Rights of the Accused (Rule115) Rights of accused at the trial (1) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall

be entitled to the following rights: (a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. (b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. (c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without any justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel. (d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him; (e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. (f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or cannot with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him. (g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf. (h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law (Sec. 1). Rights of persons under Custodial Investigation A. The rights of an accused person under in-custody investigation are expressly enumerated in Sec. 12, Art. III of the Constitution, viz: 1. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his rights 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, 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 in violation of this or Sec. 17 (Self-Incrimination Clause) hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him; 4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violation of this section as well as compensation to aid rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practice, and their families. B. Under RA 7834, the following are the rights of persons arrested, detained or under custodial investigation: 1. Any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel; 2. Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or in his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer; 3. The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the

investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever; 4. Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latters absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding; 5. Any waiver by person arrested or detained under the provisions of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise such waiver shall be null and void and of no effect; 6. Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by his or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by his counsel, or by any national NGO duly accredited by the Office of the President. The persons immediate family shall include his or her spouse, fianc or fiance, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece and guardian or ward. C. Three rights are made available by Sec. 12(1): 1. The right to remain silent Under the right against self-incrimination in Sec. 17, only an accused has the absolute right to remain silent. A person who is not an accused may assume the stance of silence only when asked an incriminatory question. Under Sec. 12, however, a person under investigation has the right to refuse to answer any question. His silence, moreover, may not be used against him (People vs. Alegre and Gordoncillo, 94 SCRA 109); 2. The right to counsel Example of those who are not impartial counsel are (1) Special counsel, private or public prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is adverse to that of the accused; (2) a mayor, unless the accused approaches him as counselor or adviser; (3) a barangay captain; (4) any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused (People vs. Tomaquin, GR 133188, July 23, 2004); 3. The right to be informed of his rights the right guaranteed here is more than what is shown in television shows where the police routinely reads out the rights from a note card; he must also explain their effects in practical terms (People vs. Rojas, 147 SCRA 169). Short of this, there is a denial of the right, as it cannot then truly be said that the person has been informed of his rights (People vs. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289). D. Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. The right to custodial investigation begins only when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police carry out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements (Escobedo vs. Illinois, 378 US 478; People vs. Marra, 236 SCRA 565). It should be noted however, however, that although the scope of the constitutional right is limited to the situation in Escobedo and Marra, RA 7438 has extended the guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been invited for questioning (People vs. Dumantay, GR 130612, May 11, 1999; People vs. Principe, GR 135862, May 2, 2002). Arraignment and Plea (Rule 116) Arraignment is the formal mode of implementing the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. Some rules on arraignment: 1. Trial in absentia is allowed only after arraignment; 2. Judgment is generally void if the accused has not been arraigned; 3. There can be no arraignment in absentia;

4. If the accused went to trial without arraignment, but his counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution and after prosecution, he was arraigned, the defect was cured (People vs. Atienza, 86 Phil. 576). Arraignment is important because it is the mode of implementing the constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and to fix the identity of the accused. It is not a mere formality, but an integral part of due process, it implements the constitutional right of the accused to be informed and the right to speedy trial (Lumanlaw vs. Peralta, 482 SCRA 396). Arraignment and Plea, how made Section 1, Rule 116 When should plea of NOT GUILTY be entered At any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty (Sec. 5). A plea of not guilty should be entered where 1. The accused so pleaded; 2. When he refuses to plead; 3. Where in admitting the act charged, he sets up matters of defense or with a lawful justification; 4. When he enters a conditional plea of guilt; 5. Where, after a plea of guilt, he introduces evidence of self-defense or other exculpatory circumstances ; and 6. When the plea is indefinite or ambiguous (US vs. Kelly, 35 Phil 419; People vs. Sabilul, 93 Phil. 567; People vs. Balisacan; People vs. Stron, L-38626, Mar. 14, 1975). When may accused enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary (Sec. 2). An accused can enter a plea to a lesser offense if there is consent of the other party and the prosecutor. If he did so without the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor and he was convicted, his subsequent conviction in the crime charged would not place him in dhouble jeopardy. It has been held that the accused can still plead guilty to a lesser offense after the prosecution has rested (People vs. Villarama, Jr., 210 SCRA 246; People vs. Luna, 174 SCRA 204). It is further required that the offense to which he pleads must be necessarily included in the offense charged (Sec. 2). Accused plead guilty to capital offense, what the court should do The court should accomplish three (3) things; 1. It should conduct searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the plea; 2. It should require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of culpability; and 3. It should inquire whether or not the accused wishes to present evidence on his behalf and allow him if he so desires (Sec. 3; People vs. Dayot, 187 SCRA 637). Searching Inquiry Searching question means more than informing cursorily the accused that he faces a jail term. It also includes the exact lengthy of imprisonment under the law and the certainty that he will serve at the national penitentiary or a penal

colony (People vs. Pastor, GR 140208, Mar. 12, 2002). It is intended to undermine the degree of culpability of the accused in order that the court may be guided in determining the proper penalty. Improvident plea Conviction based on an improvident plea of guilty may set aside only when such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. But if the trial court relied on the evidence of the prosecution and convincing evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt, not on his plea of guilty, such conviction must be sustained (People vs. Lunia, GR 128289, April 23, 2002). Courts must be careful to avoid improvident pleas of guilt and, where grave crimes are involved, the proper course is to take down evidence to determine guilt and avoid doubts (People vs. Siabilul, supra). The withdrawal of an improvident plea of guilty, to be substituted by a plea of not guilty, is permitted even after judgment has been promulgated but before the same becomes final. While this Rule is silent on the matter, a plea of not guilty can likewise be withdrawn so that the accused may instead plead guilty to the same offense, but for obvious reasons, this must be done before promulgation of judgment. In either case, however, if the prosecution had already presented its witnesses, the accused will generally not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance based on a plea of guilty (People vs. Lumague, GR 53586, Jan. 31, 1982). Grounds for suspension of arraignment Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases: (a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose. (b) There exists a prejudicial question; and (c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office (Sec. 11).