RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Philippine law accords protection not only to the offended party but also to the accused.
The rights of the accused refer to protections given to the person of an accused in any
criminal case.

Criminal Cases
Section 14 Article III of the Bills of Rights deals with the rights of the accused. It
contemplates a scenario where a case has already been filed against a person, in
contrast to custodial investigations where a case may not have been filed yet. The case
filed is a criminal case, in which the parties are the People of the Philippines and the
accused. The People of the Philippines is the complainant, while the accused is the
person formally charged of a crime or offense punishable by law.
A case is said to be criminal when it involves the prosecution of a crime by the State and
the imposition of liability on erring individuals. It highlights the relation of the individual
and the state, with the state having the right to inflict punishment to an offender once
his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The real offended party or victim in a criminal case is the State or the People of the
Philippines, and not the private complainant. This is because what has generally been
violated is the law of the Philippines which provides protection to the people and
guarantees peace and order in the land. Violation of the law poses danger not just to a
private person, but to the people as a whole, and is a threat to the sovereignty of the
State.
The accused, who is the person charged in a criminal case, is pitted against the State.
With all its machineries, manpower, and almost unlimited sources of money, the State is
placed in an advantaged position. To level therefore the playing field, the Constitution
provides for numerous rights of the accused and of persons under investigation. Justice
demands that they should be given a fighting chance against the most power institution,
which is the State

Before Criminal Prosecution: (before arraignment)

Right to due process (Sec. 14(1))

Custodial rights (Sec. 12)
Right to be informed of his rights
Right to remain silent
Right to counsel
Right to bail (Sec. 13)
Right to speedy disposition of his case (Sec. 16)
Right of free access to the courts

During Criminal Prosecution: (after arraignment up to promulgation of

judgment)

Right to presumption of innocence (Sec. 14(2))

Right to be heard by himself and counsel (Sec. 14(2))

Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him (Sec.

14(2))
Right to have speedy, impartial and public trial (Sec. 14(2))
Right to confrontation (Sec. 14(2))
Right to have compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and

production of
Right against
Right against
Right against

evidence on his behalf (Sec. 14(2))

self-incrimination (Sec. 17)
double jeopardy (Sec. 21)
ex-post facto law and bill of attainder (Sec. 22)

After Conviction
Right against excessive fines and cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment (Sec.
19)

Criminal Due Process

Constitutional Provision. Section 14(1), Article III provides that no person shall be held
to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
The provision refers to due process in criminal cases. As to its procedural aspect, it
requires, essentially, the opportunity to be heard in which every citizen is given the
chance to defend himself or explain his side through the protection of general rules of
procedure. It contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is
rendered. Criminal due process requires that: (a) The accused is brought into a court of
competent jurisdiction; (b) He is notified of the case; (c) He is given the opportunity to be
heard; and (d) There is a valid judgment deliberated and rendered by the court. As to its
substantive aspect, the criminal cases must be based on a penal law.
What matters in procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Notice is an essential element of procedural due process, most especially in judicial
proceedings, because without notice the court will not acquire jurisdiction and its
judgment will not bind the defendant of the nature and character of the case filed
against him, and more importantly, to give him a fair opportunity to prepare his defense.
Nevertheless, the notice is useless without the opportunity to be heard.
Opportunity to be heard must be emphasized that what is required is not actual hearing
but a real opportunity to be heard. If for instance, a person fails to actually appear in a
hearing even though he was given the chance to do so, a decision rendered by the court
is not a violation of due process.
The right to appeal is not a constitutional right. It is a statutory right granted by the
legislature. But when it is expressly granted by law, then it comes within the scope of
due process.
Criminal due process requires impartiality or objectivity on the part of the court.
Although a separate right to impartial trial is granted in Section 14, paragraph 2 of the
Bill of Rights, it refers only to the right of the accused during trial. Impartiality in criminal
due process (Section 14, paragraph 1) is broader since it extends to preliminary
investigations conducted before the filing criminal cases in court. One of the instances

wherein impartiality is compromised is the so-called trial by publicity. When preliminary

investigations are held for purposes of determining whether information or a case should
be filed against the respondent, the investigating prosecutor should not be swayed by
the circumstances of pervasive and prejudicial publicity. It was held that prejudicial
publicity may be invoked as denial of due process if it prevents the observance of those
decencies or requirements of procedural due process.

DUE PROCESS
- procedural, not substantive
- procedure established by law for the prosecution of offenses must be followed
STEPS:
1.

Preliminary examination by judge to determine probable cause for issuance of

warrant of arrest
2.
Arrest and interrogation by authorities
3.
Preliminary investigation by the prosecutor to determine probable cause for
purposes of filing information
4.
Filing of information in court
5.
Arraignment
6.
Preliminary conference
7.
Pre-trial conference
8.
Presentation of evidence by prosecution
9.
Presentation of evidence by defense
10. Rebuttal
11. Offer of evidence
12. Decision
13. Promulgation of judgment
The absence of preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of criminal
information, nor does it otherwise render it defective, neither does it affect the
jurisdiction of the court over the case.
SECTION 12 Custodial Rights
Sec. 12: (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
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 cannot be waived except
in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate 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 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well
as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their
families.

Custodial Investigation is an investigation conducted by law enforcer immediately

after arrest. It is a questioning initiated by law enforcer after a person has been taken
into custody.
"in custody" - includes deprivation or mere restriction on physical liberty
WHEN CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION BEGINS:
1.

Restrictive View - limited to in-custody interrogations as when the accused has

been arrested and brought to the custody of the police for questioning.
2.
Expanded View contemplates two situations: (1) general inquiry as to
identification, circumstances of a crime without focus on any particular suspect; and
(2) suspicion is focused on a particular person and questions are asked from him to
elicit admissions or information.
Under the expanded view, general inquiry as to identification, like in a police line-up, is
not considered part of custodial investigation hence the accused may be identified by
a witness in a police line-up even if made not in the presence of counsel
NOT PART OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION:

Police line-up, or during process of identification

Spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning, but given in an ordinary

manner (spur-of-the-moment statements) res gestae

Volunteered statements
Extrajudicial admission to the prosecutor or a private person
Investigation made by a citizen or private security officer

Miranda Doctrine: Rights Under Custodial Investigation

Miranda vs. Arizona, 16 L. Ed 2d 694
The present provision is usually referred to as the Miranda Rights because it is an
adoption of the rights provided in the American case Miranda v. Arizona. It emphasizes
the duty of law enforcement officer to treat properly and humanely those under
investigation. It recognizes the fact that the environment in custodial investigations is
psychologically if not physically coercive in nature, so that law enforcers should be
reminded of the sanctity of individual rights and the limitations on their means of solving
crimes. In fact, as far as the present provision is concerned, the presumption of
regularity of official acts and the behavior of police or prosecution is not observed if the
person under investigation was not informed.
Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow, but,
briefly stated, it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against
self-incrimination. By custodial investigation, we mean questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be
employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of
their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following
measures are required: Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has
the right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence

against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or
appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is
made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner
and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before
speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in
any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him.
The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some
statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any
further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be
questioned.
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
- Refers not only to testimonial confessions but also to acts
- but does not apply to acts that are merely mechanical (does not require use of
intelligence) or to general questions (e.g. What is your name?)
MECHANICAL ACTS:

Paraffin test
DNA test
Examination of physical body
Fingerprinting
Being asked to step on a footprint to compare foot size
NOT MECHANICAL:
Handwriting
Initials on marked money
Signing of inventory receipts in search warrant (see People vs. Go)
Reenactment

RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT AND COMPETENT COUNSE

The right to counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody and placed
under investigation for the commission of a crime. Right to counsel is absolute, even if
accused himself is a lawyer.
Independent counsel - counsel is not hampered with any conflicts of interest
Competent counsel - counsel who is vigilant in protecting the rights of accused
Extrajudicial confessions are presumed voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive
evidence showing the declarants consent in executing the same has been vitiated, such
confession will be sustained.
.
Independent Counsel
Moreover, Art. III, section 12(1) requires that counsel assisting suspects in custodial
interrogations be competent and independent. Here, accused-appellant was assisted by
Atty. De los Reyes, who, though presumably competent, cannot be considered an
"independent counsel" as contemplated by the law for the reason that he was station
commander of the WPD at the time he assisted accused-appellant.
Mere Perfunctory Reading of Miranda Warnings not Enough
There was thus only a perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights to accused-appellant

without any effort to find out from him whether he wanted to have counsel and, if so,
whether he had his own counsel or he wanted the police to appoint one for him. This kind
of giving of warnings, in several decisions [16] of this Court, has been found to be merely
ceremonial and inadequate to transmit meaningful information to the suspect. Especially
in this case, care should have been scrupulously observed by the police investigator that
accused-appellant was specifically asked these questions considering that he only
finished the fourth grade of the elementary school.
NOTA BENE:

The right to counsel attaches upon investigation, that is, when the investigation

officer starts to ask question to elicit information or confession or admission. In

case of waiver of rights, the same must be done in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
A legal officer of a city cannot qualify as independent counsel. As to who has

burden of proving the voluntariness of the confession and that the constitutional
safeguards have been complied with, the prosecution has the burden of proof.
If admission is made before a private person, then it is admissible even if done
without assistance of counsel.

SECTION 13 Right to Bail

Sec. 13: All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right
to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Bail is available whether or not the case has already been filed for as long as the person
has been denied his liberty or otherwise deprived thereof. It is the security given for the
release of a person in custody of the law. It is also a mode to ensure the attendance of
the accused at his trial.
2 KINDS OF BAIL

Bail Bond

Cash money, not check

Property real property, not personal property (because value depreciates); annotated
in the title
Surety similar to insurance

Recognizance

GENERAL RULE: Available to all persons, not exclusively to those already formally
charged of a crime. Any person who is under detention and custody and deprived of his
liberty may avail himself of this right.

EXCEPTIONS:

Reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, and death when evidence of guilt is strong
Military men facing charges before court martial

Recidivists, habitual delinquents, quasi-recidivists, person who violated his

probation or parole, even if penalty is less than six years

Extradition or deportation proceedings
Contempts in legislative inquiry

RIGHTS INCLUDED:
1.

Right to a hearing, which may be summary and does not have to be separate and
distinct from the trial itself.
2.
Prosecution has right to present evidence, if this is denied, the grant of bail is void.
WHEN A MATTER OF RIGHT:

MTC - before and after conviction (less than 6 years imprisonment)

RTC - before conviction, below reclusion perpetua and even if evidence of guilt is

strong
Minority - even if reclusion perpetua or death and evidence of guilt is strong; a

privileged mitigating circumstance (lower by two degrees, the highest penalty that
can be imposed is only reclusion temporal)
Reclusion Perpetua or higher if evidence of guilt is not strong

NOTA BENE:

If the accused is convicted and penalty of more than 6 years imprisonment is

imposed, the trial court should cancel the bail, if he has been provisionally
released. It becomes discretionary only upon the court whether to grant the
accused provisional liberty on the same bail bond.
When the charge is punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher, hearing for grant
of bail is mandatory to comply with due process of law. The prosecution should also
be allowed to present evidence.

WHEN A MATTER OF DISCRETON:

RTC - after conviction, below reclusion perpetua but more than 6 years

imprisonment
Reclusion Perpetua or death - before conviction
Minority - after conviction for more than 6 years imprisonment
CA - accused was charged with murder but was convicted with homicide, which
conviction was appealed to the CA; the trial court should deny bail but the CA has
discretion whether to let the accused out on provisional liberty

WHEN BAIL SHALL BE DENIED:

MTC - recidivist, habitual delinquent, quasi-recidivist, violated parole or probation

RTC - charged with reclusion perpetua and evidence of guilt is strong, even if
convicted of lesser penalty; or after conviction for offense punishable by death or
reclusion perpetua

Habeas Corpus vis--vis Bail; When Bail may be Cancelled

Can bail be cancelled without violating the right to bail?

The precise question however, is whether once the provisional liberty has been thus
obtained, it could be terminated by the cancellation of the bail. In the answer filed on
behalf of respondent Court, Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza did stress the absence of
authority on the part of special counselor Antonio R. Robles who was not authorized to
intervene in this case on behalf of the state but did so, his failure to object being the
basis of the bail granted by the municipal court of Mulanay, Quezon. Such an allegation
was denied by petitioner. We are not called upon to rule definitely on this aspect as
independently thereof, there are two other basic objections. One was that petitioner,
when the bail was granted, was still at large. The municipal court, therefore, could not
have granted bail in accordance with our ruling in Feliciano v. Pasicolan. Thus: "'The
constitutional mandate that all persons shall before conviction be bailable except those
charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong, is subject to the limitation
that the person applying for bail should be in custody of the law, or otherwise deprived
of his liberty. The purpose of bail is to secure one's release and it would be incongruous
as to grant bail to one who is free.'" Secondly, and what is worse, the prosecution was
never given a chance to present its evidence. The authoritative doctrine in People v. San
Diego is thus squarely in point: "Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in
custody for a capital offense be resolved in summary proceeding or in the course of a
regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a
reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the Court should
resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the criminal case involved in the instant special civil
action, the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation
of procedural due process, and order of the Court granting bail should be considered
void."
Extradition Proceedings: Due Process and Right to Bail

Rights of the Accused during Trial

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 14(2), Article III enumerates rights of the accused in
all criminal prosecutions, to wit:
(a) Right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved;
(b) Right to be heard by himself and counsel;
(c) Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(d) Right to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial;
(e) Right to meet the witnesses face to face; and
(f) Right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.
These are rights of the accused during trial in criminal prosecutions. Under the Rules,
criminal proceedings start from arraignment up to the rendition of final judgment by the
court. Arraignment refers to that stage of the criminal proceeding when the information
is read to the accused to which he pleads guilty or not guilty. The proceeding continues
until a final judgment is entered by the court. The judgment is final when there is nothing
for the court to do but to execute it. Thus, during this duration the accused can invoke
the said rights under the proper circumstances.

A. Right to be Presumed Innocent

The right refers to the constitutional guarantee that the accused should be treated as if
innocent until he is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Presumption of Innocence and Criminal Due Process. Basically, the rights in Section 14(2)
are elaborations of criminal due process. The right to presumption of innocence, for
instance, is based on the fundamental procedural rule that the court must hear first
before it condemns. If what the court presumes is the guilt of the accused, then
procedural due process is violated. In fact, the accused is already in a disadvantaged
position since he is pitted against the State. Presumption of guilt renders the rights of
the accused nugatory. To protect therefore individual rights, in particular ones liberty, it
should be the State that proves the guilt of accused, and not that the accused proves his
innocence. It is the prosecution (State) who has the burden of overcoming the
presumption of innocence. It should rely on its own merits and not on the weakness of
the defense.
When Presumption is Overcome.
The presumption of innocence is overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Under the
rules of evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is the highest quantum of evidence.
Such proof requires that the court is morally certain that the accused is guilty of the
crime, so that if there is reasonable doubt that lurks in the mind of the judge, the
accused must be acquitted. When the defense creates reasonable doubt, the
presumption of innocence remains. It must be noted that the certainty required by law is
not absolute certainty but moral certainty as to every proposition of proof requisite to
constitute the offense.
Why Right is Granted.
The philosophy behind the very high quantum of evidence to establish the guilt of the
accused is expressed by the court as follows: It is better to acquit a person upon the
ground of reasonable doubt even though he may in reality be guilty, than to inflict
imprisonment on one who may be innocent.

Presumption of Guilt.
The law and rules, however, allow that presumption of innocence may be overcome by
another presumption through prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidence means
evidence deemed sufficient unless contradicted. This is based on logic and human
experience. When the prosecution, for instance, establishes that the stolen object is in
the possession of the accused, it creates a prima facie evidence that the accused
committed the crime of theft. The presumption of innocence is overturned, and the
evidence creates a prima facie proof of the guilt of the accused. This does not, however,
mean that the presumption of innocence is finally overcome. The burden of proof simply
shifts from the prosecution to the defense (side of the accused) who will in turn present
contradictory evidence to overcome the prima facie proof.
Presumption of Innocence
Burden of proof lies on his accusers to prove him guilty

Equiponderance of Evidence (Equipoise Doctrine) when preponderance of

evidence is at equipoise, court will find for the defendant; when the scale stand at an
equipoise and there is nothing in evidence to incline it either way, the court shall rule
against the party who has the burden of proof
Proof beyond reasonable doubt not to be equated with absolute certainty; moral
certainty, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind
Prosecution has Burden of Proof

B. Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel

Right to be heard
The right to be heard is the heart of criminal due process. Basically, it refers to all the
mechanisms afforded to the accused during the criminal proceedings. It is a safeguard
against prejudicial and partial judgments by the courts, as well as a guarantee that the
accused be given an opportunity to participate during trial in defense of himself.
Related Rights
Participation of the accused in the right to be heard includes three specific rights: (a) the
right to present evidence and to be present at the trial; (b) the right to be assisted by
counsel; and (c) the right to compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses
in his behalf.
Ratio of Right to Counsel
The right of the accused to counsel is based on the reason that only a lawyer has a
substantial knowledge of the rules of evidence, and a non-lawyer, in spite of his
education in life, may not be aware of the intricacies of law and procedure. Depriving a
person of such right constitutes violation of due process.
Related Right. Included in the right to counsel is the duty of the court to inform the
accused of this right to counsel before arraignment and to give a counsel in case the
accused cannot afford the services of one. The counsel representing the accused must
be independent and competent. A counsel who has a divided interest between the
prosecution (State) and the defense (accused) is disqualified on the ground of lack of
independence and conflict of interest.
Right To Be Heard
Right to be present at the trial

An accused has an absolute right to be personally present during the entire

proceedings from arraignment to sentence, if he so desires.

Right to e present at the trial is limited only to trial court proceedings and only to
the actual trial therein, not to appellate proceedings or proceedings subsequent to
the entry of final judgment, looking only to the execution of the sentence.

GENERAL RULE: Accused may waive his right to be present during trial.
EXCEPTIONS: Presence of Accused is Mandatory.
During arraignment and plea the presence of lawyer is also indispensable.

during trial, for identification

during the promulgation of sentence, unless for a light offense wherein the
accused may appear by counsel or a representative

NOTA BENE:
If the judgment is one of acquittal, the accused need not be present.
If the judgment is conviction but for a light offense, the accused need not be

present.
If the judgment is conviction and the offense is grave, the presence of the accused

is mandatory.
If trial in absentia and judgment is rendered, it will be promulgated even without

presence of accused but he will be furnished with copies sent to his last known
address.
If appeal, presence of the accused is not necessary. It is the duty of the appellate
court to appoint counsel, whose presence is indispensable.

Right to counsel

If the accused appears without an attorney, he must be informed by the court of

such right before being arraigned, and must be asked if he desires to have the aid
of counsel.
If he cant afford one, a counsel de officio shall be appointed for him.
The indispensable aid of counsel continues even at the stage of appeal.
The right to counsel is not waivable.
The right to be represented by counsel is ABSOLUTE, but the option of the accused
to hire one of his own choice is LIMITED.

C. Right to be Informed of Nature and Cause of Accusation

Right to be informed is again an essential aspect of procedural due process. The

constitutional mandate is complied with by the arraignment of the accused in
which he is informed by the court of the offense charged to which the accused
either pleads guilty of not guilty.

Well-settled is the rule that the allegations in the complaint and not the title of the
case that determines the nature of the offense.

Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation

Presence of accused is indispensable during arraignment and promulgation of

judgment of conviction
After arraignment, only formal amendments to the Information may be granted by

court
The right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation is not waivable.
Description, not designation of the offense, controls.
All the attending aggravating and qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the
Information and proved during trial; EXCEPT: for purposes of proving moral
damages only, then it is allowed to be proved even if not alleged.

D. Right to Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial

SECTION 16 Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases

Sec. 16: All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Right to speedy trial is based on the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied.
Unreasonable delays may result to a prolonged suffering of an innocent accused or an
evasion of justice by a truly guilty person. It offends not just the accused but also the
State, inasmuch as what is at stake is the speedy, inexpensive, and orderly
administration of justice. An undue postponement not only depletes the funds of the
defense but also of prosecution. Thus, if the prosecution unreasonably delays the
criminal proceedings because of too many postponements and unjustifiable absences,
the accused may be acquitted on the ground of violation of right to speedy trial. This
does not, however, mean that the court cannot grant reasonable postponements. What
is prohibited is oppressive and vexatious postponements. Right to speedy, impartial and
public trial is available in every criminal prosecution.

Speedy means that there is no fixed criterion in our statues to determine with precision
the time for speedy trial. As soon as after indictment as the prosecution can with
reasonable diligence prepare for it. It means a trial free from vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delays. But justice and fairness, not speed, are the objectives.
Right to impartial trial primarily requires that the judge who sits in the case must be
objective and renders a decision based on the cold neutrality of the evidence presented.
For instance, a judge who is hostile to the accused based on his comments and
utterances, or who is substantially swayed by the prejudicial publicity of the case, is a
partial judge and must be inhibited from the case.
Right to public trial demands that the proceedings be conducted in such a way that
the public may know what transpires during the trial. It is not necessary that the entire
public can witness the proceedings; it is enough that the relatives and friends of the
interested parties are accommodated in the trial venue. In fact, the court is allowed
under the rules to order the public to leave the premises of the court room in interest of
morality and order.
Right to Meet the Witnesses Face-to-Face
The right to confrontation enables the accused to test the credibility of the witnesses.
The right is reinforced under the rules of criminal procedure by the so-called crossexamination. Cross-examination is conducted after the presentation and direct
examination of witnesses by the opposing side. Both parties are allowed to test the
veracity of the testimonies presented by the other.

NOTA BENE: if the accused is acquitted on ground of denial of his right to speedy trial, it
is a judgment on the merits and therefore, first jeopardy attaches.
Impartial - cold neutrality of an impartial judge; absence of bias or prejudice
Right to an impartial judge
A judge who had conducted the preliminary investigation and made a finding of probable
cause is not disqualified from trying the case, in the absence of evidence of partiality.

Public - open to the free observation of all

- EXCEPT: evidence to be adduced at the trial is of such character as to be offensive to
decency and public morals
Covers all phases of any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative proceedings, including
custodial and preliminary investigation of an accused. Speedy is a relative term and
must be a flexible concept. The circumstances of each case must be weighed carefully to
find out whether there has been a speedy disposition
Inordinate Delay in Preliminary Investigation Violative, Exception to the Rule
NOTA BENE: If the accused is acquitted on ground of denial of his right to speedy trial, it
is a judgment on the merits and therefore, first jeopardy attaches.
Time limit for trial - In criminal cases involving per-sons charged of a crime (except for
those falling under the Rules on Summary procedure) the judge shall after consultation
with the public prosecutor and counsel for the accused, set the case for continuous trial
on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so as to
ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty
(180) days from the first day of trial, except as authorized by the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court.
Time limit between filing of information and arraignment, and between arraignment and
the trial - the arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days from the filing of the
information, or from the date the accused has appeared before the judge or court in
which the charge is pending, whichever date last occurs.
Thereafter, where a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused shall have at least fifteen
(15) days to prepare for trial. Trial shall commence thirty (30) days from arraignment as
fixed by the court.
If the accused pleads not guilty to the crime charged, he shall state whether he interposes a negative or affirmative defense. A negative defense shall require the prosecution
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, while an affirmative defense
may modify the order of trial and require the accused to prove such defense by clear and
convincing evidence.
Time limit following an order for new trial - the trial shall commence within thirty
days from the date the order for new trial becomes final, except that the court retrying
the case may extend such period but in any case shall not exceed one hundred eighty
(180) days from the date the order for new trial becomes final if unavailability of
witnesses or other factors resulting from passage of time shall make trial within thirty
(30) days impractical.
E. RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION

available only during trial, not during preliminary investigation

REASON: so defendant may make objection to the witness or so witness may

identify him
right to cross-examine
if the defense counsel deferred cross-examination of the prosecution witness and
then this witness dies, accused cannot anymore ask the witness direct

examination to be expunged from the records since the denial of the right to
confrontation is through no fault of plaintiff
EXCEPTIONS:
1.
2.

Dying Declaration
Trial in absentia - REQUISITES: (1) accused has been arraigned; (2) accused has
been duly notified of the date of trial; (3) failure of the accused to appear is
unjustified
3.
Depositions - witness is dead, insane or otherwise cannot be found, with due
diligence, in the Philippines
F. RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESSES
2 KINDS OF SUBPOENA:
1.
2.

Ad testificandum - to compel a witness to attend and testify

Duces Tecum - to compel a person having under his control documents or papers
relevant to the case to bring such items to court during trial

G. RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

Meaning of Right against Self-Incrimination

Section 17, Article III provides that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. This constitutional guarantee is better known as right against self-incrimination.
The right allows a person not to answer an incriminating question. An incriminating
question is one that if answered renders a person liable for an offense. However, it is
only when the incriminating question is put to a witness stand that the right may be
invoked.
When Right Available
The right is available in all government proceedings, whether criminal or civil, and
whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative. It is even available in legislative
investigations and impeachment proceedings. In addition, the right may be invoked by
all persons subject to judicial examination and legislative investigation. Thus it may be
invoked not just by the accused in criminal cases, but also defendants in civil cases, and
witnesses in all kinds of proceedings.
The right, nonetheless, is not self-executing. It is not automatically operational once an
incriminating question is asked. It must be properly invoked by objecting to an
incriminating question. For example, when a witness is subjected to direct examination
by the opposing party, and the opposing counsel asked was there an instance that you
cheated on your wife?, the right may be invoked by a timely objection to the
incriminating question. If no objection is raised, then the answer may be used as
evidence against the witness for the proper criminal charge.
Although all persons subject to judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative, and legislative
investigations can invoke the right under proper circumstances, special utilization of the
right is given to the accused. A witness can invoke the right only when the question
tends to be self-incriminating, but an accused can invoke the same in two ways. First is

by refusing to testify altogether during trial. And the second is, when he chooses to
testify, by refusing to answer questions that tend to incriminate him for another offense.
In criminal proceedings what is prohibited is physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the accused. Subjecting the body of the accused when material to
solve the case is allowed and not violative of the right. In one case, the Court held that
writing is not a pure mechanical act but requires the use of the intellect. Thus, an
accused cannot be compelled to write or sign and use the same as evidence against him.
State witnesses cannot avail of the right because the very purpose of their being state
witnesses is to give them immunity or protection to testify. Their testimonies are so
crucial to the resolution of a criminal case so that in attainment thereof immunity is
given to them by the State. This means that they will no longer be prosecuted for the
crime for which they are testifying. Since they have to unravel everything, even their
guilt, in exchange of immunity, the right against self-incrimination could no longer be
invoked.
Basis of the Right
The philosophy behind the constitutional guarantee is similar to the other rights of the
accused. From the very start, the accused is already in an adverse position pitted against
the entire machinery of the State. If evidence will still be taken from the lips of the
accused, it would even tilt the scales heavily in favor of the State.
The right is founded on public policy and humanity. Public policy demands that a person
be spared from answering incriminating questions because requiring him would likely
lead to the crime of perjury, which is basically lying to the court after having promised to
tell the truth and nothing but the whole truth. Humanity prevents extorting confession by
duress.

The right against self-incrimination is available both before and during criminal
prosecution.
Accused is competent to testify in his behalf, but he is entitled to the right not to testify
as a witness against himself. He cannot be compelled to incriminate himself; that is, to
say or do anything that can be used against himself.
Accused can invoke this right from the beginning; however in case of witness, he can
invoke this right only when the questions start to become incriminating.
RATIONALE:
1.
2.

Public policy
Humanity
GENERAL RULE: The accused cannot be compelled to testify against his coaccused under the theory that the act of one is the act of all.

EXCEPTIONS:
If he is discharged as a state witness
After he is convicted or acquitted
By trying him separately instead of jointly with his other co-accused

H. SECTION 21 RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Sec. 21: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If
an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Meaning of Double Jeopardy
Constitutional Provision Section 21, Article III states that no person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act. This is more famously known as the right against double
jeopardy.
Double jeopardy means that a person is twice put at the risk of conviction for the same
act or offense. The right against double jeopardy therefore means that a person can only
be indicted or charge once by a competent court for an offense. When a person, for
instance, has been charged of homicide and the court acquitted him of the case, he can
no longer be prosecuted for the same offense or act. He can now invoke his right against
double jeopardy.
There are two types of double jeopardy. The first happens when a person is put twice in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, and the second happens when an act is
punishable by a law and an ordinance at the same time, in which case the conviction or
acquittal in either one of them constitute as bar to another prosecution for the same act.
The requisites of double jeopardy are:
(a) A valid complaint or information;
(b) Filed before a competent court;
(c) To which the defendant has pleaded; and
(d) The defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.
When Double Jeopardy Could Be Claimed
1. Before double jeopardy could be claimed, there must be a first jeopardy. The first
jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon good indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after
arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without the consent of the accused. A case is said to be terminated
without the consent of the accused when there is acquittal or a final decision convicting
him.
2. To substantiate therefore the claim for double jeopardy, the following must be proven:
(a) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the first jeopardy;
(b) The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
(c) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense, or the second offense includes or
is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to
commit the same or is a frustration thereof.
REQUISITES:
First jeopardy

A valid complaint and information

A court of competent jurisdiction
Arraignment and valid plea
First jeopardy has been terminated
Second jeopardy for the same offense includes an attempt or frustration of the
same offense or it necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other

Terminated either by conviction, acquittal or dismissal upon the merit without

consent of the accused
CONVICTION: a judgment declaring the accused guilty of the offense charged and
imposing upon him the penalty provided by law; accused may appeal and this is not
double jeopardy
ACQUITTAL: a termination of the case based upon the merits of the issue; prosecution
cannot appeal anymore
DISMISSAL: a termination of the case other than upon the merits thereof; first jeopardy
only attaches if dismissal without consent of accused
NOTA BENE:

Consent means approval, acquiescence, conformity, agreement, etc. Mere silence

of the accused should not be construed as consent.

Even if the motion to dismiss was filed by the accused, the dismissal is equivalent

to acquittal if it is grounded on (1) insufficiency of evidence (demurrer to evidence

after prosecution has rested its case); (2) denial of the right to speedy trial
Supervening Facts when the second offense was not in existence when the first
offense was charged and tried, then another information may be filed or the
present information may be amended (substantial)

SECTION 19 RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL, DEGRADING OR

INHUMAN PUNISHMENT
Sec. 19: (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death
penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any
prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under
subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL PUNISHMENTS

Meaning of Excessive Fine and Cruelty
Constitutional Provision Section 19(1), Article III states that excessive fines shall not be
imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted
A fine is excessive when it is unreasonable and beyond the limits prescribed by law. The
amount of the fine is said to be unreasonable if the court does not take into

consideration certain standards, such as the nature of the offense, and the
circumstances of the person punished by fine. The imposed fine may never go beyond
the statutory prescription, otherwise it is unlawfully excessive.
A punishment is cruel when it is shocking to the conscience of mankind and it involves
prolonged suffering and agony to the person punished. For a penalty to violate the
constitutional guarantee, it must be so flagrant and oppressive so as to be degrading to
human dignity, and it must be unreasonably disproportionate to the nature of the offense
as to shock the senses of the community. The mere severity of a penalty does not make
the punishment cruel or inhumane, for as long as it is within the limits provided by law.
As one maxim states, even if the law is harsh, it is still the law (dura lex sed lex). A
penalty that is germane to purpose of the penal law is not cruel and inhumane.
Lastly, a penalty must be acceptable to the contemporary society. Ancient forms of
punishment, such as pillory, disembowelment, and crucifixion, which are already
considered barbarous practices, are cruel and inhumane. If a person, for instance, is
paraded around town naked with a tag on his neck saying I am a thief; do not imitate
me, the form of punishment is cruel and inhuman; it is barbarous and so ancient that it
is no longer acceptable to the present-day society.
Death Penalty
Constitutional Provision Section 19(2) also states that neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced toreclusion
perpetua. The present provision abolishes death penalty, although with a reservation
that the Congress can subsequently pass a law imposing it for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes.
The constitutional provision on death penalty or capital punishment does not explicitly
mention that it is cruel and inhumane. In fact, the Constitution allows the Congress to
impose death penalty for the right reasons. It could even be argued that extinguishment
of human life is not cruel and inhumane for the following reasons:
(a) It is proportionate to the nature of the offense. Death penalty may only be imposed
by Congress in the commission of heinous crimes and for compelling reasons. Heinous
crimes are crimes which are so flagrant and evil so as to be shocking to the conscience
of civilized persons, such as genocide, rape with homicide, murder, rebellion, and
treason, especially when committed against the innocent and helpless. With compelling
reasons, Congress may impose death penalty since it is proportionate to the atrocities
committed;
(b) This form of penalty still has currency in the contemporary time. Death by lethal
injection is prevalently practiced by many countries for the punishment of heinous
offenses; and
(c) Death by lethal injection is not cruel and inhumane because it does not prolong
suffering or inflict excruciating agony to the person punished. In truth, it only induces the
person to sleep through a lethal substance injected in the bloodstream which thereafter
painlessly put the person to death.
Proper Treatment of Persons Legally Detained or Imprisoned
Constitutional Provision Section 19(2), Article III provides that the employment of
physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the

use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be

dealt with by law.
Purpose of the Right. This constitutional guarantee recognizes the inalienability of human
dignity. Even when a person is imprisoned or detained, and even if he commits heinous
crimes, he is still a person entitled to proper treatment and protection. The Constitution
provides that even if a person is imprisoned or detained, he must be protected against
physical, psychological, or degrading punishment, and is entitled to the use of standard
or adequate penal facilities under humane conditions.

Excessive fines flagrantly disproportionate to the offense no matter what

circumstances the offense was committed.
Cruel and unusual punishment in its form; duration or amount; in flagrant
disproportion between the offense and the punishment.