ARREST
 Probable Cause is a reasonable ground of
 DEFINITION:
 Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in
order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense.
 HOW EFFECTED:
 an arrest is effected by an actual restraint of the
person to be arrested or by his voluntary
submission to the custody of the person making
the arrest.
 Application of actual force, manual touching of
the body, physical restraint or a formal
declaration of arrest is not, required. It is enough
that there be an intent on the part of one of the
parties to arrest the other and an intent onthe part
of the other to submit, under the belief and
impression that submission is necessary. 12
 WARRANTLESS ARREST
 Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A
peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
 (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense;
 (b) When an offense has in fact just been
committed and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
 (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escapes from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
 JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
 It has been held that where after the filing of the
complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the
accused is issued by the trial court and the accused
either voluntarily submitted himself to the court or
was duly arrested, the court thereby acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused.12
 The voluntary appearance of the accused,
whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his
person, is accomplished either by his pleading to
the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or
other pleadings requiring the exercise of the
court's jurisdiction thereover, appearing for
arraignment, entering trial) or by filing bail.
 On the matter of bail, since the same is intended
to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused, as
a rule the same cannot be posted before custody
of the accused has been acquired by the judicial
authorities either by his arrest or voluntary
surrender.13
WITH A WARRANT
 When warrant of arrest may issue. (a) By the Regional
Trial Court. Within ten (10) days from the filing of the
complaint or information, the judge shall personally
evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the
evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable
cause.
REQUIREMENTS IN THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF
ARREST
 The JUDGE shall:
 (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the
existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof,
issue a warrant of arrest; or
 (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause,
he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid
him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause.
**PROBABLE CAUSE
 DEFINITION
presumption that a matter is, or may be, well
founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the
prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary
caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an
honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so.
 The term does not mean "actual and positive
cause" nor does it import absolute certainty.
 It is merely based on opinion and reasonable
belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not
require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient
evidence to procure a conviction.
 It is enough that it is it believed that the act or
omission complained of constitutes the offense
charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the
reception of evidence of the prosecution in
support of the charge.
 Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
is the existence of such facts and circumstances that
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person
to believe that an offense was committed by the
person sought to be arrested.41
 This must be distinguished from the prosecutor’s
finding of probable cause which is for the filing of
the proper criminal information.
 Probable cause for warrant of arrest is determined to
address the necessity of placing the accused under
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.42
 BASIS
 The need to find probable cause is dictated by the Bill
of Rights which protects "the right of the people to be
secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature . . ." 20 An
arrest without a probable cause is an unreasonable
seizure of a person, and violates the privacy of
persons which ought not to be intruded by the
State.21
 Probable cause to warrant arrest is not an
opaque concept in our jurisdiction. Continuing
accretions of case law reiterate that they are
facts and circumstances which would lead
a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed
by the person sought to be arrested.22

 JUDGE V. PROSECUTOR:
 DUTY OF JUDGE
 Webb v. De Leon,[49]
 the judge just personally reviews the initial
determination of the investigating prosecutor
finding a probable cause to see if it is
supported by substantial evidence.[50]
 However, in determining the existence or
non-existence of probable cause for the
arrest of the accused, the judge should not
rely solely on the said report.[51] The judge
should consider not only the report of the
investigating prosecutor but also the
affidavit/affidavits and the documentary
evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit
of the accused and his witnesses, as well as
the transcript of stenographic notes taken
during the preliminary investigation, if any,
submitted to the court by the investigating
prosecutor upon the filing of the
Information.[52]
 SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR
 The constitutional provision does not mandatorily
require the judge to personally examine the
complainant and her witnesses. Instead, he may
opt to personally evaluate the report and
supporting documents submitted by the
prosecutor or he may disregard the prosecutors
report and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses.
 The Judge does not have to personally examine
the complainant and his witnesses. The
Prosecutor can perform the same functions as a
commissioner for the taking of the evidence.
However, there should be a report and necessary
 documents supporting the Fiscals bare
certification. All of these should be before the
Judge.
 What the Constitution underscores is the
exclusive and personal responsibility of the
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the
existence of probable cause. In satisfying
himself of the existence of probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not
required to personally examine the complainant
and his witnesses. Following established doctrine
and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate
the report and the supporting documents
submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of
probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a
warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he
finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
fiscal's report and require the submission of
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause.
 PEOPLE V. INTING
 First, the determination of probable cause is a
function of the Judge. It is not for the Provincial
Fiscal or Prosecutor nor for the Election
Supervisor to ascertain. Only the Judge and the
Judge alone makes this determination.
 Second, the preliminary inquiry made by a
Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. It merely
assists him to make the determination of
probable cause. The Judge does not have to
follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. By
itself, the Prosecutors certification of probable
cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits
the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and
all other supporting documents behind the
Prosecutors certification which are material in
assisting the Judge to make his determination.
 And third, Judges and Prosecutors alike should
distinguish the preliminary inquiry which
determines probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest from the preliminary
investigation proper which ascertains whether the
offender should be held for trial or released. Even
if the two inquiries are conducted in the course of
one and the same proceeding, there should be
no confusion about the objectives.The
determination of probable cause for the warrant
of arrest is made by the Judge. The preliminary
investigation proper -- whether or not there is
reasonable ground to believe that the accused is
guilty of the offense charged and, therefore,
whether or not he should be subjected to the
expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial -- is
the function of the Prosecutor.[12]
 HO VS. PEOPLE
 First, as held in Inting, the determination of
probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose
different from that which is to be made by the
judge. Whether there is reasonable ground to
believe that the accused is guilty of the offense
charged and should be held for trial is what the
prosecutor passes upon. The judge, on the other
hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest
should be issued against the
accused, i.e. whether there is a necessity for
placing him under immediate custody in order not
to frustrate the ends of justice.[24] Thus, even if
both should base their findings on one and the
same proceeding or evidence, there should be no
confusion as to their distinct objectives.
 Second, since their objectives are different, the
judge cannot rely solely on the report of the
prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. Obviously and
understandably, the contents of the prosecutors
report will support his own conclusion that there
is reason to charge the accused of an offense
and hold him for trial. However, the judge must
decide independently. Hence, he must have
supporting evidence, other than the
prosecutors bare report, upon which to legally
sustain his own findings on the existence (or
nonexistence) of probable cause to issue an
arrest order. This responsibility of determining
personally and independently the existence or
nonexistence of probable cause is lodged in him
by no less than the most basic law of the
land. Parenthetically, the prosecutor could ease
the burden of the judge and speed up the
litigation process by forwarding to the latter not
only the information and his bare resolution
finding probable cause, but also so much of the
records and the evidence on hand as to enable
His Honor to make his personal and separate
judicial finding on whether to issue a warrant of
arrest.[25]
 Lastly, it is not required that
the complete or entire records of the case during
the preliminary investigation be submitted to and
examined by the judge.[26] We do not intend to
unduly burden trial courts by obliging them to
examine the complete records of every case all
the time simply for the purpose of ordering the
arrest of an accused. What is required, rather, is
that the judge must have sufficient supporting
documents (such as the complaint, affidavits,
counter-affidavits, sworn statements of witnesses
or transcripts of stenographic notes, if any) upon
which to make his independent judgment or, at
the very least, upon which to verify the findings of
the prosecutor as to the existence of probable
cause. The point is: he cannot rely solely and
entirely on the prosecutors recommendation, as
Respondent Court did in this case
 Section 5(a) of Rule 112, grantsthe trial court three options
upon the filing of the criminal complaint or information. He
may:
 a) dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly
failed to establish probable cause;
 b) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause;
or
 c) order the prosecutor to present additional evidence
within five days from notice in case of doubt on the
existence of probable cause.28
 EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL DETERMINATION
 In a criminal prosecution, probable cause is
determined at two stages.
 The first is at the executive level, where
determination is made by the prosecutor during
the preliminary investigation, before the filing of
the criminal information.
 The second is at the judicial level, undertaken by
the judge before the issuance of a warrant of
arrest.
 The executive determination of probable cause is one
made during preliminary investigation. It is a function that
properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a
broad discretion to determine whether probable cause
exists and to charge those whom he believes to have
committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be
held for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-
judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal
case must be filed in court. Whether or not that function
has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor,
i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment
of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter
that the trial court itself does not and may not be
compelled to pass upon.
 The judicial determination of probable cause, on the
other hand, is one made by the judge to ascertain whether
a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused.
The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence
submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the
judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced
to issue the arrest warrant.44 [Emphasis ours]
 The difference is clear: The executive determination of
probable cause concerns itself with whether there is
enough evidence to support an Information being
filed. The judicial determination of probable cause, on
 the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest
should be issued.
 a warrant can issue only if the judge is satisfied after an
examination in writing and under oath of the complainant
and the witnesses, in the form of searching questions and
answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a
necessity of placing the respondent under immediate
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
BY A REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
 The judge must make a personal determination of the
existence or non-existence of probable cause for the
arrest of the accused. The duty to make such
determination is personal and exclusive to the issuing
judge. He cannot abdicate his duty and rely on the
certification of the investigating prosecutor that he had
conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with
law and the Rules of Court, as amended, and found
probable cause for the filing of the Information.
 WHEN INJUNCTION WILL NOT LIE
 It is an established doctrine that injunction will not lie
to enjoin a criminal prosecution because public
interest requires that criminal acts be immediately
investigated and prosecuted for the protection of
society.[57]
 However, it is also true that various decisions of this
Court have laid down exceptions to this rule, among
which are:
 a. To afford adequate protection to the
constitutional rights of the accused
 b. When necessary for the orderly
administration of justice or to avoid
oppression or multiplicity of actions
 c. When there is a pre-judicial question
which is sub[-]judice
 d. When the acts of the officer are
without or in excess of authority
 e. Where the prosecution is under an
invalid law, ordinance or regulation
 f. When double jeopardy is clearly
apparent
 g. Where the court has no jurisdiction
over the offense
 h. Where there is a case of persecution
rather than prosecution
 i. Where the charges are manifestly
false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance
 j. When there is clearly no prima facie
case against the accused and a motion
to quash on that ground has been
denied
 [k.] Preliminary injunction has been
issued by the Supreme Court to prevent
the threatened unlawful arrest of
petitioners
INFERIOR COURTS
 EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT/APPLICANT AND
WITNESS
 Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.
 (b) By the Municipal Trial Court. If the municipal
trial judge conducting the preliminary
investigation is satisfied after an examination in
writing and under oath of the complainant and his
witnesses in the form of searching questions and
answers, that a probable cause exists and that
there is a necessity of placing the respondent
under immediate custody in order not to frustrate
the ends of justice, he shall issue a warrant of
arrest.
 there are three (3) conditions that must concur for
the issuance of the warrant of arrest by the
municipal judge during a preliminary
investigation. The investigating judge must:
 1.Have examined in writing and under oath the
complainant and his witnesses by searching
questions and answers;
 2.Be satisfied that a probable cause exists; and
 3.That there is a need to place the respondent
under immediate custody in order not to frustrate
the ends of justice.
NOT MANDATORY/ AUTOMATIC TO ISSUE WARRANT OF
ARREST
 Even if the judge finds probable cause, it is not mandatory
for him to issue a warrant of arrest.
 He must further determine the necessity of placing
the respondent under immediate custody in order
not to frustrate the ends of justice.[6]
 It is improper for a municipal judge to issue a warrant
of arrest without any finding that it was necessary to
place the accused in immediate custody to prevent
frustration of the ends of justice
WARRANTLESS ARREST
 RULE 113
 Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A
peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
 (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense;
 (b) When an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
 (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
 An arrest without a warrant of arrest, under Section 5
paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court, as amended, is justified when the person
arrested is caught in flagranti delicto, viz., in the
act of committing an offense; or when an offense
has just been committed and the person making
the arrest has personal knowledge of the facts
indicating that the person arrested has committed
it.
 THE RATIONALE BEHIND LAWFUL ARRESTS,
WITHOUT WARRANT
 PEOPLE VS. KAGUI MALASUGUI
 To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be
arrested and searched for the evidence and
tokens of his crime without a warrant, would be to
leave society, to a large extent, at the mercy of
the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most
depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in
many instances.
 PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS
 Section 5(b), Rule 113, it will be noted, refers to
arrests without warrant, based on "personal
knowledge of facts" acquired by the arresting officer
or private person.
 It has been ruled that "personal knowledge of facts,"
in arrests without warrant must be based
upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion 9
 The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the
absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the
suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably
guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual
facts, i.e., supported by circumstances
 A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on
probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of
the peace officers making the arrest. 11
 Jurisprudence which dictates that appellant, having
voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, is
 deemed to have waived his right to question the validity of
his arrest, thus curing whatever defect may have attended
his arrest.
 The legality of the arrest affects only the jurisdiction of
the court over his person. Appellants warrantless
arrest therefore cannot, in itself, be the basis of his
acquittal.
JOHN DOE WARRANT
 a John Doe warrant satisfies the requirements so long as
it contains a descriptio personae such as will enable the
officer to identify the accused.
 the warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed party is
void, "except in those cases where it contains a
description personae such as will enable the officer to
identify the accused."
 John Doe search warrants should be the exception and
not the rule. The police should particularly describe the
place to be searched and the person or things to be
seized, wherever and whenever it is feasible. The police
should not be hindered in the performance of their duties,
which are difficult enough of performance under the best
of conditions, by superficial adherence to technicality or far
fetched judicial interference.
SPECIAL RULE ON JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH THE
LAW
 A.M. NO. 02-1-18-SC
 R.A. 9344
INVITATIONS
 RA 7438
 "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of
issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated
in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed, without prejudice to the liability of the
"inviting" officer for any violation of law
 an invitation to attend a hearing and answer some
questions, which the person invited may heed or
refuse at his pleasure, is not illegal or constitutionally
objectionable.
 Under certain circumstances, however, such an
invitation can easily assume a different
appearance.
 Thus, where the invitation comes from a
powerful group composed predominantly of
ranking military officers issued at a time
when the country has just emerged from
martial rule and when the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus has not
entirely been lifted, and the designated
interrogation site is a military camp, the
same can be easily taken, not as a strictly
voluntary invitation which it purports to be,
but as an authoritative command which one
can only defy at his peril
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (LEGIT NA)
*CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
 There are certain fundamental rights which cannot be
waived even by the accused himself, but the right of
appeal is not one of them. This right is granted solely for
the benefit of the accused. He may avail of it or not, as he
pleases. He may waive it either expressly or by
implication. When the accused flees after the case has
been submitted to the court for decision, he will be
deemed to have waived his right to appeal from the
judgment rendered against him
 The settled rule is that when an accused pleads to the
charge, he is deemed to have waived the right to
preliminary investigation and the right to question any
irregularity that surrounds it
 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION BY THE OMBUDSMAN
 The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman (Ombudsman Rules of
Procedure),[34] specifically Section 2 of Rule II, states:
 Evaluation. Upon evaluating the complaint, the
investigating officer shall recommend whether it
may be:
 a) dismissed outright for want of palpable
merit;
 b) referred to respondent for comment;
 c) indorsed to the proper government office
or agency which has jurisdiction over the
case;
 d) forwarded to the appropriate officer or
official for fact-finding investigation;
 e) referred for administrative adjudication; or
 f) subjected to a preliminary investigation.
 Thus, the Ombudsman need not conduct
a preliminary investigation upon receipt of a
complaint. Should investigating officers find a
complaint utterly devoid of merit, they may
recommend its outright dismissal. Moreover, it is
also within their discretion to determine
whether or not
preliminary investigation should be
conducted.
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
** AS DIFFERENTIATED FROM PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
 Custodial interrogation is the questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant way.[21]
 A preliminary investigation is an inquiry or a proceeding
to determine whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial.[22]
 It is well-settled that the foregoing legal formalities
required by the fundamental law of the land apply only
to extra-judicial confessions or admissions obtained
during custodial investigations.[19] Indeed, the rights
enumerated in the constitutional provision exist only in
custodial interrogations, or in-custody interrogation of
accused persons.[20]
 a person undergoing preliminary investigation cannot
be considered as being under custodial investigation.
 The import of the distinction between custodial
interrogation and preliminary investigation relates to the
inherently coercive nature of a custodial interrogation
which is conducted by the police authorities. Due to
the interrogatory procedures employed by police
authorities, which are conducive to physical and
psychological coercion, the law affords arrested persons
constitutional rights to guarantee the voluntariness of their
confessions and admissions, and to act as deterrent from
coercion by police authorities.
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION
 DEFINITION
 Custodial interrogation means any questioning
initiated by law enforcement authorities after a
person is taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant manner.
 Custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial
stage when the investigation is no longer a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus
on a particular person as a suspect
 custodial investigation commences when a person is
taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect
 in the commission of a crime under investigation
and the police officers begin to ask questions on
the suspect's participation therein and which tend
to elicit an admission
 NOTES
 a person under custodial investigation is guaranteed
certain rights which attach upon the commencement
thereof, viz: (1) to remain silent, (2) to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice, and (3) to be informed of the two other rights
above.19
 an accused who is on board the police vehicle on
the way to the police station is already under custodial
investigation, and should therefore be accorded his
rights under the Constitution.
 RIGHT TO COUNSEL
 right to counsel "applies only to admissions made
in a criminal investigation but not to those made
in an administrative investigation."
 The purpose of providing counsel to a person
under custodial investigation is to curb the
uncivilized practice of extracting confession even
by the slightest coercion as would lead the
accused to admit something false.
 What is sought to be avoided is the evil of
extorting from the very mouth of the person
undergoing interrogation for the commission
of an offense, the very evidence with which
to prosecute and thereafter convict him.
 These constitutional guarantees have
been made available to protect him from
the inherently coercive psychological, if
not physical, atmosphere of such
investigation.
 The right to counsel attaches the moment an
investigating officer starts to ask questions to
elicit information on the crime from the suspected
offender. It is at this point that the law requires
the assistance of counsel to avoid the pernicious
practice of extorting forced or coerced
admissions or confessions from the person
undergoing interrogation.
 In other words, "the moment there is a move
or even urge of said investigators to elicit
admissions or confessions or even plain
information which may appear innocent or
innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he
should then and there be assisted by
counsel, unless he waives the right, but the
waiver shall be made in writing and in the
presence of counsel
DUTY OF POLICE DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
**MIRANDA RIGHTS
 The Miranda doctrine requires that:
 (a) any person under custodial investigation has the
right to remain silent;
 (b) anything he says can and will be used against him
in a court of law;
 (c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being
questioned and to have his counsel present when
being questioned; and
 (d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be
provided before any questioning if he so desires.
 In the Miranda case, the Federal Supreme Court made it
clear that what is prohibited is the "incommunicado
interrogation of individuals in a police dominated
atmosphere, resulting in self- incriminating statements
without full warnings of constitutional rights."
 The State's right to prosecute criminals may be a great
right but, as Lord Chancellor Sankey observed, it is not
permissible "to do a great right by doing a little wrong".
 The Miranda ruling does not mean that the police should
stop a person who enters a police station and states that
he wishes to confess to a crime. It does not affect
volunteered statements of guilt by persons not in police
custody.
 He (the accused) must be warned prior to any
questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that
anything he says can be used against him in a court
of law, that he has the right to the presence of an
attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one
will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he
so desires.
 Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded
to him throughout the interrogation.
 After such warnings have been given, and such
opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly
and intelligently waive these rights and agree to
answer questions or make a statement.
 But unless and until such warnings and waiver are
demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence
obtained as a result of interrogation can be used
against him.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
 ARTICLE III, SECTION 12
 (1). Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel, preferably of his
own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
 (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or
any other means which vitiate the free will shall be
used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
are prohibited.
 (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation
of this or Section 17 shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.
 It is required that the suspect in custodial interrogation
must be given the following warnings:
 (1) He must be informed of his right to remain silent;
 (2) He must be warned that anything he says can and
will be used against him; and
 SELF
 (3) He must be told that he has a right to counsel, and
that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to
represent him
 Art. III, 12(1) requires that counsel assisting
suspects in custodial interrogations be
competent and independent.
 Independent counsel required by Art. III,
12(1) cannot be a special counsel, public or
private prosecutor, municipal attorney, or
counsel of the police whose interest is
admittedly adverse to the accused.
 EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION
 Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary,
and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing
the declarants consent in executing the same has
been vitiated, such confession will be sustained.
 There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced
confessions treated in this constitutional provision:
 (1) those which are the product of third degree
methods such as torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, which are dealt with in paragraph 2
of 12, and
 (2) those which are given without the benefit of
Miranda warnings, which are the subject of
paragraph 1 of the same 12.
CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION/ NON- OBSERVANCE
 Confessions and admissions in violation of
Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution are
inadmissible in evidence against the declarant and
more so against third persons
 This is so even if such statements are gospel
truth and voluntarily given.
 Such statements are useless except as
evidence against the very police authorities who
violated the suspect's rights.
 It is always incumbent upon the prosecution to prove at
the trial that prior to in-custody questioning, the confessant
was informed of his constitutional rights.
 The presumption of regularity of official acts does
not prevail over the constitutional presumption of
innocence.
RIGHT TO BE HEARD
 In criminal cases where the imposable penalty may be
death, as in the present case, the court is called upon to
see to it that the accused is personally made aware of the
consequences of a waiver of the right to present evidence.
In fact, it is not enough that the accused is simply warned
of the consequences of another failure to attend the
succeeding hearings. The court must first explain to the
accused personally in clear terms the exact nature and
consequences of a waiver.
 the waiver of the right to present evidence in a
criminal case involving a grave penalty is not
assumed and taken lightly
 an invalid waiver of the right to present evidence and
be heard does not per se work to vacate a finding of
guilt in the criminal case or to enforce an automatic
remand of the case to the trial court
RIGHT TO COUNSEL;WAIVER
 The rights to remain silent and to counsel may be waived
by the accused provided that the constitutional
requirements are complied with. It must appear clear that
the accused was initially accorded his right to be informed
of his right to remain silent and to have a competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. In
addition, the waiver must be in writing and in the presence
of counsel. If the waiver complies with the constitutional
requirements, then the extrajudicial confession will be
tested for voluntariness,[31] i. e., if it was given freely-
without coercion, intimidation, inducement, or false
promises; and credibility,[32] i.e., if it was consistent with
the normal experience of mankind.
 A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged
by the accused where he never raised any objection
against the former's appointment during the course of the
investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the
veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. 11
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
 the right of a person under investigation "to be
informed" implies a correlative obligation on the part
of the police investigator to explain, and contemplates
an effective communication that results in
understanding of what is conveyed. Short of this,
there is a denial of the right.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DE OFICIO IN THE
ABSENCE OF RETAINED COUNSEL/COUNSEL OF
RECORD
 The choice of counsel by the accused in a criminal
prosecution is not a plenary one. If the chosen counsel
deliberately makes himself scarce, the court is not
precluded from appointing a de oficio counsel, which it
considers competent and independent, to enable the trial
to proceed until the counsel of choice enters his
appearance. Otherwise, the pace of a criminal prosecution
will be entirely dictated by the accused, to the detriment of
the eventual resolution of the case
COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
 DEFINITION
 that he is willing to fully safeguard the constitutional
rights of the accused, as distinguished from one who
would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and
meaningless recital of the individual's constitutional
rights.
 NOTE:
 The right to counsel is a fundamental right and
contemplates not a mere presence of the lawyer
beside the accused.
 EFFECTIVE
 In People v. Bacamante 17, the term "effective and
vigilant counsel" was explained thus:
 necessarily and logically [requires] that the lawyer
be present and able to advise and assist his
client from the time the confessant answers the
first question asked by the investigating officer
until the signing of the extrajudicial confession.
Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain that the
confession is made voluntarily and that the
person under investigation fully understands the
nature and the consequence of his extrajudicial
confession in relation to his constitutional rights.
A contrary rule would undoubtedly be
antagonistic to the constitutional rights to remain
silent, to counsel and to be presumed innocent.
 In People v. dela Cruz 18, an effective counsel was
characterized as:
 one who can be made to act in protection of his
[accused's] rights, and not by merely going
through the motions of providing him with anyone
who possesses a law degree.
 to be an effective counsel, a lawyer need not
challenge all the questions being propounded to his
client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to
stop an accused from saying anything which might
incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our
Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as
would lead the accused to admit something false. The
counsel, however, should never prevent an accused
from freely and voluntarily telling the truth
N.B. LIMITATION
 However, the foregoing rule is not intended to deter to the
accused from confessing guilt if he voluntarily and
intelligently so desires, but to protect him from admitting
what he is being coerced to admit although untrue. To be
an effective counsel, a lawyer need not challenge all the
questions being propounded to his client.
 The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an
accused from saying anything which might incriminate
him; but, rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to
preclude the slightest coercion on the accused to
admit something false. The counsel should never
prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling
the truth.
 It stresses the need to accord the accused, under the
uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial investigation,
an informed judgment on the choices explained to him by
a diligent and capable lawyer.143
 An effective and vigilant counsel necessarily and
logically requires that the lawyer be present and able
to advise and assist his client from the time the
confessant answers the first question asked by the
investigating officer until the signing of the
extrajudicial confession.
 Moreover, the lawyer should ascertain that the
confession is made voluntarily and that the person
under investigation fully understands the nature and
the consequence of his extrajudicial confession in
relation to his constitutional rights. A contrary rule
would undoubtedly be antagonistic to the
constitutional rights to remain silent, to counsel and to
be presumed innocent.144
 The right to counsel has been written into our Constitution
in order to prevent the use of duress and other undue
influence in extracting confessions from a suspect in a
crime.
 The lawyer’s role cannot be reduced to being that of
a mere witness to the signing of a pre-prepared
confession, even if it indicated compliance with the
constitutional rights of the accused. The accused is
entitled to effective, vigilant and independent
counsel.145 Where the prosecution failed to discharge
the State’s burden of proving with clear and
convincing evidence that the accused had enjoyed
effective and vigilant counsel before he extrajudicially
admitted his guilt, the extrajudicial confession cannot
be given any probative value.
NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION
 What controls is not the title of the information or the
designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in
the information.
 In other words, it is the recital of facts of the
commission of the offense, not the nomenclature of
the offense, that determines the crime being charged
in the information.
 the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not
from the caption or preamble of the information, or from
the specification of the provision of law alleged to have
been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by
the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or
information.
 Every element of the offense must be stated in the
information. What facts and circumstances are necessary
to be included therein must be determined by reference to
the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes.
 The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in
the information is to inform the accused of the nature
of the accusation against him so as to enable him to
suitably prepare his defense. The presumption is that
the accused has no independent knowledge of the
facts that constitute the offense
 The raison detre of the requirement in the Rules is to
enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT TO INFORM THE
PERSON DETAINED OF RIGHTS
 it is settled that one's right to be informed of the right to
remain silent and to counsel contemplates the
transmission of meaningful information rather than just the
ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract
constitutional principle.
 It is not enough for the interrogator to merely repeat to
the person under investigation the provisions of
Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution; the
former must also explain the effects of such provision
in practical terms — e.g., what the person under
interrogation may or may not do — and in a language
the subject fairly understands.
 The right to be informed carries with it a correlative
obligation on the part of the police investigator to
explain, and contemplates effective communication
which results in the subject's understanding of what is
conveyed. Since it is comprehension that is sought to
be attained, the degree of explanation required will
necessarily vary and depend on the education,
intelligence, and other relevant personal
circumstances of the person undergoing investigation.
 In further ensuring the right to counsel, it is not
enough that the subject is informed of such right; he
should also be asked if he wants to avail of the same
and should be told that he could ask for counsel if he
so desired or that one could be provided him at his
request. If he decides not to retain a counsel of his
choice or avail of one to be provided for him and,
therefore, chooses to waive his right to counsel, such
waiver, to be valid and effective, must still be made
with the assistance of counsel, who, under prevailing
jurisprudence, must be a lawyer
 Admittedly, accused is deemed to have waived his right
to question the irregularities attending his arrest for
his failure to raise the same at the opportune time, i.e.,
before he entered his plea.
 Whenever a protection given by the Constitution is waived
by the person entitled to that protection, the presumption is
always against the waiver.
 Consequently, the prosecution must prove with
strongly convincing evidence to the satisfaction of this
Court that indeed the accused willingly and voluntarily
submitted his confession and knowingly and
deliberately manifested that he was not interested in
having a lawyer assist him during the taking of that
confession.
 When the Constitution requires a person under
investigation "to be informed" of his right to remain silent
and to counsel, it must be presumed to contemplate the
transmission of meaningful information rather than just the
ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract
constitutional principle.
 As a rule, therefor, it would not be sufficient for a
police officer just to repeat to the person under
investigation the provisions of Section 20, Article IV of
the Constitution. He is not only duty-bound to tell the
person the rights to which the latter is entitled; he
must also explain their effects in practical terms, e.g.,
what the person under interrogation may or may not
do, and in a language the subject fairly understands.
 In other words, the right of a person under
interrogation "to be informed" implies a
correlative obligation on the part of the police
investigator to explain, and contemplates an
effective communication that results in
understanding what is conveyed. Short of this,
there is a denial of the right, as it cannot truly be
said that the person has been "informed" of his
rights. Now, since the right "to be informed"
implies comprehension, the degree of
explanation required will necessary vary,
depending upon the education, intelligence and
other relevant personal circumstances of the
person under investigation. Suffice it to say that a
simpler and more lucid explanation is needed
where the subject is unlettered.
POLICE LINE UP
 When petitioner was Identified by the complainant at the
police line-up, he had not been held yet to answer for a
criminal offense.
 The police line-up is not a part of the custodial
inquest, hence, he was not yet entitled to counsel.
 Thus, it was held that when the process had not yet
shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory as
when police investigation does not elicit a confession
the accused may not yet avail of the services of his
lawyer
 The stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to
stand in a police line-up has been held to be outside the
mantle of protection of the right to counsel because it
involves a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and is
purely investigatory in nature. 13
 It has also been held that an uncounseled
identification at the police line-up does not preclude
the admissibility of an in-court identification.
 Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation;
hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution
cannot yet be invoked at this stage.
CONFESSIONS DIFFERENTIATED FROM ADMISSION
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONFESSION TO BE VALID AND
ADMISSIBLE
EXCEPTIONAL CASES ON UNCOUNSELED
CONFESSIONS NOT HELD TO BE EXCLUDED
 it has been held that the constitutional procedures on
custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous
statement, not elicited through questioning by the
authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby
appellant orally admitted having committed the crime. 35
 What the Constitution bars is the compulsory
disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. The
rights under Section 12 are guaranteed to preclude
the slightest use of coercion by the state as would
lead the accused to admit something false, not to
prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the
truth.
 [A]ppellant's [oral] confessions to the newsmen are
not covered by Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the
Constitution.
 The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the
relation between a private individual and another
individual. It governs the relationship between the
individual and the State. The prohibitions therein are
primarily addressed to the State and its agents.
 the constitutional guarantees during custodial investigation
do not apply to spontaneous statements not elicited
 through questioning by the authorities and given during
ordinary conversation or during media interviews, whereby
the suspect orally admits the commission of the crime.
 Our ruling in that case does not, however, authorize
the police to obtain confessions they cannot otherwise
obtain through media reporters who are acting for the
police
RIGHT TO TRIAL
TRIAL
 An accused's right to "have a speedy, impartial, and public
trial" is guaranteed in criminal cases by Section 14 (2) of
Article III of the Constitution. This right to a speedy trial
may be defined as one free from vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays, its "salutary objective" being to assure
that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and
expense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his
guilt determined within the shortest possible time
compatible with the presentation and consideration of
whatsoever legitimate defense he may
interpose. Intimating historical perspective on the evolution
of the right to speedy trial, we reiterate the old legal
maxim, "justice delayed is justice denied." This oft-
repeated adage requires the expeditious resolution of
disputes, much more so in criminal cases where an
accused is constitutionally guaranteed the right to a
speedy trial.
The right of the accused to a speedy trial and to a speedy
disposition of the case against him was designed to
prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal
prosecution suspended over him for an indefinite time, and
to prevent delays in the administration of justice by
mandating the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch
in the trial of criminal cases. Such right to a speedy trial
and a speedy disposition of a case is violated only when
the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays. The inquiry as to whether or not an
accused has been denied such right is not susceptible by
precise qualification. The concept of a speedy disposition
is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible
concept.
 In determining whether the accused has
been deprived of his right to a speedy
disposition of the case and to a speedy
trial, four factors must be considered: (a)
length of delay; (b) the reason for the
delay; (c) the defendant's assertion of
his right; and (d) prejudice to the
defendant. x x x.
Closely related to the length of delay is
the reason or justification of the State for
such delay. Different weights
 and secured; or even without cause or justifiable
 motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse
 should be assigned to different reasons
or justifications invoked by the State. x x
x.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
 Under Section 21, Rule 11411 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, the defendant’s absence merely
renders his bondsman potentially liable on its bond
(subject to cancellation should the bondsman fail to
produce the accused within 30 days); the defendant
retains his standing and, should he fail to surrender, will
be tried in absentia and could be convicted or
acquitted.
 Indeed, the 30-day period granted to the bondsman to
produce the accused underscores the fact that mere
non-appearance does not ipso facto convert the
accused’s status to that of a fugitive without
standing.
 Art. III, 14(2) of the Constitution authorizing trials in
absentia allows the accused to be absent at the trial but
not at certain stages of the proceedings, to wit:
 (a) at arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or
of guilt,[9]
 (b) during trial whenever necessary for identification
purposes,[10] and
 (c) at the promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a
light offense, in which case the accused may appear
by counsel or representative.[11]
 At such stages of the proceedings, his presence is
required and cannot be waived.
 As pointed out in Borja v. Mendoza,[12] in an opinion by
Justice, later Chief Justice, Enrique Fernando, there can
be no trial in absentia unless the accused has been
arraigned.
CONCEPT OF SPEEDY TRIAL
 Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that
"All persons shall have the right to speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies."
 Castañeda,
 the Court called on courts to be the last to set an
example of delay and oppression in the administration
of justice and it is the moral and legal obligation of the
courts to see to it that the criminal proceedings
against the accused come to an end and that they be
immediately discharged from the custody of the law.
 Exhaustively explained in Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, an
accuseds right to speedy trial is deemed violated only
when the proceeding is attended by vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delays.
 In determining whether petitioner was deprived of this
right, the factors to consider and balance are the
following:
 (a) duration of the delay;
 (b) reason therefor;
 (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it; and
 (d) prejudice caused by such delay.
 It must be noted, however, that the right to speedy
disposition of cases should be understood to be a relative
or flexible concept such that a mere mathematical
reckoning of the time involved would not be sufficient.
 Jurisprudence dictates that the right is deemed
violated only when the proceedings are attended by
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when
unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for
without the party having his case tried.23
TESTS:
 In Barker v. Wingo, the United States Supreme Court
was confronted for the first time with two rigid approaches
on speedy trial as ways of eliminating some of the
uncertainty which courts experience protecting the right. [47]
 fixed-time period
 which holds the view that the Constitution
requires a criminal defendant to be offered a trial
within a specified time period.[48]
 the demand-waiver rule
 which provides that a defendant waives any
consideration of his right to speedy trial for any

period prior to which he has not demanded
trial. Under this rigid approach, a prior demand is
a necessary condition to the consideration of the
speedy trial right.[49]
 The fixed-time period was rejected because there is
no constitutional basis for holding that the speedy trial
can be quantified into a specific number of days or
months.[50] The demand-waiver rule was likewise
rejected because aside from the fact that it is
inconsistent with this Courts pronouncements on
waiver of constitutional rights,[51] it is insensitive to a
right which we have deemed fundamental.[52]
BALANCING TEST
 The Court went on to adopt a middle ground:
the balancing test, in which the conduct of both the
prosecution and defendant are weighed.[53]
 Mr. Justice Powell, ponente, explained the concept,
thus
 A balancing test necessarily compels courts
to approach speedy trial cases on an ad
hoc basis.
 We can do little more than identify some of the
factors which courts should assess in determining
whether a particular defendant has been deprived
of his right.
 Though some might express them in different
ways, we identify four such factors: Length of
delay, the reason for the delay, the
defendants assertion of his right, and
prejudice to the defendant.
 FACTORS:
 The length of the delay
 is to some extent a triggering
mechanism.
 Until there is some delay which is
presumptively prejudicial, there is no
necessity for inquiry into the other
factors that go into the
balance. Nevertheless, because of the
imprecision of the right to speedy
trial, the length of delay that will
provoke such an inquiry is
necessarily dependent upon the
peculiar circumstances of the
case. To take but one example, the
delay that can be tolerated for an
ordinary street crime is considerably
less than for a serious, complex
conspiracy charge.
 The reason the government assigns to
justify the delay.
 Here, too, different weights should be
assigned to different reasons. A
deliberate attempt to delay the trial in
order to hamper the defense should be
weighted heavily against the
government.
 A more neutral reason such as
negligence or overcrowded courts
should be weighted less heavily but
nevertheless should be considered
since the ultimate responsibility for such
circumstances must rest with the
government rather than with the
defendant. Finally, a valid reason, such
as a missing witness, should serve to
justify appropriate delay.
 The defendants responsibility to assert
his right.
 The strength of his efforts will be
affected by the length of the delay, to
some extent by the reason for the
delay, and most particularly by the
personal prejudice, which is not
always readily identifiable, that he
experiences.
 The more serious the deprivation, the
more likely a defendant is to
complain. The defendants assertion of
his speedy trial right, then, is entitled to
strong evidentiary weight in determining
whether the defendant is being deprived
of the right.
 We emphasize that failure to assert
the right will make it difficult for a
defendant to prove that he was
denied a speedy trial.
 Prejudice to the defendant.
 Prejudice, of course, should be
assessed in the light of the interests
of defendants which the speedy trial
right was designed to protect.
 This Court has identified three such
interests:
 (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial
incarceration;
 (ii) to minimize anxiety and
concern of the accused; and
 (iii) to limit the possibility that the
defense will be impaired.
 Of these, the most serious is the last,
because the inability of a defendant
adequately to prepare his case skews
the fairness of the entire system. If
witnesses die or disappear during a
delay, the prejudice is obvious. There is
also prejudice if defense witnesses are
unable to recall accurately events of the
distant past. Loss of memory, however,
is not always reflected in the record
because what has been forgotten can
rarely be shown.[54] (Emphasis supplied)
 suspicion and often, hostility. His financial
resources may be drained, his association is
curtailed, and he is subjected to public obloquy.
CONCEPT OF PUBLIC TRIAL
 AQUINO
 [a] trial of any kind or in any court is a matter of
serious importance to all concerned and should not be
treated as a means of entertainment[, and t]o so treat
it deprives the court of the dignity which pertains to it
and departs from the orderly and serious quest for
truth for which our judicial proceedings are
formulated.
 The observation that [m]assive intrusion of
representatives of the news media into the trial itself
can so alter and destroy the constitutionally necessary
atmosphere and decorum stands.
 ESTRADA
 It held that [t]he propriety of granting or denying the
instant petition involve[s] the weighing out of the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and
 the right to public information, on the one hand, and
the fundamental rights of the accused, on the other
hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to
control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial
trial.
RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION
 The right of a party to confront and cross-examine
opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation, be it criminal or
civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative
tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right
which is part of due process.[133] This right, however, has
always been understood as requiring not necessarily an
actual cross-examination but merely an opportunity to
exercise the right to cross-examine if desired.[134] What is
proscribed by statutory norm and jurisprudential precept is
the absence of the opportunity to cross-examine.[135]
 There is a great deal of difference between the face-to-
face confrontation in a public criminal trial in the presence
of the presiding judge and the cross-examination of a
witness in a foreign place outside the courtroom in the
absence of a trial judge
 The main and essential purpose of requiring a witness
to appear and testify orally at a trial is to secure for
the adverse party the opportunity of cross-
examination. "The opponent", according to an
eminent authority, "demands confrontation, not for the
idle purpose of gazing upon the witness, or of being
gazed upon by him, but for the purpose of cross
examination which cannot be had except by the direct
and personal putting of questions and obtaining
immediate answers." There is also the advantage of
the witness before the judge, and it is this – it enables
the judge as trier of facts "to obtain the elusive and
incommunicable evidence of a witness' deportment
while testifying, and a certain subjective moral effect
is produced upon the witness. It is only when the
witness testifies orally that the judge may have a true
idea of his countenance, manner and expression,
which may confirm or detract from the weight of his
testimony. Certainly, the physical condition of the
witness will reveal his capacity for accurate
observation and memory, and his deportment and
physiognomy will reveal clues to his character. These
can only be observed by the judge if the witness
testifies orally in court
 The right of confrontation, on the other hand, is held to
apply specifically to criminal proceedings and to have a
twofold purpose: (1) to afford the accused an opportunity
to test the testimony of witnesses by cross-examination,
and (2) to allow the judge to observe the deportment of
witnesses.23 The Court explained in People v.
Seneris24 that the constitutional requirement "insures that
the witness will give his testimony under oath, thus
deterring lying by the threat of perjury charge; it forces the
witness to submit to cross-examination, a valuable
instrument in exposing falsehood and bringing out the
truth; and it enables the court to observe the demeanor of
the witness and assess his credibility."25
 As the right of confrontation is intended "to secure the
accused in the right to be tried as far as facts provable by
witnesses as meet him face to face at the trial who give
their testimony in his presence, and give to the accused an
opportunity of cross-examination,"26 it is properly viewed
as a guarantee against the use of unreliable testimony in
criminal trials. In the American case of Crawford v.
Washington,27 the US Supreme Court had expounded on
the procedural intent of the confrontation requirement,
thus:
RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT/ PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE
 The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal
case is a basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by
procedural rules which place on the prosecution the
burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense
charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Corollary
thereto, conviction must rest on the strength of the
prosecutions evidence and not on the weakness of the
defense
 The burden of proof placed on the Prosecution arises from
the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that
no less thanthe Constitution has guaranteed. Conversely,
as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of proof,
that he must then be acquitted and set free should the
Prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence
in his favor. In other words, the weakness of the defense
put up bythe accused is inconsequential in the
proceedings for as long as the Prosecution has not
discharged its burden of proof in establishing the
commission of the crime charged and in identifying the
accused as the malefactor responsible for it.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
 Once again we lay down the rule that the constitutional
guaranty, that no person shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, is limited to
a prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-
incrimination. The corollary to the proposition is that, an
ocular inspection of the body of the accused is
permissible. The proviso is that torture of force shall be
avoided. Whether facts fall within or without the rule with
its corollary and proviso must, of course, be decided as
cases arise.
 Thir right constured as the right to remain completely silent
may be availed of by the accused in a criminal case;
 Petitioner, as accused, occupies a different tier of
protection from an ordinary witness. Whereas an ordinary
witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and
claim the privilege as each question requiring an
incriminating answer is hot at him, an accused may
altother refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to
answer any all questions.
 this right of the accused is extended to respondents in
administrative investigations but only if they partake of the
nature of a criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal
proceeding. In Galman vs. Pamaran,26 the Court reiterated
the doctrine in Cabal vs. Kapuanan (6 SCRA 1059) to
illustrate the right of witnesses to invoke the right against
self-incrimination not only in criminal proceedings but also
in all other types of suit
 The constitutional right of an accused against self-
incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communications from the accused
and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may
be material. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the
prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his
guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand ofcounsel is
not required. (People vs. Olvis, 238 Phil. 513 [1987]) The
essence of the right against selfincrimination is testimonial
compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against himself
through a testimonial act.
 The right against self-incrimination, when applied to a
criminal trial, is contained in this terse injunction – no
person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. In other words, he may not be required to take
the witness stand. He can sit mute throughout the
proceedings. His right to counsel is expressed in the same
laconic style: he shall enjoy the right to be heard by

himself and counsel. This means inversely that the
criminal prosecution cannot proceed without having a
counsel by his side. These are the traditional rights of the
accused in a criminal case. They exist and may be
invoked when he faces a formal indictment and trial for a
criminal offense. But since Miranda vs Arizona 384 US
436, the law has come to recognize that an accused
needs the same protections even before he is brought to
trial. They arise at the very inception of the criminal
process – when a person is taken into custody to answer
to a criminal offense. For what a person says or does
during custodial investigation will eventually be used as
evidence against him at the trial and, more often than not,
will be the lynchpin of his eventual conviction. His trial
becomes a parody if he cannot enjoy from the start the
right against self-incrimination and to counsel.
 It was never intended to hamper the traditional law-
enforcement function to investigate crime involving
persons not under restraint
BAIL
DEFINITION
 "the security required and given for the release of a person
who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear before
any court in which his appearance may be required as
stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance”
 Bail is the security required by the court and given by the
accused to ensure that the accused appears before the
proper court at the scheduled time and place to answer
the charges brought against him or her. It is awarded to
the accused to honor the presumption of innocence until
his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and to enable
him to prepare his defense without being subject to
punishment prior to conviction
 RULES!
 only those persons who have been either arrested,
detained or otherwise deprived of their liberty will ever
have occasion to seek the benefits of said provision.
 Therefore, in narrow cases involving special
appearances, an accused can invoke the
processes of the court even though there is
neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of
the law. However, if a person invoking the special
jurisdiction of the court applies for bail, he must
first submit himself to the custody of the law.
 If we allow the granting of bail to persons not in
the custody of the law, it is foreseeable that many
persons who can afford the bail will remain at
large, and could elude being held to answer for
the commission of the offense if ever he is proven
guilty
 But in order that a person can invoke the
constitutional precept, it is not necessary that he
should wait until a formal complaint or information is
filed against him.
 From the moment he is placed under arrest, detention
or restraint by the officers of the law, he can claim this
guarantee of the Bill of Rights, and this right he
retains unless and until he is charged with a capital
offense and evidence of his guilt is strong.
 The purpose of bail is to secure one's release and it would
be incongruous to grant bail to one who is free. Thus, `bail
is the security required and given for the release of a
person who is in the custody of the law.' (Rule 110, section
1), and evidently the accused do not come within its
purview.
 The purpose for bail is to guarantee the appearance of the
accused at the trial,[13] or whenever so required by the
court[14] The amount should be high enough to assure the
presence of the accused when required but no higher than
is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.
 A bail application does not only involve the right of the
accused to temporary liberty, but likewise the right of
the State to protect the people and the peace of the
community from dangerous elements. These two
rights must be balanced by a magistrate in the scale
of justice, hence, the necessity for hearing to guide
his exercise of jurisdiction

 GUIDELINES IN BAIL FIXING, which may be summarized
as follows:
 (1) ability of the accused to give bail;
 (2) nature of the offense;
 (3) Penalty for the offense charged;
 (4) character and reputation of the accused;
 (5) health of the accused;
 (6) character and strength of the evidence;
 (7) probability of the accused appearing in trial;
 (8) forfeiture of other bonds;
 (9) whether the accused was a fugitive from justice
when arrested; and
 (10) if the accused is under bond for appearance at
trial in other cases.14
 But, at bottom, in bail fixing, "the principal factor
considered, to the determination of which most
other factors are directed, is the probability of
the appearance of the accused, or of his flight
to avoid punishment." 15
 Of importance then is the possible penalty that
may be meted. Of course penalty depends to a
great extent upon the gravity of offense.
 DUTIES OF THE TRIAL JUDGE IN CASE AN
APPLICATION FOR BAIL IS FILED:
 1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of
discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the
application for bail or require him to submit his
recommendation (Section 18, Rule 114 of the Rules
of Court as amended)
 2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a
hearing of the application for bail regardless of
whether or not the prosecution refuses to present
evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is
strong for the purpose of enabling the court to
exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7 and 8, supra)
 3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong
based on the summary of evidence of the
prosecution;
 4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge
the accused upon the approval of the bailbond
(Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be
denied.[39]
 RULES ON AVAILABILITY OF BAIL TO AN ACCUSED:
 1. Admission to bail is a matter of right at any stage of
the action where the charge is not for a capital offense
or is not punishable by reclusion perpetua; [Sec. 3,
Rule 114, 1985 Rules on Crim. Procedure
 2. Regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution,
no bail shall be allowed if the accused is charged with
a capital offense or of an offense punishable
by reclusion perpetuaand the evidence of guilt is
strong; [Idem].
 3. Even if a capital offense is charged and the
evidence of guilt is strong, the accused may still be
admitted to bail in the discretion of the court if there
are strong grounds to apprehend that his continued
confinement will endanger his life or result in
permanent impairment of health, [De la Rama vs.
People's Court, 43 O.G. No. 10, 4107 (1947)] but only
before judgment in the regional trial court; and
 4. No bail shall be allowed after final judgment, unless
the accused has applied for probation and has not
 commenced to serve sentence, [Section 21, Rule 114,
1985 Rules of Court] the penalty and offense being
within the purview of the probation law."
 DUTY OF POLICE DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
 PRESENCE OF ANY OF WHICH COULD PRECLUDE
THE GRANT OF BAIL
 "(a) That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist,
or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime
aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
 (b) That the accused is found to have previously
escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
has violated the conditions of his bail without valid
justification;
 (c) That the accused committed the offense while on
probation, parole, or under conditional pardon;
 (d) That the circumstances of the accused or his case
indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or
 (e) That there is undue risk that during the pendency
of the appeal, the accused may commit another
crime."
RIGHT TO BAIL (WHEN A MATTER OF RIGHT AND WHEN
A MATTER OF DISCRETION)
 It is a matter of right when the offense charged is
punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua.
To that extent the right is absolute.
 Upon the other hand, if the offense charged is punishable
by reclusion perpetua bail becomes a matter of
discretion. It shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is
strong. The court's discretion is limited to determining
whether or not evidence of guilt is strong. But once it is
determined that the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail
also becomes a matter of right. . . .
 The clear implication therefore, is that if an accused
who is charged with a crime punishable by reclusion
perpetua is convicted by the trial court and sentenced
to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a matter of
right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on
the part of the court. In such a situation, the court
would not have only determined that the evidence of
guilt is strong — which would have been sufficient to
deny bail even before conviction — it would have
likewise ruled that the accused's guilt has been
proven beyond reasonable doubt. Bail must not then
be granted to the accused during the pendency of his
appeal from the judgment of conviction.
 The arraignment of an accused is not a prerequisite to the
conduct of hearings on his petition for bail. A person is
allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his
liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. [64] An
accused need not wait for his arraignment before filing a
petition for bail.
 For when bail is a matter of right, an accused may
apply for and be granted bail even prior to
arraignment.
 The ruling in Lavides also implies that an application
for bail in a case involving an offense punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death may also be heard
even before an accused is arraigned
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO BAIL
 right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can
be waived. It is a right which is personal to the accused
and whose waiver would not be contrary to law, public
order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or
prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
(BAIL)
 From the moment he is placed under arrest, or is detained
or restrained by the officers of the law, he can claim the
guarantee of his provisional liberty under the Bill of Rights,
and he retains his right to bail unless he is charged with a
capital offense, or with an offense punishable with
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence
of his guilt is strong.
WHEN ALLOWED EVEN IF “DISCRETION”
 This national commitment to uphold the fundamental
human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of
every person has authorized the grant of bail not only to
those charged in criminal proceedings but also to
extraditees upon a clear and convincing showing:
 (1 ) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or a
danger to the community; and
 (2 ) that there exist special, humanitarian and
compelling circumstances.39
 that all persons shall before conviction be bailable except
when charge is a capital offense and the evidence of guilt
is strong. the general rule, therefore, is that all persons,
whether charged or not yet charges, are, before their
conviction, entitled to provisional release on bail, the only
exception being where the charge is a capital offense and
the evidence of guilt is found to be strong.
 At the hearing of the application for bail, the burden of
showing that the case falls within the exception is on
the prosecution, according to Rule 110, section 7.
 The determination of whether or not the evidence of
guilt is strong is, as stated in Herras Teehankee case,
a matter of judicial discretion.
 This discretion, by the very nature of things, may
rightly be exercise only after the evidence is
submitted to the court at the hearing.
 Neither under the old nor under the new
Rules is there any specific provision defining
what kind of hearing it should be, but in the
two cases cited at the footnote hereof it was
stated that the hearing should be summary
or otherwise in the discretion of the court.
 "By 'summary hearing,' this Court added, "we
mean such brief and speedy method of
receiving and considering the evidence of
guilt as is practicable and consistent with the
purpose of the hearing which is merely to
determine the weight of the evidence for
purposes of bail.
 On such hearing, the court does not sit
to try the merits or to enter into any nice
inquiry as to the weight that ought to be
allowed to the evidence for or against
accused, nor will it speculate on the
outcome of the trial or on what further
evidence may be therein offered and
admitted.' (8 C.J.S. 93, 94.)
 The course of the inquiry may be left to
the discretion of the court which may
confine itself to receiving such evidence
as has reference to substantial matters,
avoiding unnecessary thoroughness in
the examination and cross-examination
of witnesses and reducing to a
reasonable minimum at the amount of
corroboration particularly on details that
are not essential to the purposes of the
hearing."
 In Borinaga v. Tamin[3] a clear guideline on the exercise of
judicial discretion in hearing petitions for bail -
 x x x (w)hile the determination of whether or not
evidence of guilt is strong is a matter of judicial
discretion, this discretion by the nature of things may
rightly be exercised only after the evidence is
submitted to the court at such hearing. Whether the
motion for bail of an accused who is in custody in a
 summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial
the prosecution must be given an opportunity to
present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence
that it may desire to introduce before the court may
resolve the motion for bail. If the prosecution should
be denied of such an opportunity, there would be a
violation of procedural due process, and the order of
the court granting bail should be considered void on
that ground x x x (E)ven where the prosecutor refuses
to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to
grant and fix bail, the court may ask the prosecution
such questions as would ascertain the strength of the
states evidence or judge the adequacy of the amount
of bail x x x

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

 double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are

present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second;
(2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a
second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A
first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment;
(b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d)
when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the
accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent.[49]
 For a claim of double jeopardy to prosper, the following
requisites must concur:
 (1) there is a complaint or information or other formal
charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction;
 (2) the same is filed before a court of competent
jurisdiction;
 (3) there is a valid arraignment or plea to the charges;
and
 (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted or the case
is otherwise dismissed or terminated without his
express consent.28

 It is the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the

dismissal or termination of the case that bars further
prosecution for the same offense or any attempt to commit
the same or the frustration thereof; or prosecution for any
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charged in the former complaint or
information
 the proscription against double jeopardy only envisages
appeals based on errors of judgment, but not errors of
jurisdiction.
 Jurisprudence recognizes two grounds where double
jeopardy will not attach, these are:
 (i) on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction;[21] and/or
 (ii) where there is a denial of a partys due
process rights