Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/67956060/Crim-Pro-Outline
Timestamp: 2013-12-12 07:40:19
Document Index: 159575627

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 125', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art 3', 'Art. 3']

P. 1Crim Pro OutlineCrim Pro OutlineRatings: 0|Views: 155|Likes: 1Published by liboaninoMore info:Published by: liboanino on Oct 08, 2011Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/67956060/Crim-Pro-Outline01/21/2013pdftextoriginal  The law on criminal procedure intersects and interweaves with constitutional lf the inherent clash between the interest of the State to preserve public order,and the interest of the individual to have his rights protected. A discussion ofcriminal procedure would therefore be incomplete without a discussion of the Bill of Rights. This reviewer therefore integrates the important points of the Bill of Rightsh the details of remedial criminal procedure in order to give the reader a moreholistic understanding of criminal procedure. Substantive law, particularly criminal law, is likewise discussed when necessary.RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSEDCONSTITUTIONAL BASISArt. III, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution:"(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without dueprocess of law.(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocentuntil the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been dulynotified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable."Art. III, Sec. 16, 1987 Constitution:"All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies."Art. III, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution:"No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." Although the rights of the accused as enumerated under Rule 115, Sec. 1 pertaial stage of the criminal prosecution, they are discussed here at the start of this reviewer in order to set the subsequent discussion of criminal procedure within the perspective of protection of the rights of the accused.Right to be presumed innocent Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusationRight to be heard personally or by counselRight to speedy, impartial and public trialRight to confront witnessesRight to compulsory processRight to discoveryIs there a right of discovery for the accused in criminal cases?See the following provisions:· Rule 119, Sec. 12 -- Conditional examination of witnesses on behalf of accus· Rule 116, Sec. 10 -- Production or inspection of material evidence in possessiution· Rule 116, Sec. 9 -- Motion for bill of particulars· Rule 112, Sec. 3(b), par. 2 -- Issuance of subpoena by prosecutor to accused ait a copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents(Note however that this is during preliminary nvestigation.) It was held in the case of People v. Webb that a denial of discovery procedured in a criminal case is tantamount to a deprivation of the accused
s right to compulsory process which is guaranteed in the Constitution.Is there a right of discovery for the prosecution in criminal cases?Yes. See Rule 119, Sec. 15 (examination of witnesses for the prosecution)Why is it that the right of discovery cannot be the same for both prosecution and accused?It might violate the accused
s right against self-incrimination.Right against self-incriminationScope of the privilege The scope of the privilege against self-incrimination covers compulsory testimncrimination, i.e. that which will entail use of mental processes and/or communi
cative faculties. It has since been extended to include any evidence communicative in nature, acquired under circumstances of duress. (People v. Olvis, 154 SCRA 525)Effect of violationWhen the privilege against self-incrimination is violated outside of court (e.g., by the police), then testimony is not admissible under the exclusionary rule.When the privilege is violated by the court itself, i.e. by the judge, the courtis ousted of its jurisdiction, and all its proceedings are null and void, and is as if no judgment has been rendered. (See Chavez v. CA, 34 SCRA 663)CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONINTRODUCTIONConstitutional basis Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution:"(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shallhave 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 cannotbe waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates 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 (the right against self-incrimination) shall be inadmissible in evidence against him."Custodial investigation defined Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcementr a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate. (People v. Marra, 236 SCRA 565) As provided for in Sec. 2, R.A. 7438, custodial investigation includes the prauing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed. This shall be without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.Rights of person under custodial investigation(1) Right against arbitrary detention (Art. 125 RPC)(2) Right against torture, inhumane treatment (Art. 3, Sec. 12 #2 Consti)(3) Right to remain silent (Art. 3 Sec. 12 #1 Consti)(4) Right against solitary confinement (Art. 3 Sec. 12 #2 Consti)(5) Right to be assisted by counsel at all times (RA 857) or by a national/interGO duly accredited by the Office of the President (EO 155)
see RA 7438(6) Right to be informed that anything he says may and will be used against himights)(7) Right to privacy of correspondence and communication (Art. 3 Sec. 3 #1 Const(8) Right against unreasonable searches and seizures (Art 3 Sec. 2 Consti)(9) Right to competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice andd with one if he can
t afford the services of counsel (Art. 3 Sec. 12 #1 Consti)(10) Right to waive assistance of counsel provided it be done intelligently and withssistance of counsel (ibid)1. Is there a right to conjugal visits?No such right in custodial investigation, but see RA 7438, Sec. 2f.2. Must the suspect be informed that his silence will not be used against him? Mustbe given a mini-lecture on Crim. Pro?Nowhere in the consti or ROC is it provided that the suspect must be informed that his silence does not bear any adverse consequence. However, it is believed thatfor a suspect to be considered as truly informed of his constitutional right to
silence, he must be advised that such silence will not be taken against him. This is due to the fact that in many instances, persons arrested feel that it looksworse for them if they remain absolutely silent.3. Is the right to be informed of the above rights satisfied if they are typewrittenNo. In People vs. Galit, it was held that each right must be explained to the accused in simple words in his own dialect/language. Such is the requirement for warnings to be valid and effective.Police line-upsIS A POLICE LINE-UP DEEMED PART OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION? In the case of Gamboa v. Cruz (162 SCRA 642), the petitioner had not yet beener for a criminal offense when he was identified by the complainant at the police line-up. The Court held that in this case, the police line-up was not part of custodial investigation and therefore the right to counsel did not attach at thattime. The Court held that when the process has 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 Gamboa ruling was reiterated in the case of People v. Santos (236 SCRA 686rein the Court noted that there was nothing in the records of the case that would show that in the course of the line-up, the police investigators sought to extract any admission or confession from the accused. In the US case of US v. Wade (908 U.S. 218; 1957) however, which involved a pot line-up, it was held that the absence of counsel during the line-up was violative of the accused's rights. The Court held that the post-indictment line-up wasa critical stage of the prosecution at which the accused was as much entitled tothe aid of counsel as at the trial itself.Miranda DoctrineRights embodied in the Miranda doctrinea. right to remain silentb. right to counselc. right to be informed of the above rightsConstitutional changes in the Miranda doctrined. Waiver of assistance of counsel must now be in writing and in the presence of couele. Persons under investigation are not only entitled to counsel, they are entitled tompetent and independent counsel
4. Harmonize the ruling in Galman v. Pamaran with People v. AysonIn Galman v. Pamaran, the court opined that the incriminatory testimonies givenin the investigation conducted by the Agrava Board were not admissible in evidence by reason of non-compliance with the Miranda warnings. This ruling was made despite its acknowledgment that said testimonies were given before an administrative body, not in a criminal case, and that the suspects weren
t in custody at the time they gave their testimonies. The reason given was that the protection grantedunder the Phil. Consti was wider in scope than in the US because the word
was not included in our constitution, which extends its protection to
any person under investigation for the commission of an offense.In Pp vs. Ayson, the Court held that the constitutionally mandated Miranda warnings of the accused
s right to silence and counsel are applicable only to police
as the commencement of adversarial proceedings against thesuspect.To harmonize the 2 cases, Prof. Tadiar commented that
although the proceedings before the Agrava Board were certainly not police investigations, they undoubtedlywere an integral part of a criminal investigation looking in the double murder.As such, the Agrava proceedings could be held as the commencement of the adversarial criminal process that mandates the right to counsel. This is inapplicable tothe Ayson case which involved an administrative investigation by PAL managementof a ticket clerk for alleged irregularities in the sale of tickets.
Activity (2)FiltersAdd to collectionReviewAdd noteLikeEmbedShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred reads|about 1 year agonuvelco liked this|about 1 year agoLoad more
Criminal Procedure Midterms Reviewer
Crim-Pro Herrera Reviewer
Floyd Ericson M. Rey
REMLAW REVIEW CASE COMPILATION_Jurisdiction Til Rule 4
Jonas_3-24
Johnson 3 11
Johns_2-29
Jewel_5-x
IJWApr03_GundersonMcAvoy
Hoss_4-15
Hitt_2-17
Hill_5-x
Higham_2-28
Heywood 4 37
Hendricks 4 28
Heinlein 5 x
Hartley 5 12
Harding_4-x.pdf
Hallikainen_2-27
Hall_4-13
Gunderson 4 36
Graumlich 3 x
Graefe 4 12
Gimblett_4-11
FWS Wilderness Policy 610 FW 1-5.PDF#Nameddest=2
Fule_5-x
Fritz_2-15
RecommendedCrim Pro OutlineliboaninoCriminal Procedure Midterms ReviewerSuiCrim-Pro Herrera ReviewerFloyd Ericson M. ReyREMLAW REVIEW CASE COMPILATION_Jurisd...cmv mendozaoriginal cases based on Prof. Herbosa's outline in remLaw reviewProperty ReviewerHoward ChanReviewer on Property. Loosely based on Justice Paras's BooktranspoErrol AlbanoAteneo 2007 Criminal ProcedureChapapacriminal procedure 2007 ateneo notesCriminal Procedure ReviewerChapapaCriminal Law (Arts. 1-237)MiGay Tan-PelaezSALES and LEASE Reviewer_dioryDiory RabajantePrevious|NextPage 1 of 3