Section 14 : Rights of the Accused Flashcards
what are the rights of the person or accused during the trial (7)
- Right to criminal due process
- right to the presumption of innocence
- right to be heard by himself and his counsel
- right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
- Right to speedy, impartial and public trial
- Right to meet witness face to face
- Right to compulsary processes
Are all rights underSec 14 are available to the accused?
No. there is one right that does not belong to the accused. TRIAL IN ABSENTIA because it is a right of the prosecution to continue with the proceeding even in the absence of the accused
What are the essential element of Criminal Due Process
- The Court must be clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it.
- The court must acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused
- The accused be given the oppurtunity to be heard
- the judgement is rendered only upon the lawful hearing
How do courts acquire jurisdiction over the controversy
by laws or the constitution.
how do courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused
- By arrest
- By voluntary surrender
what is the difference between criminal due process and due process in general
As to the kind of proceeding:
CD: applies only to criminal due process
DP: applies to all proceeding
As to the application:
CD: available only to the accused
DP: applies to all parties
As to the kind of due process
CD: Procedural Due Process
DP: Substantive and Procedural process
In Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, the preliminary investigation lasted for more than two years. What is the effect of inordinate delay in the conduct of the Preliminary Investigation
It violates the right of the accused to speedy trial, which amounts to violation of criminal due process.
What is the wisdom behind the dismissal of criminal complaint because of the inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation
Justice delayed is Justice denied
the mere attendance of the presiding justice of the sandiganbayan where the criminal case is pending, what is the effect of the acquiescense of the presiding justice to the call of the president according to the case of Galman v Sandiganbayan
All semblance of impartiality have already been lost. From the moment they stopped inside the malacanang Palace, the decision is no longer based on evidence but on the predetermined judgement of acquittal.
Why does the constitution favor presumption of innoncence
Criminal cases are not equal contest. By the title of the case alone, it says PP v Juan Delacruz, which means that the accused stands against the whole citizens of the PH.
in order to balance the playing field, the consti. gives tehe accused his presumption of innocence because the entire prosecutorial arm of the state is being mobilized in order to establish his guilt.
Is the presumption of innocence a conclusive presumption
NO. it is only a disputable presumption
Does proof beyond reasonable doubt require absolute certainty
NO. Proof beyond reasonable does not mean such degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.
May the presumption of innocence be destroyed by circumstantial evidence.
Yes. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if
A. there is more than one circumstance
b. the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
c. the combination of all the circumstance is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
In people v. Dramayo, what is meant by reasonable doubt
reasonable doubt meant that which of possibility may arise, but it is the doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability,after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.
DO YOU GAREE THAT TO DOUBT IS TO ACQUIT?
No, there is a kind of doubt that is not inconsistent with conviction. there are certain doubts that can co-exist with conviction these are unreasonable doubt.
