Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Rights during custodial investigation apply only against Requisites for valid waiver
testimonial compulsion and not when the body of the
accused is proposed to be examined (e.g. urine sample; 1. Made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently
photographs; measurements; garments; shoes) which is 2. In writing
a purely mechanical act. 3. With the presence of counsel. (People v. Galit,
GR. No. L-51770, Mar. 20, 1985)
In the case of Galman v. Pamaran, G.R. Nos. 71208-09,
Aug. 30, 1985, it was held that the constitutional Admissibility as evidence of confessions given to
safeguard is applied notwithstanding that the person is news reporters and/or media and videotaped
not yet arrested or under detention at the time. confessions
However, Fr. Bernas has qualified this statement by
saying that jurisprudence under the 1987 Constitution Confessions given in response to a question by news
has consistently held, following the stricter view, that the reporters, not policemen, are admissible. Where the
rights begin to be available only when the person is suspect gave spontaneous answers to a televised
already in custody (People v. Ting Lan Uy, G.R. No. interview by several press reporters, his answers are
157399, Nov. 17, 2005). deemed to be voluntary and are admissible.
Furthermore, in the case of People v. Reyes, G.R. No. Videotaped confessions are admissible, where it is
178300, Mar. 17, 2009, the court held that: “The mantle of shown that the accused unburdened his guilt willingly,
protection afforded by the above-quoted provision openly and publicly in the presence of the newsmen.
covers the period from the time a person is taken into Such confessions do not form part of confessions in
custody for the investigation of his possible participation custodial investigations as it was not given to policemen
in the commission of a crime from the time he was but to media in attempt to solicit sympathy and
singled out as a suspect in the commission of the offense forgiveness from the public.
although not yet in custody.
However, due to inherent danger of these videotaped
Infraction of the rights of an accused during custodial confessions, they must be accepted with extreme
investigation or the so-called Miranda Rights render caution. They should be presumed involuntary, as there
inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or may be connivance between the police and media men
admission made during such investigation. "The (People v. Endino, G.R. No. 133026, Feb. 20, 2001).
admissibility of other evidence, provided they are
relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by NOTE: What the Constitution bars is the compulsory
law or rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in disclosure of the incriminating facts or confessions. The
the course of custodial investigation." (Ho Wai Pang v. rights under Sec. 12 are guarantees to preclude the
People, G.R. No. 176229, Oct. 19, 2011) slightest use of coercion by the State, and not to prevent
the suspect from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.
Unavailability of Miranda Rights (People v. Andan, G.R. No. 116437, Mar. 3, 1997)
1. During a police line-up, unless admissions or Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
confessions are being elicited from the suspect
(Gamboa v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-56291, June 27, Once the primary source (the tree) is shown to have
1988). been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative
2. During administrative investigations evidence (the fruit) derived from it is also inadmissible.
(Sebastian, Jr. v Garchitorena, G.R. No 114028).
3. Confessions made by an accused at the time he NOTE: The rule is based on the principle that evidence
voluntarily surrendered to the police or outside illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain
the context of a formal investigation; (People v other evidence, because the originally illegally obtained
Baloloy, G.R. No 140740, April 12, 2002) and evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.
4. Statements made to a private person (People v
Tawat, G.R. No 62871, May 25, 1985). ---
5. Forensic investigation is not tantamount to Q: Ian Loy is in police custody. Bothered and
custodial investigation, therefore Miranda remorseful, he spontaneously admitted guilt and
rights is not applicable. (People v. Tranca, 235 that he is the one who killed Dr. Neil. Is his
SCRA 455, 1994) confession admissible?
WAIVER
The criminal accusation against a person must be Among the fundamental rights of the accused is the right
substantiated by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The to be heard by himself and counsel. Verily, this right is
Court should steadfastly safeguard his right to be even guaranteed by the Constitution itself. This right has
presumed innocent. Although his innocence could be been recognized and established in order to make sure
doubted, for his reputation in his community might not that justice is done to the accused. The rights of an
be lily-white or lustrous, he should not fear a conviction accused during trial are given paramount importance in
for any crime, least of all one as grave as drug pushing, our laws and rules on criminal procedure. (Moslares v.
unless the evidence against him was clear, competent Third division, CA, G.R. No. 129744, June 26, 1998)
and beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the
presumption of innocence in his favor would be ---
rendered empty. (People v. Andaya, G.R. No. 183700, Oct. Q: In a murder case, Christian was convicted in the
13, 2014) trial court but was not given the right to testify and
to present additional evidence on his behalf. Is the
Rules regarding presumption of innocence conviction correct?
1. The prosecution has the burden to prove the A: NO. An accused has the constitutional right “to be
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. heard by himself and counsel” and the right “to testify as
(People v. Colcol., Jr., 219 SCRA 107, February 19, a witness in his own behalf “. The denial of such rights is
1993) a denial of due process. The constitutional right of the
2. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its accused to be heard in his defense is inviolate. “No court
evidence and not in the weakness of the of justice under our system of government has the power
defense. (People v. Solis, 182 SCRA 182, February to deprive him of that right.”(People v. Lumague, G.R. No.
14, 1990) L-53586)
3. Conviction of an accused must be based on the ---
strength of the prosecution evidence and not on
the weakness or absence of evidence of the ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
defense. (People v. Mirondo, G.R. No. 210841,
Oct. 14, 2015) Right to assistance of counsel
4. The prosecution bears the burden to overcome
such presumption. If the prosecution fails to The right of a person under investigation is to have a
discharge this burden, the accused deserves a “competent and independent counsel preferably of his
judgment of acquittal. (Delariva v. People, G.R. own choice”. The purpose is to preclude the slightest
No. 212940, Sept. 16, 2015) coercion as would lead the accused to admit something
5. Generally, flight, in the absence of a credible else. (People v. Evanoria, 209 SCRA 577, June 8, 1992)
explanation, would be a circumstance from
which an inference of guilt might be The accused must be amply accorded legal assistance
established, for a truly innocent person would extended by a counsel who commits himself to the cause
normally grasp the first available opportunity of the defense and acts accordingly; an efficient and truly
to defend himself and assert his innocence. It decisive legal assistance, and not simply a perfunctory
has been held, however, that non-flight may not representation. (People v. Bermas, G.R. No. 120420, Apr.
be construed as an indication of innocence 21, 1999)
either. There is no law or dictum holding that
staying put is proof of innocence, for the Court NOTE: While investigations conducted by an
is not blind to the cunning ways of a wolf administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal
which, after a kill, may feign innocence and proceeding, the fact remains that, under existing laws, a
choose not to flee. In Cristina's case, she party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be
explained that she took flight for fear of her assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the
safety because of possible retaliation from her charges and of petitioner’s capacity to represent herself,
Requisites for properly informing the accused of the RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL
nature and cause of accusation
Right to speedy trial (2000, 2001 Bar)
1. Information must state the name of the accused
2. Designation given to the offense by statute The term “speedy” means free from vexatious, capricious
3. Statement of the acts or omission so and oppressive delays.
complained of as constituting the offense
4. Name of the offended party In determining whether the accused's right to speedy
5. Approximate time and date of commission of trial was violated, the delay should be considered in view
the offense of the entirety of the proceedings. The factors to balance
6. Place where offense was committed are the following:
7. Every element of the offense must be alleged in (a) duration of the delay;
the complaint or information (b) reason therefor;
(c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it; and
NOTE: The purpose of an Information is to afford an (d) prejudice caused by such delay.
accused his right to be informed of the nature and cause Mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would
of the accusation against him. It is in pursuit of this not suffice as the realities of everyday life must be
purpose that the Rules of Court require that the regarded in judicial proceedings. (Saldariega v.
Information allege the ultimate facts constituting the Panganiban, G.R. Nos. 211933 & 211960, April 15, 2015)
elements of the crime charged. Details that do not go into
the core of the crime need not be included in the NOTE: The denial of the right to speedy trial is a ground
Information, but may be presented during trial. The rule for acquittal.
that evidence must be presented to establish the
existence of the elements of a crime to the point of moral The right to speedy trial [Sec. 14 (2)] particularly refers
certainty is only for purposes of conviction. It finds no to criminal prosecutions which are at the trial stage,
application in the determination of whether or not an while the right to speedy disposition of cases (Sec. 16)
Information is sufficient to warrant the trial of an applies to all cases before judicial, quasi-judicial or
accused (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 160619, Sept. administrative bodies.
9, 2015)
Right to impartial trial
It is not necessary for the information to allege the date
and time of the commission of the crime with exactitude Impartial trial means that the accused is entitled to cold
unless such date and time are essential ingredients of the neutrality of an impartial judge, one who is free from
offenses charged. (People v. Nuyok, G.R. No. 195424, June interest or bias.
15, 2015)
Speedy Disposition of Cases
Determination of the real nature of the crime
The right to speedy disposition of cases is different from
Description, not designation of the offense, is controlling. the right to speedy trial to the extent that the former
The real nature of the crime charged is determined from applies to all cases, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, or
the recital of facts in the information. It is neither administrative cases (Art. III, Sec. 16, 1987 Constitution);
determined based on the caption or preamble thereof whereas, the latter applies to criminal cases only. [Art.
nor from the specification of the provision of the law III, Sec. 14 (2), 1987 Constitution]
allegedly violated.
Violation
NOTE: The accused cannot be convicted thereof if the
information fails to allege the material elements of the The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right
offense even if the prosecution is able to present to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the
evidence during the trial with respect to such elements. proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of
The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the trial are asked for and secured; or even without
accusation cannot be waived. However, the defense may cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is
waive the right to enter a plea and let the court enter a allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried
plea of “not guilty”. (Roquero v. Chancellor of UP-Manila, G.R. No. 181851,
March 9, 2010).
Variance doctrine
Right to public trial
In spite of the difference between the crime that was
charged and that which was eventually proved, the GR:
accused may still be convicted of whatever offense that 1. Trial must be public in order to prevent possible
was proved even if not specifically set out in the abuses which may be committed against the
information provided it is necessarily included in the accused.
crime charged. (Teves v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154182, 2. The attendance at the trial is open to all,
Dec. 17, 2004) irrespective of their relationship to the accused.
If the failure of the accused to cross-examine a witness is Trials in absentia allows the accused to be absent at the
due to his own fault or was not due to the fault of the
prosecution, the testimony of the witness should not be trial. (Lavides v. CA, G.R. No. 129670, Feb. 1, 2000)
excluded.
Elements of trials in absentia
The affidavits of witnesses who are not presented during
trial are inadmissible for being hearsay. The accused is 1. Accused has been validly arraigned
denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. 2. Accused has been duly notified of the dates of
hearing
NOTE: Depositions are admissible under circumstances 3. Failure to appear is unjustifiable
provided by the Rules of Court.
The presence of the accused is mandatory in the
RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS TO SECURE following instances
ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS AND PRODUCTION OF
EVIDENCE 1. During arraignment and plea
2. During trial, for identification, unless the
Means available to the parties to compel the accused has already stipulated on his identity
attendance of witnesses and the production of during the pre-trial and that he is the one who
documents and things needed in the prosecution or will be identified by the witnesses as the
defense of a case accused in the criminal case
3. During promulgation of sentence, unless for a
1. Subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces light offense (Ibid.).
tecum
2. Depositions and other modes of discovery
3. Perpetuation of testimonies
Promulgation of judgment in absentia is valid Requisites for the suspension of the privilege of the
provided the following are present writ of habeas corpus
1. Judgment be recorded in the criminal docket 1. There must be an actual invasion or rebellion;
2. Copy be served upon accused or counsel and
2. Public safety requires the suspension
NOTE: Recording the decision in the criminal docket of
the court satisfies the requirement of notifying the The writ applies only to persons judicially charged for
accused of the decision wherever he may be. (Estrada v. rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected
People, G.R. No. 162371, Aug. 25, 2005) with invasion and anyone arrested or detained during
suspension must be charged within 3 days. Otherwise, he
should be released.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS