VIII. RIGHTS DURING TRIAL
This means that the accused can only be convicted by a
Art. III, sec. 14
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,
and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to
have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided,
that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
RIGHTS OF A PERSON CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE:
1. Right to due process of law – waivable by making a plea of
guilty
2. Right to be presumed innocent – waivable by making a
plea of guilty
3. Right to be heard by himself and counsel – waivable
4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him – not waivable
5. Right to have a speedy trial – waivable
6. Right to an impartial trial – not waivable
7. Right to public trial – waivable
8. Right to meet the witness face to face – waivable
9. Right to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence
in his behalf – waivable by making an advance waiver.
Q: Why does the accused has more rights?
A: (1) Because it is better to free to guilty people than to
convict 1 innocent person; (2) In a criminal trial, it is one
person against the people of the state with all its
machinations; and (3) It should not be proof by
preponderance of evidence since it would result in the
conviction of more innocent people.
NOTE: The rights of the accused apply only to PROCEDURAL
JUDICIAL PROCESS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS as compared
to Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution that applies to all
types of proceedings.
1. DUE PROCESS
a. The right to due process is the biggest right of all.
According to Justice Cruz, the right to due process mentioned
here is only a procedural due process, the procedure laid
down by law in trying an accused who is being charged of a
crime.
b.
tribunal which is required to comply with the stringent
requirements of the rules of criminal procedure.
 Criminal due process requires that the accused be tried
by an impartial and competent court in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by law and with proper observance of
all the rights accorded him under the Constitution and the
applicable statutes. Accordingly, to illustrate, denial from him
of the right to preliminary investigation, as required by law,
will constitute a denial of due process.
 It should be noted that the right to a preliminary
investigation is not among the rights granted to the accused
in the Bill of Rights. It is purely statutory. Even so, denial of
this right, in the absence of a valid waiver, will violate due
process.
 Obviously, the basic ingredient of criminal due process is
a trial conducted in accordance with the rudiments of fair
play. Hence, the accused has a right to complain if the judge
has a personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome of the
case, as where he is allowed to share in the fines he may
impose or where he is covered by the disqualification
enumerated in the rules of court.
 Due process is also denied where a person is impleaded
for violation of a law, administrative regulation or municipal
ordinance not previously published as he would not know
what acts he must do or avoid to prevent prosecution. Where
appeal is permitted by the Constitution or by statute, denial
thereof will also militate against due process.
ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS [BANCO ESPANOLA
vs. PALANCA, 37 PHIL 921]:
1) There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with
judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it.
2) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of
the accused and over the property which is the subject
matter of the proceeding.
3) Accused was given an opportunity to be heard
4) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
NOTE: All elements must be present. The absence of one
means there is a violation of criminal due process.
PROCEDURAL GUARANTY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
[NUNEZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 11 SCRA 542]:
1. The accused must be informed why is he being charged
and what are the charges against him;
2. He should have the full opportunity to rebut it;
3 The conviction should rest on evidence that is not tainted
with falsity
4. The sentence imposed against him should be in accordance
with a valid law;
5. The court that rendered judgment is one of competent
jurisdiction.
 [OLAGUER vs. MILITARY COMMISSION] The court held
that Due Process in Section 14 means trial by judicial process
1
not by executive or military process. Military tribunal is not
part of judiciary, but of executive to discipline the army.
Therefore, there is a violation of due process.
 Even during martial law, all cases should be tried under
civilian courts. AS LONG AS THE CIVILIAN COURTS ARE OPEN
and FUNCTIONING, decisions by military tribunals on civilians
are null and void.
 Pending cases in Tribunals should be transferred to
civilian courts when national emergency already ceases to
exist. Military Tribunals have jurisdiction only as long as
national emergency exists. Double jeopardy will not attach.
REQUIREMENTS FOR DUE PROCEES CLAUSE IF THE ACCUSED
PLEADS GUILTY TO A CAPITAL OFFENSE [PEOPLE vs. STA.
TERESA] (although no more capital punishment):
1. The trial court must conduct a searching inquiry
into the voluntariness of the plea and the full comprehension
of what he confessed thereof.
2. The court must order the prosecution to present
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and the precise degree of his liability
3. The accused must be asked if he would like to
present evidence on his behalf, and allow him to do so, if he
desires.
1. Due Process in Criminal Cases
ALONTE vs. SAVELLANO JR.
287 SCRA 245 (1998)
Facts: After accused was arraigned, the prosecution
presented the rape victim who identified her affidavit of
desistance and reaffirmed that she had no further interest in
prosecuting accused. The judge then asked clarificatory
questions to determine the truth and volutariness of both her
affidavit-complaint and affidavit of desistance. Counsel for
the accused did not anymore cross-examine the witness. The
prosecutor then moved to dismiss the case as she could no
longer prove the guilt of the accused. About two months
later, the court convicted accused of rape and sentenced him
to reclusion perpetua.
Ruling: The right of the accused to due process was violated.
No trial was conducted based on the procedure in the Rules
of Court and accused was not given his full day in court. It
cannot be argued that accused waived his right to confront
and cross-examine the witness because the existence of the
waiver must be shown to have been done knowingly and with
sufficient awareness of the consequence. The case should be
remanded for further proceedings.
PEOPLE vs. MACARANG
424 SCRA 18 (2004)
Facts: Macarang was sentenced to the penalty of death for
qualified rape. The trial court considered appellant to have
waived his right to present his evidence without any showing
that the latter was fully aware of the consequence of such
waiver.
Issue: WON the appellant was deprived of his right to due
process.
Ruling: In criminal cases where the impossible penalty may
be death, the presiding judge is called upon to see to it that the
accused is made aware of the consequences of not heeding the
warrant given by the trial court. A simple forewarning to the
appellant that the next time that he would not be ready with
his defense evidence, he would have deemed his right to
present it, did not satisfy appellant’s constitutional right to due
process. The trial court granted Motion of Appellant’s counsel
to withdraw his appearance. Appellant, therefore, had no more
counsel. It is obvious that the appellant was deprived of his
right to due process
ANNOTATION – DUE PROCESS – 287 SCRA 314
2. Presumption of innocence
In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved.
DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE
It is motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of evidence.
The government has not overcome the presumption of
innocence since it is the duty of the prosecution to present
evidence against the accused.
The evidences presented will not be based on the strength or
weakness of the accused but of the PROSECUTION.
 The Constitution does not prohibit the legislature from
providing that proof of certain facts leads to a prima facie
presumption of guilt, provided that the facts proved have a
reasonable connection to the ultimate fact presumed.
 Presumption of guilt should not be conclusive.
Q: When is there a REVERSE TRIAL?
A: (1) When the accused puts up an affirmative defense (like
self-defense) and; (2) When a law is made by the Congress
that there is presumption of guilt
Note: In case of a reverse trial, the burden of evidence shifts
to the accused to present the existence of factual evidence
on whatever exculpatory defense he presents.
Q: Do laws create by Congress to create a certain
presumption of guilt violate the presumption of innocence?
A: NO, because clearly, the fact presumed is but a natural
inference from the fact proved so that it cannot be said that
there is no rational connection between the 2. Furthermore,
the statute establishes only a prima facie presumption, thus
giving the accused an opportunity to rebut it.
Q: Why does it not violate the Constitution?
2
A: (1) There is a logical connection between the fact
presumed and the fact proved; and (2) The presumption is
rebuttable.
GENERAL RULE: The accused shall be presumed innocence
until the contrary is proved.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Article 217 of RPC, the failure of the public
officer to produce money in his charge is prima facie evidence
of malversation. So the burden of proof is shifted to the
defense to prove otherwise (that he is not guilty).
2. Violation of the Anti-fencing Law
3. Possession of poisonous substances if you are
on board a fishing vessel. (Reason: There is a presumption of
involvement in illegal fishing)
Q: Are these presumptions constitutional?
A: Yes. Clearly, the fact presumed is but a natural inference
from the fact proved so that it cannot be said that there is no
rational connection between the two. Furter, the statute
establishes only a prima facie presumption thus giving the
accused an opportunity to rebut it.
 [DIZON-PAMINTUAN vs. PEOPLE, 234 SCRA 63]: There is
no constitutional infirmity to the reversed presumptions.
 [HIZON vs. CA]: Laws providing presumptions in criminal
cases that a crime being or has been committed is not a
violation of the presumption of innocence right provided that
they are based on facts and these facts must be part of the
crime when committed.
 To avoid any constitutional infirmity, the inference of
one from proof of the other must not be arbitrary and
unreasonable.
 The legislature has the power to provide that proof of
certain facts can constitute prima facie evidence of guilt of
the accused and shift the burden of proof to the accused
provided that there is a rational connection between the
facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed. (Natural
inference)
 The statutory presumption is merely prima facie and
cannot preclude the accused from presenting his defense to
rebut it and at no instance can the accused be denied the
right to rebut the presumption.
CASES ON PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE:
BIRAOGO VS. PHIL TRUTH 637 SCRA 78 (2010)
LEJANO VS. PEOPLE 638 SCRA 104 (2010)
DEL CASTILLO VS. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 450 (2012)
ANNOTATION – 569 SCRA 903
3. Right to be heard personally or by counsel
Simply stated, this is the right to present evidence on one's
behalf, which includes the right to testify in one's favor and
the right to call witnesses. It includes the right to defend
yourself, the right to confrontation, and the right to call
witnesses.
THE RIGH TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IN YOUR BEHALF
INCLUDES:
a) The right to testify in one’s favor;
b) The right to call witnesses.
THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING
RIGHTS:
 Right to be present at the trial
A. The right to be present covers the period
from ARRAIGNMENT to PROMULGATION of sentence.
B. After arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding absence of accused, provided 2 requisites
are met. Note, that trial in absentia is allowed only if the
accused has been validly arraigned.
(i) Accused has been duly notified; and
(ii) His failure to appear is unjustifiable.
C. The accused may waive the right to be
present at the trial by not showing up. However, the court
can still compel the attendance of the accused if necessary
for identification purposes. EXCEPTION: If the accused, after
arraignment, has stipulated that he is indeed the person
charged with the offense and named in the information, and
that any time a witness refers to a name by which he is
known, the witness is to be understood as referring to him.
D. While the accused is entitled to be
present during promulgation of judgement, the absence of
his counsel during such promulgation does not affect its
validity.
 Right to counsel
A. Right to counsel means the right to EFFECTIVE
REPRESENTATION.
B. If the accused appears at arraignment without
counsel, the judge must:
(i) Inform the accused that he has a right to
a counsel before arraignment
(ii) Ask the accused if he desires the aid of
counsel
(iii) If the accused desires counsel, but cannot
afford one, a counsel de oficio must be
appointed
(iv) If the accused desires to obtain his own
counsel, the court must give him a
reasonable time to get one.
BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL:
a. The court is duty bound to inform the accused
that he has the right to an attorney before he
is arraigned;
b. The court must ask him if he desires the
service of counsel;
3
 c. If he does, and is unable to get one, the court
must assign a counsel de officio;
d. Or, if the accused wishes to procure private
counsel, the court must give him time to
obtain one [PEOPLE vs. HOLGADO (85 Phil.
753)];
e. Where the duly authorized members of the
bar are not available, the court may appoint a
person resident of the province and of good
repute for probity and ability [Rule 116 Sec. 1];
NOTE: The right to counsel during trial can be waived. The
accused may represent himself in any litigation.
PRE ARRAIGNMENT DUTIES OF THE JUDGE [Rule 116 Sec.1]:
a. to inform the accused that he has the right
to have his own counsel before being
arraigned;
b. after informing the accused he has to ask
the latter whether he desires the aid of
counsel;
c. if the accused so desires to procure the
services of counsel, the court must grant
him reasonable time to do so;
d. if ha so desires to have counsel but is unable
to employ one, the court must assign
counsel de officio.
Note: The duty of the court is not ended with such
appointment of a counsel de oficio, as it should also see to it
that the counsel does his duty by the defendant.
 The duty of the court to appoint counsel de officio when
the accused has no counsel of choice and desires to employ
the services of one is MANDATORY ONLY AT THE TIME OF
ARRAIGMENT. The counsel need not be one who is the choice
of the accused.
 The right to counsel may be waived.
 The rights enumerated in Sec. 14 (2) are rights in all
criminal prosecutions which cover the period from
arraignment to rendition of judgment. The right to counsel
exists only during that period.
DOCTRINAL CASES:
 [PEOPLE vs. JOSE 37 SCRA 450]. BUT under Sec. 12 (1) the
right to counsel also exists before arraignment.
 [DELGADO vs. CA]: Deprivation of right to counsel
because the accused was represented by a fake lawyer;
 Waiver of this right to counsel need not be done in the
presence of counsel because under our procedure, the
accused can defend himself;
 [PEOPLE vs. NADERA]: If the evidence presented by the
prosecution is strong, it is the duty of the defense to try to
rebut it in anyway he can. Here, the defense lawyer believed
the victim. That cannot be done, the defense lawyer must try
his best to rebut the evidence. He must not be swayed by the
testimony of the victim because it is his duty to defend his
client, and if he does not do so then there is a deprivation of
the right to counsel.
 [CHIONGBIAN CASE]: The Court said that the counsel of
choice thing applies only to cases when the accused is under
custodial investigation. There are other rights that cannot be
violated, like the right to speedy trial. So the accused cannot
delay the case just because he wants to get his own lawyer
 [PEOPLE vs. TULIN]: Accused was first represented by a
non lawyer, who did a good job. When he found out, he got a
real lawyer, who adopted the non-lawyer's strategy. Accused
was convicted. Hence, there was no deprivation because he
should have said to his counsel that he does not want to
adopt the strategy of the non-lawyer. There was waiver on
the part of the accused.
 Right to an impartial judge
 Right of confrontation and cross-
examination
 Right to compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witnesses
CASES ON RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND TO COUNSEL:
PEOPLE VS. SIONGCO 623 SCRA 501 (2010)
MILLA VS. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 309 (2012)
PEOPLE VS. LARA 678 SCRA 332 (2012)
4. Right to free legal assistance
Art. III, sec. 11
CASES:
PEOPLE VS. RIO, 201 SCRA 702 (1991)
MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE 332 SCRA 694 (2000)
5. Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.
PURPOSES OF THE RIGHT:
1) To furnish the accused with a description of the charge
against him as will enable him to make his defenses
2) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal against a
further prosecution for the same cause
3) To inform the court of the facts alleged.
ADEQUACY OF INFORMATION
1. If the information is more serious to less serious – it
can be done.
2. You can be convicted in possession if acquitted in
using prohibited drugs.
3. The word “minor” is not sufficient, age must be
mentioned and if uncle did the act of rape, it must
th
be stated that it is within the 4 civil degree.
4
 If the information fails to allege the material elements of
the offense, the accused cannot be convicted thereof even if
the prosecution is able to present evidence during the trial
with respect to such elements.
 The real nature of the crime charged is determined from
the recital of facts in the information. It is not determined
based on the caption or preamble thereof or from the
specification of the provision of law allegedly violated.
 [PEOPLE vs. GRADA]: It was not the accused name listed
in the information, but that of his brother. Deprivation? No,
because he knew of the nature and the cause of the
accusation against him. It was just a wrong name; it does not
vitiate the case. Besides, he did not raise it upon arraignment,
so he is deemed to have waived the right.
 Higher crime charged but convicted of lower offense,
there is no violation of this right; lower offense charged but
convicted of higher offense, there is a violation of the right to
be informed because lower crime does not involve the higher
crime;
 VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE: The accused is denied of his
right to be informed of the charge against him and to due
process as well, when the statute itself is stated in such
indefinite language that it is not possible for men of ordinary
intelligence to determine what acts or omissions are
punished. In such a case, the law is deemed void.
 The accused must be informed of the facts that are
imputed to him (cardinal requisite). Thus, the information
referred to must describe the act with sufficient particularity.
 The right to assail the sufficiency of the information
or the admission of evidence may be waived by the accused if
he fails to object to its sufficiency during trial and the
deficiency is cured by competent evidence presented therein
[PEOPLE vs. PALARCA May 29, 2002)].
 The information need not allege the precise time of
commission of the offense, unless the time of an essential
element of the crime charged.
RULE 110 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
Sec. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. – A
complaint or information is sufficient if it states the
name of the accused; the designation of the offense
given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained
of as constituting the offense; the name of the
offended party; the approximate date of the
commission of the offense; and the place where the
offense was committed.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. – The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense
given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation
of the offense, reference shall be made to the section
or subsection of the statute punishing it.
 What is essential is that the accused be informed of
the facts alleged against him, not the characterization of the
crime which is a conclusion of law.
CASES:
PEOPLE VS. GUEVARRA 570 SCRA 288 (2008)
PEOPLE VS. BARTOLINI 626 SCRA 527 (2010)
PATULA VS. PEOPLE 669 SCRA 135 (2012)
6. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial
IMPARTIAL TRIAL
It has been previously remarked that this requirement will
call for no less than “the cold neutrality of an IMPARTIAL
judge,” to insure that justice is done to the defendant. In
another case, it was held as part of the rule that the judge
must not only be impartial but must also appear to be
impartial.
PUBLICITY OF THE TRIAL
It is necessary to prevent abuses that may be
committed by the court to the prejudice of the defendant.
The people have the right to attend the proceedings not only
because of their interest therein but also so they can see
whether or not the constitutional safeguards for the benefit
of the accused are being observed. The accused is also
entitled to the company of his relatives and friends to give
him the moral support he needs during his ordeal.
This rule is not absolute, however, for it is
competent for the court to bar the public in certain cases, like
rape trials, where the purpose of the spectators in attending
the proceedings might be only to pander to their morbid
curiosity, more since their presence is likely to inhibit
testimony and embarrass some of the parties.
SPEEDY TRIAL
It is one free from vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays” and is in inconveniences before sentence
is pronounced upon him. This would also be consonant with
Section 16 of the Bill of Rights providing that “all persons shall
have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.”
Although the trial is an indispensable and, indeed,
the most important part of the proceedings against the
accused, it has been held that the right to be present thereat
is a personal right and therefore may be validly waived.
 Right to speedy trial
FACTORS USED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE RIGHT TO A
SPEEDY TRIAL HAS BEEN VIOLATED:
1) Time expired from the filing of the information
2) Length of delay involved or extent of delay (actual lapse
of time)
3) Reasons for the delay
4) Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the accused or
the invocation of the accused of this right.
5
 Take Note: This right can be waived and when there is
no objection against any postponement, then there is implied
waiver).
5) Prejudice caused to the defendant.
EFFECT OF DISMISSAL BASED ON THE GROUND OF
VIOLATION OF THE ACCUSED’S RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL:
If the dismissal is valid, it amounts to an acquittal and can be
used as basis to claim double jeopardy. This would be the
effect even if the dismissal was made with the consent of the
accused
REMEDY OF THE ACCUSED IF HIS RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
HAS BEEN VIOLATED:
1. He can move for the dismissal of the case.
2. If he is detained, he can file a petition for the
issuance of writ of habeas corpus.
 The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to
speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is
attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or
when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for
and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a
long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party
having his case tried. Equally applicable is the balancing test
used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his
right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for
that matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution
and the defendant are weighed, and such factors as length of
the delay, reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion or
non-assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant
resulting from the delay, are considered. [SOLAR TEAM
ENTERTAINMENT vs. HOW, 338 SCRA 511]
 Right to impartial trial
Definition of impartial trial
The accused is entitled to the full “cold neutrality of an
impartial judge”. It is an element of due process. The right to
an impartial judge must not only be in reality, but also in
appearance. The judge must not only be impartial but must
look impartial; otherwise, the judge must inhibit himself from
trying the case.
 [TABUENA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN]: Judges can only clarify
matters, and not impeach the accused. The judge cannot
ask questions to find out whether the accused is guilty or
not. The judge should not act as the prosecutor of the
accused.
 The right to have an impartial Judge. Impartiality must
not only be in reality, but also even in appearance.
 The judge should not be bias but objective; ruling based
on information.
 The right to an impartial trial is not a bar to a judge’s
intervention in cross-examination.
 A litigant is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial
judge.
 The judge should file a motion for inhibition if he is
impartial.
TWO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A BIASED JUDGE:
a) Disqualification;
b) Inhibition.
PUBLIC TRIAL
The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective of their
relationship to the accused. However, if the evidence to be
adduced is offensive to decency or public morals, the public
may be excluded.
 The right of the accused to a public trial is not violated if
the hearings are conducted on Saturdays, either with the
consent of the accused or if failed to object thereto.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC TRIAL
1. To prevent possible abuses of judicial power that
could be committed against him.
2. To prevent the courts from being instruments of
persecution.
NOTE: The right belongs to the accused and therefore, it can
be WAIVED.
 But waiver is not to be inferred from mere failure to
urge the trial of the case. Waiver or abandonment may be
presumed only when the postponement of the trial has been
sought and obtained by the accused himself or by his
attorney [KALAW vs. APOSTOL (64 Phil. 859)].
 The presumption is always against the waiver of
constitutionally protected rights.
 The REMEDY of the accused for VIOLATION of his right
to SPEEDY TRIAL is dismissal of the case and, if he is under
detention, release by habeas corpus. Moreover, dismissal for
violation of the right to speedy trial is equivalent to acquittal
and is therefore a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the
same offense.
 The general public may be excluded from trial when the
evidence to be presented in the proceeding is “offensive to
public decency and morals” [Rule 119 Sec. 13]. BUT even in
such instances the accused should be allowed to have his
friends, relatives and counsel present [IN RE: OLIVER 333 US
257].
 The purpose of the RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL is to
safeguard against any attempt to employ our courts as
instruments of persecution. IT is an effective restraint against
possible abuse of judicial power because it the trial will be
subject to contemporaneous review in the form of public
opinion.
Q: What is the reason why trial has to be public?
A: So that the public may see that the accused is fairly dealt
with, and to give the judge a line to attend to his
responsibility.
A PUBLIC TRIAL WHICH IS NOT HELD IN COURT IS VALID IF:
1) Public was not excluded.
6
2) Accused was not prejudiced.
3) Accused did not object during trial
TRIAL BY PUBLICITY
This is a violation of the right to an impartial trial as too much
publicity pressures the judge. However, it is not that easy to
use this ground as a violation of this right. The test to be
passed is the test of actual prejudice. To warrant a finding of
prejudicial trial by publicity, there must be allegation and
proof that the judges have been actually influenced, and not
simply that they might be influenced. So, there is a difference
between the judges MAY BE influenced, that is not enough,
there must be proof that the judges were actually influenced.
 [CRUZ vs. SILVA]: Where the Fiscal chose the courtroom,
installed microphones and invited the press, allowing them to
ask questions, in a preliminary investigation involving a
sensational killing. The court held the Fiscal in contempt. This
is a case of trial by publicity.
TRIAL WITH LIVE MEDIA COVERAGE (ESTRADA CASE):
 Balancing of rights present in the case:
a) Accused  Fair Trial
b) Press  Freedom of the Press
c) Public  Right to information
d) Court  Proper Administration of Justice
 There would be no live media coverage.
 The Estrada case covers immunity by suit, thus it is not yet
a trial.
 EXCEPTION: 1 Camera – for the purpose of history but not
simultaneous with the trial.
 People have a right to attend the proceedings not only
because of their interest therein but also so they can see
whether or not the constitutional safeguards for the benefit
of the accused are being observed.
 This rule is not absolute, however, for it is competent for
the court to bar the public in certain cases, like rape trials,
where the purpose of the spectators in attending the
proceedings might be only to pander to their morbid
curiosity, more since their presence is likely to inhibit
testimony and embarrass some of the parties.
CASES ON RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL
(A) Speedy trial
JACOLO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 635 SCRA 94 (2010)
MARI vs. PEOPLE 657 SCRA 414 (2011)
COCOFED VS. REPUBLIC 663 SCRA 514 (2012)
VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 519 (2012)
(B) Public trial
CASE - GARCIA VS. DOMINGO, 52 SCRA 143 (1970)
(C) Impartial trial
RE: REQUEST RADIO…
360 SCRA 248 (2001)
Facts: The Kapisanan ng mga BroadKaster ng Pilipinas, an
association representing duly franchised and authorized
television and radio networks, requested the Supreme Court
to allow live media coverage of the trial of former President
Estrada. The request was anchored on the need to assure the
public of full transparency in the proceedings. In effect, the
request seeks reconsideration of the 1991 resolution of the
Court which barred live media coverage of all court
proceedings.
Ruling: The issue involves the weighing out of constitutional
guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public
information, of the one hand, and the fundamental rights of
the accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional
power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair
and impartial trial. When these rights race against each
other, the right of the accused must be preferred. With the
possibility of losing his life or liberty, it must be ensured that
accused receives a verdict decreed by an unprejudiced judge.
Television coverage, however, can impair the testimony in
criminal trials, can the affect the performance of the judge,
and can destroy the case of the accused in the eyes of the
public. Accordingly, to protect the parties right to due
process, to prevent the distraction of the participants in the
proceedings and in the last analysis, to avoid miscarriage of
justice, the request is denied.
RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE…
365 SCRA 62 (2001)
Facts: The Secretary of Justice seeks a reconsideration of the
resolution denying permission to televise and broadcast live
the trial of President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan.
Among others, he argues that if there is a clash between the
rights of the people to public information and the freedom of
the press, on the one hand, and the right of the accused to
fair trial, it should be resolved in favor of the right of the
people, because the people, as repository of democracy are
entitled to information; and that live media coverage is a
safeguard against attempts by any party to use the courts as
instruments for the pursuit of selfish interest
Ruling: The motion is denied. However, because of the
significance of the trial and the importance of preserving the
records, there should be an audio visual recording of the
proceedings. The recordings will not be for live or real time
broadcast but for documentary purposes. Only later will they
be available for public showing, after the Sandiganbayan shall
have promulgated its decision. The master film shall be
deposited in the National Museum and the Records
Management ad Archives Office for historical preservation
and exhibition pursuant to law. The audio-visual recording
shall be made under the supervision and control of the
Sandiganbayan.
7

(D) Right to an impartial tribunal and trial of civilians by
military court
CASES:
OLAGUER VS. MC NO. 34, 150 SCRA 144 (1987)
CRUZ VS. PONCE ENRILE, 160 SCRA 702 (1988)
7. Right to confront witnesses
PURPOSES:
a. to afford the accused an opportunity to test the
testimony of the witness by cross-examination and
b. to allow the judge to observe the deportment of the
witness
[GO vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (1934)].
 Testimony not subjected to cross-examination must be
excluded from consideration. HOWEVER if cross-examine
actually commenced, but for lack of material time, it was not
completed and the witness died before it could be resumed,
so much of the testimony already covered by cross-
examination is admissible [PEOPLE vs. SEBERIS 99 SCRA 92].
 An exception to the requisite of confrontation is a dying
declaration w/c are “declarations made in extremity, when
the party is at the point of death, and when every hope of
this world is gone; when every motive to falsehood is silenced
and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations
to speak the truth. A situation so solemn and so awful as to
be considered by the law as creating an obligation equal to
that which is imposed by a positive oath in a court of justice”
[US vs. GIL (1909)].
FAILURE OF THE ACCUSED TO CROSS-EXAMINE A WITNESS:
If the failure of the accused to cross-examine a witness is due
to his own fault or was not due to the fault of the
prosecution, the testimony of the witness should be
excluded.
WHEN IS THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE DEMANDABLE:
It is demandable only during trials. Thus, it cannot be availed
of during preliminary investigations.
PRINCIPAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION:
1. The admissibility of “dying declarations”
2. Trial in absentia under Section 14(2)
3. With respect to child testimony
Q: What are not admissible as evidence in court?
A: (1) Extra judicial statements of an accused implicating
another when not repeated in open court; and (2) Affidavits
of Witnesses not produced in Court to be cross-examined.
CASE: HO WAI PANG vs. PEOPLE 659 SCRA 624 (2011)
8. Right to secure attendance of witnesses – Sec. 10, Rule 21
RIGHT TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS TO SECURE THE
ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND THE PRODUCTION OF
EVIDENCE IN HIS BEHALF:
This right to compulsory process must be invoked during the
trial. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver that cannot be
rectified or undone on appeal.
 A person accused can obtain a subpoena from the court
in order to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf.
 A refusal of subpoena will result to detention until such
time that compliance is made.
EXCEPTION: If the person resides more than 100 kilometers
from the place of trial, he is not bound by a subpoena. This
rule applies only to Civil cases, not to Criminal cases.
.
 This right includes the right to testify in one’s favor
[PEOPLE vs. SANTIAGO (46 Phil. 734)] and the right to be
given time to call witnesses [US vs. LAO CHUECO (37 Phil.
53)].
 This right may NOT be invoked on appeal if the accused
made no effort during trial to avail of himself of it [US vs.
GARCIA (1908)].
To establish the right to continuance by reason of the
absence of witnesses, the accused must show that:
a. the witness is really material;
b. he is guilty of no neglect of previously obtaining
attendance of said witness;
c. the witness will be available at the time desired; and
d. no similar evidence could be obtained.
[PEOPLE vs. SANDAL (54 Phil. 883)]
9. Trial in absentia
TRIAL IN ABSENCIA
 The right of the accused to be present during trial after
arraignment may be waived because this provision allows
trial to continue even w/o the presence of the accused.
 The accused’s present during trial may be totally waived
except when, after arraignment, his presence is needed for
purposes of identification. The reason is to forestall the
accused from using the defense that he was never identified
as the person charge in the information and therefor entitled
to acquittal.
 For an accused to be excused from attending trial, he
must unqualifiedly admit that every time a witness mentions
a name by w/c he is known, the witness is to be understood
as referring to him [VILLAVICENCIO vs. LUKBAN (39 Phil.
778)].
 The purpose of this manner of trial is to prevent
unnecessary delays of the trial.
REQUISITES of TRIAL IN ABSENCIA:
1. Accused has been arraigned;
2. Notice of the trial was duly served to him and properly
returned;
8
3. His failure to appear is unjustified or he waives his right
to be present.
GENERAL RULE: The right to attend trial is waivable.
EXCEPTION:
1. Arraignment
2. During the identification stage (witness testifies to
the identity of the accused)
3. Promulgation of judgment
Q: When can an accused be compelled by the court to
attend trial?
A: (1) Arraignment; (2) During the identification stage
(witness testifies to identify the accused); and (3)
Promulgation of judgment.
TO ESTABLISH THE RIGHT TO CONTINUANCE BY REASON OF
THE ABSENCE OF WITNESS, THE ACCUSED MUST SHOW:
1) That the witness is really material;
2) That he is guilty of not neglect previously obtaining
attendance of said witness;
3) That the witness will be available at the time desired.
4) That no similar evidence could be obtained from other
witnesses.
Note: The accused may not invoke such right on appeal if he
made no effort during the trial to avail himself of it.
CASES ON TRIAL IN ABSENTIA:
Facts: Accused was charged with estafa and was out on bail.
While trial was going on, accused changed his address
notifying the court through his counsel as well as the bonding
company. When accused failed to appear during a hearing
because notice was sent to his old address, the judge issued a
warrant for his arrest, appointed a counsel de officio for him,
ordered a trial in absentia, and convicted him on the theory
that he waived his right to present evidence. Was there a
valid trial in absentia?
Ruling: No. Under Sec. 14 (2) of the Bill of Rights, the
following are the requisites of a valid trial in absentia: 1)
accused had already been arraigned; 2) he has been duly
notified of the trial, and 3) his failure to appear is
unjustifiable. In this case accused had not been duly notified
of the trial because notice of hearing was sent to his former
address despite the fact he notified the court of his change of
address.
BERNARDO VS. PEOPLE GR 166980 April 4, 2007
10. When presence of the accused is a DUTY
a. Arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt
Rule 116, sec. 1 (b)
b. During trial, for identification
CASE- PEOPLE VS. SALAS, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)

JIMENEZ vs. NAZARENO c. Promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense,

in which case accused may appear by counsel, or a
Facts: There were several accused and after he was arraigned representative (Rule 120, Sec. 6)
accused escaped. The trial proceeded in his absence and the
judge convicted his co-accused. However, insofar as the one
who escaped, the judge withheld his decision that he can
enjoy his constitutional right to confrontation if he is
arrested. (Some think that this is wrong. Accused should be
judged basing on the evidences presented during the trial in
his absence.)

Issue 1: Whether the court loses jurisdiction over a person

who escapes.

Ruling: No. Once jurisdiction is acquired, it is never lost.

Issue 2: Whether the accused who escaped retains his right

to confrontation to present evidence to cross examination
and to be heard.

Ruling: These rights are no longer retained once the accused

escapes. The provision on trial in absentia will be useless.
Escape tantamounts tp a waiver to your right to present
evidence, confrontation, and etc.

PARADA vs. VENERACION

269 SCRA 371 (1997)