1

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.
SECTION 17
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
SECTION 19
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall 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 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

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

* Sections 12,13,14,17,19,21 of Article III of 1987 Philippine Constitution
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.
(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 the rehabilitation of victims of torture
or similar practices, and their families.
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.
HILARIO, PAMELA DENISE D.V.

2
- The courts of the land under its aegis are courts of law and justice and
equity. They would have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used
as mere tools of injustice, deception, and duplicity to subvert and suppress
the truth, instead of repositories of judicial power whose judges are sworn
and committed to render impartial justice to all alike who seek enforcement
or protection of a right or the prevention or redress of a wrong, without fear
or favour and removed from the pressures of politics and prejudice.
A mistrial may be declared if it is shown that the proceedings were held
under such circumstances as would prevent the accused from freely making
his defence or the judge from freely arriving at his decision.
Due process of law is also denied where a person is imploded for violation
of a law, administrative regulation or municipal ordinance not previously
published.

acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act.
Criminal due process requires that the accused be tried by:
1.

impartial court

2.

in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law

3.

with proper observance of all the rights accorded to him under the
Constitution and applicable statutes

Right to preliminary investigation is PURELY STATUTORY but to deny

the accuseds claim to a preliminary investigation would be to deprive him of
the full measure of his right to due process.

In People v. Veridiano

It is a part of the guarantee of freedom and fair play which are birthrights of
all who live in our country (Salonga v. Pao)

- The Supreme Court held that the law became effective 15 days from the
date of release, which is considered the date of publication.

In Salanga v. Pao

SELF - INCRIMINATION

- the citizens right to be free not only from arbitrary arrest and punishment
but also from unwarranted and vexatious prosecution.

It is based on humanitarian and practical considerations

Humanitarian: to prevent the State with all its coercive powers from extracting
from the suspect testimony that may convict him
Practical: A person subject to such compulsion is likely to perjure himself for
his own protection
It is against not all compulsion but TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION ONLY

- it is imperative upon the fiscal or the judge to relieve the accused from the
pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no probable cause exists to
form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.
The accused has a right to complain if the judge has a personal or
pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case.
In Galman v. Sandiganbayan

It also applies to the compulsion for the production of documents, papers

and chattels that may be used as evidence against the witness
HILARIO, PAMELA DENISE D.V.

3
In Chavez v. CA
- A person accused occupies a different tier of protection from an ordinary
witness. Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to take the
witness stand and claim the privilege as each question requiring an
incrimination answer is shot at him. An accused may altogether refuse to
take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions. For in
reality, the purpose of calling an accused as a witness for the People would
be to incriminate him.
- The rule positively intends to prohibit the certainly inhuman procedure of
compelling a person to furnish missing evidence necessary for his
conviction.
WAIVER
The right against self-incrimination may be waived, either directly or by a
failure provided the waiver is CERTAIN AND UNEQUIVOCAL AND
INTELLIGENTLY, UNDERSTANDINGLY, AND WILLINGLY MADE.

EXCEPTION: When the State has a right to inspect the same, such as the
books of accounts of corporations, under the police power
It is not only available in criminal prosecutions but also in all other
governmental proceedings, including civil actions and administrative or
legislative investigations.
It may be claimed not only by the person accused of the offense but by any
witness to whom an incriminating question is addressed.
SCOPE
As long as the question will tend to incriminate, the witness is entitled to the
privilege but he may not refuse to answer provided the question is relevant
and allowed even if the answer may tend to embarrass him or subject him to
civil liability.
EXCEPTIONS:

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

1. Past criminality when the witness can no longer be prosecuted as

where the crime has already prescribed or he has already been acquitted
or convicted thereof.

It means any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person

has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action
in any significant way

2. Previous immunity grant he may not refuse to answer if he had been

immune under a validly enacted statute.

R.A. 7438 custodial investigation includes the practice of issuing an

invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offence he is
suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting
officer for any violation of law.
Extrajudicial confession to be admissible, must be:
1. voluntary

WHEN AVAILABLE
Ordinary witness: Only when the incriminating questions is asked, since the
witness has no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the question
to be put to him
Accused: He can refuse at the beginning and altogether to take the stand as a
witness for the prosecution, on the reasonable assumption that the purpose of
his interrogation will to be incriminate him.
HILARIO, PAMELA DENISE D.V.

4
- The physical, mental, and moral coercion exerted upon the accused
rendered the confessions inadmissible as contrary to the right against selfincrimination.

3. with assistance of counsel

In People v. Bagasala, Justice Fernando declared:

5. must be expressed

- It should be impressed on police officials that the imperative requirements

of truth and humanity condemn the utilisation of force and violence to
extract confessions from unwilling victims. A desirable end cannot, however,
be attained by unconstitutional means.

In Miranda v. Arizona

The right of the person under investigation to competent and independent

counsel, preferably of his own choice to be provided free if he cannot afford
a counsel de parte may be waived so long as:
1. he does it in writing
2. in the presence of his counsel who has presumably advised him
In People v. Macam
- The right to counsel attached upon the start of the investigation (i.e.,
when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information,
confessions or admissions from the accused)
- The counsel guarantee was intended to assure the assistance of of
counsel at the trial, inasmuch as the accused was confronted with both the
intricacies of the law and the advocacy of the public prosecutor
- After the start of the custodial investigation, any identification of an
uncounseled accused made in a police line-up is inadmissible. (but in
Gamboa case and De la Torre v. CA, SC held that the right to counsel is not
available during a police line-up as this is not considered part of the
custodial investigation)

4. must be in writing

- The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or

inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the
privilege against self-incriminations.
- Procedural safeguards: are devised to inform accused-persons of their
right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it.
- Prior to questioning, the person must be warned that 1) he has a right to
remain silent, that 2) any statement he does make may be used as
evidence against him, and 3) that he has a right to the presence of an
attorney, either retained or appointed.
- The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the
waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, intelligently.
- If however, the accused indicates in any manner and at any stage of the
process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there
can be no questioning.
- If the individual is alone, and indicates in any manner that he does not
wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him.
In People v. Buscato

HILARIO, PAMELA DENISE D.V.

5
for victims of unjust imprisonment or detention: award shall be not more than
P1,000 for each month of imprisonment
in all other cases: shall not exceed P10,000 or the expenses incurred for
hospitalisation, medical treatment, loss of wage, loss of support or other
expenses directly related to the injury, whichever is lower without prejudice
to the right of the claimant to seek other remedies under existing laws.
BAIL
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in the custody of the
law , furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance
before any court as may be required
Only persons under detention may petition for bail because the purpose of
bail is to secure their provisional release. But any person in custody who is
not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the province,
city, or municipality where he is held (Rule 114 of Rules of Court)
Even if the crime imputed to the accused is punishable by reclusion
perpetual, he is still entitled to bail if the evidence of guilt is not strong. The
burden of proof to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt being with the
prosecution.

In People v. Compil, according to Justice Belosillo:

- Right to counsel began when interrogation starts
- The operative act is when the police investigation is no longer a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular
suspect who has been taken into custody by the police to carry out a
process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminatory statements.
In People v. Lucero
- The Constitution requires not just any kind of counsel but effective and
vigilant counsel.
In People v. Serzo, Justice Artemio V. Panganiban observed:
- The right to counsel is not unlimited.
- The right to counsel of an accused is guaranteed by our Constitution, our
laws, and Rules of Court.

In People v. Cortez,

- During custodial investigation, arraignment, trial, and even on appeal,

the accused is given the option to be represented by a counsel of his
choice but when he neglects or refuses to exercise this option, the court
shall appoint for him.

- Where the accused is convicted of a capital offence or of an offence

punishable by reclusion perpetual, his bail shall be canceled and he shall be
placed in confinement pending the resolution of his appeal.

EXCEPTION: when the refusal to exercise the option is due dilatory tactics, to
trifle with the Rules or to prejudice the equally important rights of the State
and the offended party to speedy and adequate justice.

Hearing on the petition for bail is required to satisfy due process, it may
be summary in nature or held in the course of the trial itself. Separate hearing
is not indispensable.

R.A. 7309 victims of unjust imprisonment, arbitrary or illegal detention, or

of violent crimes may file a claim for damages with the Board of Claims under
the Department of Justice.

HILARIO, PAMELA DENISE D.V.

6
It is the responsibility if the prosecution to establish the defendants guilt
beyond reasonable doubt; otherwise he is entitled to acquittal.
In People v. Sunga,
Although the defence of the appellant was weak, he nevertheless could not be
convinced because of the constitutional presumption of innocence. The
evidence of the prosecution was weaker.

Mere probability of escape does not warrant denial of right to bail; remedy is
to increase the bail, provided it is not excessive. But after conviction in the
RTC, the accused may be denied bail if there is risk of his absconding.
RULE 114, SEC 6 OF RULES OF COURT the judge, in fixing a reasonable
amount of bail, should consider primarily but nor exclusively, the:
1. financial ability of the accused to give bail

In Dumlao Case,

2. nature and circumstances of the offence

- A person disqualified to run for public office on the ground that charges have
been filed against him is virtually placed in the same category as a person
convicted of a crime with the penalty of arresto, which carries with it the
accessory penalty of suspension of the right to hold officering the term of
the sentence.

3. the penalty for the offence charged

- And although the filing of charges is considered as but prime facie evidence,
and therefore, may be rebutted, yet, there is clear and present danger that
because of the proximity of the elections, time constraints will prevent one
charged with acts of disloyalty, from offering contrary proof to overcome the
prima facie evidence against him.

6. the weight of the evidence against him

In People v. Tempongko
- The ambiguous evidence of the prosecution cannot justify our condemning
the appellant to prison for the rest of his life where there are whispers of
doubt that he is guilty.
The constitutional presumption of innocence may be overcome by contrary
presumptions
based on the experience of human conduct.
example:
unexplained flight may lead to an inference of guilt

4. the character and reputation of the accused

5. his age and health

7. the probability if his appearing at the trial

8. the forfeiture of other bonds by him
9. the fact that he was a fugitive from justice when arrested
10.

the pendency of other cases in which he is under bond

In Yap v. CA,
- Bail is not intended as a punishment nor as in satisfaction of civil liability
which should necessarily await the judgment of the appellate court.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
Accusation is not synonymous with guilt.
HILARIO, PAMELA DENISE D.V.

7
RIGHT TO BE HEARD
Such a right is indispensable in any criminal prosecution where the stakes
are the liberty or even the life of the accused, who must for this reason be
given a chance to defend himself.
1) Assistance of counsel
Right to counsel now begins from the time a person mistaken into custody
and placed under investigation for the commission of a crime. This right
becomes all the more important when he is already on trial and confronted
by a skilled and experienced prosecutor.
The intricacies of courtroom procedure are not within the knowledge of the
ordinary layman, let alone who is ignorant and unlettered.
The right of the accused to counsel in criminal proceedings has never even
considered subject to waiver. A counsel de officio should still, despite the
objection of such accused, be appointed by the court to represent him.
In People v. Holgado, Chief Justice Moran declared:
- In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given
an 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.
- 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 officio for
him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to
procure an attorney of his own.
The duty of the court is not ended with such appointment, it should also see
to it that the counsel does his duty by the defendant. Counsel de officio

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 able presumption that it was he himself who had stolen it.
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.
In People v. Mirantes,
- The evidence of the prosecution must be strong enough to pierce the shield
of this presumptive innocence and to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
- Where the evidence of the prosecution is insufficient to overcome this
presumption, necessarily, the judgment of conviction of the trial court must
be set aside. The onus probandi on the prosecution is not discharged by
casting doubts upon the innocence of an accused, but by eliminating all
reasonable doubts as to his guilt.
In People v. Arciaga,
- No inference of guilt may be drawn against an accused for his failure to
make a statement of any sort. The neglect or refusal of the accused shall
not in any manner prejudice or be used against him.
In People v. Resano,
- Failure or refusal of the accused to testify may prejudice him if the
prosecution has already established a prima facie case against him.
Duty to apprise the accused of the right to be silent rests not with the
court but with the defense counsel.
HILARIO, PAMELA DENISE D.V.

8
the ordinary individual of its meaning and thus enable him to avoid violation of
its provision.
In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, through Justice Belosillo
- The vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty
for the statute to be upheldnot absolute precision or mathematical
exactitude, as petitioner seems to suggest. Flexibility rather than meticulous
specifity is permissible as long as the metes and bounds of the statute are
clearly delineated.

should not merely make the motions of defending the accused but exert his
utmost efforts as if he were representing a paying client.
The right to be silent and to the assistance of the counsel may be waived
during a custodial investigation.
The right to counsel does not cease after trial but continues even where
the case is appealed.
NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION

The charge is communicated to the accused during the arraignment, which

is an indispensable part of the proceedings against him.

The defendant is entitled to know the nature and cause of the accusation
against him so he can adequately prepare for his defense.

Arraignment where the accused enter his plea with full knowledge, together
with his counsel. It assures that the accused is fully acquainted with the nature
of the crime imputed to him and the circumstances under which it is allegedly
committed.

The acts or omissions complained of as acts constituting the offence must

be stated in ordinary and concise language without repetition, not
necessarily in the terms of the statute defining the offence, but in such form
as to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is
intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment.

THE TRIAL
The new Bill of Rights provides that it also be impartial as an added
guaranty of due process of law.
Cold neutrality of an impartial judge

The description and not the designation of the offense is controlling. It

should be the crime alleged in the information.
VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE the law should be clear in defining the
words used in a statute with such reasonable specifity as to sufficiently inform

HILARIO, PAMELA DENISE D.V.