You are on page 1of 3

Sec 12 custodial investigation- people vs alicando

Facts: the accused raped a 4 year old girl. Through the report of his neighbor, he was arrested by
the police. The accused confessed his guilt to the police without his counsel. He was found guilty
by the court.
Issue: whether or not there was a violation in the rights of the accused?
Held: yes, the records do not reveal that the Information against the appellant was read in the
language or dialect known to him. The Information against the appellant is written in the English
language. It is unknown whether the appellant knows the English language. Neither is it known what
dialect is understood by the appellant. Nor is there any showing that the Information couched in
English was translated to the appellant in his own dialect before his plea of guilt. The RTC violated
his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It also
denied appellant his constitutional right to due process of law. It is urged that we must presume that
the arraignment of the appellant was regularly conducted.
It did not ask the appellant when he was arrested, who arrested him, how and where he was
interrogated, whether he was medically examined before and after his interrogation, etc. It limited its
efforts trying to discover late body marks of maltreatment as if involuntariness is caused by physical
abuse alone.

Sec 13 right to bail- US vs Puruganan


Very short Facts:the U.S. requestied for the extradition of a certain Jimenez for the crimes that he
committed abroad. Jimenez sought for bail which was granted by the extradition Court.
Issue: whether or not the bail is valid?
Held: no, generally right to bail does not apply to extradition proceedings, bail can only be
invoked when the detained has violated Philippine criminal laws. Extradition courts does not
have the power to make decisions.
Section 14 presumption of innocence people vs dramayo
Facts: Dramayo brought up the idea of killing Estelito Nogaliza so that he could not testify in
the robbery case where he is an accused. The idea was for Dramayo and Ecubin to ambush
Estelito, who was returning from Sapao. The others were to station themselves nearby. Only
Dramayo and Ecubin were convicted in the RTC for murder. Hence the appeal

Issue: Whether or not the accuseds criminal liability proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Held: Yes. It is to be admitted that the starting point is the Presumption of innocence. So it must
be, according to the Constitution. That is a right safeguarded both appellants. Accusationis
not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution
demonstrate that culpability lies. Appellants were not even called upon then to offer evidence on
their behalf. Their freedom is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for
conviction be in existence. Their guilt be shown beyond reasonable doubt. What is required then
is moral certainty. "By reasonable doubt is meant that which of possibility may arise, but it is
doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such
investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certain of guilt is not
demanded by the law to convict of any carnal charge but moral certainty is required, and this
certainty is required as to every proposition of proof regular to constitute the offense."
The judgment of conviction should not have occasioned any surprise on the part of the two
appellants, as from the evidence deserving of the fullest credence, their guilt had been more than
amply demonstrated. The presumption of innocence could not come to their rescue as it was
more than sufficiently overcome by the proof that was offered by the prosecution. The principal
contention raised is thus clearly untenable. It must be stated likewise that while squarely
advanced for the first time, there had been cases where this Court, notwithstanding a majority of
the defendants being acquitted, the element of conspiracy likewise being allegedly present, did
hold the party or parties, responsible for the offense guilty of the crime charged, a moral
certainty having arisen as to their capability.
Right to be heard by himself and his counsel- amion vs chiongson
Very short facts: the respondent was charged with ignorance of the law and oppression, for
insisting the appointment of appellants counsel de officio, despite the appellants opposition.
The reason for the appointment was because the appellants counsel of choice did not appear.
This prompted the respondent to appoint a lawyer from the PAO to represent the accused in order
to avoid delay.
Issue: whether or not the right to counsel of the accused was violated?
Held: no, because he was already given all opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to
substantiate his defense, but he forfeited his right by appearing in court without his counsel.
There is a need for appointment of counsel de officio to promote speedy disposition of cases.
Right to speedy and public trial
Right to confrontation talino vs Sandigan bayan
Facts:

Issue:
Held:
Sec 17 - Right against self incrimination pascual vs board of medical examiners
Facts: petitioner filed an action against the respondent board. In the initial hearing of the
administrative case for immorality, the counsel for the complainant presented the petitioner as his
first witness. The petitioner objected, invoking his right to self incrimination, respondent board
argued that such right can only be invoked in criminal proceedings. The RTC ruled in favor of
the petitioner, the respondent board filed with the SC.
Issue: whether or not right to self incrimination can be invoked in the case?
Held: yes, because if the petitioner would be allowed to testify against himself, he could suffer
revocation of his license as a medical practitioner.

You might also like