“No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.”
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and the 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 the witnesses and the production of evidence in
133
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.”
What does the due process in Section 14 mean?
The due process clause in Sec. 14 may be interpreted to mean all the rights available to the accused from the time a complaint or information is filed against him in court imputing the commission of an offense up to the time that he is finally convicted.
Necessarily, therefore, the rights must be subdivided into:
rights before trial,
rights at the trial and
rights after trial.
Rights Before Trial
• Preliminary Investigation
• Right to Counsel
134
• Right to Bail
• Accused conveyed the Miranda Rights
• Right against self-incrimination Preliminary Investigation
After a complaint has been filed against an accused and before his arrest, he is entitled to a preliminary investigation to determine whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime imputable against the accused has been committed.
Right to Counsel
A person who is arrested in flagrante or surrenders to the authorities is entitled to counsel from the moment of the arrest or surrender and he may not be asked questions in connection with the offense without the assistance of counsel as custodial investigation is deemed to have started.
135
Right to Bail
Upon the arrest of the accused, he may exercised his right to bail as long as the offense committed is not punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong.
• If the accused is arrested in virtue of an irregular warrant, he may ask for its quashal.
• If the accused is unable to post the required bail and is detained, he is entitled to be visited by his counsel or any member of the bar upon request of any person made in his behalf.
• The accused may confer privately with his counsel at any hour of the day or in urgent cases, of the night.
Accused conveyed the Miranda Rights
During custodial investigation, the accused may be conveyed the Miranda Rights --- his right to remain silent and the services of a competent and independent counsel of his own choice, or, if he cannot afford the services of one, the government must provide him with counsel. His right to
136
remain silent and to counsel cannot be waived unless it is in writing and in the presence of counsel.
Right against self-incrimination
Also during in-custody investigation, the accused may properly invoke his constitutional right against self – incrimination. Additionally, during custodial investigation, a confession may not be extracted from him with the use of violence, force, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate consent.
Any confession secured from the unwilling lips of the accused is inadmissible in evidence. During his interrogation, the accused may not be placed in secret detention places, solitary or incommunicado or other similar forms of detention.
Rights of the Accused at Trial
• Presumption of Innocence
• The Right to be Heard and Counsel
• Nature and Cause of Accusation
137
• Right to Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
• Right to Confrontation
• Compulsory Process
• Trial in Absentia
Presumption of Innocence
Notwithstanding the filing of a case against the accused in Court, the Constitution presumes him to be innocent until the contrary is proved. The rule is: innocence and the exception is guilt --- pronouncement beyond reasonable doubt.
One who alleges must prove… A maxim in law that underscores the presumption of innocence is --- he who alleges must prove. Thus, this strict standard is deemed not satisfied simply because the accused has submitted an implausible defense, because the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is addressed to the prosecution.
138
How can the constitutional presumption of innocence be overcome?
The presumption of innocence rule can only be overcome by the strongest evidence removing all doubts about one‟s guilt or pleads guilty in open court. The right to be presumed innocent must be offset by guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is a cardinal rule in our criminal justice system that to deprive a person of his precious life or liberty, the evidence against him must stand the crucible test of reasonable doubt to overcome the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence rule.
What is the basis of the right to be presumed innocent?
The presumption of innocence founded on the principle of justice is intended not to protect the guilty but to prevent, as far as human agencies can, the conviction of an innocent person. It is an absolute protection against conviction and punishment except, first, on confession in open court and, second, on proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
139
How may the presumption of innocence be overcome in criminal cases?
The presumption of innocence of the Constitution may only be overcome if the accused pleads guilty in open court or his guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. Any doubt as to the guilt of the accused must be resolved in his favor and against the State.
Accusation is not synonymous with guilt
Who has the duty of overcoming the presumption of innocence clause that is constitutionally assigned to the accused?
The Prosecution. “Accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt.” It is incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate that culpability lies. There is need, therefore, for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the State, both oral and documentary, independently of whatever defense offered by the accused. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken
140
into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason, the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged; that not only did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime. Calling the accused first to prove self-defense violates presumption of innocence rule.
Nature and Cause of Accusation
The right to know the nature and the cause of accusation is strengthened in the Rules of Court by directing that the accused be arraigned in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing him a copy of the complaint or information with the list of witnesses and reading the same in a language or dialect known to him and asking him to enter a plea.
Arraignment
After the case has been filed in court, the accused is entitled to know the nature and the cause of the accusation against him. This is known as the arraignment where the accused is
141
furnished a copy of the complaint or information with the list of witnesses indicated therein and reading in open court the accusation against him in a language or dialect known to him.
At this stage, the accused may plead guilty or not.
Right to be heard and counsel
After the accused shall have entered a plea, the litigation process starts. During the trial, the accused is entitled to be heard by himself and counsel. Where the accused cannot afford the services of counsel de parte, the court is under obligation to appoint a counsel de officio.The Constitution ordains that the accused has the right to be heard by himself and counsel. The right to be heard is not only available to the accused but likewise to the State. Depriving the latter of such right amounts to a denial of due process.
“In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by counsel. Even the most intelligent or educated man have no skill in the science of the law,
142
particularly in the rules of procedure, and, without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence.” The Rules of Court command the judge that before arraignment, he shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and shall ask him if he desires to have one. And unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in person or engage the service of a lawyer of his choice, the judge shall appoint a counsel de officio.
Can the accused defend himself personally?
Yes. The accused may be allowed to defend himself personally when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.
Right to Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
The accused during trial of his case is entitled to a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of the witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved would greatly be impaired if the accused is
143
not afforded the right to speedily vindicate himself in the forum where he is accused of a crime. Absent such right to speedy trial, the accused will be placed in limbo as his case will remain unresolved perpetually because of unnecessary and oppressive delays.
What rights of the accused may be invoke to speed up the disposition of his case?
Thus, the accused may move to speed up the disposition of his case by invoking his right to speedy trial and if his prayer is unheeded, he may avail of habeas corpus, as remedy if restrained of his liberty, or by certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus for the final disposition of his case. If, however, the accused deliberately resorts to tactical maneuvers to delay the early disposition of the case, the State is equally armed with the right to invoke its right to speedy disposition of cases before judicial bodies under Section 16, Article III of the Constitution or proceed with the trial in absentia.
What is meant by speedy trial?
144
Speedy trial is defined as one that is free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, its salutary object being to assure that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of a expense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest time compatible with the presentation and consideration of whatever legitimate defense he may interpose.
What is the test in determining whether there is a violation of the right to speedy trial?
The Supreme Court held that the test of violation of the right to speedy trial has always been to begin counting the delay from the time the information is filed in court and must take into consideration the following circumstances:
1) the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant;
2) length of delay;
3) reason for the delay;
4) defendant‟s assertion or non-assertion of his right; and 5) prejudice to the defendant‟s right to speedy trial.
145
Is the right to speedy trial available only in criminal proceedings?
No. All persons have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.
What remedies are available to a person whose right to speedy trial is violated?
• Habeas corpus – if the accused is restrained of his liberty.
• Certiorari, prohibition or mandamus for the final adjudication of the case.
What is the meaning and extent of public trial?
It is the right to be heard held openly and publicly to see that fair play is done to the accused in order to keep judges alive to their responsibilities. It is not necessary that the whole of the public be admitted. It is sufficient that the friends of the accused, his relatives and others who may want to watch the
146
proceedings, in order to see if justice is intelligently and impartially administered, are given the opportunity to witness the proceedings.
When may the public be excluded from the courtroom without violating the right of the accused to a public trial?
The court may, motu propio, exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence to be produced during the trial is of such a character as to be offensive to decency or public morals. The court may also, on motion of the accused, exclude the public from the trial except court personnel and the counsel of the parties.
Right to Confrontation
The right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him is an imperative part of due process. It includes the right to cross-examine the witnesses, violation of which amounts to a transgression of one‟s right to due process. It is a fundamental right not only invocable in criminal proceedings
147
but also in civil as well as administrative proceedings with quasi-judicial powers. A dying declaration made by a person under a consciousness of an impending death is not only an exception to the constitutional right of the accused to confront and cross-examine the witness against him but also admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
What are the two-fold purposes of the right of confrontation as applied to criminal proceedings?
• First and primarily, to secure the opportunity of cross-examination; and
• Secondly, to obtain the benefit of the moral impact of the courtroom atmosphere as it affects the witness‟s demeanor.
Otherwise stated, it insures that the witness will give his testimony under oath, thus deferring lying by the threat of perjury charge; it forces the witness to submit to cross-examination, a valuable instrument in exposing falsehood and bringing out the truth; and it enables the court to
148
observe the behaviour or demeanor of the witness and assess his credibility.
Is the right to confrontation available in preliminary investigation?
No. The constitutional right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him does not apply to preliminary hearings;
nor will the absence of a preliminary examination be an infringement of his right to confront the witnesses.
May the right to cross-examine be waived?
Yes. The right to cross-examine is a personal right which may be waived expressly or impliedly by a conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross-examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct examination of the witness will be received or allowed to remain in the record.
149
What is the scope of cross-examination?
A witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party not only to matters stated in the direct examination but also as to any matter connected therewith. He should be allowed to cross-examine with sufficient fullness and freedom to test the witness‟s accuracy, truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias and also to elicit from him any important fact bearing upon the issue.
Compulsory Process
Will an accused be helpless to secure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf and to obtain evidence favorable to him which are in the possession of third persons?
The answer to the question is in the negative. Section 1(g) of Rule 115 of the Rules of Court complements the constitutional provision on the right of the accused to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of the witnesses and the production of other evidence in his behalf.
150
The right may be exercised by the accused through a motion addressed to the court for the issuance of a:
• subpoena testificandum for persons to testify in his behalf, or
• subpoena duces tecum for the production of documents or papers in the possession of third persons.
What is the purpose of the right of the accused to compulsory process?
The constitutional right of the accused to compulsory process which includes the attendance of witnesses and production of evidence in his behalf is intended to assure a full and unimpeded opportunity for him to meet what in the end could be a baseless accusation.
Trial in Absentia
Where, therefore, an accused escaped from confinement, his trial will continue as long as the three (3) indispensable
151
elements of trial in absentia are met. The escape of a defendant in a criminal case will be considered a waiver of his right to be present at any stage of the proceedings and the inability of the court to notify him of the subsequent hearings will not prevent it from continuing with the trial. He is deemed to have received due notice.
What is the purpose of the trial in absentia?
The purpose of this rule is to speed up the disposition of criminal cases, trial of which could, in the past be indefinitely deferred, and many times completely abandoned, because of the defendant‟s escaped.
What are the requisites of trial in absentia?
• that the accused has been arraigned;
• that he has been duly notified of the trial; and
• that his failure to appear is unjustified.
Arraignment is jurisdictional and mandatory. Arraignment is the operative act that gives the court jurisdiction over the
152
person of the accused, absence of which is inexcusable and fatal. The Rules of Court require that the accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally enter his plea.
Arraignment is the indispensable means of bringing the accused in court and notifying him of the cause he is required to meet. Failure to arraign the accused is a gross violation of his right to due process, and, specifically, the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Rights of the Accused after Trial
If after trial, the accused is convicted and thus the presumption of innocence is overcome, he is entitled to appeal his case to the appropriate court.
The accused after his conviction is entitled to a right against
The accused after his conviction is entitled to a right against