Rights of the Accused Rule 115 Effect of Plea of Self – defense – the burden to prove the guilt of the

urden to prove the guilt of the accused the police state practice of extracting a confession that leads suspect to make
always lies upon the prosecution. However, if the accused admits killing the self-incriminating statements People VS Rapeza
1. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. victim, but pleads self – defense, the burden shift to the accused to prove he
2. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against is justified (People vs De los Santos) Failure to inform the suspect of his right to counsel during custodial
him. investigation WILL ONLY BE APPLICABLE IF THE PERSON MAKES A
3. To be present and defend in person and by councel at every 2. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation – in order to CONFESSION IN WRITING WIHTOUT AID OF COUNSEL. In such case,
stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of inform the accused of the nature and cause against him, it is necessary for the the confession obtained is inadmissible in evidence against the accused. Thus, it
the judgement. complaint or information to contain those matters required by the Rule 110 will not be applicable if it is through oral.
4. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-
examination on matters covered by direct examination 1. the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense Mere inquiry on the commission of a crime by law enforcement authorities
5. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against automatically trigger the application of right to counsel as provided by RA.
himself. 7438 which extends this constitutional guarantee to situations in which an
2. the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in an ordinary
6. To confront and cross – examine the witness against him at the individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been invited for
and concise language so that the accused can properly defend himself.
trial. questioning Aquino VS Paiste
7. To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of
witnesses and production of their evidence in his behalf. People VS. Lagarde - it would be a denial of accused basic right to due process
if he is charged with simple rape and consequently convicted with certain NO RIGHT to counsel in a mere police line-up – the reason is that it is not
8. To have speed impartial and public trial
qualifying circumstances which were not alleged in the information. Thus, were part of the custodial inquest, since the accused at that stage is not yet being
9. To appeal in all cases allowed in the manner prescribed by law.
these circumstances were proven at the trial, they cannot be appreciated investigated. The process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the
COMMENTS
because they were not alleged in the information accusatory and it is usually the complainant who is being interrogated.

1.Presumption of innocence - this right is accorded in favor of the accused to

Q: may the accused be convicted for violation of BP. 22 if the check Right to choose a counsel is not plenary; right may be waived – but to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the crime he/she has committed which is left to
described in the information is not the check allegedly issued and admitted insure that the waiver is voluntary and intelligent, the waiver must be in writing
prove by the People of the Philippines (People Vs Espera)
in evidence? in the presence of the counsel of the accused People VS Del Castillo

An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence and this presumption prevails

A: NO, this is against the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and Right to counsel in Administrative cases not necessary/mandatory – In
over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. (People
cause of accusation. Thus, it should be considered in favour of the accused. The criminal proceeding assistance of counsel is sacred.
Vs Sy) – Ex. When the performance of their police officers duties is tainted
with irregularities. variance in the identity of the check nullifies the conviction of the accused.
In administrative proceeding – may or may not be assisted by counsel. The
People Vs. Pasada - when an ambiguity exists in the complaint or information, administrative body is under no obligation to provide the person with counsel
Thus, presumption of regularity obtains only when there is no deviation from
the court has no other recourse but to resolve the ambiguity in favour of the because it not an absolute requirement People VS Civil Service Commission
the regular performance of duty. (People Vs Alejandro)
accused.
There is no law, jurisprudence or rule which mandates that an employee should
Proof beyond reasonable doubt – proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
People Vs. Noque - where an accused is charged of a specific crime he is duly be assisted by a counsel in administrative case because such inquiries in this
mean such a degree of proof as excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
informed not only of such specific crime but also of the lesser crimes or proceeding are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that
certainty. It is enough that it the proof has moral certainty (Sec. 2, Rule, 133
offenses included therein. merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers/employees.
of Rules of Court)

3. Right to counsel of the accused and of persons arrested detained or 4. Right to speedy trial – it cannot be invoked by someone who is not an
2 requisites to prove criminal conviction
under custodial investigation - right to counsel is due process that a person accused.
must be heard before being condemned.
a. The fact of the crime
Speedy trial involves a degree of flexibility. It does not mean mere speed; it
b. The fact that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime
One need not be an accused to avail right to counsel. The right to counsel does means the essential ingredient of flexibility which are orderly, expeditious.
not commence only during the trial. Every person under the custody of the law
All of there must be proven beyond reasonable doubt (Cabugao VS.
enjoys the right. When the right to speedy trial is is deemed violated? - when the proceeding
People, Sec. 2 Rule 133, Rules of Court)
are attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays or when unjustified
R.A 7438 Sec. 2(a) provides that every person arrested , detained or under postponing of trial are asked for and secured. Ombudsman vs Jurado
Equipose Rule – this rule is with regard to the presumption of innocence.
custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
Factors to consider whether the right of speedy trial is violated
The application of the rule is triggered by a situation where the court is face
What is custodial investigation – it is described as any questioning initiated
with conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense and evidence, facts
by law enforcement authorities after a person is taken into custody or a. Duration of delay
and circumstances are capable of 2 or more explanations. Thus, the situation
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant manner b. Reason therefor
cannot fulfil the test of moral certainty and not sufficient to support conviction.
(Tanengge VS. People) c. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it
d. Prejudice caused by such delay.
The equipoise rule provides where the evidence in a criminal case is “evenly” Mari vs. Gonzales
For custodial investigation - in the absence of any lawyer NO custodial
balanced – the presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favour of the
investigation shall be conducted. The purpose of providing counsel is to curb
accused (People VS Erguiza)
Q: Consequence on a violation of the right to speedy trial? - dismissal of
the case and double jeopardy Condrada vs people.

Q: May the right to speedy trial be waived? - Yes, it is manifested if there is

no assertion of his right to a speedy disposition of his case or at least some
overt acts, like filing a motion for early resolution Perez Vs. People.

5. Privilege against self – incrimination – it does not give a witness the right
to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the court or to refuse to
testify. Right against self – incrimination can be invoked only when a question
is addressed to him.

Proceedings where the privilege may be asserted

a. Civil case/ proceeding

b. Administrative proceeding
c. Criminal proceeding
d. Judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory.

Right against self – incrimination must be CLAIMED – it is not self –

executing. It must be claimed, if not claimed the protection does not come into
play (People Vs Ayson)

Waiver of the Privilege - if he testifies in an incriminatory character in his own

behalf he may be cross – examined on matters covered by the direct
examination.

Inapplicability of privilege when witness is given immunity from

prosecution – immunity occurs when the government grants immunity to a
witness in exchange for a testimony favourable to the prosecution.

The govt. may grant immunity in one of the 2 forms

a. Transactional immunity - which completely protects the

witness from future prosecution for crimes.
b. Use and derivative use - which means a witness is only assured
that his testimony will not be used against him. However, should
the prosecution later acquire evidence of a crime committed by
the witness independentlyb of the witness testimony the witness
may then be prosecuted for the crime Tanchanco VS
Sandiganbayan

6. Right to appeal – it is mandatory. Its suppression would be a violation of

due process.

Criminal cases – an appeal throws the whole case wide open for review and
the reviewing tribunal can correct errors or even reverse the trial court’s
decision on ground other than those the parties raise errors. People vs. tambis

Civil Case – an un assigned errors will not be considered by the reviwwing

tribunal unless such error affects the jurisdiction of the court. (people vs.sison
and people vs coja)