annotation constitutional rights of the accused
TRANSCRIPT
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 1/36
§ 1.
A
B
C
§ 2.
A
B
C
D
E
§ 3.
A B
C
D
E
F
G
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
A N N O T A T I O N
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
By
JOSE AG A TON R. SIBAL
__ ______________
Due Process, p. 45
Essentials of Due Process in Criminal Cases, p. 45
Certainty and Due Process, p. 49
Knowing Use of Perjured Testimony, p. 50
Right to Bail, p. 50
Constitutional Provision, p. 50
Importance of Right, p. 50
Scope of Right, p. 51
Hearing on Bail Application, p. 53
No Excessive Bail, p. 54
Specific Procedural Rights, p. 55
Constitutional Provision, p. 55Presumption of Innocence, p. 55
Right to be Heard by Himself , p. 57
Right to Counsel, p. 58
Right to be Informed of Nature and Cause of
Accusation, p. 60
Right to Speedy Trial, p. 62
Right to Public Trial, p. 65
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 2/36
H
§ 4.
A
B
C
D
E
F
§ 5.
§ 6.
§ 7.
Right to Confrontation, p. 66
Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, p. 68
Constitutional Provision, p. 68
History, p. 69
Reason for the Rule, p. 69
Prohibition Should be Liberally Construed, p. 70
Scope of Prohibition, p. 70
45
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 45
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
— Waiver of Privilege, p. 71
Excessive Fines and Cruel, Degrading or
Inhuman Punishment, p. 73
Employment of Physical, Psychological or
Degrading Punishment, p. 74
Conclusion, p. 74
_______________
§ 1. Due Process
The framers of our three Constitutions,1
following the
examples of the Jones Law, did not think it superfluous to
include in the Bill of Rights the provision that “No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws,”
2
though it seems beyond questionthat whatever protection this specific provision gives can be
found also in the general due process clause. When the
Government chooses to pit its forces against him, the
individual is puny indeed and needs every protection
against the over-zealousness or malice of its officers, as the
protracted trial of Aurelia Conde from our judicial annals
attest.3
Fraenkel pointed out “the first step of the tyrant is
to use the criminal law to do away with the opposition.”4
and Edmund Burke added: “Kings will be tyrants from
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 3/36
policy, when subjects are rebels from principles.”
The constitutional rights of an accused are for the
protection of the guilty and the innocent alike. Only by the
assurance that even the guilty shall be given the benefit of
every constitutional guaranty can the innocent be secure in
the same rights.
A Essentials of Due Process in Criminal Cases
_______________
1 The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
2 Section 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution.
3 Conde vs. Court of First Instance, 45 Phil. 173; Conde vs. Rivera, 45
Phil. 650.
4 Our Civil Liberties, p. 6.
46
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
According to the Supreme Court in People vs. Castillo,5
the
requirement of due process in criminal proceedings is
satisfied if an accused person has been heard in a court
with power to try him, proceeded against under an orderly
process, and only punished after inquiry and investigation
upon notice to him and a judgment awarded within the
authority of a valid law. In a general way, due process as
applied to criminal cases requires a procedure that accords
with a “scheme of ordered liberty” and does not violate any
“principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and
conscience of our people as to be ranked fundamental.”6
As in the case of the due process in Section 1,7 no
definition of due process in criminal cases can be
formulated to cover all situations, and its meaning must begradually evolved from case to case. Thus, from the Castillo
requirement of due process the Supreme Court went on to
hold, in Arnault vs. Pecson,8
that due process includes a fair
and impartial trial and reasonable opportunity for
preparing a defense, which may require not only time but
adequate freedom of action. Pursuant to this principle, the
Supreme Court granted the petitioner, who was then under
indefinite confinement for contempt of the Senate, not less
than six hours within which to visit his house and his office
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 4/36
under proper surveillance in order to search for and get
papers which, according to him, he needed for his defense
in a pending criminal case against him. It has also been
held that the constitutional right of an accused to due
process, along with his other constitutional rights, would be
violated if the Labor Code9
were to be construed as vesting
the National Labor Relations with criminal jurisdiction to
impose the penalties provided in the Code for unfair laborpractices, because under the Code the quasi-judicial
tribunal is not bound by the Rules of Evidence and
procedure prevailing in courts of law and equity10
_______________
5 76 Phil. 72.
6 Palko vs. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319.
7 Article III, 1987 Constitution.
8 87 Phil. 418.
9 Article 221, Labor Code.
10 See San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 173 SCRA 314.
47
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 47
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
may ascertain the facts without regard to technicalities of
law or procedure, and as a consequence it may even convict
on a mere preponderance of the evidence.11
In another
case,12
the Supreme Court to at least two days to prepare
for trial is a deprivation of the constitutional right by due
process.
The right to be heard, which is guaranteed in another
Section of the Bill of Rights,13
is also essentially a part of
procedural due process. The Supreme Court so held when itvoided an order of a trial court refusing to permit an
accused to present evidence in his defense after it had
denied his motion to dismiss based on the alleged
insufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution.14
Another right also specifically guaranteed in the Bill of
Rights,15
the right to counsel, has also been considered by
the Supreme Court as essential to due process.16
In one criminal case,17
upon the opening of the hearing,
the following incident occurred:
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 5/36
“COURT: Is this case ready for trial?
“FISCAL: I am ready, your honor.
“COURT: (to the accused) Q. Do you have an attorney or
are you going to plead guilty?—A. I have no
lawyer and I will plead guilty.
“COURT: Arraign the accused.
“NOTE: Interpreter read the information to the accusedin the local dialect after which he was asked this
question.
“Q. What do you plead?—A. I plead guilty, but I was
instructed by one Mr. Ocampo.”
Two days later the court convicted the defendant.
Commenting on the trial court’s question to the accused
—“Do you have an attorney or are you going to plead
guilty?”—The Supreme Court said:
_______________
11 See Scoty’s Department Store vs. Micaller, 52 O.G. 5119.
12 Montilla vs. Arellano, 89 Phil. 434.
13 Section 14, clause 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution.
14 Abriol vs. Homeres, 84 Phil. 525.
15 Section 12, clause 1, Article III, 1987 Constituion.
16 Abriol vs. Homeres, supra.
17 People vs. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752.
48
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
“Not only did such a question fail to inform the accused that it
was his right to have an attorney before arraignment, but, what is
worse, the question was so framed that it could have been
construed by the accused as a suggestion from the court that he
plead guilty if he had no attorney. And this is a denial of fair
hearing in violation of the due process clause contained in our
Constitution.”
x x x
“It must be added, in the instant case, that the accused who
was unaided by counsel pleaded guilty but with the following
qualification: ‘but I was instructed by one Mr. Ocampo.’ The trial
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 6/36
court failed to inquire as to the true import of this qualification.
The record does not show whether the supposed instruction was
real and whether it had reference to the commission of the offense
or to the making of the plea of guilty. No investigation was opened
by the court on this matter in the presence of the accused and
there is now no way of determining whether the supposed
instruction is a good defense or may vitiate the voluntariness of
the confession. Apparently the court became satisfied with thefiscal’s information that he had investigated Mr. Ocampo and
found that the same had nothing to do with this case. Such
attitude of the court was wrong for the simple reason that a mere
statement of the fiscal was not sufficient to overcome a qualified
plea of the accused. But above all, the court should have seen to it
that the accused be assisted by counsel specially because of the
qualified plea given by him and the seriousness of the offense
found to be capital by the court.”
The filing of criminal charges in court upon which a personaccused may be convicted or acquitted is usually preceded
by some kind of preliminary investigation to enable the
prosecuting authorities to determine whether there is a
prima facie case. This is to save persons from unnecessary
harassment and expenses. Since the Bill of Rights provides
no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law,18
it seems that so long as a
preliminary investigation would amount to making a
person answer for a criminal offense without due process.19
_______________
18 Section 14, clause 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution.
19 Marcos vs. Cruz, 68 Phil. 96.
49
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 49
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
B Certainty and Due Process
No principle is better settled in American constitutional
law than that “a statute which either forbids or requires
the doing an act in terms so vague that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as its application, violates the first essential requisite
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 7/36
of due process of law.” In other words, no one may be
required at the peril of life, liberty or property to speculate
as to the meaning of penal statutes.21
Thus, a statute
making it criminal for a person, under certain
circumstances, to be a member of a gang, was invalidated
for vagueness and uncertainty. The phrase “consisting of
two or more persons” was the only one used in the statute
purporting to define “gang.” The Supreme Court pointedout that the meaning of that word indicated in dictionaries
and historical and sociological writings are numerous and
varied and that the meaning is not derivable from the
common law either.22
However, lack of precision is not itself offensive to the
requirements of due process, for the Constitution does not
require impossible standards. It is sufficient if the
language “conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the
prescribed conduct when measured by common
understanding and practices.”23
Accordingly, the UnitedStates Supreme Court has held that statutes prohibiting
“obscence, lewd, or filthy” publications or other publications
of an “indecent” character are not violative of due process,
because the adjectives used, when applied according to the
proper standard and mark “boundaries sufficiently distinct
for judges and juries fairly to administer the law x x x.
That there may be marginal cases in which it is difficult to
determine the side of the line on which a particular past
situation falls is no sufficient reason to hold the languagetoo ambiguous to define a criminal offense.”
_______________
20 Conally vs. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 389.
21 Lanzetta vs. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451.
22 For other illustrative cases see annotation: 83 L.ed. 893.
23 Roth vs. U.S., 354 U.S. 476, 491, citing U.S. vs. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 7,
8.
50
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
C Knowing Use of Perjured Testimony
In the United States, the rule is that due process is denied
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 8/36
by a conviction following a trial in which perjured
testimony on a material point was knowingly used against
the accused, at least where he suffered prejudice by virtue
of the use of such testimony even though it might affect
only his credibility, or where the prosecution knowingly
permitted false testimony to be given by a prosecution
witness in cross-examination, without correcting it. A trial
in which such perjured testimony is knowingly presentedor permitted by the government, is said to be unfair.
24
§ 2. Right to Bail
A Constitutional Provision
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, orbe 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 bails
shall not be required.25
The word “bail” as used in the Constitution26
in the
phrase “excessive bails shall not be required,” is
inadequately translated by the word “fianza” as bail
implies a particular kind of bond—that is to say, a bond
given to secure the personal liberty of one held in restraint
upon a criminal or quasi-criminal charge.27
B Importance of Right
The evident purpose of this particular constitutional
guarantee is to prevent an innocent person from being
deprived of
_______________
24
Napue vs. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264; see annotations: 3 L.ed. 2d, 1991; 2L.ed. 2d. 1575.
25 Section 13, Article III, 1987 Constitution.
26 Taken from Section 5 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902.
27 Insular Government vs. Punzalan, 7 Phil. 546.
51
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 51
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 9/36
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
liberty and thus punished, through the mere filing of
criminal charges against him.28
In the case of People vs.
Hernandez,29
the government, in opposing an application
for bail pending appeal from a judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Manila sentencing the defendant-
appellant to life imprisonment for the crime of rebellion,urged the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, take into
consideration that the appellant was a menace to the
security of the State and that the judgment of conviction
indicated that the evidence of guilt against him was strong.
On this point the Supreme Court stressed that the
preservation of liberty is a major preoccupation of our
political system, and declared “individual freedom is too
basic, too transcendental and vital in a republican state,
like ours, to be denied upon mere general principles and
abstract considerations of public safety. The Court
accordingly granted temporary release of the appellant on
bail pending appeal.30
C Scope of Right
The constitutional right to bail may be invoked by any
person arrested, detained, or otherwise deprived of his
liberty even if no complaint or information has yet been
filed against him. So, where a statute allowed the
prosecution a period of six months within which toinvestigate and file the corresponding information in the
cases of persons apprehended by the American liberation
forces on suspicion of treason suspects were entitled to
obtain their liberty under bail pending their investigation
and the filing of criminal charges against them.31
The right
to bail is not limited to cases where the person accused,
upon final conviction, would be ordered confined in a penal
institution. Hence, pending appeal by a minor from
conviction for a criminal offense for which he has been
committed to the custody of a correctional or educational
institution, like the Welfareville Correctional Institution,
he is entitled, like any other accused,
_______________
28 Teehankee vs. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634; People vs. Follantes, 63 Phil. 474;
Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 83 Phil. 658.
29 52 O.G. 5506.
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 10/36
30 See Bolaños vs. Dela Cruz, 116 SCRA 78.
31 Teehankee vs. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634.
52
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
to provisional release on bail.32
According to Rule 114, Section 3, of the Revised Rules of
Court,33
in non-capital cases, a defendant, before final
conviction, is entitled to bail as a matter of right, except
those charged with a capital offense or an offense which,
under the law at the time of its commission and at the time
of the application for bail, is punished by reclusion
perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong. Since admission
to bail is a matter of right before conviction in non-capitaloffenses, the fact that the accused has previously
absconded and there is high degree of probability that he
will escape again is not a ground at all for denying bail; it
gives the court no greater discretion than to increase the
bond to such an amount as will reasonably tend to assure
the presence of the defendant.34
Hence, the bail is a matter
of right, the granting of the same is mandatory.
In capital cases,35
when the evidence of guilt is strong,
the accused is not bailable at all,—so the wording of the
constitutional provision strongly implies. It has been held,
however, that to deny bail it is not enough that the
evidence of guilt is strong; it must also appear that in case
of conviction the defendant’s criminal liability would
probably for a capital punishment.36
And so, strong
evidence of guilt, still the defendant pending appeal may be
granted bail where the sentence imposed by the trial court
was life imprisonment.37
Moreover, on grounds of humanity
and in accordance with the modern trend
________________
32 Ching Juat vs. Ysip, 77 Phil. 848; see also Payao vs. Lesaca, 63 Phil.
218; People vs. Follantes, 63 Phil. 474; Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 83
SCRA 658.
33 As amended by Resolutions of the Supreme Court up to March 14,
1989.
34 Sy Guan vs. Amparo, 79 Phil. 670; see also People vs. Alano, 81 Phil.
19.
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 11/36
35 Under the Revised Penal Code capital offenses are: treason, qualified
piracy, parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping, robbery with homicide,
and rape with homicide.
36 Montano vs. Ocampo, 49 O.G. 1855; Bravo, Jr. vs. Borja, 134 SCRA
466; People vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 147 SCRA 219; People vs.
Albofera, 152 SCRA 123.
37 People vs. Hernandez, 52 O.G. 5506.
53
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 53
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
of decisions, bail may also be granted to prisoners
irrespective of the nature and merits of the charge against
them, if it is shown that their continuous confinement
during the pendency of their case would be injurious totheir health or would endanger their lives.
38
By a good
number of precedents,39
it is now well established that
pending appeal a defendant convicted of a capital offense
but sentenced to less than the death penalty is bailable.40
In one case,41
the Supreme Court granted bail to a
defendant sentenced by the trial court to the capital
penalty, but that was after the government in its brief
recommended his acquittal. In no other case, however, has
the Supreme Court granted bail to an appellant sentenced
to the death penalty by the trial court.42
D Hearing on Bail Application
A person charged with a capital offense has the right to
have his application for bail be promptly heard as
extension of the trial on the merits of the case.43
The burden of proof to show that evidence of guilt is
strong, is on the prosecution.44
Mere affidavits, or recitals of
their contents are not sufficient to show the existence of
strong evidence,45
nor is hearsay and uncorroboratedtestimony.
46
Exclusion from bail in capital offenses being an
exception to the otherwise absolute right guaranteed by the
Constitution, the tendency has been toward a fair and
liberal appreciation of the
_______________
38 Dela Rama vs. People’s Court, 77 Phil. 461.
39 People vs. Berg, 79 Phil. 842 and cases cited therein; People vs.
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 12/36
Hernandez, 52 O.G. 5506.
40 People vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 147 SCRA 219.
41 See People vs. Lacson, L-8188, October 15, 1956, unreported.
42 See People vs. Fernandez, 183 SCRA 511.
43 Gerardo vs. Judge, 47 O.G. 143; see also Section 15, Rule 114,
Revised Rules of Court.
44 Marcos vs. Cruz, 67 Phil. 82; see also Ocampo vs. Bernabe, 77 Phil.
55; People vs. Bocar, 27 SCRA 512; Section 5, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Court.
45 Ocampo vs. Bernabe, supra; Beltran vs. Diaz, 77 Phil. 484.
46 Enage vs. Provincial Warden, 83 Phil. 23.
54
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
evidence in determining the degree of proof necessary to
warrant deprivation of that right.47
Probability or improbability of flight is an important
factor to be taken into consideration in granting or denying
bail. “The exception to the fundamental right to be bailed
should be applied in direct ratio to the extent of the
probability of evasion of prosecution.” A defendant’s official
and social standing and his other personal circumstances
are to be considered in determining the matter.48
E No Excessive Bail
Obviously, when the Constitution prohibits excessive bail,49
it means that the bail that may be required should be
reasonable. The question of reasonableness is addressed to
the judicial discretion and to the court’s sense of justice.
That bail is reasonable which, in view of the nature of the
offense, the penalty which the law attaches to it, and the
probabilities that guilt will be established on the trial,
seems no more than sufficient to secure the party’sattendance. The prisoner’s pecuniary circumstances is of
course an important factor in determining the
reasonableness of the trial; that which is reasonable bail a
man of wealth being equivalent to a denial of the right to
bail if exacted of a poor man charged with a similar
offense.50
The chief factor which must be determined in fixing the
amount of bail is the probability of the appearance of the
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 13/36
accused, or of his flight to avoid punishment. Of importance
then is the possible penalty that may be meted. Of course,
penalty depends to a great extent upon the gravity of the
offense.51
_______________
47
Montano vs. Ocampo, 49 O.G. 1855.48 Ibid; People vs. Alano, 81 Phil. 19; Sy Guan vs. Amparo, 79 Phil. 670.
49 Last sentence of Section 13, Article III; see also opening sentence of
Section 19, clause 1, Ibid.
50 See Section 6, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Court for the guidelines in
fixing amount of bail.
51 Villaseñor vs. Abano, 21 SCRA 312.
55
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 55
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
§ 3. Specific Procedural Rights
A Constitutional Provision
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumedinnocent 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.52
B Presumption of Innocence
It is a cardinal and important rule of law of evidence that
the defendant in a criminal trial, however degraded or
debased he may be, and no matter what may be the
enormity of the crime charged against him, must always be
presumed innocent of the crime for which he is indicted
until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 14/36
Nothing need be proved nor is any evidence necessary as
basis for this presumption.53
Rufus Choate said that this presumption is not a mere
phrase without meaning; that it is the nature of the
evidence for the defendant; that it is irresistible as the
heaven still overcome; that it hovers over the prisoner as a
guardian angel throughout the evidence.54
In any criminal proceeding, the starting point is thepresumption of innocence. By reason of this presumption,
an accused is not called upon to offer evidence on his
behalf, for his freedom is forfeited only if the requisite
quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence.55
_______________
52 Section 14, clause 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution; see also Section 1,
Rule 115, Revised Rules of Court.
53 Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, 4th ed. 49-51.
54 Wigmore on Evidence, Volume 9, 3rd ed., p. 408.
55 People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 63.
56
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
The presumption of innocence,56 which is the logical
consequence of the rule of evidence placing the burden of
proof on the prosecution, has been elevated in this
jurisdiction to a constitutional precept.57
Notwithstanding
the presumption, however, the state has a right to specify
what proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt,
and then put upon the defendant the burden of showing
that his act is innocent and without criminal intent. This
presumption of guilt is not unusual or arbitrary, since the
act relied upon by the defendant as justification relates tohim personally or otherwise lies peculiarly within his
knowledge, and a few words from him would be sufficient
to destroy the complainant’s prima facie case.58
Hence, a
statute providing that the failure of an employer to pay the
salaries of his employees at least once every two weeks or
one-half month as required by the statute, constitutes
prima facie a fraud committed by the employer on his
employees by means of false pretenses, does not offend the
constitutional presumption of innocence,59
for under the law
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 15/36
it is sufficient defense for the employer to show that such
failure was due to force majeure or to some other cause
beyond his control.60
In other words, it is not violative of the
Constitution for a law to provide that the presumption of
innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption
founded upon the experience of human conduct and to
prescribe what evidence shall be sufficient to overcome the
presumption of innocence. An example of such valid law isthe Penal Code provision that the failure of a public officer
to produce public funds or property for which he is
chargeable, upon demand by another duly authorized
officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such
missing funds or property to his personal use.61
The constitutional presumption of innocence imposes
upon
_______________
56 Yee Hem vs. U.S., 268 U.S. 178; People vs. Simbulan, 124 SCRA 927.
57 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed., Volume 1, p. 639.
58 U.S. vs. Tria, 17 Phil. 303.
59 See Cooley, supra, pp. 639-641; see also People vs. Capilitan, 182
SCRA 313.
60 People vs. Merilo, L-3489, June 28, 1951, unreported.
61 People vs. Mengao, 49 O.G. 1411; People vs. Livara.
57
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 57
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
the court the duty to ascertain in every case that no person
is made to answer for a crime without proof of his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt,62
it being preferable to acquit a
guilty person rather than convict an innocent one.63
However, the presumption is not conclusive and may yieldto positive proof that the crime has been committed by
accused, proof of which is strong enough to dispel all doubts
and sustain defendant’s conviction.64
C Right to be Heard by Himself
One aspect of an accused person’s constitutional right to be
heard by himself is the right to be present at every stage of
the trial from arraignment to pronouncement of judgment.65
While personal rights are generally waivable, the right of
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 16/36
(1)
(2)
an accused to be present at the trial may not be waived in
certain cases.
This right is jealously safeguarded. The Supreme Court
of the United States states “a leading principle that
pervades the entire law of criminal procedure is that, after
indictment nothing shall be done in the absence of the
prisoner.”66
And in Schwab vs. Berggren,67
the same court
said: “The personal presence of the accused from thebeginning to the end of a trial for felony, involving life or
liberty, as well as at the time final judgment is rendered
against him, maybe, and must be assumed to be, vital to
the proper conduct of his defense and cannot be dispensed
with.”68
The presence of accused is indispensable, except where
the accused is in custody and charged with a capital
offense, only at the following stages: (1) at the arraignment;
(2) when defendant answers the complaints, if he pleads
guilty; and (3) at the
________________
62 Aguirre vs. People, 155 SCRA 337; People vs. Guinto, 184 SCRA 287.
63 People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA 182.
64 People vs. Tagle, 176 SCRA 809.
65 People vs. Beechman, 23 Phil. 274; Cf. Section 1(c), Rule 115, Revised
Rules of Court.
66 Lewis vs. U.S., 146 U.S. 370.
67 143 U.S. 442.
68 See also People vs. Avanceña, 32 O.G. 713.
58
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
pronouncement of judgment.
69
But his presence at anyother stage of the case may be waived:
the accused may waive his presence at the trial
pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail
bond, unless his presence is specifically ordered by
the court for purposes of identification;
the absence of the accused without any justifiable
cause at the trial on a particular date of which he
had notice; and
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 17/36
(3) when an accused under custody had been notified of
the date of the trial and escapes.70
Whenever a protection given by the Constitution is waived
by the person entitled to protection, the presumption is
always against the waiver.71
D Right to CounselUnder the 1987 Constitution the right of a person under
investigation includes: “the right to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice and if he
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided
with one.”72
The right to counsel cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel. Hence, legal assistance is
needed to assist anyone before the courts of justice and in
quasi-judicial bodies to avoid miscarriage of justice.
The main purpose of the presence of counsel during
investigation is the ascertainment of truth.73
The scope of the constitutional right to counsel as
implemented by the Rules of Court74
and its importance to
the
_________________
69 Diaz vs. U.S., 223 U.S. 442; People vs. Francisco, 46 Phil. 40.
70
Section 1(c), Rule 115, Revised Rules of Court.71 People vs. Jara, 114 SCRA 516.
72 Section 12, clause 1, Article III; see also People vs. Manlapaz, 183
SCRA 300; the leading cases that have unfailingly applied the
constitutional edict are: Morales vs. Enrile, 121 SCRA 536; People vs.
Galit, 135 SCRA 465; People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1; People vs. Albofera,
152 SCRA 128; People vs. Pinlac, 165 SCRA 674; Estacio vs.
Sandiganbayan, 183 SCRA 12; People vs. Aquino, 184 SCRA 205.
73 People vs. Masongsong, 174 SCRA 39.
74 Cf. Section 1(c), Rule 115.
59
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 59
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
accused are well stated by Chief Justice Moran in People
vs. Holgado:75
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 18/36
“In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused
be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel. Even the most
intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of
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 soimportant that it has become constitutional 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, but it is essential that the court should assign one de
oficio for him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him a
reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own.”
The Court, considering the gravity of the offense and the
difficulty of the questions that may arise, shall appoint as
counsel de oficio only such members of the bar in goodstanding who, by reason of their experience and ability may
adequately defend the accused. But in localities where such
members of the bar are not available, the court may
appoint any person, resident of the province and of good
refute for probity and ability, to defend the accused.76
Denial or disregard by the trial court of the right of the
accused to be represented by counsel, and failure to inform
him of such right, or to assign to him a counsel de oficio if
he so desires, constitutes reversible error which can be
remedied by appeal,77 however, the denial of right to
counsel must be raised immediately for he can not raise
such question for the first time on appeal,78
and perhaps
through habeas corpus also.79
________________
75 85 Phil. 752, 756-757.
76 Section 7, Rule 116, Revised Rules of Court.
77 U.S. vs. Palisoc, 4 Phil. 207; People vs. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752.78 U.S. vs. Escalante, 36 Phil. 743; People vs. Nang Kay, 88 Phil. 515.
79 Abriol vs. Homeres, 84 Phil. 525; against the case of Velasco vs.
Superintendent, 67 Phil. 538; see also Section 20, Rule 41, Revised Rules
of Court.
60
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 19/36
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
The right to counsel is not violated when accused was given
opportunity to confer with counsel before his extrajudicial
confession was taken80
and also when his lawyer arrived at
the closing stage of the interrogation, read the statement
and talked to the accused before the latter signed it.81
The Court should perform this function of advising theaccused of his rights, when he appears without counsel.
How could the accused be expected to claim his right to
counsel and to make an issue of this in the trial court when
he has no one to advise him that what he should do? Most
often those who appear without counsel are those who
stand most in need of one. As stated by the United States
Supreme Court, “the guarantee would be nullified by a
determination that an accused’s ignorant failure to claim
his rights removes the protection of the Constitution.”82
E Right to be Informed of Nature and Cause of Accusation
The constitutional provision referring to the right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him83
is satisfied by a pleading that
leaves no doubt in the mind of any person of rudimentary
intelligence as to what the charge is and does not require
one that will exclude every misinterpretation capable of
occurring to an intelligence fired with a desire to perfect.84
The purpose of the Constitution is to prevent surprises thatmay lead to injustice,
85
and so where the criminal complaint
or information suffers from ambiguous, the defendant is
entitled to a bill of particulars from the prosecution
specifying the charge.86
________________
80 People vs. Masongsong, 174 SCRA 39.
81 Estacio vs. Sandiganbayan, 183 SCRA 12.
82 Johnson vs. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458; quoted with approval in Abriol vs.
Homeres, 84 Phil. 525, 533.
83 Section 14, clause 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution; see also Section
1(b), Rule 115, Revised Rules of Court; People vs. Regala, 113 SCRA 613;
U.S. vs. Santos, 4 Phil. 419.
84 Cf. Section 9, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Court; Rosario vs. U.S., 207
U.S. 368.
85 People vs. Zulueta, 89 Phil. 907.
86 Section 10, Rule 116, Revised Rules of Court.
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 20/36
61
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 61
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
Also, the Constitution requires a person under
investigation “to be informed” of his right to remain silentand to counsel, it must be presumed to contemplate the
transmission of meaningful information rather than just
the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract
constitutional principle. As a rule, therefore, it would not
be sufficient for a police officer just to repeat to the person
under investigation the provisions of the Constitution. He
is not only duty-bound to tell the person the rights to which
the latter is entitled, he must also explain their effects in
practical terms.87
In other words, the right of a person
under interrogation “to be informed” implies a correlative
obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain,
and contemplates an effective communication the results in
understanding what is conveyed. Short of this, there is a
denial of the right, as it cannot truly be said that the
person has been “informed” of his right. Now, since the
right “to be informed” implies comprehension, the degree of
explanation required will necessarily vary, depending upon
the education, intelligence, and other relevant personal
circumstances of the person under investigation. Suffice itto say that a simpler and more lucid explanation is needed
where the subject is unlettered.88
Under the Rules of Court, the right is safeguarded in
several stages of the criminal case. At the preliminary
investigation the accused is informed of the complaint
against him.89
The information must couched in ordinary
and concise language without repetition90
(1) to enable a
person of common understanding to know the offense is
intended to be charged and (2) to enable the court to
pronounce proper judgment.91
The information must charge
but one offense.92
At the arraignment, the information must
be read to the accused in the language or dialect known to
_______________
87 See People vs. Ramos, 122 SCRA 312; People vs. Caguioa, 95 SCRA
2.
88 People vs. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289; cited in People vs. Duhan, 142
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 21/36
SCRA 100; People vs. Pinlac, 165 SCRA 674; See also People vs. Olapani,
174 SCRA 495.
89 Sections 2 and 3, Rule 112, Revised Rules of Court.
90 Section 9, Rule 110, Ibid.
91 People vs. Bandojo, 63 SCRA 1053.
92 Section 6, Rule 110, supra.
62
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
him and a copy must be furnished him by the Judge or
clerk.93
The presumption would be, from the failure of the
accused and his counsel to seek any further information,
that he was sufficiently informed of the charge and wassatisfied with the complaint, understood what it meant,
and was willing to go to trial on the assumption that it was
sufficient.94
Although an accused is deaf and dumb it will be
presumed that adequate measures were taken by the trial
court to translate to him, by signs, the contents of the
information and to ascertain his manifestation, in
connection with the acceptance of his plea.95
The right of defendant to be informed of the nature and
cause of accusation cannot be waived.
F Right to Speedy Trial
The right to speedy trial is necessarily relative, consistent
with unreasonable delays, and depends upon the
circumstances.96
It means therefore a right to free trial
from” vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays”97
and
also “justice delayed is justice denied.”98
Detention
prisoners, in particulars, have the right to have their cases
tried and decided as speedily as possible.99
But the right tospeedy trial does not extend to the pronouncement of
judgment.100
Furthermore, the Court consistently maintained that
although a speedy determination of an action implies a
speedy trial,
________________
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 22/36
93 Section 1, Rule 116, Ibid.
94 U.S. vs. Sarabia, 4 Phil. 876.
95 People vs. Nozorio, L-7628, September 29, 1955, unreported.
96 Aunabe vs. Director of Prisons, 77 Phil. 993; People vs. Romulo, 40
O.G. 489; Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil. 215; People vs. Romero, 93 Phil.
128; See also Section 16, Article III, 1987 Constitution; Section 1(h), Rule
115, Revised Rules of Court.
97 Conde vs. Rivera, 45 Phil. 650; Esguerra vs. Court of First Instance,95 Phil. 609; Kalaw vs. Apostol, 64 Phil. 852; Acosta vs. People, 5 SCRA
774.
98 Conde vs. Judge of First Instance, 45 Phil. 173.
99 Manabat vs. Provincial Warden, 94 Phil. 45.
100 Acosta vs. People, 5 SCRA 774; Talaban vs. Provincial Warden of
Iloilo, 78 Phil. 599.
63
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 63
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
speedy 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
granted judges in the granting or denial of motions for
postponement and the setting aside denial orders
previously issued “should always be predicated on the
consideration that more than the mere convenience of the
court or of the parties in the case, the ends of justice and
fairness would be served thereby are more important than
a race to end the trial.”1
The right to speedy trial obtains without respect to the
grade of the crime of which the accused may stand charged.
It is guaranteed to every person accused of a crime, not
only to one so accused for the first time, but also to thehabitual offender. Even one who is imprisoned under
sentence for the commission of another crime is not without
the protection of this right.2
But reasonable delays do not operate to deprive an
accused of his right to speedy trial. What is a reasonable
delay depends upon the particular circumstances.3
So,
where an information was filed in July and trial was begun
and completed in December of the same year, it could not
be said that the accused was denied his right to speedy
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 23/36
trial because of continuances granted on several occasions
to the prosecution either by reason of temporary inability
to locate its star witness, or of transportation difficulties
and bad weather making streams impassable, or of transfer
of presiding judge.4
In other words, the defendant’s right to
speedy trial should not be carried to the extreme of
practically denying the prosecution its day in court, for
causes beyond its control.
5
It was therefore held an abuse of discretion for a trial court to refuse the prosecution’s
motion for postponement, which was the first asked by the
prosecution,
_______________
1 Yñiquez vs. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 235; citing Amberti vs. Court
of Appeals, 89 SCRA 240.
2 14 Am. Jur. 858; see also Shioji vs. Harvey, 43 Phil. 333.
3 Mercado vs. Court of First Instance, 66 Phil. 215; Gunabe vs. Director
of Prisons, 77 Phil. 993.
4 People vs. Lusanta, 47 O.G. 6161.
5 People vs. Alipao, 96 Phil. 20.
64
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
and to dismiss the case simply because of the non-
appearance of the complainant due to a typhoon warning,
although the defendant and his witnesses managed to
make the trip to court from the same place inspite of the
bad weather, it appearing, however, that the complaining
witness was the mother of several small boys whom she
was naturally unwillingly to leave alone at home under
such conditions.6
On the other hand, in a prosecution for
rape, it was held not an abuse of discretion for the trialcourt, after granting three movements on May 27, June 1
and June 12 upon showing that the complaining witness
was ill and confined in a hospital, to dismiss the case, upon
motion of the defendant who invoked his right to speedy
trial, when the complainant was still not in attendance
upon resumption of the trial.7
The accused must claim his right to a speedy and early
trial if he wishes its protection. Silence on his part cannot
be considered a demand for trial.8
He must see to it that his
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 24/36
case is tried at an early date.
The defendant who wants to avail of his right to speedy
trial should ask, not for dismissal of the case, but for its
trial, whereupon, if the prosecution, for lack of reasonable
ground for postponement, is ordered to proceed and fails to
do so, defendant becomes entitled to an absolute and
definite dismissal which will bar subsequent prosecution
for the same offense.
10
The right to speedy trial is waivable, and hence, when
the delay is acquisced in by the accused, or is attributable
to him, as where the absence of material witness is due to
the fact that they were being hidden by friends of the
accused, probably with his knowledge or connivance, he
cannot claim to have been denied speedy trial.11
_______________
6 Ibid.
7 People vs. Abaño, 97 Phil. 28; See also Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil.
215 and Kalaw vs. Apostol, 64 Phil. 852 for other examples of unjustified
delay.
8 State vs. Slorah, 118 Mc. 203, 4 ALR 1256.
9 See People vs. Jabajab, 100 Phil. 307.
10 Caes vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 179 SCRA 54; People vs.
Jabajab, supra; see also People vs. Jaramilla, 51 O.G. 5593.
11 Esguerra vs. Court of First Instance, 95 Phil. 609; Gunabe vs.
65
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 65
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
G Right to Public Trial
The right to a public trial is manifestly intended to protect
the rights of a person accused of a crime, so that the publicmay see that he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly
condemned and that the presence of spectators may keep
his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and
to the importance of their functions.12
A public trial means one which is not limited or
restricted to any particular class of the community but is
open to the free observation of all.13
There is no general agreement as to what is meant by
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 25/36
public trial or as to the limitation on the attendance at a
criminal trial that a court may put consistently with the
constitutional provision.14
The obvious minimum
compliance with the requirement of public trial is to have
the trial open to the general public, without discrimination,
and conducted in a court room sufficient in size to
accomodate a reasonable proportion of the general public in
addition to the court officers, lawyers, parties andwitnesses.
15
The Rules of Court16
provide that where the evidence to
be presented offensive to decency and public morals, the
court may order the public to be excluded from the court.
This exception is considered by some American authorities
as valid and by others as violative of an accused’s right to
public trial.17
The right to a public trial may be waived by the
defendant.18
_______________
Director of Prisons, 77 Phil. 993; People vs. Jabajab, supra.
12 14 Am. Jur. 865.
13 People vs. Greeson, 230 Mich. 124; State vs. Keeler, 52 Mont. 205;
LRA 1916 E 472.
14 Annotation: Ann. Cases, 1917, 625; 156 A.L.R. 265; 48 A.L.R. 2d.
1438; Section 14, clause 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution.
15
See People vs. Murray, 89 Mich. 276, 50 N.W. 422, 1091; People vs.Greeson, 230 Mich. 124; 203 N.W. 141; State vs. Hensley, 75 Ohio St. 255;
79 N.E. 462, 9 LRANS 277; Annotation: 9 Ann. Cases III; 27 LRANS 487;
Ann. Cases 1917 E. 625.
16 Section 2, Rule 135.
17 See 14 Am. Jur. 866-868 and footnotes.
18 See Gunabe vs. Director of Prisons, 77 Phil. 993.
66
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
Thus, where for the convenience of witnesses a case was
tried in Bilibid prison, without any objection on the part of
the defendant as to the place of trial or that it was not
public at the time, it was held that the defendant had
waived by his acquiescence his right to public trial.19
Also for waiver to exist, the following elements must
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 26/36
concur: existence of a right; knowledge of the existence
thereof; and intention to relinquish such right. Such waiver
must be made in an unequivocal manner. The acts or
omissions relied upon as waiver should be so manifestly
consistent with, and indicative of, an intent to voluntarily
relinquish the particular right or advantage that no other
explanation of his conduct is possible.20
H Right to Confrontation
The right of the accused to meet the witnesses against him
face to face is not to enable them to gaze idly upon each
other, but has for its main and essential purpose to ensure
to the accused opportunity to cross-examine such
witnesses, and thus prevent his conviction upon
depositions or ex-parte affidavits given in his absence.21
Thus, the right of cross-examination is a substantial
right, the preservation of which is essential to a proper
administration of justice, and extends to all matters within
the knowledge of the witness, the disclosure of which is
material to the controversy.22
The constitutional right of confrontation, which
guarantees to the accused the right to cross-examine the
witnesses for the prosecution is one of the most basic rights
of the accused person under our system of justice. It is a
fundamental right which is
_______________
19 U.S. vs. Mercado, 4 Phil. 304.
20 See Fernandez vs. Subido, 70 Phil. 151.
21 U.S. vs. Javier, 37 Phil. 449; State vs. Shaughnessy, 212 Wis. 322,
249 N.W. 522, 90 A.L.R. 368; Maltox vs. U.S., 156 U.S. 237; Kirby vs. U.S.,
174 U.S. 42; 2 Wigmore on Evidence, Sections 1396-1397; Dowdell vs.
U.S., 227 U.S. 326.
22 Crossby vs. State, 82 S.E. 2d. 38; citing News Publishing Co. vs.
Butler, 22 S.E. 282; Richards vs. Harpe, 155 S.E. 85; See also People vs.
Bagano, 181 SCRA 747.
67
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 67
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
part of due process not only in criminal proceedings but
also in civil proceedings as well as in proceedings in
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 27/36
administrative tribunals with quasi-judicial powers.
In almost exactly the same language our three
Constitutions secured it, thus: “In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused x x x shall enjoy the right x x x to
meet the witnesses face to face.24
Echoing the same
guarantee, Section 1 (f) of Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of
Court provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be entitled to confront and cross-examine thewitnesses against him at the trial. Constitutional
confrontation requirements apply specifically to criminal
proceedings and have been held to have two purposes: first
and primarily, to secure the opportunity of cross-
examination, and secondarily, to obtain the benefit of the
moral impact of the courtroom atmosphere as it affects the
witness’ demeanor.25
Stated otherwise, it 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 inexposing falsehood and bringing out the truth; and it
enables the court to observe the demeanor of the witness
and assess his credibility.26
In Savory Luncheonette vs. Lakas ng Manggagawang
Pilipino27
and the cases cited thereunder, the Court
speaking through Justice Palma, has provided us with a
concise overview of the right to cross-examination as a vital
element of due process. Thus:
“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. However, the
_______________
23 People vs. Seneris, 99 SCRA 92; citing Savory Luncheonette vs. Lakas ng
Manggagawang Pilipino, 62 SCRA 258.
24 Section 14, clause 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution; Section 19, Article IV,
1973 Constitution; and Section 17, Article III, 1935 Constitution.
25 21 Am. Jur. 2d. 360; see also U.S. vs. Javier, 37 Phil. 449.
26 People vs. Seneris, 99 SCRA 92; citing California vs. Green, 339 U.S. 157.
27 62 SCRA 258, 263-267.
68
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 28/36
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
right is a personal to a renunciation of the right of cross-
examination. Thus, where a party has had the opportunity to
cross-examine a witness but failed to avail himself of it, he
necessarily forfeits the right to cross-examine and the testimony
given on direct examination of the witness will be received or
allowed to remain in the record. The conduct of a party which maybe construed as an implied waiver of the right to cross-examine
may take various forms. But the common basic principle
underlying the application of the rule on implied waiver is that
the party was given the opportunity to confront and cross-
examine an opposing witness but failed to take advantage of it for
reasons attributable to himself alone.”28
The provision of the Constitution29
authorizing trial de
absentia of the accused in case of his non-appearance after
arraignment despite due notice means that he waives hisright to meet the witnesses face to face among others. An
express waiver of the appearance after arraignment has
the same effect.30
§ 4. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
A Constitutional Provision
A witness will not be compelled to answer any questionwhich incriminates him or the reply to which will supply
evidence by which he could be convicted of a criminal
offense, under the provision of our Constitution to the effect
that “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.”31
Based on this constitutional guaranty, the
Revised Rules of Court provides that “in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to be exempt
from being compelled to be a witness against himself.”32
_______________
28 Fulgado vs. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 81; see also People vs.
Seneris, 99 SCRA 92.
29 Section 14, clause 2, Article III.
30 Carredo vs. People, 183 SCRA 273.
31 Section 17, Article III, 1987 Constitution.
32 Section 1(e), Rule 115.
69
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 29/36
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 69
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
B History
The provision that no one is bound to incriminate himself isolder than the Government of the United States. At an
early day it became a part of the common law of England.
It was established on the grounds of public policy and
humanity—of policy, because if the party were required to
testify, it would place the witness under the strongest
temptation to commit the crime of perjury, and of
humanity, because it would prevent the extorting of
confessions by duress.
It had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial
methods of interrogating the accused person, which had
long obtained in the continental system.33
In otherwords, the very object of adopting this provision
of law was to wipe such practices as formerly prevailed in
those Islands of requiring accused persons to submit to
judicial examinations, and to give testimony regarding the
offenses with which they were charged.
In Emery’s case,34
it was said that the principle applies
equally to any compulsory disclosure of the guilt of the
offender himself, whether sought directy as the object of the inquiry, or indirectly and incidentally for the purpose of
establishing facts involved in an issue between the parties.
If the disclosure thus made would be capable of being
used against him as a confession of crime, or an admission
of facts tending to prove the commission of an offense, such
disclosure would be an accusation against himself.34a
C Reason for the Rule
In the language of Mr. Justice Bradley, in the Boyd case,
“any compulsory discovery by extorting the party’s oath x x
x to convict him of a crime x x x is contrary to the principles
of free government; it is abhorent to the instincts of an
English-man; it is abhorent to the instinct of an American.
It may suit the
______________
33 Jone’s Law of Evidence, Section 887; Black’s Constitutional Law, p.
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 30/36
“(1)
“(2)
“(3)
575.
34 107 Mass. 172.
34a U.S. vs. Navarro, 3 Phil. 143.
70
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
purposes of despotic power but it cannot abide the pure
atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom.35
D Prohibition Should be Liberally Construed
The constitutional guaranty must be liberally construed in
favor of the witness, and when a proper question arises the
constitutional provision should be applied in a broad and
liberal spirit to secure to the citizen that immunity fromevery species of self-accusation implied in his,
36
also for the
security of person and property.37
E Scope of the Prohibition
As to the kinds of facts covered by the privilege, Wigmore
says:
The privilege applies to any fact to which a penalty
is attached by way of retribution or deterrence,
whether that penalty be a money fine or an
imprisonment or a deprivation of a right or
privilege. But it does not apply where a deprivation
or forfeiture or other loss is merely a measure to
prevent further improper exercise of a privilege,
e.g., a disbarment or the cancellation of a liquor
license. And of course it applies when in a civil
proceeding a penal fact is incidentally relevant.
The privilege applies not merely when the fact is in
itself a penal fact, but also when the fact wouldtend to criminate the witness. “Where the penalty
has once been imposed and suffered, the act is no
longer penal; hence a prior conviction can always be
asked about.
The privilege applies only to a fact penalized by the
law of the forum, and not by the law of any foreign
State or other jurisdiction. The theoretical reason
for this that courts cannot and do not attempt to
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 31/36
“(4)
“(5)
“(6)
enforce any law but that of their own State. The
practical reason is that to recognize a privilege
founded on the law of a foreign State
_____________
35 U.S. vs. Navarro, 3 Phil. 143; see also Galman vs. Pamaran, 138
SCRA 294; People vs. Gardner, 144 N.Y. 119; U.S. vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil.145.
36 Ward vs. State, 27 Okla, Crim. Rep. 362, 228 P. 498; People vs.
Spain, 307 Ill. 282, 138 N.E. 614.
37 Boyd vs. U.S., 116 U.S. 616.
71
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 71
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
would require an encyclopedic analysis of any laws
in the world; which is impractical.
The privilege applies only to a penal act of the
witness himself, not of a third person. Otherwise,
no criminal trial could proceed. Moreover, the third
person would be protected, if he should be called as
a witness.
The privilege applies only to a natural person, notto a corporation. On principle, the privilege is
concerned chief with the extractions of testimonial
responses, and the artificial person is of course
incapable of being questioned.
The privilege does not apply to a record required to
be kept, of acts not in themselves criminal, which
become so only because of the person’s own choice;
e.g., to a pharmacist’s record of narcotics sold, for
the sale in itself is lawful if made on conditionsprescribed by law, such as physician’s prescription;
or to a clergyman’s record of marriages, for the act
of performing a marriage is lawful, unless the
celebrant omits to obey some prescribed conditions.
“This limitation of the privilege is sometimes judicially explained
on the ground that such records are ‘public books’ or ‘official
books,’ and that the official has impliedly undertaken to waive the
privilege.
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 32/36
“On the same principle as in paragraph 6, the privilege does
not apply to an oral report, required by law, of acts not in
themselves criminal; e.g. an automobile driver’s report of a
collision, or an arrested person’s disclosure of his name.”38
F Waiver of Privilege
There can be no implied waiver of a citizen’s right againstself-incrimination.
Any such renunciation cannot be predicated on such a
slender or tenuous reed as a dubious implication.
Otherwise, it would be easier to lose the human rights
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights than to protect or preserve
them; it would be easier to enslave the citizen than for him
to remain free. Such a result was never intended by the
Founding Fathers.
Section 17 of the Bill of Rights stating that “no person
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself,” appliesto both the ordinary witness and the suspect under
custodial investigation.
In support of the rule that there can be no implied
waiver of
______________
38 Wigmore on Evidence (Student Text), pp. 371-372.
72
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
the right against self-incrimination and all other
constitutional rights by the witness or by the accused, is
the fact that the right against double jeopardy can only be
renounced by the accused if the criminal case against himis dismissed or otherwise terminated with his express
consent. Without such express consent to the dismissal or
termination of the case, the accused can always invoke his
constitutional right against double jeopardy.39
The privilege may also be deemed waived by a witness
voluntarily taking the stand. The moment he testifies on a
matter which is part of a whole fact forming a single
relevant topic, he can be compelled to testify as to the
remaining parts of the whole.40
The accused, by testifying
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 33/36
when he could have remained silent, is also considered
waiving his privilege,41
although there is authority to the
contrary.42
Of several views concerning the extent of the
waiver when the accused takes the witness chair,
Wigmore,43
favors the one that holds that his testimony
upon any fact is a waiver on all other facts relevant to the
issue, and thereby excluding collateral matters such as
those affecting credibility.Wharton
44
added: “Since it is a personal right to be
exercised by him alone, the privilege against self-
incrimination may be waived by a witness and, when
waived by the voluntary offer of the witness to testify fully,
if he has been fully informed of his rights and acts under
advice of counsel, or by answering questions without
objection or without claiming the privilege. Hence, a
witness who voluntarily answers an incriminating question
on direct examination without claiming his privilege cannot
refuse to answer on cross-examination question germane tohis direct examination upon the ground that his answer
might incriminate him.”
_______________
39 Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294, concurring opinion of the then
Chief Justice Makasiar.
40 VIII Wigmore, 3rd ed., Section 2276.
41 Ibid.
42 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 3rd ed., p. 317; see also Wigmore,
Op. Cit., p. 449.
43 Op. Cit., pp. 441-445.
44 Criminal Evidence, 11th ed., p. 1144.
73
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 73
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
§ 5. Excessive Fines and Cruel, Degrading or
Inhuman Punishment
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading
or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 34/36
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death
penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.45
According to the Supreme Court, it takes more than
merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportions, or severe
for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitutions. To come
under the ban, the punishment must be “flagrantly and
plainly oppressive,” “wholly disproportionate to the natureof the offense as to shock the moral sense of the
community.”46
By this test, the Court adjudged the penalty of
imprisonment for five (5) to ten (10) years imposed by law
for illegal possession of firearms, not to be cruel and
unusual, barbarous, or excessive to the extent of being
shocking to public conscience, taking into considerations
the public interest at stake and the necessity for a radical
measure to meet rampant criminality.47
In certain
exceptional circumstances obtaining in a particular casethe penalty may be out of proportion, but is not necessarily
offensive to the Constitution just for this reason. In any
case constitutionality of a statute is not to be judged in the
light of exceptional cases.48
Fortunately, the law in this
jurisdiction authorizes the court in such cases to
recommend executive clemency.
The Court49
has also held that a fine of up to P5,000 for
profiteering is not cruel and unusual or shocking to the
conscience, considering the necessity to prevent dealerstaking advantage of the country’s critical conditions to
make unusual profits. It may be thought that in a single
sale, as for example, in a sale of one can of milk, the profit
may be small, and in a prosecution for this one sale the
corresponding penalty may seem out of propor-
_______________
45 Section 19, clause 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution.
46 People vs. Estoista, 49 O.G. 3330; resolution, 50 O.G. 153.47 Ibid.
48 Ibid; see also People vs. Melgar, 52 O.G. 7238.
49 People vs. Tiu, 51 O.G. 1863.
74
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 35/36
tion, but similar transactions add up to a great number,
and cause great hardship, particularly on poor people.
A contempt order committing the party in contempt to
imprisonment until he complies with previous orders of the
court is remedial in purpose and coercive in character,
intended for the benefit of the other party, and the
indefinite confinement that may result from continued noncompliance is neither cruel nor excessive, particularly so
when the imprisoned man “carries the keys to his prison in
his own pocket.”50
The abolition of capital punishment of death is not
absolute. The Congress may impose by enacting a law on
capital punishment on offenses involving heinous crimes.
§ 6. Employment of Physical, Psychological or
Degrading Punishment
Under the New Constitution,51
the use of physical,
psychological, or degrading punishment against any
prisoner or detainee are now against the law which
Congress may enact and much more a direct smack on our
fundamental law.
The use of substantial or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Also, secret detention places, solitary, in communicado,
or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
52
§ 7. Conclusion
The Bill of Rights constitutes the reservation of the
sovereign people against, as well as the limitation on, the
delegated powers of government. These rights need no
express assertion. On the contrary, the police and
prosecution officers of the country should respect these
constitutional liberties as directed by the decision in theHildawa vs. Ponce Enrile,
53
and Valmonte vs. Integrated
National Police54
cases. The established jurispru-
_______________
50 Harden vs. Director of Prisons, 81 Phil. 741.
51 Section 19, clause 2, Article III.
52 Section 12, clause 2, Article III.
53 138 SCRA 146.
8/17/2019 Annotation Constitutional Rights of the Accused
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/annotation-constitutional-rights-of-the-accused 36/36
54 138 SCRA 146.
75
VOL. 186, JUNE 4, 1990 75
Constitutional Rights of the Accused
dence is that waiver by the citizen of his constitutional
rights should be clear, categorical, knowing, and
intelligent.55
And any evidence, confession or admission, in violation
of the Bill of Rights shall be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding and/or in evidence against the accused.
——o0o——
_____________
55 Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294; Johnson vs. Zerbst, 304 U.S.
458; cited Abriol vs. Homeres, 84 Phil. 525 and in Chavez vs. Court of
Appeals, 24 SCRA 663.
76
© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.