D.

MIRANDA RIGHTS



Section 12, Art. III.
1. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of
his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall
be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited.
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible
in evidence against him.
4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this Section as well as
compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.




called the Miranda Doctrine (Miranda vs Arizona)

Miranda Doctrine prior to any questioning during custodial investigation, the person must be warned
that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he gives may be used as evidence against him,
and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant
may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently.


Purpose of the Doctrine


In Miranda v Arizona, the US Supreme Court established rules to protect a criminal defendant's
privilege against self-incrimination from the pressures arising during custodial investigation by the
police. Thus, to provide practical safeguards for the practical reinforcement for the right against
compulsory self-incrimination, the Court held that the prosecution may not use statements, whether
exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-
incrimination.


Requisites of the Miranda Doctrine

(1) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent;

(2) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;

(3) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present
when being questioned; and

(4) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so desires.


Custodial investigation defined



Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody
or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.



Begins as soon as the investigation is no longer a general inquiry unto an unsolved crime, and
direction is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the
police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements.



Shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with
an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for
any violation of law.



Extrajudicial confession is Admissible when:

(a) Voluntary

(b) With assistance of counsel

(c) In writing, and

(d) Express



Rights Under Custodial Investigation

(a) To be informed of right to remain silent and to counsel

Carries the correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain and contemplates
effective communication which results in the subject understanding what is conveyed. (People v.
Agustin)
(b) To be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he says can and will be used
against him

(c) To remain silent

(d) To have competent and independent counsel preferably of own choice

(e) To be provided with counsel if the person cannot afford the services of one

(f) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will shall
be used against him

(g) Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited

(h) Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights are inadmissible as evidence
(exclusionary rule)


Rights That May Be Waived

[waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel]


(a) Right to remain silent
(b) Right to Counsel


Rights That Cannot Be Waived

(a) Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel

(b) Right to counsel when making the waiver of the right to remain silent or to counsel

Right to counsel de parte is not unlimited. Accused cannot repeatedly ask for postponement. He
must be provided with counsel de oficio.

RA 7309: victims of unjust imprisonment may file their claims with the Board of Claims under DOJ

Res Gestae: The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt made to the police desk officer
after the crime was committed may be given in evidence against him by the police officer to whom the
admission was made, as part of the res gestae.

In People v. Galit, rights under custodial investigation may be waived. The Constitution
says; These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. In localities
where there are no lawyers, the State must bring the individual to a place where there is one.

Termination of rights under custodial investigation: When Charges are filed against the accused
(in such case, Sections 14 and 17 come into play).

In Gutang v. People, the Court held that urine sample is admissible. What the Constitution
prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not
an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material. In fact, an accused may be validly
compelled to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move
his body to enablke the foregoing things to be done, without running afould of the proscription against
testimonial compulsion.


E. RIGHT TO BAIL



Section 13, Art. III. 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, or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.


Bail is security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to
guaranty his appearance before any court as may be required


Kinds of Bail


(a) Cash bond
(b) Security bond

Who May Invoke?

A person under detention even if no formal charges have yet been filed (Rule 114, Rules of Court)


Who Are Entitled?


(a) Persons charged with offenses punishable by Reclusion Perpetua or Death, when evidence of guilt is
strong

(b) Persons convicted by the trial court. Bail is only discretionary pending appeal.

(c) Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial.

In Paderanga v. CA, all persons actually detained, except those charged with offenses punishable
by reclusion perpetua or death when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable bu
sufficient sureties.


One is under the custody of the law either when he has been arrested or has surrendered himself to the
jurisdiction of the court, as in the case where through counsel petitioner for bail who was confined in a
hospital communicated his submission to the jurisdiction of the court.


Other Rights in Relation to Bail


The right to bail shall NOT be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended.

Excessive bail shall not be required.


Factors in Fixing Amount of Bail


(a) Ability to post bail

(b) Nature of the offense

(c) Penalty imposed by law

(d) Character and reputation of the accused

(e) Health of the accused

(f) Strength of the evidence

(g) Probability of appearing at the trial

(h) Forfeiture of previous bail bonds

(i) Whether accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested

(j) If accused is under bond in other cases


Implicit Limitations on the Right to Bail

(a) The person claiming the right must be in actual detention or custody of the law.

In People v. Donato, charged with rebellion, a bailable offense, Salas nevertheless agreed to
remain in legal custody during the pendency of the trial of his criminal case. The Court held that he
does not have the right to bail, because bu his act he has waived his right.

(b) The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases, not, e.g. in deportation and extradition
proceedings.

Note:

(a) Right to bail is not available in the military.

In Comendador v. De Villa, soldier under court martial does not enjoy the right to bail. It is
because of the disciplinary structure of the military and because soldiers are allowed the fiduciary right
to bear arms and can therefore cause great havoc... Nor can appeal be made to the equal protection
clause ebcause equal protection applies only to those who are equally situated.

(b) Apart from bail, a person may attain provisional liberty through recognizance.

In US v. Puruganan, the Court held that extradition is not a criminal proceeding. Hence, since bail
is available only in criminal proceedings, a respondent in an extradition proceeding is not entitled to a
bail. He should apply for a bail in the court where he will be tried.


F. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED



Section 14, Art. III.
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 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.

The Rights of the Accused Include


1. Criminal due process;

2. Presumption of innocence;

3. Right to be heard by himself or counsel;

4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial;

6. Right to meet the witnesses face to face;

7. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and production of evidence; and

8. trial in absentia


1. Criminal Due Process

Criminal process includes

a) Investigation prior to the filing of charges

b) Preliminary examination and investigation after charges are filed

c) Period of trial


Requirements of Criminal Due Process

1. Impartial and competent court in accordance with procedure prescribed by law;

2. Proper observance of all the rights accorded the accused under the Constitution and the applicable
statutes (example of statutory right of the accused: right to Preliminary investigation)

Mistrial may be declared if shown that proceedings were held under circumstances as would
prevent the accused from freely making his defense or the judge from freely arriving at his decision.

There is violation of due process when law not published and a person is impleaded for violation of
such law.

There is violation of due process when appeal is permitted by law but there is denial thereof.


2. Presumption of Innocence

Burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused is with the prosecution.

Conviction depends on the strength of prosecution, not on the weakness of the defense

The presumption may be overcome by contrary presumption based on the experience of human
conduct. (e.g unexplained flight may lead to an inference of guilt, as the wicked flee when no man
pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.)

The constitutional presumption will not apply as long as there is some rational connection
between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of one fact from proof of
another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. Cooley

No inference of guilt may be drawn against an accused for his failure to make a statement of any
sort.

In Dumlao v. Comelec, for the purposes of disqualification in an election, section 4 of BP Blg. 52
says that the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before civil court or military tribunal
after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact (disqualification). The Court
held that this provision violates the guarantee of presumption of innocence. Although filing of charges
is only prima facie evidence and may be rebutted, the proximity of elections and consequent risk of not
having time to rebut the prima facie evidence already in effect make him suffer as though guilty even
before trial.

Equipoise Rule evidence of both sides are equally balanced, in which case the constitutional
presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused.

3. Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel

Indispensable in any criminal prosecution where the stakes are the liberty or even the life of the
accused

Assistance of counsel begins from the time a person is taken into custody and placed under
investigation for the commission of a crime.

This is not subject to waiver.

Right to counsel means the right to effective representation.

If the accused appears at arraignment without counsel, the judge must:

(a) Inform the accused that he has a right to a counsel before arraignment;

(b) Ask the accused if he desires the aid of counsel;

(c) If the accused desires counsel, but cannot afford one, a counsel de oficio must be appointed;

(d) If the accused desires to obtain his own counsel, the court must give him a reasonable time to get
one.


4. Nature and Cause of Accusation

Purpose for the Right to be informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation

(1) To furnish the accused with a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his
defenses;

(2) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal against a further prosecution for the same cause;

(3) To inform the court of the facts alleged.

The description and not the designation of the offense is controlling (The real nature of the crime
charged is determined from the recital of facts in the information. It is not determined based on the
caption or preamble thereof nor from the specification of the provision of law allegedly violated.)

If the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense, the accused cannot be
convicted thereof even if the prosecution is able to present evidence during the trial with respect to
such elements.

Void for Vagueness Rule accused is denied the right to be informed of the charge against him and to
due process as well, where the statute itself is couched in such indefinite language that it is not possible
for men of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what acts or omissions are punished and hence,
shall be avoided.

In Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the Court held that the Void for Vagueness Doctrine merely
requires a reasonable degree of certainty and not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude.


5. The Trial



Factors in Determining Whether There Is Violation

(a) Time expired from the filing of the information

(b) Length of delay involved

(c) Reasons for the delay

(d) Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the accused

(e) Prejudice caused to the defendant.

Effect of dismissal based on violation of this right: it amounts to an acquittal and can be used as
basis to claim double jeopardy. This would be the effect even if the dismissal was made with the consent
of the accused


Remedy if the Right is Violated


(1) He can move for the dismissal of the case;


(2) If he is detained, he can file a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus.


Speedy trial -

1. Free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays

2. To relieve the accused from needless anxieties before sentence is pronounced upon him



Impartial trial the accused is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. It is an
element of due process.



Public trial: The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective of their relationship to the
accused. However, if the evidence to be adduced is offensive to decency or public morals, the public
may be excluded.



The right of the accused to a public trial is not violated if the hearings are conducted on Saturdays,
either with the consent of the accused or if failed to object thereto.

The right to be present covers the period from arraignment to promulgation of sentence.


General Rule: the accused may waive the right to be present at the trial by not showing up.
However, the court can still compel the attendance of the accused if necessary for identification
purposes.

Exception: If the accused, after arraignment, has stipulated that he is indeed the person charged
with the offense and named in the information, and that any time a witness refers to a name by which
he is known, the witness is to be understood as referring to him.

Trial in Absentia is mandatory upon the court whenever the accused has been arraigned.

There is also Promulgation in Absentia

While the accused is entitled to be present during promulgation of judgment, the absence of his
counsel during such promulgation does not affect its validity

The trial in absentia does not abrogate the provisions of the Rules of Court regarding forfeiture of
bail bond if the accused fails to appear at his trial.

A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines as this is a
necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond


6. The Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face

Purposes of the Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face


(1) To afford the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness

(2) To allow the judge the opportunity to observe the deportment of the witness



Principal Exceptions to this Right

(1) The admissibility of dying declarations

(2) Trial in absentia under Section 14(2)

With respect to child testimony

Testimony of witness who was not cross-examined is not admissible as evidence for being hearsay.


If a prosecution witness dies before his cross-examination can be completed, his direct testimony
cannot be stricken off the record, provided the material points of his direct testimony had been covered
on cross.

The right to confrontation may be waived.


7. Compulsory Process

The accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces
tecum for the purpose of compelling the attendance of witness and the production of evidence that he
may need for his defense.

Failure to obey punishable as contempt of court.

There are exceptional circumstances when the defendant may ask for conditional examination,
provided the expected testimony is material of any witness under circumstances that would make him
unavailable from attending the trial.


8. Trial in Absentia

Trial in Absentia May Only Be Allowed If the Following Requisites Are Met:

(1) the accused has been validly arraigned;

(2) Accused has already been arraigned;

(3) Accused has been duly notified of the trial; and

(4) His failure to appear is unjustifiable.