Rights of an accused

byTranquil G.S. Salvador III

 
 November 18, 2022, 12:15 am
 
in Columns , Footnotes by Tranquil G.S. Salvador III , Opinion
 
Reading Time: 7 mins read
A A
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Email

“All accused are presumed to be innocent. While the presumption may

appear to be a procedural tool, it can only be rebutted by proof beyond
reasonable doubt”
To understand the rights of the accused, or derechos del acusado, it is important to know the
precise moment wherein the suspect or a respondent in a preliminary investigation becomes
an accused.

ADVERTISEMENT

This occurs when a criminal information charging the suspect or the respondent of a criminal
offense is filed in court.

It is exactly at this point wherein the suspect or respondent officially becomes an accused.

It means that he or she will now be brought to trial and that the State will prosecute the
accused for the alleged act or omission that he may have committed (Section 2(b), Rule 1,
Civil Procedure).

Lest it be overlooked, the suspect who is detained or in custody “under investigation for the
commission of the offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and
to have a competent and independent counsel… [I]f [he] cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one” (Section 12, Article III, 1987 Constitution).

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A respondent (whether detained or not) must file his counter-affidavit (response) within 10
days from receipt of the subpoena and the complaint-affidavit.
This legal process seeks to determine “whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty
thereof…” or simply the determination of probable cause (Section 1, Rule 112, Rules on
Criminal Procedure).

All accused are presumed to be innocent. While the presumption may appear to be a
procedural tool, it can only be rebutted by proof beyond reasonable doubt (People v. Lagmay,
G.R. No. 125310, 21 April 1999).

The burden or onus probandi of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is
with the State.

The purpose of the presumption of innocence is “to balance the scales in what would
otherwise be uneven contest between the lone individual pitted against the People and all the
resources at their command.”

Hence, “the accused must be acquitted… if his guilt cannot be proved beyond the whisper of
a doubt” (Tranquil Salvador III, Criminal Procedure citing People v. Jampas).

The defense the accused puts up may be weak but is inconsequential, if, in the first place, the
State has failed to discharge the onus of his identity and culpability.
The presumption of innocence dictates that it is for the prosecution to demonstrate the guilt
and not for the accused to establish his innocence (Tranquil Salvador III, Criminal Procedure
citing People v. Arapok).

The mere fact that the accused is a repeat offender or has other pending criminal cases against
him will not affect his right to be presumed innocent.

However, an accused’s previous conviction may be taken as an aggravating circumstance

which, if proven, will increase his criminal penalty.

The accused has the right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him” (Section 1(b), Rule 115, Rules on Criminal Procedure).

“An accused should be given the necessary information as to why he is proceeded against and
not be left speculating why he is made the object of a prosecution” (Tranquil Salvador III,
Criminal Procedure citing People v. Mencias).
To apprise the accused, the criminal information must be read to him during the arraignment
and he will be asked to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty (See Section 1, Rule 116).

This is the essence of due process in criminal cases, that sufficient notice through the criminal
information is given to the accused to give the latter the opportunity to prepare his defense
during trial.

To satisfy the requirement of sufficient notice, the criminal information must state the name
of the accused, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense, and the
elements of the crime.

The reason being that the accused is presumed not to have an independent knowledge of the
facts that constitutes the offense (Tranquil Salvador III, Criminal Procedure citing Balitaan v.
Court of First Instance of Batangas).

The accused also has the “right to be present and defend in person and by counsel at every
stage of the proceedings.”

“The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial… shall be considered a
waiver of his right to be present thereat.” If an accused under custody escapes, “he shall be
deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates…” (Section 1(c),
Rule 115).

Together with the right to be present is the right to be represented by counsel.

“[I]t means an efficient and truly decisive legal assistance and not a simple perfunctory
representation” (Tranquil Salvador III, Criminal Procedure citing People v. Bermas).

The right to counsel starts from arraignment to rendition of judgment in the trial court and
until the appeal is resolved (See Sections 6-8, Rules 116, Section 13, Rule 122, and Section 2,
Rule 124).

An accused may exercise his right to counsel by electing to be represented either by a court-
appointed attorney, including the public attorney, or by one of his choice.

“[I]t is essential that the court should assign one de officio for him if he so desires and he is
poor…” (Tranquil Salvador III, Criminal Procedure citing People v. Holgado).
An accused may testify for himself (if he wants) but is exempt from being compelled to be a
witness against himself (Section 1 (d)(e), Rule 115).

It is settled that “[A]n accused has the right to decline to testify at the trial without any
inference of guilt drawn from his failure to go on the witness stand” (People v. Gargoles,
G.R. L-40885, May 18, 1The accused has the right to confront or cross-examine the
witnesses of the prosecution.

The cross-examination of the witnesses may cover: (a) contradictory evidence; (b) evidence
that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad; or (c) evidence that he has
made at other times statements inconsistent with the present testimony (Section 11, Rule 132,
2019 Rules on Evidence).

An accused may also cross-examine a witness about a record of the judgment showing the
latter’s previous conviction.

However, the previous conviction shall be admitted only if (a) the crime was punishable by a
penalty in excess of one year; or (b) the crime is that which involves moral turpitude,
regardless of the penalty (Section 11-12, Rule 132, 2019 Rules on Evidence).

An accused has the right to have compulsory processes such as a subpoena issued to secure
the attendance of witnesses (ad testificandum) and the production of other evidence on his
behalf (duces tecum) (Section 1(g), Rule 115).

The failure of a witness to comply with a subpoena upon proof of service shall be deemed as
willful disregard or disobedience to a public authority.

The unjustified refusal to comply with a subpoena may lead to contempt of court and
issuance of a bench warrant (See Section 8-9, Rule 21).

The primary requisite before the issuance of a bench warrant is that the absent party (witness)
was duly informed of the hearing but unjustifiably failed to attend (Tranquil Salvador III,
Criminal Procedure citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Lorenzo).
The right of the accused to speedy trial (2017 Guidelines on Continuous Trial) and to speedy
disposition of cases (Section 16, Article III, 1987 Constitution) were designed to prevent the
oppression of the citizen by holding the criminal prosecution suspended over him for an
indefinite period (Tranquil Salvador III, Criminal Procedure citing Corpus v.
Sandiganbayan).

The accused is also entitled to an impartial and public trial. Not only must the proceedings be
speedy but they must also be resolved in an impartial manner.

All of the elements of due process will be meaningless if the decision is rendered by a biased
or interested judge.

The public trial of the accused “aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be
unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised in the secret conclaves of long
ago” (Tranquil Salvador III, Criminal Procedure citing Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of
the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of Former President Estrada).

A public trial means that anyone who wishes to observe the proceedings may sit inside the
courtroom to watch and monitor it.

On top of all the rights given to the accused in a criminal proceeding, he is not prevented
from having the judgment of conviction against him reviewed by an appellate court.

It is important that an accused is not deprived of these rights to dispel fear that injustice
abounds in our courts.