Article 3, SECTION 14, Philippines Constitution (CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS)

----- MILITARY TRIBUNALS -----

Olaguer v. Military Commission
subversion The trial contemplated in the Constitution is trial by judicial process and
military tribunals are not courts; A military court is ousted with jurisdiction where it did
not accord accused a chance to adduce evidence. Once a deprivation of a constitutional
right is shown to exist, the tribunal that rendered the judgment in question is deemed
ousted of jurisdiction.

----- DUE PROCESS -----

Scotys Department Store v. Micaller
discharge of employee Court of Industrial Relations, no criminal jurisdiction;

----- PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE -----

US v. Luling
customs; wharf watchman
Presumption of innocence; The state has the right to declare what acts are criminal,
within certain well-defined limitation and also a right to specify what acts or acts shall
constitute a crime, as well as what proof shall constitute as PRIMA FACIE evidence of
guilt, and then to put upon the defendant the burden of showing that such act or acts
are innocent and were not committed with any criminal intent.
People v. Mingoa
malversation of public funds There is no constitutional objection to the passage of a
law providing
that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption
founded upon the experience of human conduct, and enacting what evidence shall be
sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence.




----- RIGHT TO COUNSEL -----
People v. Holgado
slight illegal detention When an accused unaided by counsel qualifiedly admits his
guilt to an ambiguous or vague information, it is not prudent for the trial court to render a
serious judgment finding the accused guilty of a capital offense without absolutely any
evidence to determine and clarify the true facts of the case;
Duties of court when defendant appears without any attorney:
1) inform him that he has a right to have an attorney before arraignment;
2) after, court must ask him if he desires to have an attorney;
3) if he desires but unable to employ an attorney, court must assign an attorney de
oficio;
4) if he desires to procure one on his own, court must hive him reasonable time to do
so; In criminal
cases, there can be no fair hearing unless the accussed be given an opportunity to be
heard by counsel.

People v. Sim Ben
indecent and immoral cinematographic films The recommendation of the fiscal that
only a fine be imposed upon Sim Ben does not mean that he is not guilty of the crime he
is being charged; A promise to recommend a specific penalty such as fine does not
render the sentence void of the Court ignores the recommendation and metes out a
penalty which is provided by law.

Delgado v. CA
estafa thru falsification of public/official documents A part who was not represented
by a member of the bar is entitled to a new trial, otherwise, there would be a denial of
due process.

----- RIGHT TO BE INFORMED ------
People v. Regala
murder with assault upon an agent of a person in authority defective information;
Accused cannot be convicted of the complex crime of homicide with assault absent any
allegations in the information of the essential elements of an assault that appellant knew
that the assault victim was an agent of a person in authority; The fact that the crime of
assault was proved by evidence of the prosecution without any objection on the part of
the accused does not cure the defect because to do so would be convicting an accused
of a crime not properly alleged in the information.

People v. Ortega
person cannot be convicted of homicide through drowning in an information that
charged murder by means of stabbing The hornbook doctrine is that an accused
cannot be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or
information.

----- RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL ------

Conde v. Rivera and Unson
municipal midwife of Laguna Philippine organic and statutory law expressly
guarantee that in all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have a speedy trial; Where a
prosecuting officer, without good cause, secures postponements of the trial of a
defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable time, accused is entitled relief
through mandamus or habeas corpus.

----- RIGHT TO IMPARTIAL TRIAL ------

Mateo Jr. v. Villaluz

cold neutrality of an impartial judge Due process cannot be satisfied in the absence
of that degree of objectivity on the part of a judge sufficient to assure litigants of his
being fair and just; What a trial requires is an impartial and disinterested tribunal.

----- RIGHT TO PUBLIC TRIAL ------
Garcia v. Domingo
trial conducted in an air conditioned room Public trial when anyone interested in
observing the
manner a judge conducts proceedings;
----- COMPULSORY PROCESS/ CONFRONTATION -----

Fajardo v. Garcia
request to serve written interrogatories to a doctor The constitutional guarantee to
an accused to
compulsory process to secure the production of evidence in his behalf was not violated
by the trial judge who refused to grant the request of the accused for leave to serve
written interrogatories to his doctor who treated their injuries who already left abroad.
That the said medical testimony on the injuries they sustained was vital to their defense
can still be adduced thru other witnesses and hospital records.

People v. Ortiz-Miyake
hearsay rule the right of confrontation is not absolute as it is recognized that it is
sometimes impossible to recall or produce a witness who has already testified in a
previous proceeding, in which event, his previous testimony is made admissible as a
distinct piece of evidence by way of exception to
the hearsay rule; Exception contemplated by law covers only the utilization of
testimonies of absent witness made is previous proceedings BUT DOES NOT cover
previous decisions or judgments (if used
proof only that he was previously convicted of a crime BUT not guilty in a subsequent
case.

People v. Seneris
parricide; prosecution witness died While the right of confrontation and cross-
examination are fundamental rights, they can be waived expressly or impliedly by
conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right; If the party was given the opportunity
to confront or cross-examine a witness but failed to take advantage of it, he forfeits the
right and the testimonies given in direct examination will be received or ed on record;
Where the prosecution witness was partially cross-examined but prior to the next
hearing, he dies, his testimony cannot be stricken off the record.

---- TRIAL IN ABSENTIA; RIGHT TO BE PRESENT -----

Carredo v. People
malicious mischief Accused may be compelled to be present at the trial for the
purposes of identification unless he unqualifiedly admits in open court after his
arraignment that he is the person
named; The provision in the constitution allowing trial in absentia means that he waives
his right to meet the witnesses face to face; an express waiver of appearance has the
same effect; HOWEVER, such waiver of right does NOT release the accused from his
obligation under the bond to appear in court whenever so required; the accused may
waive the right but not the obligation to appear in court.

SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
Article 3, Section 16, Case Doctrines

TATAD V. SANDIGANBAYAN
due process; speedy disposition of cases Long delay in termination of the
preliminary investigation
by the Tanodbayan in the instant case found to e violative of the constitutional right of
the accused to due process; Undue delay in the conduct of preliminary investigation can
not be corrected

GONZALES V. SANDIGANBAYAN
when is a delay justified; balancing test - The right to a speedy disposition of a case,
like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended
by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays; unjustified postponements; balancing
test: conduct of prosecution and defense.

RIGHT AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION
Article 3, Section 17, Case Doctrines
BERMUDEZ V. CASTILLO
handwriting; refused to provide; perjury She was completely entitled to the privilege
invoked by her because she was compelled to write and were it proven by means of
what she might right later that the documents were written by her, it would be
impossible for her to evade persecution for perjury
CABAL V. KAPUNAN JR.
graft; corrupt practices, unexplained wealth Proceedings for the forfeiture of property
are deemed criminal and penal and hence, the exemption of the defendants in criminal
cases from the obligation to be a witness against themselves are applicable thereto;
ALMONTE V. VASQUEZ
subpoena duces tecum; government agency At common law, a governmental
privilege is recognized
with respect to state secrets bearing on military, diplomatic and similar matters. In this
case, there is no claim that military or diplomatic secrets will be disclosed by the
production of records pertaining to the
personnel of EIIB (economic something).

PEOPLE V. MALIMIT
robbery with homicide The right against self-incrimination is simply a prohibition
against legal process to extract from the accuseds own lips, against his ill, admission of
his guilt. It does NOT apply when the evidence sought is NOT an incriminating
statement but an object evidence; Miranda rights
covers only inadmissibility of extrajudicial confession or admission made during
custodial investigation; other evidence (like IDs, wallet, keys, etc) is not affected even if
obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation.

US v. Tan Teng
substance taken from the body of the defendant The prohibition against compelling
a man in a criminal cause to be a witness against himself is a prohibition against
physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him and not an exclusion
of his body as evidence when it may be material.

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK V. SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKS ET. AL.
The right of the accused against self-incrimination is extended in administrative
investigations that partake of the nature of or are analogous to criminal proceedings
the privilege has consistently been held to extend to all proceeding sanctioned by law
and to all cases in which punishment is sought to be visited upon a witness, whether a
party or not.