Sec 12 custodial investigation- people vs alicandoFacts: the accused raped a 4 year old girl. Through the report of his neighbor, he was arrested by the police. The accused confessed his guilt to the police without his counsel. He was found guilty by the court.Issue: whether or not there was a violation in the rights of the accused?Held: yes, the records do not reveal that the Information against the appellant was read in the language or dialect known to him. The Information against the appellant is written in the English language. It is unknown whether the appellant knows the English language. Neither is it known what dialect is understood by the appellant. Nor is there any showing that the Information couched in English was translated to the appellant in his own dialect before his plea of guilt. The RTC violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It also denied appellant his constitutional right to due process of law. It is urged that we must presume that the arraignment of the appellant was regularly conducted. It did not ask the appellant when he was arrested, who arrested him, how and where he was interrogated, whether he was medically examined before and after his interrogation, etc. It limited its efforts trying to discover late body marks of maltreatment as if involuntariness is caused by physical abuse alone.

Sec 13 right to bail- US vs PurugananVery short Facts:the U.S. requestied for the extradition of a certain Jimenez for the crimes that he committed abroad. Jimenez sought for bail which was granted by the extradition Court.Issue: whether or not the bail is valid?Held: no, generally right to bail does not apply to extradition proceedings, bail can only be invoked when the detained has violated Philippine criminal laws. Extradition courts does not have the power to make decisions.Section 14 presumption of innocence people vs dramayoFacts:Dramayobroughtup the idea of killing Estelito Nogaliza so that he could not testify in the robbery case where he is an accused. The idea was for Dramayo and Ecubin to ambush Estelito, who was returning from Sapao. The others were to station themselves nearby. Only Dramayo and Ecubin were convicted in the RTC for murder. Hence the appeal

Issue:Whether or not the accusedscriminal liabilityproved beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:Yes. It is to be admitted that the starting point is the Presumption of innocence. So it must be,accordingto the Constitution. That is a right safeguarded both appellants.Accusationis not,accordingto the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution demonstrate that culpability lies. Appellants were not even called upon then to offerevidenceon their behalf. Their freedom is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. Their guilt be shown beyond reasonable doubt. What is required then is moral certainty. "By reasonable doubt is meant that which of possibility may arise, but it is doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability,aftersuch investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certain of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict of any carnal charge but moral certainty is required, and this certainty is required as to every proposition of proof regular to constitute theoffense."

Thejudgment ofconviction should not have occasioned any surprise on the part of the two appellants, as from theevidencedeserving of the fullest credence, their guilt had been more than amply demonstrated. The presumption of innocence could not come to their rescue as it was more than sufficiently overcome by the proof that was offered by the prosecution. The principal contention raised is thus clearly untenable. It must be stated likewise that while squarely advanced for the first time, there had been cases where this Court, notwithstanding a majority of the defendants being acquitted, the element of conspiracy likewise beingallegedlypresent, did hold the party or parties, responsible for theoffenseguilty ofthe crimecharged, a moral certainty having arisen as to their capability.Right to be heard by himself and his counsel- amion vs chiongsonVery short facts: the respondent was charged with ignorance of the law and oppression, for insisting the appointment of appellants counsel de officio, despite the appellants opposition. The reason for the appointment was because the appellants counsel of choice did not appear. This prompted the respondent to appoint a lawyer from the PAO to represent the accused in order to avoid delay. Issue: whether or not the right to counsel of the accused was violated?Held: no, because he was already given all opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense, but he forfeited his right by appearing in court without his counsel. There is a need for appointment of counsel de officio to promote speedy disposition of cases.Right to speedy and public trialRight to confrontation talino vs Sandigan bayanFacts:

Issue:Held:Sec 17 - Right against self incrimination pascual vs board of medical examinersFacts: petitioner filed an action against the respondent board. In the initial hearing of the administrative case for immorality, the counsel for the complainant presented the petitioner as his first witness. The petitioner objected, invoking his right to self incrimination, respondent board argued that such right can only be invoked in criminal proceedings. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, the respondent board filed with the SC.Issue: whether or not right to self incrimination can be invoked in the case?Held: yes, because if the petitioner would be allowed to testify against himself, he could suffer revocation of his license as a medical practitioner.