Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS/MIRANDA RIGHTS

In the presence of a counsel of the person

Miranda vs. Arizona 2 hours interrogation and

under investigation
1 and 2 cab be waived while 3 cannot be

was able to obtain oral and written admissions


Reasons:
1. Uneducated
2. Mental instability
3. Never informed of his rights to avail the
services of an attorney
4. Not reminded that he has right against
self-incrimination
Section 12.Article III of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution

Exclusionary Rule:
Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall
be inadmissible in evidence against him.
1. Uncounselled confession or admission
2. Coerce confession or admission
What kind of investigation?
Do not apply Miranda rights to all kinds

1. To remain silent actions such as


reenacting demonstrating, writing is not a
mere

waived

mechanical

act

it

requires

intelligence therefore included to the right


2. To have a competent and independent

of investigation
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION /

be provided with one at what stage? In

INTERROGATION

prosecutors

are

not

the

police level
Investigated by the police

counsel preferably of his own choice or to


all stages in a criminal investigation,

at

Consider

that

Miranda

rights

considered

presupposes that a suspect was arrested

independent counsel, their principal is the

without a warrant
If there is a warrant no right to

government interest is adverse


3. To be informed of such right
4. No to be subjected to the use of torture,
force, violence, threat, intimidation or
any other means which vitiates the free
will RA 9745 anti Torture Law
5. Not to be held in Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
Availability:

interrogate

(police)

must

be

surrendered to the court who issue the


warrant there is already a probable
cause
Is any question initiated by a law officers
after a person is taken into custody or
otherwise deprived his freedom of action
(arrest without a warrant)
Also presupposes that the questioning is

The rights are available the moment an

not a mere general inquiry


General inquiry the policeman is still

arrest, with or without warrant?, are

fishing for evidence and no idea who is

made.
Waiver:
In writing and

the suspect
Miranda
SUSPECT VS. ACCUSED

Police line Up? QUALIFY when the

Suspect someone refuted to be involved in a


crime, no criminal information filed yet police

police ask a question or there is a combination of

level

questionings Miranda rights is applicable

Accused a formal charge was already filed in


People vs. Andan

court, there is already a probable caused to

The mayor did not know that appellant

indict him to a particular crime court level

was going to confess his guilt to him. When

Respondent before the prosecutor


prosecutors level

appellant talked with the mayor as a confidant

ELEMENTS:

uncounseled confession to him did not violate his

and not as a law enforcement officer, his

1. There was an arrest or


2. The questioning is not a mere general
inquiry aim to a particular suspect

constitutional rights. Thus, it has been held that


the

constitutional

procedures

on

custodial

investigation do not apply to a spontaneous


statement, not elicited through questioning by the

When there is custodial investigation

authorities, but given in an ordinary manner


whereby

Miranda rights now applies

appellant

orally

admitted

having

committed the crime.


When a person is invited to the police
station he is not yet under custodial investigation

voluntarily

you
and

go
the

to

the

police

talked

to

private

person

extrajudicial confession is admissible

and the Miranda rights is not yet applicable


When

When

police

station

already

asked

questions, it is already a custodial investigation


the two requisites not necessarily complement

People vs. Ayson


Miranda

rights

not

applicable

to

administrative proceedings

each other. Even though there is no actual arrest.


The police start questioning a suspect even

People vs. Mahiway

outside the police station.

Eleven guidelines policeman to follow

Barangay tanod caught you, brought you

1. Read and recite to the suspect his rights

are

in a language known to him and able to

questioned. Entitled to Miranda right? YES.

understand it
2. Reminded that any statement he made

to

the

barangay

hall,

and

there

you

Barangay tanod are agent of person in authority.


Cannot invoked the right against private
individual
Cannot also be invoked in administrative
proceedings and against employer who
conduct questioning
Apply only to CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
- not a part of preliminary investigation
of the prosecutor

will be used against him


3. To be assisted by a lawyer at all times
and at all stages
4. Cannot afford a lawyer, a lawyer shall be
afforded by the police
5. No custodial investigation

may

be

undertaken without the presence of a


lawyer
6. Not only to allowed to communicate with
his lawyer but also with his family

relatives doctor priest and other person


in aid
7. He can Waive the right
8. Reminded that the waiver should be in
writing and in the presence of a counsel
9. Criminal information could be stop in
any time when there is manifest that he
does not wish to be question
10.Suspect can invoke the right to remain
silent any time
11.Policeman should also explain that any
evidence in violation of the Miranda
rights are inadmissible as evidence

law

be

govern

by

rules

on

the

evidence
c. No such thing as trial by ordeal
3. Accused must be given notice and
opportunity to be heard
Three stages in a criminal trail where the
presence of the accused is mandatory
1. Arraignment
2. Identification process
3. Promulgation
of
the

judgment

4. The judgment rendered was within the

When do they operate?


When at the time a criminal case is
already filed against the accused
Applicable only to criminal proceedings
As one of the due process
Equally entitled to the right accused,
victim and the state due process in
criminal trial

authority of court law


5. Impartial court or tribunal

cold

neutrality of impartial judge


Right of (Formal) Hearing
Can be waive? Not all times
1. If

the

case

falls

under

summary

procedure no requirement of trail type


proceeding mere affidavits will suffice
2. Motion to quash no ground for trial

Criminal Due Process


Elements:
1. Court of competent jurisdiction
a. Jurisdiction the power to hear
and decide a case not subject to
crimes

punishable by less than 6 years


c. RTC 6 years and above
d. Sandiganbayan depends on
salary grade 24 commit a crime
during the performance of their
function
e. Court decision outside jurisdiction
null and void
2. There are already processes of law
a. Accused proceeded against orderly
processes of law TRIAL AND
HEARING

remedial

must

sentencing and reading the decision

RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED

stipulations of the parties


b. MTC Jurisdiction all

b. Process

waiver for formal hearing


3. Demurral evidence saying to the court
that the evidence of the prosecutor is not
sufficient to prove the guild beyond
reasonable doubt
4. Arraignment accused plea of guilt does
it mean there will be no hearing?
a. If the crime is a heinous crime
hearing is a part of due process
b. In order the judge:
i. Searching
question
to
determine the voluntariness
of the plea
ii. Require the prosecutor to
prove the precise degree of
culpability of the accused
iii. Order
presentation
of
evidence

to

determine

exempting

and

mitigating

If tried in civil court a matter of

circumstances

discretion
Military court cannot avail
Comendor

Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan

Unreasonable delay
Violated his right to criminal due process

Matter of right all cases in MTC for tried


cases involving punishment of 6 years and

Galman vs. Sandiganbayan

below

Jeopardy will not attack


First trail is a sham (mock trial)
Violative of due process on the part of the

RTC not punishable by death,

prosecutor for they dont have the chance

Matter of discretion RTC to CA (appeal), RTC

to prove the guilt of the accused

reclusion

Perpetua

and

life

imprisonment a matter of right


convicted of a crime not punished by death, life
imprisonment or reclusion Perpetua bail a

Alonte vs. Savellano

No cold impartiality or neutrality


The judge is ordered to inhibit himself

matter of discretion
Capital punishment were evidence
of guilt is not strong

from the case


Bacolon

BAIL
Security given for the release of a person
in the custody of the law
Purpose: to secure provisional liberty of
the accused pending trial
Type: case, property, surety

Murder
Demurrer of evidence denied by the
judge opined elements sufficient to the
conviction for the crime of homicide and
not murder
BAIL? Yes homicide bailable

Who can invoke?


Even if no formal charge yet as long as
there is deprivation of freedom
Warrantless arrest article 125 of the
RPC

Extradition Treaty
Two decisions:
1. US Government vs. Judge Purganan bail
is not available because it is sui generis
(class of its own) not a civil, criminal and

Exceptions:
1. Capital

offense

such

as

life

imprisonment, reclusion perpertua and


death bail not available if evidence of
guilt is strong
If there is petition and capital
punishment is involve hearing is
mandatory and necessary (basco
and baylon)
2. Court martial proceedings

administrative proceedings
2. Hong Kong vs. Olalia deprived of liberty
right of liberty should prevail therefore
bail is applicable
Waiver?
Yes People vs Judge Donato
Personal right therefore can be waive

Right to bail is not impaired by the

Natural person for it is applicable only to

suspension of the privilege of writ of


habeas corpus

criminal case
Feeder vs CA

Can be invoke only by living individual


PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

and not an artificial person corporation


partnership etc are not entitled

To assume a fact as real


Why a right?
Mere suspicion is not synonymous with

Chain of Custody Rule RA 9165

guilt
Suspicion is not an evidence
There must be a factual or legal basis

1. The apprehending officer/team having

before a person can be convicted to a

confiscation, physically inventory and

initial custody and control of the drugs


shall,

immediately

after

seizure

and

crime evidence
There must be evidence before a person

photograph the same


2. in the presence of the accused or the

can be convicted
Evidence proof of guilt beyond reasonable

person/s from whom such items were


confiscated and/or seized, or his/her

doubt
o Absolute certainty? no moral

representative

elected
required

Job of the state


Prosecutors establish all the elements of

sign

the

who
copies

shall

be

of

the

chain of custody is not established


drugs confiscated through buy bust not

accused but for the prosecutor

properly inventoried

law

chain of custody absolute?


immediately

establishing/assuming the guilt of an accused?


Dumlao vs. COMELEC

A criminal information was filed in court


and there is no conviction yet
However the law immediately disqualified
a person from running a person who have
a pending case in court
Not allowed it violates the presumption of
innocence
If it is really a right, who can invoke it? What
kind of person?

to

official

People vs. Umipang

Burden of proved is not a part of the

be

public

inventory and be given a copy thereof

People vs. Dramayo

there

Department of Justice (DOJ), and any

Burden of proof

Can

counsel,

representative from the media and the

certainty on the part of the judge

the crime
Defense counsel find a weak point

or

People vs. Aguilar

illegal drugs are seized


failure to comply sec 21 of RA 9165
not photograph?
Is not fatal as long as the integrity of the
evidence is preserved
o Actual drugs actually exist and can
be presented in court

Equipoise Rule/ Equiponderance


WHERE

THE

EVIDENCE

OF

THE

PARTIES IS EVENLY BALANCED, THE


CASE WILL BE RESOLVED AGAINST

THE PLAINTIFF, THUS IN CRIMINAL


CASES

THE

ACCUSED

MUST

BE

ACQUITTED AND IN CIVIL CASES, THE


COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED.
If the evidence presented is susceptible to
two interpretation, one in consistent with
the innocence of the accused and one
favor

to

the

prosecutor,

and

when

evidence is equally balance, the scale of


justice should favor in the presumption of

THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND


COUNSEL
The accused can defend himself provided
that it is under the jurisdiction of the
MTC and not RTC
a man who had himself as his lawyer is
a fool
Objective presenter of facts is a lawyers
job

innocence for it was not overcome


People vs. Fulgado
People vs. Maraorao
How to treat inconsistent statements in a
criminal trail
Minor inconsistencies are considered as
budgets of truth
Inconsistent statement in prosecution
witnesses on material points entitled the
accused an acquittal based on his right
to presumption of innocence

SC even the most intelligent man may


have no skill in the science of law
particularly in the rules of procedure
And without a counsel he may

be

convicted not because he is guilty but


because he does not know

how

to

established his innocence

Absolute right and cannot be waived


Also part of due process

People vs Tumambing

Rape case
Days lapsed when she was sure that the
person presented to her was really the
accused
The accused entitled to an acquittal based
on presumption of innocence when the
rape victim fail to immediately identify the
alleged attacker when presented to her
contrary to human experience
People vs. Quintal

Rape case
Victim visited the accused six times in jail
Entitles the accused of acquittal based on
the presumption of innocence

People vs. Agbayani

There can be no negative inference against


the judge during the course of the trail
The court is presumed to have followed
the procedure in criminal trial
Accused represented by counsel de officio
is not synonymous to denial of proper
counsel because the lawyer is free no
negative inference
RIGHT TO BEINFORMED OF THE NATURE
AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION
Part of due process

Consider the act of the accused as well

Criminal Information best document or

as the acts of the complainant


In case of doubt uphold the presumption

Elements:

of innocence

instrument to informed the accused

1. The name of the accused should be

Upon filing of an information the accused

stated in the criminal information

should be arraign within 30 days


15 days from arraignment accused

john/jane Doe valid


2. The name or designation of the offense by
any statute should be stated in the
criminal information
3. The
acts
or
omission

complaint

constituting the elements of a crime


should

be

information
4. The name

stated

in

the

of

the

offended

part

it

violate

Who can invoke the right?


is
the

constitutional right to be informed


6. Any aggravating circumstances should
stated

in

the

criminal

information, conspiracy also mitigating


etc not

The information state that the rape was


within

the

span

Right of the accused


Public trial is different from publicized
trial
RIGHT OF COMPULSARY PROCESSES
Right

of

years

complainant cannot recall the time and date


(people vs. Nazareno) it does not violate the
constitution time is not an integral part of rape
it the act of rape itself or the sexual intercourse

secure

the

attendance

of

witnesses and production of witnesses


Subpoena witness subpoena ad

TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
To hold unnecessary delays
How to acquire jurisdiction warrant of
arrest or voluntary surrender
When presense of the accused

Criminal statute is unclear entitled to


acquittal
RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC
TRIAL
Speedy not the same with speedy disposition
of cases former applies only to criminal trial,
latter applies to all kinds of proceedings

is

mandatory:
o Arraignement
o Identification
o Promulgation of judgment

Void for vagueness rule:

RA 8493 Speedy Trial Act

to

testificandum
Documents subpoena duces tecum

Original charge is murder

committed

trial direct and cross examination should


be done in one day

defective

be

should have been decided


One witness rule per day
If a witness is presented in the course of

criminal

Jane/John Doe invalid


5. Time, date and place of the offense
If the criminal information

also

should be tried
180 days from arraignment the case

FOUR WRITS THAT THE SUPREME COURT


CAN ISSUE
1.
2.
3.
4.

WRIT
WRIT
WRIT
WRIT

OF
OF
OF
OF

HABEAS CORPUS
AMPARO
HABEAS DATA
KALIKASA

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas


corpus shall not be suspended except in cases

of invasion or rebellion when the public safety

When available

requires it

Anytime but when the accused is already

Writ of Habeas Corpus A writ (court order)

at the witness stand considered waiver


Only question pertinent to the crime

that commands an individual or a government


official who has restrained another to produce
the prisoner at a designated time and place so
that the court can determine the legality of
custody and decide whether to order the
prisoner's release.

still covered of the right against selfincrimination


Also applies to ordinary witnesses
Section 18.

No person should be detained

solely by reason of his political beliefs and

Against whom?
Against

charge
Other crimes not in the information is

the

government

and

private

aspiration

persons
No voluntary servitude in any form shall exist
Writ of Amparo there is immediate danger to
life, liberty and property committed by the
government or private person

except as a punishment for a crime whereof the


party shall not been duly convicted
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

Court issue it to stop such act

Exception:
1
2

SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASE


Justice delay is justice denied
Apply to all types of proceedings

When convicted to a crime


Section 4 Article II the government may
call upon the people to defend the state
and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens
may

AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION


Apply to all types of proceedings
There is a compulsion but what kind?
you compel a person to do something
Police lineup and provide sample eg
saliva is not violative of the right
Apply to testimonial compulsion

be

required,

under

conditions

provided by law, to render personal


military or civil service
Section

19.

Excessive

fines

shall not

be

imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman

punishment

inflicted.

Neither

shall

death

something oral verbal written or parol


Also connected with the right to remain

penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling

silent
No negative inference can be drawn from

hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty

that
Asking

perpetua.

signature

sampling is

or

handwriting

violative of such

act

intellectual act not a mechanical act


mechanical
sample

act

are

those

biological

reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress


already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion

The employment of physical, psychological, or


degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee

or

the

use

of

substandard

or

inadequate penal facilities under subhuman


conditions shall be dealt with by law.

1. Valid complaint/information- already filed in


People vs. Echagaray

court
Preliminary investigation not included

Cruel or inhuman? no
It is beyond our power to determine
Political question

2. Complaint must be filed before a competent


court- has jurisdiction

No imprisonment for non-payment of Poll


Tax
BP 22 does not violate this constitutional
provision.

3. Accused should have entered a plea.


Instances when the accused does not want to
enter a plea: The court presumes that it will
enter a plea of not guilty
Motion to Quash- remedy to an accused

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

before entering a plea


-asking for the dismissal of the case on

Right and process


Part of remedial law criminal procedure
Act punish by law and ordinance
Conviction shall be a bar to the

certain grounds allowed by law. E.g.


Charge does not define a crime. - but the
case may be re-filed without violating the

prosecution of the same act


the accused was already tried in a
criminal case which either results to
acquittal or conviction.
-proscribes re-filing of the same case
against the same accused.
-there is only one criminal trial involving
the same accused regardless of the
result, so another trial involving the same
case

against

the

same

accused

is

prohibited.
Rationale: Jessica Alfaro is not a credible
witness. MR was filed by Lauro Vizconde.
This amounts to double jeopardy. In criminal
cases, the full power of the state is raged
against the accused. If there is no limit to
attempts to prosecute the accused for the
same offense after he has been acquitted,

rule on double jeopardy.


4. Accused was previously acquitted/convicted/
or

the

case

was

otherwise

dismissed

or

terminated without his expressed consent.


Permanent dismissal- final; cannot be re-filed
after arraignment.
-double jeopardy will apply.
Provisional

dismissal-

with

the

expressed

consent and
permission of the accused.
-can be re-filed subject to certain periods
prescribed by law.
Punishable by 6 yrs and below: within 1 yr.
Punishable 6 yrs. and above- within 2 yrs.
*from the date of provisional of dismissal
Not re-filed: Permanent dismissal.

(PP v. Webb)
Private prosecutor: to prove civil liability
only.
Requisites:

Demurrer to Evidence - after the prosecution


already rested its case, the accused can file
such saying that the prosecution Failed to
discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

with an expressed Motion of Leave of

3. Separate crimes filed in different criminal

Court?
-a grant to this amounts to an acquittal.

informations which should have been embodied

Hence,

double

jeopardy

will

accrue.

(Bautista v. Tita Shawy)

in one criminal information. (Jason Ivler case)


4. In a supervening event, entering a plea of
guilt without the consent of the offended party,
double jeopardy will not apply.

Absolute? NO.
EX POST FACTO LAW

2 exceptions:
1.

Grave

abuse

of

discretion-

error

on

-punishes an act which was not punishable at

jurisdiction; whimsical exercise on the part of

the time it was committed.

the court.

-PROSPECTIVE dapat!

2. Denial of due process particularly on the part

-aggravates the crime

of the prosecution.

-imposes a higher penalty

e.g. not being able to fully present evidence.

e.g. Rape

(PP v. Sandiganbayan and Tita Meldy)


BILL OF ATTAINDER
Being

State

Witness

tantamounts

to

-proscribes

dismissal of the case.


1. non-compliance with obligation to testify
fellow

accused

and

failed

to

tell

EVERYTHING.
2. Wrong appreciation of the crime. (Villareal v.
People)

automatic

benefit of trial.

Exceptions:
against

- punishes an act through legislation


penalty

without

the