Rights of the accused

Right to self-incrimination

This is available with respect only to testimonial compulsion, actual testimony. This does not include or cover
a compulsion to produce documentary evidence especially those of police power competence of the state by
way of its regulatory authority but of course documents that are protected by the right of privacy covered by
this constitutional provision. This also does not include the matter of bodily evidence remember this case
where the accused was tested as to whether or not the he had gonorrhea because the victim acquired
gonorrhea because of the rape. That particular extraction of the blood specimen to determine whether he has
that sexually transmissible disease was admitted as evidence despite his protest on the basis of his right
against self-incrimination. I repeat bodily evidence is okay, right to self incrimination you have to temper that
with the right to privacy as to the case of Social Justice vs Dangerous Drug board.

You distinguish the matter of handwriting specimen the case of Beltran vs Samson offer to give specimen of
his signature or handwriting, that is not mere bodily evidence because the act of writing requires certain
medical skills therefore the utilization of mental thought is by way of testimonial compulsion and therefore
that is covered by right to self- incrimination.
The defense of the accused is that against the charge of rape is that he is impotent suffering from erectile
dysfunction. Let us say he made a mistake of testifying and therefore waiving his right such that on cross
examination, the prosecution, ask him to discloth and after ask anne Curtis to enter the court room in a bikini
and she starts dancing and then the whole time she is dancing thecourt is addressed to stare at the genital of
the accused to find out if there is some reaction. Now is that by way of violation of his right against self-
incrimination, is that testimonial compulsion or mere bodily evidence? Something to do with mental
processes? Or is it something that is a natural bodily reaction? You study it.
Bodily evidence is not included, testimonial compulsion is the focus of this right. This right is available
outright and altogether with other rights in favor of the accused. May altogether refuse to testify at all to take
the witness stand at all but with respect to ordinary witnesses and this would be true even with the context
of legislative investigations, they may invoke this right only as and when the incriminating question is
propounded. I repeat the accused may altogether invoke this right for the purposes of totally refusing to
testify but insofar as ordinary witness is concerned, they may invoke this right only when an incriminating
question

May this right of an accused be invoked for purposes of totally rejecting an invitation a subpoena of a
congress for a legislative investigation. Kunwari an accused is now invited and objected to the coercive
jurisdiction of the senate in the context of legislative investigation on the matter involving his criminal case.
The right against self-incrimination may not be invoked for purposes of ignoring the legislative subpoena
even if he has this right he must honor and obey the subpoena he must appear. Only after he appear may he
invoke his right. If he doesnot appear, his right will not exempt him from liability for legislative contempt.

This right against self-incrimination may not be invoked even if a response to the incriminating question
would clearly resolve in his civil liability. This is exemption from criminal liability. Even in the question where
so long it would not result in criminal culpability then this right may not be invoked. Even with respect to tax
liabilities, except to the point that tax liability would constitute tax offenses, this right may not be invoked.
And even if the question is incriminationg, if it would involve a criminal act which would have already
prescribe, which have already been condoned, which have already been the subject of service of sentence by
reason of a conviction, which have been the subject of immunity from prosecution granted by congress or by
the executive, then he is bound still to answer the incriminating question. Precisely there is no more
incrimination because the crime has disappeared already.

SECTION 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
In terms of the death penalty, it is determined by law. Present law has determined that it is no longer
applicable. There is a bill approved by the House of Representatives calling for the restoration of the death
penalty, it is awaiting action in the senate and the approval by the president

Cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment

Case of Weber
Sentenced to death by electrocution. He was already seated in the electric chair. But the appointed time, the
leather is about to be pulled down, there was a brownout. So it did not push through, so he was subjected to a
rescheduling of his execution. He seized the opportunity to object to the second execution precisely because
of the similar provision in the US constitution he considered it as cruel and inhuman. The SC of US that there
is no intention of the state to inflict cruel and inhumane punishment as a result of psychological and mental
torture. It is a fortuitous event, there is no inhuman punishment. The employment of physical, degrading and
inhuman punishment and the use of substandard inadequate penal facilities subhuman conditions shall be
dealt with by law.

SECTION 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

Double Jeopardy

SECTION 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act.

Elements/Requisites
1. There must be a competent court
2. There must be a valid plea
3. Valid information or complaint
4. Conviction or acquittal or dismissal without the express consent of the accused

In case of the competent court remember the court marshal.

Even if the court would have made an error in the assessment of its jurisdiction and dismisses the case,n if it
turns out that it actually has jurisdiction, that error notwithstanding would give rise to application to the
defense of double jeopardy.

The matter of invalid information

Offenses triable before the sandiganbayan, one of its jurisdiction is the offenses committed by public officer
“in relation to their office” – jurisdictional such that if the complaint is filed before the sandiganbayan against
the public officer cognizable within its jurisdiction but the information does not say that the offense was
committed in relation to their office of the accused, then that is not a valid information, even it were
dismissed by purposes of correcting it, double jeopardy will not set in because the dismissal would not have
done without the compliance with the 2nd requirement of double jeopardy to have a valid information.
Herrera vs Sandiganbayan

Note new cases

Gayle vs People
Public officer who is the accused also although the phrase “in relation to their office” was not expressly
included in the information. There were other allegations in that information which clearly show the offense
would not have been committed by that accused except by reason of his public office. So even if such phrase
in relation to his office would not appear expressly if there are other lines there or assertions that the crime
could not have been committed in relation to the office, well that should still be considered as a valid
information. Which can give rise to a valid application of the principle of double jeopardy.
If the information does not use the words attempted, any of following aggravating circumstances, the phrase
aggravating circumstance does not appear in the information but there are phrases there to the effect that
done with evident premeditation, treachery, etc the absence or failure to use the phrase aggravating
circumstance does not render that information defective so long as those aggravating circumstances are
proved a conviction for. It would still be valid, hindi violative of the right to be informed of the nature and
cause of accusation against him.

There must be a valid plea

There was a plea of guilty or there was a plea to prove self- defense
That resulted in the invalidation of the plea of not gulity

Conviction or acquittal or dismissal without the express consent of the accused

If there is conviction or acquittal, malinaw. The issue would always arise in connection with the dismissal of
the case without the express consent to the accused.

Filman Case
Fiscal asked for the provisional dismissal of the case, the judge asked the counsel for the accused, sabi K. so
dismissed provisionally. So happy happy sila kain sila barrio fiesta. Must be subject of express objection when
the motion for provisional dismissal was asked for by the prosecution.

Other instances when the defense of double jeopardy would still be available even if the dismissal of
the case is at the instance of the accused.
1. If the motion to dismiss filed by the accused were based on the violation of his right to speedy trial.
Tantamount to acquittal that would give rise to double jeopardy
2. If the dismissal was based on the demurrer to evidence filed by the accused
- Demurrer based not on Lack of evidence but on lack of jurisdiction- granted by the court – not
give rise to application of double jeopardy
3. Based on insufficiency of evidence

Other instances where the prosecution can appeal from judgment of conviction or acquittal by the
trial courts

Lejano vs People (Hubert webb case)

Nag file yung people ng motion for reconsideration, even the MR cannot be entertained by the court precisely
because there is already an acquittal. Double jeopardy can set in.
Other instances where prosecution can appeal from erroneous decision of the courts
By way of a grave abuse of discretion situation

Remember the matter of the rules of court with respect to the offenses covered by the double jeopardy

Any conviction or acquittal for an offense would necessarily include offenses in their attempted or
consummated stages or offenses which are necessarily included or necessarily includes other offenses.

If you are accused for serious physical injuries o less serious and then acquitted for serious, another
prosecution for serious may not be allowed.

Pwede ba na you were accused of less serious physical injuries pagkatapos you plead guilty can you
be late accused for serious physical injuries without offense to double jeopardy?
Yes. Supervening event. That would not give rise to double jeopardy. It may proceed notwithstanding your
conviction or pleading guilty sa less serious. Because it supervene after.

Supervening event
1. Real supervening event doctrine. If the event supervenes after the conviction or acquittal.
 2. If the supervening event came to the knowledge of the prosecution after the conviction or acquittal
3. If the accused had pleaded to a lesser offense without the knowledge or consent of the prosecuting
attorney or investigator.

Right to bail Rule 126 of RR

If you post bail you are not considered as having waive your right to challenge the legality or the conduct or
absence of preliminary investigation.

2016 case
Nag post ng bail after posting he file several motions to the court invoking the jurisdiction of the court
seeking several affirmative reliefs by way of orders of the court, sabi ng SC those subsequent acts of the
accused seeking to obtain affirmative reliefs from the court that should be considered as a resulting a waiver
of challenging the validity of arrest, the absence or conduct of preliminary investigation.

Special law, penal code, separate offenses kadalasan yan.

Inseparable and separate offenses

Absorption rule

Kung convicted ka for illegal sale, you cannot be prosecuted separately again for illegal possession of the drug
you sold. Inseparable offenses mga yan. Absorbed

The unlicensed firearm aspect is considered as aggravating circumstance.

Is it possible for one act to give rise to multiple offenses?

Yes.

In relation to a valid plea

Difa if nag file ng motion to quash if it is granted pwede mag refile. Why? Wala pang arraignment e.

Other instances where a granting of motion to quash can give rise to double jeopardy
Yes

Banos vs San Pedro

What are the grounds that can be invoked to a motion to quash which if granted can give rise to double
jeopardy?
1. Prescription
2. Double jeopardy

Ivler vs modesto
Crime of Reckless Imprudence
May banggaan, may patay wasak yung kotse, prosecuted for 2 offenses, reckless imprudence resulting to
damage to property and reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. Arraignment, property, guilty. 2 nd
arraignment homicide, pleaded double jeopardy, sustained. Because it was an inseparable offense. There is
only one offense reckless imprudence, the consequences of damage to property and homicideshould have
been incorporated to the single offense

Here is an MTC case for ggrave oral defamation

There in conviction. Appeal is now filed in the RTC. The judge this is only slight oral defamation and given the
period, it has prescribed. Therefore dismissed the case. The prosecution appealed to CA. double jeopardy has
set in precisely because of the acquittal.

People vs de leon
Torres vs People
An appeal of an accused throws the entire case open for complete review.
Double jeopardy cannot be considered that has set in therefore the reinstatement of the robbery with
homicide was proper.

An appeal throws open a case entirely for total review. Double jeopardy has not been considered has set in.

Double jeopardy is available in criminal prosecutions but not available in the context of preliminary
investigations.

Not applicable in disbarment cases.

Available in contempt proceedings because it partakes the character of criminal proceedings and therefore
double jeopardy as a defense would be available.