Rights of the Accused Flashcards
Enumerate the 9 rights of the accused.
- To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
- To be present and defend in person by counsel at every stage of the proceedings.
- To testify as a witness on his own behalf
- To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
- To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at a trial.
- To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.
- To have speedy, impartial, and public trial.
- To appeal in all cases allowed and, in the manner prescribed by law.
With regards to the “presumption of innocence”, what is the rule with regards to the “presumption of regularity”?
While law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself, constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
What is the effect of a plea of self-defense?
Generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent.
However, if the accused admits killing the victim, but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove such defense by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.
When can you say that an accused was informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him?
In order to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation against him, it is necessary for the complaint or information to contain the requirements by the Rules of Court, which are:
(1) Name and surname of the accused, or any appellation or nickname
(2) Name and surname of the offended party, or any appellation or nickname
(3) State the acts or omissions constituting the offense
(4) Qualifying and aggravating circumstances
(5) Allege that the crime was committed or its essential ingredients occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court
(6) Date of the commission of the acts or omissions, which may be near as possible to the actual date
(7) In offenses against property, the name of the offended party must be specified. If unknown, the property must be described to properly identify the offense charged.
In connection with the right to be informed, what is the rule regarding specific crimes and lesser crimes?
When an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime, but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein.
When does the “right to counsel” trigger?
It is only after the investigation ceased to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lend itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the Miranda Rule begins to operate.
Example: Police line-up. The accused on this stage is not yet being investigated.
What is the rule regarding extrajudicial confession?
An extrajudicial confession executed by a suspect assisted by a counsel who failed to meet the exacting standards of an independent and competent counsel is deemed as uncounseled confession and therefore, inadmissible in evidence.
When is the right to a speedy trial deemed violated?
The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to lapse without the party having his case tried.
What is the rule with regards to rights of self-incrimination when applied to witnesses?
A right of self-incrimination applied to a witness does not give him the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the court, or to refuse to testify altogether. It is only when a particular question is addressed to him, the answer to which may incriminate him for some offense, that he may refuse to answer under the right to self-incrimination.
What is the specific rule on the rights against self-incrimination?
Jurisprudence holds that the privilege against self-incrimination protects a person only from testimonial compulsion or a compelled testimony of a communicative nature.
In Beltran v. Samson however, the privilege is not limited precisely to testimony, but extends to the giving or furnishing of evidence. Thus, taking a dictation in one’s own handwriting is not purely mechanical act, but requires the application of intelligence and attention, therefore, the right to self-incrimination applies since the accused was asked to produce evidence against himself.
In Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan on the other hand, affixing one’s signature is not within the protection of the right to self-incrimination when it’s merely to authenticate the envelopes seized from the accused and not to produce a non-existent evidence.
What is the rule regarding the right to defend himself, right to be present at trial, and the right to be heard?
An accused is accorded the right to defend himself either in person (upon motion, if it is sufficient that he can properly protect his rights) or by counsel. The right to be present at trial can be waived, but he must be present if ordered by the court for purposes of identification.
