bail for humanitarian reasons

criminal investigation: custodial investigation -> police brings suspect to fifiscal’s offiffiffice for
inquest proceedings
/ PI [period allowable for detention expiring thus court allows fifiscal determination based on
evidence of
plaintiffff] -> 10 days within which to submit counter-affiffiffidavit
PI: granted by a statute not the Constitution
less than 4y2m1d: not a matter of right and can be denied without violating due process
4y2m1d or higher: matter of right thus mandatory and denial violates due process
People v Go- charged with the shooting of a student; demanded that the case be remanded to
the fifiscal’s offiffiffice for a PI; denied by the court; SC: reversed and ordered the conduct of
a
PI because it is a matter of right of a person charged with an offffense punishable by
more than 4y2m
Tatad v Sandiganbayan- delay in conduct of PI for more than 3 years violative of due
process of
law of the accused and is a ground for dismissal of case
Garcia v Sandiganbayan- Sandiganbayan dismissed the case because it took the Ombudsman
6yrs to
conduct the PI and fifinally fifile the case; violated the right to speedy disposition and
right of due
process of law under the Constitution
no cross-examination of witness because should be speedy; after all there is still cross
examination if the case is fifiled in court
Section 14. [Rights During Criminal Prosecution]
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offffense without due process of
law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
accused provided that he
has been duly notifified and his failure to appear is unjustififiable.
presumption of innocence
burden of proof lies with the prosecution
conviction of the accused does not lie on weakness of defense but strength of evidence of
prosecution thus if
case is equally weak then case is to be decided in favor of presumption of evidence
cannot be convicted on prima facie evidence must be proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
[beyond the
point of moral certainty]equipoise rule: where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly
balanced, the constitutional, presumption of
innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused; where the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are
capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the
other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfifill the test of moral certainty and
is not suffiffifficient
to support a conviction
presumptions of law [guilt] v presumption of innocence
Anti-Fencing Law- SC: as long as there is a logical connection resulting to the fact that is
ultimately
proven there is no violation of the presumption of innocence as it merely shifts burden of proof
from
prosecution to accused thus if he can explain possession in the ordinary course of human
experience he overcomes the burden which then shifts back to innocence;
prosecution must
then prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
presumption of regularity in performance of duty- innocence > regularity; one cannot rely
on such
presumption on order to convict the accused; must prove that he did witness the
commission of
the crime
right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusations against him
right to know the charges upon reading of the information to him- liability or responsibility of the
accused
does not depend on the title but on the allegations in the body of the information
charged with murder but none of the qualifying circumstances were alleged then cannot be
convicted
of murder even if aggravating circumstances proven during trial
victim died of stabbing but during trial it was proven that death was through shooting- accused
cannot
be convicted of the stabbing as alleged in the information as it would violate his right to be
informed
thus can only be acquitted
victim is a minor but not alleged in the information- cannot be qualifified even if one obtains a
birth
certifificate in the course of the trial as prosecution failed to inform him of the nature and cause
of
the accusations against him
remedy: amend information before arraignment
test: when the change of the information will also change the theory of defense on the
part of
the accused th