SEC 13.
All persons, except those charged with After a bail hearing that evidence of guilt is not strong
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.
Bail- security given for the release of a person in
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, for
the purpose of bail is to secure their provisional
release. One who is not in the custody of the law
cannot ask for bail
Bail cannot be denied simply because the person
detained has not yet been formally charged in court
but is still under investigation
Rule 114 of the Rules of Court 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
Bail verbally granted without any written application
should be annulled. A constructive bail is no such
specie of bail under the Rules
Exception: offense which under the law existing at the
time of commission and at the time of the application
for bail may be punished by reclusion perpetua or
death, even if a lesser penalty may be imposed upon
conviction owing to mitigating circumstances
An accused of murder is entitled to bail if the
evidence indicates only a case of homicide
Rule 114, Sec 4: All persons in custody shall be
admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient
sureties or released on recognizance as prescribed by
law or this Rule
a) before or after conviction by Metropolitan Trial
Court, Municipal Trial Court in cities
b) before conviction by TRC of an offense not
punishable by RP or life imprisonment
Replaces the old rule that bail shall be demandable
before conviction, but may be granted only in the
discretion of the judge after conviction in the RTC
Even if the crime imputed is RP, entitled to bail if
evidence of guilt is not strong which is for the
prosecution to prove; proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt not necessary
would not have any effect on the prior determination
of probable cause because the standard of strong
evidence of guilt which is sufficient to deny bail to an
accused is markedly higher than the standard of
judicial probable cause which is sufficient to initiate a
criminal case
A hearing on bail is separate and distinct from the
initial hearing to determine the existence of probable
cause, in which the trial judge ascertains if there is a
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty of the crime. The
prosecution must be given a chance to show the
strength of its evidence; otherwise, a violation of due
process occurs.
Convicted of RP or death, his bail shall be canceled
and shall be placed in confinement pending the
resolution of his appeal
A court may not release on bail an accused who has
confessed to the crime
Hearing on petition for bail is required to satisfy
due process. This may be summary in nature held in
the course of trial. Separate hearing is not
indispensable.
Bail may not be granted upon mere ex parte motion
particularly not on the same day that it is filed with the
court
Notice and hearing are required whether bail is a
matter of right or discretion.
Matter of discretion- procedural necessity of a
hearing, whether summary or otherwise, relative to
the grant of bail, especially in cases involving offenses
punishable by death or RP, or life imprisonment
The fact that the public prosecutor may recommend
bail for the accused would not warrant dispensing with
the hearing. His recommendation of bail is not
material in deciding whether to conduct the
mandatory hearing or not.
-Although persuasive, does not necessarily bind the
trial judge, in whom alone the discretion to grant bail
is vested
Even if prosecution fails to adduce evidence in
opposition to an application for bail, the court may still
require the prosecution to answer questions in order
to ascertain, not only the strength of the States
evidence, but also the adequacy of the amount of bail
Duties of a judge once an application of bail is
filed:
1) In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or
discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of
the application for bail or require him to submit his
recommendation (Sec 18, Rule 114)
2) Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a
hearing of the application for bail regardless of
whether or not the prosecution refuses to present
evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is
strong for the purpose of enabling the court to
exercise its sound discretion (Sections 7 and 8)
3) Decide whether the guilt of the accused is
strong based on the summary of evidence of the
prosecution
4) If the guilt of the accused is not strong,
discharge the accused upon the approval of the
bail bond (Section 19); otherwise the petition
should be denied
Mere probability of escape does not warrant
denial of the right to bail: remedy is to increase bail,
provided it is not excessive; but may be denied bail if
there is risk of his absconding
-May grant bail in view of illness which requires
hospitalization
Rule 114, Section 9: The judge in fixing the bail shall
consider primarily, but not exclusively:
Financial ability of the accused to give bail
Nature and circumstances of offense
Penalty for the offense charged
Character and reputation of the accused
His age and health
Weight of evidence against him
Probability of his appearing at trial
Forfeiture of other bonds by him
The fact that he was a fugitive from justice
when arrested
Pendency of other cases in which he is under
bond
are deemed to be as grave as conviction by the trial
court for an offense punishable by death
-After conviction, the presumption of innocence
and constitutional right to bail ends
The bail is not intended as a punishment nor as in
satisfaction of civil liability which should necessarily
await the judgment of the appellate court
Limitation on the right to travel is necessary upon
showing that accused had left the country several
times during his trial and there was the possibility that
he would escape abroad to avoid punishment
Posting of bail does not constitute to waiver of
right to question validity of the arrest
Section 26 of Rule 114, application for or admission
to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the
validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant
issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or
questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation
of the charge against him, provided that he raises
them before entering his plea. The court shall resolve
the matter as early as practicable as but not later than
the start of the trial of the case
The accused is precluded from questioning the
legality of his arrest after arraignment only if he
voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial,
without previously invoking objections. There must be
a clear and convincing proof that petitioner had an
actual intention to relinquish his right to question
existence of probable cause
Power to order the release or transfer of a person
under detention by legal process is vested in the
court, not in the provincial governor (provincial
jailer)

*must be observed to prevent violation of the

prohibition against excessive bail. If court frustrates it
by requiring bail in prohibitive amount as to be beyond
his reach, the right becomes, a teasing illusion like a
munificent bequest in a paupers will

Rule 114, Section 5, grant of bail is a matter of

discretion upon conviction by the RTC of an offense
not punishable by death, RP or life imprisonment

Tough on bail pending appeal, the presence of bail-

negating conditions mandates the denial or revocation
of bail pending appeal such as those circumstances
SEC. 14 No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law
Art III, Sec 1, due process in general and covers both
substantive and procedural aspects. It applies to all
kinds of proceedings, civil, criminal, and
administrative.
Sec 14 restricted only to criminal cases and purely to
their procedural requirements
Criminal due process requires that the accused be
tried by an impartial and competent court in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and
with proper observance of all the rights accorded him
under the Constitution and applicable statutes.
Denial from him of the right to preliminary
investigation
-Purely statutory; not included in the Bill of Rights.
Even so, denial of this right in the absence of a valid
waiver, will deprive him of the full measure of his right
to due process.
-Component part of due process in criminal justice
-Not a mere formal or technical right, but a
substantive right
Ombudsman has the power to dismiss a
complaint outright without preliminary
investigation. He has full discretion to determine
whether a criminal case should be filed, including
whether a preliminary investigation is warranted.
Preliminary investigations are not quasi-judicial
proceedings, but like court proceedings, they are
subject to the requirements of substantive and
procedural due process
-Considered a judicial proceeding wherein prosecutor
or investigating officer acts as a judicial officer duly
empowered to preside over or to conduct a
preliminary investigation (Municipal judge or RTC)
When accused pleads to the charge, he is deemed to
have waived the right to preliminary investigation and
the right to question any irregularity that surrounds it
Citizens right to be free not only from arbitrary
arrest and punishment but also from unwarranted
and vexatious prosecution
-Preliminary investigation serves not only for the
purposes of the State but it is a part of the guarantee
of freedom and fair play which are birthrights of all
who live in our country
The basic ingredient of criminal due process is a
trial conducted in accordance with the rudiments
of fair play
Galman v. Sandiganbayan, respondent court
acquitted all the accused in slaying of Benigno Aquino
and Rolando Galman, the trial had been rigged and
the acquittal pre-ordained by no less than Marcos
himself. Court annulled the proceedings and
ordered a new trial, declaring that the
interferences and pressure of the President was
violative of due process and prevented a fair and
impartial trial
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
defense, or the judge from freely arriving at his
decision
-Mob crowded into the courtroom intimidating defense
counsel and clients, compelling the conviction
-Massive persecution launched by the newspapers
against defendant; due to publicity, minds of jurors
were poisoned
Supreme court considered the judgment rendered by
the lower court not on the basis of the merits of the
testimony of the witness, but rather on the basis of his
person, past performance, as a violation of due
process
Absent is a showing of failure of the court martial to
protect the accused from massive publicity either by
failure to control the release of information or remove
the trial to another venue or to postpone it until the
deluge of prejudicial publicity shall have been
subsided
Due process is also denied where a person is
impleaded for violation of law, administrative
regulation or municipal ordinance not previously
published as he would not know what acts he
must do or avoid to prevent prosecution
Laws, PDS, and other executive issuances intended
to have the force of law should be first published in
the Official Gazette before they may become effective
fifteen days after publication, unless a different period
is prescribed
EO. 200- Publications may not be made in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines
with the same efficacy as publication in the Official
Gazette
Section 14 (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved
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 the defendants guilt beyond reasonable
doubt; otherwise he is entitled to acquittal
-Conviction will depend not on the weakness of his
defense, but on the strength of the prosecution
The person accused of an offense is confronted by
the full panoply of State authority; it is important, in
the interest of justice, to even up the odds by
guaranteeing him certain rights during his trial. Chief
among these is the constitutional presumption of
innocence
-Absolute certainty is not demanded by the law to
convict of any criminal charge but moral certainty is
required as to every proposition of proof requisite to
constitute the offense. It is incumbent on prosecution
to demonstrate that culpability lies
-Burden of proof lies on the prosecution to overcome
such presumption of innocence by presenting the
quantum of evidence required
-Resort to circumstantial evidence is sanctioned by
Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence.
-It would be better to set free 10 men who might be
probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict 1
innocent man for a crime he did not convict
If there is reasonable doubt, accused must be
acquitted even though their innocence may not
have been established
-When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, the
presumption of innocence must be favored, and
exoneration granted as a matter of right
Dumlao case, challenged statute disqualifying from
running for local elective office any person who
committed acts of disloyalty to the State; filing of
charges before civil or military court after Preliminary
Investigation shall be a prima facie evidence of such
fact was annulled because it contravenes the
constitutional presumption of innocence. It condemns
before one who is fully heard. *prima facie, cannot
rebut due to time constraint*
May be overcome by contrary presumptions
based on the experience of human conduct, such
as unexpected flight the wicked flee when no man
pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as lion
-Escape from detention during pendency is in itself an
indication of guilt. Non-flight, may not, on its own,
stand as proof of innocence.
-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 wo had
stolen it
-Possession of drugs constitutes prima facie evidence
of knowledge or animus possidendi, and would be
sufficient to convict unless the accused presents a
satisfactory explaination of his possession
-Inability of an accountable officer to produce funds or
property entrusted to him will be considered prima
facie evidence that he has appropriated them for
personal uses (Art 217)
Constitutional presumption will not apply as long as
there is some rational connection between the fact
proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and the
interference of one fact from proof of another shall not
be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary
mandate
The evidence must be strong enough to pierce the
shield of presumptive innocence and regularity of
officer.
-In case of conflict between the presumption of
regularity of police officers and presumption of
innocence of the accused, the latter must prevail
Although presumption of innocence is the highest in
the hierarchy of presumptions, it remains a rebuttable
presumption. In a criminal case, the presumption of
innocence can be overcome by the presumption of
regularity when the latter is accompanied by strong
evidence supporting the accuseds guilt.
Now, burden of proof shifts, when the
accused has admitted a killing, since it is incumbent
upon him to establish his case of self-defense instead
of relying merely on the weakness of the prosecution.
It has been ruled that the constitutional
mandate of presumption of innocence prevails until a
promulgation of final conviction is made.
Right to be Heard
and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel
This right includes the right to present
evidence in ones defense, as well as the right to be
present and defend oneself in person at every stage
of the proceedings denial of such is a denial of due
process.
Assistance of Counsel
Begins from the time a person is taken 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 complexities of a courtroom procedure are not
within the knowledge of an ordinary layman and
therefore must be heard in the assistance of a
counsel. In case one cannot afford the services of a
retained lawyer, a counsel de officio shall be
appointed.
The right of the accused to counsel in
criminal proceedings has never been considered
subject to waiver.
In criminal cases, the right of an accused to
be assisted by a member of the bar is immutable;
otherwise, there would be a grave denial of due
process. In one case, the accused himself filed the
pleadings on appeal. Even if the judgment had
become final and executory, it may still be recalled,
and the accused afforderd the opportunity to be heard
by himself and counsel.
This rule is stressed in the case of illiterate
defendant with a modicum of intelligence who
obviously cannot defend himself and will have to
depend upon the assistance of a counsel. Despite the
objection of the accused, a counsel de officio should
still be appointed by the court to represent him.
The duty of the court is not ended with such
appointment, as it should also see to it that the
counsel does his duty by the defendant.
It should be noted however that the right to
be silent and to the assistance of counsel may be
waived during custodial investigation. The right to
counsel does not cease after trial, but continues even
where case is appealed.
While these rights may be waived, it should
be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the
right. Mere absence of an accused during a particular
hearing should not be construed as waiver of right to
present evidence.
Moreover, it has been further ruled that the
right to counsel is not absolute. Like in the instance
where the accused repeatedly asked for
postponement of his trial on the ground that he is still
looking for counsel de parte, the court is justified to
appoint for him a counsel de officio.
Nature and Cause of Accusation
to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation 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. One cannot do so
if he has to guess the charge against him.
The importance of the proper manner of
alleging the nature and cause of the accusation in the
information should never be taken for granted by the
State. An accused cannot be convicted of an offense
that is not clearly charged in the complaint or
information. To convict him of an offense other than
that charged in the complaint or information would be
violative of the Constitutional right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation. Indeed, the
accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly
proven, unless the crime is alleged or necessarily
included in the information filed against him. (Patula
vs. People)
According to People vs. Dela Cruz, The
constitutional guaranty has a threefold purpose:
First. To furnish the accused with such a
description 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.
Accordingly, the Rules of Court provide that
whenever possible, a complaint or information should
state the designation given to the offense by the
statute, besides the statement of the acts or
omissions constituting the same, and if there is no
such designation reference should be made to the
section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
Furthermore, the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense and the
qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
stated in ordinary and concise language and not
necessarily in the language used in the statute but in
terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is being charged
as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances and for the court to pronounce
judgment.
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.
Test of sufficiency: Whether it enables a
person of common understanding to know the charge
against him, and the court to render judgment
properly.
 The description and not the designation of
the offense is controlling. Hence, even if there be
erroneous designation, the accused may validly be
convicted of the crime described in the information.
The real nature of the criminal charge is determined
not from the caption or preamble of the information or
from the specification of the provision of law alleged to
have been violated which are mere conclusions of
law, but by the actual recital of the facts in the
complaint or information.
The specific acts of the accused do not have
to be described in detail in the information, as it is
enough that the offense be described with sufficient
particularity to make sure the accused fully
understand what he is being charged with. The
particularity must be such that a person of ordinary
intelligence immediately knows what the charge is.
Moreover, reasonable certainty in the statement of the
crime suffices.
A mere change in the date of the commission
of the crime, if the disparity of time is not great, is
more formal than substantial. Such an amendment
would not prejudice the rights of the accused since
the proposed amendment would not alter the nature
of the offense.
The test as to when the rights of an accused
are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or
information is when a defense under the complaint or
information, as it originally stood, would no longer be
available after the amendment is made, and when any
evidence the accused might have, would be
inapplicable to the complaint or information as
amended. On the other hand, an amendment which
merely states with additional precision something
which is already contained in the original information
and which, therefore, adds nothing essential for
conviction for the crime charged is an amendment to
form that can be made at anytime.
The use of the words aggravating/qualifying
circumstances will not add any essential element to
the crime. Neither will the use of such words further
apprise the accused of the nature of the charge. The
specific allegation of the attendant circumstance in the
Information, coupled with the designation of the
offense and a statement of the acts constituting the
offense as required in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110, is
sufficient to warn the accused.
The defendant is also denied of the right to
be informed of the charge against him and to due
process as well, where the statute itself is couched in
such indefinite language that it is not possible for men
of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what
acts or omissions are punished and hence, should be
avoided.
The test in determining whether a criminal
statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language
conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the
proscribed conduct when measured by common
understanding and practice. It must be stressed,
however, that the "vagueness" doctrine merely
requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the
statute to be upheld not absolute precision or
mathematical exactitude, as petitioner seems to
suggest. Flexibility, rather than meticulous specificity,
is permissible as long as the metes and bounds of the
statute are clearly delineated. An act will not be held
invalid merely because it might have been more
explicit in its wordings or detailed in its provisions,
especially where, because of the nature of the act, it
would be impossible to provide all the details in
advance as in all other statutes.
Arraignment is indispensable in bringing the
accused to the court and in notifying him of the nature
and cause of the accusations against him. The
importance of arraignment is based on the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed.
Procedural due process requires that the accused be
arraigned so that he may be informed of the reason
for his indictment, the specific charges he is bound to
face and the corresponding penalty that could be
possibly meted against him. It is at this stage that the
accused for the first time, is given the opportunity to
know the precise charge that confronts him. It is only
imperative that he is thus made fully aware of the
possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending
on the nature of the imputed crime.
The right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against an accused cannot
be waived for reasons of public policy.
Even if the accused were to enter a plea of
guilty, the judge would still be bound to exercise extra
care in informing the accused of his rights and the
consequences of his plea of guilty and in ascertaining
the presence of the different circumstances to be
taken into account in the imposition of proper penalty.
Trial judges have an obligation to conduct a searching
inquiry when confronted with plea of guilt to a capital
offense. There are 3 conditions that the trial court
must observe to obviate an improvident plea of guilt
by the accused:
1. It must conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension by the
accused of the consequences of his plea;
2. It must require the prosecution to present
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused
and the precise degree of his culpability; and
3. It must ask the accused whether he desires
to present evidence on his behalf, and allow
him to do so if he so desires.
 The right to question the sufficiency of an
Information is not absolute. An accused is deemed to
have waived this right if he fails to object upon his
arraignment or during trial An information which
lacks essential allegations may still sustain a
conviction when the accused fails to object to its
sufficiency during the trial, and the deficiency was
cured by competent evidence presented therein.
Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
to have a speedy, impartial, and public
trial
Impartiality
To insure that justice is done to the
defendant. A judge must not only be impartial but
must also appear to be impartial.
It is now beyond dispute that due process
cannot be satisfied in the absence of that degree of
objectivity on the part of a judge sufficient to reassure
litigants of his being fair and being just. Thereby there
is the legitimate expectation that the decision arrived
at would be the application of the law to the facts as
found by a judge who does not play favorites. For him,
the parties stand on equal footing.
Publicity
Publicity of the trial is necessary to prevent
abuses that may be committed by the court to the
prejudice of the defendant. The people have a right to
attend the proceedings not only because of their
interest therein but also so they can see whether or
not the constitutional safeguards for the benefit of the
accused are being observed. The accused is also
entitles to the company of his relatives and friends to
give him the moral support he needs during his
ordeal.
This however is not absolute, for it is
competent for the court to bar the public in certain
cases, like rape trials, where the purpose of the
spectators in attending might be only to pander their
morbid curiosity, more so since their presence is likely
to inhibit testimony and embarrass some of the
parties. Such publicity can be prohibited 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.
Speedy
One free from vexations, capricious and
oppressive delays, and is intended to relieve the
accused of needless anxieties and inconveniences
before sentence is pronounced upon him. This would
be consonant to Section 16 of the Bill of Rights, All
persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.
Inordinate delay in resolving the criminal
complaint, being violative of the constitutionally
guaranteed right to due process and a speedy
disposition of the cases, warrants the dismissal of
said criminal case.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY ACCUSEDS RIGHT TO A
DISPOSITION OF CASES SPEEDY TRIAL
Article III, Section 16 Article III, Section 14 (2)
Obtains regardless of the Available only to an accused
nature of the case; may be and is a peculiarly a criminal
tapped in any proceedings concept
conducted by state agencies
The Court has consistently maintained that
although a speedy determination of an action implies
a speedy trial, speed is not the chief objective of a
trial. Careful and deliberate consideration for the
administration of justice, a genuine respect for the
rights of all parties and the requirements of procedural
due process and an adherence to the Court's
standing admonition that the discretion given judges
in the granting or denial of motions for postponement
and the setting aside or denial of orders previously
issued "should always be predicated on the
consideration that more than the mere convenience of
the courts or of the parties in the case, the ends of
justice and fairness would be served thereby". These
are more important than a race to end the trial.
(Amberti vs. CA)
The right to a speedy trial which begins from
the filing of the information cannot be quantified into a
specified number of days or months but must be
examined in the light of surrounding circumstances
such as, in that case, the unavailability of witnesses.
 In ascertaining whether the right to speedy
disposition of cases has been violated, the ff factors
must be considered: (Tilendo vs Ombudsman)
1. The length of delay;
2. Reasons for the delay;
3. Assertion or failure to assert such right by
the accused; and
4. The prejudice caused by the delay.
RA 8493, (Speedy Trial Act) Section 7
The court must proceed with the arraignment
of an accused within 30 days from the filing of the
information or from the date the accused had
appeared before the court in which the charge is
pending, whichever is later.
Section 1(g), Rule 116
Implements abovementioned provision of
law; Unless a shorter period is provided by special
law or Supreme Court circular, the arraignment shall
be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Although the trial is an indispensable and
indeed the most important part of proceedings, it has
been held that the right to be present thereat is a
personal right and therefore may be validly waived.
Trial in Absentia
Previously, when the defendant, in the
course of his trial escaped, failed or refused to
appear, trial is suspended because of the requirement
that he must be present at certain stages thereof.
However this was reversed eventually and deemed
qualified by Section 14(2) which says that, 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.
Requisites:
1. That the accused has already been
arraigned;
2. He has been duly notified of the trial; and
3. His failure to appear is unjustified
Purpose:
The purpose of this rule is to speed up the
disposition of criminal cases, trial of which could in the
past be indefinitely deferred, and many times
completely abandoned, because of the defendant's
escape. The old case of People v. Avancea required
his presence at certain stages of the trial which as a
result, had to be discontinued as long as the
defendant had not reappeared or remained at large.
As his right to be present at these stages was then
held not waivable even by his escape, such escape
thus operated to the fugitive's advantage, and in
mockery of the authorities, insofar as the trial could
not proceed as long as he had not been recaptured.
(People vs. Salas)
This however does not abrogate the
provisions of Rules of Court regarding the forfeiture if
the bail bond if the accused fails to appear at his trial.
Right of Confrontation
to meet the witnesses face to face
Purpose:
This 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.
The right to confrontation is one of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to
the person facing criminal prosecution who should
know, in fairness, who his accusers are and must be
given a chance to cross-examine them on their
charges. The chief purpose of the right of
confrontation is to secure the opportunity for cross-
examination, so that if the opportunity for cross-
examination has been secured, the function and test
of confrontation has also been accomplished, the
confrontation being merely the dramatic preliminary to
cross-examination.
The right of confrontation, on the other hand,
is held to apply specifically to criminal proceedings
and to have a twofold purpose: (1) to afford the
accused an opportunity to test the testimony of
witnesses by cross-examination, and (2) to allow the
judge to observe the deportment of witnesses. This
constitutional requirement "insures that the witness
will give his testimony under oath, thus deterring lying
by the threat of perjury charge; it forces the witness to
submit to cross-examination, a valuable instrument in
exposing falsehood and bringing out the truth; and it
enables the court to observe the demeanor of the
witness and assess his credibility." (People vs. Compulsory Process
Seneris)
and to have compulsory process to
It may be added that normally there is less secure the attendance of witnesses and the
propensity to lie on the part of the witness when production of evidence in his behalf.
actually confronted by the accused than when the
testimony is given behind his back. Furthermore, the
presence of the witness at the trial will enable the The accused is entitled to the issuance of
court to observe his demeanor and gauge the subpoena and subpoena duces tecum for the purpose
credibility of his testimony. of compelling the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence that he may need for his
The examination of witnesses must be done
defense. Failure to obey the process is punishable as
orally before a judge in open court. This is true
contempt of court if necessary, the witness may even
especially in criminal cases where the Constitution
be arrested so he can give the needed evidence.
secures to the accused his right to a public trial and to
meet the witnesses against him face to face. The Right to compulsory process must be
requirement is the "safest and most satisfactory invoked during the trial. Failure to do so constitutes a
method of investigating facts" as it enables the judge waiver that cannot be rectified or undone on appeal.
to test the witness' credibility through his manner and
deportment while testifying. It is not without
exceptions, however, as the Rules of Court
recognizes the conditional examination of witnesses
and the use of their depositions as testimonial
evidence in lieu of direct court testimony. Certainly, to
take the deposition of the prosecution witness
elsewhere and not before the very same court where
the case is pending would not only deprive a detained
accused of his right to attend the proceedings but also
deprive the trial judge of the opportunity to observe
the prosecution witness' deportment and properly
assess his credibility, which is especially intolerable
when the witness' testimony is crucial to the
prosecution's case against the accused. (Go vs.
People)

While, the right of a party to confront and

cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial
litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in
proceedings before administrative tribunals with
quasi-judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is
part of due process; this right however, has always
been understood as requiring not necessarily an
actual cross-examination but merely an opportunity to
exercise the right to cross-examine if desired. What is
proscribed by statutory norm and jurisprudential
precept is the absence of the opportunity to cross-
examine.

Right of confrontation may be done through

counsel; accused need not have face-to-face
confrontation with their adversaries.

Moreover, the right to cross-examine is not

without limit. The trial court has the power to direct the
course of the trial either to shorten or to extend the
direct or cross examination of a counsel.