CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

Gamboa vs Cruz

However, given the clear constitutional intent in the 1987 Constitution, the moment there is a move or
even an urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which
may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then and there be assisted
by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of
counsel.

People vs Ayson

The right against self-incrimination may be invoked by the respondent at the time he is called by the
complainant as a witness. However, if he voluntarily takes the witness stand, he can be cross examined;
but he may still invoke the right when the question calls for an answer which incriminates him for an
offense other than that charged.

People vs Maqueda

It was therefore, wrong for the trial court to hold that Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution is
strictly limited to custodial investigation and that it does not apply to a person against whom a criminal
complaint or information has already been filed because after its filing he loses his right to remain silent
and to counsel. If we follow the theory of the trial court, then police authorities and other law
enforcement agencies would have a heyday in extracting confessions or admissions from accused
persons after they had been arrested but before they are arraigned because at such stage the accused
persons are supposedly not entitled to the enjoyment of the rights to remain silent and to counsel.
cdll||| (People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983, [March 22, 1995], 312 PHIL 646-678)

People vs Bandula

Hence, if there is no counsel at the start of the custodial investigation, any statement elicited from the
accused is inadmissible in evidence against him. Custodial investigation is the stage where the police
investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has began to focus on a particular
suspect who had been taken into custody by the police who carry out a process of interrogation that
lends itself to illicit incriminating statements.||| (People v. Bandula y Lopez, G.R. No. 89223, [May 27,
1994], 302 PHIL 599-613)

People vs Lucero

We hold that when the Constitution requires the right to counsel, it did not mean any kind of counsel
but effective and vigilant counsel.||| (People v. Lucero y Cortel, G.R. No. 97936, [May 29, 1995], 314
PHIL 335-348)

People vs Agustin

While it is true that in custodial investigations the party to be investigated has the final choice of counsel
and may reject the counsel chosen for him by the investigator and ask for another one, the
circumstances obtaining in the custodial interrogation of the appellant left him no freedom to
intelligently and freely do so. ||| (People v. Agustin, G.R. No. 110290, [January 25, 1995], 310 PHIL 594-
623)
This carries the correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain, and contemplates
effective communication which results in the subject/accused understanding what is conveyed.

People vs Pinlac

When the Constitution requires a person under investigation "to be informed" of his right to remain
silent and to counsel, it must be presumed to contemplate the transmission of a meaningful information
rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.|||
(People v. Pinlac y Libao, G.R. Nos. 74123-24, [September 26, 1988], 248 PHIL 114-123)

People vs Bolanos

Being already under custodial investigation while on board the police patrol jeep on the way to the
Police Station where formal investigation may have been conducted, appellant should have been
informed of his Constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution ||| (People v.
Bolanos, G.R. No. 101808, [July 3, 1992], 286 PHIL 358-361)

Navallo vs Sandiganbayan

Well-settled is the rule that such rights are invocable only when the accused is under "custodial
investigation," or is "in custody investigation," which we have since defined as any "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." A person under a normal audit examination is not under
custodial investigation. ||| (Navallo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 97214, [July 18, 1994], 304 PHIL 343-
354)

People vs Macam

After the start of the custodial investigation, any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a
police line-up is inadmissible. ||| (People v. Roque, G.R. Nos. 91011-12, [November 24, 1994], 308 PHIL
333-345)

People vs Dy

Compliance with the constitutional procedure on custodial interrogation is not applicable for a
spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning.

People vs Barrientos

Compliance with the constitutional procedure on custodial interrogation is not applicable for a
spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning.

People vs Alicando

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, with clear and convincing
evidence.||| (People v. Alicando y Briones, G.R. No. 117487, [December 12, 1995], 321 PHIL 656-724)

People vs De Guzman
Accused-appellant's reliance on his constitutional right to counsel at the time he was given a paraffin
test is misplaced for he was not then under custodial investigation. The right to counsel attaches only
upon the start of an investigation, that is, when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit
information and/or confessions or admissions from the accused.||| (People v. De Guzman y San Pedro,
G.R. Nos. 98321-24, [June 30, 1993])

People vs De Lara

Evidence acquired during a custodial investigation without the benefit of a counsel is inadmissible, but
the rejection of said evidence would not affect the conviction of appellant in view of the abundance of
other evidence establishing his guilt.||| (People v. De Lara y Galardo, G.R. No. 94953, [September 5,
1994], 306 PHIL 323-333)

RIGHT TO BAIL

People vs Donato

The right to bail by explicitly providing that it shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. ||| (People v. Donato, G.R. No. 79269, [June 5, 1991], 275 PHIL 146-175)

Carpio vs Maglalang

Although the right to bail is principally for the benefit of the accused, in the judicial determination of the
availability of said right, the prosecution should be afforded procedural due process.||| (Carpio v.
Maglalang, G.R. No. 78162, [April 19, 1991], 273 PHIL 240-255)

People vs Fortes

Bail is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion
perpetua. To that extent the right is absolute. Upon the other hand, if the offense charged is punishable
by reclusion perpetua bail becomes a matter of discretion. It shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is
strong. The court's discretion is limited to determining whether or not evidence of guilt is strong. But
once it is determined that the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail also becomes a matter of right. . . ."|||
(People v. Fortes y Garra, G.R. No. 90643, 91155, [June 25, 1993])

Comendador vs De Villa

Right to bail is not available to the military.

Baylon vs Sison

Whether the motion for bail of an accused who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a
summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to
present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court may
resolve the motion for bail. ||| (Baylon v. Sison, A.M. No. 92-7-360-0, [April 6, 1995], 313 PHIL 99-119)

Tucay vs Domagas

Granting of bail for a capital offense without hearing constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

Delos Santos-Reyes vs Montesa

In this jurisdiction it is settled that a person applying for bail should be in the custody of the law or
otherwise deprived of his liberty.||| (De los Santos-Reyes v. Montesa, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-93-983, [August
7, 1995], 317 PHIL 101-114)

Manotoc vs Court of Appeals

A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines.||| (Manotoc,
Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62100, [May 30, 1986], 226 PHIL 75-85)

Callanta vs Villanueva

With the express admission by petitioner that she had posted the required bail to obtain her provisional
liberty, it becomes futile to assail the validity of the issuance of the warrants of arrest||| (Callanta v.
Villanueva, G.R. Nos. L-24646 & L-24674, [June 20, 1977], 168 PHIL 42-46)

CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS

Tatad vs Sandiganbayan

We are constrained to hold that the inordinate delay in terminating the preliminary investigation and
filing the information in the instant case is violative of the constitutionally guaranteed right of the
petitioner to due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases against him. ||| (Tatad v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 72335-39, [March 21, 1988], 242 PHIL 563-577)

Galman vs Sandiganbayan

The proceedings below, having been vitiated by lack of due process, to the detriment of the State and
the People, were invalid and the judgment rendered null and void ab initio. ||| (Galman v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, [September 12, 1986], 228 PHIL 42-102)

Alonte vs Savellano

Jurisprudence acknowledges that due process in criminal proceedings, in particular, require (a) that the
court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the
matter before it; (b) that jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person of the accused; (c) that
the accused is given an opportunity to be heard; and (d) that judgment is rendered only upon lawful
hearing.||| (Alonte v. Savellano, Jr., G.R. Nos. 131652 & 131728, [March 9, 1998], 350 PHIL 700-770)

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

People vs Dramayo

Accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt. It is incumbent on the
prosecution to demonstrate that culpability lies. ||| (People v. Dramayo, G.R. No. L-21325, [October 29,
1971], 149 PHIL 107-116)

Dumlao vs Comelec

A statute disqualifying a person to run for public office on the ground that charges have been filed
against him contravenes the constitutional presumption of innocence because it places the person in
the same category as a person already convicted of a crime.
People vs Alcantara

Regardless of the weakness of appellant's defense of denial and uncorroborated alibi, he is entitled to
an acquittal. It has been stated often enough that conviction must be based on the strength of the
prosecution, and not the weakness of the defense.||| (People v. Alcantara y Gacad, G.R. No. 91283,
[January 17, 1995], 310 PHIL 139-161)

Corpuz vs People

The equipoise rule invoked by the petitioner is applicable only where the evidence of the parties is
evenly balanced, in which case the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in
favor of the accused. ||| (Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 74259, [February 14, 1991], 271 PHIL 901-910)

RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL

People vs Holgado

In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by
counsel. The right to be heard would be little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by
counsel.||| (People v. Holgado, G.R. No. L-2809, [March 22, 1950], 85 PHIL 752-757)

People vs Magsi

Plea of guilty is invalid when the counsel and the accused were hardly afforded an opportunity to
discuss the case together.

People vs Agbayani

The right to question the failure of the trial court to informed the accused of his right to counsel is
deemed waive by his consent to be assisted by counsel de officio.

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION

Soriano vs Sandiganbayan

Accused cannot claim deprivation of the constitutional right to be informed when a reading of the
information clearly makes a case.

Borja vs Mendoza

An arraignment serves the purpose of fully informing the accused of the charge against him.

Pecho vs People

very crime is made up of certain acts and intent; these must be set forth in the complaint with
reasonable particularity of time, place, names (plaintiff or defendant),and circumstances. In short, the
complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the
crime charged. A||| (Pecho v. People, G.R. No. 111399, [September 27, 1996], 331 PHIL 1-20)

RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL

Conde vs Rivera
WHERE A Prosecuting officer, without good cause, secures postponements of the trial of a defendant
against his protest beyond a reasonable period of time, as in this instance for more than a year, the
accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or if
he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.||| (Conde v. Rivera, G.R. No.
21741, [January 25, 1924], 45 PHIL 650-652)

Mateo Jr. vs Villaluz

A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation. But when suggestion is made of record
that he might be induced to act in favor of one party or with bias or prejudice against a litigant arising
out of circumstance reasonably capable of inciting such a state of mind, he should conduct a careful self-
examination. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the peoples faith in the courts of justice is
not impaired.||| (Mateo, Jr. v. Villaluz, G.R. Nos. L-34756-59, [March 31, 1973], 151-A PHIL 21-34)

Garcia vs Domingo

The size of the court room, or the private chamber of the judge, is not indicative of any transgression of
the right to public trial, but it suffices to satisfy the requirement if the accused could have his friends,
relatives, and counsel present.

TRIAL IN ABSENTIA

People vs Salas

When all the requisites of trial in absentia are present, a fugitive is now deemed to have waived such
notice precisely because he has escaped, and it is also this escape that makes his failure to appear at his
trial unjustified. ||| (People v. Salas, G.R. No. L-66469, [July 29, 1986], 227 PHIL 152-156)

Carredo vs People

It is important to state that the provision of the Constitution authorizing the trial in absentia of the
accused in case of his non-appearance after arraignment despite due notice simply means that he
thereby waives his right to meet the witnesses face to face among others. An express waiver of
appearance after arraignment, as in this case, is of the same effect. However, such 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. Such waiver of a right of the accused does not mean a release of the accused from his
obligation under the bond to appear in court whenever so required. The accused may waive his right but
not his duty or obligation to the court.||| (Carredo v. People, G.R. No. 77542, [March 19, 1990], 262
PHIL 290-297)

People vs Mapalao

Upon the termination of a trial in absentia, the court has the duty to rule upon the evidence presented
in court. The court need not wait for the time until the accused who escaped from custody finally
decides to appear in court to present his evidence and cross-examine the witnesses against him. To
allow the delay of proceedings for this purpose is to render ineffective the constitutional provision on
trial in absentia. ||| (People v. Mapalao, G.R. No. 92415, [May 14, 1991], 274 PHIL 354-369)

People vs Acabal
One who jumps bail can never offer a justifiable reason for his non-appearance during the trial.
Accordingly, after the trial in absentia, the court can render judgment in the case and promulgation may
be made by simply recording the judgment in the criminal docket with a copy thereof served upon his
counsel, provided that the notice requiring him to be present at the promulgation is served through his
bondsmen or warden and counsel.||| (People v. Valeriano y Tumahig, G.R. Nos. 103604-05, [September
23, 1993])