Laiya, Batangas

May 06, 2014.
Laiya, Batangas.
I fall in love with the beach.

I really love to swim.

PHOTO CREDITS: Kervin Rapal

Constitutional Law II

Updated Miranda Rights (People vs Mahinay)

1.  The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other warnings, information or communication must be in a language known to and understood by said person;

2.  He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him;

3.  He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice;

4.  He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf;

5.  That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;

6.  The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient means – telephone, radio, letter or messenger – with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-government organization.  It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished;

7.  He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same;

8.  In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak;

9.  That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be questioned with warning that once he makes such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must ceased if it has already begun;

10.            The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements;

11.            He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.

Kinds of Ex post facto Law (In re Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.)

(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act;

(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;

(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed;

(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense;

(5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and

(6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.

Requisites of Double Jeopardy (Navallo vs Sandiganbayan)

(1) The previous complaint or information or other formal charge is sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction;

(2) The court has jurisdiction to try the case;

(3) The accused has been arraigned and has pleaded to the charge; and

(4) The accused is convicted or acquitted or the case is dismissed without his express consent.

When all the above elements are present, a second prosecution for (a) the same offense, or (b) an attempt to commit the said offense, or (c) a frustration of the said offense, or (d) any offense which necessarily includes, or is necessarily included in, the first offense charged, can rightly be barred.