U S T
A C :L J A E.F II
officer. In such case, the uncounselled confession did not violate the suspect’s constitutional rights.
(People v Zuela, G.R. No 112177, January 28, 2000)
Note: What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of the incriminating facts or confessions.
The rights under Sec. 12 are guarantees to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the State, and not to prevent the suspect from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. (People v. Andan, G.R. No. 116437, Mar. 3, 1997)
Q: Decide on the admissibility as evidence of confessions given to news reporters and/or media and videotaped confessions.
A: Confessions given in response to a question by news reporters, not policemen, are admissible.
Where the suspect gave spontaneous answers to a televised interview by several press reporters, his answers are deemed to be voluntary and are admissible.
Videotaped confessions are admissible, where it is shown that the accused unburdened his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of the newsmen. Such confessions do not form part of confessions in custodial investigations as it was not given to police men but to media in attempt to solicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public.
However, due to inherent danger of these videotaped confessions, they must be accepted with extreme caution. They should be presumed involuntary, as there may be connivance between the police and media men. (People v. Endino, G.R.
No. 133026, Feb. 20, 2001)
Q: What is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?
A: This doctrine states that once the primary source (the tree) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the fruit) derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence, because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.
4. REPUBLIC ACT 7438 (AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED,
DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE
ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF)
Q: What is the relevance of this act in relation to Rights of Suspects?
A: This is in implementation of Article Section 12 of the Constitution, enacted on 27 April 1992, strengthens the rights of persons arrested, detained or under custodial investigation stated as Miranda rights and other rights such as:
1. Any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
2. The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating office and it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel 3. 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
Note: As used this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law. (RA 7438)
5. ANTI‐TORTURE ACT OF 2009 (RA 9745)
Q: What is the relevance of Anti Torture Act of 2009 in relation to Rights of Suspects?
A: It is meant to implement the guarantees in Section 12 of the Bill of Rights against torture and other related acts. It adds the right, among others, to be informed of one’s right to demand physical examination by an independent and competent doctor of his/her own choice, which may be waived, provided it is in writing and in the presence of counsel.
Note: It was enacted on 10 November 2009 specifically to curb and punish torture (physical and mental) and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority upon another person in his/her custody. (Anti‐Torture Act Of 2009)
Q. What are the salient features of this act?
A.
1. An impartial investigation by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
and other concerned government agencies.
2. Investigation of the torture completed within a maximum period 60 working days
3. Sufficient government protection 4. Be given sufficient protection in the
manner by which he/she testifies and presents evidence in any forum to avoid further trauma
5. Claim for compensation under Republic Act No. 7309
6. Be informed of his/her right to demand physical examination by an independent and competent doctor of his/her own choice.
100
PAHOLITICAL DVISERERAZEUS : ALCAW TTYHRISTINE .T EEAMDWIN :Y. R UEY Y;S MANDOVALEMBERS:; SLUBJECT AWRENCE HEADPAULO : RACHEL H. AQUINOMARIE , LL.EANDRO FELICESR; AODEL SST.V. SUBJECT ATIENZAHEADS, MARINETH : WIVINO EASTER E. BRACERO AN D. IIA YOS& ,CARLO R. BALA, WILFREDO T. BONILLA, JR., KEEL ACHERNAR R. DINOY, APRIL V. ENRILE, KENNETH JAMES CARLO C. HIZON, JOSE MARIA G. MENDOZA, ROGER CHRISTOPHER R. REYES, ROMILINDA C. SIBAL, JASMIN M. SISON, ZARAH PATRICIA T. SUAREZ, RALPH JULIOUS L.
7. To immediate access to proper and adequate medical treatment
Note: If he/she cannot afford the services of his/her own doctor, he/she will be provided by the State with a competent and independent doctor to conduct the physical examination. If the person arrested is female, she will be attended to preferably by a female doctor. (Anti‐Torture Act of 2009 , RA 9745)
q. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Q: What are the rights of the accused?
A: Right to:
1. Due process
2. Be presumed innocent
3. Be heard by himself and counsel 4. Be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him 5. A speedy, impartial and public trial 6. Meet the witnesses face to face 7. Have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and production of evidence on his behalf
8. Against double jeopardy 9. Bail
1. Criminal Due Process
Q: What are the requisites of criminal due process?
A:
1. Accused is heard by a court of competent jurisdiction
2. Accused is proceeded against under the orderly processes of law
3. Accused is given notice and opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment rendered was within the authority of a constitutional law
Q: Is right to appeal a part of due process?
A: The right to appeal is not a natural right or part of due process. It is a mere statutory right, but once given, denial constitutes violation of due process
2. Right to Bail
Q: What is meant by bail?
A: It is the security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as required.
Q: When may the right to bail be invoked?
A: The right to bail may be invoked once detention commences even if no formal charges have yet to be filed. (Teehankee v. Rovira, G.R.No.
L‐101, Dec. 20, 1945)
Q: When is bail a matter of right?
A: All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as prescribed by law or the Rules of Court.
Q: When is bail a matter of discretion?
A: Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, bail becomes discretionary. (Sec.
5, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.
Q: When shall bail be denied?
A: If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:
a. That he is a recidivist, quasi‐recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
b. That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;
c. That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
d. That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or
e. That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party, review the resolution of the RTC after notice to the adverse party in either case. (Sec. 5, Rule 114, Rules of Court)
Note: The conduct of petitioner in applying for bail indicated that he had waived his objection to whatever defect, if any, in the preliminary examination conducted by respondent judge (Luna v. Plaza, G.R. No.L‐27511, Nov. 29, 1968) The right to bail is available from the very moment of arrest (which may be before or after the filing of formal charges in court) up to the time of conviction by final judgment (which means after appeal). No charge need be filed formally before one can file for bail, so long as one is under arrest. (Heras Teehankee v.
Rovira, G.R. No. L‐101, Dec. 20 1945)
Q: Who are not entitled to bail?
101
U S T
A C :L J A E.F II
A:
1. Persons charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or death, when evidence of guilt is strong 2. Persons convicted by the trial court.
Bail is only discretionary pending appeal
3. Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial
Q: What are the factors to be considered in setting the amount of bail?
A:
1. Financial ability of accused
2. Nature and circumstances of offense 3. Penalty for offense
4. Character and reputation of accused 5. Age and health of accused
6. Weight of evidence against him 7. Probability of appearance at trial
8. Forfeiture of other bail
9. Whether he was a fugitive from justice when arrested
10. Pendency of other cases where he is on bail (Sunga v. Judge Salud, A.M. No.
2205‐MJ, Nov. 19, 1981)
Q: Should there be a hearing?
A: Whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given the prosecutor, or at least he must be asked for his recommendation, because in fixing the amount of bail, the judge is required to take into account a number of factors. (Cortes v. Judge Catral, A.M. No. RTJ‐97‐1387, Sept. 10, 1997)
When the accused is charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher, a hearing on the motion for bail must be conducted by the judge to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. (Baylon v. Judge Sison, A.M. No. 92‐7‐360‐0, Apr. 6, 1995)
Q: Is the right to bail available to an alien during the pendency of deportation proceedings?
A: Yes, provided that potential extraditee must prove by clear and convincing proof that he is not a flight risk and will abide with al orders and processes of the extradition court. (Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v.
Olalia Jr., G.R 153675, Apr. 19, 2007)
3. Presumption of Innocence
Q: How is the presumption applied?
A: Every circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused must be taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason;
the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment (People v. Austria, G.R. No. 55109, Apr. 8, 1991)
Q: Who may invoke the presumption of innocence?
A: It can be invoked only by an individual accused of a criminal offense; a corporate entity has no personality to invoke the same.
Q: What is the Equipoise Rule?
A: Under the equipoise rule, when the evidence of both sides are equally balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused (Corpuz v.
People, G.R. No. 74259, Feb. 14, 1991)
Q: OZ lost five heads of cattle which he reported to the police as stolen from his barn. He requested several neighbors, including RR, for help in looking for the missing animals. After an extensive search, the police found two heads in RR's farm. RR could not explain to the police how they got hidden in a remote area of his farm. Insisting on his innocence, RR consulted a lawyer who told him he has a right to be presumed innocent under the Bill of Rights. But there is another presumption of theft arising from his unexplained possession of stolen cattle under the penal law.
102
PAHOLITICAL DVISERERAZEUS : ALCAW TTYHRISTINE .T EEAMDWIN :Y. R UEY Y;S MANDOVALEMBERS:; SLUBJECT AWRENCE HEADPAULO : RACHEL H. AQUINOMARIE , LL.EANDRO FELICESR; AODEL SST.V. SUBJECT ATIENZAHEADS, MARINETH : WIVINO EASTER E. BRACERO AN D. IIA YOS& ,CARLO R. BALA, WILFREDO T. BONILLA, JR., KEEL ACHERNAR R. DINOY, APRIL V. ENRILE, KENNETH JAMES CARLO C. HIZON, JOSE MARIA G. MENDOZA, ROGER CHRISTOPHER R. REYES, ROMILINDA C. SIBAL, JASMIN M. SISON, ZARAH PATRICIA T. SUAREZ, RALPH JULIOUS L.
Are the two presumptions capable of reconciliation in this case? If so, can they be reconciled? If not, which should prevail?
A: The two presumptions can be reconciled. The presumption of innocence stands until the contrary is proved. It may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon human experience. The presumption that RR is the one who stole the cattle of OZ is logical, since he was found in possession of the stolen cattle. RR can prove his innocence by presenting evidence to rebut the presumption. The burden of evidence is shifted to RR, because how he came into possession of the cattle is peculiarly within his knowledge. (Dizon‐Pamintuan v. People, G.R.
No. 111426, July 11, 1994)
Q: The RTC QC rendered a decision convicting Judge Angeles of violation of R.A. 7610. The criminal cases are now on appeal before the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, Senior Sate Prosecutor Velasco (SSP Velasco) suggested the immediate suspension of Angeles. SSP Velasco posited that since Judge Angeles stands convicted of two counts of child abuse, her moral qualification as a judge is in question.
Judge Angeles manifested that she still enjoys the presumption of innocence since the criminal cases are on appeal. Does she still enjoy the presumption of innocence if the judgment convicting her is on appeal?
A: Judge Angeles still enjoys constitutional presumption of innocence. Since her conviction of the crime of child abuse is currently on appeal before the CA, the same has not yet attained finality. As such, she still enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence. It must be remembered that the existence of a presumption
indicating the guilt of the accused does not in itself destroy the constitutional presumption of innocence unless the inculpating presumption, together with all the evidence, or the lack of any evidence or explanation, proves the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Until the accused’s guilt is shown in this manner, the presumption of innocence continues. (Re:
Conviction of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, A.M.
No. 06‐9‐545‐RTC, Jan. 31, 2008)
4. Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel
Q: Does this right pertain to mere presence of a lawyer in the courtroom?
A: No. The accused must be amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause of the defense and acts accordingly; an efficient and truly decisive legal assistance, and not simply a perfunctory representation. (People v. Bermas, G.R. No.
120420, Apr. 21, 1999)
Q: Several individuals were tried and convicted of Piracy in Philippine Waters as defined in PD 532. However, it was discovered that the lawyer, Mr. Posadas, who represented them was not a member of the bar although evidence shows that he was knowledgeable in the rules of legal procedure.
The accused now allege that their conviction should be set aside since they were deprived of due process. Are they correct?
A: No. Sec. 1 of Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states that "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." By analogy, but without prejudice to the sanctions imposed by law for the illegal practice of law, it is amply shown that the rights of accused were sufficiently and properly protected by the appearance of Mr. Posadas. An examination of the record will show that he knew the technical rules of procedure. Hence, there was a valid waiver of the right to sufficient representation during the trial, considering that it was unequivocally, knowingly, and intelligently made and with the full assistance of a bona fide lawyer, Atty. Abdul Basar. Accordingly, denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a valid waiver of rights has been made.
(People v. Tulin, G.R. 111709, Aug. 30, 2001)
Note: In Flores v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L‐35707, May 31, 1979, the Supreme Court held that the right to counsel during the trial cannot be waived, because
“even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of law, 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”.
Q: X was criminally charged in court. He hired as counsel Y, who has many high‐profile clients.
Due to his many clients, Y cannot attend the hearing of the case of X. He requested many times to have the hearings postponed. The case dragged on slowly. The judge in his desire to finish the case as early as practicable under the continuous trial system appointed a counsel de officio and withdrew the counsel de parte. Is the action of the judge valid?
A: The appointment of counsel de officio under such circumstances is not proscribed under the Constitution. The preferential discretion is not absolute as would enable an accused to choose a particular counsel to the exclusion of others equally capable. The choice of counsel by the accused in a criminal prosecution is not a plenary one. If the counsel deliberately makes himself scarce the court is not precluded from appointing a counsel de officio whom it considers competent and independent to enable the trial to proceed until the counsel of choice enters his appearance.
Otherwise the pace of criminal prosecution will entirely be dictated by the accused to the detriment of the eventual resolution of the case.
(People v. Larranaga, G.R. No. 138874‐75, Feb. 3, 2004)
103
U S T
A C :L J A E.F II
5. Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation
Q: What is the rationale for this right?
A:
1. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense
2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against further prosecution for the same cause
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had (US v. Karelsen G.R. No.
1376, Jan. 21, 1904)
Q: What would determine the nature and cause of accusation?
A: Description, not designation of the offense, is controlling. The real nature of the crime charged is determined from the recital of facts in the information. It is neither determined based on the caption or preamble thereof nor from the specification of the provision of the law allegedly violated.
Q: What are the requisites for properly informing the accused of the nature and cause of accusation?
A:
1. Information must state the name of the accused
2. Designation given to the offense by statute
3. Statement of the acts or omission so complained of as constituting the offense
4. Name of the offended party
5. Approximate time and date of commission of the offense
6. Place where offense was committed 7. Every element of the offense must be
alleged in the complaint or information
Q: What happens if the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense?
Q: What happens if the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense?