November 2017 - page 3

FACTS: Petitioner was charged with and convicted of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. He filed a petition for habeas corpus after the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659 which has reduced the penalties prescribed under the original provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act, and the recent ruling of the Supreme Court which has confirmed the retroactive application of the above-numbered amendatory law. ISSUE(S): Whether or not only the Supreme Court may entertain petitions for habeas corpus involving persons convicted of drug-related offenses prior to the effectivity of RA 7659.…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioners filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of their children wo were arrested and detained by the military, and were allegedly released nine days later. However, they have not been seen or heard from since their supposed release. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondents have the burden of proving the release of the two desaparecidos. HELD: YES. The general rule postulates that the release of the detainees is an established fact and not in dispute, and that they do not continue to be missing persons or desaparecidos. Where, however, there are grounds for grave doubts…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Two civilians were tried by the military commissions during the martial law period. They were originally condemned to die by musketry, but their sentence was commuted to reclusion perpetua. Despite the Supreme Court having nullified their conviction on the ground that military tribunals do not have jurisdiction to try civilians when the courts of justice are functioning, they remained in detention. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the petitioners were entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. HELD: YES. Civilians who were convicted by military courts and who have been serving (but not completed) their sentences of imprisonment for the past…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellants and two others were charged with the crime of highway robbery with homicide. After the arraignment and uring the trial, appellant Rex Magumnang escaped from confinement and had not been apprehended since then. As to him trial in absentia proceeded and thereafter the judgment of conviction was promulgated against the defendants. He remains at large while his appeal is pending. ISSUE(S): Whether or not an accused who is at large during and after his trial may appeal his conviction. HELD: NO. Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country,…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner was charged with malicious mischief. He deposited a cash bond for his provisional liberty. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of not guilty and thereafter filed a written waiver of appearance during the trial or at any stage thereof. Petitioner failed to appear at a hearing where the principal witness was recalled to identify him. The trial court ordered him arrested and his cash bond confiscated. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner can be compelled to be present during the trial for purposes of his identification by prosecution witnesses. HELD: YES. Trial in absentia of the accused in case…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of forcible abduction with rape. He pleaded not guilty during his arraignment. Due to his repeated failure to appear at the hearings, the defense rested its case after adopting the testimony of prosecution witnesses as evidence for the accused. The trial court found him guilty. ISSUE(S): Whether or not trial in absentia is valid. HELD: YES. The right to be present at one’s trial may now be waived except only at that stage where the prosecution intends to present witnesses who will identify the accused. The defendant’s escape will be considered a waiver…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Accused-appellant was arrested in an entrapment operation and charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. During the trial, the prosecution did not present the confidant-informant-turned-poseur buyer and relied only on the testimony of a police officer who was present during the buy-bust operation. ISSUE(S): Whether or not appellant’s right to know the witnesses against him and meet them in court was violated. HELD: NO. Accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto. In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material and indispensable is the submission of proof that the sale of illicit drug took place between the…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner was arrested and booked for frustrated murder but the information was upgraded to murder following the victim’s death. Respondent judge initially allowed petitioner to post bail but later recalled the order, directed petitioner to surrender and cancelled the order granting leave for the prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation. Petitioner then filed a motion to suspend proceedings and transfer verue outside of Metro Manila which was denied. Respondent judge also denied petitioner’s motion for recusation. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent judge should inhibit from the case for being partial to the prosecution. HELD: NO. The divergence of opinions…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellants were charged with murder as conspirators. During the trial, the judge conducted the interrogation of the appellants, asking adversarial and sometimes irrelevant questions and belaboring their criminal activities and tattoos, cross-examined the lone defense witness and took over the task of impeaching appellants’ credibility. ISSUE(S): Whether or not appellants were tried by an impartial judge. HELD: NO. Convictions are based not on the mere appearance of the accused but on his actual commission of crime, to be ascertained with the pure objectivity of the true judge who must uphold the law for all without favor or malice and…

Keep Reading

FACTS: After finding sufficient prima facie evidence against petitioner and his co-accused, an information was filed for economic sabotage through smuggling. Years later, respondent Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motion for an immediate and separate title. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a separate trial. HELD: YES. A separate trial is in consonance with the right of an accused to a speedy trial. The resulting inconvenience and expense on the part of the Government cannot be given preference over the right to speedy trial and the protection to a person’s life, liberty or property. Respondents are ORDERED to proceed with…

Keep Reading