Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Consti Case 2
Consti Case 2
US v. Luling
customs;
wharf
watchman
Presumption of innocence; The state has the right to declare what acts are criminal,
within certain well-defined limitation and also a right to specify what acts or acts shall
constitute a crime, as well as what proof shall constitute as PRIMA FACIE evidence of
guilt, and then to put upon the defendant the burden of showing that such act or acts
are innocent and were not committed with any criminal intent.
People v. Mingoa
malversation of public funds There is no constitutional objection to the passage of a
law
providing
that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption
founded upon the experience of human conduct, and enacting what evidence shall be
sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence.
Delgado v. CA
estafa thru falsification of public/official documents A part who was not represented
by a member of the bar is entitled to a new trial, otherwise, there would be a denial of
due process.
assault was proved by evidence of the prosecution without any objection on the part of
the accused does not cure the defect because to do so would be convicting an accused
of a crime not properly alleged in the information.
People v. Ortega
person cannot be convicted of homicide through drowning in an information that
charged murder by means of stabbing The hornbook doctrine is that an accused
cannot be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or
information.
cold neutrality of an impartial judge Due process cannot be satisfied in the absence
of that degree of objectivity on the part of a judge sufficient to assure litigants of his
being fair and just; What a trial requires is an impartial and disinterested tribunal.
Fajardo v. Garcia
request to serve written interrogatories to a doctor The constitutional guarantee to
an
accused
to
compulsory process to secure the production of evidence in his behalf was not violated
by the trial judge who refused to grant the request of the accused for leave to serve
written interrogatories to his doctor who treated their injuries who already left abroad.
That the said medical testimony on the injuries they sustained was vital to their defense
can still be adduced thru other witnesses and hospital records.
People v. Ortiz-Miyake
hearsay rule the right of confrontation is not absolute as it is recognized that it is
sometimes impossible to recall or produce a witness who has already testified in a
previous proceeding, in which event, his previous testimony is made admissible as a
distinct
piece
of
evidence
by
way
of
exception
to
the hearsay rule; Exception contemplated by law covers only the utilization of
testimonies of absent witness made is previous proceedings BUT DOES NOT cover
previous
decisions
or
judgments
(if
used
proof only that he was previously convicted of a crime BUT not guilty in a subsequent
case.
People v. Seneris
parricide; prosecution witness died While the right of confrontation and crossexamination are fundamental rights, they can be waived expressly or impliedly by
conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right; If the party was given the opportunity
to confront or cross-examine a witness but failed to take advantage of it, he forfeits the
right and the testimonies given in direct examination will be received or ed on record;
Where the prosecution witness was partially cross-examined but prior to the next
hearing, he dies, his testimony cannot be stricken off the record.
Carredo v. People
malicious mischief Accused may be compelled to be present at the trial for the
purposes of identification unless he unqualifiedly admits in open court after his
arraignment
that
he
is
the
person
named; The provision in the constitution allowing trial in absentia means that he waives
his right to meet the witnesses face to face; an express waiver of appearance has the
same effect; HOWEVER, such waiver of right does NOT release the accused from his
obligation under the bond to appear in court whenever so required; the accused may
waive the right but not the obligation to appear in court.
TATAD V. SANDIGANBAYAN
due process; speedy disposition of cases Long delay in termination of the
preliminary
investigation
by the Tanodbayan in the instant case found to e violative of the constitutional right of
the accused to due process; Undue delay in the conduct of preliminary investigation can
not be corrected
GONZALES V. SANDIGANBAYAN
when is a delay justified; balancing test - The right to a speedy disposition of a case,
like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended
by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays; unjustified postponements; balancing
test: conduct of prosecution and defense.
ALMONTE V. VASQUEZ
subpoena duces tecum; government agency At common law, a governmental
privilege
is
recognized
with respect to state secrets bearing on military, diplomatic and similar matters. In this
case, there is no claim that military or diplomatic secrets will be disclosed by the
production
of
records
pertaining
to
the
personnel of EIIB (economic something).
PEOPLE V. MALIMIT
robbery with homicide The right against self-incrimination is simply a prohibition
against legal process to extract from the accuseds own lips, against his ill, admission of
his guilt. It does NOT apply when the evidence sought is NOT an incriminating
statement
but
an
object
evidence;
Miranda
rights
US v. Tan Teng
substance taken from the body of the defendant The prohibition against compelling
a man in a criminal cause to be a witness against himself is a prohibition against
physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him and not an exclusion
of his body as evidence when it may be material.