Guide Questions:

Rights of an accused
In addition to the rights of individuals in investigations, persons accused of a crime are entitled to
procedural protections applicable in a trial. These usually include:

 Right to counsel. In criminal cases, the accused have a right to a competent lawyer. Some
countries’ legal systems require a lawyer to be provided for defendants with limited financial
resources, especially if they are charged with an offence that is serious and might entail severe
punishment. The accused usually have the right to confer with their attorney before a police
interrogation, during the trial and at any critical stage in the proceedings, such as a
preliminary hearing, lineup or appeal. The accused may waive their right to counsel provided
they recognize the consequences of this action.
 Right against self-incrimination. The burden of proof in criminal cases is on the
prosecution. Accused persons are not required the police or prosecution with any evidence
that could be used against them. The right against self-incrimination protects defendants from
being forced to reveal incriminating facts. It also deters the use of torture or other means to
coerce confessions from the accused.
 Right to information. Accused persons have the right to know what charges have been made
against them, to be present when witnesses are testifying against them in court, and to have
access to the evidence collected against them.
 Right to a speedy and public trial with an impartial judge or jury, in the area where the
crime was committed. Along with this, the accused must have enough time to prepare a
defence. Sometimes the location (venue) of a trial is shifted for good cause, such as security
or potential influence of public sentiment.
 Right to present a defence. The accused must have the opportunity to present facts and
evidence, and to cross-examine prosecution witnesses during a trial. The accused also have
the right to call independent expert witnesses.
 Right of appeal if the applicable procedural protections were not respected.

Miranda Doctrine
Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement
he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney,
either retained or appointed

The Miranda doctrine requires that:

(a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent;
(b) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
(c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present when being
questioned; and
(d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so desires.

Mahinay Doctrine
People vs Mahinay
G.R. No. 122485.  February 1, 1999
 
Facts:  Appellant was charged with rape with homicide for the sexual assault and death of Maria
Victoria Chan, 12 years old.  Evidence disclosed that Maria, on that fateful afternoon, went to the
second floor of the house where appellant was staying.  Appellant pulled her hand and her head hit
the table causing her to become unconscious.  At this stage, appellant, who was then drunk, had
sexual intercourse with her.  He then dumped the still unconscious victim inside the septic tank and
thereafter took flight.  The body of the victim was retrieved the following day wearing only a blouse
without underwear.  Recovered in the unfinished house where accused slept on the night of the
incident was the victim’s pair of shorts, brown belt and yellow hair ribbon.   Weight was given to
appellant’s extrajudicial confession containing details consistent with the post mortem findings
on the victim that she was raped.  The trial court, notwithstanding the absence of direct evidence
relative to the commission of the crime, rendered judgment of conviction. It based its judgment on
circumstantial evidence.
Issue:         Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused merely on ground of
circumstantial evidence
Whether or not Mahinay’s rights to lawful custodial investigation was violated.

Held:           No. No.

The proven circumstances of this case when juxtaposed with appellant’s proffered excuse are
sufficient to sustain his conviction beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the absence of any
direct evidence relative to the commission of the crime for which he was prosecuted. Absence of
direct proof does not necessarily absolve him from any liability because under the Rules on
evidence and pursuant to settled  jurisprudence, conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence
provided that the following requisites concur:
1. there is more than one circumstance;
2. the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
3. the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
Simply put, for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all circumstances
must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at
the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other rational
hypothesis except that of guilt.  Facts and circumstances consistent with guilt and inconsistent with
innocence, constitute evidence which, in weight and probative force, may surpass even direct
evidence in its effect upon the court.
In the case at bench, the trial court gave credence to several circumstantial evidence, which upon
thorough review of the Court is more than enough to prove appellant’s guilt beyond the shadow of
reasonable doubt.

IMPORTANT: So-called Miranda rights

1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must be informed in a
language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown
the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other warnings, information or communication must be in
a language known to and understood by said person;
2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may
be used as evidence against him;
3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of
an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice;
4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one
will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf,
or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his
behalf;
5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed that no custodial
investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or after a
valid waiver has been made;
6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to communicate or
confer by the most expedient means – telephone, radio, letter or messenger – with his lawyer
(either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor,
 priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel,
or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-government
organization.  It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished;
7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same;
8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be informed that it
must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that
the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak;
9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at any time or
stage of the process that he does not wish to be questioned with warning that once he makes
such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or
the interrogation must ceased if it has already begun;
10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the
right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the
process, regardless of whether he may have answered some questions or volunteered some
statements;
11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may be, obtained in
violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part,
shall be inadmissible in evidence.
*Custodial Investigation
- Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
been taken into custody otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

What do you call a respondent in a custodial investigation?

As used in 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.

*When does a person become an accused?

Who Is the Accused?

It is common to refer to the person charged with a crime as "the accused." You will remain the accused
person until your case is either cleared in the court of law and you are free to go, or you are convicted of
the charged crime. Synonyms can include being called the "defendant," "suspect," or "alleged offender,"
which means you are the person defending yourself against the charges in a criminal case. The accuser is
the other party involved in the prosecution.

Key Takeaways

You are considered innocent until proven guilty but can still be referred to as "the accused"

"The accused" can apply to a person or group of people

The accused person will likely be called the defendant by the judge
Understanding Being Accused

Being accused of a crime means you have been told there are formal allegations against you. It differs
from these legal terms in the following ways:

Suspected: no legal actions have been taken, but prosecutors have reason to believe you were involved in
a crime

Indicted: a grand jury has formally accused you of a crime

Charged: the government has brought formal charges against you

Arraigned: you have been called to court to hear criminal charges and enter your guilty, not guilty, or no
contest plea

Exonerated: you have been found innocent of charges and released from blame

If someone accuses you of an alleged crime, keep in mind you are innocent until proven guilty. If you are
found guilty of the criminal offense, you will go from being the accused to the convicted. If you were
found innocent, then you will become acquitted. If you were found guilty and later found innocent, you
are exonerated. Some courts may use other versions of these terms.

Understanding What It Means to Be "The Accused"

The judge or other court officials might refer to you as "the accused" during trials or court appearances.
But, it is more common to be called "the defendant." Some media outlets will use the term "the accused"
to appeal to readers that may not understand legal terms. Reporters frequently refer to defendants this
way. For example, they might say: "the accused was brought to the stand" or "the accused stood trial
today."

How to Accuse Someone Else

If you wish to accuse someone of a suspected crime, you should speak to an attorney or call the police.
Law enforcement or legal professionals can examine the claims and determine if there is evidence for a
case. Once you accuse someone else of a crime, the courts will take over the process until the accused has
been found guilty or innocent. You may be called to give testimony or evidence supporting your claims.
Accusing someone for no reason is called a false accusation and you can be fined or serve jail time.

*Guidelines if one is arrested by a Police Officer

Arrest of Persons Under CrPC, 1973

An Arrest is an act of taking a person into custody as he/she may be suspected of a crime or an

offence. It is done because a person is apprehended for doing something wrong. After arresting a

person further procedures like interrogation and investigation is done. It is part of the Criminal

Justice System. In an action of arrest, the person is physically detained by the concerned authority.

Procedure of arrest by a private person

The procedure of arrest by a private person is expressly provided in Section 43 of the Criminal
Procedural Code.

Section 43(1) states that a private person can arrest another person who commits a non-bailable
offence or any proclaimed offender and without wasting any unnecessary time can be taken to a
police officer and in the absence of the officer the accused has to be taken to the nearest police
station.

Section 43(2) says that if the arrest of that person comes under Section 41, the police officer shall re-
arrest him.

Section 43(3) provides that if there is sufficient reason to believe that he has committed a bailable
offence and refuses to give his true name or address to the police officer, he shall be dealt with
according to the provisions of Section 42. But he shall be released if there is no sufficient reason to
believe that he has committed an offence.