Section 14. Rights of the Accused

Question 1

Section 14 Codal Provision

Answer 1

(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 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.

Question 2

What are post-trial rights?

Answer 2

Right against cruel and inhumane punishment,
* Right against double jeopardy,
* Right against bill of attainder that will pertain to your post trial
rights.

Question 3

Rule of Law

Answer 3

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)
Simply put, it seems that everyone is subject to law. Even the State is subject
to law.

Question 4

: Someone was charged for stealing a carabao. The barangay captain
testified against the accused. After the trial, the Judge convicted the
barangay captain who was a mere witness and sentenced him to 2 days in jail and a fine of 2,000.

Answer 4

Respondent Judge appears to have regrettably lost sight of an even
more fundamental and familiar constitutional precept: “No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law” (Sec. 1, Art.
III, Constitution). This safeguard, the first listed in the Bill of Rights, includes
what is known as procedural due process that guarantees a procedure which,
according to Daniel Webster, “hears before it condemns, which proceeds
upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.” It is made more
particular in a subsequent section: “No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law” (Sec. 14 [a]).
The complaining witness had absolutely no idea that he himself was on trial,
like the very persons he was accusing, for the commission of some offense
or perhaps for constructive contempt. He consequently had no opportunity
whatsoever to present any evidence in his behalf to exculpate him from the
offense which was known to nobody except the Judge. What is worse, the
complainant was punished for acts not declared by any law to constitute a
penal offense and prescribing a specific penalty therefor, in violation of
another equally familiar precept, which also appears to have escaped
respondent Judge’s attention, that no act may be deemed to be, and
punished as, a crime unless so declared by law.
Under the circumstances, the Court must hold that the complainant was
clearly denied due process by respondent Judge. He was subjected to no
small injustice. He was, by a process of specious, sophistical reasoning on
the part of the respondent Judge, sentenced to a penalty without justification
whatever, in infringement of basic principles of which all judges are charged
with knowledge.

Question 5

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.

Answer 5

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 crossexamine 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.

Question 6

Olaguer was a civilian tried and sentenced to die by the military
tribunal during Martial Law. After Marcos was deposed, Olaguer went to SC challenging the validity of his conviction saying that his conviction was a violation of his right to due process.

Answer 6

The court held that due process in Sec. 14 means trial by judicial process not by executive or military process. Civilians cannot be tried in
military courts. Military tribunal is not part of judiciary but of the executive branch for discipline of army. Therefore, there is a violation of due process.
Even during martial law, all cases should be tried under civilian courts. As
long as civilian courts are open and functioning, the decisions of the military tribunal on civilians are null and void.
Pending cases involving civilians in military tribunals should be transferred to
civilian courts when national emergency already ceased to exist. Military
tribunals have jurisdiction only as long as national emergency exists. Double jeopardy will not lie here

Question 7

Does the
Constitution contextually require that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

Answer 7

Rule 115, 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.

Question 8

IS THE PRESUMPTION OF GUILT CONSTITUTIONAL?

Answer 8

The Supreme Court has
satisfied it for 2 reasons:
1. It is prima facie which can be rebutted; and
Meaning, it is not conclusive.
2. There is a logical connection between the fact proved and the fact
presumed.

Question 9

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?

Answer 9

The two presumptions can be reconciled. The
presumption of innocence stands until the contrary is proved. It may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon human experience. The
presumption that RR is the one who stole the cattle of OZ is logical, since he was found in possession of the stolen cattle. RR can prove his innocence by presenting evidence to rebut the presumption. The burden of evidence is
shifted to RR, because how he came into possession of the cattle is peculiarly within his knowledge. [Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 234 SCRA 63 (1994)]

It can be reconciled because first, it is rebuttable and can be
disputed. Secondly, there is a logical connection between the fact proved and the fact presumed.

Question 10

THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD

Answer 10

Pertains to the right to present evidence or to defend
yourself:
a. To testify in his own behalf
b. To call witnesses

Question 11

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.

Answer 11

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.
From FT: It is well-settled that the right to be heard by himself and counsel
is one of the constitutional rights granted to the accused. Not only this but he likewise has the right to present evidence for his defense. Accordingly,
denial of due process can be successfully invoked where no valid waiver of rights has been made, as in the instant case.

Question 12

What if the accused fails to testify? Is that evidence of guilt?

Answer 12

In United States v. Muyor, 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

Question 13

: “Do you have an attorney or are you going to plead
guilty?” That was the question of the judge. And the accused answered, I
have no lawyer, I will plead guilty. The judge sentenced him to 20 years and the matter was raised to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court scolded
the Judge.

Answer 13

Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of the law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and,
without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because
he does not know how to establish his innocence. And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. It is for this reason that the right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so important that it has become
a constitutional right and it is so implemented that under our rules of
procedure it is not enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his right to have an attorney, it is not enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that the court should assign one de oficio if he so desires and he is poor grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorney
of his own.

Question 14

The accused had no lawyer and the judge asked a prominent lawyer in Davao City, “Attorney X, will you assist the accused? He has no lawyer”.
And then the lawyer answered “Yes, yes, I will help him.” Judge [asked], “How many minutes do you need?” and the lawyer, said “5 minutes your, Honor.” After (5) minutes the accused pleaded guilty and was
sentenced to death

Answer 14

The acceptance by the court a quo of the plea of guilty by the defendant Silvestre was inordinately hasty and was made without due regard
for the gravity of its consequences upon the life of a human being. When the previously appointed counsel de oficio did not show up at the arraignment,
the court simply appointed one of the lawyers then present to act as counsel “for the arraignment only,” as if the duties of an attorney to his accused client
can be conveniently segmented and the segments farmed out to
whomsoever may catch the fancy of the court. Worse, only ten minutes were vouchsafed to the newly appointed counsel de oficio, which period of time he accepted without protest, to study the complicated and serious charge of “robbery in band with homicide and rape” and confer with the two accused whom he met in court for the first time that morning.
The undue haste with which the court a quo treated the entry of the plea of guilty by the appellant Silvestre stresses the importance of what we said in
People v. Apduham: “All trial judges must refrain from accepting with alacrity an accused’s plea of guilty, for while justice demands a speedy administration judges are duty bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an
accused pleads guilty he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable conviction.”

Question 15

Elements of Right to Counsel:

Answer 15

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 officio;
4. If accused wishes to get a private counsel, the court must give him time to obtain one. [PP VS. HOLGADO]

Question 16

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)

Answer 16

You will be entitled to a new lawyer. The Supreme Court annulled, the conviction and
granted them a new trial.

an accused person is entitled to be represented by a
member of the bar in a criminal case filed against her before the Regional Trial Court. Unless she is represented by a lawyer, there is great danger that
any defense presented in her behalf will be inadequate considering the legal perquisites and skills needed in the court proceedings. This would certainly be a denial of due process

Question 17

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.

Answer 17

: 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.

Question 18

Can a conviction be nullified if one’s lawyer is incompetent?

Answer 18

This is the answer of the Supreme Court, if the lawyer committed error of procedure or lapse in strategy, mistake of counsel, binds
[the] client – meaning you cannot ask for a new trial if it turned out your
lawyer is incompetent.

Question 19

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.

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

right to counsel defined

Answer 20

In People v. Ferrer, the essence of the right to counsel was enunciated:
The right to counsel means that the accused is amply accorded legal
assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause for the defense and acts accordingly. The right assumes an active involvement by
the lawyer in the proceedings, particularly at the trial of the case, his bearing constantly in mind of the basic rights of the accused, his being well-versed on the case, and his knowing the fundamental procedures, essential laws and
existing jurisprudence. The right of an accused to counsel finds substance in the performance by the lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity to his client.
Tersely put, it means an efficient and truly decisive legal assistance and not a simple perfunctory representation.

Question 21

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.

Answer 21

: 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.

Question 22

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?

Answer 22

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 predilection of
accused. Otherwise, the pace of criminal prosecutions would be entirely dictated by the accused

Question 23

right to speedy trial

Answer 23

Right to speedy trial comes after arraignment and before the decision or even after the parties have rested their case.

Question 24

when is right to speedy trial violated?

Answer 24

Right is only violated if delay is capricious or whimsical.

Question 25

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?

Answer 25

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 keener on respecting and upholding the constitutional right of accused to speedy trial and speedy disposition.

Question 26

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?

Answer 26

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

Question 27

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?

Answer 27

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.

Question 28

Under the Continuous Trial rule, when can postponements be allowed by the court and what are the requirements?

Answer 28

A motion for postponement is prohibited except if it is based on:
a. Acts of God;
b. Force Majeure or
c. Physical inability of the witness to appear and testify

Question 29

What is the purpose of the right to meet witness?

Answer 29

To test the testimony of the witnesses by cross-
examination.

To allow the judge to observe the deportment or
demeanor of witnesses.

Question 30

What is the purpose of the right to meet witness?

Answer 30

To test the testimony of the witnesses by cross-
examination.

To allow the judge to observe the deportment or
demeanor of witnesses.

Question 31

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?

Answer 31

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.”

Question 32

What is the right to compulsory process?

Answer 32

• To secure the attendance of witnesses
• to serve the production of evidences on the right to serve subpoena to obtain object documentary evidence

Question 33

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 medium 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%)

Answer 33

does this violate the constitutional right of the was already given to them, yet they did not appear. Therefore, trial in accused to be informed of the complaint or given the opportunity to put a absencia can proceed.
defense? 1. Section 14 are trial rights of the accused.
What is the stage here? This is just the preliminary stage. This is not trial. You cannot invoke rights under Section 14.
In this stage, the fiscal only determines probable cause whether to hold you for trial or not. You will be able entitled to the full range of defense once the Additional Discussion 2021: case is filed in court. That is when Section 14 of the Bill of Rights comes in… It’s good to understand also, because if you study Civil Procedure, there is a your right to present evidence before you are convicted; no person shall be provision now that if the witness resides more than 100km from the venue found guilty unless the procedures are being followed. Here, nobody is being of the trial, he cannot be compelled to appear. What you do in civil procedure found guilty. It is only probable cause.

Question 34

Requisites for Trial in Absencia:

Answer 34

1. Accused has been arraigned;
   2. He was notified of the proceedings; and
   3. His failure to appear is unjustified.

Question 35

EFFECT OF TRIAL IN ABSENCIA

Answer 35

When the accused is tried in absencia, they waive the right to cross-examine the witnesses against them.

Question 36

The right to appear in trial can be waived. But the court can compel appearance in the following instances:

Answer 36

ance in the following instances:
1. Arraignment
2. Identification
3. Promulgation of Judgment

Question 37

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?

Answer 37

No. The accused was already arraigned and notice was already given to them, yet they did not appear. Therefore, trial in absencia can proceed