RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

ARTICLE III, SECTION 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION

(1)No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

ARTICLE III, SECTION 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION

(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

RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Nunez v. Sandiganbayan What is required for compliance with the due process mandate in criminal proceedings? In criminal proceedings then, due process is satisfied if the accused is "informed as to why he is proceeded against and what charge he has to meet, with his conviction being made to rest on evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full opportunity for him to rebut it and the sentence being imposed in accordance with a valid law.It is assumed, of course, that the court that rendered the decision is one of competent jurisdiction."

This court has had frequent occasion to consider the requirements of due process of law as applied to criminal procedure, and, generally speaking, it may be said that if an accused has been heard in a court of competent jurisdiction, and proceeded against under the orderly processes of law, and only punished after inquiry and investigation, upon notice to him, with an opportunity to be heard, and a judgment awarded within the authority of a constitutional law, then he has had due process of law.

RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT

- Accusation is not synonymous with guilt - The accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved - It is the responsibility of the prosecution to establish defendants guilt beyond reasonablee doubt - Conviction will depend not on the weak ness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution

Cosep v. Pp - It must be borne in mind that criminal cases elevated by convicted public officials from the Sandiganbayan deserve the same thorough review by this Court as criminal cases involving ordinary citizens, simply because the constitutional presumption of innocence must be overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where the state fails to meet the quantum of proof required to overcome the constitutional presumption, the accused is entitled to acquittal, regardless of the weakness or even the absence of his defense for any conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution's case and not on the weakness of the defense.

Pp v. Calma - The Law presumes that an accused is innocent and this presumption stands until it is overturned by competent and credible proof. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt should necessarily pertain to the facts constitutive of the crime charged. 21Discrepancies that touch on significant facts are crucial on the guilt or innocence of an accused. Conversely, inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal.

THE EQUIPOISE RULE - The equipoise rule is applicable only where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, in which case the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused. In Corpus v. People, there is no such equipoise here. The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the petitioner with his nebulous claims of persecution and conspiracy. The presumed innocence of the accused must yield to the positive finding that he malversed the sum of P50,310.87 to the prejudice of the public whose confidence he has breached. His conviction must be affirmed.

 Pp v. Mingoa

PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTIONS PROVIDED BY STATUTES - In many event, the validity of statutes establishing presumptions in criminal cases is now settled matter, Cooley, in his work on constitutional limitations, 8th ed., Vo. I, pp. 639-641 says that "there is no constitutional objection to the passage of law providing that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by contrary presumption founded upon the experience of human conduct, and enacting what evidence shall be sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence.

In line with this view, it is generally held in the United States that the legislature may enact that when certain facts have been proven they shall be prima facie evidence of the existence of the guilt of the accused and shift the burden of proof provided there be rational connection between that facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed so that the inference of the one from proof of the others is not unreasonable and arbitrary because of lack of connection between the two in common experience.

 Agbanlong v. Pp - The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, is aprima facieevidence thathe has put such funds or property to personal use

 Pp v. Sendaydiego - The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and be made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. This is especially true if the use or uttering of the forged documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that the user or possessor may be proven to have the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close connection with the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the forgery.

Dizon-Pamintuan v. Pp

- Nevertheless, the constitutional presumption of innocence may be overcome by contrary presumptions based on the experience of human conduct [People vs. Labara, April 20, 1954]. Unexplained flight, for example, may lead to an inference of guilt, as 'the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous is as bold as a lion. Failure on the part of the accused to explain his possession of stolen property may give rise to the reasonable presumption that it was he himself who had stolen it [U.S. vs. Espia, 16 Phil. 506]. Under our Revised Penal Code, the inability of an accountable officer to produce funds or property entrusted to him will be considered prima facie evidence that he has appropriated them to his personal use [Art. 217]. According to Cooley, the constitutional presumption will not apply as long as there is "some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be purely arbitrary mandate

RIGHT TO BE HEARD
Right to be heard includes: 1.To be assisted by counsel 2.To adduce evidence 3.To be present during trial

 Pp v. Holgado

- In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. The right to be heard would be of little avail if it does not include the right to be heard by counsel. Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of the 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.

 Pp v. Holgado

- And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. It is for this reason that the right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so important that it has become a constitutional right and it is so implemented that under our rules of procedure it is not enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his right to have an attorney, it is not enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that the court should assign one de oficio if he so desires and he is poor grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own.

 Pp v. Tulin
- It is true that an accused person shall be entitled to be present and to defend himself in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of judgment (Section 1, Rule 115, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). This is hinged on the fact that a layman is not versed on the technicalities of trial. However, it is also provided by law that "[r]ights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with right recognized by law." (Article 6, Civil Code of the Philippines). Thus, the same section of Rule 115 adds that "[u]pon 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-appellants were sufficiently and properly protected by the appearance of Mr. Tomas Posadas. An examination of the record will show that he knew the technical rules of procedure. Hence, we rule that 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.

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM

a. Conviction to a higher charge not alleged in the information is denial of this right Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court: Sec. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed.

B. QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD BE ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION

Pp v. Gabiana - In this case, although it was shown that the appellant is the common-law husband of the complainants mother, the first special qualifying circumstance within the contemplation of paragraph 1, above quoted, was not alleged in the Information under which appellant was arraigned. In People vs. Ambray, the Court held that the failure to allege the fact of relationship between the appellant and the victim in the information for rape is fatal and consequently, bars conviction of its qualified form which is punishable by death. Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment in order not to violate the constitutional right of the accused to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

 People v. Manalili

The hornbook doctrine in our jurisdiction is that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. Constitutionally, he has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information would be violative of this constitutional right. Indeed, the accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against him.

The jurisdiction of a court is defined by the Constitution or statute. The elements of that definition must appear in the complaint or information so as to ascertain which court has jurisdiction over a case. Hence the elementary rule that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, and not by the evidence presented by the parties at the trial

 Lacson v. Executive Secretary

- The object of this written accusations was First; To furnish the accused with such a discretion of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense and second to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause and third, 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. In order that the requirement may be satisfied, facts must be stated, not conclusions of law.

 Lacson v. Executive Secretary

- Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent these must be set forth in the complaint with reasonable particularly of time, place, names(plaintiff and defendant) and circumstances. In short, the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL & PUBLIC TRIAL

The right of an accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed to him by the Constitution but the same shall not be utilized to deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity of fairly indicting criminals. It secures rights to a defendant but it does not preclude the rights of public justice

It should be remembered that the right to a speedy trial is relative, subject to reasonable delays and postponements arising from illness, medical attention, body operations, as in the instant case where it was satisfactorily proven that private complainant had to undergo eye operations, hospitalization and a medical check-up abroad. For, speedy trial means one that can be had as soon after indictment is filed as the prosecution can with reasonable diligence prepare for trial

Public trial means open to public, except in sensitive cases - the right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. To be sure, responsible reporting enhances accused's right to a fair trial for, as well pointed out, a responsible press has always been regarded as the criminal field. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism

 Estrada v Desierto
-Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality. For one, it is impossible to seal the minds of members of the bench from pre-trial and other off-court publicity of sensational criminal cases. The state of the art of our communication system brings news as they happen straight to our breakfast tables and right to our bedrooms. These news form part of our everyday menu of the facts and fictions of life. For another, our idea of a fair and impartial judge is not that of a hermit who is out of touch with the world. We have not installed the jury system whose members are overly protected from publicity lest they lose there impartially. xxx xxx xxx. Our judges are learned in the law and trained to disregard offcourt evidence and on-camera performances of parties to litigation. Their mere exposure to publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their impartiality

- the test of actual prejudice as we ruled that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of publicity

TO CONFRONT WITNESSES & TO COMPULSORY PROCESSES

- Right to confrontation intends to secure the accused in the right to be tried, so far as facts provable by witnesses are concerned, by only such witnesses as meet him face to face at the trial, who give their testimony in his presence, and give to the accused an opportunity of cross examination - To prevent conviction of the accused upon deposition or ex parte affidavits

 People v. Givena - As correctly contended by the defense, because they did not have the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Baltazar, his testimony cannot be used in evidence against accusedappellant. Indeed, where the opposing party failed to crossexamine a witness, this Court in several cases held: Oral testimony may be taken into account only when it is complete , that is, if the witness has been wholly crossexamined by the adverse party or the right to cross-examine is lost wholly or in part thru the fault of such adverse party. But when cross-examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered incompetent

 People v. Chua - The right to request that witness be subpoenaed and evidence be produced in court. The 1973 and 1987 Constitutions expanded the right to compulsory process which now includes the right to secure the production of evidence in one's behalf.28By analogy, U.S. vs. Ramirez29which laid down the requisites for compelling the attendance of witnesses, may be applied to this expanded concept. Thus, the movant must show: (a) that the evidence is really material; (b) that he is not guilty of neglect in previously obtaining the production of such evidence; (c) that the evidence will be available at the time desired; and (d) that no similar evidence could be obtained

RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Sec. 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

REQUISITES:

To constitute double jeopardy, there must be: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) filed before a competent court; (3) to which the defendant has pleaded; and (4) of which he had been previously acquitted or convicted or which was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent

A. Complaint or Information A prosecution based on an invalid complaint or information cannot be lead to a valid judgment and hence will not place the accused under double jeopardy

B. Competent Court - A court without jurisdiction cannot render a valid judgment, hence, a person charged before it cannot plead double jeopardy when tried anew for the same offense by a competent court, as the first prosecution never placed him in jeopardy

C. Valid Plea - A defendant is never placed under jeopardy until after he shall have pleaded to the charge against him during the arraignment. Thus, where a defective complaint was dismissed before the accused had pleaded and an amended complaint was later filed, his plea of double jeopardy was rejected because he had not been exposed to danger under the first indictment

D. Termination of the Case How is the first jeopardy terminated in a manner that satisfies the element of the defense of double jeopardy? (1) By judgment of acquittal Acquittal is immediately executory upon rendition and entitles the accused to immediate release. (2) By judgment of conviction The judgment of conviction is appealable within 15 days but becomes final if the convict serves his sentence even before the expiration of the period. (3) By dismissal on the merits or without the express consent of the accused