LISTA DE CONTROL RÁPIDA PARA REVISAR PROBLEMAS CON INTERESADOS

The case involves an automatic review of judgment made against Tee who was convicted for illegal possession of marijuana and sentenced to death. The defense assailed the decision of the court for taking admissible as evidence the marijuana seized from the accused by virtue of allegedly general search warrant. They further contend that the accused was deprived of his right to speedy trial by failure of the prosecution to produce their witness who failed to appear during the 20 hearing dates thereby slowing down the trial procedure.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the substantive right of the accused for a speedy trial prejudiced during the hearing of the case.

RULING:

The court ruled that the substantive right of the accused for a fair and speedy trial was not

violated. It held that the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 provides that the trial period for the criminal cases should be in general 180 days. However, in determining the right of an accused to speedy trial, courts should do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case.The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only when: (1) the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or (2) when unjustified postponements are asked for and secured; or (3) when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.

It was shown by the records that the prosecution exerted efforts in obtaining a warrant to compel the witness to testify. The concept of speedy trial is necessarily relative where several factors are weighed such as the length of time of delay, the reason of such delay, and conduct of prosecution and the accused and the prejudice and damaged caused to the accused of such delay. The court did not find the 20 days of delayed hearing unreasonable length of time as to constitute deprivation of the constitutional rights of the accused for a speedy trial in addition to the fact that court trial may be always subjected to postponement for reasonable cause of delay. In the absence of showing that the reason for delay was capricious or oppressive, the State must not be deprived of reasonable opportunity in prosecuting the accused.

PANGANDAMAN V. CASAR FACTS:

The case originated in Lanao. The offended party was ambushed in Lanao, but he survived. Based on his description, there were around 50 persons who staged the ambush from both sides of the hill. However, he could not recognize anyone of the 50. But he filed a case against all 50 ambushers, all “JOHN DOES”. So the court issued a warrant of arrest against the 50 John Does.

W/N the warrant of arrest is valid? Can a court issue a warrant of arrest against an unknown accused?

HELD:

NO it is not valid. It is of the nature of a general warrant, one of a call of writs long prescribed as unconstitutional and once anathematized as totally subversive of the liberty of the subject. Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized. The warrant as against unidentified subjects will be considered as null and void.

EXAMINATION OF BANK ACCOUNTS/ DEPOSITS

cases:

PNB VS. GANCAYCO G.R. No. L-18343 September 30, 1965 FACTS:

Defendants Emilio Gancayco and Florentino Flor, as special prosecutors of the Department of Justice, required the plaintiff Philippine National Bank to produce at a hearing the records of the bank deposits of Ernesto Jimenez, former administrator of the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Administration, who was then under investigation for unexplained wealth. In declining to reveal its records, the plaintiff bank invoked Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405.

On the other hand, the defendants cited Section 8 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) in support of their claim of authority,which allegedly provides an additional ground for the examination of bank deposits.

ISSUE:

Whether Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019 provides an additional ground for the examination of bank deposits.

HELD:

Yes. The truth is that these laws are so repugnant to each other than no reconciliation is possible. x x x. The only conclusion possible

is that section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law is intended to amend section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405 by providing additional exception to the rule against the disclosure of bank deposits.

W]hile section 2 of Republic Act 1405 declares bank deposits to be "absolutely confidential," it nevertheless allows such disclosure in the following instances:

(1) Upon written permission of the depositor; (2) In cases of impeachment;

(3) Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials;

(4) In cases where the money deposited is the subject matter of the litigation. Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty.

MARQUEZ VS. DISIERTO G.R. No. 135882 June 27, 2001 FACTS:

Respondent Ombudsman Desierto ordered petitioner Marquez to produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various accounts maintained at Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, where petitioner is the branch manager.

The order is based on a pending investigation at the Office of the Ombudsman against Amado Lagdameo, et. al. for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 3 (e) and (g) relative to the Joint Venture Agreement between the Public Estates Authority and AMARI.

Petitioner wanted to be clarified first as to how she would comply with the orders without her breaking any law, particularly RA. No. 1405. ISSUE:

Whether the order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera inspection of the questioned account is allowed as an exception to the law on secrecy of bank deposits (R.A. No.1405). HELD: No.

We rule that before an in camera inspection may be allowed, there must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction. Further, the account must be clearly identified,

the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection, and such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case