Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 143 views

    Alejandro v. Pepito (A.E.Nuyda)

    Uploaded by

    Earl Nuyda
    This case is an appeal asking the Court to decide if the accused's right to presumption of innocence and due process was violated. The judge ordered the defense to first prove evidence of self-defense, instead of following Rule 119 where the prosecution presents evidence first before the defense. The Court ruled this violated the accused's rights, as the legal procedure of Rule 119 protects the accused and presumption of innocence. By deviating from this process, the judge's order implied guilt before the prosecution could prove its case, prejudicing the accused's substantial rights to a fair trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Alejandro v. Pepito (A.E.Nuyda)

    Uploaded by

    Earl Nuyda
    143 views2 pages
    This case is an appeal asking the Court to decide if the accused's right to presumption of innocence and due process was violated. The judge ordered the defense to first prove evidence of self-defense, instead of following Rule 119 where the prosecution presents evidence first before the defense. The Court ruled this violated the accused's rights, as the legal procedure of Rule 119 protects the accused and presumption of innocence. By deviating from this process, the judge's order implied guilt before the prosecution could prove its case, prejudicing the accused's substantial rights to a fair trial.

    Original Title

    326. Alejandro v. Pepito (A.E.Nuyda).docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case is an appeal asking the Court to decide if the accused's right to presumption of innocence and due process was violated. The judge ordered the defense to first prove evidence of self-defense, instead of following Rule 119 where the prosecution presents evidence first before the defense. The Court ruled this violated the accused's rights, as the legal procedure of Rule 119 protects the accused and presumption of innocence. By deviating from this process, the judge's order implied guilt before the prosecution could prove its case, prejudicing the accused's substantial rights to a fair trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    143 views2 pages

    Alejandro v. Pepito (A.E.Nuyda)

    Uploaded by

    Earl Nuyda
    This case is an appeal asking the Court to decide if the accused's right to presumption of innocence and due process was violated. The judge ordered the defense to first prove evidence of self-defense, instead of following Rule 119 where the prosecution presents evidence first before the defense. The Court ruled this violated the accused's rights, as the legal procedure of Rule 119 protects the accused and presumption of innocence. By deviating from this process, the judge's order implied guilt before the prosecution could prove its case, prejudicing the accused's substantial rights to a fair trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    326. Alejandro v.

    Pepito adopted by the Judge is prejudicial to the substantial rights of


    the accused in the sense that the same would give rise to the
    GR No. L-52090 February 21, 1980 presumption that the prosecution had already established the
    TOPIC: Presumption of Innocence guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt when what is
    only on record is the accused's admission that he had killed the
    Summary: victim in self-defense. The Judge denied reconsideration in an
    This case is an appeal for review asking the Court to Order dated 9 October 1979. Alejandro filed the petition for
    decide on whether or not the accused’s right to be presumed certiorari with the Supreme Court.
    innocent and due process was violated by the judge not Relevant Issue:
    following Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. The Court ruled on
    the affirmative. Whether or not the Judge’s decision to change the
    procedure of the trial violated the accused’s right to be
    Doctrine: presumed innocent.
    The procedure established by law is necessary for the Ruling: YES
    protection of the accused’s right to be presumed innocent.
    Therefore the judge must follow the process established by Ratio:
    law. Enshrined in our Constitution as a protection to accused
    Facts: persons in criminal cases is the requirement that no person
    shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
    During Bianito Alejandro's arraignment, he pleaded not
    process of law. That requirement simply requires that the
    guilty to the crime of Homicide before the Court of First
    Instance of Aklan (Branch III, presided by Judge Gerardo M.S. procedure established by law shall be followed. Section 3 of
    Pepito). Alejandro, however, admitted in open court that he Rule 119 prescribes the order of trial in criminal cases,
    killed the deceased but that he acted in self-defense. The judge, provides that "the plea of not guilty having been entered, the
    on 6 July 1979, in an order required the defense counsel, first trial must proceed in the following order: (a) The fiscal, on
    to prove evidence in self-defense and the prosecution to present behalf of the People of the Philippines, must offer evidence in
    its evidence to disprove the same. Alejandro moved for support of the charges. (b) The defendant or his attorney may
    reconsideration, reiterated in an Amended Motion, of the Order offer evidence in support of the defense. (c) The parties may
    contending that the Court action was violative of Section 3 then respectively offer rebutting evidence only, unless the
    Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, which establishes the sequence court, in furtherance of justice, permit them to offer new
    in the presentation of evidence by the parties in criminal cases, additional evidence bearing upon the main issue in question.
    first by the prosecution and then by the defense, and not vice (d) When the introduction of evidence shall have been
    versa. Additionally, Alejandro claimed that the procedure
    concluded, unless the case is submitted to the court without
    argument, the fiscal must open the argument, the attorney for
    the defense must follow, and the fiscal may conclude the same.
    The argument by either attorney may be oral or written, but
    only the written arguments, or such portions of the same as
    may be in writing, shall be preserved in the record of the case."
    Thus, it behooved the Judge to have followed the sequence of
    trial set forth. That procedure observes the "mandate of reason
    and the guarantee of fairness with which due process is
    identified". The procedure outlined safeguards and protects the
    fundamental right of the accused to be presumed innocent until
    the contrary is proved. That right is founded on the principle of
    justice and is intended not to protect the guilty but to prevent as
    far as human agencies can, the conviction of an innocent
    person. Indeed, the form of a trial is also a matter of public
    order and interest; the orderly course of procedure requires that
    the prosecution shall go forward and present all of its proof in
    the first instance. As held in People vs. Balicasan (17 SCRA
    1119 [1966]), "in view of the assertion of self-defense in the
    testimony of the accused, the court should have taken anew
    defendant's plea and then proceeded with the trial of the case,
    in the order set forth in Section 3 of Rule 119 of the Rules of
    Court." The Judge's desire to abbreviate the trial and unclog his
    docket is commendable but it must yield to the paramount
    objective of safeguarding the rights of an accused at all stages
    of criminal proceedings, and to the interest of orderly
    procedure adopted for the public good.

    You might also like