Medete_3 | #00 PAALLAR\ ve. CA _Dicwlade “Pallant eas a standing waver of avvest for Homicide, shconp personal rowiedge, he vas awvestedl by He autherttes, while eteedling He arrest, he vas urd in pasession of an illegal ~fveavn called as spaik” He mow qyection wheter tee seine valid Hue, con be sel against him. hettor on cowvest, vhich is valid, can vest toa vedic sears ever +Le cerwre of Ye Tem is net incidented to He cause of accesk? (yes) RUNG — Aepellants ayvest Loeing lawl, te seovelr and setae _wede jncldent tereto Ys Likewise valid, _ alloett conducted utthout 4 arom, the ilegskty of tte earch ic wdeperdot fromte Weep poreson of _probibited avmes te iegaltty of Ye genet did nok wake leoal on Wesal pecseston sf freqvmg whey in persvivg on. ‘lege action or WW te commission of & “criminal fence, Ate offerdivg goltce ofticars should bappen to disco a onimival ofterce boeing comenfted ey ary Person, “ ave wot precludedMedute 2 [410] PEOPLE v3. GWERA = _ GR. to. (Bus, 18 rervary 200) FACTS Csr Gwera y | aval : oc. perpen tw Wis oppeal befove tte Gouek, _corvicted af murder vy FIC of and was sentenced fo svar te _perotty of veclusion cappeliaast contended shot dve to te preecevce of veeconalole doubt; He cout a to bos committed an exvor __ (sve _ wheter te lowe a eval in aamialng ben? Gte) ROLLING Ave SC atawmed He edger of tee Awl “court convieting appellant’ of seer. He Court word Re twia\ courts is RestingMedute 3 | #102 __GOV. oF HONG KONG VS. OLALIA, JR. GR. to. IS3GFS, 1% April 2007 under He Bill of natn extords to 3 a . procpective “extvadtee) avd thot b extradition \ a bavsh _ Process vesttivg iw a \ prolonged cleprvertion of one’ Woerty. However, tr woe argued thot tong __Yors and He Philippres bac 4 treaty for exhoolNion This _cousedl te prevent cicpute, Getore He 96 luhelee vespoent’ Konclifetioval wight be vpreld fest? ex) REUING i ee __ te _wedem swerd in bn pulatic itervetional law is He primacy pieced om He worth of He Wadividval, person aud +e sanctity — of owen wigitts. Slowly, ee meats -f at ate Endivichel | vow taking vect. “tle vulnerable: -doelvine ae coger ok wrlermortional law ave bmtbel only to ctates was dram axtcally ereded towords “He Second halt of tte pastComENDADOR VE. DE NILA BUFF, 2 August (20 __iecuonce > by e com of a para _h m_veljance aalely er couse determined by “He prosecution wien Ok _Geterminiva Be wingtion of provable couse oy the judge tor an accused's lacrest is deperdent +o rat o€ the prosecution, and need vot fo conlvel Hom his oon? CHO) RUCIKG tigating, pros tor is s ecked, _in condecting_ pve Twrimary Tnvestigation Gelore PTC, to determine © Yleve &Medute 3 | 4Hlo4 REORLE VS. VALDES - GR. Yo. 2AG00F- 71, 8 Decemboer 2015 CR Valder, avgues eat bev cose 1 Ieailebte Gecouse no qealie vive agevevering, civeumstance is preset. was countered, _ _on fe otter tard, eortt Such offerse is non ~ failoble since we pmishatole by vecksion perpetvor issue reer He cone FS Lmilable ? CHO) POLIW - __ fe Xie poly, tere ic we 2 Cortainty Yor Vablez wool be. ound guilty of Malverssion of RUatic. Ponds 5 Faleittettion, __ like an eqppevatng clveumnetamee, “ywust be allegel anol proved set ‘te trial. “Fer purposes of laail procesdings, He woulel be prevabve fo wle hat He supposed ele covnrittect & complex Grime sivee te is only when Ve Awial hag tenmi- vetted bet Bis iGoation could be appreciated! 4 wmeane of _ committed yaplversation,Medute 3 | $1057 Lavipes vs. Cé 324 ScRA BU _ oe PACTS Te aces ues granted bail or all of bis cases. This, however hac conditions attached. One of te conditions attach ed te sheet boil loonds shell Ge made only ater arraignment Yow, fe ccamel is qestionng ~this _codition. \ssue _ _ - — Wheter te condition is Valid’? CHO) BUUo # oC teatl to a ogee on hie _quvaign- went would be +e place him In a position vheve be hag to dense between ( filing a ation Yo quash avtcl fous _ delay lis veleose on loail becouse onl his mation to each cam be verve hic quargnmert cannot ke held, ancl ©) _ foregeny “He Filing, 9 motion fo quash so teat be can ee _arreigned ak once amd ~Kerecttler be velensed on bull. Thce _coeravics _cowlaivly undermive “He ooeused’s conctrtotion_ al wight nek to be gut on tvtel_ercept upon _verlid complaint ot Wherwation eficien -b charge Wim with a orivee and hig wight to Lil.GR Yo. (AV, _|F_ March 20l0 Meduie 3 [3H0¢ Leste us. Ch Sas greve_a atose of desereton + He . new _qvest - aenal of lis apptication for bail coveidering Hert none of He _comditions West Qying denial oF ual unde He Bvel Ravagraph of See. Ty pole ule of pec ues presen Petiti- mers -Keary 1S Het, wheve tte penalty impesed Gy, re twial —_poork ie were than © years bot _not more Ninoy 20 years and He dvoumstences mention it He Bye Paris atoeeth bail Puce be granted te tn. wheter tepil ust be seats? “CHO) RULING __ il, He, security given by an accused ube is Me. custody at Ke low for his veleage ~0 _quavantee hig appearance were any court as way le vequived,s He _ancver of _ ye colina qustice syctem to a vexing qrestion’. wret is ko le, done with Ke accsed, whose suilt has wot yet Geen ; proven WW te “dolatos iwtenal/ often years long, vetwean, __arvest cane Geral adjedication 7 Boil acts eo veeoneiling medrartsin 40 accomadate bot “he ceuses Technet inMedute 3 | $410% PEOPLE VS. FITRGEPALD _ oS GR. Mo. 1499.23, 24 October 2006 ROS = — “Re _pelittonen Bled hic Petition to have He GA Resolution annvtel auc set aside, Pettoner avqves “Hit Ck evred In gventig “vespordent® phottion “fr Bail despite He Sct Heat He tster: wos gowped With oO orime puuishable loy vedesion perpeha _ aol He evictence of it guilt is story. ssvE _ — a : Ahelter tte OA ewved in allowing vesporcertt Yo past bail? Cres) Wuve _ . _ : Te wig to Lail omavotes from te _vight te be presumed unccort jc gccoded to @ pevton w te custedy of He low wro may, W venson of te precuvption of imnocence ne enjovss fe allowed provisional Likerty pen filtrg of. @ security 40 guoverrtee Wis _sppeonance tere any court; aS vequived under specified conditions,Medote 3 | t108 ENPWUE VS. SAADLOAN BAYAN GR Mo. 213847, (8 Avgust Ole ee — _ Ye Swit Laan denied eaviles Motion to fic bail ard his “ul suboseque ion Qu vecoreide vation . “le omnudsinan contends _ __ that Enallee yigkt to tail © discretionary of be te charged wit o capital offense. _ a (que _ _ - “(uhetor Ruvites Motion to Hx bail Ita water of diecretion . toy te trial court? (Ne) _ _ RULING His _sectel ond “political cfending and being wmediately _suverdered sto “Ke authovities upon “lig being chevaed th cot indiote thet He vin of his Skefit ov escape Kronn $RiS Jprisdiction ic highly unlikely. His pevsoral dispo- sition “Gon He ont _of bis twdistment “Or pliers “femal er etlenuise, hac demonstvatedl: lite utter vespect re ste lege processes of this county.__ Module 3 | \0% UTRALLANES WV vs. PIMENTEL oe “wheter “Prillores On quest te coup ett? Go) yo werequiery of bis quvedt aa this “Lopse, 2 copied | with is active Ww He “ial at Ke case, we wst abide watt Tywest. The legality of Be onrerh axtGects only le jortsde te persen. Ss warrantiesSREORLE VG: ESCOBAR GR. to. 14300 26 July 2017 FACTS ___ Petitioner allened shat ts, “wight” +0, due. __ when +e pultic “prosecutor Co conducked a: _veinwestigation, ard _ when He RC alloued +e amendment of tte informer Me polio ereseeutor loses the sole discretion “fe detenmine 2 existence oF deatole Case when __ fied Mi cove. ws, vei ~ wtowertion is vewvestigation counvest ke Wad without _ now lies sete Ss Get _ _ “eeMedole_3 (A\\\_ ___ RUUNG. . “seleetve _pvosecution ome oO , cove ef gueve neo of nr. t ondent argues thot ee _gvankes oy + en a_otiness _—€! “How, th this ¢: cace, Assue __kene case 1S : epeneet? ee ae de ol eal ole by He Supreme Cont of te Omladsman’s exercise of _ diseretion. Like afl deer. votes urdev our “constttionall 3 scheme of government, all t stein als wast adhere to _-fteMedute | ita. FLORESTA _vS-_UBLADAS AM Mo “By-03- G4, 23 thay oot _XKCTS THe och _atvessed thot He es of Court veguives __ movant 4o core notice oe Gis motion ot _all_partres. at lest lis vecommendation mawet be cought concevnedl eck least 9 days before te hearing erese hence, vrespordent exes ” Qromtney te petitton er bell yihout beavivg te prosecutions stele. _ ~ sue — Whelton “dudge Ubiedas ured te gverting she tail without heowing the proscottor’s side? ae _PIUNG Ubeiler (ail ta walter of night or aiseretion, odd een ro devge lms yet teen Viled Ww covet againgh a seeder 2 sestect| ~detainee, veasonable votre ofPredule 3 [HIS __NVIUCAOEVA VS. BUAYA | A MMo. RTE 08-2131, 2| NOVEMBER 2010 _Faers ee Powel ie_vow toning eater intention “Ailect —_yakerwaion enoils/ 4 hw a a vight for yew peliminary _ives\gition. on tle otter hand, +e spectl prosecution weit sting Yet svd>_omarted is merely procedwol \cssue _____Wretier -or wot * wake action “# tte bail exe prte proper? He) _POUNG _ oe The fect wheter a x defendant is _is is_prepaier! boy re bai be judge in _gremtiue —_ he one Prmas wnite olen, Mae case at ay te ivdeed sulstanttal. “te vecital of facls ke offense, acy wos defintely attered, ete engnal boration, He “peste act aig vetusal te ey He _ monetary “aime of He e private Complainants, Arfeert Yo Ye aneended one.Meduie 3 (FY CABRE RN fs. ZERNA _ AM: Mo. PU 02- FS __ FACTS ___Pelttioney alleges that despite having entered his plea of vet __puitly 40 He crlminal. charges 7 _ te poblte respondent ordered te amerdment of te \nhormation from the .saicl acimes Edmmel — chowges _ becouse ot te presence of (le acpvewsting ctreumcterce of Saisnegaral of vonl! Tw dis te dudge commited qvave ature 2 discretion for denying Hie motion to guath ste information, \ssue Wheller Here ic grave dlose of disoretion on te pert of He edge? _CYeS) _ RULING [n_ He _pvesest core, tte charge of te offense from +e & meray 6 Sire) amerdvent ard wor a svastontial owerdment ova suactitution Tt +est of ubelle? He vights of an acuta ane prejidied by He amevdrent of & complaint oF wSeration ic whetler or defewe under 44 compbiok or witrmatioy og tt ocigivelly food, wovtd vo longer &e availabe after tle omerdment is made; eord when omy evidere te accused might} have wold be mepplicable to ~He complaint or Bema tin.Medute & | Hele ADALIM: WHITE vs. BUG TAS ; : RM: Wo EQ- O2~ (38, November 2605 FactSet __ Me jwestigating | euatice “ opinedk nat Sec. (% Role WA of He Rules of Grimival focceeiots applies ony +o an accused aepeh ond vst_on one alvonly serving ‘nal severe. | ___a8_Regagors: _ - a _ \scue wheter _vesponderdt dubepe in exercising, tats _ciccretionary | powers ig coweck wy ordevive, “Re veleaw. ot Begn pore “on veceg wizamce? (NO) RULMO Te com agreed witla He obsertatiot of He _paestigne _ ste, otticer thar 4 is wrong Gr veipondert to claim hot Baeppor~ bed olveody coved Be minimum of bis ~ genterte at He cme Ke vas gromied ball on recogr~ Lome,Medute 2 [+H] Ge" _SANYOS VS. LORENZO PM te RYJ- ©2- |F02, 20. preuet 2002 FACTS Ake pmendvmett of tle \yhorwation -—rem Homicide to Murder because of te presence of He acpvewctives civeumsterce ih ‘tte peral laws, Ur is catered tte dudge committed qrave ofone _ ___ 2 discretion for denyivg his motion to quam He (wt jon. \ssue Whetter Here ic = " alocwe “et dkevetion on te pat of _ ate udge?_ (Ho) __ RULING (n + present cose, fle change ot the oftence fron Homicide tp purier es mevely a fowl aumendmet ancl wok a svastontiql owerdment: Tle Gest way +e determine _of whole? He vights ef an accused ave prepdied by He amerdment of = complaint of wSrmation ic wheter o defewe ut der “He compli’ or wearin oc it origiually _ Stood, world ve longer We awailabre a-tter te omerdment i wade; ord uien any oviderce He ceased might , mopplicable ~fo +e complaint or in@ema-Medote 3% | HF ESTEBMN VS. ALHAMBA GR No, (502, F_ September 2004 a __ FACTS _ ~peltoner gignits ak by omvendering te seu whe ts wow Jos four criminal _coses ig allowed under Se, (9, now 22 of Br|e (HY of Doles of Court. _(SSVE / _ 7 _ wheter petitioner is _comect? CHO) ~_ BULK — “The Grst povagvarh e& Section 22, contemplates of o stuat- ion where, among otters, tte surety or bordeman suv _ “engeS He accuse to fle court fet ovdeved te fitters atest. trereafter, tte cov, vpan application by she sweety oc _bordeman, caves te _fonil bord.Medote 3 |=#N8 Teorte vS. LUGMASIN . No. 208404, 24 Felorwany Ole _ EACTS. _ feared appellant “Develo sists eet is _wosroytHess arvest _ _ wes legal for wel filling under He permissible worvantles avvecis enumerated wm Sec. Rrle (Id of He Qvles of Cover. He also elaine st Here was no showing thet he weg informed of las Gonctitutional rights at the -Hme of _ we euvest and his Mehts under Sectione 2 ancl 3 £ en: F488 ducing investigation, (sgue Ulhetter accused. exgpebntt is corvedt? To RULING $+ He outset, ik ic apparent teat petitioner raised no __dujection ote yveglewtty o& his awect before We ane Emmet Covcidering Pris and WE active partictpertion wm __ Ne swlal_ of He ote, Gurisprecionce dictedes hat petitioner ig deemed to vave svomitled to te jurisdi- __etton of te Ariel court “Hereby ouring any detect th Nis arvest,Medute 3 | $1.9 PEOPLE VS. BMOLOY _ GR. Wo. 140740, | {2 _Apeil_ 2002 test convi tion was based on __ hie extvajdicial cone ssiane Brow Captain Corian and to Judge Pteon as veil as te seveval_civermstoncial eviderce against him. tHe is cow ascaling Ke odmissivily of lis conestions and tte gufbiciency of evidence against him. \ wheter tre wight so counsel i applicable te edteyvclic- yal confessions? (to) _ RYUIN © — _ mie wight 4 counsel _dluring custediql wwestigation does _ wok apply to Spontaveous clotements. tre stetement > _roustMedute 3 | $4120 PEORLE _VS._WICARDRO _@R. Me. b- S398, NN Febnavy RG FACS _ __Pepetlant is om 1 Witerete-_ Facoraing, + Pat. Joes) be “wtrmed | —_agettont F bec concitttoral wights when che wee vider _cuctosiol weston. However, HK was rot spsovied whet ciel ef 4a accused tt tater Was MRanel- te var benvicted _ ~ tele clue to her oun Statement. “hic was vot_establiched _loy He prosecution: \SSUE . _ __ Whreltle ee present mn hee a duty te establish tte alice oPMtcens exerctse of “ee? Ges) RULING _ _ cbs hk ic He “obligation of rhe investigating _ Peer te _Wrocm a _gevsen Uden _westigarfon of hip ight comoin Sloat and <0 commel, so te & “tte duty of Ye proearnon to aftimMively esttelhch complinee Gy He westiepting ofBcer with bis col chlightion ._Medote 3 | #412 Pere2 vs. PEOPLE —_ —_ GR. No WeAFE%, 21 Feary 2508 FACTS _ , presented _ evidence | “woh “petitioner _ denon _ _B. wren. lumcel€. lke denied $e contents of his Rest __ facwer to He _aclministertive cave __ ead against en out te assis tence & eounel ova shat xt He He of HS preparotion he vas not tn pealt of hig mercial ond —_Yerpical covdition. \ssue wheter ere met be a ohwet adherence to te. ight sto counsel Ln_administvetive proceedings 7 CHO), BVUNG ee _ a Ale vig! +o counsel te ink imperctive administra- ve. wwestigations becquse Sud irqyivies are conducted werely | +o determine wheter were ave “Rcts Met went isapimary weasores aganss errs public officers ond “employees: with He purpose _o® wailsining 4 clputiy_ o_goemmert cervice.Medoie 3 [41122 \RANEZ vs. PEOPLE _ __ SP. Wo. OFA’, _27_damary 0K _ Acts _ - ee - Reritiones incisted that Fey were dented of ~tein oigut te _ — counsd when Keir comsel cle oficlo Biled to appear on “"overal courh leary, consequertiyy Hey were net efole fo Crost-examive fe proseostions yitmesses. 086 catered _ tis saying that tte acteally bave 2 countele_ “(sSug . whelrer_ “petite ones ewe cheprived ot we. conetilotioral ight to counsel? Gio) WUNG _ : tte Coutts net pereuadted “ heet le _closence of Ye couse) de Reid Ww one of He hegrivgs of this coce omounts te a denial of wight +e counsel. Por cle ocr absence __ wawrentt Ve justifertion wnat te entive _prewedings ave wl)Medute 3 |$#123 _ Peopu_vs. AYSO Gp. Ne BSG 7 sly FBI FACTS Te detrdanté qlioreys led “owjectons! Commente! as “vegawds te people's Exhibit A, aligging rat sald doc yet was o¥en witost te accused attorney. Alco he was rot aftorded of iis constitutional wight to be sient, thus, het +e be o wutimess. against Vimcelt. te ts to be noted yhat fe occused, used, in He sald clocumenty snot under custodial twwesfigertion \csve wheter defordent « con avail the said consttotioral wight? Go) _ RULING _ Twgpiny tte He Ascoversd Wvegularities in iclet ales w which _ he appeared to weve Had o haved. “the [493 — . Constitution did not Uevetere come tb play weve of “ve weloance to He inguiry.__ ROUNG ; _ Meduie 3 (#4 l2¢ PEORE VS. More No. GeO, 2 Sepiomloes 2002 200 Aceused-appellant were. recharged of “et vage © with Wh homicide, Pe aviol He 3 weve acqyitted bck ccovsecl was convicted of ¥e orlme, baced main on te tectlmony ot Corevo, whore evidene against te accused were purely cf chev antial gince Ke dtd net see He actual vape-slay of We victim. wee Wheter Eordero's deskmony is suttctertly rtestedl_on svial7 (He) Condere’s sestweny Wes vot sobQcienty. tested on _eyoss- exarnination because otter is inittal cross arcmin tion lo He defense coonsel Covclero _vetused fo vetom to court without Guctfable veason, despite tte (nstoterce of He defense counsel_ancl ~te_ crepested wamnings Gam te celal couch het H will be. concrained -6 strike out ts testimony should he fail te appear again; sthett _COSS-examivarhion 1S & Constfutional wight of tte qocused which is pact of due process.Medute 3 | Helos" ___ DOMONDOK_VS._CANDIGAKeAYATL GR. No. WoO, 2% November 2005" _ “petitioners fied on December 3, 2003 a motion to dist es Clerimnivo, shod te failve to _aywaign em within rhe geried set onder B-A- 84 oc te Speecly Trial rer of (796 ave vested in denial of Het wight to Speedy viel \gcue hotter te Sordigantayah acted uv) gvae alouse. of oltte velion \n denying petioners pat? cue) “RULING / ; Te _petition lacks vert. A weve _mattewaitical veckoning of ‘He Hime iwolved, Merefore, wold ret be sufficient, “ty te_epplicartion ot fe _constitvHoval guarantee of ste _vight -to_speedy disposition + “oh the accused” onces,_ ofvoumstarces peculiey do each oaaeModute 2 | $:12¢ COSCOLLVELA VS. SANDIGAN BAYAN GR. Bo WU. IS duly 2013, — _ FAS _ _Copcollvela Bled. _O. retton | re_guash, avguing, cmong otters, that Wis concttutiona| wight +o speedy cltspost~_ ion of cases Wes Victettedl_ac_+te_ eviminal chewges against Wim weve _vesolved only atter almost 8 syeaus give te complaivtt was mettty ted. _tk_woe dismisseo! the. \sSbE “_wrever Me. 8 geovsly calved its digestion ww Areling wes vet violrted? cen Rone ae Biueg _ywst conor’ _°) he, ope ok elelay; 2) fue veosons for He delay j: 3) tte assertion of failure +o assert cual vight ley the accused) ave) 2 He prepdiced costed by He delay Examining He ncidents oe Ke cose, Ke Cort hold tral pettioners! wight Yo ‘speedy _Nispesttion _ oF heivy orivninel case lad Leen violated.PACS a __ Medute 3 | 412% OMBUDS MAK VS. JURADO GR. Wo: _ASUISS, © Argust 2008 From He Soregelng “onteiding everts, is. gute _ lean Abert tools He Ombrdsman almost © years te deci de that a cose lve led against Petitioners Under _ gue aemstances, fee Rettioner invoking Lite wight _ to speedy ctspecition of cases wos “icleted. __ (Sse wheller vesporcenth wight te _cpecchy “disposition of coses wac Violated? (0) _ tere te. notivg tn He vecords “to show thot said period wos cvevactenized by delay whic wos versity os, Capeleiovt, or oppressive steve wad ne ihordivete deloy armounting to a violation ef vespordenté const | tional, wigs. te. assertion of - veepondentt hat Here woe & violotion of his vig, eal _ineetion“EROS ee ___ Rrivete, vecpordent “Gled aig OG). “petitions - or att of Medute 3 | 4 128 ABADIA vs. CA GR. Mo. lOTSA, 23 september raat laluens cops, only te 2nd ome was granted. ts main _arppment is het, because lis detention has ne _ leop\ lacis oct all he stould se _veleassd. As this wes gremted lo CA- _ _ _. _ _(ssue meter te. _ Constitukioral vight ot epeedy alispacttion 6 cones, extend alse +o military cases? CyES) © PANG precisely oratied ae expand gvlactomtve fain -hoial rights ava te prctect cttizens Com procesloral wachiattons ch tend -to nullity Huse vights. Meveovery Ceo. Ie, ide I of He RAF Conelittion exteds Ye right 4o_speedy Atsposttion of caces to cases “betve all \paicial, quest paicisl, aud adminictverhve lodies” “Wis protection extends +o all citizens, including ose ote military ouch covers tte pericde etre, ts _doring, avd ater “te viel, axtorcing broader “pretection tren See. 4G) which guavoritees merely see wight’) fo speedy svial.