body, the proceedings are similar to that of criminal proceedings wherein all the herein private respondents could not have been compelled to give any statement whether incriminatory or exculpatory and that they are also entitled to be admonished of their constitutional right to remain silent, to counsel, and be informed that any and all statements given by them may be used against them wherein the light of the first portion of Section 5 of P.D. 1886 and the awesome contempt power of the Board to punish any refusal to testify or produce evidence, We are not persuaded that when they testified, they voluntarily waived their constitutional rights not to be compelled to be a witness against themselves much less their right to remain silent.

RE-ENACTMENTS PEOPLE VS SUAREZ, 267 SCRA 119

Pictures of the re-enactment depicting the accused’s role in the commission of the crime cannot be utilized as evidence of his participation where such re-enactment was conducted without any lawyer assisting the counsel.

APPLICABILITY TO ALIENS PEOPLE VS WONG CHUEN MING, 256 SCRA 182

The mere fact that the counsels of one group of accused jointly represented the other accused did not deprive the former of their constitutional right to counsel where said counsels tried to present all the defenses available to each of the accused and did not put in jeopardy such group’s constitutional right to counsel.

VERBAL CONFESSIONS PEOPLE VS DENIEGO, 251 SCRA 626

In all, under rules laid down by the Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible must satisfy all of four fundamental requirements: 1) the confession must be voluntary 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; 3) the confession must be express and 4) the confession must be in writing.

PEOPLE VS BONOLA, 274 SCRA 238

It is not material that appellant’s confession came in verbal form. Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution does not distinguish between verbal and non-verbal confessions. So long as they are uncounselled, they are inadmissible in evidence.

PEOPLE VS SUELA, 373 SCRA 163

A refusal to answer is not an obstruction to an investigation; that the process of investigation could have been "obstructed" should not concern the assisting counsel because his duty is to his clients and not to the prosecution nor to the police investigators – the counsel should have informed his clients of their right to remain silent.

PEOPLE VS TABOGA, 376 SCRA 500

The court did not err in admitting in evidence accused’s confession to a radio man because such did not form part of custodial investigation.

PEOPLE VS BALOLOY, G.R. NO. 140740, APRIL 12, 2002

An extrajudicial confession made without the advice and assistance of counsel and hence inadmissible in evidence could be treated as a verbal admission of the accused that could be established through the testimonies of the persons who heard it or who conducted the investigation of the accused.

PEOPLE VS GUILLERMO, 420 S 326

A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.

CO-ACCUSED NOT BOUND PEOPLE VS CAMAT, 256 SCRA 52

Amboy Camat and Willie Del Rosario were accused of robbery with homicide. Camat implicated Del Rosario in his extra-judicial confession. An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not admissible against his co-accused. As against the latter, the confession is hearsay.

WHO MAY RAISE THE QUESTION PEOPLE VS BALISTEROS, 237 SCRA 499

A confession taken in violation of Sec 12 and 17 of Article III shall be inadmissible in evidence against the confessant and the objection can be raised only by the confessant whose right have been violated since such right is personal in nature.

WHEN MUST THE OBJECTION BE RAISED PEOPLE VS SAMUS, G.R. NO. 135957, SEPT. 17, 2002

Having made no timely objection to a testimony before the trial court, an appellant cannot raise such question for the first time on appeal because as such a point the prosecution can no longer present additional evidence as substitute for that which is claimed to be inadmissible.

PEOPLE VS MONTILLA, 285 SCRA 703

“A plea is tantamount to foregoing an objection to the irregularity of one’s arrest.”

PEOPLE VS SALVATIERRA, 276 SCRA 55

Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.

GAMBOA VS JUDGE CRUZ, 162 SCRA 675

Police line-up is not part of custodial investigation because the police officer has not started to ask questions designed to elicit information and/or confession. Presence of counsel is not yet required.

MACASIRAY VS PEOPLE, 291 SCRA 154

Objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally offered, and in the case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this time, and not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made.

ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE PEOPLE VS ESPIRITU, 302 SCRA 533

The confession of Appellant Espiritu is admissible in evidence since it was shown that it was (1) voluntary and (2) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel—it being enough that the counsel is (1) engaged by anyone acting on behalf of the person under investigation or (2) appointed by the court upon petition of the said person or by someone on his behalf.

PEOPLE VS LUMANDONG, 327 SCRA 650

Anent the issue of admissibility of the extrajudicial confession of the appellant, this Court is guided by four fundamental requirements, namely: 1) the confession must be voluntary; 2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; 3) the confession must be express; and 4) the confession must be in writing.

!An extrajudicial confession will be struck for being involuntary if it had been obtained with the use of coercion, intimidation, inducement or false promises.

RIGHTS AFTER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION PEOPLE VS ALICANDO, 251 SCRA 293

The burden to prove that an accused waived his right to remain silent and the right to counsel before making a confession under custodial interrogation rests with the prosecution

PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN, 194 SCRA 191

The receipt signed by de guzman stating that marijuana was seized from him is equates to a confession by him. This, being signed through force and intimidation when policemen pointed their guns at him, is inadmissible in evidence as it was signed without the presence of a counsel and without him being informed of his constitutional rights.

SECTION 14 DUE PROCESS PEOPLE VS BORAS, G.R. NO. 127495, DEC. 22, 2000

In consonance with the rights secured by section 14 of Article III of the Constitution, accused-appellant cannot be convicted for the alleged rapes committed other than the one charged in the information, even if the victim testified to other occasions of rape committed against her by the accused.

PEOPLE VS HORIO, G.R. NO. 137842, AUG. 23, 2002

The retroactive application of procedural rules cannot adversely affect the rights of the offended party that have become vested prior to the effectivity of said rules.

MILITARY TRIBUNAL OLAGUER VS MILITARY, 150 SCRA 144 TAN VS BARRIOS, 190 SCRA 685

Trial contemplated in the Constitution is trial by judicial process and military tribunals are not courts. There should be no retroactive nullification of final judgments, whether of conviction or acquittal, rendered by military courts against civilians before the promulgation of the Olaguer decision unless when the convicted person or the State shows that there was serious denial of the Constitutional rights of the accused.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE UNITED STATES VS LULING, 324 PHIL 725

Accused alleges that Section 316 of Act No. 355 is unconstitutional because it says that certain facts only shall constitute prima facie proof of guilt; it is established in criminal law that every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt but many States have established a different rule and have provided that certain facts only shall constitute prima facie evidence.

PEOPLE VS MINGOA, 92 PHIL 856

Mingoa committed malversation of public funds in Romblon, and the court held that Art. 217 of the RPC does not violate the constitutional rights of the accused to be presumed innocent since Art. 217 just provides a rebuttable presumption of guilt once certain facts are proved and that there was a rational connection between said facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed in the article.

DUMLAO VS COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392

The provision of Election Code that the filing of charges for the commission of crimes before a civil or military court shall be prima facie evidence of the commission of an act of disloyalty to the State was declared void as it condemns before one is fully heard, in contravention of constitutional presumption of innocence.

PAMINTUAN VS PEOPLE, 234 SCRA 63

Since Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 expressly provides that "mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing," it follows that the petitioner is presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the items found in her possession were the proceeds of robbery or theft. The presumption is reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise from the established fact of her possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft and this presumption does not offend the presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law.

MARQUEZ VS COMELEC, 243 SCRA 538

Marquez raised the constitutionality of the term “fugitive from justice” in relation to the constitutional right of the presumption of innocence, which was one of the enumerated grounds for disqualification under the Local Government Code, and the court held that the said provision is constitutional since “flight from justice” is an indication of guilt hence it is not the challenged disqualifying provision which overcomes the presumption of innocence but rather the disqualified person himself who has proven his guilt.

HIZON VS CA, 265 SCRA 517

In Hizon vs. CA the SC ruled that the presumption of guilt based on the facts proves is not unconstitutional, the finding of explosives, poisonous substances, and devices for electric fishing found in the boat will even lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that the person was engaged in prohibited fishing.

PEOPLE VS CARANGUIAN, G.R. NO. 124514, JULY 6, 2000

A witness can only testify to those information which he knows of his personal knowledge derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in the rules, else it is hearsay because it is based upon "third-hand" information related to the witness by someone who heard it from others.

PEOPLE VS AQUINO, G.R. NO. 130742, JULY 18, 2000

When a testimony is capable of two inferences, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence of accused- appellant of the crime charged and the other consistent with her guilt as co principal in the commission of the crime of estafa, the situation calls for the application of the equipoise rule; pursuant to which the Court has to acquit accused-appellant because the prosecution’s evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and therefor is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction

PEOPLE VS GUILLERMO, G.R. NO. 111292, JULY 20, 2000

Even if the killing is deplorable, especially the manner in which it was done, the accused should not be loosely persecuted and condemned in the absence of the required quantum of proof.

PEOPLE VS BALACANO, G.R. NO. 127156, JULY 31, 2000

The Constitution enshrines in the Bill of Rights the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and to overcome the presumption, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt must be established by the prosecution.

PEOPLE VS MANSUETO, G.R. NO. 135196, JULY 31, 2000

Even though an accused invokes the inherently weak defense of alibi, such defense acquires commensurate strength where no positive and proper identification has been made by the prosecution witnesses, as the prosecution still has the onus probandi (burden of proof) in establishing the guilt of the accused.

SORIANO VS ANGELES, G.R. NO. 109920, AUGUST 31, 2000

If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of one or more explanations, one of which is consistent with innocence and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.

PEOPLE VS FAJARDO, G.R. NO. 128583, NOV. 22, 2000

Since appellant did not present Pamani, the person who was allegedly responsible for the recruitment, as a witness to back up her claim, she risked the adverse inference and legal presumption that evidence would be evidence adverse if produced.

RUEDA VS SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 129064, NOV. 29, 2000

The prima facie evidence that public funds have been put to the personal use of a municipal treasurer is obliterated by the fact that he did not receive the money and the Court must not reject arbitrarily an explanation consistent with the presumption of innocence.

PEOPLE VS BAULITE, G.R. NO. 137599, OCT. 8, 2001

In the case at bar because of reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused-appellant, they must be acquitted. "Every accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved; that presumption is solemnly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The contrary requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Short of this, it is not only the right of the accused to be freed; it is even the constitutional duty of the court to acquit them.

RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND TO PRODUCTION IF EVIDENCE MALIWAT VS CA, 256 SCRA 718

Although Maliwat was unable to adduce additional evidence that would establish his innocence, it was noted that he had sought the postponements and cancellations of the hearings for no less than 40 times from the date of his arraignment to the promulgation of judgment.

PEOPLE VS BUEMIO, 265 SCRA 582

Both parties must be granted the right to be heard and to produce evidence that should be considered under the circumstances of the case in accordance with due process.

PEOPLE VS RAMILLA, G.R. NO. 127485, JULY 19, 1999

Fernando was not denied his right to due process because he was afforded the opportunity to present evidence. His offer to change his plea from not guilty to guilty clearly meant he accepted the evidence against him and that he had nothing with which to rebut it.

MARQUEZ VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 641 SCRA 175

Evidence cannot properly be weighed if not exhibited or produced before the court.14 Only after evidence is offered and admitted that the court can appreciate and evaluate it. The prosecution had already offered its evidence on the

RIGHT TO COUNSEL PEOPLE VS HOLGADO, 86 PHIL 752

When a defendant appears without attorney, the court has four important duties to comply with: 1 — It must inform the defendant that it is his 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.

UNITED VS ASH, 413 US 300

A number of informants were asked to identify a number of suspects in connection with a bank robbery, such identification was challenged by Respondent Ash because counsel was not present. An accused does not have the right to counsel at a post indictment photographic lineup.

PEOPLE VS RIO, 201 SCRA 702

The right to a counsel does not only involve the act of the Court to inform the accused of such right and whether he desires such aid or not, the Court should assign one counsel de oficio for him if he desires yet he is poor or allow him to procure an attorney of his own within a reasonable time; such right should not cease upon the conviction of an accused by a trial court.

SALAW VS NLRC, 202 SCRA 7

The right to counsel, a very basic requirement of substantive due process, has to be observed and cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

CARILLO VS PEOPLE, 229 SCRA 386

Carillo claims he was deprived of his right to competent representation and his right to be heard due to the incompetence and gross negligence of his lawyer. If Carillo had substantial doubts about the capability of his counsel, he could have easily terminated his services and retained a new one or sought from the trial court the appointment of counsel de officio. Courts deems that counsel proved to represent his client with reasonable competence.

PEOPLE VS MACAGALING, 237 SCRA 299

There is no denial of the right to counsel where a counsel de oficio was appointed during the absence of the accused’s counsel de parte pursuant to the court’s desire to finish the case as early as practicable under the continuous trial system.

DE GUZMAN VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 256 SCRA 171

For the higher interest of justice and equity, the Court may grant new trial in case of the mistakes and negligence of his incompetent lawyer.

PEOPLE VS CUIZON, 256 SCRA 329

The right to counsel is essentially denied if the counsel and the accused could not understand and communicate with each other regarding his defense to the point that no memorandum was filed.

PEOPLE VS CABODOC, 263 SCRA 187

While the accused under the Bill of Rights has the right to be heard by himself and counsel, such right may be waived just like any other personal right.

PEOPLE VS ECHEGARAY, 267 SCRA 543

It is a rule that the client is bound by the negligence or mistakes of his counsel but the Supreme Court considered Atty. Vitug competent contrary to what the defense thought of him as the alleged errors committed by the previous counsel could not have overturned the judgment of the conviction against the accused.

REYES VS CA, 267 SCRA 543

The negligence of the counsel must be so gross that it would become a prejudice to the client’s constitutional right to be heard and to prove his innocence.

PEOPLE VS SERZO, 274 SCRA 553

The right to a counsel is not violated when a court appoints a counsel for the accused, in cases where the choice of the accused of his counsel de parte is waived or in any way not qualified as a counsel, and in this case, the accused had been given ample time to secure a counsel of his choice but failed to do so.

DANS VS PEOPLE, 285 SCRA 504

Marcos claims that she was not adequately represented by counsel at the trial due to the suspension from the practice of law of her counsel of record but it appears from the records, however, that during the absence of Atty. Coronel and sometime thereafter, she was still represented by other lawyers. In any event, at the time Atty. Coronel and his replacements withdrew their respective appearances, all evidence had already been presented; it is just that Marcos opted not to present any evidence for her defense, relying, perhaps, on what she perceived to be glaringly weak prosecution evidence or it is not impossible or far-fetched that her refusal may have been due to her indifference to or open defiance of the justice system.

AMION VS CHIONGSON, A.M. NO. RTJ-97-1371, JAN. 22, 1999

There is no denial of the right to counsel where a counsel de oficio was appointed during the absence of the accusedÊs counsel de parte pursuant to the courtÊs desire to finish the case as early as practicable under the continuous trial system

PEOPLE VS AMBRAY, G.R. NO. 127177, FEB. 25, 1999

The qualifying circumstance that the victim is under 18 years old and that the offender is a common law spouse of the victim’s mother was not alleged in the indictment in which he was arraigned thus imposing a penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of death penalty, its qualified form and P50,000 each for indemnity and moral damages.

PEOPLE VS BOLATETE, G.R. NO. 127570, FEB. 25, 1999

Although it was established that the accused is the step-father of the victim, the qualifying circumstance was not alleged in the criminal complaints upon which the accused was arraigned and thus, this omission bars conviction of rape in its qualified form which is punishable by death.

PEOPLE VS DELA CUESTA, G.R. NO. 126134, MAR. 2, 1999

There is a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape, on which he was arraigned, and be convicted of qualified rape punishable by death.

PEOPLE VS LAKINDANUM, G.R. NO. 127123, MAR. 10, 1999

Rape was committed 10 o’clock in the morning on the 8 the minor testified showing discernment and stated the crime straightforward.

PEOPLE VS CANTOS, G.R. NO. 129298, APRIL 14, 1999

The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on the accused because in order to warrant the imposition of such, the concurrence of victim’s minority and her relationship with the offender is a special qualifying circumstance that must be alleged in the information.

PEOPLE VS ALBA, G.R. NO. 131858-59, APRIL 14, 1999

Accused contends that the charge of rape against him is too general, as a result of which he was not informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him in violation of due process, but this contention is untenable because an information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof.

PEOPLE VS ONABIA, G.R. NO. 128288, APRIL 20, 1999

Onabia was accused of rape, and the court held that even if some aggravating circumstances can be proved in trial such as relationship, these circumstances cannot be considered if not included in the information filed against Onabia.

PEOPLE VS BERNAS, G.R. NO. 120420, APRIL 21, 1999

The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standards of questions and objections, but it means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause of the defense and acts accordingly.

PEOPLE VS PEDRES, G.R. NO. 129533, APRIL 30, 1999

None about right to counsel.

PEOPLE VS ACALA, G.R. NO. 127023-25, MAY 19, 1999

Rey Acala raped his minor daughter on three counts but the death penalty was not imposed because the special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship must be both alleged and proved with certainty to be appreciated however in this case, although it was clear that the victim was his daughter (relationship), her age (minority) was not alleged in any of the complaints.

PEOPLE VS PUERTOLLANO, G.R. NO. 122423, JUNE 17, 1999

(There was no right to be heard in the case, it was about DP) In the case the SC said that the RTC wrongly applied Section 11 of RA 7659 in relation to Paragraph 1 of Article 355, rape, of the RPC. The RA states that the death penalty will be imposed if the person raped is below 18, and has a relation to the offender. The complaint only stated that the victim was a minor. The information has to be explicit as to the age of the victim.

PEOPLE VS BONGHANOY, G.R. NO. 124097, JUNE 17, 1999

Even if relationship was duly proven during the trial, it cannot be taken into account since he would thereby be denied his constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

PEOPLE VS LARENA, G.R. NO. 121205-09, JUNE 29, 1999

Denial, like alibi, is a weak defense which becomes even weaker in the face of the positive identification of the accused by the complaining witness.

PEOPLE VS NUNEZ, G.R. NO. 128875, JULY 8, 1999

In this case, accused’s counsel and the trial court led him to believe that his plea of guilty would be a mitigating circumstance in his favour when in fact it wouldn’t. However, it is a settled rule that a decision based on an irregular plea may nevertheless be upheld where the judgment is supported by other adequate evidence on record.

PEOPLE VS RAMILLA, G.R. NO. 127485, JULY 19, 1999

Accused’s right to due process is not violated for as long as he was given the opportunity to present evidence.

PEOPLE VS SESBRENO, G.R. NO. 121764, SEPT. 8, 1999

Appellant chose to be represented in this case by a competent member of the Bar, namely himself, even if there were other available counsel and so he is now estopped from claiming that the trial court violated his right to be represented by his counsel of his own choice.

PEOPLE VS SANTOCLIDES, G.R. NO. 109149, DEC. 21, 1999

Where an accused was not duly represented by a member of the Philippine Bar during trial, even if the accused was given an opportunity to be heard and the acting lawyer handled the case of the accused in a professional and skillful manner, the judgment should be set aside and the case remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

PEOPLE VS SALONGA, G.R. NO. 131131, JUNE 21, 2001

The constitutional right to counsel may be invoked only by a person under custodial investigation for an offense and does not apply in this case where the accused-appellant’s extrajudicial confession was given to a private person, and not to a police officer or law enforcer.

PEOPLE VS BAGAS, G.R. NO. 104383, JULY 12, 2001

The police line-up is not included in the custodial investigation as it is the witnesses who are asked questions during the line-up and since the inquiry has not yet shifted from investigatory to accusatory, the right to counsel cannot be invoked by the accused.

PEOPLE VS LIWANAG, G.R. NO. 120468, AUGUST 15, 2001

Coupled with the presumption that counsel's performance was reasonable under the circumstances, as long as the trial was fair in that the accused was accorded due process by means of an effective assistance of counsel, then the constitutional requirement that an accused shall have the right to be heard by himself and counsel is satisfied wherein the only instance when the quality of counsel's assistance can be questioned is when an accused is deprived of his right to due process.

PEOPLE VS BERNAS, 377 SCRA 391

The defense counsel was lackadaisical, if not outrightly incompetent, and did not only fail to protect the rights of his client but even advised him to plead guilty to the information that had failed to allege the essential elements of qualified rape.

PEOPLE VS CARALIPIO, G.R. NO. 137766, NOV. 27, 2002

While the Constitution recognizes the right of the accused to competent and independent counsel of their own choice, their option to secure the services of a private counsel is not absolute, such as when the insistence of the accused in acquiring the services of counsel de parte was merely a strategy to prolong the proceedings of the case.

SIA VS PEOPLE, 504 SCRA 507

We agree with herein respondent Lee when she said that petitioners were given ample time by the trial court to get a counsel of their choice, but did not. ven if we were to extend the choice of a counsel to an accused in a criminal prosecution, the matter of the accused getting a lawyer of his preference cannot be so absolute and arbitrary as would make the choice of counsel refer exclusively to the predilection of the accused.

BRIONES VS PEOPLE, 588 SCRA 362

An error or mistake committed by a counsel in the course of judicial proceedings is not a ground for new trial. In People v. Mercado (397 SCRA 746 [2003]), we declared: It has been repeatedly enunciated that “a client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different if he proceeded differently.

VILLANUEVA VS PEOPLE, 644 SCRA 356

If one has to suffer in prison, his/her guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt, availing all the remedies provided for under the law to protect her right – it is highly unjust for one to lose her liberty only because of the gross negligence of her former counsel.

ABSENCE OF VIOLATION PEOPLE VS AQUINO, G.R. NO. 129288, MARCH 30, 2000

Accused’s contention that the police line-up was not objective and fair is untenable. A police line-up is not indispensable for the proper and fair identification of offenders, the important consideration is for the victim to positively declare that the persons charged were the malefactors.

VILLANUEVA VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 135098, APRIL 12, 2000

A member of the Bar can represent the petitioner without violating his constitutional right to counsel.

PRESENCE OF VIOLATION PEOPLE VS NADERA, 324 SCRA 490

It is discernible in (a) his refusal to cross-examine; (b) the manner in which he conducted cross-examination; and, (c) his failure not only to present evidence for the accused but also to inform the accused of his right to do so, if he desires.

CALLANGAN VS PEOPLE, 493 SCRA 269

The omissions of petitioner’s counsel amounted to an abandonment or total disregard of her case. The rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client admits of exceptions: (1) counsel’s reckless or gross negligence deprives client of due process of law, (2) its application results in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property or (3) where the interests of justice so require.

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED PEOPLE VS REGALA, 113 SCRA 613

When a crime is not properly alleged in the body of the information, the fact that the crime of assault was established by the evidence of the prosecution without any objection as the part of the accused can’t likewise cure the aforestated defect in the information since it is a violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the malice and cause of the accusations against him.

ENRILE VS SALAZAR, 186 SCRA 217

As laid down in Hernandez doctrine, an information charging the petitioners with rebellion complexed with murder and multiple frustrated murder is clearly void ab initio and therefore, charges nothing.

PEOPLE VS TAGUBA, 229 SCRA 188

Accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation agasint him and could only be penalized for offenses stated in the information.

PEOPLE VS BARTE, 230 SCRA 401

Considering that nowhere in the Information is it alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm, an accused cannot be convicted of Murder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm under P.D. 1866, even if the prosecution has established that accused-appellant was not legally issued any firearm to qualify the crime to Murder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm, because it would violate a fundamental constitutional precept, i.e., that the accused shall have the right to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

PEOPLE VS VITOR, 245 SCRA 392

The testimony of children of sound mind is likewise to be more correct and truthful than that of older persons so that once established that they have fully understood the character and nature of an oath, their testimony should be given full credence

SABINIANO VS CA, 249 SCRA 24

A mere signature or approval appearing on a voucher, check or warrant is not enough to sustain a finding of conspiracy among public officials and employees charged with defraudation. Proof, not mere conjectures or assumptions, should be proffered to indicate that the accused had taken part.

PEOPLE VS REYES, 242 SCRA 264

The fact that there are only two complainants alleged in the information when in fact there should have been more is not a violation of the right to be informed.

PEOPLE VS LEGASPI, 246 SCRA 206

Appellants were charged with two separate informations but their conviction can only be limited to the crime alleged or necessarily included in the allegations in the separate informations. What controls is the description of the offense, as alleged in the information. While the trial court can hold a joint trial of two or more criminal cases and can render a consolidated decision, it cannot convict the accused of a complex crime constitutive of the various crimes alleged in the two informations. Thus, the accused were deprived of their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.

PEOPLE VS RAMOS, 245 SCM 405

A reading of the information clearly shows that accused-appellant was charged with the commission of only one act of rape. He can, therefore, be convicted of only one crime of rape even if the evidence shows that two separate acts of rape were committed.

PEOPLE VS NAMAYAN, 246 SCRA 646

Even if it was proven that there were three acts of rape, there can be prosecution for only one since the information filed charges one offense only.

PECHO VS PEOPLE, 262 SCRA 518

There is absolutely no merit in the petitioner’s claim that he could not be convicted of the said crime without offending his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, as what determines the real nature and cause of accusation against an accused is the actual recital of facts stated in the information or complaint and not the caption or preamble of the information or complaint nor the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated.

PEOPLE VS LAURENTE, 255 SCRA 543

On the matter of the an accused right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, what determines the offense charged is not the characterization made by the prosecutor who prepared the information, but the allegations in the indictment.

PEOPLE VS ROSARE, 264 SCRA 398

Carnal knowledge of an insane woman is rape. There is lack of capacity to consent and it is presumed without her consent.

PEOPLE VS EVANGELISTA, 256 SCRA 611

In the event that the accused gives a confession without the benefit of being warned of his rights to remain silent and to counsel, the evidence will be inadmissible – this is the so-called “Miranda warnings” and it only applies when the investigation has began to focus on the guilt of an accused and the latter has been taken into custody.

PEOPLE VS CRUZ, 259 SCRA 109

From the victim’s testimony, accused succeeded in raping her in the past but not on April 25, 1991, accused cannot be convicted for consummated rape on the basis of the testimony as the complaint specifically refers to the offense committed on April 25; due process demands that the accused in a criminal case should be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial – to convict him for an offense not alleged in the complaint will violate such right.

PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN, 265 SCRA 228

De Guzman was accused of rape, and the court held that there can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only one offense, even if the evidence shows three separate acts of sexual intercourse.

SALUD IMSON-SOUWEHA VS RONDEZ, 279 SCRA 258

The Court ruled that the respondent in this case was not reprimanded by virtue of his alleged falsification since it would be in contravention of his fundamental right to be informed of the nature of the charge for which he is being held to be accountable.

PEOPLE VS MANANSALA, 273 SCRA 502

The decision of the trial court was reversed and Dante Manansala was acquitted because Considering the allegations in the complaint that the rape in this case was committed “by means of force, violence and intimidation,” accused-appellant cannot possibly be convicted of qualified seduction without offense to the constitutional rights of the accused to due process and to be informed of the accusation against him. That charge does not include qualified seduction. Neither can qualified seduction include rape.

PEOPLE VS PALOMAR, 278 SCRA 114

Palomar et al were found guilty of killing the dela Peña family however, even if the prosecution had actually proven four separate counts of murder, the Information charged only the complex crime of multiple murder without specifying the participation of each accused in the killing of each victim; thus, the appellants cannot be convicted of four counts of murder because to do so would contravene appellants’ right to “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them and if found guilty, to be penalized only for the offense specified in the information or necessarily included in such offense.

PEOPLE VS ORTEGA, 276 SCRA 166

In the case of People vs. Ortega the prosecution alleged in its information that Ortega assaulted and stabbed the body of Ablola, but the evidence pointed to him only concealing the crime. The SC held that a person can not be convicted of an offense which is not clearly charged in the complaint and the information.

PEOPLE VS ANTIDO, 278 SCRA 425

If indeed purported victim were raped, she would not have stayed in accused’s house after said incident, as there was no credible evidence that accused prevented victim from detaining her against her will and the relationship of the accused and victim after the incidents raise serious doubts as to the commission of rape.

PEOPLE VS SADIOSA, 290 SCRA 92

Right to be Informed; The main purpose of the requirement that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting an offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language is to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged so that he could suitably prepare for his defense

PEOPLE VS VILLAMORE, G.R. NO. 12444, OCT. 7, 1998

The failure to state the age of the complainant in the information cannot be considered as a violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the charge against him where it would be illogical not to assume that when accused ravished the complainant, he was aware that his victim was a mere slip of a girl, unsophisticated and defense-less. There was a substantial compliance when the Order issued by the investigating judge, a copy of which was attached in the record of the preliminary investigation, clearly stated that the complainant was nine years old.

PEOPLE VS ROSARE, 264 SCRA 398

An incomplete information filed does not bar a case from pursuing.

PEOPLE VS LLAGUNO, 285 SCRA 124

Accused Wilfredo (Boy) Llaguno and Judy Reyes pleaded not guilty to the charge but accused “Atis” was at large; hence, he was not arraigned. (note: there was no issue in the case on the right to be informed; I got this from the FACTS of the case)

PEOPLE VS BUGAYONG, G.R. NO. 126518, DEC. 2, 1998

Accused cannot be said to have been deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him since despite the duplicitous nature of the information filed against him, which as a general rule, is defective for charging more than one offense, he did not object to such defect.

PEOPLE VS MANALILI, 294 SCRA 220

To convict an accused of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information (in this case: attempted robbery, multiple frustrated murder and qualified illegal possession of firearms used in multiple murder) would be violative of his constitutional right.

PEOPLE VS DIMAPILIS, G.R. NO. 128619, DEC. 17, 1998

One accused of qualified rape cannot be meted the death penalty where the relationship between the accused and the victim—the daughter of accused’s common-law spouse by the latter’s previous relationship with another man —has not been properly alleged in the Information which erroneously referred to the victim as being, instead, the “step-daughter” of the accused because a step-daughter is a daughter of one’s spouse by a previous marriage or the daughter of one of the spouses by a former marriage.

PEOPLE VS DE GUZMAN, 289 SCRA 470

The essence of the plea of guilty in a criminal trial is that the accused admits his guilt freely, voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the consequences and meaning of his act, and with a clear understanding of the precise nature of the crime or crimes charged in the complaint or information and a plea of guilty, when formally entered on arraignment, is sufficient to sustain a conviction of any offense charged in the information without the introduction of further evidence, the defendant himself having supplied the necessary proof by his plea of guilty.

PEOPLE VS QUITLONG, 292 SCRA 360

The complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged.

PEOPLE VS PEREZ, G.R. NO. 122764, SEPT. 24, 1998

It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him and, consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form punishable by death, although the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in capital punishment was not alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned.

PEOPLE VS RENIDO, 288 SCRA 369

Appellant cannot be held liable for more than what he was charged with. There can only be a conviction for two counts of rape because each of the two informations charges only one offense of rape, even if the evidence shows that six separate acts of forcible sexual intercourse took place.

PEOPLE VS VENERABLE, 290 SCRA 15

It is well-settled that if the information charges only one offense, even if the evidence shows three other acts of forcible intercourse, conviction for only one rape is proper.

PEOPLE VS LOZANO, G.R. NO. 125080, SEPT. 25, 1998

An accused cannot be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information; one has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to convict him of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information would be a violation of this constitutional right, even if the evidence shows three separate acts of a crime. (Hornbook Doctrine)

PEOPLE VS PADILLA, G.R. NO. 126124, JAN. 20, 1999

The minor inconsistencies in the rape victim’s testimonies are to be expected of a young girl who has been raped and do not detract from the veracity of such testimony.

PEOPLE VS ACOSTA, G.R. NO. 142726, OCTOBER 17, 2011

It is a violation of the right to be informed if an accused is convicted of qualified rape which the elements and circumstances were not brought upon and informed to him because he was arraigned of a different crime of simple rape.

PEOPLE VS DE LA PENA, G.R. NO. 138358-59, NOV. 19, 2001

The conviction of an accused of a crime in its qualified form, where the information failed to specify the circumstance that qualified the crime, is a denial of his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him.

PEOPLE VS ABINO, G.R. NO. 137288, DEC. 11, 2001

Abino cannot be convicted of rape committed through intimidation as a result of his moral ascendancy, even if it were proven beyond reasonable doubt since the Information was alleging rape of a woman who was “asleep and unconscious.” Convicting him of rape done by intimidation violates his right “to be informed of nature and cause of the accusation against him.”

PEOPLE VS TAN, G.R. NO. 116200-02, JUNE 21, 2001

Accused can’t be convicted of a crime with which they were not charged since it is not the designation of the offense in the information described by the prosecution that governs, rather it is the allegations

PEOPLE VS TAGANA, G.R. NO. 137608-09, JULY 6, 2001

The precise date of the commission of the offense need not be stated with particularity nor is time an essential ingredient of rape; however, so as to not to deprive the accused of his constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him, the date must be stated as near to the actual date as the information will permit so as to afford the defendant an opportunity to prepare an intelligent defense.

PEOPLE VS ALCALDE, G.R. NO. 139225, MAY 29, 2002

Included in the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is the correlative obligation to convey to the accused information in order to prepare for his defense.

PEOPLE VS MEJECA, G.R. NO. 146425, NOV. 21, 2002

The use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of murder or homicide is a qualifying circumstance. Following the well established rules pertinent to this issue, the imposition of capital punishment on accusedappellant is improper absent the express allegation of such qualifying circumstance, otherwise it would violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

PEOPLE VS ESURINA, 374 SCRA 429

Testimony of a person as to his age, although a hearsay, is admissible as evidence of family tradition, it cannot be considered as proof of age beyond reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE VS TOGUD, 375 SCRA 291

The judge must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension by the accused of his plea of guilt.

PEOPLE VS ESPEJON, 377 SCRA 412

There is no violation of the right to be informed on the basis of the prosecution’s failure to allege the specific actual date of the rape since the exact date of the commission of the crime is not an essential element of rape, for the gravemen of the offense is the fact of having had carnal knowledge of a woman by means of force or intimidation.

PEOPLE VS LAVADOR, 377 SCRA 424

Under Sec. 11 of RA 7659, the death penalty shall be imposed for the crime of rape if the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. These must be jointly alleged in the information in order to afford the accused his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; otherwise the accused can only be convicted of the crime in its simple form.

PEOPLE VS HERMANES, 379 SCRA 190

Appellant's conviction of qualified rape violates his constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him because only the elements of simple rape was established by the prosecution.

PEOPLE VS PORTUGAL, 379 SCRA 212

Minority was not included in the information. Therefore, the penalty of death cannot be imposed because it has been held that minority and relationship should both be alleged in the information in order to impose death penalty.

PEOPLE VS BALUYA, 380 SCRA 533

The accused is only liable for simple rape, considering that the seven attendant circumstances are in the nature of special qualifying circumstances which, unlike generic aggravating circumstances which may be appreciated and proved even if not alleged, cannot be considered as such unless so alleged in the information even if proved.

PEOPLE VS AROFO, 380 SCRA 533

As a general rule, inconsistency between two statements of a witness should be determined, not by resort to individual words and phrases alone, but by the whole impression or effect of what has been said or done.

PEOPLE VS CANA, G.R. NO. 139229, JUNE 6, 2002

Complainant was below 12 years of age, even though there was no force or intimidation, carnal knowledge of the woman is rape.

PEOPLE VS SORIANO, G.R. NO. 135027, JULY 3, 2002

The accused can only be held liable for the rape committed near the creek … because he cannot be convicted of a crime with which he has not been charged even if the evidence shows that he committed the same.

PEOPLE VS RADAM, G.R. NO. 138395, JULY 18, 2002

Although the rape of a girl under 18 years of age by the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother is punishable by death, this penalty cannot be imposed on appellant as a different relationship was alleged in the Information and the victim’s minority was not proved by independent evidence.

PEOPLE VS ABALA, G.R. NO. 135858, JULY 23, 2002

Abala was accused of rape, and the court held that Abala cannot be convicted of qualified rape since only the qualifying circumstance of minority was alleged in the information even if the circumstance of relationship, which was not alleged in the information, was also proven during trial.

PEOPLE VS ROMERO, G.R. NO. 137037, AUG. 5, 2002

The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and ruled that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.

PEOPLE VS MAGTIBAY, G.R. NO. 142985, AUG. 6, 2002

The penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of rape was affirmed because ot appears that there was no allegation of the age and minority of the victim in the Information. The requisite for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense, pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.

PEOPLE VS MICLAT, G.R. NO. 137024, AUG. 7, 2002

The prosecution proved that Miclat is the maternal uncle of his rape victim, which relationship falls within the purview of the qualifying circumstance of “relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree of the victim” however, only the minority of the victim was alleged in the information notwithstanding that the law requires allegation of both the victim’s age and her relationship with appellant, and proof of both circumstances beyond reasonable doubt at the trial hence, Miclat can only be held liable for simple rape and the death penalty imposed by the trial court must be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE VS GUARDIAN, G.R. NO. 142900, AUG. 7, 2002

As a general rule, a complaint must charge only one offense, but it can charge for more than one offense if the law provides a single punishment for various offenses.

PEOPLE VS OCAMPO, G.R. NO. 145303, AUG. 7, 2002

While appellant admits that the complainant is her daughter and that there is evidence to show that the latter was less than eighteen years of age when the crime was committed, her age was not alleged in the Information filed against appellant thus the special qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship cannot be appreciated against him.

PEOPLE VS DEL AYRE, G.R. NO. 139788, OCT. 3, 2002

The reason why the death penalty cannot be imposed, even for the second offense, is that the father-daughter relationship of the parties was not alleged in the Information

PEOPLE VS CALISO, G.R. NO. 131475, OCT. 14, 2002

Accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape and be imposed with the penalty of death when the information merely charged him with simple rape and failed to specify the rape victim’s age at the time the crime was committed.

PEOPLE VS BUADO, G.R. NO. 137341, OCT. 28, 2002

An appellate court will not disturb the credence the trial court accorded to the testimonies of the witnesses unless the trial court is shown to have overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded the facts and circumstances of significance in the correct resolution of the case.

PEOPLE VS ALEMANIA, G.R. NO. 146221, NOV. 13, 2002

The conviction of an accused of a crime in its qualified form, where the information failed to specify the circumstance that qualified the crime, is a denial of his right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him (and, consequently, a denial of due process).

PEOPLE VS TERIBLE, G.R. NO. 140635, NOV. 18, 2002

It would be a denial of appellant’s constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him and, consequently, a denial of due process if he is charged with rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A and be convicted of the qualified form under paragraph 1 which is punishable with death although the same was not alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned.

PEOPLE VS VICTOR, G.R. NO. 127904, DEC. 5, 2002

The appellants, through their failure to move for quashal before arraignment, are deemed to have waived their constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against them and are considered charged with the offenses of illegal possession of firearms and multiple murder.

PEOPLE VS VELASQUEZ, 377 SCRA 219

Under Rule 112, §7(3) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, requests for preliminary investigation must be made to the trial court within five days from the time the accused learns of the filing of complaint or information.

PEOPLE VS LACHICA, G.R. NO. 143677, MAY 9, 2002

Finally, appellant relies on denial and alibi. Settled is the rule that such lines of defense in a criminal trial cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party and it must be pointed out that the circumstances of minority and relationship, as provided under paragraph 1 of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended, must both be alleged in the information; otherwise, the penalty of death cannot be imposed.

PEOPLE VS SAJOLGA, G.R. NO. 146684,

For the purpose of imposing death penalty, the accused must be informed of the qualifying circumstances of the crime with which he is charged.

PEOPLE VS RAMOS, G.R. NO. 142577, DEC. 27, 2002

The denial of the right to be informed to the accused results to the violation of due process in criminal proceedings.

PEOPLE VS MASCARINAS, G.R. NO. 144034, MAY 28, 2002

In the instant case, the exact age of the victim should have been asserted. The term minority is too technical and therefore it must be stated because the age is what makes it qualified rape.

PEOPLE VS SANCHEZ, 375 SCRA 355

An accused can be convicted only of as many offenses as are charged and proved.

PEOPLE VS ABAYON, G.R. NO. 142874, JULY 31, 2002

An accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information since he has that right under the Constitution to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; it is axiomatic that the accused can only be convicted for a crime duly charged and proved.

PEOPLE VS GAVINA, G.R. NO. 143237, OCT. 28, 2002

The element of unconsciousness on the victim’s part was not alleged in the information filed for rape against accused and therefore cannot be made the basis of conviction without violating appellant’s right to due process, in particular to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him.

PEOPLE VS ORBITA, G.R. NO. 136591, JULY 11, 2002

The right to be informed includes the right to be informed clearly of how the decision has been reached by the court; a person charged with rape under the first paragraph of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, they can be convicted of the second and third paragraph of the same article even if the information did not include the victim’s mental status.

DADO VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 131421, NOV. 18, 2002

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall first be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

SANTOS VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 14761, JAN. 20, 2002

Virgilio Santos was convicted of attempted rape with the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, but the latter was not alleged. Any circumstance that would qualify or aggravate the crime charged must be specified in the information. A penal statute, whether substantive or procedural, shall be given a retroactive effect if favorable to the accused. Aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated.

PEOPLE VS BON, G.R. NO. 149199, JAN. 28, 2003

But in criminal cases, speculation and probabilities can’t take the place of proof required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion, no matter how strong, must not sway judgment.

PEOPLE VS LLANTO, G.R. NO. 146458, JAN. 20, 2003

So as to afford fairness, “if the offender is merely a relation – not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, or guardian or common law spouse of the mother of the victim – it must be alleged in the Information that he is ‘a relative by consanguinity or affinity [as the case may be] within the third civil degree.’”

PEOPLE VS MIGRANTE, G.R. NO. 147606, JAN. 14, 2003

Special qualifying circumstances must be concurrently and simultaneously alleged in the information.

PEOPLE VS DY, G.R. NO. 115326-37, JAN. 16, 2003

Accused-appellants were substantially informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them when their counsel received a copy of the Prosecutor’s resolution maintaining the charge for rape and acts of lasciviousness. The failure to read the complaint or information in a language or dialect known to them was essentially a procedural infirmity that was eventually non-prejudicial to accused-appellants.

PEOPLE VS LAPITAJE, G.R. NO. 132042, FEB. 19, 2003

In consonance with article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, rules are given retroactive effect if it is beneficial to the accused.

PEOPLE VS OSTIA, G.R. NO. 131804, FEB. 26, 2003

The trial court is also required to probe thoroughly into the reasons as well as the facts and circumstances for the change of plea of the accused and his comprehension of his plea; explain to him the elements of the crime for which he is charged as well as the nature and effect of qualifying circumstances, generic aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances in the commission thereof; and inform him of the imposable penalty and his civil liabilities for the crime for which he would plead guilty to. Merely reading and translating it to the accused is not enough.

PEOPLE VS GANETE, G.R. NO. 142930, MARCH 28, 2003

Since the relationship of the private complainant and the appellant was not alleged in the Information, the appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape, to which the relationship of the accused with the victim is substantial, otherwise he would be deprived of his right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him.

GARCIA VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 144785, SEPT. 11, 2003

The Information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute and aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense because the real nature of the crime charged is determined by the facts alleged in the Information and not by the title or designation of the offense contained in the caption of the Information. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be alleged in the Information must be determined by reference to the definition and essential elements of the specific crimes.

PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA, G.R. NO. 138364, OCT. 15, 2003

Since the preamble or caption, in the case at bar, states that Rogelio Villanueva is her father (referring to Reseilleta), then it adequately informed the accused that his daughter was charging him of the acts contained in the succeeding paragraph.

BURGOS VS SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 123144, OCT. 15, 2003

An information for violation of RA3019 has been filed against petitioners but information only allege the allowance of petitioners of payment of certain amount of money despite knowing that survey instruments used were not functional. Petitioners contend that information is not correct because the survey instruments were functional thus they cannot be convicted of the crime. Court says information in itself is valid. It is only that the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting them for an act that was not alleged therein which is paying the said amount when the survey instruments are indeed operational.

PEOPLE VS ROTE, G.R. NO. 146188, DEC. 11, 2003

The Court has consistently held that where the information merely alleged the minority of the victim but not the fact of relationship with the accused, the latter is liable only for simple rape punishable with reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE VS RATA, G.R. NO. 145523-24, DEC. 11, 2003

Where the prosecution fails to conjointly allege and prove the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, the accused is liable only for the crime of simple rape in line with his right to be informed of the case against him.

ANDAYA VS PEOPLE, 493 SCRA 539

Preparation of a private document constitutes falsification when causing to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when in fact they did not.

PEOPLE VS ESTRADA, 583 SCRA 302

Unfortunately for the People, the imprecision in the use of “OR” is the reality the case has to live with. To act contrary to this reality would violate Estrada’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him; the multiple transactions on several separate days that the People claims would result in surprise and denial of an opportunity to prepare for Estrada, who has a right to rely on the single day mentioned in the Information.

PEOPLE VS ABELLA, 610 SCRA 19

The qualifying circumstance that the accused knew of the mental disability of the offended party was not alleged in the information, thus he may only be convicted of statutory or simple rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon instead of qualified rape.

PEOPLE VS PANGILINAN, G.R. NO. 183090, NOV. 14, 2011

Pangilinan was accused of rape and sexual abuse, and the court held that the information filed against him regarding sexual abuse was void for being violative of his constitutional right to be informed since it did not contain the essential facts constituting the offense, but a statement of a conclusion of law.

RELATIONSHIP PEOPLE VS CEPEDON, 542 S 550

Relationship as a qualifying circumstance may be alleged in layman’s terms like stating that the victim was the younger sister of the appellant, and need not mention that the victim is a “relative within the second degree of consanguinity” since the sister-brother relationship clearly falls in the second civil degree.

PEOPLE VS TALAN, G.R. NO. 177354, NOV. 14, 2009

Talan claimed that the qualifying circumstance of relationship should not be considered and the Court agreed because the qualifying circumstance of relationship must be specifically alleged in the information - the information must clearly state that "the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim.

PEOPLE VS ESTRADA, 610 SCRA 222

The Information must succinctly state that appellant Estrada is a relative within the 3rd civil degree by consanguinity or affinity of his rape victim; it is immaterial that Estrada admitted that the victim is his niece and that “AAA” testified that appellant is her uncle.

PEOPLE VS CORPUZ, 577 SCRA 465

The prosecution stated in the information that the relationship of AAA and BBB is one of step father and step daughter, thus it should qualify the crime of rape. But during trial it was proven that this relation was nonexistent, because AAA and the mother of BBB were only common law spouses, this is also aggravating, but in order for it to qualify it must be alleged in the information, in this case a different one was alleged.

PEOPLE VS REGINO, 582 SCRA 189

While witnesses may be said to be interested by reason of their relationship with one of the parties, their declarations should not be disregarded or rejected capriciously on the ground of apparent bias alone where they are reasonable, consistent and supported by other facts and circumstances.

NATURE OF THE OFFENSE: DIFFERENT OFFENSE, SAME OFFENSE PEOPLE VS PAGLINAWAN, 324 SCRA 97

The prosecution must adduced proof to satisfy the requirements establishing this qualifying circumstance of premeditation. Mere presumptions and inferences are insufficient

PEOPLE VS PARAMIL, G.R. NO. 128056-57, MAR. 31, 2000

The accused-appellants herein can only be convicted of, and penalized for, the crimes with which they were charged or those necessarily included therein.

EVANGELISTA VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 108135-36, AUG. 14, 2000

To convict the accused of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information would be a violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and charge against him.

PEOPLE VS PUZON, G.R. NO. 123156-59, AUG. 29, 2000

The conviction of appellant for statutory rape absent any allegation in the information that the complainants were below 12 years of age at the time of the rape, and not for rape through force or intimidation, which was the method alleged - would violate the right of the appellant to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him.

PEOPLE VS VALDESANCHO, G.R. NO. 137051-52, MAY 30, 2001

While the date of commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime, the dates when the rapes were committed are nonetheless essential to the accused’s defense of alibi and thus, for failure of the prosecution to allege in the information and prove during trial the correct dates of the rapes allegedly committed against the victim, the accused is deprived of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.

PEOPLE VS DAWISAN, G.R. NO. 122095, SEPT. 13, 2001

There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only one offense, even if the evidence shows that more than one was in fact committed.

MAPAS VS PEOPLE, 544 S 85

Even if the information charged the accused with frustrated homicide, a finding of guilt for the lesser offense of less serious physical injuries may be made considering that the latter offense is necessarily included in the former, and since the essential ingredients of physical injuries constitute and form part of those constituting the offense of homicide.

PACTOLIN VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 554 S 136

As the courts has discoursed, no substantial right of Pactolin has been impaired nor has there been any violation of his right to due process because he had been adequately informed by the detailed litany of the charges leveled against him in the information and had the occasion to confront witnesses against him and the opportunity to question documents presented by the prosecution wherein under no circumstance in this case has his right to due process been violated.

PEOPLE VS HU, 567 S 697

In offenses in which the number of victims is essential, failure of the prosecution to prove by convincing evidence that the offense is committed against the minimum number of persons required by law is fatal to its cause of action.

ABSENCE OF QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE PEOPLE VS RONATO, G.R. NO. 124298, OCT. 11, 1999

An accused must be informed of the cause and the nature of the accusation against him and in this case, since abuse of superior strength qualifies the crime to murder, accused-appellant should have been apprised of this fact from the beginning to prepare for his defense.

PEOPLE VS BAYRON, G.R. NO. 122732, SEPT. 7, 1999

This circumstance must, however, be alleged in the information because it is the nature of a qualifying circumstance. It was not alleged in this case, with the result that it can only be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance.

PEOPLE VS ABELLA, G.R. NO. 131847, SEPT. 22, 1999

The Court emphasizes anew that in decreeing the death penalty under the aforequoted law, the information or complaint must specifically allege the qualifying circumstances that would justify the imposition of that extreme penalty.

PEOPLE VS GALLO, G.R. NO. 124736, SEPT. 29, 1999

Absent a specific allegation that accused-appellant is the victim’s father; accused-appellant’s relationship to the victim, although proven during the trial, cannot be considered to be a qualifying circumstance.

PEOPLE VS PANIQUE, G.R. NO. 125763, OCT. 13, 1999

The fact that complainant was below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime and that the accused-appellant is her ascendant were not alleged in the information. The minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender constitute a special qualifying circumstance which should be alleged in the information and proved to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.

PEOPLE VS AGUINALDO, G.R. NO. 130784, OCT. 3, 1999

The qualifying circumstances introduced in RA 7659 must be included in the information for rape in order for it to properly qualify the crime and justify the penalty prescribed by the law because it would be invalid to convict the accused of a qualified crime without such qualifications included in the preliminary charges against the accused.

PEOPLE VS TABION, G.R. NO. 132715, OCT. 20, 1999

The accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to death, consistent with the Court's ruling in People v. Ramosboth that the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be clearly alleged in the information.

PEOPLE VS TORIO, G.R. NO. 132216, NOV. 7, 1999

Torio was convicted of attempted rape. Being "the common-law spouse of the parent of a victim" coupled with the minority of the victim is a special qualifying circumstance that would have called for the death penalty, but neither was this alleged in the Information. Penalty for simple rape was applied.

PEOPLE VS ALFANTA, G.R. NO. 125633, DEC. 9, 1999

As an ordinary aggravating circumstance, nighttime can be so considered provided it is duly proved although not alleged in the information.

PEOPLE VS FLORES, G.R. NO. 123599, DEC. 13, 1999

It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him, and consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape only on which he was arraigned, and be convicted of qualified rape punishable by death.

PEOPLE VS RAMON, G.R. NO. 130407, DEC. 15, 1999

Qualifying circumstance must be properly impleaded in the indictment; if the circumstance is not impleaded but proven then it would only be considered as an aggravating circumstance, to do otherwise would violate the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him.

PEOPLE VS VILLAR, 322 SCRA 390

Although the circumstances to qualify simple rape to the heinous crime of rape, namely: (a) victim under 18 years old (the certificate of live birth – exhibit "A" was admitted by the defense), and (b) the offender being a guardian, were duly proven in the present case, these circumstance cannot considered for purposes of imposing the extreme penalty of death unless these were alleged in the information.

PEOPLE VS BERNALDEZ, 322 SCRA 762

If no qualifying circumstance were alleged in the information, accused cannot be sentenced to death.

PEOPLE VS FLORES, 322 SCRA 779

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict provided the following requisites are present, namely: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived from are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence must constitute an unbroken chain of events so as to lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the guilt of the accused.

PEOPLE VS PALANCO, 322 SCRA 790

The accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape since the minority of the child and her relationship to the accused, which are elements needed to be prosecuted for qualified rape, were not alleged in the information.

PEOPLE VS BACULE, 323 SCRA 734

While the prosecution did prove that appellant was the common-law spouse of the victim's parent, such fact was not alleged in the information. The Court held that the failure to allege in the information the relationship between the accused and the victim constituted a violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or information because the main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in an information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.

PEOPLE VS BARTOLOME, 323 SCRA 836

To impose the death penalty on the basis of the relationship of the accused to the victim, which has not been alleged in the information, would violate JOHNNY's constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him.

PEOPLE VS BAYONA, 327 SCRA 190

The accused is the father of the rape victim. The information failed to include the qualifying circumstance of relationship therefore, the crime committed is simple rape and not qualified rape.

PEOPLE VS SIAO, 327 SCRA 231

Since the use of a deadly weapon increases the penalty as opposed to a generic aggravating circumstance which only affects the period of the penalty, said fact should be alleged in the information, because of the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

PEOPLE VS BAYZO, 327 SCRA 771

The purpose on the rules of criminal procedure is to uphold the defendant’s right to be informed, and specifically to, (1) To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make the defense, (2) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause, (3) To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had.

PEOPLE VS DE LOS SANTOS, G.R. NO. 121906, AUG. 5, 2000

Appellant was charged with a complex crime of multiple murders, multiple frustrated murders, and multiple attempted murders. Victims sustained injuries either died or death was prevented creating the complex crime.

PEOPLE VS FRAGA, G.R. NO. 134130-33, APRIL 12, 2000

The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on the accused for each count of rape because in order to impose such penalty, there should be concurrence of victim’s minority and her relationship with the offender which must be alleged in the information pursuant to the right of an accused to information as to the nature and cause of accusation against him which in this case, the relationship was not alleged – it was only said that the accused was the victims’ stepfather.

PEOPLE VS LICANDA, G.R. NO. 134084, MAY 4, 2000

The penalty for rape can be aggravated to death when the circumstance of filiation is present but this qualifying circumstance must be proven as alleged in the information.

PEOPLE VS SABREDO, G.R. NO. 126114, MAY 11, 2000

Sabredo was accused of rape, and the court held that Sabredo cannot be convicted of qualified rape since the information did not allege that offender and offended party were relatives within the third degree of consanguinity even if it was proven during trial.

PEOPLE VS ALICANTE, G.R. NO. 127026-27, MAY 31, 2000

The Court affirmed the imposition of death penalty upon the accused for conviction for the crime of rape qualified by minority of the victim and father-daughter relationship between the accused and the victim.

PEOPLE VS TRAYA, G.R. NO. 129052, MAY 31, 2000

The fact of the minority of the victim was not stated in the Information and only the relationship of the victim as the daughter of the offender was alleged therein. The rule is that the elements of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur and the failure to allege one of these elements precludes the imposition of the death penalty.

PEOPLE VS MAMAC, G.R. NO. 130332, MAY 31, 2000

The Information only charged Mamac with simple rape; it did not contain any allegation of relationship and minority nor the use of a deadly weapon; it did not charge Mamac with qualified rape and hence he cannot be sentenced to death because the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender is a special qualifying circumstance which should be alleged in the information to warrant imposition of the death penalty.

PEOPLE VS DECENA, G.R. NO. 131843, MAY 31, 2000

In this case the SC said that it would be a denial of the right to be informed of the charges against him if he is charged with simple rape, then convicted of its qualified form which is punishable by death.

PEOPLE VS LOMIBAO, G.R. NO. 135855, AUG. 3, 2000

Trial court wrongly relied on the qualifying circumstance of relationship to convict him of qualified rape since said circumstance was not alleged in the information thus he can only be convicted of simple rape since even if the relationship between Marissa and Lomibao were proven, failure to allege the said circumstance in the information cannot change the nature of the crime.

PEOPLE VS CANONIGO, G.R. NO. 133649, AUG. 4, 2000

The seven attendant circumstances under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 are in the nature of special qualifying circumstances which cannot be considered as such unless so alleged in the information even if proved.

PEOPLE VS CRUZ, G.R. NO. 128346-48, AUG. 14, 2000

Qualifying circumstance must be properly pleaded in the indictment, and if it was not but proved, it will be considered only as an aggravating circumstance.

PEOPLE VS WATIMAR, G.R. NO. 121651-52, AUG. 16, 2000

Alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses and unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim.

PEOPLE VS GABIANA, G.R. NO. 123543, AUG. 23, 2000

Although the qualifying circumstance was proven, qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

PEOPLE VS BANIHIT, G.R. NO. 132045, AUG. 25, 2000

When the attendant circumstances are special qualifying circumstances and not ordinary aggravating circumstances which merely increase the period of the penalty, they must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information.

PEOPLE VS GUTIERREZ, G.R. NO. 132772, AUG. 31, 2000

The circumstances provided for in the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of RA 7659, the attendance of any of which would mandate the single indivisible penalty of death prescribed in Article 335 of the RPC, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the Information.

PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA, G.R. NO. 135330, AUG. 31, 2000

Unlike a generic aggravating circumstance which may be proved even if not alleged, a qualifying aggravating cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the information although it may be proved as a generic aggravating circumstance if so included among those enumerated in the Code.

PEOPLE VS MELENDRES, G.R. NO. 133999-4001, AUG. 31, 2000

The courts has consistently declared that the circumstances under the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, the attendance of which could mandate the imposition of the single indivisible penalty of death, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the information, and even if proved, the death penalty cannot be imposed, unlike a generic aggravating circumstance which may be proved even if not alleged, a qualifying aggravating cannot be proved as a generic aggravating circumstance if so included among those enumerated in the Code.

PEOPLE VS MENDEZ, G.R. NO. 132546, JULY 5, 2000

The long-standing rule is that qualifying circumstance must be properly pleaded in the indictment. If the same are not pleaded but proved, they shall only be considered as aggravating circumstance.

PEOPLE VS ALARCON, G.R. NO. 133191-93, JULY 11, 2000

Where the fact of commission of rape “by two or more persons,” which partakes of the nature of a qualifying circumstance, was not alleged in the information, the mere fact that three were accused therein did not amount to a specification of the qualifying circumstance in question and was insufficient for the purpose of complying with the constitutional requirement that the accused be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.

PEOPLE VS BAYBADO, G.R. NO. 132136, JULY 14, 2000

In the case at bar, the Information failed to allege the minority of the complainant, hence, the trial court erred in appreciating this qualifying circumstance and in imposing the death penalty. Appellant can only be convicted of simple rape punishable with reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE VS SURILLA, G.R. NO. 129164, JULY 24, 2000

The death penalty cannot be imposed when the qualifying circumstances are not alleged in the information for it would be violative of accused-appellant’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.

PEOPLE VS CAMPANER, G.R. NO. 130500, JULY 26, 2000

Qualifying Circumstances must not only be proved but also alleged in the Information in view of the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; absent such finding, the penalty provided by a trial court must be modified.

PEOPLE VS BALACANO, G.R. NO. 127156, JULY 31, 2000

Failure to mention the relationship between the appellant and the young victim, step-father and step-daughter, respectively, necessarily excludes the crime from the coverage of RA 7659. To justify the imposition of the supreme penalty of death, both the special qualifying circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship to the offender must be alleged and proved.

PEOPLE VS VILLARAZA, G.R. NO. 131848-50, SEPT. 5, 2000

The special qualifying circumstances of the victim’s minority and her relationship to the offender must be both alleged and proved in order to warrant the imposition of the capital punishment of death.

PEOPLE VS BANIGUID, G.R. NO. 137714, SEPT. 8, 2000

The special qualifying circumstances of the victim’s minority and her relationship with the offender should be alleged and proved. The allegation in the information that complainant is the “minor daughter” of accusedappellant is insufficient.

PEOPLE VS BALI-BALITA, G.R. NO. 134266, SEPT. 15, 2000

Every element of the offense must be alleged. If charged of a crime in its qualified form the qualifying circumstance must be stated with certainty to enable a person of common understanding to be told of the acts or omissions of which he is charged. Legal designation of the crime committed need not be specifically stated.

PEOPLE VS CAJARA, G.R. NO. 122498, SEPT. 27, 2000

The accused can’t be convicted of qualified rape on the bases of the circumstance that rape was committed in full view of the relatives of the victim within the 3 wasn’t pleaded in the information or in the complainant against the accused.

PEOPLE VS NOGAR, G.R. NO. 133946, SEPT. 27, 2000

The special qualifying circumstance of the relationship of accused-appellant with the victim has not at all been alleged in the Information for it to be considered in the imposition of a higher penalty (death penalty).

PEOPLE VS MAGTRAYO, G.R. NO. 133480-82, OCT. 4, 2000

The death penalty cannot be imposed because the relationship alleged in the information is different from what was actually proven.

PEOPLE VS TAGUBA, G.R. NO. 112792-93, OCT. 6, 2000

The Information did not allege any of the circumstances which would qualify the crime to murder. Hence, appellant can only be convicted of the crime of homicide.

PEOPLE VS DE LA CUESTA, G.R. NO. 133904, OCT. 5, 2000

Courts cannot discredit a witness because there are gaps in her narration of facts, or because her narration was presented not in a chronological manner and trial court cannot properly imposed death penalty.

PEOPLE VS ARVES, G.R. NO. 134628, OCT. 13, 2000

The accused can be convicted only of the crime alleged in the information and duly proven during the trial.

PEOPLE VS BALDINO, G.R. NO. 137269, OCT. 13, 2000

Though there is proof of the existence of the qualifying circumstance to prosecute the accused for qualified rape, the failure to allege it in the information cannot convict him for the said offense.

PEOPLE VS BALTAZAR, G.R. NO. 130610, OCT. 16, 2000

The Court in a number of cases held that the relationship of the accused-appellant and the victim, and the minority of the offended party must be specifically pleaded in the information in order to be properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance for the purpose of imposing the death penalty under R.A. 7659. Here, the circumstances that would qualify the offense are (a) that the accused-appellant is the uncle of the victim, and (b) that the latter is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape. However, since the three informations failed to allege these circumstances, accused-appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape because he was not properly informed of the charges against him.

PEOPLE VS FRANCISCO, G.R. NO. 136252, OCT. 20, 2000

Special qualifying circumstances indicated in the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of R.A. 7659 must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information; otherwise the death penalty cannot be was imposed Sarmiento charged with statutory rape but was convicted of qualified rape due to relationship. Court says

PEOPLE VS SARMIENTO, G.R. NO. 134768, OCT. 25, 2000

that he cannot be convicted of qualified rape since the relationship of the accused to the victim was not alleged in the information.

PEOPLE VS GALLARDE, 325 CRA 835

It is fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information as in the case of rape with homicide, where in order to be convicted of murder in case the evidence fails to support the charge of rape, the qualifying circumstance must be sufficiently alleged.

PEOPLE VS CRISPIN, 327 SCRA 167

The right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him is a fundamental right of every accused which may not be summarily done away with.

PEOPLE VS PARAMIL, G.R. NO. 128056-57, MARCH 31, 2000

The facts state that car-napping ensued first but the victim resisted so was shot by one of the accused, thus, the Court declared homicide and car-napping considering the circumstances attended for murder are not present.

PEOPLE VS GALLEGO, G.R. NO. 130603, AUG. 15, 2000

When the rape is attended by the aggravating circumstance of “use of a deadly weapon”, the penalty becomes reclusion perpetua to death, provided that such circumstance was alleged in the information and in this case, the accused cannot be punished with a higher penalty even if it was proved that he used a deadly weapon (a knife) because the same was not alleged.

PEOPLE VS TEJADA, G.R. NO. 126166, JULY 10, 2001

Not only did both informations fail to allege the fact of relationship between the accused and victim, the appreciation of such relationship is in itself legally flawed; the degree between them is already in the fourth civil degree but the required degree of relationship is up to the third civil degree only.

PEOPLE VS LALINGJAMAN, G.R. NO. 132714, SEPT. 6, 2001

Lalingjaman was accused of rape, and the court held that Lalingjaman cannot be convicted of qualified rape since the information did not allege the circumstance of relationship even if both minority, which was alleged in the information, and relationship was proven during trial.

PEOPLE VS MERCADO, G.R. NO. 139904, OCT. 12, 2001

For the death to be imposable under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, both the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender should be specifically alleged in the Information.

ESTRADA VS SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 148560, NOV. 19, 2001

All the essential elements of plunder can be culled and understood from its definition in Sec. 2, in relation to Sec. 1, par. (d), and "pattern" is not one of them. It purports to do no more than prescribe a rule of procedure for the prosecution of a criminal case for plunder. Being a purely procedural measure, Sec. 4 does not define or establish any substantive right in favor of the accused but only operates in furtherance of a remedy.

PEOPLE VS MARAHAY, G.R. NO. 120625-29, JAN. 28, 2003

Carlito Marahay raped his daughters Mylene (14y/o) and Belinda (12 y/o) but the prosecution did not present the certificates of live birth of both Mylene and Belinda or other similar authentic documents to prove their ages, not even the victims’ mother or the victims themselves, or any other relative qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree were presented by the prosecution to establish the victims’ ages at the time the crimes were committed because of such failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden, the qualifying circumstance of minority cannot be appreciated in these cases.

PEOPLE VS MONTEMAYOR, G.R. NO. 124474, JAN. 28, 2003

The SC said that the trial court erred when it convicted the accused of rape with a deadly weapon, there has to be use of the deadly weapon, and not mere possession, even if the qualifying circumstance is alleged in the information.

PEOPLE VS DELIM, G.R. NO. 142773, JAN. 28, 2003

Various testimonies with respect to minor, collateral or incidental matters do not impair the weight of testimony to the prominent facts, and inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses for they remove the suspicion of uncorroborated testimony.

PEOPLE VS ACOSTA, G.R. NO. 140402, JAN. 28, 2003

The attendant aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is necessarily included in treachery. Hence, the trial court erred in still appreciating abuse of superior strength apart from treachery, which warranted the imposition of the death penalty.

PEOPLE VS CALOZA, G.R. NO. 138404-06, JAN. 28, 2003

Qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crimes must be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information, otherwise the same will not be considered by the court even if proved during the trial.

PEOPLE VS LAYOSO, G.R. NO. 14773-76, JAN. 22, 2003

Alleged inconsistencies in witness testimonies are diminimis in nature and in no way destroy their credibility. What is important is that the prosecution witnesses were consistent in relating the significant and indispensable components of the principal occurrence of rape.

PEOPLE VS BALDOGO, G.R. NO. 128106-07, JAN. 24, 2003

The qualifying aggravating circumstance (of evident premeditation), like any other qualifying circumstance, must be proved with certainty as the crime itself and the prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that after deciding to commit the felony, the felon clung to his determination to commit the crime.

PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R. NO. 175954, DEC. 16, 2008

It is not the use of the words “qualifying” or “qualified by” that raises a crime to a higher category, but the specific allegation of an attendant circumstance which adds the essential element raising the crime to a higher category.

PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ, G.R. NO. 174371, DEC. 11, 2008

What is required is that the Information allege, specify or enumerate the attendant circumstances mentioned in law to qualify the offense and does not need the words “aggravating/qualifying circumstance” to appear in the information since these words are merely descriptive of the attendant circumstances and do not constitute an essential element of the crime.

ANDRES VS PEOPLE, 588 SCRA 830

While qualifying circumstances were proven at the trial, they cannot be appreciated because they were not alleged in the Information as in this case where the information did not allege that the carnapping was committed by means of violence against, or intimidation of, any person, or force upon things.

SAMBILON VS PEOPLE, 591 SCRA 405 VALENZUELA VS PEOPLE, 596 SCRA 1

Case cannot be found. The words “aggravating/qualifying,” or “aggravated by” need not be expressly stated, so long as the particular attendant circumstances are specified in the information.

DIFFERENCE OF COMMISSION OF CRIME PEOPLE VS CAPINPIN, G.R. NO. 118608, OCT. 30, 2000

An accused cannot be convicted under paragraphs 2 or 3 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in an information charging him with rape by the use of force or intimidation because none of these modes of committing rape were alleged in the information.

NUMBER OF OFFENSES PEOPLE VS TRESBALLES, G.R. NO. 126118, SEPT. 21, 1999

There can only be one conviction for rape if the information charges only one offense, even if the evidence shows that more than one was in fact committed.

PEOPLE VS GERONA, G.R. NO. 126169, DEC. 21, 1999

Even if the victim claims that she has been raped five times, the accused could only be convicted for one count of rape where the information only charged a single offense—an accused cannot be held liable for more than what he was indicted for.

PEOPLE VS PAMBID, G.R. NO. 124453, MARCH 15, 2000

Failure to object to a court charge of two or more offenses or raise the issue of duplicity of offenses may not be availed of when the same is not charged in the information (that the information itself does not charge the accused with two or more offenses).

PEOPLE VS ALVERO, G.R. NO. 134536, APRIL 5, 2000

The records disclosed that ELISEO actually committed more than three acts of rape. However, considering that ELISEO was charged with only three counts of rape, the Court can only affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction and its imposition of the death penalty for each of the three counts of rape alleged and proved.

PEOPLE VS GUIWAN, G.R. NO. 117324-8, APRIL 27, 2000

A person cannot be convicted of five (5) counts of rape committed on other dates if the information against him if the charge against him only consists of one rape.

PEOPLE VS SURILLA, G.R. NO. 129164, JULY 24, 2000

The trial court correctly imposed one sentence for one count of rape against accused-appellant since the information only charged him with one count of rape.

PEOPLE VS RAMA, 379 SCRA 477

Julieto Rama argues that he could not be convicted of murder when he is charged with robbery with homicide. An accused cannot be convicted of an offense higher than that with which he is charged in the complaint or information or one which is necessarily included in the offense charged. Where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offense, the accused can be convicted of the other.

PEOPLE VS CUYUGAN, G.R. NO. 146641, NOV. 18, 2002

Appellant can’t be convicted of a crime for which she was not charged, for that would violate appellant’s constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against her.

PEOPLE VS MONTINOLA, 543 SCRA 412

In a case where the accused admitted that the complainant was his daughter, the alternative circumstance of relationship shall apply and the Court may prescribe a higher or lower penalty depending on the presence of other circumstances.

DATE OF COMMISSION OF CRIME PEOPLE VS NARITO, G.R. NO. 132058, OCT. 1, 1999

The right to be informed is not violated when the time of the commission of the offense is different or is not stated in the information unless the time is a material ingredient of the offense.

PEOPLE VS MAGBANUA, G.R. NO. 12888, DEC. 3, 1999

The date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy because in fact, the precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial bearing on its commission. It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.

PEOPLE VS LADRILLO, G.R. NO. 124342, DEC. 8, 1999

Conviction of the accused should be set aside because the information, charging him with rape allegedly committed “on or about the year 1990,” failed to specifically allege the exact date of the commission of the crime, thus depriving him of the opportunity to fully defend himself.

PEOPLE VS FEROLINO, G.R. NO. 131730-31, APRIL 5, 2000

Where time or place or any other fact alleged is not an essential element of the crime charged, conviction may be had on proof of the commission of the crime, even if it appear(s) that the crime was not committed at the precise time or place alleged, or if the proof fails to sustain the existence of some immaterial fact set out in the complaint, providing it appears that the specific crime charged was in fact committed prior to the date of the filing of the complaint or information within the period of the statute of limitations, and at a place within the jurisdiction of the court.

PEOPLE VS GIANAN, G.R. NO. 135288-93, SEPT. 15, 2000

The allegation in the information that accused committed multiple rape “sometime in November 1995 and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto” is not deemed a violation of the right to be informed as the date of the commission of the offense is not the gravemen of rape.

PEOPLE VS TRELLES, G.R. NO. 137659, SEPT. 19, 2000

Nobelita Trelles is feebleminded and a mental retardate, thus she could not very well be expected to consistently impart accurate responses to questions repeatedly propounded to her. A mental retardate or a feebleminded person is not, per se, disqualified from being a witness, her mental condition not being a vitiation of her credibility. It is now universally accepted that intellectual weakness, no matter what form it assumes, is not a valid objection to the competency of a witness so long as the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter testified to.

SUMBANG VS GENERAL COURT MARTIAL PRO — REGION 6, G.R. NO. 140188, AUG. 3, 2000

The period of prescription therein decreed is the time that supervenes from the commission of the offense up to the time of arraignment.

ARAMBULO VS LAQUI, G.R. NO. 138596, OCT. 12, 2000

The right for a speedy trial is only violated when unreasonable, vexatious, and oppressive delay without participation or fault of the accused, petitioner is not without fault thus petition was denied.

PEOPLE VS TAGANA, G.R. NOS. 137608-09, JULY 6, 2001

Under the basic rules on criminal procedure, it is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material incident of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit, as shown in this instance where a variance of three (3) years between the time set in the indictment and that established by evidence during the trial constitutes an error so serious as to warrant a reversal of conviction on that score.

PEOPLE VS BIDOC, 506 SCRA 481

The exact date of the commission is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent.

PEOPLE VS CEREDON, 542 SCRA 550

Dates alleged need not to be precise, it is sufficient the date stated is near as possible to the actual date.

PEOPLE VS PASCUAL, 569 SCRA 534

The precise time of commission is not an essential element of rape or the crime itself so the failure to specify the exact date when the rape happened does not make the information defective and that for as long as all the essential elements of rape are there in the information, the accused is sufficiently informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.

PEOPLE VS AURE, 569 SCRA 836

The date of rape alleged in the information (Nov. 7, 1999) is different from that which the RTC convicted the accused for (Nov. 8, 1999) but this discrepancy is not a serious error that can reverse the decision; the date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge through force and intimidation.

PEOPLE VS DIOCADO, G.R. NO. 170567, NOV. 14, 2008

Diocado was accused of rape, and the court held that the exact time of the commission of the rape is not a ground for acquittal once the prosecution has clearly established the sexual act between the rapist and the victim without the latter’s consent.

PEOPLE VS CANARES, 579 SCRA 582

Section 11 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that it is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when the date of commission is a material element of the offense, thus, an information for rape is not defective for failure to specify the exact date of the commission of the act of rape.

PEOPLE VS ABOGANDA, 585 SCRA 1

In rape cases, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission. The date or time the rape was committed is not an essential and it is sufficient that the date of commission alleged is as near as possible to the actual date

PEOPLE VS JIMENEZ, 586 SCRA 580

Jimenez raped his daughter but because of the failure of the prosecution to allege in the criminal informations the aggravating/qualifying circumstance of parental relationship between AAA and the accused-appellant Jimenez, he cannot be convicted of qualified rape for to do so would certainly be a denial of his right to be informed of the charges against him however, this aggravating circumstance, which was duly proved during trial, may still be considered by the courts in the award of damages.

PEOPLE VS LAZARO, 596 SCRA 587

The exact date and time that rape is committed is not material, facts which are not determinative of the guilt of the accused are not significant.

NO VIOLATION PEOPLE VS ESCORO, 376 SCRA 670

For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime, and when a bare denial, if unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot be given greater evidentiary weight.

PEOPLE VS PASCUAL, 379 SCRA 235

It has been held that the exact date or time of the commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime. Furthermore, the failure of the prosecution to specify the exact date or time when it was committed did not make the information or complaint defective on its face.

PEOPLE VS CONDE, 380 SCRA 159

Variance of a few months between the date set out in the information when the alleged crime was committed, and that established by the evidence during the trial does not constitute an error so serious as to warrant reversal of the judgment of conviction.

PEOPLE VS MIRANDA, G.R. NO. 142566, AUG. 8, 2002

For alibi to prosper, the accused-appellant must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.

PEOPLE VS ROQUE, G.R. NO. 130569, AUG. 14, 2002

Although the sisters accused their father of raping them several times within the interval of 1992 and in 1994, there is no violation of the right to be informed to allow the accused to prepare for his defense since one of the sisters stated in her sworn statement the she was raped by the father in September 1994 and she was more specific in the criminal complain she filed before the MTC.

PEOPLE VS SEGOVIA, G.R. NO. 138974, SEPT. 29, 2002

In rape cases, the date of the commission of the crime is not an essential element of the crime and, as such, a difference of one 1 year or twelve 12 months is merely a matter of form and does not prejudice the rights of the accused since the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy, it being sufficient that the or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.

PEOPLE VS CARALIPIO, G.R. NO. 137766, NOV. 27, 2002

Contrary to appellant’s claim, he was afforded the opportunity to secure counsel of his choice, but he failed to obtain the services of a private lawyer during the period given him by the court and continued to rely on his counsel de oficio for about 3 months without producing the private lawyer whose services he was insisting on.

PEOPLE VS CANTOMAYOR, G.R. NO. 145522, DEC. 5, 2002

The time of the commission of the crime assumes importance only when it creates serious doubt as to the commission of the rape or the sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of conviction and there can be no violation when the date or time of the offense is not stated with absolute accuracy.

PEOPLE VS SARAZAN, G.R. NO. 123269-72, JAN. 22, 2003

Time and again, the courts have consistently ruled that when a woman, more so if a minor, states that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed for no woman, least of all a child, would weave a tale of sexual assaults to her person, open herself to examination of her private parts and later be subjected to public trial or ridicule if she was not, in truth, a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her and thus, when the testimonies of an accused are pitted against the positive testimony of the rape victim who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and who remains consistent, the rape victim is regarded as a credible witness, as in this case.

PEOPLE VS TAPERLA, G.R. NO. 142680, JAN. 16, 2003

There is no evidence on record that the victim is a nymphomaniac, pervert or any condition that may justify the sweetheart theory of the accused. No married woman with children would have sexual relations with a complete stranger whom she had just met.

PEOPLE VS LIZADA, G.R. NO. 143468-71, JAN. 24, 2003

The presentation by the prosecution, without objection on the part of the accused, of evidence of rape committed two times a week from 1996 until 1998 (which includes September 15, 1998 and October 22, 1998) to prove the charges lodged against him constituted a waiver by the accused of his right to object to any perceived infirmity in, and in the amendment of, the aforesaid Informations to conform to the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

PEOPLE VS DY, G.R. NO. 115326-37, JAN. 16, 2003

The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation may not be waived. Indeed, the defense may waive their right to enter a plea and let the court enter a plea of “not guilty” in their behalf. However, it becomes altogether a different matter if the accused themselves refuse to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.

BATULANAN VS PEOPLE, 502 SCRA 35

As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document, it is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with falsification of a private document or with estafa.

PEOPLE VS CORPUZ, 482 SCRA 435

The amendment of the information did not affect the crime committed by the appellant, that is, qualified rape. In cases of incestuous rape, force or intimidation need not even be proven.

SOLEDAD VS PEOPLE, 644 SCRA 258

The information and its preamble clearly stated all the necessary details of the offense committed. The Information sheet must be considered, not by sections or parts, but as one whole document serving one purpose —to inform the accused why the full panoply of state authority is being marshalled against him.

TORRES VS PEOPLE, 655 SCRA 720

A finding by the trial court affirmed by the appellate court shall be conclusive with the Supreme Court unless shown that the trial court had disregarded or overlooked some fact or circumstance.

RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL PEOPLE VS SESBRENO, G.R. NO. 121764, SEPT. 9, 1999

If the trial appeared lengthy, it was largely due to the number of witnesses presented, 13 for the prosecution and 15 for the defense. Appellant’s conduct of his own trial contributed to time-consuming tussles in the lower court.

TAI LIM VS COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 131483, OCT. 26, 1999

Petitioner’s constitutional right to speedy trial has not been violated. A trial is always subject to reasonable delays and postponements, and in the absence of any showing that the same were capricious, the State should not be deprived of a reasonable opportunity of prosecuting petitioner.

CONDE VS RIVERA, 45 PHIL 650

When a prosecuting officer, without good cause, secured postponement of the trial of a defendant against his beyond a reasonable period of time, the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding of mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.

NEPOMUCENO VS SEC. OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, 108 SCRA 658

The prosecution’s failure to enter into trial or otherwise to present its evidence without valid excuse, and instead asked for postponement repeatedly gives rise to the reasonable presumption that the prosecution counts with no evidence to support conviction— therefore, dismissal of the case must reasonably follow and the accused’s right to speedy trial is not violated.

PEOPLE VS GINES, 197 SCRA 481

The right to a speedy trial is relative and could be subject to reasonable delays and postponement as long as the absence or delays are not capricious, oppressive, nor vexatious.

ABADIA VS CA, 236 SCRA 676

The absence of any specific provision limiting the time within which records of general courts martial should be forwarded to the appropriate reviewing authority and for the reviewing authority to decide on the case does not deny private respondent — or any military personnel facing charges before the General Courts Martial, for that matter — a judicial recourse to protect his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

GONZALES VS CA, 232 SCRA 721

For the testimony to be credible, it is not mandatory that the evidence be established on record that witnesses have good standing in the community as competence is distinguished from credibility, the former being determined by art 820 of the new civil code while the latter does not require evidence of such good standing because credibility depends on the convincing weight of his testimony in court

CADALIN VS POEA, 238 SCRA 721

The constitutional right to "a speedy disposition of cases" is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. Hence, under the Constitution, any party to a case may demand expeditious action on all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.

PEOPLE VS TAMPAL, 244 SCRA 202

Though the dismissal of a case on the ground of failure to prosecute is a bar to further prosecution of the accused, the fact that there was no violation of the right to speedy trial, there being good faith on the part of prosecutor for failing to attend, cannot give rise to double jeopardy.

DACANAY VS PEOPLE, 240 SCRA 490

A speedy trial is one "conducted according to the law of criminal procedure and the rules and regulations, free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays." The primordial purpose of this constitutional right is to prevent the oppression of an accused by delaying criminal prosecution for an indefinite period of time. Likewise, it is intended to prevent delays in the administration of justice by requiring judicial tribunals to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal prosecutions.

!The main objection of respondent People of the Philippines to he separate trial asked by Petitioner is that such a procedure would entail a repetitive presentation of evidence. A separate trial necessarily requires a repetition of the presentation of the same evidence. But the resulting inconvenience and expense on the part of the Government cannot be given preference over the right to speedy trial and the protection to a person's life, liberty or property accorded by the Constitution. GUERRERO VS CA, 257 SCRA 703

Petitioner's silence would have to be interpreted as a waiver of his right to a speedy trial.

DIZON VS LOPEZ, 278 SCRA 483

The claim that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial is without basis even when the copy of the decision was only furnished to him after 1 yr and 8 mo. The delay did not prejudice since the period to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration begins only when he receives the copy of the judgement. Nonetheless, there were certain factors that mitigate Lopez’ culpability and except for this incident her track record is unmarred. Failure to decide on the case was brought about factors not within her control, and other personal problems. The court reprimanded Lopez with a warning that repetition of the same acts complained will be dealt with more severity.

LUZARRAGA VS METEORO, A.M. NO. 00-1572, AUG. 3, 2000

Respondent violated the right of the accused to a speedy trial, as he was evidently remiss in the performance of his duty to decide Civil Case No. 96-0013 promptly and expeditiously, considering that, it was on May 22, 1996 that said case was transferred to the RTC Branch presided by respondent, but it was only on January 8, 1997 that he proceeded to receive the defendants' evidence, or after eight months.

SOLAR ENTERTAINMENT AND PEOPLE VS HON. HOW, G.R. NO. 140863, AUG. 22, 2000

The power of the secretary of justice to review resolutions of his subordinates even after the information has already been filed in court is well settled.

DE ZUZURREGUI VS ROSETE, G.R. A.M. NO. MTJ-02-1426

The trial court was reprimanded for violation of constitutional right to speedy and expeditious trial for the sole initiative of the defense’ request for reset of case.

PEOPLE VS DY, G.R. NO. 115326-37, JAN. 16, 2003

The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation may not be waived but it becomes a different matter if the accused themselves refuse to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, thus the defense cannot hold hostage the court by their refusal to the reading of the complaint or information.

LUMANLAW VS PERALTA, 482 SCRA 396

Because respondent failed to act swiftly on the accused’s arraignment, his right to a speedy trial was violated; an arraignment is not a mere formality, but an integral part of due process and should be held within thirty days from the date the court acquired jurisdiction over the accused.

PADILLA VS APAS, 487 SCRA 29

Padilla was accused of Estafa, and the court held that since the prosecution, by repeated motions for postponement, caused the delay of the proceedings from the time the information was filed (from which time the test of the violation of the right to speedy trial is to be counted), the dismissal of the case, on motion of the accused, amounts to acquittal.

PEOPLE VS HERNANDEZ, 499 SCRA 688

The Court affirmed the decision of the CA and ruled that dismissal on the ground of the denial of accused’s right to a speedy trial will have the effect of acquittal that would bar further prosecution for the same offense. Factors such as (1) length of delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) defendant’s assertion of his rights and (4) prejudice to the defendant should be taken in consideration in determining whether or not the constitutional right to speedy trial was violated.

UY VS ADRIANO, 505 SCRA 625

Petitioners' claim is dismissed because the passage of time alone, without a significant deprivation of liberty or impairment of the ability to properly defend oneself, is not absolute evidence of prejudice and the right to a speedy trial is not primarily intended to prevent prejudice to the defense caused by the passage of time.

BENARES VS LIM, 511 SCRA 100

Petitioner Oscar Beñares was accused of estafa during the trial, the totality of the circumstances excuses the delay occasioned by the late filing of the prosecution’s formal offer of evidence since the delay was not vexatious or oppressive, it follows that petitioner’s right to speedy trial was not violated, consequently he cannot properly invoke his right against double jeopardy.

GAAS VS MITMUG, 553 SCRA 535

The right to speedy disposition of cases is only violated when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, the complaint was only acted upon 4 years after its submission, but there was no invocation of speedy disposition, it was only invoked on appeal when the petitioner lost, thus there was no delay.

ALBERT VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 580 SCRA 279

Although the conduct of an investigation may hold back the progress of a case, it is necessary so that the accused's right will not be compromised or sacrificed at the altar of expediency thus succeeding events are of a valid and regular course of judicial proceedings as long as they are not considered as vexatious, capricious, oppressive, or unjustified.

TAN VS PEOPLE, 586 SCRA 139

This right to a speedy trial may be defined as one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, its "salutary objective" being to assure that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the presentation and consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose.

TALLO VS PEOPLE, 588 SCRA 520

The right to a speedy disposition of cases is considered violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient.

OLBES VS BUEMIO, 607 SCRA 336

In determining whether the accused has been deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the case and to a speedy trial, four factors must be considered: (a) length of delay; (b) the reason for the delay; (c) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (d) prejudice to the defendant.

JACOB VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 635 SCRA 94

The dismissal of the criminal cases was unwarranted even though accused was prejudiced by the delay in the reinvestigation of the cases because under the circumstances, the State should not be prejudiced and deprived of its right to prosecute the criminal cases simply because of the ineptitude or nonchalance of the Office of the Ombudsman

RIGHT TO IMPARTIAL TRIAL MATEO, JR. VS VILLALUZ, 50 SCRA 18

Although a judge may not have been disqualified, nevertheless if it appears that a party was not given a fair and impartial trial because of the judge's bias or prejudice, the court will order a new trial, if it deems it necessary, in the interest of justice.

PEOPLE VS CA, 262 SCRA 452

Judge Espina cannot be considered to adequately possess such cold neutrality of an impartial judge as to fairly assess both the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution and the defense in view of his previous decision in a Special civil Action wherein he enjoined the preliminary investigation at the Regional State Prosecutor’s Office level against herein respondent.

MALIWAT VS CA, 256 SCRA 718

An accused is not denied due process and an opportunity to be heard when he himself had sought the postponements and cancellations of the hearings of his case, in this case for no less than forty times, from the date of arraignment to the promulgation of judgment, a fact that spanned almost a decade.

TABUENA VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 268 SCRA 332

The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" requirement of due process was certainly denied in the case at bar against Tabuena and Peralta when the court, with its overzealousness, assumed the dual role of magistrate and advocate wherein time and again the Court has declared that due process requires no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge and the responsibility of the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial, to give added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just otherwise such is a violation of the due process of the people.

PEOPLE VS ADORA, 275 SCRA 441

A trial court’s zealous regard for the propriety of questions propounded to witnesses during trial cannot be equated with bias for a particular party. It is the duty of the trial judge to question a witness in order that his judgment may rest upon a full and clear understanding of the facts.

COSEP VS PEOPLE, 290 SCRA 378

Judges must not only be impartial, but must also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that the decision will be just.

PEOPLE VS CASTILLO, 289 SCRA 213

It was clearly premature on the part of the Sandiganbayan to make a determinative finding prior to the parties’ presentation of their respective evidence that there was no bad faith and manifest partiality on the respondents’ part and undue injury on the part of the complainant.

PEOPLE VS VAYNACO, G.R. NO. 126286, MARCH 22, 1999

The argument is without merit. Trial judges must be accorded a reasonable leeway in asking questions to witnesses as may be essential to elicit relevant facts and to bring out the truth.

PEOPLE VS ESTRADA, G.R. NO. 130487, JUNE 19, 2000

An intelligent determination of an accused’s capacity for rational understanding ought to rest on a deeper and more comprehensive diagnosis of his mental condition than laymen can make through observation of his overt behavior and once a medical or psychiatric diagnosis is made, then can the legal question of incompetency be determined by the trial court; by this time, the accused’s abilities may be measured against the specific demands a trial will make upon him and that a deprivation of such mental examination shall deny the defendant his right to a fair trial.

IMPARTIALITY OF A JUDGE SORIANO VS ANGELES, G.R. NO. 109920, AUG. 31, 2000

Mere suspicion that a judge is partial to one of the parties is not enough; there should be evidence to prove the charge. There must be a showing of bias and prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial source resulting in an opinion in the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case.

ALMENDRA VS ASIS, A.M. RTJ-1550, APRIL 6, 2000

An impartial judge is one who acts in bad faith, malice, revenge or other similar motive with regards to him arriving to a decision.

PEOPLE VS ZHENG BAI HUI, G.R. NO. 127580, AUG. 22, 2000

A severe examination by a trial judge of some of the witnesses for the defense in an effort to develop the truth and to get at the real facts affords no justification for a charge that he has assisted the prosecution with an evident desire to secure a conviction, or that he had intimidated the witnesses for the defense—it cannot be taken against him if the clarificatory questions he propounded happen to reveal certain truths which tend to destroy the theory of one party.

PEOPLE VS GENOSA, G.R. NO. 135981, SEPT. 29, 2000

The Supreme Court noted that the trial court took it solely upon itself to determine the sanity of Genosa. The trial judge does not have the specialized knowledge to determine a person's mental health. Without a medical expert, he was denied a fair trial. Moreover, proof of insanity could have exempted appellant from criminal liability.

RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S. 237

An accused is entitled to a public trial, at least to the extent of having his friends, relatives and counsel present -no matter with what offense he may be charged.

GARCIA VS DOMINGO, L-30104

A trial lasting for several weeks, held exclusively in chambers of the judge and not in court room open to the public adversely affects an accused’s right to a free and impartial trial.

COMPULSORY PROCESS FAJARDO VS GARCIA, 98 SCRA 514

The right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses of his choice includes the right to compulsory process to secure the production of evidence in his behalf but the service of written interrogatories is completely different from the compulsory process that is established in the constitution.

PEOPLE VS YAMBOT, G.R. NO. 120350, OCT. 13, 2000

Appellants must be afforded amplest opportunity to defend themselves before rendition of judgment. The constitutional right of the accused to be heard on his defense is inviolate.

RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION, TO CROSS-EXAMINE, OR TO MEET WITNESS FACE TO FACE TAMPAR VS USMAN, 200 SCRA 652

Sec. 7 of the special Rules of Procedure prescribed for Shari’a courts provides that if the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his claim, the defendant shall take an oath and judgment shall be rendered in his favor by the court and on the other hand, should the defendant refuse to take an oath, plaintiff may affirm his claim under oath in which case judgment shall be rendered in his favor; this effectively deprives a litigant if his right to due process as it denies a party to confront the witnesses against him and to cross-examine them.

PEOPLE VS DIGNO, 250 SCRA 237

The right to cross-examine the witness is a personal one, which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right to cross-examine. Thus where a party had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record.

PEOPLE VS MIYAKE, 279 SCRA 180

There is no violation of the right to confrontation when the evidence offered by the prosecution was the decision of the prior trial and not the testimony itself, even though such testimony is the basis of such decision.

PEOPLE VS NARCA, 275 SCRA 696

Not being a part of the due process clause but a right merely created by law, preliminary investigation if held within the statutory limitations cannot be voided. The preliminary investigation is not the venue for the full exercise of the rights of the parties. This is why preliminary investigation is not considered as a part of trial but merely preparatory thereto and that the records therein shall not form part of the records of the case in court. Parties may submit affidavits but have no right to examine witnesses though they can propound questions through the investigating officer.

!"Where death prevents cross-examination under such circumstances that no responsibility of any sort can be

ascribed to the plaintiff or the witness, it seems a harsh measure to strike out all that has obtained in the direct examination." Besides, mere opportunity and not actual cross-examination is the essence of the right to crossexamine. Appellants lost such opportunity when they sought the deferment of their cross-examination of Elizabeth, and they only have themselves to blame in forever losing that right by reason of Elizabeth’s demise. This Court held that the right to cross-examination “is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record. Waiver of the right to cross-examine may take various forms. But the common basic principle underlying the application of the rule on implied waiver is that the party was given the opportunity to confront and cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take advantage of it for reasons attributable to himself alone.” PEOPLE VS QUIDATO, G.R. NO. 117401, OCT. 1, 1998 PEOPLE VS CRISPIN, 327 SCRA 167

It is hornbook doctrine that unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the averments in their affidavits, the affidavits must be excluded from the judicial proceeding, being inadmissible An affidavit ofhearsay. a witness who was not presented as one on the witness stand shall not be admissible in evidence.

PEOPLE VS LIBO-ON, G.R. NO. 136737, MAY 23, 2001

The right to confrontation was observed when complainant was presented on the witness stand and, after her testimony, the counsel for accused-appellant conducted his cross-examination.

CARRIAGA VS CA, G.R. NO. 143561, JUNE 6, 2001

There is no rule in evidence to the effect that omission of certain particulars in a sworn statement would estop an affiant from making an elaboration thereof or from correcting inaccuracies during the trial.

PEOPLE VS RIVERA, G.R. NO. 139180, JULY 31, 2001

In a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld.

PEOPLE VS MONJE, G.R. 146689, SEPT. 27, 2002

The cross-examination of a witness is an absolute right of the party against whom he is called as part of due process because it is a tool to test the truth or falsity of the statements made by such witness.

VICTORINO VS PEOPLE, 509 SCRA 483

The right to confront and cross-examine the opposing party’s witnesses is a personal one which may be waived expressly or impliedly; where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record.

HERRERA VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 579 SCRA 32

Herrera was accused of murder, and the court held that the rule of double jeopardy does not apply in this case since one of the questioned informations filed against him was not valid hence Herrera was not placed in danger of being convicted twice.

HO WAI PANG VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 1716229, OCT. 19, 2001

The right to confrontation is essentially a guarantee that a defendant may cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution, and in this case, even if the petitioner did not object the presentation of Cinco’s testimony without an interpreter, the counsel of the petitioner was still able to cross-examine the witness and their credibility.

TRIAL IN ABSENTIA, RIGHT TO BE PRESENT CARREDO VS PEOPLE, 183 SCRA 273

Waiver of appearance and trial in absentia does not mean that the prosecution is thereby deprived of its right to require the presence of the accused for purposes of identification by its witnesses which is vital for the conviction of the accused because the accused may waive his right but not his duty or obligation to the court.

PEOPLE VS RAVELO, 202 SCRA 655

Ravelo et al were convicted of murder of Reynaldo Cabrera Gaurano and of frustrated murder of Joey Lugatiman but Ravelo et al were not able to or did not present evidence on their behalf, nor were they themselves able to confront the prosecution witnesses who testified against them except through a counsel de oficio appointed by the trial judge; although they were given more than generous time and opportunity to exercise their constitutional rights to testify and present evidence, they still failed to make use of their last opportunity and hence cannot claim that they were denied of their rights.

PEOPLE VS RIVERA, 242 SCRA 26

In the case the SC held that it is the RTC that when it comes to the credibility of the witnesses, the RTC’s finding will take credence. Furthermore just because the victim is a Taiwanese national, this does not mean that she has greater motive to fabricate rape because she can out run the shame that follows the admission of being raped.

PEOPLE VS TABAG, 268 SCRA 115

Their escape should have been considered a waiver of their right to be present at their trial, and the inability of the court to notify them of the subsequent hearings did not prevent it from continuing with their trial and by escaping, placed themselves beyond the protection of the law.

PARADA VS VENERACION, 269 SCRA 371

The requisites then of a valid trial in absentia are: (1) the accused has already been arraigned; (2) he has been duly notified of the trial; and (3) his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE PEOPLE VS MORIAL, G.R. NO. 129295, AUG. 15, 2001

Where there is independent evidence, apart from the accused’s alleged uncounselled confession, that the accused is truly guilty, the latter nevertheless faces a conviction.

PEOPLE VS TULIN, G.R. NO. 111709, AUG. 30, 2001

Philippines acquires jurisdiction over piracy cases for as long as any part of the crime was committed in Philippine waters.

SECTION 21 DISMISSAL AT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, NO JEOPARDY — ATTACHMENT OF JEOPARDY PEOPLE VS YLAGAN, 58 PHIL 851

PEOPLE VS BALISACAN, L-26376

Under the foregoing provisions of law, defendant in a criminal prosecution is in legal jeopardy when placed on trial under the following conditions: (1) In a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) upon a valid complaint or information; (3) after he has been arraigned; and (4) after he has pleaded to the complaint of information and (and since these were present in a previous prosecution, the Supreme Court held that the appelle has been once in jeopardy for the offense for which she is now prosecuted.) Rule on double jeopardy is applicable even if accused fails to file brief or raise question of double jeopardy.

CINCO VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 202 SCRA 726

Preliminary investigation is not a trial where double jeopardy attaches as it is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty therefor.

PEOPLE VS VERGARA, 221 SCRA 560

For double jeopardy to attach there must be (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (d) the accused has been convicted or acquitted or the case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused.

NAVALLO VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 234 SCRA 175

There is no jeopardy where the court had no jurisdiction.

GALVEZ VS CA, 237 SCRA 685

Even if substitution was made before judgment, petitioners cannot validly claim double jeopardy for the simple reason that no first jeopardy had as yet attached.

CUNANAN VS ARCEO, 242 SCRA 88

Since the offense with which petitioner Cunanan is charged falls within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, and that the Regional Trial. Court of San Fernando, Pampanga had no jurisdiction over that offense.

PEOPLE VS TAMPAL, 244 SCRA 202

Legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3) after arraignment (4) when a valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendant was acquitted or convicted , or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.

PEOPLE VS MONTESA, 248 SCRA 641

He seemed to have something in mind for the protection of the interest of the private respondents. Presumably, he thought that the arraignment which was immediately followed by the dismissal of the case would forever foreclose, on the ground of double jeopardy, any reopening of the case.

DE LA ROSA VS CA, 253 SCRA 499

The requisites that must occur for legal jeopardy to attach are: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (d) the accused has been convicted or acquitted or the case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused (which may be made via ORAL MOTION).

PEOPLE VS LEVISTE, 255 SCRA 238

Petitioner cannot invoke his right against double jeopardy because his right to a speedy trial has not been violated by the State.

PEOPLE VS CAWALING, 293 SCRA 267

The requisites for double jeopardy are: (1) a first jeopardy has attached before another one; (2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as that in the first while the first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) it was filed before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) valid plea has been filed; and (e) when the charged individual was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed.

CUDIA VS CA, 284 SCRA 173

In determining when the first jeopardy may be said to have attached, it is necessary to prove the existence of the following: (a) Court of competent jurisdiction; (b) Valid complaint or information; (c) Arraignment; (d) Valid plea; (e) The defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.

TECSON VS SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 123045, NOV. 16, 1999

Demetio Tecson, at the time Mayor of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, contends that his Sandiganbayan trial amounts to double jeopardy since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had already cleared him of all charges. The requisites for jeopardy to attach are not present at the hearings by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

DIMATULAC VS VILLON, G.R. NO. 127107, OCT. 12, 1999

When the state is deprived of due process in a criminal case by reason of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case is void, hence double jeopardy can’t be invoked by the accused.

PEOPLE VS MAQUILING, G.R. NO. 128986, JUNE 21, 1999

No double jeopardy would attach where the state is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case, or where the dismissal of an information or a complaint is purely capricious or devoid of reason, or when there is lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard.

PEOPLE VS NITAFAN, G.R. NO. 707964-66, FEB. 1, 1999

“Double jeopardy connotes the concurrence of three requisites: (a) the first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second, (b) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated, and (c) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.” “[T]he first jeopardy attaches only (1) upon a valid indictment, (2) before a competent court, (3) after arraignment, (4) when a valid plea has been entered, and (5) when the defendant was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.”

BINAY VS SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. NO. 120681, OCT. 1, 1999

The first jeopardy never attached in the first place, the RTC not being a court of competent jurisdiction. There can be no double jeopardy where the accused entered a plea in a court that had no jurisdiction.

LIMPANGOG VS COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 134229, NOVEMBER 26,1999

Court of appeals has no jurisdiction over an appeal of a trial court imposing an indeterminate sentence, if the same ruling also imposes reclusion perpetua.

FLORES VS JOVEN, G.R. NO. 129874, DEC. 27, 2002

The requisites that must be present for double jeopardy to attach are: (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (d) the accused has been convicted or acquitted or the case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused.

MIRNADA VS TULIAO, 486 SCRA 377

The dismissal of the arraignment of the accused cannot make the bar the reinstatement of the criminal case since double jeopardy cannot be invoked where the accused has not been arraigned and it was upon his express motion that it be dismissed.

CABO VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 491 SCRA 264

It is elementary that for double jeopardy to attach, the case against the accused must have been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid information sufficient in form and substance and the accused pleaded to the charge. In the instant case, the original information to which petitioner entered a plea of “not guilty” was neither valid nor sufficient to sustain a conviction, and the criminal case was also neither dismissed nor terminated. Double jeopardy could not, therefore, attach even if petitioner is assumed to have been unconditionally arraigned on the original charge.

ROMUALDEZ VS MARCELO, 497 SCRA 89

An order sustaining a motion to quash on grounds other than extinction of criminal liability or double jeopardy does not preclude the filing of another information for a crime constituting the same facts.

PEOPLE VS TERRADO, 558 SCRA 84

Terrado was acquitted of the crime of carnapping. Mistakes ascribed to the trial court were not errors of jurisdiction, but errors of judgment that can be corrected by a petition for review on certiorari. Correction of an erroneous acquittal may be allowed when the public respondent clearly showed/ acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. But the petition the the Garcias was merely a call for an ordinary review of the findings of the court which is against the constitutional right against double jeopardy.

PEOPLE VS CA, 626 SCRA 352

No double jeopardy attaches by reason of the abbreviated nature of preliminary investigations, and as such, a dismissal of the charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal.

TERMINATION OF JEOPARDY, EXISTENCE, NONTERMINATION BULAONG VS PEOPLE, 17 SCRA 746

The defense of double jeopardy is available to the accused only where he was either convicted or acquitted or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his consent.

BUSTAMANTE VS MACAREN, 48 SCRA 155

When the accused has been convicted and is actually serving his sentence, there is no need to re-open the case for it constitutes double jeopardy.

PEOPLE VS OBSANIA, L-24447

This particular aspect of double jeopardy — dismissal or termination of the original case without the express consent of the defendant — has evoked varied and apparently conflicting rulings from this Court but the recent ruling was where a criminal case is dismissed provisionally not only with the express consent of the accused but even upon the urging of his counsel, there can be no double jeopardy if the indictment against him is revived by the fiscal.

RIVERA, JR. VS PEOPLE, 189 SCRA 331

Where there is a valid information and the accused has been arraigned, an order of dismissal issued by the court has the effect of a judgment of acquittal and double jeopardy attaches; however, this order of dismissal must be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him conformably with the provisions of Rule 120, section 2 of the Rules of Court.

DIZON-PAMINTUAN VS PEOPLE, 234 SCRA 63

Dizon-Pamintuan was accused of violating the Anti-Fencing law, and the court held that Dizon-Pamintuan was not in danger of double jeopardy if informations for robbery and theft was filed against her since these are separate and different offenses from fencing.

COMELEC VS CA, 229 SCRA 48

Double jeopardy attached when the accused, charged in a valid complaint or information before a competent court, is acquitted or convicted or the case is unconditionally dismissed without his express consent after he has been arraigned and entered plea, otherwise, double jeopardy may still attach if: (1) when the ground is insufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution and (2) when the proceedings have been prolonged unreasonably.

STATE PROSECUTORS VS MURO, 236 SCRA 505

In the absence of jurisdiction, double jeopardy will not set in, and it is thus settled that double jeopardy cannot be invoked against this Court's setting aside of the trial court's judgment of dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is denied due process.

PEOPLE VS BELLAFLOR, 233 SCRA 196

Generally, protection against double jeopardy is not available where the dismissal of the case was effected at the instance of the accused and there are only two instances where double jeopardy will attach notwithstanding the fact the case was dismissed with the express consent of the accused, (1)where the ground for the dismissal is insufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution and (2) where the criminal proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged in violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial, but none of these instances exists in the case thus since Respondent Bellaflor had moved for the dismissal of the criminal case filed against him, the protective mantle of double jeopardy does not cover him.

GUERRERO VS CA, 257 SCRA 703

In this case the petitioner claims that a re-hearing would place him under double jeopardy, in this case there has been no termination of the first jeopardy, thus he could not have been placed in double jeopardy.

TEODORO VS CA, 258 SCRA 603

Although an appeal does not vacate the judgment appealed from, it does prevent it from becoming final so that it does not bar the trial court from acting on the appeal and imposing penalty warranted by the law and the evidence and until that appeal is withdrawn, there is no decision of the lower court to serve or satisfy because the appeal stayed the decision.

CUIDIA VS CA, 284 SCRA 173

If the complaint or information was insufficient because it was so defective in form or substance that the conviction upon it could not have been sustained, its dismissal without the consent of the accused cannot be pleaded; Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a defective indictment that is voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution.

PEOPLE VS LISING, 285 SCRA 595

It will be a violation of the accused’s constitutional right against double jeopardy to convict him of kidnapping where he was already convicted of double murder arising from the very same act/offense.

PEOPLE VS ARANETA, G.R. NO. 125894, DEC. 11, 1998, 95 OG 4556

Where conspiracy is established, it matters not who among the accused actually shot and killed the victim.

CUISON VS CA, 289 SCRA 159

The promulgation of only one part of the decision, i.e., the liability for civil indemnity, is not a bar to the subsequent promulgation of the other part, the imposition of the criminal accountability.

PEOPLE VS CA, G.R. NO. 128986, JUNE 21, 1999

No double jeopardy would attach where the state is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and prove its case, or where the dismissal of an information or a complaint is purely capricious or devoid of reason, or when there is lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard.

PEOPLE VS SERRANO, G.R. NO. 135451, SEPT. 30, 1999

The preclusion against appeal by the government from judgments of acquittal applies even though the accused did not raise the question of double jeopardy.

BARANGAN VS COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 123307, NOV. 29, 1999

The Court’s hands are tied by the constitutional mandate against double jeopardy and so acquittal must stand when it is proven that a valid complaint or information is filed against an accused, a court of competent jurisdiction has acquired jurisdiction over the person and the accused has been tried and acquitted for the case.

PEOPLE VS VELASCO, G.R. NO. 127444, SEPT. 13, 2000

The doctrine that "double jeopardy may not be invoked after trial" may apply only when the Court finds that the "criminal trial was a sham" because the prosecution representing the sovereign people in the criminal case was denied due process and the court in People v. Bocar rationalized that the "remand of the criminal case for further hearing and/or trial before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of the first jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a second jeopardy."

TUPAZ VS ULEP, G.R. NO. 127777, OCT. 1, 1999

An accused is placed on double jeopardy if he is again tried for an offense for which he has been convicted, acquitted or which the indictment against him was dismissed without his consent.

PEOPLE VS VERRA, G.R. NO. 134732

While it is true that the respondent joined the prosecution in praying for its dismissal, double jeopardy will still attach since the basis for the ruling was the insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution.

MERCIALES VS CA, 379 SCRA 345

The acquittal of the accused by the court a quo was done without regard to due process of law, which makes it null and void. It is as if there was no acquittal at all, therefore it cannot constitute a claim for double jeopardy.

POSO VS MIJARES, A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1693, AUG. 21, 2002

From the lowering of the penalty to qualify the accused for probation, the authorization for temporary liberty on recognizance, and finally the grant of probation, the orders of respondent Judge arising from these proceedings do not compel respectability and finality to constitute res judicata or even double jeopardy.

PEOPLE VS ALBERTO, G.R. NO. 132374, AUG. 22, 2002

The three requisites before double jeopardy can be invoked are: (1) the first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first, or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof; as to the first jeopardy, it only arises (1) upon a valid indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3) after arraignment; (4) when a valid plea has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was acquitted, convicted, or the case was dismissed; double jeopardy cannot exist on the basis of a void dismissal order (e.g. trial court did not afford any opportunity to the prosecution to be heard before it decided to dismiss the case, contrary to Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court).

CONDRADA VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 141646, FEB. 28, 2003

Petitioner is not in danger of being twice put in jeopardy with the reinstatement of Criminal Case No. 10770 because the case was provisionally dismissed by the trial court upon his motion. Thus, the requirement that the dismissal of the case must be without the consent of the accused is not present in this case and neither does the case fall under any of the two exceptions (1:insufficiency of evidence to support the charge; 2: unreasonable delay in violation of right to speedy trial).

PEOPLE VS ROMERO, G.R. NO. 144156, MARCH 20, 2003

No violation of the right against double jeopardy even if the trial court approves the prosecution’s motion to reopen the case after its earlier approval of the accused’s plea to the lesser offense of homicide where it has yet to render a decision.

PEOPLE VS ESPINOSA, G.R. NO. 153714, AUG. 15, 2003

To substantiate a claim for double jeopardy, the following must be demonstrated: (1) [A] first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense, or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof. And legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) [when] a valid plea [has] been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.

ORIENTE VS PEOPLE, 513 SCRA 348

Manuel Oriente attacked and killed Romulo Vallo. RTC promulgated a second decision to correct the penalty imposed on the Oriente. This does not amount to double jeopardy as Courts have the inherent power to amend formalities of their decisions to conform to law and justice.

PACOY VS CAJIGAL, 534 SCRA 338

It is the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal or termination of the case that bars further prosecution for the same offense or any attempt to commit the same or the frustrations thereof.

SUMMERVILLE VS EUGENIO, 529 SCRA 274

If the trial court’s order granting the withdrawal of the Information was committed with grave abuse of discretion, then the accused was not acquitted nor was there a valid and legal dismissal or termination of the case — as such the fourth requisite on the conviction and acquittal of the accused in the dismissal of the case, without the approval of the accused was not met and therefore, double jeopardy did not set in.

HERRERA VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 579 SCRA 32

In order for a case of double jeopardy to prosper all the requisites must be present, the absence of one would be a fatal defect.

JAVIER VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 599 SCRA 324

Double jeopardy could not attach considering that the two cases remain pending before the Sandiganbayan and that the petitioner had pleaded to only one in the criminal cases against her.

CO VS LIM, 604 SCRA 702

The failure of the trial court judge to independently evaluate and assess the merits of the case against the accused violates the complainant’s right to due process and constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

LEJANO VS PEOPLE, 639 SCRA 760

A judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the accused under double jeopardy; to reconsider such judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being punished for the crime of which he has already been absolved.

BANGAYON VS BANGAYON, G.R. NO. 172777, OCT. 19, 2011

Though the trial court incorrectly overlooked the evidence against the petitioner, granting them demurrer to evidence which resulted to the acquittal of the accused, such error is a mistake of judgment which cannot be rectified by a petition for certiorari as double jeopardy had already set in.

GOODLAND VS CO, G.R. NO. 196685, DEC. 18, 2011

An order granting an accused’s demurrer to evidence is a resolution of the case on the merits, and it amounts to an acquittal. Generally, any further prosecution of the accused after an acquittal would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.nIt is settled that a judgment of acquittal cannot be recalled or withdrawn by another order reconsidering the dismissal of the case, nor can it be modified except to eliminate something which is civil or administrative in nature. One exception to the rule is when the prosecution is denied due process of law. Another exception is when the trial court commits grave abuse of discretion in dismissing a criminal case by granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence. If there is grave abuse of discretion, granting Goodland’s prayer is not tantamount to putting Co and Chan in double jeopardy.

!However, the present case is replete with evidence to prove that the CA was correct in denying Goodland’s certiorari on appeal.

RULE ON SUPERVENING FACTS MELO VS PEOPLE, 85 PHIL 766

PEOPLE VS BULING, 107 PHIL 712

"Where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes f or which the def endant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense and, together with the facts existing at the time, constitutes a new and distinct offense" (15 Am. Jur., 66), the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted newguilty offense. Accused for wasthe found of less serious physical injuries and served sentence. A subsequent examination by a different physician using X-ray showed that wounds inflicted would not heal on time, hence accused was charged of serious physical injuries and was again sentenced to jail. This is double jeopardy because what happened here is not a supervening event but a failure of the first physician to diagnose the injury.

SAME OFFENSES PEOPLE VS TIOZON, 198 SCRA 368

PD 1866 which punishes possession of firearms (qualified by the attendance of murder) and the article on Murder/Homicide in the Revised Penal Code defines two distinct crimes, and as such, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise from the same facts, as each crime involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other.

LAMERA VS CA, 198 SCRA 186

Since the information were for separate offenses, one cannot be pleaded as a bar to the other under the rule of double jeopardy, and as a rule, for double jeopardy to attach, the accused must have been arraigned.

GONZALES VS CA, 232 SCRA 667

“Premature resort to the courts necessarily becomes fatal to the cause of action of the petitioner.”

PEOPLE VS TURDA, 233 SCRA 702

Not all acts which constitute estafa necessarily establish illegal recruitment, for estafa is wider in scope and covers deceits whether or not related to recruitment activities and more importantly, the element of damage, which is essential in estafa cases, is immaterial in illegal recruitment.

PEOPLE VS MANUNGAS, 231 SCRA 1

Accused- appellant is guilty of Estafa and Illegal Recruitment. A person who violates any of the provisions under Article 13(b) and Article 34 of the Labor Code can be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa because illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for a conviction while estafa is amalum in se where criminal intent of the accused is necessary for a conviction.

PEOPLE VS DEUNIDA, 231 SCRA 520

Deunida was accused of illegal possession of firearms (PD 1866) and murder, and the court held that Deunida was not placed in double jeopardy when he was also charged in another case with murder because the former offense is a different offense punished by a special law while the latter offense is defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code.

PEOPLE VS FERNANDEZ, 239 SCRA 174

There is no violation of the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy since the two Informations filed against the defendant charged two distinct and different offenses—murder and illegal possession of firearm.

PEOPLE VS QUIJADA, 259 SCRA 191

Where the offenses charged are penalized either by different sections of the same statute or by different statutes, the important inquiry relates to the identity of offenses charged such that the protection against double jeopardy is available only where an identity is shown to exist between the earlier and the subsequent offenses charged.

PEOPLE VS BALLABARE, 264 SCRA 350

Ballabare contends that he was placed in jeopardy when he was found guilty of murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition but the argument has no merit since Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition does not absorb the crime of homicide or murder under the Revised Penal Code and therefore does not bar the simultaneous or subsequent prosecution for the latter crime.

PEOPLE VS CALONZO, 262 SCRA 534

In this case Calonzo was convicted on 5 counts of illegal recruitment, he was also convicted of estafa. Calonzo contends that this is double jeopardy, however conviction under the labour code does not preclude conviction under other statues (Thus can be convicted for estafa).

PEOPLE VS BENEMERITO, 264 SCRA 534

The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence of the parties in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the presumption of innocence should tilt in favor of the accused for which an offer of mere denial and claim that he was the victim, fails to overcome the prosecution’s evidence, hence the rule is unavailable to him.

PEOPLE VS TOBIAS, 266 SCRA 229

Where the victim was slain by the accused with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the accused may not be convicted of two separate offenses but only that of illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form.

PEOPLE VS MANOYCO, 269 SCRA 513

Accused in this case was convicted of estafa (RPC) and illegal recruitment in large scale (Labor Code) though it arose from the same offense, since elements of both were present.

PEOPLE VS TAN TIONG MENG, 271 SCRA 125

The presumption of innocence can be disproved by reasonable doubt established by the prosecution.

PEOPLE VS SADIOSA, 290 SCRA 92

The crime of illegal recruitment (Labor Code) is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is necessary for conviction and so a person convicted under the Labor Code may also be convicted under the RPC.

PEOPLE VS SANCHEZ, 291 SCRA 333

A person convicted for illegal recruitment may also be convicted for the crime of estafa since the former offense is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is an additional element for conviction.

PEOPLE VS SALEY, 291 SCRA 715

Conviction for the various offenses under the Labor Code does not bar the punishment of the offender for estafa since illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum offense where criminal intent is not necessary for conviction while estafa is malum in se which requires criminal intent to warrant conviction.

PEOPLE VS JUEGO, G.R. NO. 123162, OCT. 13, 1998

A conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar punishment for offenses punishable by other laws and in this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa under par. 2 (a), Art. 315, of The Revised Penal Code, as the offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction.

PEOPLE VS GANADIN, G.R. NO. 129441, NOV. 27, 1998

Case cannot be found.

PEOPLE VS BALASA, G.R. NO. 106357, SEPT. 3, 1998

Even if several cases arose out of the same scheme, if the fraudulent acts charged were committed against different persons, they do not constitute the same offense.

PALUAY VS CA, 293 SCRA 358

The question raised by the petition for annulment of judgment is a factual question that cannot be reviewed not only because the decision of the trial court is now final but also because a review of such question at the instance of the prosecution would violate the right of the accused against being placed in double jeopardy of punishment for the same act.

PEOPLE VS MERCADO, 304 SCRA 504

The Court reiterated the rule that a person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code can be convicted of violation of the Revised Penal Code provisions on estafa, provided the elements of the crime are present.

PEOPLE VS YABUT, G.R. NO. 115719, OCT. 5, 1999

Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws.

PEOPLE VS ONG, 322 SCRA 38

Cases may be tried jointly if such are based on the same set of facts.

PEOPLE VS MERIS, G.R. NO. 117145-50, MARCH 28, 2000

Accused is convicted of six counts of estafa and large-scale illegal recruitment stemming from seven informations filed against her, containing the same allegations except as to name of complainants and amounts involved. The complaints were consolidated.

PEOPLE VS LOGAN, G.R. NO. 135030-33, JULY 20, 2001

Offenders who have committed illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of the crime of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

POTOT VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 143547, JUNE 26, 2002

A petitioner who has been placed in jeopardy for the crime of homicide, cannot be prosecuted anew for the same offense, or any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the first offense charged.

PEOPLE VS CA, 423 SCRA 605

Respondents Francisco and Pacao, accused with homicide and attempted murder, were found not guilty by the Court of Appeals. Their acquittal must therefore be accorded finality in faithful adherence to the rule against double jeopardy.

RAMISCAL VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 499 SCRA 375

Crimes committed by public officers and employees in relation to their offices defined and penalized under the Anti-Graft law do not exclude prosecution for felonies defined and penalized under RPC, and vice versa --- one may be charged of violation of RA No.3079 in addition to a felony under the RPC for the same delictional act, that is either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with or felony under the code.

PEOPLE VS COMILA, 517 SCRA 153

A person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa—illegal recruitment being malum prohibitum while estafa is malum in se.

DIAZ VS DAVAO, 520 SCRA 481

A single criminal act could give rise to multiple crimes and if there is a difference in the elements of the two crimes then there will be no Double Jeopardy since the prohibition on Double Jeopardy refers to identity of elements in the two crimes.

MERENCILLO VS PEOPLE, 521 SCRA 31

There is no double jeopardy if a person is charged simultaneously or successively for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 and the Revised Penal Code.

LAPASARAN VS PEOPLE, 578 SCRA 658

The best arbiter of the issue of credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is the trial court.

IVLER VS MODESTO, 635 SCRA 191

Where both charges are derived from the consequences of one and the same vehicular accident (or act or quasioffenses), the second accusation places the appellant in second jeopardy for the same offense.

PEOPLE VS OCDEN, 650 SCRA 124

There is no bar for the prosecution of the accused for both estafa and illegal recruitment even though they root from one and the same offense since conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws.

PEOPLE VS LALLI, G.R. NO. 195419, OCT. 12, 2011

When an act or acts violate two or more different laws and constitute two different offenses, a prosecution under one will not bar a prosecution under the other. The constitutional right against double jeopardy only applies to risk of punishment twice for the same offense, or for an act punished by a law and an ordinance. The prohibition on double jeopardy does not apply to an act or series of acts constituting different offenses.

NO APPEAL FROM ACQUITTAL, INSTANCES OF VOID ACQUITTAL PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 376 SCRA 74

Once the court grants the demurrer, such order amounts to an acquittal; and any further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy.

YUCHENGCO VS CA, 376 SCRA 531

Private respondents have been acquitted by CA from charges of libel. Petitioner files a certiorari case to assail the acquittal. Court says that acquittal cannot be appealed since it is final and doing so would trample upon the constitutional right protecting people from double jeopardy. Moreover, certiorari can only be used when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The case at bar involves a question of fact and the appreciation of adduced evidence which the CA did without grave abuse of discretion.

SAN VICENTE VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 132081, NOV. 26, 2002

When the trial court issued an order to dismiss and granted demurrer to San Vicente who was charged with homicide, it constituted an exception to the rule that the dismissal of a criminal case made with the express consent of the accused or upon his own motion bars a plea of double jeopardy.

PEOPLE VS CA, G.R. NO. 132396, SEPT. 23, 2002

While it is true that double jeopardy will attach in case the prosecution appeals a decision acquitting the accused, it is likewise true that an acquittal rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction does not really acquit and therefore does not terminate the case.

PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN, 491 SCRA 185

One can be discharge as long as the Rules are sufficiently complied on State witnesses.

PEOPLE VS CA, 516 SCRA 383

There are two recognized exceptions to the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy: (1) Where there has been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial or (2) Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances which in this case, neither of these was present.

PEOPLE VS LAGUIO, 518 SCRA 393

It also basic that appeal in criminal cases throws the whole records of the case wide open for review by the appellate court that is why any appeal from a judgment of acquittal necessarily puts the accused in double jeopardy.

PEOPLE VS DUMLAO, 580 SCRA 409

Dumalao was accused of violating the anti-graft and corruption law, and the court held that double jeopardy has not yet set since the last element of double jeopardy — valid conviction, acquittal, dismissal or termination of the case — has not been satisfied.

TIU VS CA, 586 SCRA 118

Settled is the ruled that only the Solicitor General may bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, and the appeal of petitioner Tiu cannot be granted since the accused in the case appealed was acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence, otherwise, double jeopardy would attach.

PEOPLE VS DE GRANO, 588 SCRA 550

A judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, but only upon a clear showing by the petitioner that the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed not merely reversible errors of judgment but also grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or to a denial of due process, thus rendering the assailed judgment void, in which event, the accused cannot be considered at risk of double jeopardy — the revered constitutional safeguard against exposing the accused to the risk of answering twice for the same offense.

PEOPLE VS NAZARENO, 595 SCRA 438

Nazareno et al were acquitted for violating Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the People filed for a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court however a judgment of acquittal is final, no longer reviewable, immediately executory and the State may not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy.

PEOPLE VS DUCA, 603 SCRA 159

In this case the CA acquitted Duca without giving the OSG the chance to file his comment, this deprived the state of its right to refute the material allegations filed before the CA, thus the decision of acquittal is null and void.

MUPAS VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 189365, OCT. 12, 2011

An order granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal, however, an exception is that when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in dismissing a criminal case by granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence, its judgment is considered nugatory.

PARTIES METROBANK VS MERIDIANO, G.R. NO. 118251, JUNE 29, 2001

Whenever a criminal case is prosecuted and the State is the offended party, the case must always be prosecuted under the control and guidance of the State through its government prosecutors; Whenever there is an acquittal or dismissal of a criminal case and the private complainant intends to question such an acquittal or dismissal, the same must be undertaken by the State through the Solicitor General

ORDINANCE AND STATUTE PEOPLE VS RELOVA, 148 SCRA 292

A person who was charged for violating a City Ordinance for having installed a metering device to lower his electric bills which was dismissed for prescription of the offense may not be charged again for theft of electric power under the RPC.

APPLIED TO IMPEACHMENT ESTRADA VS DESIERTO, G.R. NO. 146710-15, G.R. NO. 146738, MARCH 2, 2001

The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as any trespasser.

ESTRADA VS DESIERTO, MRGR 146710-15 AND 146738, APRIL 3, 2001

Double jeopardy attaches only: (1) upon a valid complaint; (2) before a competent court; (3) after arraignment; (4) when a valid plea has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused (petitioner failed to satisfy the fifth requisite for he was not acquitted nor was the impeachment proceeding dismissed without his express consent)

PEOPLE VS LOGAN, G.R. NO. 135030-33, JULY 20, 2001

A person convicted under the Labor Code may also be convicted of offenses punishable by other laws.