RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASE

Tercero, et. al. v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 238579-80, July24, 2019

FACTS:
Tercero et al.were participating in the Pola Watershed project, a 15,000-
hectare foreign-assisted initiative of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) supported by the Asian Development Bank. A project was bid
on, and Rowena gave a certification claiming that they had "inspected the project in
line with the JobOrder7 dated Nov. 3, 1999," although there were several anomalies
in the activity. DENR-Fact Finding Team investigated the alleged irregularities
and forwarded to the Ombudsman. On August 27, 2013, the Field Investigation
Office of the Ombudsman (FIO)filed a complaint 12 alleging that petitioners,
in conspiracy with several others, defrauded the government, in the
amount of 5,250,000.00, by simulating the bidding in favor of Lacanienta and
making it appear that the latter had accomplished a perimeter survey and mapping of
the project, when none was actually made. The Ombudsman conducted a
preliminary investigation and came up with a Resolution dated August 26, 2016
finding probable cause to indict petitioners for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic
Act No. 3019 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," and
Falsification of Public Documents. Later, on July 14, 2017, the corresponding
Information were filed before the SB charging petitioners of the foregoing
crimes.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a violation to their right to speedy disposition of their
cases.

RULING:
No. The petitioners' right to speedy disposition of cases was not violated.
Considering that fact-finding investigations are not yet adversarial proceedings
against the accused, the period of investigation will not be counted in the
determination of whether the right to speedy disposition of cases was violated. Thus,
this Court now bolds that for the purpose of determining whether inordinate delay
exists, a case is deemed to have commenced from the filing of the formal complaint
and the subsequent conduct of the preliminary investigation. Hence, the period
constituting the fact-finding investigation conducted by the DENR and the FIO should
not be considered for purposes of determining whether petitioners' right to the
speedy disposition of their cases was violated. This is especially considering that
such investigation was non-adversarial and was only determinative of whether or not
formal charges should be filed against petitioners. As such, it cannot be said that
petitioners suffered any vexation during these proceedings

PRINCIPLE:
In the determination of whether there is a violation of right to a speedy
disposition of a case, the following factors may be considered and balanced: (1) the
length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert
such right by the accused; and ( 4) the prejudice caused by the delay.
 RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

Jaime D. Dela Cruz vs. People Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 200748, July 23,
2014
FACTS:
Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged with violation of Section 15,Article II of
Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
by the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman -
Visayas, in an Information3 dated 14 February 2006.The officers were able to nab
Jaime dela Cruz by using a pre-marked 500 billdusted with fluorescent powder,
which was made part of the amount demanded by"James" and handed by
Corazon. Petitioner was later brought to the forensic laboratory of the
NBI-CEVRO where forensic examination was done by forensic chemist
Rommel Paglinawan. Petitioner was required to submit his urine for drug testing. It
later yielded a positive result for presence of dangerous drugs as indicatedin the
confirmatory test result labeled as Toxicology (DangerousDrugs) Report No.2006-
TDD-2402 dated 16 February 2006.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal?

RULING:
No. Supreme Court declare that the drug test conducted upon petitioner is not
grounded upon any existing law or jurisprudence. The Supreme Court gloss over
petitioner’s non-compliance with the Resolution ordering him to submit clearly legible
duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution.
Petitioner was charged with use of dangerous drugs in violation of the law -
Section15. Use of Dangerous Drugs.
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 of counsel is not required. The drug
test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.
It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and
tested for drugs. He also asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test. He was adamant
in exercising his rights, but all of his efforts proved futile, because he was still
compelled to submit his urine for drug testing under those circumstances.

PRINCIPLE:
The essence of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion,
that is, the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act.
 NON-DETENTION BY REASON OF POLITICAL BELIEFS

People Of The Philippines V. Joseph Jojo V. Grey, Francis Grey And

Court Of Appeals-Cebu City, Eighteenth Division
G.R. No. 180109 : July 26, 2010

FACTS:
On December 11, 2006, an Information for Murder was filed
against respondent Joseph Grey, former Mayor of San Jorge, Samar; his son,
respondent Francis Grey; and two others for the death of Rolando Diocton, an
employee of the San Jorge municipal government, before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 41,Gandara, Samar. The Information was accompanied by other
supporting documents and a motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
Respondents filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. Meanwhile,
RTC Branch 41 Presiding Judge Rosario Bandal denied the motion for the issuance
of a warrant of arrest. Judge Bandal found the prosecutions evidence to be
insufficient to link respondents to the crime charged. She directed the prosecution to
present, within five days, additional evidence that would show that accused were the
assailants or that they conspired, confederated, or helped in the commission of the
crime charged.

ISSUE:
Whether or not  political persecution by their political rivals was the underlying
reason for the filing of criminal charges against them.

RULING:
No. In this case, the judge, upon his personal examination of the complaint
and evidence before him, determined that there was probable cause to issue the
warrants of arrest after the provincial prosecution, based on the affidavits presented
by complainant and her witnesses, found probable cause to file the criminal
Information. To establish political harassment, it must be proved that the public
prosecutor, not just the private complainant, acted in bad faith in prosecuting the
case or has lent himself to a scheme that could have no other purpose than to place
respondents in contempt and disrepute. It must be shown that the complainant
possesses the power and the influence to control the prosecution of cases.
Likewise, the allegation that the filing of the complaint was politically motivated does
not serve to justify the nullification of the Information where the existence of such
motive has not been sufficiently established nor substantial evidence presented in
support thereof.

PRINCIPLE:
In certain instances, political persecution or political motives may have
impelled the filing of criminal charges against certain political rivals. But the Court
has also ruled that any allegation that the filing of the charges is politically motivated
cannot justify the prohibition of a criminal prosecution if there is otherwise evidence
to support the charges.
 INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

Aclaracion vs Gatmaitan 64 SCRA 131, 135

FACTS:
Aclaracion was assigned as a temporary stenographer in the Gapan branch of
the CFI Nueva appointment, he was employed in the Public Assistance and Claims
Adjudication Division of the Insurance Commission after he had ceased to be a court
stenographer. After he had ceased to be a court stenographer, the CA required him
to transcribe his stenographic notes in two cases decided by the Gapan Court which
had been appealed. Because of his failure to comply with the resolutions of the CA,
he was declared in contempt of the court. He was arrested and incarcerated until he
could submit a complete transcript of his noted in the said cases. He contended that
to compel him to transcribe his stenographic notes after he ceased to be a court
stenographer would transgress the rule against involuntary servitude and that he
was averse to being subjected to involuntary servitude sans compensation. He
desired to be released from the obligation of transcribing his notes.

ISSUE:
Whether or not he can be released from the obligation of transcribing his
notes on the ground of involuntary servitude.

RULING:
No. Involuntary Servitude denotes a condition of enforced, compulsory service
of one to another or the condition of one who is compelled by force, coercion, or
imprisonment and against his will, to labor for another, whether he is paid or not.
That situation does not obtain in this case. The traditional mode of exercising the
court's coercive power is to hold the recalcitrant or negligent stenographer in
contempt of court if he does not comply with the order for the transcription of his
notes and imprison him until he obeys the order. Another sanction to compel the
transcription is to hold in abeyance the transfer promotion, resignation or clearance
of a stenographer until he completes the transcription of his notes. In the instant
case, Aclaracion transcribed his notes in the Muncal and Paderes cases while he
was an employee of the Insurance Commission. During the time that he made the
transcription, he received his salary as such employee. Thus, Aclaracion’s obligation
to transcribe his notes still subsist.

PRINCIPLE:
Involuntary Servitude – refers to a condition of enforced and compulsory
service induced by means of any scheme, plan or pattern, intended to cause a
person to believe that if he or she did not enter into or continue in such condition, he
or she or another person would suffer serious harm or other forms of abuse.
 PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS

PEOPLE VS. JUGUETA, G.R NO. 202124, APRIL 5, 2016

FACTS:
On June 06, 2002, the family of Norberto Divina were all lying down side by
side about to sleep at around 9:00 o’clock in the evening, when suddenly their wall
made of sack was stripped off by Ireneo Jugueta, Roger SanMiguel and
Gilberto Alegre. They ordered him to go out of their house and when he refused
despite his plea for mercy, they fired at them having hit and killed his two daughters.
The family of Norberto Divina were unarmed and his children were atvery tender
ages. Mary Grace Divina and Claudine who were shot and killed were 13years old
and 3/12 years old respectively. The Court finds accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for double murder defined and punished under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua for the
death of Mary Grace Divina and to indemnify her heirs in the amount of
Php50,000.00 and another to suffer reclusion perpetua for the death of Claudine
Divina and accused is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of Claudine Divina in the
sum of Php50,000.00. In addition, he is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the
victims actual damages in the amount ofPhp16,150.00 and to pay for the costs.
Aggrieved by the trial court's and Court of Appeal’s judgments, appellant appealed to
the Supreme Court. Hence, this appeal

ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court imposed proper award of damages on the
accused-appellant

RULING:
No. The lower court failed to take into account dwelling as an ordinary
aggravating circumstance. In view of the attendant ordinary aggravating
circumstance, the Court must modify the penalties and award of damages imposed
on accused-appellant. In the case at bar, the crimes were aggravated by dwelling,
and the murders committed were further made atrocious by the fact that the victims
are innocent, defenseless minors – one is a mere 31⁄2-year-old toddler, and the
other a 13-year-old girl. The increase in the amount of awards for
damages is befitting to show not only the Court's, but all of society's outrage over
such crimes and wastage of lives.

PRINCIPLE:
In order to impose the proper penalty, especially in cases of indivisible
penalties, the court has the duty to ascertain the presence of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances.
The increase in the amount of awards for damages is befitting to
show not only the Court's, but all of society's outrage over such crimes and
wastage of lives.
 NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

People vs De La Cruz G.R. No. L-5790

FACTS:
Selling a can of milk at ten centavos more than the ceiling price, Pablo de la
Cruz was sentenced, after trial, in the court of first instance of Manila, to
imprisonment for five years, and to pay a fine of five thousand pesos plus costs. He
was also barred from engaging in wholesale and retail business for five years.
He argued that the trial judge erred: (a) in not holding that the charge was
fabricated; (b) in imposing a punishment wholly disproportionate to the offense and
therefore unconstitutional and (c) in not invalidating Republic Act No. 509 in so far as
it prescribed excessive penalties.

ISSUE:
Is imprisonment for two months or fine of two thousand pesos too excessive
for a merchant who sells goods at prices beyond the ceilings established in the
Executive Order?

RULING:
No. The imprisonment is not excessive because in overstepping the price
barriers he might derive, in some instances, profits amounting to thousands of
pesos. Therefore, the penalty imposed in this case would not be susceptible of valid
attack, it being within the statutory limits.

PRINCIPLE:
"No person shall be imprisoned for debt, unless on refusal to deliver up his
estate for the benefit of his creditors in such manner as may be described by law, or
in cases where there is strong presumption of fraud."
Serafin vs. Lindayag 67 SCRA 166

Facts:

Avelina Serafin, borrowed the sum of P1,500.00 without any collateral or

security from an old friend. When they wrote her a letter of demand, she promised to
pay them and said that if she failed to keep her promise, they could get her valuable
things at her home. Upon failure to pay the debt, a criminal complaint for estafa was
filed against Serafin. Respondent judge issued a warrant of arrest; which then was
served on Saturday, a time when the bonding companies are closed, thus cannot
raise bail and compelled to be detained for three days. Serafin filed an instant
administrative complaint for capricious and malicious admission a criminal complaint
for estafa against her and causing her wrongful arrest and detention, against
respondent Santiago Lindayag, municipal judge of Guiguinto, Bulacan. She contend
that the charged against her was baseless, for there are no elements of estafa
present but only failure to pay a debt. Respondent then dismissed the case.
Issue:
Whether or not there was a violation committed by the judge when it ordered
the imprisonment of plaintiff for non-payment of debt.
Ruling:
Yes. Respondent judge have grossly failed to perform his duties by issuing a
warrant without first examining the witness personally. He is also guilty of gross
ignorance of the law for complaint involved here is a mere failure to pay a simple
indebtedness and yet he found probable cause of the herein complainant's guilt of
estafa. It is elementary that non-payment of an indebtedness is not a criminal act,
much less estafa; and that no one may be criminally charged and punished for non-
payment of a loan of a sum of money. Respondent judge is dismissed from the office
of municipal judge of Guiguinto, Bulacan.
PRINCIPLE:
It is elementary that non-payment of an indebtedness is not a criminal act,
much less estafa; and that no one may be criminally charged and punished for non-
payment of a loan of a sum of money.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ALEJANDRO y PIMENTEL, G.R. No. 223099,

January 11, 2018
FACTS:
Alejandro Pimentel, was charged with two counts of rape, defined
and penalized under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, in
relation to Republic Act No. 83693 , of a 12-year old minor. Upon arraignment,
accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty and trial ensued. On DEAN’S CIRCLE
2019 – UST FCL 106 July 26, 2011,the RTC promulgated a Decision
acquitting the accused-appellant. On the same day, however, the RTC
recalled the said decision and issued an Order stating that upon
manifestation of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Roderick Cruz that there were
Orders that were inadvertently placed in the record of Criminal Case No. Br. 20-4979
involving the same accused but different private complainant-victim, XXX, which if
considered will result in a different verdict. Accused-appellant filed a Motion
for Reconsideration arguing that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and
executory and can neither be withdrawn nor modified, because to do so would place
an accused-appellant in double jeopardy A Joint Decision dated July 26, 2011 was
rendered by the RTC, finding accused-appellant guilty of two counts of rape.
Accused-appellant appealed to the CA, but the CA dismissed the appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the recall of the judgment of acquittal will result in double
jeopardy.
RULING:
The Court adheres to the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, that is, a judgment of
acquittal is final and unappealable. The 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of
the accused against double jeopardy, thus: Section 7, Rule 117 of the 1985 and
2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure strictly adhere to the constitutional proscription
against double jeopardy and provide for the requisites in order for double jeopardy to
attach. For double jeopardy to attach, the following elements must concur: (1) a valid
information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction of the crime
charged; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction;(3) the accused has been arraigned
and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was
dismissed without his express consent. Indeed, a judgment of acquittal, whether
ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final, unappealable, and immediately
executory upon its promulgation.
PRINCIPLE:
To avail of the protection against double jeopardy, it is fundamental that the
following requisites must have obtained in the original prosecution: (a) a valid
complaint or information; (b) a competent court; (c) a valid arraignment; (d) the
defendant had pleaded to the charge; and (e) the defendant was acquitted, or
convicted, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without
his express consent.
EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
Spouses Augusto G. Dacudao and Ofelia R. Dacudao, Petitioners, vs.
Secretary of JusticeRaul M. Gonzales of the Department of Justice,
RespondentG.R. No. 188056; January 8, 2013

Facts:
The petitioners filed a case of syndicated estafa against Celso Delos Angeles
and hisassociates after the petitioners were defrauded in a business venture.
Thereafter, the DOJSecretary issued Department Order 182 which directs
all prosecutors in the country toforward all cases already filed against Celso
Delos Angeles, Jr. and his associates to thesecretariat of DOJ in Manila for
appropriate action. However, in a separate order which isMemorandum dated March
2009, it was said that cases already filed against Celso DelosAngeles et. al of the
Legacy Group of Companies in Cagayan De Oro City need not be sentanymore to
the Secretariat of DOJ in Manila. Because of such DOJ orders, the complaint
ofpetitioners was forwarded to the secretariat of the Special Panel of the
DOJ in Manila.Aggrieved, Spouses Dacudao filed this petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamusassailing to the respondent Secretary of justice grave
abuse of discretion in issuing thedepartment Order and the Memorandum, which
according to the violated their right to dueprocess, right to equal protection of the law
and right to speedy disposition of the cases. Thepetitioners opined that orders
were unconstitutional or exempting from coverage casesalready filed and
pending at the Prosecutor’s Office of Cagayan De Oro City.
Theycontended that the assailed issuances should cover only future
cases against DelosAngeles, Jr., et al, not those already being investigated. They
maintained that DO 182 wasissued in violation of the prohibition against passing
laws with retroactive effect.

Issue:
Whether or not the assailed issuances can be given retroactive effect.

Ruling:
Yes. As a general rule, laws shall have no retroactive effect. However,
exceptionsexist, and one such exception concerns a law that is procedural in nature.
The reason is thata remedial statute or a statute relating to remedies or modes of
procedure does not createnew rights or take away vested rights but operates only in
furtherance of the remedy or theconfirmation already existing rights. The retroactive
application is not violative of any right ofa person who may feel adversely affected,
for, no vested right generally attaches to or arisesfrom procedural law