RULE 115 & 116 Rights of the Accused and Plea

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (RULE 115) Rights of accused at the trial – RULE 115 SEC 1

 There is no need for trial-type trial-type proceedings in order to satisfy due process. What is important is that there was an opportunity opportunity to be heard. Notice and hearing are the the minimum requirements of due process. Requirements of procedural due process: 1) There must be an impartial and competent court with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; 2) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property subject of the proceeding; 3) The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard;  Judgment must be rendered upon lawful lawful hearing Right of presumption of innocence  The right means that the presumption presumption must be overcome by evidence of of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Guilt beyond reasonable doubt doubt means that there is moral certainty as as to the guilt of the accused. accused. Conviction should be based based on the strength of the prosecution and and not on the weakness of the defense. defense. The significance of this is is that accusation is not synonymous with guilt.

Exceptions to the constitutional presumption of innocence: 1. Presumptions – If there is a reasonable connection between the fact presumed and the fact ultimately proven from such fact 2. Self-Defense – One who invokes self-defense is presumed guilty. The burden of proving the elements of self-defense (unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means u sed to prevent or repel it; lack of sufficient su fficient provocation on the part of the one defending himself) belongs to the accused. Scope of the right against self-incrimination  The right against self-incrimination self-incrimination covers testimonial compulsion compulsion only and the compulsion compulsion to produce incriminating documents, documents, papers, and chattels. It does not cover the compulsion compulsion to produce real or physical evidence using the body of the accused. Exception to the right against self-incrimination  The right cannot be invoked when the State has the right to inspect inspect documents under its police power, such as documents of corporations. Rationale for protecting the right against self-incrimination 1. For humanit humanitari arian an reason reasons: s: To preven preventt the the State, State, with with all all its coerc coercive ive power powers, s, from from extracting testimony that may convict the accused. 2. For practi practica call reaso reasons: ns: The accuse accused d is likely likely to commit commit perjury perjury if he were were compel compelled led to testify against himself.

Who and When can invoke the right against self-incrimination be invoke 1. An ord ordina inary ry wit witne ness ss may may inv invok oke e the the righ right, t, but but he he may may only only do do so as as each each inc incri rimi mina nati ting ng question is asked. 2. The The accu accuse sed d hims himsel elff may may invo invoke ke the the rig right, ht, and and unl unlik ike e the the ordi ordina nary ry wit witnes ness, s, he he may may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions.

But, once the accused waives his right and chooses to testify in his own behalf, he may be cross-examined on matters covered in his direct examination. He cannot refuse to answer questions during cross-examination by claiming that the answer that he will give could incriminate him for the crime with which he was charged. However, if the question during cross-examination relates to a crime different from that with which he was charged, he can still invoke the right and refuse to answer. Right of Confrontation (Sec 1 F, RULE 115) It means that the accused can only be tried using those witnesses that meet him face to face at the trial who give testimony in his presence, with the opportunity to cross- examine them. Reasons: 1. To allow the court to observe the demeanor of the witness while testifying. 2. To give the accused the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in order to test their recollection and credibility. Right of confrontation, waived  Yes, it can be waived either expressly or impliedly. It is waived impliedly when an accused waives his right to be present at the trial. The right of confrontation may also be waived by conduct amounting to a renunciation of the right to cross-examine. When the party was given an opportunity to confront and cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take advantage of it for reasons attributable to himself alone, he is deemed to have waived the right. Testimony of a witness who dies or becomes unavailable It depends. If the other party had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness before he died or became unavailable, the testimony may be used as evidence. However, if the other party did not even have the opportunity to cross-examine before the subsequent death or unavailability of the witness, the testimony will have no probative value. ( An opportunity  to cross-examine is all that is necessary in order to allow the use of the testimony of the witness. There need not be an actual cross-examination, as long as there was an opportunity  to do so.) Right to Compulsory Process It is the right of the accused to have a subpoena and/or a subpoena duces tecum issued in his behalf in order to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of other evidence. When the witness refuses to testify when required  The court should order the witness to give bail or even order his arrest, if necessary. Failure to obey a subpoena amounts to contempt of court. Rights of persons under Custodial Investigation

1) The rights of an accused person under in-custody investigation are expressly enumerated in Sec. 12, Art. III of the Constitution : (a) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his rights 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; (b) No torture, force, violence, 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; (c) Any confession or admission in violation of this or Sec. 17 (Self-Incrimination Clause)

hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him; (d) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violation of this section as well as compensation to aid rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practice, and their families. 2) Under RA 7834, the following are the rights of persons arrested, detained or un der custodial investigation: (a) Any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel ; (b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or in his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer; (c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever; (d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter‘s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, older brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding ; (e) Any waiver by person arrested or detained under the provisions of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise such waiver shall be null and void and of no effect; (f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by his or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by his counsel, or by any national NGO duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person‘s ―immediate family shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece and guardian or ward. 3) Three rights are made available by Sec. 12 Art 3 (a) The right to remain silent — Under the right against self-incrimination in Sec. 17, only an accused has the absolute right to remain silent. A person who is not an accused may assume the stance of silence only when asked an incriminatory question . Under Sec. 12, however, a person under investigation has the right to refuse to answer any question. His silence, moreover, may not be used against him (People vs. Alegre and Gordoncillo) (b) The right to counsel — Example of those who are not impartial counsel are: 1. Special counsel, private or public prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose interest is adverse to that of the accused 2. a mayor, unless the accused approaches him as counselor or adviser; 3. a barangay captain; 4. any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused (People vs. Tomaquin) (c) The right to be informed of his rights — the right guaranteed here is more than what is shown in television shows where the police routinely reads out the rights from a note card; he must also explain their effects in practical terms (People vs. Rojas). Short of this, there is a denial of the right, as it cannot then truly be said that the person has been informed of his

rights (People vs. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289). Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. The right to custodial investigation begins only when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police carry out a process of  interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements .It should be noted however, however, that although the scope of the constitutional right is limitedp to the situation in Escobedo and Marra (case), RA 7438 has extended the guarantee to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been ―INVITED for questioning (People vs. Dumantay) ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA (RULE 116)

 The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint was filed or assigned for trial. How is arraignment made?

Arraignment is made: in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information reading it in the language or dialect known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. Some rules on arraignment: (a) Trial in absentia is allowed only AFTER arraignment; (b) Judgment is generally void if the accused has not been arraigned; (c) There can be NO arraignment in absentia or without the presence of the accused (d) If the accused went to trial without arraignment, but his counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution and after prosecution, he was arraigned, the defect was cured (People vs. Atienza) NOTE: Arraignment is important because it is the mode of implementing the constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and to fix the identity of the accused. It is not a mere formality, but an integral part of due process, it implements the constitutional right of the accused to be informed and th e right to speedy trial (Lumanlaw vs. Peralta).

In the following cases, the accused should be arraigned with a shorter period (Sec1 E, RULE 116) 1) Where the complainant is about to depart from the Philippines with no definite date of  return, the accused should be arraigned without delay and his trial should commence within 3 days from arraignment. 2) The trial of cases under the Child Abuse Act requires that the trial should be commenced within 3 days from arraignment. 3) When the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled within 3 days from the filing of the information or complaint. The accused shall be arraigned within 10 days from the date of the

raffle. When should plea of NOT GUILTY be entered? 1) At any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty (Sec. 5, RULE 116). 2) A plea of not guilty should be entered where (a) The accused so pleaded; (b) When he refuses to plead; (c) Where in admitting the act charged, he sets up matters of defense or with a lawful  justification; (d) When he enters a conditional plea of guilt; (e) Where, after a plea of guilt, he introduces evidence of self-defense or other exculpatory circumstances (f) When the plea is indefinite or ambiguous. When may accused enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense? 1) At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary (Sec. 2, RULE 116). 2) An accused can enter a plea to a lesser offense if there is consent of the other party and the prosecutor. If he did so without the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor and he was convicted, his subsequent conviction in the crime charged would not place him in double  jeopardy. It has been held that the accused can still plead guilty to a lesser offense after the prosecution has rested (People vs. Villarama) It is further required that the offense to which he pleads must be necessarily included in the offense charged (Sec. 2, RULE 116). Accused plead guilty to capital offense, what the court should do? 1) The court should accomplish three (3) things; (a) It should conduct searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the plea; (b) It should require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of culpability; and (c) It should inquire whether or not the accused wishes to present evidence on his behalf and allow him if he so desires (Sec. 3 RULE 116; People vs. Dayot)

Searching Inquiry 1) Searching question means more than informing cursorily the accused that he faces a jail term. It also includes the exact lengthy of imprisonment under the law and the certainty that he will serve at the national penitentiary or a penal colony (People vs. Pastor). It is intended to undermine the degree of culpability of the accused in order that the court may be guided in determining the proper penalty. Improvident plea 1) Conviction based on an improvident plea of guilty may set aside only when such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. But if the trial court relied on the evidence of the prosecution and convincing evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt, not on his plea of guilty, such conviction must be sustained (People vs. Lunia) 2) Courts must be careful to avoid improvident pleas of guilt and, where grave crimes are involved, the proper course is to take down evidence to determine guilt and avoid doubts (People vs. Siabilul)

3) The withdrawal of an improvident plea of guilty, to be substituted by a plea of not guilty, is PERMITTED even after judgment has been promulgated BUT BEFORE the same becomes FINAL. While this Rule is silent on the matter, a plea of not guilty can likewise be withdrawn so that the accused may instead plead guilty to the same offense, but for obvious reasons, this must be done before promulgation of judgment. In either case, however, if the prosecution had already presented its witnesses, the accused will generally not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance based on a plea of guilty (People vs. Lumague; SEC 5. RULE 116) When a defendant appears without an attorney during arraignment, what should the court do?  The court should: (Sec 6, RULE 116)

1) It must inform the defendant that he has a right to an attorney before being arraigned; 2) After informing him, the court must ask the defendant if he desires to have the aid of an attorney; 3) If he desires and is unable to employ an attorney, the court must assign an attorney de oficio to defend him; 4) If the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own, the court must grant him a reasonable time therefor. Counsel de oficio is counsel appointed by the court to represent and defend the accused in case he cannot afford to employ one himself. Who can be appointed as counsel de oficio?  The court, considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions that may arise shall appoint as counsel de oficio:

1. 2.

such members of the bar in good standing who by reason of their experience and ability, can competently defend the accused.

Difference between the duty of the court to appoint counsel de oficio during arraignment and during trial? During arraignment, the court has the affirmative duty to inform the accused of his right to counsel and to provide him with one in case he cannot afford it. The court must act on its own volition, unless the right is waived by the accused.

On the other hand, during trial, it is the accused who must assert his right to counsel. The court will not act unless the accused invokes his rights. Bill of particulars (Sec 9, RULE 116) It is a more specific allegation. A defendant in a criminal case who believes or feels that he is not sufficiently informed of the crime with which he is charged and not in a position to defend himself properly and adequately could move for a bill or particulars or specifications. Purpose of a bill of particulars It is to allow the accused to prepare for his defense. When can the accused move for a bill of particulars?  The accused must move for a bill of particulars before arraignment. Otherwise, the right is deemed waived. What should be contained in the motion for a bill or particulars? It should specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired.

Grounds for suspension of arraignment – SEC 11, RULE 116

Ardua Non Tmeo CJMP