Section 13.

All persons, except those charged with holddeparture order and the requirement that petitioner
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence inform the court of any change of residence and of his
of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by whereabouts. Although an increase in the amount of bail while
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may the case is on appeal may be meritorious, we find that the
setting of the amount at P5,500,000.00 is unreasonable,
be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
excessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitioners
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas right to bail.
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
- Petitioners case falls within the provisions of Section 5,
YAP v. CA Rule 114 of the 1997 Rules of Court which states:
F: The petitioner was convicted of ESTAFA for SEC. 5. Bail, when discretionary.Upon conviction by
misappropriating P5.5M. He was sentenced to 4 years and 2 the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the court,
prision mayor as maximum, in addition to 1 year for each on application, may admit the accused to bail.
additional P10, 000.00 in excess of P22, 000.00 but in no case The court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to
shall it exceed 20 years. continue on provisional liberty under the same bail bond
- He filed a notice of appeal, and moved to be allowed during the period to appeal subject to the consent of the
bondsman.
provisional liberty under the cash bond he had filed earlier in If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding
the proceedings. The trial court denied the motion. six (6) years, but not more than twenty (20) years, the
- After the records of the case were transmitted to the Court of accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previously granted
Appeals, petitioner filed with the said court a Motion to Fix shall be cancelled, upon a showing by the prosecution, with
Bail For the Provisional Liberty of Accused Appellant notice to the accused, of the following or other similar
Pending Appeal, invoking the last paragraph of Section 5, circumstances:
Rule 114 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. (a) That the accused is a recidivist,
- CA upheld the recommendation of the Solicitor General: quasirecidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
that petitioner may be allowed to post bail in the amount of committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration;
P5,500,000.00 and be required to secure a (b) That the accused is found to have previously
certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence,
residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will or has violated the conditions of his bail without
remain to be so until final judgment is rendered or in case he valid justification;
transfers residence, it must be with prior notice to the court (c) That the accused committed the offense while
and private complainant. on probation, parole, or under conditional
- The CA ordered: pardon;
(1) He (accusedappellant) secures a certification/guaranty (d) That the circumstances of the accused or his
from the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a case indicate the probability of flight if released
on bail; or
resident of the area and that he will remain to be a resident (e) That there is undue risk that during the
therein until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers pendency of the appeal, the accused may commit
residence, it must be with prior notice to the court; another crime.
(2) The Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) is - At the same time, Section 9, Rule 114 of the Revised
hereby directed to issue a hold departure order against Rules of Criminal Procedure advises courts to consider
accusedappellant; and the following factors in the setting of the amount of bail:
(3) The accusedappellant shall forthwith surrender his (a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
passport to the Division Clerk of Court for safekeeping until (b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
the court orders its return; (c) Penalty for the offense charged;
(4) Any violation of the aforesaid conditions shall cause the (d) Character and reputation of the accused;
forfeiture of accusedappellants bail bond, the dismissal of (e) Age and health of the accused;
appeal and his immediate arrest and confinement in jail. (f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
- Petitioner challenges the legal basis for fixing the bail at 5.5M
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
because in essence, it denies him of the right to bail. (i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice
when arrested; and
I: W/N 5.5M was excessive bail for ESTAFA, considering (j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
how the maximum is 40K. - Thus, the court has wide latitude in fixing the amount of bail.
Where it fears that the accused may jump bail, it is certainly
H: NO. Although an increase in bail is appropriate not precluded from installing devices to ensure against the
because Yap is a flight risk, 5.5M is unreasonable and same. Options may include increasing the bail bond to an
excessive. appropriate level, or requiring the person to report
- In the present case, where petitioner was found to have left periodically to the court and to make an accounting of his
the country several times while the case was pending, the movements.
Court of Appeals required the confiscation of his passport and - To fix bail at an amount equivalent to the civil liability of
the issuance of a hold departure order against him. which petitioner is charged (in this case, P5,500,000.00) is to
Under the circumstances of this case, we find that appropriate permit the impression that the amount paid as bail is an
conditions have been imposed in the bail bond to ensure exaction of the civil liability that accused is charged of; this we
against the risk of flight, particularly, the combination of the cannot allow because bail is not intended as a punishment, nor
as a satisfaction of civil liability which should necessarily await H:
the judgment of the appellate court. -US v. PURGANAN CASE QUOTED: As suggested by the
- True, the Court has held that the Bail Bond Guide, a circular use of the word "conviction," the constitutional provision on
of the Department of Justice for the guidance of state bail quoted above, as well as Section 4, Rule 114 of the Rules
prosecutors, although technically not binding upon the courts, of Court, applies only when a person has been arrested and
merits attention, being in a sense an expression of policy of detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not
the Executive Branch, through the Department of Justice, in apply to extradition proceedings because extradition courts do
the enforcement of criminal laws. Thus, courts are advised not render judgments of conviction or acquittal.
that they must not only be aware but should also consider the ENAGE CASE: Moreover, the constitutional right to bail
Bail Bond Guide due to its significance in the administration of "flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every
criminal justice. accused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as
- Petitioner is seeking bail on appeal. He was in fact declared thereafter he would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be
guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the RTC, and due to the proved beyond reasonable doubt"
serious amount of fraud involved, sentenced to imprisonment - At first glance, the above ruling applies squarely to private
for twenty yearsthe maximum penalty for estafa by false respondents case. However, this Court cannot ignore the
pretenses or fraudulent acts allowed by the Revised Penal following trends in international law:
Code. Although it cannot be controverted that the Court of (1) The growing importance of the individual person in public
Appeals, despite the foregoing considerations and the international law who, in the 20th century, has gradually
possibility of flight still wielded its discretion to grant petitioner attained global recognition;
bail, the setting of bail in the amount of P5, 500, 000.00 is (2) The higher value now being given to human rights in the
unjustified as having no legal nor factual basis. Guided by the international sphere;
penalty imposed by the lower court and the weight of the (3) The corresponding duty of countries to observe these
evidence against petitioner, we believe that the amount of universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations; and
P200, 000.00 is more reasonable. (4) The duty of this Court to balance the rights of the
individual under our fundamental law, on one hand, and the
GOVT of HK v. HON. OLALIA law on extradition, on the other.
F: The Philippines and Hong Kong signed an "Agreement for - The modern trend in public international law is the
the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons." primacy placed on the worth of the individual person
Private Respondent Muoz was charged before Hong Kong and the sanctity of human rights. Slowly, the recognition
Court with 3 counts of bribery, 7 counts of the offense of that the individual person may properly be a subject of
conspiracy to defraud, penalized by the common law of Hong international law is now taking root. The vulnerable doctrine
Kong. Warrants of arrest were issued against him. that the subjects of international law are limited only to states
- On September 13, 1999, the DOJ received from the Hong was dramatically eroded towards the second half of the past
Kong Department of Justice a request for the provisional century. For one, the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World
arrest of private respondent. The DOJ then forwarded the War II resulted in the unprecedented spectacle of individual
request to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which, in defendants for acts characterized as violations of the laws of
turn, filed with the RTC of Manila, Branch 19 an application war, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity.
for the provisional arrest of private respondent. Recently, under the Nuremberg principle, Serbian leaders
- The RTC, Branch 19, Manila issued an Order of Arrest have been persecuted for war crimes and crimes against
against private respondent. That same day, the NBI agents humanity committed in the former Yugoslavia. These
arrested and detained him. significant events show that the individual person is now a
- Muoz filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for valid subject of international law.
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for - The principles contained in the Universal
preliminary mandatory injunction and/or writ of habeas Declaration of Human Rights are now recognized as
corpus questioning the validity of the Order of Arrest. customarily binding upon the members of the
-CA rendered the order of arrest void, DOJ filed with this international community.
Court a petition for review on certiorari, praying that the - Thus, in Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, this Court, in
Decision of the Court of Appeals be reversed. granting bail to a prospective deportee, held that
- This Court rendered a Decision granting the petition of the under the Constitution, the principles set forth in that
DOJ and sustaining the validity of the Order of Arrest against Declaration are part of the law of the land. In 1966, the UN
private respondent. The Decision became final and executory. General Assembly also adopted the International Covenant on
- Meanwhile, petitioner Hong Kong Special Administrative Civil and Political Rights, which the Philippines signed and
Region filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the ratified. Fundamental among the rights enshrined therein are
extradition of private respondent. the rights of every person to life, liberty, and due process.
- In the same case, a petition for bail which was opposed by - The Philippine authorities are under obligation to make
petitioner. available to every person under detention such remedies which
- After a change of judge, bail was granted. Petitioner Hong safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These remedies
Kong wanted the decision vacated. include the right to be admitted to bail. While this Court in
Purganan limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal
I: W/N a potential extraditee has a right to bail, the right proceedings, however, in light of the various international
being limited solely to criminal proceedings. treaties giving recognition and protection to human rights,
particularly the right to life and liberty, a reexamination of this National Police (PNP) General Hospital following his medical
Courts ruling in Purganan is in order. examination.
- Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The - Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan ordered the arrest of Enrile.
Philippine Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as "the Thereafter, Enrile filed his Motion for Detention at the PNP
removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of General Hospital, and his Motion to Fix Bail , which were
placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the heard by the Sandiganbayan. In support of the motions, Enrile
requesting state or government to hold him in connection with argued that he should be allowed to post bail because: (a) the
any criminal investigation directed against him or the Prosecution had not yet established that the evidence of his
execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or guilt was strong; (b) although he was charged with plunder, the
criminal law of the requesting state or government." penalty as to him would only be reclusion temporal, not
- Extradition has thus been characterized as the right of a reclusion perpetua ; and (c) he was not a flight risk, and his age
foreign power, created by treaty, to demand the surrender of and physical condition must further be seriously considered.
one accused or convicted of a crime within its territorial - Sandiganbayan denied bail.
jurisdiction, and the correlative duty of the other state to
surrender him to the demanding state.8 It is not a criminal I: W/N Enrile can post bail
proceeding. Even if the potential extraditee is a criminal, an
extradition proceeding is not by its nature criminal, for it is not H: YES. Due to his health.
punishment for a crime, even though such punishment may - We first note that Enrile has averred in his Motion to Fix Bail
follow extradition. the presence of two mitigating circumstances that should be
- Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly appreciated in his favor, namely: that he was already over 70
administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A years at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, and
potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to a that he voluntarily surrendered.
prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer - Yet, we do not determine now the question of whether or not
to the demanding state following theproceedings. Enriles averment on the presence of the two mitigating
"Temporary detention" may be a necessary step in the process circumstances could entitle him to bail despite the crime
of extradition, but the length of time of the detention should be alleged against him being punishable with reclusion perpetua,
reasonable. simply because the determination, being primarily factual in
- He had been detained for over two (2) years without context, is ideally to be made by the trial court.
having been convicted of any crime. By any standard, -Since the principal purpose of bail is to guarantee the
such an extended period of detention is a serious deprivation appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required
of his fundamental right to liberty. In fact, it was this by the court, the Court is further mindful of the Philippines
prolonged deprivation of liberty, which prompted the responsibility in the international community arising from the
extradition court to grant him bail. national commitment under the Universal Declaration of
- An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard Human Rights to: uphold the fundamental human rights as
of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be well as value the worth and dignity of every person.
the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the - In our view, his social and political standing and his having
standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being
While administrative in character, the standard of substantial charged in court indicate that the risk of his flight or escape
evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His personal
given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the disposition from the onset of his indictment for plunder, formal
prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In his or otherwise, has demonstrated his utter respect for the legal
Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now processes of this country. We also do not ignore that at an
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard earlier time many years ago when he had been charged with
which he termed "clear and convincing evidence" rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder, he
should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. already evinced a similar personal disposition of respect for the
According to him, this standard should be lower than proof legal processes, and was granted bail during the pendency of
beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of his trial because he was not seen as a flight risk.40 With his
evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his
convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide long years of public service, and historys judgment of him
with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. being at stake, he should be granted bail.
- The currently fragile state of Enriles health presents another
ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN compelling justification for his admission to bail, but which the
F: In 2014, the ombudsman file plunder cases against those Sandiganbayan did not recognize: the PNP Hospital is ill-
named by Benhur Luy for their involvement in the PDAF equipped to take care of Enrile and it will endanger his life.
scam. Enrile filed a motion to post bail should probable cause - It is relevant to observe that granting provisional liberty to
be found against him. Later on, the Sandiganbayan issued its Enrile will then enable him to have his medical condition be
resolution denying Enriles motion, on the same day that the properly addressed and better attended to by competent
warrant for his arrest was issued, Enrile voluntarily physicians in the hospitals of his choice. This will not only aid
surrendered to Director Benjamin Magalong of the Criminal in his adequate preparation of his defense but, more
Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) in Camp Crame, importantly, will guarantee his appearance in court for the
Quezon City, and was later on confined at the Philippine trial.
- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed perpetua or life imprisonment lies within the discretion of the
innocent until the contrary is proved. The presumption of trial court.
innocence is rooted in the guarantee of due process, and is - Such discretion may be exercised only after the hearing
safeguarded by the constitutional right to be released on bail, called to ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused for the
and further binds the court to wait until after trial to impose purpose of whether or not he should be granted provisional
any punishment on the accused. liberty. It is axiomatic, therefore, that bail cannot be allowed
- It is worthy to note that bail is not granted to prevent the when its grant is a matter of discretion on the part of the trial
accused from committing additional crimes. The purpose of court unless there has been a hearing with notice to the
bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, Prosecution.
or whenever so required by the trial court. The amount of bail -Certain guidelines in the fixing of a bailbond call for the
should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused presentation of evidence and reasonable opportunity for the
when so required, but it should be no higher than is prosecution to refute it. Among them are the nature and
reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose. Thus, bail acts as a circumstances of the crime, character and reputation of the
reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the accuseds accused, the weight of the evidence against him, the
interest in his provisional liberty before or during the trial, and probability of the accused appearing at the trial, whether or
the societys interest in assuring the accuseds presence at trial. not the accused is a fugitive from justice, and whether or not
- This constitutional provision is repeated in Section 7, Rule the accused is under bond in other cases.
11424 of the Rules of Court, as follows: - In resolving bail applications of the accused who is charged
Section 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. perpetua or life imprisonment, the trial judge is expected to
No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense comply with the guidelines outlined in Cortes v.
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall Catral, to wit:
be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong,
regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.
1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of
A capital offense in the context of the rule refers to an discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the
offense that, under the law existing at the time of its application for bail or require him to submit his
commission and the application for admission to bail, may recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules
be punished with death. of Court, as amended);
- The general rule is, therefore, that any person, before being 2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a
convicted of any criminal offense, shall be bailable, unless he is hearing of the application for bail regardless of
charged with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable whether or not the prosecution refuses to present
with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is
of his guilt is strong. strong for the purpose of enabling the court to
- Hence, from the moment he is placed under arrest, or is exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7 and 8, supra)
detained or restrained by the officers of the law, he can claim 3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong
the guarantee of his provisional liberty under the Bill of Rights, based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution;
and he retains his right to bail unless he is charged with a 4. If the guilt of the accused is no t strong, discharge
capital offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion the accused upon the approval of the bailbond
perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of his guilt is (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be
strong. Once it has been established that the evidence of guilt denied.
is strong, no right to bail shall be recognized.
- The granting of bail is discretionary: (1) upon conviction by DE LA CAMARA v. ENAGE
the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion F: Mayor De la Camara was charged with multiple counts of
perpetua or life imprisonment; or (2) if the RTC has imposed a frustrated murder and multiple counts of murder for killing 14
penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years, provided none of and wounding 12 laborers of the Tirador Logging Co. He was
the circumstances enumerated under paragraph 3 of arrested and detained and applied for bail. The judge fixed the
Section 5, Rule 114 is present, as follows: bail at P1,195,200.00,the sum of P840,000.00 for the
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual information charging multiple murder and P355,200.00 for
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated the offense of multiple frustrated murder.
by the circumstance of reiteration; - There was a motion for reconsideration but it was not
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal granted by the respondent judge. Hence the petition.
confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the - During the hearing, neither petitioner nor respondent judge
conditions of his bail without valid justification; showed up. They were asked for a memorandum Instead of a
(c) That he committed the offense while under reply, respondent Judge submitted, on May 26, 1971, a
probation, parole, or conditional pardon; supplemental answer wherein he alleged that petitioner
(d) That the circumstances of hi s case indicate the escaped from the provincial jail on April 28, 1971 and had
probability of flight if released on bail; or since then remained at large. There was a reiteration then of
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit the dismissal of this petition for lack of merit, to which
another crime during the pendency of the appeal. petitioner countered in a pleading dated June 7, 1971, and
- For purposes of admission to bail, the determination of filed with this Court the next day with this plea: "The
whether or not evidence of guilt is strong in criminal cases undersigned counsel, therefore, vehemently interpose
involving capital offenses, or offenses punishable with reclusion opposition, on behalf of petitioner, to respondent's prayer for
dismissal of the present petition for lack of merit. For, the issue
in this case is not alone the fate of petitioner Ricardo de la Government of the Philippine Islands, did, willfully, directly,
Camara. The issue in the present petition that calls for the unlawfully, and criminally, solicit of and receive from one
resolution of this Honorable Tribunal is the fate of countless Rufino Elorz or Rufino Elord the sum of P100, in order that
other Ricardo de la Camaras who maybe awaiting the clear- he might secure through customs brokers, the importation and
cut definition and declaration of the power of trial courts in delivery to the said Rufino Elorz or Elord, of certain rolls of
regard to the fixing of bail." paper in which a large quantity of opium was hidden; an act
committed with violation of law."
I: W/N it should be considered excessive bail - Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arrested,
arraigned, tried, found guilty and sentenced by the Honorable
H: YES. BUT Petitioners subsequent escape cannot be James A. Ostrand to pay a fine of P1,000, and in default of
condoned. That is why he is not entitled to the relief prayed such payment to suffer the corresponding subsidiary
for. What respondent Judge did, however, does call for imprisonment, not to exceed six months, and to pay the costs.
repudiation from this Court. From that sentence the defendant appealed to this court.
- Villaseor v. Abao: - In this court the appellant alleges that the provisions of
(1) ability of the accused to give bail; Section 316 of Act No. 355, in so far as it requires the accused
(2) nature of the offense; to prove his innocence, is unconstitutional, and further that the
(3) penalty for the offense charged; evidence adduced during the trial of the cause does not show
(4) character and reputation of the accused; that he is guilty of the crime charged. He alleges that said
(5) health of the accused; section (316) is unconstitutional in that the state is without
(6) character and strength of the evidence; right or authority to enact a law by virtue of the terms of
(7) probability of the accused appearing in trial; which certain facts only shall constitute prima facie proof of
(8) forfeiture of other bonds; guilt.
(9) whether the accused was a fugitive from justice
when arrested; and I: W/N provisions on constitution of prima facie guilt based
(10) if the accused is under bond for appearance at on certain facts are valid
trial in other cases.
- Respondent Judge, however, did ignore this decisive H: NO. We are of the opinion that said section 316 does not
consideration appearing at the end of the above opinion: violate any of the provisions of the Act of Congress.
Discretion, indeed, is with the court called upon to rule on - No rule has been better established .in criminal law than that
the question of bail. We must stress, however, that where every man is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved
conditions imposed upon a defendant seeking bail would beyond a reasonable doubt. In a criminal prosecution,
amount to a refusal thereof and render nugatory the therefore, the burden is upon the state to prove every fact and
constitutional right to bail, we will not hesitate to exercise our circumstance constituting the crime charged, for the purpose
supervisory powers to provide the required remedy. of showing the guilt of the accused.
- What aggravates the situation is that the lower court judge - While that is the rule, many of the States have established
would apparently yield to the command of the fundamental a different rule and have provided that certain facts only shall
law. In reality, such a sanctimonious avowal of respect for a constitute prima facie evidence, and that then the burden is
mandate of the Constitution was an a purely verbal level. put upon the defendant to show or to explain that such facts or
- In the same breath that he was told he could be bailed out, acts are not criminal.
the excessive amount required could only mean that - In some of the States, as well as in England, there exist what
provisional liberty would be beyond his reach. are known as common law offenses. In the Philippine Islands
no act is a crime unless it is made so by statute. The state
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a having the right to declare what acts are criminal, within
criminal offense without due process of law. certain well defined limitations, has a right to specify what act
or acts shall constitute a crime, as well as what proof shall
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be constitute prima f acie evidence of guilt, and then to put upon
the defendant the burden of showing that such act or acts are
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
innocent and are not committed with any criminal intent or
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be intention.
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation - It was in fact proven that he accepted money to import
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, opium.
to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses DUMLAO v. COMELEC
and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, F: Patricio Dumlao, is a former Governor of Nueva Vizcaya,
after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the who has filed his certificate of candidacy for said position of
absence of the accused provided that he has been duly Governor in the forthcoming elections of January 30, 1980.
notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. Petitioner, Romeo B. Igot, is a taxpayer, a qualified voter and
a member of the Bar who, as such, has taken his oath to
US v. LULING support the Constitution and obey the laws of the land.
F: That on or about May 10, 1915, in the city of Manila, Petitioner, Alfredo Salapantan, Jr., is also a taxpayer, a
Philippine Islands, the said accused, being a wharf watchman qualified voter, and a resident of San Miguel, Iloilo.
employed in such capacity in the customs service of the
Petitioner Dumlao specifically questions the constitutionality of complaint, nor do the latter join Dumlao in his. They,
section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 as discriminatory and respectively, contest completely different statutory provisions.
contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of Petitioner Dumlao has joined this suit in his individual
the Constitution. Said Section 4 provides: capacity as a candidate. The action of petitioners Igot and
Sec. 4. Special DisqualificationIn addition to violation Salapantan is more in the nature of a taxpayers suit.
of section 10 of Art. XIIC of the Constitution and
disqualification mentioned in existing laws, which are ACTUAL CASE AND CONTROVERSY:
hereby declared as disqualification for any of the elective -Dumlao hasnt been affected by section 4 of BP 52. No one
officials enumerated in section 1 hereof.
has filed a motion to disqualify him.
Any retired elective provincial, city or municipal
official who has received payment of the retirement - Jurisdiction of Court: This being a question posed in the
benefits to which he is entitled under the law and abstract, a hypothetical issue, and in effect, a petition for an
who shall have been 65 years of age at the advisory opinion from this Court to be rendered without the
commencement of the term of office to which he benefit of a detailed factual record, the court that has
seeks to be elected, shall not be qualified to run for jurisdiction over this case is the COMELEC.
the same elective local office from which he has
retired. - Locus standi: In the case of petitioners Igot and Salapantan,
- Petitioner Dumlao alleges that the aforecited provision is it was only during the hearing, not in their Petition, that Igot is
directed insidiously against him, and that the classification said to be a candidate for Councilor. Even then, it cannot be
provided therein is based on purely arbitrary grounds and, denied that neither one has been convicted nor charged with
therefore, class legislation. acts of disloyalty to the State, nor disqualified from being
- For their part, petitioners Igot and Salapantan, Jr. assail the candidates for local elective positions. Neither one of them has
validity of the following statutory provisions: been alleged to have been adversely affected by the operation
Sec. 7. Term of OfficeUnless sooner removed for cause, of the statutory provisions they assail as unconstitutional.
all local elective officials hereinabove mentioned shall hold
Theirs is a generalized grievance. They have no personal nor
office for a term of 6 years, which shall commence on the
first Monday of March 1980. substantial interest at stake. In the absence of any litigate
Sec. 4. Any person who has committed any act of interest, they can claim no locus standi in seeking judicial
disloyalty to the State, including acts amounting to redress. They filed as tax payers and it would have been valid,
subversion, insurrection, rebellion or other similar crimes, but since BP Blg. 51, and sections 4, 1, and 6 BP Blg. 52, do
shall not be qualified to be a candidate for any of the offices not directly involve the disbursement of public funds, they do
covered by this Act, or to participate in any partisan not have locus standi.
political activity therein:
provided, that a judgment of conviction for any of the - Lis Mota: The constitutionality must be the main issue. But
aforementioned crimes shall be conclusive evidence
here because none of the petitioners have locus standi and that
of such fact and
the filing of charges for the commission of such this is not the appropriate case, its should be dismissed.
crimes before a civil court or military tribunal after
preliminary investigation shall be prima facie -Substantive:
evidence of such fact. 1. Petitioner Dumlaos contention that section 4 of BP Blg. 52
Section 1. Election of certain Local Officialsx x x The is discriminatory against him personally is belied by the fact
election shall be held on January 30, 1980. that several petitions for the disqualification of other
Section 6. Election and Campaign PeriodThe election candidates for local positions based on the challenged
period shall be fixed by the Commission on Elections in provision have already been filed with the COMELEC (as
accordance with Section 6, Art. XIIC of the Constitution.
listed in p. 15, respondents Comment). This tellingly
The period of campaign shall commence on December 29,
1979 and terminate on January 28, 1980. overthrows Dumlaos contention of intentional or purposeful
- In addition to the abovecited provisions, petitioners Igot and discrimination.
Salapantan, Jr. also question the accreditation of some political The assertion that Section 4 of BP Blg. 52 is contrary to the
parties by respondent COMELEC, as authorized by Batas safeguard of equal protection is neither well taken. The
Pambansa Blg. 53, on the ground that it is contrary to section constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is
9(1), Art. XII(C) of the Constitution, which provides that a subject to rational classification. If the groupings are based on
bona fide candidate for any public office shall be free from reasonable and real differentiations, one class can be treated
any form of harassment and discrimination. and regulated differently from another class. For purposes of
The question of accreditation will not be taken up in this case public service, employees 65 years of age, have been validly
but in that of Bacalso, et als. vs. COMELEC et als. (G.R. classified differently from younger employees. Employees
No. L52232) where the issue has been squarely raised. attaining that age are subject to compulsory retirement, while
Petitioners then pray that the statutory provisions they have those of younger ages are not so compulsorily retirable.
challenged be declared null and void for being violative of the - In respect of election to provincial, city, or municipal
Constitution. positions, to require that candidates should not be more than
65 years of age at the time they assume office, if applicable to
I: W/N the statutory provisions are unconstitutional everyone, might or might not be a reasonable classification
although, as the Solicitor General has intimated, a good policy
H: SEC 4 p.1: YES; SEC 4 p. 2: NO. of the law would be to promote the emergency of younger
- Procedural mistake: Petitioner Dumlao does not join blood in our political elective echelons. On the other hand, it
petitioners Igot and Salapantan in the burden of their
might be that persons more than 65 years old may also be charged with acts of disloyalty from offering contrary proof to
good elective local officials. overcome the prima facie evidence against him.
- Coming now to the case of retirees. Retirement from - Additionally, it is best that evidence pro and con of acts of
government service may or may not be a reasonable disloyalty be aired before the Courts rather than before an
disqualification for elective local officials. For one thing, there administrative body such as the COMELEC. A highly possible
can also be retirees from government service at ages, say below conflict of findings between two government bodies, to the
65. It may neither be reasonable to disqualify retirees, aged 65, extreme detriment of a person charged, will thereby be
for a 65year old retiree could be a good local official just like avoided. Furthermore, a legislative/administrative
one, aged 65, who is not a retiree. determination of guilt should not be allowed to be substituted
- But, in the case of a 65year old elective local official, who for a judicial determination.
has retired from a provincial, city or municipal office, there is Being infected with constitutional infirmity, a partial
reason to disqualify him from running for the same office declaration of nullity of only that objectionable portion is
from which he had retired, as provided for in the challenged mandated. It is separable from the first portion of the second
provision. The need for new blood assumes relevance. paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 which can
- The tiredness of the retiree for government work is present, stand by itself.
and what is emphatically significant is that the retired
employee has already declared himself tired and unavailable DISPOSITIVE: 1) the first paragraph of section 4 of Batas
for the same government work, but, which, by virtue of a Pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby declared valid. Said paragraph
change of mind, he would like to assume again. It is for this reads:
very reason that inequality will neither result from the SEC. 4. Special disqualification.In addition to violation
application of the challenged provision. Just as that provision of Section 10 of Article XII(C) of the Constitution and
does not deny equal protection, neither does it permit of such disqualifications mentioned in existing laws which are hereby
denial (see People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1933]). Persons declared as disqualifications for any of the elective officials
similarly situated are similarly treated. enumerated in Section 1 hereof, any retired elective
provincial, city or municipal official, who has received
-IMPORTANT: In so far as the petition of Igot and payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled
Salapantan are concerned, the second paragraph of section 4 under the law and who shall have been 65 years of age at the
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52, quoted in full earlier, and which commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be
they challenge, may be divided in two parts. The first provides: elected, shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local
a judgment of conviction for any of the office from which he has retired.
aforementioned crimes shall be conclusive evidence 2) That portion of the second paragraph of section 4 of Batas
of such fact x x x x Pambansa Bilang 52 providing that x x x the filing of charges
-The supremacy of the Constitution stands out as the cardinal for the commission of such crimes before a civil court or
principle. We are aware of the presumption of validity that military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima
attaches to a challenged statute, of the well settled principle facie evidence of such fact, is hereby declared null and void,
that all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of for being violative of the constitutional presumption of
constitutionality, and that Courts will not set aside a statute as innocence guaranteed to an accused.
constitutionally defective except in a clear case.
- Explicit is the constitutional provision that, in all criminal PEOPLE v. HOLGADO
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the F: Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged in the Court of First
contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by Instance of Romblon with slight illegal detention because
himself and counsel (Article IV, section 19, 1973 Constitution). according to the information, being a private person, he did
- An accusation, according to the fundamental law, is not "feloniously and without justifiable motive, kidnap and detain
synonymous with guilt. The challenged proviso contravenes one Artemia Fabreag in the house of Antero Holgado for
the constitutional presumption of innocence, as a candidate is about eight hours thereby depriving said Artemia Fabreag of
disqualified from running for public office on the ground alone her personal liberty."
that charges have been filed against him before a civil or During trial:
military tribunal. It condemns before one is fully heard. In Q. Do you have an attorney or are you going to plead guilty?
ultimate effect, except as to the degree of proof, no distinction A. I have no lawyer and I will plead guilty.
is made between a person convicted of acts of disloyalty and Q. Arraign the accused.
one against whom charges have been filed for such acts, as Note:
both of them would be ineligible to run for public office. A "Interpreter read the information to the accused in
person disqualified to run for public office on the ground that the local dialect after which he was asked this
charges have been filed against him is virtually placed in the question.
same category as a person already convicted of a crime with "Q. What do you plead?
the penalty of arresto, which carries with it the accessory A. I plead guilty, but I was instructed by one Mr. Ocampo.
penalty of suspension of the right to hold office during the "Q. Who is that Mr. Ocampo, what is his complete name?
term of the sentence. A. Mr. Numeriano Ocampo.
- And although the filing of charges is considered as but Court. "The provincial fiscal is hereby ordered to investigate
prima facie evidence, and therefore, may be rebutted, yet, that man. "
there is clear and present danger that because of the
proximity of the elections, time constraints will prevent one
Fiscal: "I have investigated this case and found out that this in the presence of the accused and there is now no way of
Ocampo has nothing to do with this case and I found no determining whether the supposed instruction is a good
evidence against this Ocampo. defense or may vitiate the voluntariness of the confession.
Court: "Sentence reserved." Apparently the court became satisfied with. the fiscal's
- It must be noticed that in the caption of the case as it appears information that he had investigated Mr. Ocampo and found
in the judgment above quoted, the offense charged is named that the same had nothing to do with this case.
SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION while in the body of the - Such attitude of the court was wrong for the simple reason
judgment it is said that the accused "stands charged with the that a mere statement of the fiscal was not sufficient to
crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention." In the, overcome a qualified plea of the accused. But above all, the
information filed by the provincial fiscal it is said that he court should have seen to it that the accused be assisted by
"accuses Frisco Holgado of the crime of slight illegal counsel specially because of the qualified plea given by him
detention." The facts alleged in said information are not clear and the seriousness of the offense found to be capital by the
as to whether the offense charged is merely "slight illegal court.
detention" as the offense is named therein or the capital
offense of "kidnapping and serious illegal detention" as found PEOPLE v. REGALA
by the trial judge in his judgment. Since the accusedappellant F: Regala and a co-conspirator were charged with the crime of
pleaded guilty and no evidence appears to have been murder with assault upon an agent of a person in authority.
presented by either party, the trial judge must have deduced - Erlinda Tidon witness account: She was at the Magallanes
the capital offense from the facts pleaded in the information. Gate, Masbate, because she wanted to get inside to participate
and dance in the fiesta. At the well- lighted gate, she saw Sgt.
I: W/N there was due process Juan Desilos, Jr. in uniform attending to the exit door named
as such. While Sgt. Juan Desilos, Jr. was guarding the
H: NO. Magallanes Gate and trying to clear the exit gate of people.
- Under the circumstances, particularly the qualified plea Accused Rudy Regala, with coaccused Delfin Flores who had
given by the accused, who was unaided by counsel, it was not his arm on the shoulder of Regala, arrived. Thereafter, she
prudent, to say the least, for the trial court to render such a tried her best to get inside the Magallanes Gate and Delfin
serious judgment finding the accused guilty of a capital offense, Flores and Rudy Regala were there at the Magallanes Gate in
and imposing upon him such a heavy penalty as ten years and front of her. She said, I was at their back when Regala and
one day of prisin mayor to twenty years, without absolutely Flores reached the exit gate where Sgt. Juan Desilos, Jr. was
any evidence to determine and clarify the true facts of the case. stationed. Sgt. Juan Desilos, Jr. pushed accused Rudy Regala
- Not one of these duties had been complied with by the trial and told him not to get through this entrance because this is
court. The record discloses that said court did not inform the for the exit. The person pushed by Sgt. Desilos was Flores,
accused of his right to have an attorney nor did it ask him if he while Sgt. Juan Desilos, Jr. was pushing Flores, accused Rudy
desired the aid of one. The trial court failed to inquire whether Regala became angry, got his knife from his waist and stabbed
or not the accused was to employ an attorney, to grant him Sgt. Juan Desilos, Jr. After Stabbing Desilos, Regala and
reasonable time to procure one or to assign an attorney de Flores ran away. She was able to see their faces because of the
oficio. light and the fact that it was crowded in the area that it took
- The question asked by the court to the accused was "Do you some time before the accused could run away. She was also
have an attorney or are you going to plead guilty?" Not only oblique to the direction of the incident. She was also a few
did such a question fail to inform the accused that it was his meters away only.
right to have an attorney before arraignment, but, what is - Evangelista witness account: He was inside the gate but also
worse, the question was so framed that it could have been beside the spot the body of Desilos fell into after it was
construed by the accused as a suggestion f from the court that stabbed. He saw the faces of the accused but did not know
he plead guilty if he had no attorney. And this is a denial of their names.
fair hearing in violation of the due process clause contained in - Dr. Orlando delos Santos was the medical examiner and
our Constitution. confirmed that Desilos died of a stab wound.
- One of the great principles of justice guaranteed by our - Technical Sergeant Modesto Taleon saw Chief Salvacion
Constitution is that "no person shall be held to answer for a take the microphone from the singer and call for a doctor as
criminal offense without due process of law", and that all the soldier assigned at the Magallanes Gate had been stabbed.
accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself, and When he heard the announcement, he immediately rushed to
counsel." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the scene of the crime and found that there were already many
the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. men in uniform at the scene, and Sgt. Juan Desilos, Jr. was no
The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not longer there as he had already been brought to the Masbate
include the right to be heard by counsel. Provincial Hospital.
- It must be added, in the instant case, that the accused who - He found the knife 5 meters away from the gate.
was unaided by counsel pleaded guilty but with the following - Thereafter, counsel for accused asked the court for the recall
qualification: "but I was instructed by one Mr. Ocampo." The of prosecution witness Juanito Evangelista for further
trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of this crossexamination on the ground that there were vital matters
qualification. The record does not show whether the supposed overlooked by said defense counsel who earlier, in obedience
instruction was real and whether it had reference to the to the order of the court, had to enter trial without having first
commission of the offense or to the making of the plea of consulted the accused. The prosecuting fiscal objected on the
guilty. No investigation was opened by the court on this matter ground that prosecution witness Juanito Evangelista who had
earlier informed him of his fears of reprisal, was not in the decision of conviction, the trial Judge examined extensively the
courtroom. Defense counsel, in insisting on the recall of said testimonies of all the eight witnesses for the defense.
witness, informed the court that it has come to his knowledge - Consequently, while the quoted portions of the judgment of
that x x x the first suspect of the PC was Evangelista. His conviction are interspersed with statements and phrases which
clothes were found with blood stains as well as his hands x x. properly should not have been made as they may be wrongly
Nevertheless, the court denied the motion to recall but advised interpreted as indicative of bias and prejudice, such aforestated
defense counsel to establish that fact as a defense of the statements and phrases in the judgment of conviction do not
accused. per se constitute evidence of bias and impartiality in the
- The accused presented witness accounts which are conduct of the trial by the trial Judge as to violate appellants
corroborative to the idea that Rudy Regala was with his band right to an impartial trial.
of friends including his so called co-conspirator the whole Our Constitution does indeed go far in throwing the
night where they danced with the beauty queen and later on mantle of its protection on the one who is caught in
ended up in the bar a priest owned, drinking beer, and they the meshes of criminal law. The proceeding must
heard the shouts about Desilos getting stabbed while having a neither be arbitrary nor unjust. It is to underscore the
drinking session. importance of a trial judge being detached and
- A guard was also interrogated because he claimed that he objective, free from bias either for or against the
was on duty until midnight of June 13 and that the stabbing prosecution or for the person indicted. As was so
incident took place after his duty. This is one of the issues aptly put by Justice Dizon: It has been said, in fact,
presented by the accuseds counsel, for the said witness that due process of law requires a hearing before an
accounts had differences in the time of the event. impartial and disinterested tribunal and that every
Regala also presented his own witness account, where he litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold
stated the same facts given by the witnesses for his side. He neutrality of an impartial judge. Earlier in People
also stated that neither he nor his family had a grudge on the vs. Castaeda, Justice Laurel made clear the
PC, but that they have had some quarrels. He has been necessity for a trial before an impartial judge. If it
previously convicted or slight physical injuries. were otherwise, the pledge of due process becomes a
- He also notes that he was tortured and detained illegally to myth. The trial is reduced to nothing but a useless
admit to the crime. formality, and idle ceremony. If a judge had made up
- In the course of his crossexamination, accused Rudy Regala his mind to convict, even innocence would not suffice
was caught smiling by the trial judge who warned him of his as a defense.
act and behavior and not to take the trial lightly as the trial is - An impartial trial necessarily requires an impartial judge to
not a joke, nor was there anything funny, and advised him to conduct the same. In other words, absent an impartial judge,
be serious as he is fighting for his life. there can be no fair and impartial trial. Appellant impugns the
- Delfin Flores, a delinquent who finished only 6th grade and impartiality of the trial judge, who was allegedly prejudiced
was charged with murder in Masbate, also testified for the against the appellant.
accused.
- Before Us therefore by way of review is only the death 2. On the rejection of the alibi and denial: MUST BE
penalty imposed on accused Rudy Regala; because Delfin REJECTED. Alibi, to be convincing must preclude any
Flores did not interpose any appeal from his conviction as an possibility that the accused could have been physically present
accessory after the fact, and was accordingly released on June at the place of the crime nor its immediate vicinity at the time
11, 1973 after the expiration of his sentence as certified by the of its commission.
Director of the NBP. - The witnesses against the accused did not know him but were
- Counsel de officio contends that the trial court erred in able to positively identify Regala. The place was well-lit
failing to give the two accused a fair trial; in holding Rudy because of the celebration. Which lends to the idea that
Regala responsible for the killing of Juan Desilos, Jr.; in misidentifying Regala is quite far fetched.
convicting Rudy Regala, assuming arguendo that he was the - It is a recognized principle that on the matter of credibility of
man who stabbed the victim, of the crime of murder with witnesses, the observation of the trial court must be accorded
assault upon an agent of a person of authority; and in holding respect and great weight in view of its special opportunity to
Delfin Flores, under the alleged facts of the case, liable as observe closely the demeanor of the individual witnesses. As a
accessory after the fact of the crime of murder with assault matter of fact, the trial court gave its observations on the
against an agent of a person in authority. witnesses conduct and candor on the witness stand.
- Consequently, the inconsistencies and incredibilities in the
I: W/N the 2 accused were given a fair trial testimonies of the material witnesses of the prosecution as
pointed out by the appellant are better left to the appreciation
H: of the trial court, which has not found the same sufficient to
1. On the impartiality of the judge: NO ERROR, NO destroy the probity of said witnesses.
PREJUDICE. As a matter of fact, appellants previous
conviction of the crimes of malicious mischief and slight 3. On the killing being qualified by treachery and
physical injuries was testified to only by the witness last evident pre-meditation: ONLY HOMICIDE. Neither
presented by the prosecution in its evidence in chief. And the treachery nor evident premeditation can be properly
trial Judge, contrary to the claim of the appellant, gave due appreciated and considered in this instance case so as to
consideration to his evidence as shown by the fact that in the characterize the killing as murder. So appellant contends and
the Solicitor General agrees. WE find the aforesaid common - The defense presented appellant himself, Camilo Begino
stand correct as the evidence supports the same. (Camilo) and Reynaldo Esturas (Reynaldo) as witnesses.
Treachery is never presumed; it must be proven as - Appellant denied the accusation and asserted that he treated
conclusively as the act itself. It must be shown that the accused AAA and her siblings as his own children since he started
employed means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof living with their mother in 1991. He claimed BBB wanted to
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution get rid of him as she was already romantically linked with the
without risks to himself arising from the defense which the Chief of the Department of Agrarian Reform in Daet.
offended party might make. - RTC decision: finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable of
By prosecutions own evidence, appellant was enraged because the crime of statutory rape aggravated by the fact that the
the deceased pushed his companion Delfin Flores and victim is below eighteen (18) years old and that the offender is
admonished him not to get in through the exit gate, then the common law husband of BBB. Appellant was sentenced to
pulled out his knife and stabbed the victim in the abdomen. suffer the penalty of death. He was likewise ordered to pay the
Treachery cannot therefore be appreciated as the attack made victim P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages,
by appellant Rudy Regala was merely an immediate and P30,000 as exemplary damages.
retaliation for the pushing made by the deceased, which act - The trial court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
placed him on his guard. Moreover, deceased Juan Desilos Jr. defense witnesses. Camilo testified that he owned the coconut
at the time had a sidearm (p. 97, Vol. III, rec.) and was free to plantation where appellant worked but he was not certain as to
defend himself with it. If appellants design was to be safe from the exact date appellant went to work at the coconut
a possible defense that the victim might make, he could have plantation. Reynaldo testified that appellant worked at the
disarmed the victim first before stabbing him. This he did not coconut plantation of Apolinario and not in the alleged
do. Certainly, these circumstances negate treachery. coconut plantation of Camilo.
- With respect to the qualifying circumstance of evident - The trial court further rejected appellants defense of alibi.
premeditation, it is wellsettled that the essence of The trial court found that it took only 30 minutes to walk
premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be going to appellants house from the coconut plantation where
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to he was husking. The trial court ruled that it was not physically
carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient impossible for appellant to have been at the scene of the crime
to arrive at a calm judgment. Consequently, it must be clearly at the time of its commission.
established by evidence the time when the offender - On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of
determined to commit the crime, and a sufficient interval of conviction but reduced the penalty of death to reclusion
time between the determination and the execution of the perpetua in view of Republic Act No. 9346 (RA 9346)
crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. proscribing the imposition of the death penalty.
Neither the record nor the appealed decision intimates the
existence of the foregoing circumstances which are essential for
a positive finding of evident premeditation. On the contrary, I: W/N Begino should be convicted for qualified rape
the circumstances of the case rule out premeditation.
- Appellant can therefore be convicted only of the crime of H: NO. Because the aggravating cirucmstance was not alleged
homicide, aggravated by the circumstance of in contempt or in the information and therefore, cannot qualify the crime.
with insult to the public authorities. - We agree with the findings and conclusion of the trial court,
as affirmed by the appellate court, that, as the evidence
PEOPLE v. BEGINO undoubtedly proved, rape was committed by appellant against
F: This is another rape case because the world is horrible that AAA.
way. - The trial court found appellant guilty of statutory rape
- Begino is the common law husband of BBB. One of BBBs aggravated by the fact that the victim is below eighteen (18)
children AAA, at the time of the first offense, was 8 years and years old and the offender is the common law husband of the
4 months old. The first incident happened while they were in mother of the victim. Thus, it imposed the death penalty
their home. BBB left the house and Begino was sharpening his pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 266-B. The appellate court
bolo. AAA was also there. She did not know that Begino agreed with the trial court but reduced the penalty imposed
closed the door and he started toward her and undressed her. from death to reclusion perpetua. However, we hold that
He also took off his own clothes and then and there raped her appellant could not be indicted for qualified rape and
with his bolo beside them. He threatened AAA that if she were penalized under paragraph 1 of Article 266-B.
to squeal, he will kill her and her mother. When she was 12 While the death penalty is no longer imposable in view of RA
she finally told her mother about the instances she was raped. 9346, the technical flaw committed by the lower courts is a
- AAA claimed appellant raped her four times - when she was matter that cannot be ignored.
still eight years old, then when she was in Grade III, in Grade Article 266-A and Article 266-B provide:
IV and in Grade V. BBB brought her daughter to the DSWD ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. -
where AAA was interviewed and assisted in executing her Rape is committed -1. By a man who shall have carnal
sworn statement before the Philippine National Police of YYY. knowledge of a woman under any of the following
- She was medically examined and the doctor confirmed the circumstances:a. Through force, threat or intimidation;b.
When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
rape based on the lacerations on her hymen.
unconscious;c. By means of fraudulent machination or
- AAA testified that she stopped studying since 1998. She felt grave abuse of authority; andd. When the offended party is
ashamed of what happened to her that she even transferred to under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
Daet because she was scorned by people. none of the circumstances mentioned above is present;
 ART. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the CRIMINAL CASE NO. Q9987053; CRIMINAL CASE
next preceding article shall be punished NO. Q9987054; CRIMINAL CASE NO. Q9987055
by reclusion perpetua. That in or about the month of May, 1998, in XXX,
The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is Philippines, the said accused by means of force and
committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying intimidation, to wit: by then and there, willfully, unlawfully
circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and
and feloniously drag said AAA, his own daughter, 12 years of
the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, age, minor, inside a bedroom and undressed her and put
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil himself on top of her and thereafter have carnal knowledge
degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the with said AAA against her will and without her consent.
victim. - The prosecution presented as witnesses AAA, AAAs mother,
- It is sufficiently proven that AAA was below 18 when the BBB, PO3 Jesus Deduque, PO3 Melba Baldeswis, and Dr.
rape happened. However, the Information stated that Angel Cordero. Their testimonies, taken together, present the
appellant is the stepfather of AAA. following narrative:
- A stepfather is the husband of ones mother by virtue of a - AAA is the third child in a brood of eight children born to
marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is appellant and BBB. She was 12 years of age in the year 1996
the offspring. It presupposes a legitimate relationship between when the alleged incidents of rape took place.
the appellant and the victims mother. The evidence adduced Sometime in the year 1996, at around 5:00 in the afternoon,
by the prosecution showed that appellant is not the stepfather she and her younger siblings, namely, CCC, DDD, EEE and
of AAA but the common law spouse of BBB, mother of AAA. FFF, were left at their house with appellant, while BBB was at
- In fact, the trial court itself, in its decision, found that the market buying food. Appellant told CCC, DDD and EEE
appellant and BBB were not married and therefore he is not to play outside the house. AAA was then cooking rice when
the stepfather of AAA. During the trial, AAA, when asked why appellant instructed her to go inside the bedroom.
she kept calling appellant Tiyo, testified that appellant is the When AAA was already inside the room, appellant ordered
third husband of her mother and that the name of her real her to lie down on the cemented floor. When she did,
father is CCC, who at that time was in Manila. She explained appellant placed himself on top of her and removed her shorts
that her mother lived separately from CCC since she was eight and panty. She screamed Tulungan po ninyo ako! and
months old and on 2 August 1994, her mother was living with resisted, but to no avail because appellant pressed his feet
appellant. Her birth certificate and the Social Case Study against hers. Appellant then removed his shorts and brief and
Report likewise showed that her father is CCC, not appellant. thereafter inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain but
CCC was married to BBB and appellant was never married to she could not move because appellant held both her hands
BBB. There was no proof of marriage between BBB and above her head. Appellant told her, Wag kang maingay,
appellant. papatayin kita.
- Since appellant is not the stepfather of AAA, the prosecutions After satisfying his lust, appellant stood up and left the
failure to prove the qualifying circumstance bars conviction for bedroom. AAA proceeded to the house of BBBs kumare,
rape in its qualified form. Aling Leony, to forget and recover from the incident. She did
- What the prosecution clearly proved was that appellant was not inform BBB of the incident because of her fear that
the common law spouse of BBB, but such circumstance was appellant would make good his threats to kill her.
not alleged in the Information. And as we have ruled in - For the second time, one evening of May 1998, AAA and
People v. Garcia, qualifying circumstances must be her younger siblings were sleeping on the cemented floor
properly pleaded in the indictment. If the same are not inside the bedroom when appellant entered and lay down
pleaded but proved, they shall be considered only as beside her. Appellant pulled her left arm and made her lie in a
aggravating circumstances since the latter admit of straight body position. He removed his shorts and placed
proof even if not pleaded. It would be a denial of the right of himself on top of her. He then pulled down her shorts and
the accused to be informed of the charges against him and panty, and again inserted his penis into her vagina. Despite the
consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged with pain, AAA did not shout because
simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form, although - For the third time, in the evening of May 1998, while AAA
the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting and her younger siblings were sleeping inside the bedroom,
in the capital punishment was not alleged in the indictment on appellant lay down beside her. Appellant pulled her left arm
which he was arraigned. and made her face him. Appellant placed himself on top of her
- Consequently, since the qualifying circumstance of common and removed her shorts and panty. Thereafter, he had carnal
law spouse was not alleged in the Information for rape against knowledge of her. She did not shout out of fear. Afterwards,
appellant, he could not be convicted of rape in the qualified appellant stood up and warned her not to tell anyone of the
form as he was not properly informed of the nature and cause incident or he would kill her.
of accusation against him. In a criminal prosecution, it is a From June 1998 to February 1999, appellant was arrested
fundamental rule that every element of the crime charged and detained for drug pushing. In the meantime, AAA was
must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main employed as a house helper. After his release from jail,
purpose of this requirement is to enable the accused to appellant would go to see AAA at her employers house
properly prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no demanding money and creating a scene when AAA refused to
independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. give him any. Fed up, AAA sneaked out of her employers
house and proceeded to the nearby barangay hall to report,
PEOPLE v. CHING not just the commotion caused by appellant in front of her
F: There are 3 separate informations filed against appellant: employers house when she did not give him money, but also
that appellant previously raped her several times. Hence, offense, and that the offense may be alleged to have been
appellant was arrested by PO3 Deduque and PO3 committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its
Baldeswis, and charged with rape. commission.
- BBB was not able to accompany AAA in filing the instant - In rape cases, failure to specify the exact dates or times when
case against appellant because she was also detained for drug the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information
pushing and was released only on 5 December 1999. Upon defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The date or time
her release from jail, she immediately sought AAA and, when of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the
informed of the incident, she fully supported AAA in the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge
instant case against appellant. of a woman through force and intimidation. The precise time
- Dr. Belgira from the PNP Hospital, examined AAA: when the rape took place has no substantial bearing on its
CONCLUSION: Subject is in nonvirgin state physically. commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with
There are no 8external signs of application of any form of absolute accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or
physical trauma. information states that the crime has been committed at any
- However, in view of the unavailability of Dr. Belgira to time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.
personally appear before the trial court, it was Dr. Cordero,
another physician at the PNP crime laboratory, who appeared CONDE v. RIVERA
in court for the purpose of producing and interpreting the F: Aurelia Conde, formerly a municipal midwife in Lucena,
medical records of AAA and confirming that the same was Tayabas, has been forced to respond to no less than five
conducted in accordance with the protocol of the PNP. informations for various crimes and misdemeanors, has
- On 27 July 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting appeared with her witnesses and counsel at hearings no less
appellant of three counts of rape. In Criminal Case No. than on eight different occasions only to see the cause
Q9987055, the Court imposed on appellant the penalty of postponed, has twice been required to come to the Supreme
reclusion perpetua. In Criminal Cases No. Q99 870 53 Court for protection, and now, after the passage of more than
and Q9987054, appellant was sentenced to death. one year from the time when the first information was filed,
- In view of the penalty imposed upon appellant, the RTC seems as far away from a definite resolution of her troubles as
elevated the records of the case directly to the Court of she was when originally charged.
Appeals for review. CA reduced it to reclusion perpetua in lieu
of death penalty, by reason of Republic Act No. 9346, and I: W/N Conde was deprived of her constitutional right
that pursuant to said law, accusedappellant shall not be
eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the H: YES. Philippine organic and statutory law expressly
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall
- Appellant maintains that the approximate time of the enjoy the right to have a speedy trial. Aurelia Conde, like all
commission of the offense must be stated in the complaint or other accused persons, has a right to a speedy trial in order
information which makes it defective. that if innocent she may go free, and she has been deprived of
that right in defiance of law. Dismissed from her humble
I: W/N apellants constitutional right to be informed of the position, and compelled to dance attendance on courts while
nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated. investigations and trials are arbitrarily postponed without her
consent, is palpably and openly unjust to her and a detriment
H: NO. The elements of rape were satisfied withouth the to the public. By the use of reasonable diligence, the
identification of the specific time and date. prosecution could have settled upon the appropriate
- An information is an accusation in writing charging a person information, could have attended to the formal preliminary
with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with examination, and could have prepared the case for a trial free
the court. from vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays.
- To be considered as valid and sufficient, an information must - The accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in
state: mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or if he
1. the name of the accused; be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his
2. the designation of the offense given by the statute; freedom.
3. the acts or omissions complained of as constituting - The writ prayed for shall issue and the Provincial Fiscal of
the offense; Tayabas shall abstain from further attempts to prosecute the
4. the name of the offended party; accused pursuant to informations growing out of the facts set
5. the approximate date of the commission of the forth in previous informations, and the charges now pending
offense; before the justice of the peace of Lucena, Tayabas, are ordered
6. and the place where the offense was committed. dismissed, with costs against the respondent fiscal.
- The purpose of the requirement for the informations validity
and sufficiency is to enable the accused to suitably prepare for MATEO Jr. v. VILLALUZ
his defense since he is presumed to have no independent F: The novel issue presented in this prohibition proceeding
knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. arose from the gnawing fear that the prized ideal of "the cold
- With respect to the date of the commission of the offense, neutrality of an impartial judge" implicit in the due process
Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal guarantee may be set at naught.
Procedure specifically provides that it is not necessary to - Petitioners are among those being tried by respondent Judge
state in the information the precise date the offense was for the offense of robbery in band with homicide: on or about
committed except when it is a material ingredient of the June 4, 1971, the American Express Bank at Sangley Point,
Cavite, was robbed and an American serviceman was killed. In 1. It is now beyond dispute that due process cannot be satisfied
connection with that robbery, and the death of the in the absence of that degree of objectivity on the part of a
serviceman, four (4) criminal actions were filed against judge sufficient to reassure litigants of his being fair and being
petitioners. just. Thereby there is the legitimate expectation that the
- Petitioner Manuel Mateo filed an Opposition to the decision arrived at would be the application of the law to the
prosecution's Motion to Present Additional Evidence on the facts as found by a judge who does not play favorites. For him,
ground that 'to allow the prosecution to present additional the parties stand on equal footing. In the language of Justice
evidence in favor of the State after the prosecution has rested, Dizon: "It has been said, in fact, that due process of law
while the accused has a pending motion to dismiss under requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested
consideration would be prejudicial to the substantial rights of tribunal, and that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than
herein accused because it would effectively deprive him of a the cold neutrality of an impartial judge." He should, to quote
fair trial. from another decision "at all times manifest depth of
-Thereafter, an extrajudicial statement by one Rolando Reyes, commitment and concern to the cause of justice according to
who was later on likewise indicted for the same offense, legal norms, a cerebral man who deliberately holds in check
implicating petitioners, was subscribed before respondent the tug and pull of purely personal preferences and prejudices
Judge. That was the background of a motion for his which he shares with the rest of his fellow mortals."
disqualification, as the aforesaid Rolando Reyes, when called 2. Conformably to what was so emphatically asserted in
upon to testify as an additional witness for the prosecution Gutierrez as the fundamental requisite of impartiality for due
impugned his written declaration stating that it was executed process to be satisfied, the Rules of Court provision on
as a result of a threat by a government agent. It is now disqualification when revised three years later in 1964 contains
contended that such a repudiation would not sit well with this additional paragraph: "A judge may, in the exercise of his
respondent Judge, who had thus placed himself in a position of sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for
being unable to pass on such question with that degree of just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above."
objectivity required by due process, although admittedly, such Thereby, it is made clear to the occupants of the bench that
a move did not fall squarely within one of the specific grounds outside of pecuniary interest, relationship or previous
to inhibit judges. Respondent Judge turned down this plea for participation in the matter that calls for adjudication, there
disqualification, hence this petition. may be other causes that could conceivably erode the trait of
objectivity, thus calling for inhibition. That is to betray a sense
I: W/N circumstance of a party having subscribed before of realism, for the factors that lead to preferences or
respondent Judge an extra-judicial statement purporting to predilections are many and varied. It is well, therefore, that if
describe the manner in which an offense was committed, later any such should make its appearance and prove difficult to
on repudiated by him as the product of intimidation in the resist, the better course for a judge is to disqualify himself.
course of his having been asked to testify against petitioners, That way, he avoids being misunderstood. His reputation for
would suffice to negate that degree of objectivity the probity and objectivity is preserved. What is even more
Constitution requires important, the ideal of an impartial administration of justice is
lived up to. Thus is due process vindicated.
H: YES. - A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a
Petitioners are thus entitled to the relief sought. Respondent litigation. But when suggestion is made of record that he might
Judge could not be totally immune to what apparently was be induced to act in favor of one party or with bias or
asserted before him in such extrajudicial statement. Moreover, prejudice against a litigant arising out of circumstance
it is unlikely that he was not in the slightest bit offended by the reasonably capable of inciting such a state of mind, he should
affiant's turnabout with his later declaration that there was conduct a careful self-examination. He should exercise his
intimidation by a government agent exerted on him. That was discretion in a way that the people's faith in the courts of
hardly flattering to respondent Judge. It is not only that. His justice is not impaired. A salutary norm is that he reflect on the
sense of fairness under the circumstances could easily be probability that a losing party might nurture at the back of his
blunted. The absence of the requisite due process element is mind the thought that the judge had unmeritoriously tilted the
thus noticeable. scales of justice against him.
- There is this circumstance even more telling. It was he who 3. In 1969, this Court, through Justice Sanchez, could
attested to its due execution on October 1, 1971 wherein categorically rule: "All suitors, we must say, are entitled to
Rolando Reyes admitted his participation in the crime and in nothing short of the cold neutrality of an independent,
addition implicated petitioners. At that time, their motion for whollyfree, disinterested and impartial tribunal. It has been
dismissal of the charges against them was pending; its said that 'next in importance to the duty of rendering a
resolution was deferred by respondent Judge until after the righteous judgment is that of doing it in such a manner as will
prosecution had presented and rested its evidence against beget no suspicion of the fairness and integrity of the judge.'
affiant, who was himself indicted and tried for the same Let it not be said that the administration of justice in this
offense, but in a separate proceeding. It cannot be doubted country suffers from too many human imperfections. To our
then that respondent Judge in effect ruled that such extra- mind, respondent judge should inhibit himself since it has
judicial statement was executed freely. With its repudiation on become apparent that his further continuance in Case 4871
the ground that it was not so at all, coercion having come into would not be in the best interest of justice, which he is bound
the picture there is apparent the situation of a judge having to to serve."
pass on a question that by implication had already been
answered by him.
IN RE: OLIVER compulsory provision was left out of the 1850 constitution and
F: A Michigan circuit judge summarily sent the petitioner to from the present constitution (1908). However, Michigan
jail for contempt of court. We must determine whether he was judges may still, in their discretion, summon grand juries, but
denied the procedural due process guaranteed by the we are told by the attorney general that this discretion is rarely
Fourteenth Amendment. exercised, and that the "One-Man Grand Jury" has taken the
In obedience to a subpoena, the petitioner appeared as a place of the old Michigan 16 to 23-member grand jury,
witness before a Michigan circuit judge who was then particularly in probes of alleged misconduct of public officials.
conducting, in accordance with Michigan law, a "one-man - The one-man grand jury law was passed in 1917 following a
grand jury" investigation into alleged gambling and official recommendation of the State Bar Association that, in the
corruption. The investigation presumably took place in the interest of more rigorous law enforcement, greater emphasis
judge's chambers, though that is not certain. should be put upon the "investigative procedure" for "probing"
Two other circuit judges were present in an advisory capacity. and for "detecting" crime.
A prosecutor may have been present. A stenographer was - Whenever this judge-grand jury may summon a witness to
most likely there. The record does not show what other appear, it is his duty to go and to answer all material questions
members, if any, of the judge's investigatorial staff participated that do not incriminate him. Should he fail to appear, fail to
in the proceedings. It is certain, however, that the public was answer material questions, or should the judge-grand jury
excluded -- the questioning was secret in accordance with the believe his evidence false and evasive, or deliberately
traditional grand jury method. contradictory, he may be found guilty of contempt.
- After petitioner had given certain testimony, the judge-grand - A witness may be asked questions on all subjects, and need
jury, still in secret session, told petitioner that neither he nor not be advised of his privilege against self-incrimination, even
his advisors believed petitioner's story -- that it did not "jell." though the questioning is in secret. And these secret
This belief of the judge-grand jury was not based entirely on interrogations can be carried on day or night, in a public place
what the petitioner had testified. As will later be seen, it rested or a "hideout," a courthouse, an office building, a hotel room,
in part on beliefs or suspicions of the judge-jury derived from a home, or a place of business; so well is this ambulatory
the testimony of at least one other witness who had previously power understood in Michigan that the one-man grand jury is
given evidence in secret. Petitioner had not been present when also popularly referred to as the "portable grand jury."
that witness testified, and, so far as appears, was not even - It has long been recognized in this country, however, that the
aware that he had testified. Based on its beliefs thus formed -- traditional 12- to 23-member grand juries may examine
that petitioner's story did not "jell" -- the judge-grand jury witnesses in secret sessions. Oaths of secrecy are ordinarily
immediately charged him with contempt, immediately taken both by the members of such grand juries and by
convicted him, and immediately sentenced him to sixty days in witnesses before them.
jail. Under these circumstances of haste and secrecy, - Grand juries investigate, and the usual end of their
petitioner, of course, had no chance to enjoy the benefits of investigation is either a report, a "no-bill" or an indictment.
counsel, no chance to prepare his defense, and no opportunity - They do not try, and they do not convict. They render no
either to cross examine the other grand jury witness or to judgment. When their work is finished by the return of an
summon witnesses to refute the charge against him. indictment, it cannot be used as evidence against the person
- Three days later, a lawyer filed on petitioner's behalf in the indicted. Nor may he be fined or sentenced to jail until he has
Michigan Supreme Court -- the petition for habeas corpus been tried and convicted after having been afforded the
now under consideration. It alleged, among other things, that procedural safeguards required by due process of law. Even
the petitioner's attorney had not been allowed to confer with when witnesses before grand juries refuse to answer proper
him and that, to the best of the attorney's knowledge, the questions, the grand juries do not adjudge the witnesses guilty
petitioner was not held in jail under any judgment, decree or of contempt of court in secret or in public or at all.
execution, and was "not confined by virtue of any legal
commitment directed to the sheriff, as required by law." An - Counsel have not cited, and we have been unable to find, a
order was then entered, signed by the circuit judge, that he single instance of a criminal trial conducted in camera in any
had, while "sitting as a One-Man Grand Jury," convicted the federal, state, or municipal court during the history of this
petitioner of contempt of court because petitioner had testified country. Nor have we found any record of even one such
"evasively" and had given "contradictory answers" to secret criminal trial in England since abolition of the Court of
questions. Star Chamber in 1641, and whether that court ever convicted
people secretly is in dispute. Summary trials for alleged
I: W/N the summary manner in which he had been sentenced misconduct called contempt of court have not been regarded
to jail in the secrecy of the grand jury chamber had deprived as an exception to this universal rule against secret trials unless
him of his liberty without affording him the kind of notice, some other Michigan one-man grand jury case may represent
opportunity to defend himself, and trial which the due process such an exception.
clause - Today, almost without exception, every state, by constitution,
statute, or judicial decision, requires that all criminal trials be
H: YES. open to the public.
- The case requires a brief explanation of Michigan's unique - The traditional Anglo-American distrust for secret trials has
one-man grand jury system. That state's first constitution been variously ascribed to the notorious use of this practice by
(1835), like the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the Spanish Inquisition, to the excesses of the English Court of
required that most criminal prosecutions be begun by Star Chamber, and to the French monarchy's abuse of the
presentment or indictment of a grand jury. Art. I, 11. This lettre de cachet.
- In giving content to the constitutional and statutory presence of the judge, which disturbs the court's business,
commands that an accused be given a public trial, the state where all of the essential elements of the misconduct are under
and federal courts have differed over what groups of the eye of the court, are actually observed by the court, and
spectators, if any, could properly be excluded from a criminal where immediate punishment is essential to prevent
trial. "demoralization of the court's authority . . . before the public."
- But, unless in Michigan and in one-man grand jury contempt - Nothing in the petitioner's testimony as reported could have
cases, no court in this country has ever before held, so far as remotely justified the judge-jury in drawing such a conclusion.
we can find, that an accused can be tried, convicted, and sent The judge-jury was obviously appraising the truth of Oliver's
to jail when everybody else is denied entrance to the court testimony in light of testimony given the same day in
except the judge and his attaches. petitioner's absence by Hartley, and possibly by other
- In Gaines v. Washington, this Court assumed that a witnesses. The Terry case and others like it provide no
criminal trial conducted in secret would violate the procedural support for sustaining petitioner's conviction of contempt of
requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process court upon testimony given in petitioner's absence. This case
clause, although its actual holding there was that no violation would be like the Terry case only if the judge there has not
had in fact occurred, since the trial court's order barring the personally witnessed Terry's assault upon the marshal, but had
general public had not been enforced. Certain proceedings in nevertheless sent him to jail for contempt of court after hearing
a judge's chambers, including convictions for contempt of the testimony of witnesses against Terry in Terry's absence. It
court, have occasionally been countenanced by state courts, may be conceivable, as is here urged, that a judge can under
but there has never been any intimation that all of the public, some circumstances correctly detect falsity and evasiveness
including the accused's relatives, friends, and counsel, were from simply listening to a witness testify. But this is plainly not
barred from the trial chamber. a case in which the finding of falsity rested on an exercise of
- In the case before us, the petitioner was called as a witness to this alleged power. For this reason, we need not pass on the
testify in secret before a one-man grand jury conducting a question argued in the briefs whether a judge can, consistently
grand jury investigation. In the midst of petitioner's testimony, with procedural due process, convict a witness of testifying
the proceedings abruptly changed. The investigation became a falsely and evasively solely on the judge's ability to detect it
"trial," the grand jury became a judge, and the witness became from merely observing a witness and hearing him testify.
an accused charged with contempt of court -- all in secret.
Following a charge, conviction and sentence, the petitioner TAMPAR v. USMAN
was led away to prison -- still without any break in the secrecy. F: This petition for certiorari involves a dispute over the
Even in jail, according to undenied allegations, his lawyer was correct application of the unique Islamic rule of procedure
denied an opportunity to see and confer with him. And that known as the oath (yamin).
was not the end of secrecy. His lawyer filed in the State The record of the case shows that petitioners filed a complaint
Supreme Court this habeas corpus proceeding. Even there, the against respondents for Annulment of Sale in an Extrajudicial
mantle of secrecy enveloped the transaction, and the State Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous Sale and Delivery of
Supreme Court ordered him sent back to jail without ever Certificates of Title and Damages before the Sharia District
having seen a record of his testimony, and without knowing all Court, 5th Sharia District, Cotabato City.
that took place in the secrecy of the judge's chambers. In view - Petitioners allege ownership over a parcel of land located in
of this nation's historic distrust of secret proceedings, their Kalanganan, Cotabato (now Bagua, Cotabato City), claiming
inherent dangers to freedom, and the universal requirement of that they inherited the property from their ancestor, Tuan
our federal and state governments that criminal trials be Kali Dimalen, who left his property to his two daughters,
public, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that no one namely Remoreng Dimalen and Dominga Dimalen Tampar.
shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law The latter in turn divided the property equally between them.
means at least that an accused cannot be thus sentenced to - Due to the loss of the aforementioned title, TCT No.
prison. (T893)217 was issued on October 26, 1950 by the Register of
- We further hold that failure to afford the petitioner a Deeds of Cotabato City in the names of herein petitioners
reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charge of Remoreng Dimalen and the heirs of Dominga Dimalen, the
false and evasive swearing was a denial of due process of law. latter having died in the interim.
A person's right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, - The Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Simultaneous
and an opportunity to be heard in his defense -- a right to his Sale sought to be annulled was purportedly executed on June
day in court -- are basic in our system of jurisprudence, and 11, 1947 between petitioners and respondent Esmael Usman,
these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the whereby ownership of the land was conveyed to the latter for
witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be the sum of P1,000.00. The land was subsequently sold by
represented by counsel. respondent Usman to his co respondents Mohammad
- Except for a narrowly limited category of contempts, due Datumanong and Hadji Salik Nur.
process of law as explained in the Cooke case requires that - Petitioners denied that they ever entered into such an
one charged with contempt of court be advised of the charges agreement with respondent Usman, and claimed that their
against him, have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by signatures in the document of sale were forged, and that the
way of defense or explanation, have the right to be represented transaction is null and void for not having been approved by
by counsel, and have a chance to testify and call other the Provincial Governor, as required by law.
witnesses in his behalf, either by way of defense or explanation. - The Court thereafter directed the parties to submit the
The narrow exception to these due process requirements statements (shuhud) of at least two witnesses to prove their
includes only charges of misconduct, in open court, in the claims. The sole witness of petitioners withdrew, prompting
them to manifest to the Court that they have no witnesses. in his favor by the Court. On the other hand, should
Consequently, they challenged respondent Usman to take an defendant refuse to take an oath, plaintiff may affirm his claim
oath (yamin) declaring that there is no truth to the claim of under oath, in which case judgment shall be rendered in his
forgery brought against him. The challenge was grounded on favor.
Section 7 of the Special Rules of Procedure in Sharia Courts - Said provision effectively deprives a litigant of his
(IjraatalMahakim al Sharia), which provides as follows: constitutional right to due process. It denies a party his right to
The plaintiff (muddai) has the burden of proof, and the confront the witnesses against him and to cross examine
taking of an oath (yamin) rests upon the defendant them. It should have no place even in the Special Rules of
(muddaaalai). If the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his Procedure of the Sharia courts of the country.
claim, the defendant shall take an oath and judgment shall be
rendered in his favor by the Court. Should the defendant CARREDO v. PEOPLE
refuse to take an oath, the plaintiff shall affirm his claim under F: Petitioner was charged with malicious mischief before the
oath in which case, judgment shall be rendered in his favor. Municipal Trial Court of Malabuyoc, Cebu. He deposited a
Should the plaintiff refuse to affirm his claim under oath, the cash bond for his provisional liberty. Upon arraignment, he
case shall be dismissed. entered a plea of not guilty and thereafter he filed a written
- Respondent Usman opposed the challenge of petitioners, waiver of appearance dated May 14, 1984 which reads as
arguing that before he may be required to take the oath, follows:
petitioners, as the muddai, should first take the oath, since IN COMPLIANCE with the Letter of Instruction No. 40,
they have no witnesses at all.6 He contended that the plaintiffs dated November 10, 1972, the undersigned accused hereby
should be required to present some basis for their claim against waives his appearance during the trial or any stage thereof and
him, in accordance with the elementary rules of evidence. he agrees that in case he fails to appear for trial despite due
- The Court overruled the opposition of respondent Usman. notice, his absence will be deemed as express waiver of his
- Usman took the oath: I, Esmael Usman, swear in the name right to be present, and the Honorable Court may proceed
of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful and upon the Holy with the trial of his case as if he were present. In this
Quran, that I bought the land in question from the plaintiffs; connection, he admits that he could be identified by witnesses
that I have not forged or falsified the signatures of the who are testifying at the time that said accused was not
plaintiffs; and that God will curse me if I am not telling the present. SO ORDERED.
truth. - At the hearing on August 14, 1985 the prosecution moved
- Having taken the oath as demanded by petitioners, judgment for the recall of its principal witness for the purpose of
was rendered in favor of respondents, and the complaint identifying the accusedpetitioner who was not then present.
against them was dismissed. Hence, the hearing was rescheduled on October 9, 1985 and
Petitioners now assail the decision of the Sharia court as a subpoena was issued to petitioner who failed to appear on
having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion. They said date. The defense counsel justified petitioners absence in
contend that the cognizance by the court of the yamin of that the latters presence can no longer be required as he
respondent Usman is not only unprocedural, but likewise already filed a written waiver of appearance. Nevertheless, the
amounts to a deprivation of their constitutional right to be municipal judge issued an order dated May 27, 1986 ordering
heard. the arrest of petitioner, the confiscation of the cash bond, and
at the same time ordering the bondsman, who is the petitioner
I: W/N the Sharia court committed a grave abuse of himself, to show cause why no judgment should be rendered
discretion in dismissing the complaint of petitioners by virtue against the bondsman.
of the yamin taken by the defendant, namely, respondent - A motion for reconsideration thereof having been denied,
Usman. petitioner elevated the matter to the RTC. Denied as well.

H: NO. The dismissal of the complaint by the Sharia court in I: W/N petitioner can be compelled, on pain of being arrested
this case should be upheld, but not because of the yamin and his cash bond getting confiscated, to be present during the
taken by the respondent Usman. trial for purposes of his identification by the prosecution
The Court shares the concern of petitioners in the use of the witnesses in a complaint for malicious mischief despite his
yamin in this proceeding, and for that matter, before written waiver of appearance.
Philippine Sharia courts. Section 7 of the Special Rules of
Procedure prescribed for Sharia courts aforecited provides H:
that if the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his claim, the - Section 19, Article 4 of the 1973 Constitution which was then
defendant shall take an oath and judgment shall be rendered in force provides as follows:
in his favor by the Court. On the other hand, should SEC. 19. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
defendant refuse to take an oath, plaintiff may affirm his claim presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
under oath, in which case judgment shall be rendered in his enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
favor. informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
- The Court shares the concern of petitioners in the use of the him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the
yamin in this proceeding, and for that matter, before witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
Philippine Sharia courts. Section 7 of the Special Rules of secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
Procedure prescribed for Sharia courts aforecited provides evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
that if the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his claim, the proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided
defendant shall take an oath and judgment shall be rendered
that he1has been duly notified and his failure to appear is nonappearance after arraignment despite due notice simply
unjustified. means that he thereby waives his right to meet the witnesses
face to face among others. An express waiver of appearance
-Aquino Jr. v. Military Commission: The result was that the after arraignment, as in this case, is of the same effect.
order of the respondent military commission requiring his However, such waiver of appearance and trial in absentia does
presence at all times during the proceedings before it should be not mean that the prosecution is thereby deprived of its right
modified in the sense that petitioners presence shall be to require the presence of the accused for purposes of
required only in the instance just indicated. identification by its witnesses which is vital for the conviction
- People v. Presiding Judge: it was held that [r]espondent of the accused. Such waiver of a right of the accused does not
Judge unfortunately assumed that thereby a defendant was mean a release of the accused from his obligation under the
thus conferred a fundamental right to ignore the terms of the bond to appear in court whenever so required.
bond posted by him in accordance with his constitutional right
to bail. The present Constitution certainly has not made a dent Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas
on the traditional and correct concept of a bail as given to corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of
allow the release of a person in the custody of the law on invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.
condition that he would appear before any court whenever so
required. Upon failure to do so, the warrant of arrest
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy
previously issued can be a sufficient justification for his
confinement. disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial,
- the accused may waive his presence in the criminal or administrative bodies.
proceedings except at the stages where identification
of his person by the prosecution witnesses provision is BINAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN
necessary. F: 1999, There are two consolidated cases.
- Stated differently, the 1973 Constitution now unqualifiedly
permits trial in absentia even of capital offenses, provided that G.R. No. 12068183
after arraignment he may be compelled to appear for the - Then Makati Mayor Binay was charged with the
purpose of identification by the witnesses of the prosecution, or violation of Art. 220 of the RPC and Section 3(e) of R.A.
provided he unqualifiedly admits in open court after his No. 3019. The informations, which were subsequently
arraignment that he is the person named as the defendant in amended on September 15, 1994, all alleged that the acts
the case on trial. The reason for requiring the presence of the constituting these crimes were committed in 1987 during
accused, despite his waiver, is, if allowed to be absent in all the petitioners incumbency as Mayor of Makati, then a
stages of the proceedings without giving the Peoples witnesses municipality of Metro Manila.
the opportunity to identify him in court, he may in his defense - Thereafter, petitioner moved to quash the informations.
say that he was never identified as the person charged in the He contended that the sixyear delay from the time the
information and, therefore, is entitled to an acquittal. charges were filed in the Office of the Ombudsman on
Furthermore, it is possible that a witness may not know the July 27, 1988 to the time the informations were filed in
name of the culprit but can identify him if he sees him again, the Sandiganbayan on September 7, 1994 constituted a
in which case the latters presence in court is necessary. violation of his right to due process. Arraignment of the
- The rule in Aquino that the accused may waive his presence accused was held in abeyance pending the resolution of
at the trial of the case his presence may be compelled when he this motion.
is to be identified. - Motion to quash denied. Petitioners motion for
- Petitioner, however, argues that he should not be ordered reconsideration, which was opposed by the prosecution,
arrested for nonappearance since he filed a written waiver was likewise denied by the Sandiganbayan.
stating that he admits that he could be identified by witnesses - Petitioner thus filed before this Court a petition for
who have testified at the time that said accused was not certiorari, to set aside the resolution denying his motion
present following the ruling of this Court in People vs. for reconsideration, claiming that he was denied due
Presiding Judge. The aforestated statement in the waiver of process when the Sandiganbayan ordered his suspension
appearance of petitioner that he admits he could be identified pendente lite before he could file a reply to the
by the witnesses for the prosecution even in his absence is not prosecutions opposition to his motion for reconsideration
such unqualified admission contemplated in Presiding Judge. of the resolution denying the motion to quash. In a
What is stated in Presiding Judge as an exception is when the Resolution dated April 28, 1995, the Court directed the
accused unqualifiedly admits in open court after his Sandiganbayan to, among other things, permit petitioner
arraignment that he is the person named as defendant in the to file said reply.
case on trial, no more no less. In the present case petitioner - After allowing and considering petitioners reply, the
only admits that he can be identified by the prosecution Sandiganbayan just denied the same.
witnesses in his absence. He did not admit that he is the very - Meanwhile, R.A. No. 7975, redefining the jurisdiction of
person named as defendant in the case on trial. His admission the Sandiganbayan, took effect on May 16, 1995.
is vague and far from unqualified. He cannot therefore seek - On June 13, 1995, petitioner filed before the
the benefit of the exception recognized in Presiding Judge. Sandiganbayan a motion to refer his cases to the proper
court for further proceedings, alleging that when the two
- It is important to state that the provision of the Constitution Resolutions, both dated June 6, 1995, were issued by the
authorizing the trial in absentia of the accused in case of his AntiGraft Court, it had already lost jurisdiction over the
subject cases. The Sandiganbayan, in a Resolution dated G.R. No. 128136
July 4, 1995, denied petitioners motion Petitioner Mario Magsaysay is the Mayor of the
There is no question that Municipal Mayors are Municipality of San Pascual, Batangas. Save for petitioner
classified as Grade 27 under the Vicente dela Rosa, all of Mayor Magsaysays
Compensation & Position Classification Act of copetitioners are officials of the same municipality.
1989. Since, at the time of the commission of the In a complaint dated April 16, 1994, Victor Cusi, then
offenses charged in the aboveentitled cases, the ViceMayor of San Pascual, Batangas, charged petitioners
accused Mayor Jejomar C. Binay was a along with Elpidia Amada, Jovey C. Babago, and Brigido
Municipal Mayor, although in an acting or H. Buhain, also officials of San Pascual Batangas, with
interim capacity, the Sandiganbayan, has, under violation of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.
Section 4 (e) 5, original jurisdiction over the cases - The complaint charged the respondent municipal
therein filed against him. The allegation that officials of overpaying Vicente de la Rosa of TDR
Mayor Binay ought to have been classified with a Construction for the landscaping project of the San
salary grade lower than Grade 27, because at Pascual Central School.
the time of the commission of the offenses - In a Resolution dated June 14, 1995, Graft Investigation
charged he was paid a salary which merits a Officer Lourdes A. Alarilla recommended the filing of an
grade lower than Grade 27 does not hold information for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A.
water. In 1986 when the herein offenses were No. 3019, as amended, against petitioners with the
committed by the accused, the Compensation & Sandiganbayan.
Position Classification Act of 1989 was not as yet - Ombudsman approved and filed the case with Batangas
in existence. From the very definition of the very RTC.
Act itself, it is evident that the Act was passed -Meanwhile, Concerned Citizens filed a complaint before
and had been effective only in 1989. The Grade the Ombudsman against the same petitioners for the
classification of a public officer, whether at the violation of R.A. 3019 because of the overpriced
time of the commission of the offense or landscaping. On February 9, 1996, another Information
thereafter, is determined by his classification for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as
under the Compensation & Position amended, was filed against petitioners for the overpricing
Classification Act of 1989. Thus since the of the landscaping project, this time before the
accused Mayor Jejomar C. Binay was a Sandiganbayan.
Municipal Mayor at the time of the commission - The information was subsequently amended on May 17,
of the offenses and the Compensation & Position 1996. Except for the date the alleged crime was
Classification Act of 1989 classifies Municipal committed, the information charged essentially the same
Mayors as Grade 27, it is a conclusion beyond inculpatory facts as the information filed in the RTC.
cavil that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction - The accused filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to
over the accused herein. quash the information in Crim. Case No. 22378 on the
As of July 1, 1989, when Republic Act No. 6758 following grounds: that the Sandiganbayan had no
took effect, Municipal Mayor Jejomar C. Binay jurisdiction over the case; that the accused were charged
had begun receiving a monthly salary of with the same offense in two informations; and that the
P15,180.00 which is equivalent to Grade 28 proceedings in the Sandiganbayan would expose
under the salary scale provided for in Section 27 petitioners to double jeopardy.
of the said Act. Under the Index of Occupational - The Sandiganbayan denied the accuseds motion to
Services, the position titles and salary grades of quash in a Resolution dated June 21, 1996. The court,
the Compensation & Position classification however, suspended proceedings in the case until the
system prepared by the Department of Budget Supreme Court resolved the question of the
and Management pursuant to Section 6 of Sandiganbayans jurisdiction involved in the Binay
Republic [A]ct No. 6758, the position of petition.
Municipal Mayor had been classified as Grade
27. I: 1. W/N Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction (YES)
- The present petition for certiorari filed by Binay, 2. W/N Binays right to speedy disposition of cases has been
questioned the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction over his case, violated. (NO)
his motions for reconsideration prayed to set aside the 3. W/N there is double jeopardy (NO)
resolutions which denied the motion to quash and
suspend the petitioner pendente lite. And an addendum H: 1. YES.
followed which asked for alternative reliefs: that if the - Binay case was filed in 1994, where the
Sandiganbayan does have jurisdiction over the case, have Sandiganbayans jurisdiction over RA 3019 cases has
it dismissed that the long delay of the preliminary not yet been classified.
investigation before the Ombudsman prior to the filing of - RA 7975 took effect in May 1995, when Binay had
the informations, deprived him of his right to due process not yet been arraigned.
and that there was no probable cause for filing. - The Magsaysay case was filed in June 1995 which
means the law has already been in effect.
- The interpretation of salary grade is not based on
the amount but it is actually defined by law based on
the position and responsibility of the government Thus, under both R.A. Nos. 7975 and 8429,
official. Clearly stated R.A. No. 6758 and the 1989 the Sandiganbayan retains jurisdiction over
and 1997 versions of the Index of Occupational said cases.
Services, Position Titles and Salary Grades List,
Mayors fall under Salary Grade 27, their actual 2. NO. In petitioner Binays case, the Court finds that there
salaries may be subject to variation due to the funds was no undue delay in the disposition of the subject cases.
and said responsibilities. - The constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases is not
- The law is clear that they are in fact included, so limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to
there is no need for statutory construction. (Binay all parties in all cases, including civil and administrative cases,
used what is not included in the enumeration is and in all proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial
deemed excluded rule). hearings. Hence, under the Constitution, any party to a case
- The resort to congressional records to determine the may demand expeditious action on all officials who are tasked
proper application of the law in this case is with the administration of justice.
unwarranted in this case for the same reason that the - However, the right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the
resort to the rule of inclusio unius est expressio right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the
alterius is inappropriate. proceedings is attended by vexatious, capricious, and
- On RA 7975s retroactive effect(?) oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the
- The rule is that where a court has already trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or
obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse
controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the without the party having his case tried.
final determination of the cause is not affected - Equally applicable is the balancing test used to determine
by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy
proceedings in another tribunal. The exception trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which
to the rule is where the statute expressly (a) the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant is
provides, or is construed to the effect that it is weighed, and such factors as:
intended to operate as to actions pending before (b) the length of the delay,
its enactment. Where a statute changing the (c) the reasons for such delay,
jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, (d) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused,
it cannot be applied to a case that was pending and
prior to the enactment of the statute. (e) the prejudice caused by the delay.
1. If trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan has - The concept of speedy disposition is a relative term and must
already begun as of the approval of R.A. No. 7975, necessarily be a flexible concept.
R.A. No. 7975 does not apply. - A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved,
2. If trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan has not therefore, would not be sufficient.
begun as of the approval of R.A. No. 7975, then R.A.
No. 7975 applies. 1. That on July 27, 1988 Bobby Brillante filed with the Office
(a) If by virtue of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as of the Tanodbayan an affidavit-complaint charging, Jejomar
amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975, the Binay, Sergio Santos, Roberto Chang, Delfin Almeda, Nelson
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a case before it, Irasga, Nicasio Santiago, Feliciano Basam, Maria Chan,
then the case shall be referred to the Sandiganbayan. Romeo Barrios, Azucena Diaz, Virgilio Clarete, Godofredo
(b) If by virtue of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as Marcelo, Armando San Miguel, Salvador Pangilinan and John
amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7975, the Does of the following offenses: (a) Massive Malversation of
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over a case before Public Funds; (b) Multiple Falsification of Public Documents;
it, the case shall be referred to the regular courts. (c) Usurpation of Official Functions; (d) Violation of Election
- HOWEVER, it has been superseded by RA 8249: Law; and (e) Violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019.
The ramifications of Section 7 of R.A. No. 8249 may 1.1. Brillantes complaint was based on the initial
be stated as follows: findings and observations of the COA on the
1. If trial of the cases pending before whatever court examination of the cash and accounts covering
has already begun as of the approval of R.A. No. transactions from April 1, 1987 to January 4, 1988
8249, said law does not apply. and Post-Audit of Selected Accounts for the last
2. If trial of cases pending before whatever court has quarter of 1987 of the Municipality of Makati
not begun as of the approval of R.A. No. 8249, then contained in its Report dated January 11, 1988. The
said law applies. COA furnished the Tanodbayan a copy of this report
(a) If the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a case on August 1, 1988 upon request of the latter.
pending before it, then it retains jurisdiction. 1.2. In the letter of the COA transmitting a copy of
(b) If the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over a case the report, the Tanodbayan was informed that this
pending before it, the case shall be referred to the regular COA audit report of January 11, 1988 is not yet
courts.
released since the Mayor of Makati was given thirty
(c) If the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a case
pending before a regular court, the latter loses jurisdiction days within which to explain/clarify the findings in
and the same shall be referred to the Sandiganbayan. the report and is subject to change or modification
(d) If a regular court has jurisdiction over a case pending depending upon the explanation/clarification to be
before it, then said court retains jurisdiction. submitted by the Mayor of Makati. Because of this
 information from the COA the preliminary rely on its own independent judgment in the
investigation was held in abeyance until the determination of probable cause. Accordingly, the
submission of the final report. prosecution had to conduct it s own review of the
1.3. On March 1, 1989, the first part of the Final COA findings. Judging from said findings, we find
Report on Audit of Makati was received by the Office that the cases were sufficiently complex, thus
of the Ombudsman and was transmitted for purposes justifying the length of time for their resolution. As
of the ensuring preliminary investigation to the held by the Sandiganbayan in its Resolution dated
Tanodbayan which received the same on March 22, March 29, 1995 denying the Motion to Quash:
1989. 2. Ten charges are involved in these cases and the prosecution,
1.4. This first part of the Final Report contained the unable to rely on the raw findings of the Commission on Audit
fifteen (15) adverse findings, above elsewhere stated as in 15 reports caused the investigation and examination of
the basis of Bobby Brillantes complaint. thousands of vouchers, payrolls, and supporting documents
1.5. Eleven (11) COA auditors participated in the considering that no less than the Chairman of the Commission
documentation and analysis of its findings and on Audit, assisted by a team supervisor and 10 team members
preparation of the final report. had to take part in the conduct of a final audit consisting of
1.6. The first part of the final report was followed by evaluation and analysis of the initial findings in the 15 raw
a Supplemental Report on Findings No. 1 and 3. reports, the cases must have involved complicated legal and
This Supplemental Report is dated July 3, 1989. factual issues which do warrant or justify a longer period of
2. After securing machine copies of the voluminous documents time for preliminary investigation.
supporting the COA findings, Pros. Margarito Gervacio, xxx
Chairman of the Panel of Prosecutors, issued the 5. In the TATAD case, the preliminary investigation was
corresponding subpoena directing the respondents to submit resolved close to three (3) years from the time all the counter-
their respective counter-affidavits. affidavits were submitted to the Tanodbayan, notwithstanding
2.1. In compliance with the subpoena, Mayor the fact that very few documentary and testimonial evidence
Jejomar Binay submitted his counter-affidavit on May were involved. In the above-entitled cases, the preliminary
18, 1990, Marissa Chan, Feliciano Bascon, Nicanor investigation of all ten (10) cases was terminated in merely two
Santiago, Jr. on June 19, 1990, Renato Manrique on (2) years and four (4) months from the date Mayor Binay filed
June 4, 1990, Alfredo Ignacio on June 6, 1990, his last pleading, on April 30, 1992.[51]
Roberto Chang on August 27, 1990.Feliciano Bascon Petitioner claims that the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan
submitted his Supplemental Affidavit on November ordering his suspension pendente lite is unwarranted since
22, 1990. the informations charging him were not valid. This
2.2. Thereafter, clarificatory examinations were contention, however, must fail in view of our pronouncement
conducted on September 27, 1990, October 26, that there was no delay in the resolution of the subject cases in
1990, November 8, 9, 14, 22, 1990. violation of his right to speedy disposition. Accordingly, the
3. On January 15, 1991 Mayor Jejomar Binay submitted a informations in question are valid an petitioners suspension
copy of this Petition for Certiorari in G.R. No. 92380 which pendente lite must be upheld.
he and the municipality of Makati filed with the Supreme Finally, whether or not there is probable cause to warrant the
Court against COA Chairman, Eufemio Domingo and the filing of the subject cases is a question best left to the discretion
Commission on Audit, with a manifestation that said petition of the Ombudsman. Absent any grave abuse of such
is submitted to support Binays stand as regard COA Finding discretion, the Court will not interfere in the exercise
No. 9 aforestated. thereof.[52] Petitioner in this case has failed to establish any
4. On April 2, 1992 respondent Marissa Chan filed an such abuse on the part of the Ombudsman.
affidavit containing allegations incriminating Jejomar Binay;
5. Upon being ordered to comment on the said April 2, 1992 3. NO. The filing of the information in the Sandiganbayan did
affidavit of Marissa Chan, Jejomar Binay submitted his not put petitioners in double jeopardy even though they had
comment thereto on April 30, 1992. already pleaded not guilty to the information earlier filed in
6. On August 4, 1993, the Investigation Panel submitted to the the RTC. The first jeopardy never attached in the first place,
Deputy Special Prosecutor its Resolution disposing the the RTC not being a court of competent jurisdiction.
preliminary investigation of the case.
6.1. On August 10, 1993 the said Resolution was
approved by the Special Prosecutor, who forwarded
the same and the entire records to the Office of the
Ombudsman for review and/or final action.
6.2. On August 16, 1994, the Review Panel of the
Ombudsman submitted to the latter its review action
for approval.
6.3. On August 19, 1994, the Ombudsman approved
some of the recommendations of the Review Panel
and directed the preparation and filing of the
informations.[50]
Furthermore, the prosecution is not bound by the
findings of the Commission on Audit (COA); it must