November 2017 - page 5

FACTS: In October 1974, a formal report was filed charging petitioner with alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. No action was taken on said report until it was revived on December 12, 1979, two months after it became public that petitioner had a falling out with the president. Criminal charges were thereafter lodged against petitioner. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation violates petitioner’s right to due process. HELD: YES. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law governing the conduct of preliminary investigation, including substantial compliance with the time limitation…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner was found guilty of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for using her position as branch clerk of court to demand and receive money from the persons involved in certain cases in consideration of a promise that she will help in getting them a favorable judgment. Under P.D. No. 1606, petitioner is only afforded one stage of appeal. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner was denied due process. HELD: NO. If an accused has been heard in a court of competent jurisdiction, and proceeded against under the orderly processes of law, and only punished after inquiry and…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Private respondent and his co-accused were in military custody following their arrest. An information was then filed charging them for the crime of rebellion. A petition for habeas corpus for private respondent and his co-accused was filed but was dismissed on the basis of the agreement of the parties under which herein private respondent “will remain in legal custody and will face trial before the court having custody over his person” and the warrants for the arrest of his co-accused are deemed recalled and they shall be immediately released but shall submit themselves to the court having jurisdiction over…

Keep Reading

FACTS: While a fugitive from justice, petitioner committed other crimes including double murder for which he was convicted only for double homicide. While he was appealing his conviction therein, the convicting court allowed him to post bail notwithstanding that he was already serving prison terms for prior offenses. Respondent court, in a resolution, canceled petitioner’s bail bond, nullified the trial court’s order granting him bail, and issued a warrant for his immediate arrest. It also denied petitioner’s twin motion for reconsideration and quashal of warrant of arrest. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner is entitled to bail pending appeal from judgment…

Keep Reading

FACTS: One of the accused in a murder complaint filed a petition for bail. A hearing was set and reset several times but did not materialize. It was later discovered that bail had already been granted and a release order was issued. ISSUE(S): Whether or not applications for bail must be heard. HELD: YES. When bail is discretionary, a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, should first be conducted to determine the existence of strong evidence, or lack of it, against the accused to enable the judge to make an intelligent assessment of the evidence…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Accused filed a petition for bail in connection with an information for murder against him. Respondent judge granted the same sans a hearing and recalled the warrant of arrest after the accused posted the required bond. ISSUE(S): Whether or not a hearing is necessary in applications for bail. HELD: YES. In indictments for capital offenses like murder, bail shall not be granted when the evidence of guilt is strong. When admission to bail is a matter of discretion, the judge is required to conduct a hearing and to give notice of such hearing to the fiscal or require him…

Keep Reading

FACTS: A case for double murder against several accused was docketed and later raffled to respondent judge. The accused then filed a petition for bail which was heard and granted by the trial court despite opposition from the prosecution. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the prosecution is entitled to be heard in a petition for bail. HELD: YES. When an accused is charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher, a hearing on the motion for bail must be conducted by the judge to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. Whether the motion is resolved…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Respondent Ltc. Jacinto Ligot is among the officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines facing prosecution for their alleged participation in a failed coup d’état. He applied for bail which was denied by GCM No.14 but was later granted by the respondent judge. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner Ligot is entitled to bail. HELD: NO. Traditionally, the right to bail has not been recognized and is not available in the military. The unique structure of the military should be enough reason to exempt military men from the constitutional coverage on the right to bail. Aside from structural peculiarity,…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellant and two others were charged with the crime of rape with murder. A re-enactment of how the crime was committed was staged promptly upon his apprehension and even prior to his formal investigation at the police station. He pleaded not guilty during the arraignment, was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the re-enactment may be admitted in evidence. HELD: NO. It is not clear from the record that before the re-enactment was staged by Luvendino, he had been informed of his constitutional rights including, specifically, his right to counsel and that he had waived…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellant was arrested in a buy-bust operation. During the investigation, he was apprised of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel. When asked to give a written statement, he refused to do so pending arrival of his lawyer. However, he was still forced to sign the photocopy of the marked twenty-peso bill, Receipt of Property Seized, and the Booking and Information Sheet which were all presented and admitted in evidence. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the documents were admissible in evidence. HELD: NO. The documents…

Keep Reading