RULE 115 - RIGHTS OF ACCUSED Section 1. Rights of accused at trial.

- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: (a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved

(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. (f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable, or

beyond reasonable doubt. (b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. (c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial his pursuant presence to the stipulations is specifically set forth in his by the court bail, for

otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him. (g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf. (h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner

unless

ordered

purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to to the defend court himself that he in can person properly when it sufficiently his rights

prescribed by law.

the

rights

of

the

accused

enumerated

in

this

rule

are

available only during the trial of his criminal case. taken from the bill of rights

appears

protect

without the assistance of counsel. (d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.

A. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS ARTICLE 3, SECTION 14(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 to face to face, the and to have of

the

right

to

presumed

innocent

is

available

only

to

an

individual who is an accused in a criminal case. it cannot be invoked by a corporate entity. PRESEUMPTION OF INNOCENSE IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED OVERCOME: an accused is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty and to sustain a conviction the evidence must show that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. BASIS OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE: the

compulsory

process

secure

attendance

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. PRINCIPAL EFFECT OF THE GUARANTEE OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE: no person shall be convicted unless the prosecution has proved him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE PRECLUDE THE STATE FROM SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE ACCUSED: The state having the right to declare what acts are

presumption of innocence and the requirement of establishing the guilt beyond reasonable doubt are for the protection of the

innocent and not a shield for the guilty. DOES THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE APPLY BOTH ON CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASE: the presumption of law, that a

person is innocent of crime or wrong, applies in both civil and criminal cases. DISTINGUISH PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE FOR

REASONABLE DOUBT:

criminal, within certain well defined limitations, has a right to specify what act or acts shall constitute a crime, as well as what proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt and then to put upon the defendant the burden of showing that such act or acts are innocent and are not committed with any criminal intent or intention. Is the result of insufficient PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE Conclusion drawn by law in REASONABLE DOUBT Condition of mind produced by proof resulting from evidence in the case Regarded as evidenced

favor of a resulting

proof

introduced by law

a. presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence. section 3m of rule 131 official duty has been regularly performed. as a general rule the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their for d. b. c.

that the crime was actually committed the crime was committed recently the stolen property was found in the possession of the accused the accused in unable to satisfactorily explain his

possession thereof. purposes of conclusively proving possession it is

duties regularly. however when the performance of their duties is tainted with irregularities such presumption is effectively destroyed. this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. the

necessary that: a. the possession must be unexplained by any innocent

origin. b. c. it the possession must be fairly recent the possession must be exclusive has a been held that if a and person he had use in of his it

presumption of regularity is merely just that a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by

possession

falsified

document

made

evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTIONS OF GUILT: . SECTION 3J, RULE 131: that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over are owned by him. the doctrinal rule is that before an inference of guilt arising from possession or recently stolen goods can be made, the following basic facts need to be proved by the prosecution:

taken advantage of it and profited thereby the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT: section 2, rule 133 proof beyond reasonable doubt-in a

criminal case the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond a reasonable doubt. proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

the

burden of

lies

on

the

prosecution presenting

to

overcome the

such of

presumption of innocence is overcome the defense bears the burden of evidence to show a reasonable doubt as the guilt of the accused. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE PERPETRATOR: the state has the burden of proving the guilt of the

presumption

innocence

by

quantum

evidenced require. in so doing the prosecution must rest on the strength of its own evidence and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. and if the prosecution fails to

meet its burden of proof the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. in such cases the

accused beyond reasonable doubt. it has to prove the identity of the accused as the malefactors as well as the fact as the of the commission of the crime for

presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted. the constitutional presumption of innocence can be

which he is allegedly responsible. the prosecution relied mainly on the testimony of the

accorded to the accused only in the absence of evidence to prove his guilt beyond be reasonable upheld doubt. in the the constitutional of the

alleged eyewitness who did not even point to them as the malefactor and she only did so upon the instruction given her in a police camp. where the peoples to evidence overcome the fails the is to meet the

presumption

cannot

face

overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence for the prosecution irresistibly accused. PROSECUTION MUST REST ON ITS OWN MERITS: the prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense . in fact if the prosecution evidence, evidence fails the on of to meets may the required not quantum even of pointing to the conclusive culpability of the

quantum presumption

required of

constitutional entitled to

innocence

accused

acquittal regardless of the weakness of his defense of denial and uncorroborated alibi for it is better to acquit a guilty man than to unjustly keep in prison one whose guilt has not been proved beyond the required quantum of evidence. FAILURE TO COMPY WITH POST-SEIZURE PROCEDURES SET BY LAW:

defense its own

logically in prevail

present the the the

behalf. shall

which and

case hence, once

presumption accused

innocence be

shall

acquitted.

however

effect of the failure of the arresting officers to comply with post-seizure procedures set by law: r.a. no. 9165 outlines the post seizure procedure in taking custody of seized drugs: 1. the apprehending team having initial custody and after control of the and drugs shall, immediately physically in the

doubt

by

complying

with

the

law

in

this

case

the

court the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the procedures for the custody as and disposition by r.a. of no.

confiscated 9165. the

dangerous

drugs

prescribed

presumption

of

regularity

in

the

performance

of

seizure and

confiscation, the

official duty relied upon by the lower courts cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor

inventory

photograph

same

presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and or

constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. as a rule the testimony of police officers who apprehended the accused is accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption is effectively destroyed. THE EQUIPOISE RULE: the equipoise rule provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced the constitutional

seized or his her representative or counsel a representative from the media and the

department of justice and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the

copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. prosecution of illegal sale of prohibited drugs necessitate that the elemental be act of with possession moral of prohibited together

presumption of innocence titls the scales in favor of the accused. the application of the rule is triggered by a situation

substance

established

certainty,

where the court is faced with conflicting versions of the prosecution facts and and the defense are which and where of the two evidence, or with more the

with the fact that the same is not authorized by law. the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus

circumstances one of

capable is

delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. therefore it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be shown beyond

explanations,

consistent

innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt. this situation cannot fulfill the test of moral

certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. the court then will have to resort to the equipoise rule. no equipoise if the evidence is not evenly balanced.

right

to

be

informed

implies

comprehension

the

degree

of

explanation required will be necessarily vary depending upon the education, intelligence and other relevant personal circumstances of the person under investigation a simpler and more lucid

said rule is not applicable where the evidence presented is not equally where weighty. the the equipoise of the rule cannot be is

explanation is needed when the subject matter is unlettered. at what stage this right become operative: at the arraignment. as the an arraignment for thus the becomes accused

invoked

evidence

prosecution

overwhelming.

indispensable B. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION this right requires that the offense e charged with clearness and all necessary certainty to apprise the accused of the crime of which he stands charged. the accusation whether by

means

bringing

into court and notifying him of the cause he is required to meet. it is at that stage wherein the mode and

manner required by the rules an accused for the first time, is granted the opportunity to know the precise

charge that confronts him. it is imperative that he is thus made fully aware of possible loss of freedom even of his life to depending prosecuting on arm the of nature the of is the crime

complaint or information must be sufficiently specific and must fairly apprise the defendant of the nature of the charge against him so that he may know what he is to answer and so that the record may show as far as may be for what he is put in jeopardy. significant of the right: signifies that an accused should be given the necessary data as to why he is being proceeded against. he

imputed

state

mobilized

against him. an arraignment serves that purpose. an accused can be punished for a crime described by the facts alleged in the information yet in capital cases it should be desirable that whenever the discrepancy is noted between the designation of the crime made by the fiscal and the crime described court by the facts pleaded in his information the lower

should not be left in the unenviable state of speculating why he is made the object of a prosecution.

should call

the attention of

the accused

may

be fully

apprised of the nature and caused of the accusation against him. the accused has the right to be informed as to the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on tiral. to convict him of a higher offense than that charged in the complaint or information o which he is tried would be an unauthorized denial of that right. RIGHT TO COUNSEL OF THE ACCUSED AND OF PERSONS ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION: R.A. NO. 7438: CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS ARTICLE 3, SECTION 14(2): in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be

RULE 115 SECTION 1C: the

accused

has

the

right

to..defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings from arraignment to promulgation of

judgment r.a. no. 7438: any person, arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel. meaning of custodial investigation: extended meaning: custodial investigation: where the police

investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the

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 to face to face, the and to have of

police who carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. it involves: 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. custodial investigation under r.a. no. 7438: custodial investigation and has extended this constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been invited for questioning

compulsory

process

secure

attendance

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.

section

of

r.a.

7438:

custodial

investigation

a. in the absence of any lawyer no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the

shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to with a person an who is he investigated is in connection to have

suspected person can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the

offense

suspected

committed without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any violation of law. RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL

provision of article 125 of the rpc. b. is to curb the police-state that leads practice suspects of to

extracting

confession

INVESTIGATION; CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT R.A. NO. 7438 PROVIDES FOR THE FOLLOWING REQUISITES FOR A VALID CUSTODIAL

make self-incriminating statements. failure to inform the suspect of her right to counsel during custodial investigation attains significance only if the person

INVESTIGATION REPORT: a. the report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer b. if the person arrested or detained does not know to read or write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel in the language or dialect known to such arrested or

under investigation makes a confession in writing without aid of counsel and which is then sought to be admitted against the accused during the trial. in such case the tainted confession obtained in violation is inadmissible in evidence. r.a. no. 7438: mandates that a counsel shall at all time be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested detained or under custodial investigation. the reject suspect must also advise that him he by has the option to

detained, this is to be done before the report assigned. if this procedure is not done, the investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever importance of the right to counsel:

the counsel

provided for

the police authorities

which fact must similarly appear in the extrajudicial confession . where the to participation the of a lawyer of the in the proceedings confession was the

confined

notarization

suspects

same is not considered in legal contemplation, the kind of legal assistance that should be accorded.

 the rule that the counsel must be competent and independent and preferably the choice of the person arrested, detained or

the

right

to

counsel

applies

in

certain

pre-trial

proceedings

that can be deemed critical stages in the criminal process like in a preliminary incestigation. this investigation can be no

under custodial investigation, the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer is any lawyer except those directly

different from the in-custody interrogations by the police for a suspect who takes part in a preliminary process oftentimes

affected by the case those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the prosecution of crimes. mere inquiry on the commission does not of a crime by law the

intimidating and relentless of pursuing those who might be liable for criminal prosecution. right to choose a counsel is not plenary; right may be waived: the right to counsel may be waived but to insure

enforcement

authorities

automatically

trigger

application of the right to counsel. police line up not part of the custodial inquest since the

that the waiver is voluntarily and intelligent, the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of the counsel of the accused. the right to a competent and

accused at that stage is not yet being investigated. in the line up the right to counsel does not yet attach. barangay chairman is not deemed a law enforcement officer for purposes of applying section 12(1) and 3 of article 3 of the Philippine constitution. a suspects uncounselled statement

independent counsel is one of the rights of the accused guaranteed constitution. there is no right to counsel applies in certain pre-trial proceedings that can be deemed critical stages in the criminal process can like in a be no preliminary from investigation. the in this under section 12 (1) of article 3 of the

before the baranggay chairman is admissible. section 12 (1) and 3 of article 3 of the Philippine constitution: (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. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

investigation

different

custody

interrogations by the police for a suspect who takes part in a preliminary investigation will be subjected to no less than the states of processes those oftentimes who intimidating be liable and for

relentless

pursuing

might

criminal prosecution.

 COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: COMPETENT:

C. RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT EVERY STATE OF THE PROCEEDINGS D. RIGHT TO COUNSEL E. RIGHT TO TESTIFY IN HIS OWN BEHALF F. RIGHT TO BE EXEMPT FROM BEING WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF G. RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION H. COMPULSORY PROCESS TO SECURE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES I. RIGHT TO SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL J. RIGHT TO APPEAL