PEOPLE VS. HON PERFECTO LAGUIO, JR (G.R. No.

128587, March 16, 2007)

 Wang was arrested in the mode of stop and frisk by 2 officers and obtained shabu, gun and P65k.
 Argued lack of valid arrest and warrants.
 Even after filing Wang’s demurrer of evidence and amplification, he was acquitted of all the
charges against him due to lack of evidence by Judge Laguio.
 There should be a lawful arrest before search can be made and it cannot be reversed.
 a peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant:
(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 being transferred from
one confinement to another.
 Warrantless arrest (flagrante delicto)
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
 There was no suspicious behavior on the part of Wang that would reasonably invite the
attention of the police. He was merely walking from the apartment and was about to enter a car
parked when the officers arrested him.

ISSUE: whether there was lawful arrest, search and seizure by the police operatives in this case despite
the absence of a warrant of arrest and/or a search warrant.

HELD: the warrantless arrest of the accused and the search of his person and the car were without
probable cause and could not be licit. The arrest of the accused did not fall under any of the exception to
the requirements of warrantless arrests

PEOPLE VS. GAMBOA (G.R. No. 220333, November 14, 2016)

 While on the chase to arrest a certain Negro for illegal possession and transaction of
shabu/drugs, they found Elizabeth and Gamboa seated with shabu on the table and immediately
arrest them.
 Gamboa argued that it was a set up
 the prosecution must prove that:
(a)the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a dangerous drug;
(b)such possession was not authorized by law; and
(c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
 Corpus Delicti - A suspect's confession cannot be used to establish that a crime was committed

CIRCUMSTANCES NOT COVERED

PEOPLE VS. MACAM

 Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque, Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro and Eugenio Cawilan, Jr., were
accused of Robbery with Homicide (Benito Macam)
 They entered the residence of Benito Macam and divested the properties amounting P454K and
also with the intent to kill, attack, and assault one Leticia Macam
 "Anti-Fencing Law" (P.D. 1612). The crime of fencing punishes the act of buying, receiving,
possessing, or selling an item that a person knows, or should know, was derived from the
proceeds of robbery or theft.
 Appellants contend that their arrest without a warrant and their uncounseled identification by
the prosecution witnesses during the police line-up at the hospital are violative of their
constitutional rights

ISSUE: WON the arrest without warrant and uncounseled identification is violative of consti rights

HELD: any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. Appellants
were handcuffed and had contusions on their faces. However, the prosecution did not present evidence
regarding appellant's identification at the police line-up. Hence, the exclusionary sanctions against the
admission in evidence of custodial identification of an uncounseled accused can not be applied. On the
other hand, appellants did not object to the in-court identification made by the prosecution witnesses.
The prosecution witnesses, who made the identification of appellants at the police line-up at the
hospital, again identified appellants in open court. Appellants did not object to the in-court identification
as being tainted by the illegal line-up. In the absence of such objection, the prosecution need not show
that said identifications were of independent origin

WAIVER OF RIGHT

PEOPLE VS SOLAR

 filed against Rolando and Mark Kenneth Solar for the murder of Joseph Capinig y Mato
 ma. Theresa, wife of Joseph, saw the 2 appellants hit Joseph with a baseball bat and when she
called for help he was declared dead on arrival
 RTC ruled Rolando guilty of Murder
 Rolando appealed to CA arguing that they failed to prove his identity as the perpetrator, and that
there was lack of evidence to support a finding of conspiracy among the accused.
 CA downgraded the offense from Murder to Homicide

ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in convicting Rolando despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt

HELD:
KURODA VS JALANDONI

Petitioner Shigenori Kuroda, the Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines
during the Japanese occupation, was charged before the Philippine Military Commission of war crimes
and other atrocities committed against militaries and civilians. The military commission was establish
under Executive Order No. 68. The petitioner assails the validity and constitutionality of E.O. No. 68 that
created the National War Crimes Office and prescribed rules on the trial of accused war criminals. He
contended that the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations
covering Land Warfare (War Crimes) and therefore he is charged of crimes not based on law, national
and international. Petitioner likewise assails that the US is not a party of interest in the case hence the 2
US prosecutors cannot practice law in the Philippines.

ISSUE:

WON, EO 68 is constitutional. “ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL WAR CRIMES OFFICE AND PRESCRIBING

RULES AND REGULATION GOVERNING THE TRIAL OF ACCUSED WAR CRIMINAL.”

HELD:

Yes. It is valid. Under the Constitution, “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.”
the promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the President of his powers as Commander in
Chief of all our armed forces.

CASTILLO VS. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORP

 Since the criminal case we ultimately dismissed, the constitutional presumption of innocence in
favor of the appellant should be applied. In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
 complaint of appellant Artemio Castillo for reinstatement and payment of back wages, and
ordered him to pay defendant Filtex International Corporation P1k
 Castillo is a member of Samahan ng Malaya Manggagawa sa Filtex which was charged of slight
physical injury during a strike and was suspended from his job
 FILTEX argued that there was no proper decision since the decision is dismissed

ISSUE: WON he is entitled to reinstatement and backwage

HELD:

He was found guilty at MTC Makati but on appeal in the RTC Rizal, the case was dismissed on the ground
that complainant failed to appear on the scheduled trial date that is why the constitutional presumption
of innocence in favor of the appellant should be applied. And Castillo is entitled to reinstatement and
payment of back wages.
PEOPLE VS LAYUSO

HELD: We rule that the constitutional requirement on assistance of counsel was fulfilled. There is no
claim or showing that the accused asked for a lawyer from the moment he was apprehended or that he
was not informed of his right to counsel from the time that the warning or information should have been
given to him or that the alleged earlier questioning was already part of his confession.

PEOPLE VS DUERO

HELD: Duero’s oral confession is inadmissible in evidence. In as much as the prosecution in this case
failed to prove that before Duero made his alleged oral confession, he was informed of his rights to
remain silent and to have counsel and because there is no proof that he knowingly and intelligently
waived those rights, his confession is inadmissible in evidence.

RIGHT TO BE HEARD

*To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings.
Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no
denial of procedural due process.

ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL RIGHT TO BE HEARD

1. right to be present at the trial

2. right to counsel

3. right to an impartial Judge

4. right of confrontation

5. right to compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses.

BORJA VS MENDOZA

Borja was accused of slight physical injuries in the City of Cebu. However, he was not arraigned. In RTC
Cebu, it was alleged that the failure to arraign him is a violation of his constitutional rights. Arraignment
is where the defendant is bought to the court to inform him of the the charges against him.

ISSUE: WON, the petitioner’s consti right was violated

HELD: Yes. Procedural due process requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be informed as
to why he was indicted and what penal offense he has to face, to be convicted only on a showing that his
guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt with full opportunity to disprove the evidence against him. It is
also not just due process that requires an arraignment. It is required in the Rules that an accused, for the
first time, is granted the opportunity to know the precise charge that confronts him.
HE HAS THE RIGHT :

1. TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL

2. TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM
3. TO HAVE A SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL, AND PUBLIC TRIAL
4. TO MEET THE WITNESSES F2F
5. TO HAVE COMPULSARY PROCESS TO SECURE THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND THE
PRODUCTION OF EIDENCE

PEOPLE VS LABADO

Paulino was informed of this constitutional right to remain silent, he did not clearly and unequivocably
waive it. nor was he informed of his right to counsel. Paulino's counsel has made passing statements in
his brief that the accused "gave his statement without benefit of counsel and "gave his statement
regarding a very serious offense without the benefit of counsel" but does not urge its inadmissibility for
the simple reason that it has also been used as a defense exhibit. Inamin niya na nandon siya sa rape
scene pero di niya nirape.

CONDE VS RIVERO

Aurelia Conde, formerly a municipal midwife in Lucena, Tayabas was faced with 5 criminal information
but was postponed 8 times. Made an appeal at SC but lasted for another year.

ISSUE: WON she was deprived of right to speedy trial

HELD: Yes. The petitioner, like all other accused persons, has a right to a speedy trial in order that if
innocent she may go free, and she has been deprived of that right in defiance of law. Philippine organic
and statutory law expressly guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right
to have a speedy trial. The court laid down the legal proposition that, where a prosecuting officer,
without good cause, secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a
reasonable period of time, as in this instance for more than a year, the accused is entitled to relief by a
proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of his liberty, by
habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.

MATEO VS VILLALUZ

Petitioner was being tried for an offense of robbery with homicide for robbing a bank in Cavite
(American express bank). during the trial of the case, an extrajudicial statement by one Rolando Reyes
implicating petitioners was subscribed before respondent. Subsequently, amotion for disqualification of
respondent was filed by petitioners contending that the extrajudicial statement by Rolando Reyes was
executed as a result of a threat by a government agent

ISSUE: WON petitioner has been denied her right to a speedy and impartial trial

HELD:
GARCIA VS DOMINGO

 8 criminal cases was done inside the chambers of city court Judge Gregorio Garcia
 Trial should also be public in order to offset any danger of conducting it in an illegal and unjust
manner.

ISSUE: Judge commit a grave abuse of discretion in holding a private trial and violative of the
constitutional right to public trial

HELD: It is not in violation of the right to a public trial since the trial was still open to public and there is
no showing that the public was deprived to witness the trial proceeding. There is no ambiguity in the
words employed. The trial must be public. It possesses that character when anyone interested in
observing the manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom may do so. There is to be no
ban on such attendance. His being a stranger to the litigants is of no moment. No relationship to the
parties need be shown. The thought that lies behind this safeguard is the belief that thereby the accused
is afforded further protection, that his trial is likely to be conducted with regularity and not tainted with
any impropriety.

PURPOSE OF THE RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION

1) TEST THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESS

2) ALLOW THE JUDGE TO OBSERVE THE DEPORTATION OF THE WITNESS

PEOPLE VS MALIMIT

 Jose Encarnacion Malimit was charged and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide
 Malimit questioned the credibility of the story of Batin and Rondon who witness the scene of
Onofre in blood. The crime took place on April 15, and only revealed the story on September 17
 Appellant derided the non-presentation by the prosecution of the police blotter which could
prove if appellant was indeed implicated right away by Batin to the crime.
 Malimit also said the court erred in the admission as evidence the wallet of Onofre appellant
sought for their exclusion because during the custodial investigation, wherein he pointed to the
investigating policemen the place where he hid Malaki's wallet, he was not informed of his
constitutional rights.

ISSUE: Whether or not the admission as evidence of Malaki's wallet together with its contents violates
his right against self-incrimination

HELD: No. The right against self-incrimination guaranteed under our fundamental law finds no
application in this case. This right is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to extort
communications from him. The admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue
and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of
custodial investigation. The identification card, residence certificate and keys found inside the wallet, on
the other hand, are admissible to prove that the wallet really belongs to Malaki.

Dying declaration. — The declaration of a dying person, made under a consciousness of an

impending death, may be received in a criminal case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry,
as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
Dying declarations are not necessarily either written or spoken. Any method of communication
between mind and mind may be adopted that will develop the thought, as the pressure of the
hand, a nod of the head or a glance of the eye.

REQUISITES FOR DYING DECLARATION ADMISSIBILITY:

1) That the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
declarant’s death;
2) That at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of an
impending death;
3) That the declarant is competent as a witness; and
4) That the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which
the declarant is a victim.