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.
(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.
·
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
(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)
[waiver must be in writing and in the
presence of counsel]
(b) Right to Counsel
(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
(b) Security bond
Who May Invoke?
(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.
No comments:
Post a Comment