Section 14.
PRESUMPTIONS OF LAW v PRESUMPTION OF
RIGHTS DURING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
(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 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 in unjustified.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
 The burden of proof lies with the
prosecution.
 Conviction of the accused does not lie on
weakness of defense but strength of
evidence of prosecution. Thus, if case is
equally weak then case is to be decided in
favor of presumption of innocence.
 Cannot be convicted on prima facie
evidence. It must be proof reasonable
doubt. (beyond the point of moral
certainty)
 EQUIPOSE RULE: where the evidence in
criminal case is evenly balanced, the
constitutional, presumption of innocence
tilts the scales in favor of the accused;
where the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one of which is consistent
with the innocence of the accused and the
other consistent with his guilt, then the
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to support
conviction.
INNOCENCE
 Anti-Fencing Law – SC says that as long as
there is a logical connection resulting to the
fact that is ultimately proven there is no
violation of the presumption of innocence
as it merely shifts burden of proof from
prosecution to accused. Thus, if he can
explain possession in the ordinary course of
human experience, he overcomes the
burden which then shifts back to innocence;
prosecution must then prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
 Presumption of regularity in performance
of duty – Innocence> Regularity; one cannot
rely on such presumption in order to convict
the accused; must prove that he did witness
the commission of the crime.
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND THE
CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HIM
 Right to know the charges upon reading of
the information to him – the liability or the
responsibility of the accused does not
depend on the title but on the allegations in
the body of the information.
Example:
 Charged with murder but none of the
qualifying circumstances were alleged then
cannot be convicted of murder even if
aggravating circumstances are proven
during trial.
 The victim died of stabbing but during the
trial it was proven that death was through
shooting – the accused cannot be convicted
of the stabbing as alleged in the
information as it would violate his right to
be informed thus can only be acquitted.
 Victim is a minor but not alleged in the
information – cannot be qualified even if
one obtains a birth certificate in the course
of the trial as prosecution failed to inform
him of the nature and cause of the
accusations against him.
 REMEDY
- Amend the information before the
arraignment.
TEST
- When the change of the information will
also change the theory of defense on the
part of the accuses then there is violation of
the right to be informed of the nature and
causes of the accusations against him.
RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND BY COUNSEL
- Every stage [ arraignment of the accused-
promulgation of sentence], the accused has
the right to be present and to be assisted by
competent and effective lawyer.
 ARRAIGNMENT: presence of the accused is
indispensable and assistance by lawyer is
mandatory and cannot be waived. Thus, if
one cannot afford, the judge is obliged to
appoint a counsel de officio to assist during
the arraignment otherwise the arraignment
is void and subsequent proceeding likewise
invalid.
 TRIAL: If one cannot attend then application
for postponement should be granted as
long as justifiable as it is a right to be
present in every stage of the trial of one’s
case.
o Lawyer abandons the accused for
failure to pay
- Court not obliged to appoint a counsel de
office as they are only obliged to do so
during arraignment.
CASE: People vs Larañaga
Two accused assisted by PAO and the rest is
assisted by private counsels; wanted to postpone
presentation of evidence thus they dismissed their
lawyer and demanded time to seek new
representation; the court denied the resetting of
the presentation and appointed PAO lawyer’s
which they refused; the court considered to have
waived assistance of counsel and all convicted; NO
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.
 SENTENCING: right to be informed of the
date, time, and place of the promulgation of
sentence.
 Conviction – has the right to be present and
be assisted of counsel thus postpone if
cannot attend due to justifiable reasons.
Reasons:
If convicted, then he has only 15 days
from promulgation of judgment within
which to appeal unlike in civil cases
where it is reckoned from the receipt of
decision.
 Acquittal – can be ex parte as accused will
not be prejudiced by the promulgation.
 Conviction of light penalty – sufficient that
lawyer is around thus can be promulgated
even in the absence of accused.
 Appeal – presence of accused not
mandatory because usually no trial as the
court will decide the case beside on the
pleadings submitted by the parties;
however, assistance of lawyer is still
guaranteed.
 Unjustifiable non-appearance – can be ex
parte.
SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL, AND PUBLIC TRIAL
 SPEEDY TRIAL [conduct of trial during
presentation of evidence in criminal cases]
o No hard and fast rule as it depends n
the circumstances.
o Does not prohibit reasonable
postponement. What is prohibits
are whimsical, capricious, and
unreasonable postponements that
would only delay proceedings.
o Only in criminal proceedings and if
the court finds the postponement is
unreasonable, then they can grant
motion to dismiss; case can no
longer be reinstated after dismissal
due to double jeopardy.
  PUBLIC TRIAL: not synonymous with
publicized trial as broadcasts may be
contemptuous as they might influence the
court in deciding the case and the accused
may be exposed to the bar of public
opinion; violative of due process.
Exceptions to public trial:
 Evidences to be adduced is offensive to
public decency or public decency or public
morals. (ie. Rape cases)
 Involves minors
CASE: Estrada v Perez
Prohibition of the broadcasting of the conduct of
the preliminary investigation; SC also rejected
broadcasting of plunder cases.
CASE: Maguindanao case
SC allowed broadcasting of proceedings as it was a
special case. Number of victims, number of
accused, family residing outside of Manila who
could not attend for financial reason, courtroom
insufficient to accommodate those who can
attend; Ampatuans filed a motion for
reconsideration which was granted thus, reverted
back to Estrada ruling where broadcasting of trial
proceedings in prohibited.
FACE TO FACE CONFRONTATION
- Right of the accused to cross examine all
witnesses of prosecution.
o Test veracity of testimony and for
the court to observe the behavior of
the witnesses while testifying.
o No documents or testimony shall be
admitted in evidence unless the
persons who prepared the
documents are presented for cross-
examination, otherwise testimony is
inadmissible and to be expunged
from the records for violating the
right to face to face confrontation of
witness.
Exceptions:
1. Unjustifiable non-appearance of accused –
failure to cross is not attributable to the
prosecution as accused failed to cross;
testimony of the witness is admissible even
if not cross-examined because the accused
either jumps bail or escaped.
2. Accused has the opportunity to cross but
asked for postponement and witness was
then unavailable.
3. Dying Declaration – person who made the
declaration can no longer be crossed but
the witness may be subject of cross-
examination.
4. Minor – no physical face to face
confrontation to protect the child; video-
taking where the child testifies and answers
questions of the lawyer of the accused
coursed through the judge.
5. Documents/affidavits but witness
unavailable during trial- admissible.
COMPULSORY PROCESSES
- Compel presentation of witnesses [if not
willing to testify] or submission of evidence,
object, or documents to the court.
2 types of Subpoenas:
1. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
- Compel a witness to submit document and
testify thereon.
2. SUBPOENA AD TESTIFCANDUM
- Compel a witness to testify.
 Witness cannot refuse to take the stand –
contempt and if convicted can be arrested
and detained until cooperation agreed.
o Self-incrimination- cannot refuse to
take a stand; can only refuse to
answer incriminating questions if
asked.
  Immunity [to compel one to testify even if
it self-incriminating]
Two kinds of Immunity:
1. Transactional: state witness; absolute
immunity and compelled testimony or
evidence cannot be used in all other future
cases that may be filed against him.
2. Use and Fruit: limited immunity; applies
only to case wherein he is compelled to
testify or compelled to produce the
evidence; in other cases, in relation to
compelled testimony he may still be
prosecuted.
 Trial in absentia – proceed with trial based
on evidence of prosecution even in absence
of accused.
Requisites for Trial in absentia:
1. Accused must have been arraigned
- For court to acquire jurisdiction otherwise
archive subject to reinstatement upon
apprehension so that it will not prescribe.
[can never proceed with trial if accused has
not been arrested yet and arraigned]
2. Informed and Notified
3. Absence is unjustifiable
Section 17.
NO PERSON SHALL BE COMPELLED TO BE A
WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF.
 Can be invoked in all cases [criminal, civil,
admin, etc.] and all government
investigations including legislative inquiries
and impeachment.
IN CIVIL CASES
- Ordinary witness: cannot refuse to take
stand; can only refuse when asked self-
incriminating questions; invoke right only
when asked.
- Hostile witness: treated like ordinary
witness thus cannot refuse to take a stand.
IN CRIMINAL/ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
- Involves deprivation of rights as
punishment or loss of property (fines)
General Rule: compulsory testimony prohibited
thus cannot be compelled to take the stand to
testify against himself; accused cannot be
compelled to take the stand from the very start and
can invoke right before taking the stand. This is not
limited to answering queries; includes acts which
are communicative in nature. (ie. Re-enactment,
sample of handwriting)
Exceptions:
 Mechanical acts: can be compelled even if
incriminating (ex. Dna testing, sample of
hair, saliva, blood, semen)
 Body is the object of evidence: can be
compelled [ no self-incrimination and no
violation of privacy as there is a court order]
EXC: Volunteer’s truth.
Section 19. [ CRUEL PUNISHMENT]
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological,
or degrading punishment against any
prisoner or detainee or the use of
substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt
by law.
 Inhuman, degrading, and cruel punishment:
torturing the convict before execution or
punishment or it involves a lingering
suffering on the part of the person.
 1987 Constitution- suspended the
implementation of the death penalty but
the provision in the Constitution makes a
reservation “unless for compelling reason,
 Congress may impose death penalty for
heinous crimes”.
 Congress passed Anti-Heinous Crimes
enumerating the crimes where death
penalty is imposed; dispositive portion of
the decisions “because of the suspension of
the penalty of death it is automatically
commuted to Reclusion Perpetua.
CASE: PP v Echiggerei
First and last person to have ever been the sample
of death penalty; SC imposition of the death
penalty is not a violation of the Constitution as it is
not cruel, inhuman, or degrading as it is the most
humane way to take the life of the convict.
Section 21. [RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY]
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offence. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act.
Kinds of Double Jeopardy:
1. Cannot be exposed to being tried or
punished for the SAME OFFFENSE.
2. When an act or omission is punished by
STATUTE AND ORDINANCE; If already
prosecuted under either cannot be
prosecuted under the other.
REQUISITES:
1. There must be a first jeopardy
2. First jeopardy must be terminated
3. Double jeopardy
Requisites for FIRST JEOPARDY
1. Valid complaint of information [charges a
crime]
o Refiling after quash- VALID.
o One cannot be tried or punished
based on a defective information,
thus no first jeopardy. If invalid and
refiled, it is not a violation against
double jeopardy.
2. Filed in a proper and competent court that
has jurisdiction.
- Filed in RTC homicide case initially filed in
MTC: VALID. There was never a first
jeopardy since never exposed to being tried
or punished as the MTC does not have
jurisdiction; RTC filing as if it is the first.
3. Must have been arraigned and entered
valid plea.
- If the complaint is dismissed before the
arraignment, it can be reinstated and not a
violation against double jeopardy.
 Plea bargained offense to lower penalty
APPEAL:
If accused is ACQUITTED
- Prosecution and Accused CANNOT appeal.
If accused in CONVICTED
- Prosecution CANNOT appeal.
- Accused CAN appeal. (Weaved his right)
 Accused pleaded guilty to homicide,
present evidence for mitigating: presented
evidence for exempting [self-evidence],
thus acquitted without giving prosecution
chance to rebut; SC: when he presented
exempting circumstances he impliedly
withdrew plea of guilty due to
inconsistency because he cannot be guilty if
exempted; no other plea was entered
thereafter; no plea thus no first jeopardy.
The court should have re-arraigned the
accused; the prosecution was practically
deprived of sue process; exception to
general rule that acquittal cannot be
appealed.
How FIRST JEOPARDY can be terminated
1. ACQUITTAL- Must be a valid judgment
(whether the judgment is right or wrong,
there can be no appeal as long as no patent
abuse of discretion)

CASE: WEBB CASE
SC states that to give due course to motion of
reconsideration, as SC is court od last resort,
subjects all accused to double jeopardy by
reviewing the case again.
 Accused discharged as State Witness
- Tantamount to acquittal as he can no longer
be reinstated as accused after he testifies.
Exceptions: Did not cooperate after discharge.
2. CONVICTION
 Prosecution cannot appeal because it will
result to double jeopardy.
 Accused can appeal: serves as a waiver of
the right against double jeopardy allowing
himself to be charged again. After then only
prosecution can appeal.
 Other accused, if several, will not be
affected as they did not appeal. Thus, they
should not be prejudiced by any increase in
penalty otherwise subjecting them to
double jeopardy.
 However, if acquitted as the result of the
appeal, everyone is acquitted.
3. DISMISSAL WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE
ACCUSED
- This is tantamount to acquittal.
 With consent then waiver of right against
double jeopardy then complainant can
refile.
o Crimes with penalty of more than 6
years: 2 years to refile
o Crimes with penalty of less that 6
years: 1 year to refile.
 Vehemently object provisional dismissal
and invoke right to speedy trial- if court
grants motion to dismiss by accused then
tantamount to acquittal.
 Even if the dismissal is WITH CONSENT, the
accused can still motion to dismiss the case
tantamount to acquittal if:
1. Right to Speedy Trial is violated
2. Dismissed on merits: evidence of
prosecution after it rests its case is
INSUFFICIENT to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt then
case is dismissed and cannot be reinstated.
Accused to file a demurrer to evidence on
the ground of insufficiency of evidence of
prosecution.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR IDENTICAL CASE
 Identical if evidence that is required to
prove liability is the same; It must also arise
from the same set of facts or circumstances.
Question:
1. Accused is charged with BP 22 and ESTAFA
for a bouncing check.
Same act? YES
Same offense? NO.
RATIONALE: Different evidence is required to
satisfy the elements of the crime to be liable.
Bouncing check (mere issuance) and Estafa (deceit
and fraud). Filing for both will constitute DOUBLE
JEOPARDY.
2. Accused is charged with Libel as defined in
the RPC and Cyber-libel from Anti-Cyber
Crime Law.
Can the accused be charged for both? NO. They are
identical. Violation of DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
(Case: DISINI VS DOJ)
Once tried under Cyber or either of the two, thus
can no longer be tried under RPC.
3. Accused is charged with Child Pornography
(SPL) and Online Child Pornography (Anti-
Cyber Crime Law).
Both are identical. Cant be charged by both. Will
result to DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

Double Jeopardy if:
 One offense is merely an attempt or
frustration of the other (cannot charge
according to stages)
 One offense necessarily includes or is
necessarily included by the other.
Examples: Slight physical injuries in homicide, acts
of lasciviousness in rape.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Rule of SUPERVENING EVENTS
- Transforming slight physical injuries into
homicide if victim dies due to injuries he
sustained. Prosecution could not have
anticipated death thus can file after
termination of first jeopardy; amend
information and re-arraigned.
Example: Victim dies during pendency then did not
amend information: DOUBLE JEOPARDY if
ANOTHER CASE FOR HOMICIDE is filed.
Section 22.
No Ex Post Facto Law or Bill of Attainder shall be
enacted.
 Ex Post Facto: punished an act not
punishable when committed; law applied
retroactively.
REQUISITES:
1. Refers to a criminal matter
2. Retroactive in application
3. It works to the prejudice of the accused.
KINDS OF EX POST FACTO LAW:
1. Law criminalizing act done before its
passage.
2. Law aggravating penalty for crime
committed before passage.
3. Law inflicting greater or more severe
penalty.
4. Law altering legal rules of evidences and
receives less or different testimony than
law required at the time of the commission,
in order to convict the accused.
5. Law assuming to regulate civil rights and
remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty
of deprivation of right for something which
when done was lawful.
6. Law depriving of the accused of some lawful
protection which he had been entitled, such
protection of a former conviction or
acquittal, or of a proclamation of amnesty.
Questions:
1. Prohibiting Change of Political Party
- NOT A CRIME. Thus, can be applied
retroactively.
2. Art 36 of the Family Code (Psychological
Incapacity)
- NOT A CRIMINAL MATTER.
- Can be applied retroactively.
3. Change of jurisdiction to Sandiganbayan
- NOT A CRIME.
- Proecedural/ Remedial in nature.
- Can be applied retroactively.
4. Change of Prescription of a crime.
- Criminal Matter.
- Cannot be applied Retroactively.
- EX POST FACTO LAW.
TAKE NOTE:
 Ex post facto law also applies to court’s
decisions of the Supreme Court (prevailing
principles which forms part of the law)
- Cannot be applied retroactively to cases
filed before the decision if disadventegous
to the accused.
BILL OF ATTAINDER
- Legislative enactment imposing penal
section without judicial trial.
 - UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Congress is not only
making law but acting as judge and
executioner violated not only separation of
powers but also due process.

REQUISITES:

1. There must be a law

2. Law imposes burden on a NAMED
INDIVIDUAL of easily ASCERTAINABLE
MEMBER OF A GROUP.
3. The penal burden is imposed directly by law
without judicial trial.