University of Southern Mindanao (USM)

First Year Law

2022-2023

Art. III. Sec. 14. Rights of the Accused

 Trial Rights of the Accused
Section 14. (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 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.
 Rule of Law: Is a principle of governance
in which all persons, institutions and
entities, public and private, including the
State itself, are accountable to laws that are
publicly promulgated, equally enforced and
independently adjudicated, which are
consistent with international human rights
norms and standards. (Dept. of Justice)
Elements:
1. Everyone, including the State, is subject to law
2. Laws are publicly promulgated
3. Laws are equally enforced
4. Laws (cases) are independently adjudicated
5. Laws are consistent with international human
rights standards (Due Process)
Questions:
1. Why the concern for people suspected of
committing crimes?
-unequal battle between an individual and an
entire State apparatus
-if errors are unavoidable, the error should be in
favor of the individual (liberty)
-extra-judicial execution
2. What distinguishes a trial from the search for truth through
science? ALL KNOWLEDGE IS MAN’S ATTEMPT TO
DISCOVER TRUTH –
a. proceeding is adversarial (both sides present their version and the
other can raise objection)
b. the search for truth is subject to certain rules which can affect its
accuracy (exclusionary rule) –FAIRNESS
c. conclusion/finding final or not subject to alteration
(double jeopardy/res judicata)

JUDICIAL TRUTH v. OBJECTIVE TRUTH

 Rights of the Accused

A. Trial Rights of the Accused

•1. Right to due process
•2. Presumption of innocence
•3. To be heard
•4. To counsel
•5. To be informed
•6. To speedy trial
•7. To impartial trial
•8. To public trial
•9. To meet witnesses
•10. To compulsory process
B. Trial in Absentia
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

1. Due Process:
Due process in Section 14 is procedural, not substantive. It has
no application to civil and administrative cases. Put another way, they
are the procedures to be followed in trying persons accused of
committing crimes. It’s elements are:
1. A court or tribunal cloth with judicial power to hear and decide
the case;
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of the accused
and over the offense;
3. Accused was given an opportunity to be heard; and
4. Judgment was rendered upon lawful hearing.
How is due process in Sec. 1 distinguished from due
process in Sec. 14?
1. Sec. 14 pertains only to due process in criminal
cases, but Sec. 1 pertains to all proceedings,
whether civil, criminal or administrative
2. Sec. 14 pertains only to procedural due
process, but Sec. 1 applies to both procedural and
substantive due process
 Put another way, Sec. 14 is the mode of procedure,
required by the Constitution itself, that must be
followed before a criminal suspect is deprived of his
life or liberty.
Due Process in the first paragraph has its own
meaning, but the 9 other rights in the second paragraph
are also components of the term.
Where does Sps. Flores v. Sps. Estrellado, G.R.
No. 251669, December 07, 2021?
• Illustrative Cases:
• 1. Pagasian v. Azura, 184 SCRA 342
(1990) (judge convicted a witness and
sentenced him to 2 days in jail and fine of
P200)
• 2. Olaguer v. Military Commission – a civilian
convicted by a military court during Martial Law.
Reversed: Trial by judicial process, not by
executive or military process [appointed by
convening authority, no security of tenure, not
independent) .
• Which of the ten (10) rights was violated?
• Can military courts never try civilians?
• Sec. 18, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution: A state of
martial law does not suspend the operation of the
Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the
civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize
the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts
and agencies over civilians where civil courts are
able to function, nor automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ.
• 2. Presumption of innocence:
• Does the Constitution textually require that the guilt of
accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt? NO.
• “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,”
• But Rule 115 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure:

• Section 1. Rights of accused at trial. – In all criminal

prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the
following rights:
• (a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Effect on the Procedure:
• If after the Prosecution rests, accused or
the court feels that the evidence presented
failed to overcome the presumption of
innocence, what is the remedy?
• –Demurrer to Evidence
• Reversed Presumption:
• Reversed presumption is allowed in malversation, anti-
fencing, rules of evidence, Illegal Fishing, Intellectual
Property Law, Plunder.
• Example: Rules 131, Revised Rules on Evidence:
• (3a)SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions.— The following
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
• (j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer
of the whole act;
Created by law: Anti-Fencing Law

PD No. 1612: Section 5. Presumption of

Fencing. Mere possession of any good,
article, item, object, or anything of value
which has been the subject of robbery or
thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing.
• Reasons:
• 1. It is prima facie (can be rebutted)
• 2. There is a logical connection between the
fact proved and the fact presumed.
Fuertes v. Senate, G.R. No. 208162, January 7, 2020

Paragraph 4 of Section 14 of the Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No.

8049, now amended by Republic Act No. 11053) provides
that one's presence during the hazing is prima facie evidence
of participation as a principal, unless proven to have
prevented or to have promptly reported the punishable acts to
law enforcement authorities if they can, without peril to their
person or their family. Does this violate the constitutional
presumption of innocence?
Held: No. The validity of statutes establishing presumptions in criminal cases is
now a settled matter. It is generally held that the legislature may enact that when
certain facts have been proved they shall be prima facie evidence of the existence
of the guilt of the accused and shift the burden of proof provided there be a
rational connection between the 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.
Secrecy and silence are common characterizations of the dynamics of hazing.
Bearing in mind the concealment of hazing, it is only logical and proper for the
prosecution to resort to the presentation of circumstantial evidence to prove it.
Generally, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to
conspiracy. Exceptionally, under R.A. No. 8049, the participation of the offenders
in the criminal conspiracy can be proven by the prima facie evidence due to their
presence during the hazing, unless they prevented the commission of the acts
therein.
Right advocates hit approved House bill
presuming guilt of drug suspects – MARCH 4,
2021- Philippine Inquirer
20 Presumptions: Example--
Unless disproved, “any person found or is
present within the immediate vicinity of the
area of sale, trading, marketing, dispensation,
delivery or distribution, is presumed to have
been involved in the sale, trade or distribution
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors or
essential chemicals.”
• No. 5, 2004: OZ lost 5 head of cattle which he reported to the police.
He requested several neighbors, including RR, for help in looking for
missing animals. After an extensive search, the police found 2 head in
RR’s farm. RR could not explain to the police how they got hidden in
a remote area of his farm.
• Insisting on his innocence, RR consulted a lawyer who told him he
has a right to be presumed innocent under the Bill of Rights. But there
is another presumption—of theft arising from his unexplained
possession of stolen cattle—under the penal law.
• Are the 2 presumptions capable of reconciliation in this case? If
so, how can they be reconciled? If not, which should prevail?
• 3. To be heard: Pertains to the right to
present evidence or to defend yourself:
• a. To testify in his own behalf
• b. To call witnesses

• Alonte v. Savellano, Jr., 287 SCRA 245

(1998)
 Alonte v. Savellano, Jr., 287 SCRA 245 (1998)
• After accused was arraigned, the prosecution presented the rape victim who
identified her affidavit of desistance and reaffirmed that she had no further interest
in prosecuting accused. The judge then asked clarificatory questions to determine
the truth and voluntariness of both her affidavit-complaint and affidavit of
desistance. Counsel for the accused did not anymore cross-examine the witness.
The prosecutor then moved to dismiss the case as she could no longer prove the
guilt of the accused. About two months later, the court convicted accused of rape
and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
•Held: The right of the accused to due process was violated. No trial was
conducted based on the procedure in the Rules of Court and accused was not
given his full day in court. It cannot be argued that accused waived his right to
confront and cross-examine the witness because the existence of the waiver
must be shown to have been done knowingly and with sufficient awareness of
the consequence. The case should be remanded for further proceedings.
• People v. Diaz, 311 SCRA 585 (1999)
• Accused was convicted of raping his own daughter and sentenced to
death. It appears that after the prosecution rested, the case was set for
reception of defense evidence. However, in all four settings counsel for the
accused failed to appear despite notice. This was treated by the trial court as a
waiver by the accused of his right to present evidence, and it considered the
case submitted for decision.
• Held: Accused has the right to be heard by himself and counsel. He has
also the right to present evidence. Accordingly, denial of due process can be
successfully invoked where no valid waiver of rights has been made. In this
case, we find that under the circumstances, the accused was denied due
process when the successive non-appearance of his counsel was construed as a
wavier of his right to present evidence. Since the imposable penalty may be
death, the trial court should have been more circumspect in outrightly denying
accused his opportunity to present his side, particularly since he himself was
present during the four hearings. Clearly, such presence is a strong indication
that accused was interested in defending himself.
What if accused fails to testify? Is that evidence of guilt?
• In United States v. Muyot, 2 Phil. 177 (1903), it declared:
• … the refusal or neglect of a defendant to testify cannot in
any manner prejudice him. A person charged with a crime
is not called upon to make any explanation or denial,
except to plead guilty or not guilty. He can remain silent
as well before the trial or during it, and his silence cannot
be considered as a confession of guilt. Any other rule
would lead to the result that, every time anything was said
in the presence of a prisoner indicating his guilt, he would
be called upon to deny it, whether it was said by the
prosecuting attorney, newspaper reporters, police officers,
or others.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
4. Right to counsel
People v. Holgado:, 85 Phil. 253 (1950)
Judge: Do you have an attorney or are you going to plead guilty?
Accused: I have no lawyer and I will plead guilty. (20 years)
Also People v. Silvestre, 51 SCRA 286 (1979) robbery with
homicide
Elements of Right to Counsel:
1. The court is duty – bound to inform accused of his right before
the arraigned;
2. The court must ask him if he desires the service of counsel;
3. If he does, and is unable to get one, the court must assign him a
counsel de oficio;
4. If accused wishes to get a private counsel, the court must give
him time to obtain one. [PP VS. HOLGADO]
• 1. What is the effect if accused is convicted and it turned
out that his lawyer is fake? [Delgado, Santocildes, Tulin,
Inacay v. People, 810 SCRA 610 (2016)
• 2. Can a conviction be nullified if one’s lawyer is
incompetent? (not error of procedure or lapse in strategy-
mistake of counsel binds client – public policy) [Liwanag,
except Callangan]
• 3. Can a person defend himself without a lawyer? [Rules
of Court/Sesbreno]
• 4. What is the extent of the right to retain? [Chiongbian]
• People v. Santocildes, 321 SCRA 310 (1999)
• Accused was charged and convicted of the crime of rape and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. During trial, he was represented by a
certain Gualberto C. Ompong, who turned out to be a non-lawyer. On
appeal, he argues that his right to counsel was violated so that he
should be acquitted of the crime charged.
• Held: The right of accused to counsel was violated, no matter that the
person who represented him had the ability of a seasoned lawyer and
handled the case in a professional and skillful manner. This is so
because an accused person is entitled to be represented by a member
of the bar in a criminal case filed against him. Unless he is
represented by a lawyer, there is a great danger that any defense
presented will be inadequate considering the legal skills needed in
court proceedings. The judgment is set aside, and the case remanded
for new trial.
• Amion v. Chiongbian, 301 SCRA 614 (1999)
• Due to several postponements sought by a lawyer of accused, the judge
appointed a counsel de oficio for him during trial. Accused objected to the
services of counsel de oficio since he can afford to hire a counsel de parte of
his own choice. Was there a violation of the right of the accused to counsel of
his own choice?
• Held: No. An examination of related provisions in the Constitution
concerning the right to counsel will show that the “preference in the choice
of counsel” pertains more aptly and specifically to a person under
custodial investigation rather than one who is an accused in a criminal
prosecution. But even if we were to extend the application of the concept of
“preference in the choice of counsel” to an accused in a criminal prosecution,
such preferential discretion cannot partake of a discretion so absolute and
arbitrary as would make the choice of counsel refer exclusively to the
predeliction of accused. Otherwise, the pace of criminal prosecutions would
be entirely dictated by the accused.
• People v. Liwanag, 363 SCRA 62 (2001)
• Accused was convicted of highway robbery with multiple rape. During trial he was assisted by
counsel de oficio, a PAO lawyer. In the middle of the trial, he retained the services of counsel de
parte. After he was convicted by the trial court, another lawyer filed the notice of appeal but failed
to file the appellant’s brief. Before the Supreme Court he was represented by another counsel de
officio. He now claims that his right to counsel was violated because his counsel made insufficient
cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, and failed to impeach the testimony of complainant
through the use of contradictory evidence.
• Held: The “right to be assisted by counsel” does not presuppose “the right to an intelligent counsel.”
The requirement is not for counsel to be intelligent, but to be effective. While fairness is the
object of Art. III, Sec. 14 (2) of the Constitution, the assistance afforded by counsel to an accused
need only be in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional
Responsibility. In the Philippine setting, a counsel assisting an accused is presumed to be providing
all the necessary legal defense which are reasonable under the circumstances in accordance with said
norms. The proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under
prevailing norms. Coupled with the presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable under
the circumstances, as long as the trial was fair in that the accused was accorded due process by
means of an effective assistance of counsel, then the constitutional requirement that an accused shall
have the right to be heard by himself and counsel is satisfied.
• People v. Sesbreno, 314 SCRA 87 (1999)
• Accused was charged with murder. Being a practicing lawyer,
he insisted on representing himself. Despite proddings by the court
and an offer of the possibility of assistance from the Public Attorney’s
Office, he handled his own defense and was convicted. On appeal, he
claims that his right to counsel was violated.
• Held: Accused acted as his own counsel. To allege now that his right
to be assisted by counsel was violated is to bend the truth too far. The
constitutional right of the accused to counsel is not violated where he
was represented by a prominent and competent member of the Bar,
namely himself, even if there were others available. He is now
estopped from claiming that the trial court violated his right to be
represented by counsel of his own choice.
• Rules of Court: Rule 138, Sec. 34. By whom
litigation conducted. In the court of a
municipality a party may conduct his litigation in
person, with the aid of an agent or friend
appointed by him for the purpose, or with the aid
of an attorney. In any other court, a party may
conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an
attorney, and his appearance must be either
personal or by a duly authorized member of the
bar.
• Basic Principles on Role of Lawyers, Adopted by the United Nations,
1990
• 1. All persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a lawyer of
their choice to protect and establish their rights and to defend them in
all stages of criminal proceedings.
• 2. Government shall ensure that efficient procedures and responsive
mechanisms for effective and equal access to lawyers are provided for
all persons within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction,
without distinction of any kind, such as discrimination based on race,
colour, ethnic origin, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth economic or other
status.
• 5. To be informed of the accusation
• Purposes:
• 1. To enable accused to defend himself
• 2. To enable himself to avail of the protection of
double jeopardy of prosecuted for the same
offense
• 3. To inform the court of the facts alleged so
that it can decide whether it is sufficient to support
a conviction
• How is this determined?
How is this measured?
Through the written indictment, charge
sheet or Information, which must contain all
the elements of the crime as defined by law.
Rule 110, Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure:
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
given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained
of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended
party; the approximate date of the commission of the
offense; and the place where the offense was
committed.
 The undersigned City Prosecutor accuses Juan de la Cruz
of the crime of Direct Assault committed as follows:
That on or about April 1, 2016, in the City of
Kidapawan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing
private complainant _____________ to be a police officer,
who is an agent of a person in authority, on occasion of
his performance of official duties as such that is, while
responding to a reported rally incident, accused wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attacked the latter by throwing
and hitting him with a piece of stone.
• Rule: An accused can be convicted of a lesser
offense if the elements are necessarily included in
the Information charged [but not the opposite]

-People v. Antido, charge with one count of

rape but convicted of four (4)
Cases:

1. The Information for Murder alleged that accused

committed the crime “with deliberate intent to kill,
with treachery and evident premeditation, did then
and there…” Can accused be convicted of
Murder? People v. Delector, 841 SCRA 647
(2017).
Held: It did not sufficiently aver acts constituting
either or both treachery and evident premeditation.
He can only be convicted of Homicide.
2. The Information alleged that accused had “carnal
knowledge and intercourse with [AAA], a mentally
defective lady, against her will and consent.” Can accused
be convicted of Qualified Rape?
• Held: Considering that the Information failed to state that
the accused-appellants knew of the mental condition of
AAA, the accused-appellants should be held guilty of
simple rape. People v. Martinez, 858 SCRA 41 (2018) and
People v. Urmaza, 860 SCRA 535 (2018)
•
• 6. To speedy trial
• Factors:
• 1. Extent of the delay
• 2. Reasons for the delay
• 3. Invocation of the right
• 4. Prejudice to the accused
• Right is only violated if delay is capricious or
whimsical.
• Lumanlaw v. Peralta, 482 SCRA 396 (2006)
• Accused was detained on a charge of illegal possession of Dangerous
Drugs. Despite the lapse of one year, nine months and four days, he was not
arraigned due to 14 postponements. Should the information be quashed on the
ground of violation of his right to speedy trial?
• Held: Yes. The repeated postponements violated the right of the accused to
speedy trial. Under Section 2 of Supreme Court Circular No. 38-98
(implementing Republic Act No. 8493, otherwise known as “The Speedy Trial
Act of 1998”), which provides that arraignment shall be held within thirty
days from the date the court acquired jurisdiction over the accused. There
were fourteen postponements in all. Going over the causes for the delays, we
see the lack of earnest effort on the part of judge to conduct the arraignment as
soon as the court calendar would allow. Most of the postponements could
have easily been avoided if the judge had been more keen on respecting and
upholding the constitutional right of accused to speedy trial and speedy
disposition.
• Tai Lim v. CA, 317 SCRA 521 (1999)
• Accused was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Arraigned on August 8, 1995, trial never commenced despite the lapse of 1
year and 3 months due to 11 postponements, 9 of which were secured by the
prosecution. The grounds for postponements ranged from the absence of
witnesses for the prosecution, absence of the prosecutor and re-raffling of the
case to another branch. Must the case be dismissed on the ground of speedy
trial?
• Held: No. The reasons for the prosecution’s postponements were reasonable
and were not intended merely to delay the proceedings of the case. It would
be unjust to pounce on the absence of the witnesses as a basis for dismissing
the case when there was a valid excuse for their absence, that is, there was no
proof that they were duly served with subpoena. The other reasons for
postponements were due to circumstances beyond the control of the
prosecution. The right of the accused to speedy trial should not be utilized to
deprive the State of a reasonable opportunity of fairly prosecuting criminals.
• De Zuruarregui vs. Roesete, 382 SCRA 1 (2002)
• Two years after arraignment of the accused for falsification of a private document,
trial has not commenced due to 15 postponements. Five were secured upon agreement
of the prosecution and the defense and 6 were on motion or due to non-appearance of the
accused. The last 2 postponements were secured by the prosecution without objection
from the accused because complainant had to leave for abroad for a medical treatment.
On the last scheduled hearing, however, the judge dismissed the case for failure of the
prosecution to present evidence. Was there a violation of the right of the accused to
speedy trial?
• Held: No. The right to speedy trial is a relative one, subject to reasonable delays and
postponements arising from illness, as in the present case, where it was duly proven that
complainant had to undergo carotid operation. Speedy trial means one that can be had
soon after indictment is filed as the prosecution can, with reasonable diligence, prepare
for trial. For this reason, in determining the right of the accused to speedy trial, courts
should do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the
scheduled hearings. What offends the right to speedy trial are unjustified postponements
which prolong trial for an unreasonable length of time. This is not the case here
 Expedited Rules, AM 08-87-SC, April 11, 2022

1. Under the Expedited Rules, when can postponements be

allowed by the court and what are the requirements?
A motion for postponement of any trial date shall
be presumed dilatory and denied outright, unless grounded
on acts of God, force majeure or duly substantiated
physical inability of the accused or witness. Any
postponement granted by the court for unauthorized causes
shall not extend the period for presentation of a party’s
evidence. The party who sought the postponement shall
only have the remaining trial dates assigned to him or her
to complete his or her evidence presentation.
 I. Continuous Trial Rule (A.M. No.15-06-10-SC)
2. How long are the periods given to the parties to complete
the presentation of their evidence?
i. Summary Rules – 60 calendar days for Prosecution/60
calendar days for accused (Expedited Rules)
ii. Regular Rules - 60 days for the Prosecution and 90
days for the accused
iii. Drug Cases - 5 days for the Prosecution and 25 days for
the accused (trial to be finished not later than 60 days from
filing of Information)
Trial . xxx (b) Absence of counsel de parte. -In the
absence of the counsel de parte, the hearing shall proceed
upon appointment by the court of a counsel de officio.
3. How long are the period given to judges to
decide?
• Period of Decision:
• i. Summary Rules – 30 days
• ii. Regular Rules - 90 days
• iii. Environmental Cases 60 days
• iv. Drug Cases - 15 days
• [v. Small Claims – if settled, same day. If not,
within 24 hours)
• 7. Right to impartial trial
-Standard: “A litigant is entitled to the cold neutrality of
an impartial judge.”
The appearance of neutrality is as important as the reality
of impartiality.
Judge should not talk to litigants or their lawyers. The
ideal is that he must live a secluded life.
-Bilbao v. People, 761 SCRA 156 (2015) Judge was the Public
Prosecutor though there was a Private Prosecutor
Cruz: “Accused has a right to complain if the
judge has a personal or pecuniary interest in the
outcome of the case.”
 Trial by Publicity and the Right to
Impartial Trial
• PUBLIC TRIAL v. TRIAL BY PUBLICITY
• People v. Sanchez, 302 SCRA 21 (1999)
• Mayor Sanchez was convicted of seven counts of rape with
homicide. Considering the position of accused, the trial was accompanied by
widespread media coverage. On appeal, Sanchez claims that his right to a fair
trial was violated due to the intense publicity.
• Held: The right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible with a free
press. Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to
fair trial. It does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind
of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality. At best appellant can only
conjure possibility of prejudice on the part of the trial judge due to the barrage
of publicity. But the test is not the possibility of prejudice but actual
prejudice. To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be
allegation and proof that judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that
they might be. Appellant must discharge this burden. In this case, there is no
proof that the judge acquired a fixed opinion, or actual bias as a consequence
of extensive media coverage.
• Estrada v. Desierto, 356 SCRA 109 (2001)
• Petitioner seeks a reconsideration of the decision of the Supreme Court declaring that having
resigned from the presidency, he may be prosecuted for Plunder. Among others, he contends that his
right to an impartial trial has been affected by the prejudicial pre-trial publicity of the proceedings
before the Ombudsman. He also points to the alleged hate campaign launched by some newspapers
so that the prosecution and the judiciary can no longer assure him of a sporting chance. He urges the
Court to apply the rule on res ipsa loquitor. Has petitioner’s right to fair trial been violated?
• Held: No. The mere fact that the proceedings was given a day to day coverage does not prove that
the publicity so permeated the mind of the tribunal and impaired his impartiality. 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. In this case, petitioner has failed to adduce any proof of
actual prejudice developed by the members of the Panel of Investigators of the Ombudsman. We
cannot replace this test of actual prejudice with the rule of res ipsa loquitur. The latter rule assumes
that an injury has been suffered and then shifts the burden to the panel of investigators to prove that
the impartiality of its members has not been affected by said publicity. Such a rule will overturn our
case law that pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. For
this reason, we continue to hold that it is not enough for petitioner to conjure possibility of prejudice
but must prove actual prejudice on the part of his investigators for the Court to sustain his plea.
• Re: Request Radio…, 360 SCRA 248 (2001)
• The Kapisanan ng mga BroadKaster ng Pilipinas, an association representing duly
franchised and authorized television and radio networks, requested the Supreme Court to
allow live media coverage of the trial of former President Estrada. The request was
anchored on the need to assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings. In
effect, the request seeks reconsideration of the 1991 resolution of the Court which barred
live media coverage of all court proceedings.
• Held: The issue involves the weighing out of constitutional guarantees of freedom of the
press and the right to public information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of
the accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to control
its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. When these rights race against each
other, the right of the accused must be preferred. With the possibility of losing his life or
liberty, it must be ensured that accused receives a verdict decreed by an unprejudiced
judge. Television coverage, however, can impair the testimony in criminal trials, can
affect the performance of the judge, and can destroy the case of the accused in the eyes
of the public. Accordingly, to protect the parties right to due process, to prevent the
distraction of the participants in the proceedings and in the last analysis, to avoid
miscarriage of justice, the request is denied.
• Re: Request for Live…, 365 SCRA 62 (2001)
• The Secretary of Justice seeks a reconsideration of the resolution denying
permission to televise and broadcast live the trial of President Estrada before the
Sandiganbayan. Among others, he argues that if there is a clash between the rights of
the people to public information and the freedom of the press, on the one hand, and the
right of the accused to fair trial, it should be resolved in favor of the right of the people,
because the people, as repository of democracy are entitled to information; and that live
media coverage is a safeguard against attempts by any party to use the courts as
instruments for the pursuit of selfish interest.
• Held: The motion is denied. However, because of the significance of the trial and the
importance of preserving the records, there should be an audio visual recording of the
proceedings. The recordings will not be for live or real time broadcast but for
documentary purposes. Only later will they be available for public showing, after the
Sandiganbayan shall have promulgated its decision. The master film shall be deposited
in the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives Office for historical
preservation and exhibition pursuant to law. The audio-visual recording shall be made
under the supervision and control of the Sandiganbayan.
• Re: Petition for Radio and TV..., 652 SCRA 1 (2011)
• Following the November 23, 2009 Maguindanao Massacre,
charges for 57 counts of murder were filed against 197 accused.
Various entities filed a petition before the Supreme Court praying that
live television and radio coverage of the trial in these criminal cases be
allowed, recording devices (e.g., still cameras, tape recorders) be
permitted inside the courtroom to assist the working journalists. In
effect, petitioners seek the lifting of the absolute ban on live television
and radio coverage of court proceedings imposed by the 1991 ruling in
Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon
C. Aquino’s Libel Case. Should the Court allow live media coverage
of the trial?
• Held: It is about time to craft a win-win situation that shall not
compromise rights in the criminal administration of justice, sacrifice
press freedom and allied rights, and interfere with the integrity, dignity
and solemnity of judicial proceedings. Compliance with regulations,
not curtailment of a right, provides a workable solution. The
peculiarity of the subject criminal cases is that the proceedings already
necessarily entail the presence of hundreds of families. It cannot be
gainsaid that the families of the 57 victims and of the 197 accused
have as much interest, beyond mere curiosity, to attend or monitor the
proceedings as those of the impleaded parties or trial participants. It
bears noting at this juncture that the prosecution and the defense have
listed more than 200 witnesses each.
• The Court allows pro hac vice the live broadcasting by radio and television of
the Maguindanao Massacre cases, subject to the following guidelines: (a)
Media entities must file a written application with the trial court; no selective
or partial coverage shall be allowed. (b) A single fixed compact camera shall
be installed inside the courtroom to provide a single wide-angle full-view of
the sala of the trial court, operated by an employee of the Supreme Court; no
panning and zooming shall be allowed. (c) The transmittal of the audio-visual
recording from inside the courtroom to the media entities shall be conducted
in such a way that the least physical disturbance shall be ensured. (d) The
broadcasting of the proceedings for a particular day must be continuous and in
its entirety. (e) To provide a faithful and complete broadcast of the
proceedings, no commercial break or any other gap shall be allowed until the
day’s proceedings are adjourned. (f) To avoid overriding or superimposing the
audio output from the on-going proceedings, the proceedings shall be
broadcast without any voice-overs, except brief annotations of scenes depicted
therein. (h) No repeat airing of the audio-visual recording shall be allowed
until after the finality of judgment, except brief footages and still images
derived from or cartographic sketches of scenes.
• 1996, No. 2: At the trial of a rape case where the
victim-complainant was a well known personality
while the accused was a popular movie star, a TV
station was allowed by the trial jduge to televised
the entire proceedings like the OJ Simpson trial.
The accused objected to the TV coverage and
petitioned the Supreme Court to prohibit the said
coverage.
• As the Supreme Court, how would you rule on
the petition?
• 8. Public Trial – This right is intended to avoid
the experience of the Inquisition and the “Trial of
Witches”, which were done in secret. Suspects
were tried in secrecy and subjected to threats and
tortures to make them admit their guilt. Purposes:
a. to prevent abuse of judicial power
b. to prevent courts from being instruments of
persecution
Questions:
1. How is it observed? “The right is
satisfied for as long as the public is not
excluded and friends and relatives of the
parties could be present.”
2. Is it waivable? Garcia v. Domingo
3. When may the public be excluded
without violating the right?
Rule 119, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure:
Sec. 21. Exclusion of the public. – The judge
may, motu proprio, exclude the public from the
courtroom if the evidence to be produced
during the trial is offensive to decency or public
morals. He may also, on motion of the accused,
exclude the public from the trial except court
personnel and the counsel of the parties.
 What about trial in the time of COVID
Pandemic? How can it be reconciled with
the right to a public trial?
• 9. Right to Meet Witnesses –
• Rule 115, Sec. 1. (f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses
against him at the trial
• Purposes:
• 1. To test the testimony of the witnesses by cross-examination
• 2. To allow the judge to observe the deportment of witnesses
• -This is the reason why hearsay evidence, affidavit, police blotters and
medical certificates are not admitted as evidence
• [People v. Nadera] Go v. People, 677 SCRA 213 (2012) (deposition in
Cambodia)
 Go v. People, 677 SCRA 213
(2012)
• In a prosecution for Other Deceits, the private prosecutor filed
with the MeTC a Motion to Take Oral Deposition of Li Luen Ping,
alleging that he was old and being treated for lung infection at the
Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos, Cambodia and that, upon doctor's
advice, he could not make the long travel to the Philippines by reason
of ill health. Can the motion be granted?
• Held: No. The main and essential purpose of requiring a witness to
appear and testify orally at a trial is to secure for the adverse party the
opportunity of cross-examination. “The opponent”, according to an
eminent authority, “demands confrontation, not for the idle purpose of
gazing upon the witness, or of being gazed upon by him, but for the
purpose of cross-examination which cannot be had except by the direct
and personal putting of questions and obtaining immediate answers.”
There is also the advantage of the witness before the judge, and it is this –
it enables the judge as trier of facts “to obtain the elusive and
incommunicable evidence of a witness' deportment while testifying,
and a certain subjective moral effect is produced upon the witness. It is
only when the witness testifies orally that the judge may have a true
idea of his countenance, manner and expression, which may confirm
or detract from the weight of his testimony. Certainly, the physical
condition of the witness will reveal his capacity for accurate
observation and memory, and his deportment and physiognomy will
reveal clues to his character. These can only be observed by the judge
if the witness testifies orally in court. ”
• People v. Nadera, 324 SCRA 490 (2000)
• After the rape victim testified, the following dialogue occurred:
• COURT:
• Any cross?
• ATTY. BROTONEL:
• If Your Honor please, we are not conducting any cross-
examination, because this representation, from the demeanor of the
witness, I am convinced that she is telling the truth.
• Held: Counsel’s decision not to cross-examine the witness is a glaring
example of his manifest lack of enthusiasm for his client’s clause. It may
be that defense counsel personally found the testimony to be believable.
Nevertheless, he had the bounden duty to scrutinize private
complainant’s testimony to ensure that the accused’s constitutional right
to confront and examine the witnesses against him was not rendered for
naught.
Cases:
1. People v. Encipido: One lawyer was representing 3 accused. At the
trial, one accused testified against his co-accused and the lawyer
was in a quandary.

2. Video-Conferencing (in the Time of Covid-19)

3. The Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
The JA generally applies of cases in the First Level Court. Does this
violate the right to confrontation?
• Sec. 2. Submission of Judicial Affidavits and
Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies. - (a) The
parties shall file with the court and serve on the
adverse party, personally or by licensed courier
service, not later than five days before pre-trial or
preliminary conference or the scheduled hearing
with respect to motions and incidents, the
following:
• (1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses,
which shall take the place of such witnesses' direct
testimonies; and
Sec. 7. Examination of the witness on his judicial
affidavit. - The adverse party shall have the right
to cross-examine the witness on his judicial
affidavit and on the exhibits attached to the same.
The party who presents the witness may also
examine him as on re-direct. In every case, the
court shall take active part in examining the
witness to determine his credibility as well as the
truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers that
it needs for resolving the issues.
But the JA is almost useless in Criminal Case now: Continuous Trial Rule
(A.M. No.15-06-10-SC)
• How should the testimonies of witnesses be presented?
Form of Testimony (a) For First Level Courts. In all criminal
cases, including those covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure,
the testimonies of witnesses shall consist of the duly subscribed
written statements given to law enforcement or peace officers or the
affidavits or counter-affidavits submitted before the investigating
prosecutor, and if such are not available, testimonies shall be in the
form of judicial affidavits, subject to additional direct and cross-
examination questions. The trial prosecutor may dispense with the
sworn written statements submitted to the law enforcement or peace
officers and prepare the judicial affidavits of the affiants or modify or
revise the said sworn statements before presenting it as evidence.
10. Right to compulsory process
1935 Constitution – to secure the attendance of witnesses
1973/1987 – to secure the production of evidence
Ensures the right to obtain a subpoena from the court to
compel attendance of witnesses. If you disobey, you can
be arrested for contempt. Along this line, in People v.
Montejo, 21 SCRA 926 (1967), the Supreme Court stated
that a witness is not bound by a subpoena if he resides
more than 50 kilometers from the venue (now 100) does
not apply to criminal cases.
• 2016, No. 16. Jojo filed a criminal complaint against Art for theft of a backpack worth
P150.00 with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. The crime is punishable with
arresto mayor to prision correccional in its minimum period, or not to exceed 4 years
and 2 months. The case was assigned to Prosecutor Tristan and he applied Sec. 8(a) of
Rule 112 which reads: "(a) If filed with the prosecutor. - If the complaint is filed directly
with the prosecutor involving an offense punishable by imprisonment of less than four
(4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, the procedure outlined in Sec. 3(a) of this
Rule shall be observed. The Prosecutor shall act on the complaint within ten (10) days
from its filing."
• On the other hand, Sec. 3(a) of Rule 112 provides: "(a) The complaint shall state the
address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and
his witnesses as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause. x x x"
• Since Sec. 8(a) authorizes the Prosecutor to decide the complaint on the basis of the
affidavits and other supporting documents submitted by the complainant, Prosecutor
Tristan did not notify Art nor require him to submit a counter-affidavit. He proceeded to
file the Information against Art with the Metropolitan Trial Court. Art vehemently
assails Sec. 8(a) of Rule 112 as unconstitutional and violative of due process and his
rights as an accused under the Constitution for he was not informed of the complaint nor
was he given the opportunity to raise his defenses thereto before the Information was
filed. Rule on the constitutionality of Sec. 8(a) of Rule 112. Explain. (5%)
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
Section 14: Trial Rights of the Accused

Requisites for Trial in Absencia:

1. Accused has been arraigned;

2. He was notified of the proceedings; and
3. His failure to appear is unjustified.

When he is tried in absencia, he waives the right to cross-examine

the witnesses against him.

The right to appear in your trial can be waived. But during arraignment,
identification and promulgation, the court can compel your
appearance.
Bar Question 2011:
57. Accused X pleaded not guilty to the charge of
homicide against him. Since he was admitted to
bail, they sent him notices to attend the hearings of
his case. But he did not show up, despite notice, in
four successive hearings without offering any
justification. The prosecution moved to present
evidence in absentia but the court denied the
motion on the ground that the accused has a right
to be present at his trial. Is the court correct?
 Quiz No. 11: True or False

• 1.___________________ Under Sec. 14, Art. III, an accused has a

right to testify in his own favor, which he may also waive.
• 2.___________________ According to Cruz, the right to counsel
during trial in a criminal case is not subject to waiver.
• 3.___________________ He also says that the Constitution itself
provides that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt.
• 4.___________________ Where the weight of the evidence offered
by the State and the accused are equal, accused must be convicted because
of the presumption of regularity.
• 5.___________________ The text of Sec. 14, Art. III, says that it
applies to criminal prosecutions only.
• 6.___________________ The right to speedy trial is waivable by
its non-invocation.
• 7.___________________ Cruz says that a mere allegation that
the crime was committed with “treachery”, without other details,
cannot validly result to a conviction for murder.
• 8.___________________ It is during arraignment that accused is
formally informed of the charge against him.
• 9.___________________ An accused who was not arraigned can
never be tried and convicted at all.
• 10.__________________ Cruz says that members of the press
should be barred from entering the courtroom.
• 11.__________________ Cruz says that the resolution in the
Maguindanao Massacre case applies to all criminal trials.
• 12.__________________ He also says that the right to speedy
trial in Sec. 14 applies only to criminal cases.
• 13.__________________ But the right to speedy disposition
applies to any proceeding conducted by State agencies.
• 14. __________________ Cruz says that where the witnesses are
dead, an accused may be convicted based on their affidavits executed
after the incident in question.
• 15. __________________ The right to cross-examine the
witnesses against an accused in a criminal case may be waived.
 Multiple Choice:

• 16. __________________ The trial of accused was done with

excessive media coverage. As counsel, you will argue that his
conviction should be reversed because there was a violation of his:
(a) right to public trial; b) right to impartial trial; (c) right to
speedy trial; (d) right to be presumed innocent
• 17. __________________ In relation to Olaguer and what you
learned in Constitutional Law I, which statement is correct? Trial of a
civilian by a military court; (a) necessarily comes with the declaration
of Martial Law; (b) my be authorized by the Supreme Court en banc;
(c) would violate the right of an accused to speedy trial; (d) would
violate the right of an accused to due process
18. __________________ A law which establishes a
disputable presumption of guilt based on certain facts proved
is, according to Cruz: (a) unconstitutional, as it goes against
Sec. 14 of the Bill of Rights; (b) constitutional, because
Congress has plenary power to pass any law; (c)
unconstitutional only if given retroactive effect; (d)
constitutional for as long as the facts proved and
presumed are reasonably connected
• 19. __________________ Flores v. Estrellado
pertains to violation of: (a) Sec. 1 of the Bill of Rights;
(b) Sec. 14 of the Bill of Rights; (c) both Sec. 1 and Sec.
14; and (d) neither Sec. 1 or nor Sec. 14
• 20. __________________ Which is an not a
requirement for trial in absentia? (a) the accused has
been arraigned; (b) the charge against him is not a
grave offense; (c) he was duly informed of the
proceedings; (d) his non-appearance at his trial is
unjustifiable