This Section provides the
procedural safeguards to secure the
BILL OF RIGHTS
Article III: Section 12-22
The following articles discusses the rights of a person
Accused
Section 12
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against
him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution (also
known as the Bill of Rights) states that any person
under investigation for the commission of a crime or
offense "shall have the right to be informed of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
Section 12
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil
sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices, and their families.
Right to Bail shall remain even when the writ is
suspended.
rights of the accused particularly the
privilege against self-incrimination of
persons under arrest or in custody of
law enforcement officers.
Rights of person under investigation
Any person under criminal investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right:
(1) to be informed of his right
(2)to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice
Rights of person under investigation
Any person under criminal investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right:
(3)against the use of torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free
will, and
(4) against being held in secret, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
Section 13
All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired
even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
 Rights to Bail
Bail - is the security required by the Court and given
for provisional or temporary release of a person who is
in custody of the law.
The purpose of requiring bail is to relieve an
accused from imprisonment until his conviction and yet
secure his appearance at the trial.
Right to Presumption of Innocence
In all prosecution, the accused is presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved. The burden of the
proof in a criminal proceeding is upon the prosecution.
It is better to acquit a person upon the ground of
reasonable doubt even though he may in reality guilty,
than to inflict imprisonment on one who may be
innocent

The right to bail is granted because in all criminal

prosecutions, the accused is presumed innocent.
However, it is not available to persons not yet in
custody and to those accused with capital offense or
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. No bail shall be allowed after the
judgement has become final. Or after the accused has
commenced to serve sentence.
Rights to be Heard by himself and Counsel
The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental
principle of due process which basically means that a
person must be heard before being condemned. It is more
than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the
mere propounding of standard questions and objections.
The court must assign a counsel de oficio to defend him in
case he have none

Even if the guilt of the defendant is very apparent, a

Section 14 hearing is still indispensable. He cannot be punished
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law. upon a doubtful assumption. Lack of notice of hearing
violates procedural due process.
(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 to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of

Rights to Due Process of Law
the Accusation against him

Denial of due process is the failure to observe the The criminal complaint or information should be
fundamental fairness which is essential to the very sufficiently clear to a person of ordinary intelligence as
concept of justice. to what the charge is so as to enable him to prepare his
defense.

Right to due process of Law: (1)Due process in its

procedural aspect. (2)Observance of fundamental
fairness.
Denial of due process is the failure to observe that
fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of
justice.
 Right to have a Speedy trial, Impartial, and
Public trial
Speedy Trial means one that can be had as soon as
possible. A long delay in the judicial process serves as a
refuge of the accused if he is guilty and a continuing
injustice for him if he is innocent.
Right to confrontation of witnesses
This is to allow the accused to cross-
examine witnesses who testify against him; and
to give the Judge an opportunity to see the
demeanor and appearance of witnesses while
testifying.
Right to compulsory production of witnesses and
evidence.
The accused has the right to have compulsory
process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses
and the production od evidence in his behalf. He is
entitled to have subpoenas issued to compel the
attendance of witnesses in his favour, including a
warrant of arrest, if needed.
Subpoenas - order to a person to appear and testify in
court)
Section 15
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
shall not be suspended except in cases of
invasion or rebellion when the public safety
requires it.
Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus
A writ of habeas corpus is a court order to bring a
person who's been detained to court to show cause or to
determine whether or not their detention is valid. The
privilege of the writ is the further order from the court to
release the individual if it finds the latters detention without
legal cause or authority.
Section 16
All persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies.
Right to a Speedy Disposition; Right not only to a
speedy trial but also to a speedy judgment (or
disposition)
Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
It upholds the time-honoured tradition of speedy
justice: “ Justice delayed is justice denied.” A long
delay in the disposition of the cases not only does it
increase the cost of seeking justice, it also creates
mistrust of the government itself and this may pave the
way to one’s taking his own hands to the great
detriment of society
Justice Delayed is justice denied.
Observance of the right to speedy disposition
enhances the people’s respect for the law and faith in
their government.
Prohibits delay: 1 Unreasonable 2 Arbitrary/ of random
whim 3. Oppressive
 Section 17
No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.
Your Right against Self-Incrimination
Right against self-incrimination
This is a protection against self incrimination
which may expose a person to criminal liability. This is
base on the grounds of Public Policy and Humanity.
The Constitutional guarantee protects as well the right
of the accused to silence, and his silence. His failure or
refusal to testify, may not be used as a presumption of
guilt or taken as evidence against him
Public Policy – because if the party is thus required to
testify, he would be placed under the strongest
temptation to commit the crime of perjury.
Perjury – the offense of wilfully telling an untruth in a
court after having taken an oath or affirmation.
Humanity – because it prevents the extortion of
confession by duress.
Section 18
(1)No person shall be detained solely by reason of
his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
except as a punishment for a crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted.
Your Right Against Involuntary Servitude And Illegal
Detention By Reason of Political Beliefs and
Aspirations
Right against detention solely by reason of
political beliefs and aspirations
It is a guarantee that one can voice his contrary
views and ideas about the existing political and social
order, that he can articulate his hopes and aspirations
for the country, without the peril to his liberty.
It is a positive declaration that within the
democratic framework, the people can freely speak
of what they think is wrong with the government
and its policies which they believe to be necessary
or the removal of public officials unworthy of their
trust. It is a prohibition directed to the government
against having “prisoners of conscience”
Prohibition of Involuntary Servitude
The prohibition is grounded on the value
accorded to human dignity in a democratic and free
society. The purpose is to maintain a system completely
free and voluntary labor by prohibiting the rendition of
personal service by one who is compelled by force
coercion, imprisonment, and against his will, for
another’s benefit.
Involuntary Servitude – a condition of enforced
compulsory service of one to another
Section 19
(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 with by law.
 Section 20
Right against excessive fines
The question as to the amount of the fines that No person shall be imprisoned for debt or
shall be imposed is one addressed to the sound non-payment of a poll tax.
discretion of the Court. If it keeps within the limits of a
statute, the fine cannot usually be held unreasonable.

Courts will be justified in declaring a fine prescribed

by a statute excessive only when it is clearly so,
considering the nature of the offense and the ability
of the person punished to pay the fine.
Right against cruel, degrading, or
inhuman punishment
Basis and Purpose of Section 20
The Basis of Section 20 is Humanitarian
Considerations. The purpose of such stipulation is, one
should not be punished on account of his poverty. Also,
the Constitution seeks to prevent the use of the power of
the State to coerce the payment of debts.

This right, as a contra-distinguished from the right

against the use of torture, can only be invoked after
conviction. The purpose of the guarantee is to eliminate
many of the barbarous and uncivilized punishment.

Hanging, electrocution is not cruel.’
Torture, lingering death Burning alive, mutilation,
starvation, drowning and other barbarous
punishment – cruel and inhumane.
Section 21
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. 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.

Section 19 abolishes the death penalty. It shall not

be inflicted unless Congress decides to reinstate it “for
compelling reasons, involving heinous crimes” in which
case it shall apply only to such crimes subsequently
committed. Death penalty were automatically
commuted to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Right against Double Jeopardy
When a person is charged with an offense and the
case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction, or in
any other manner without the express consent of the
accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the
same offense

The guarantee protects against the perils of a second

punishment as well as second trial for the same
offense
 Right to Appeal in Criminal Cases
The accused , after having been convicted, may
PEOPLE V. BENJAMIN
appeal to a higher court, but the latter may raise the
penalty imposed on him by the lower court and such is
DE GUZMAN
not second jeopardy.
G.R. No. 86172
04 March 1991

Section 22

No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall

be enacted.

Ex post facto law
Ex post facto law is a law that applies to crimes
that happened before the law was passed. It is one
operating retrospectively. It relate to penal or criminal
matters only. It deprives persons accused of crime of
some protection or defense previously available, to their
disadvantage. It is absolutely prohibited unless it is
favourable to the accused.
FACTS
• Benjamin de Guzman, respondent, was a
chicharon vendor.
• He was caught in a Buybust operation
headed by Sgt. Ruben Bazar, the star
witness, of the Narcom District Office in
Malolos, Bulacan.

Prohibition of such act.

An example of an ex post facto law is a law passed in
1994 that applies to acts that occurred in 1989.

FACTS
Bill of Attainder
• De Guzman was charged with violation of
This is an act of a legislature declaring a the Dangerous Drugs Act, and was
person or group of persons guilty of some crime convicted after trial by the Regional Trial
and punishing them, often without a trial.
Court of Bulacan and sentenced to life
imprisonment plus a fine of P20,000.00.

The prohibition against the enactment of bills of

attainder is designed as a general safeguard against
legislative exercise of the judicial function, or simply,
trial by legislature
FACTS
• De Guzman asked for a reversal of his
conviction on the ground that the
evidence against him was insufficient to
establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
HELD
“WHEREFORE, the appealed
decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The accused-appellant is ACQUITTED on
reasonable doubt and shall be released
immediately. It is so ordered.”

HELD

De Guzman was acquitted in his

Criminal Case No. 1453-M-87, which
pertains to the buy-bust operation
conducted in December 7, 1997.

ISSUE
Whether or not the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD
Under our law, it was the obligation of the prosecution
to prove its allegations, not of the defense to disprove
them. Furthermore, based on Bill of Rights Section 14,
any accused have the Right to due process of law, Right
to presumption of innocence, Right to be heard
by himself and counsel, Right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, Right to speedy, impartial, and public trial, Right of
confrontation of witness, and the Right to Compulsory
production of witnesses and evidence.

The prosecution cannot draw its strength from the

weakness of the defense. The evidence of the People
must be strong enough to stand on its own two feet
instead of leaning on the crutches of the evidence for
the defense. It must be strong enough to convince
this Court that the prisoner in the dock must be
punished, not because he cannot prove that he is
innocent but because it has proved that he is guilty.
HELD
One can easily be cowed into silence by men
with drawn guns and ostensible authority and may
even be intimidated into involuntary admissions as
De Guzman claims he was when he signed the
receipt. That receipt was in reality an admission
which the accused-appellant was forced to make
without the assistance of counsel and without being
first informed of the constitutional rights of a person
facing custodial investigation.

HELD
The testimony given by Bazar tells little indeed of the
supposed sale of marijuana by De Guzman to Querubin. From
his vantage point of ten meters away, Bazar could not have
heard the supposed conversation between the two. Nor did he
testify that he saw the actual delivery of the marijuana by De
Guzman to Querubin and Querubin's payment of the marked
P50 bill. All Bazar said he saw was the pre-arranged signal,
Querubin threw away a lighted cigarette, but that alone proved
nothing. Surely, the accused-appellant's conviction cannot be
based solely on the that fact.