Rule 115 Rights of the Accused

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 115 Rights of the Accused

Rule 115

RIGHTS OF ACCUSED I know you are not anymore a stranger to many of these provisions because many of them are already found under the Constitution. Section 1 – Rights of accused at the trial – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights; a.) doubt.

To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable x x x x x

Paragraph [a] emphasizes the degree of proof in criminal cases. Why is it in criminal case an accused enjoys this presumption? Why does the law give the accused the presumption of innocence? The SC already answered that the reason is to make the fight at least equal. In criminal cases, all the resources are directed against the accused. It is the accused versus the People of the Philippines – so you are fighting the government, and the government has all the resources at its command – the PNP, NBI, etc. Anong laban mo diyan? So at least para mag-tabla-tabla ng konti ang laban, the law will give certain presumptions in your favor. In the case of PEOPLE vs. SEQUERRA October 12, 1987 HELD: “Confronted by the full panoply of state authority, the accused is accorded the presumption of innocence to lighten and even reverse the heavy odds against him. Mere accusation is not enough to convict him, and neither is the weakness of his defense. The evidence for the prosecution must be strong per se, strong enough to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, he is entitled to be freed.” “But as solicitous as the Bill of Rights is of the accused, the presumption of innocence is not an automatic or blanket exoneration. It is at best only an initial protection. If the prosecution succeeds in refuting the presumption, it then becomes the outlook of the accused to adduce evidence that will at least raise that inkling of doubt that he is guilty. Once the armor of the presumption is pierced, so to speak, it is for the accused to take the offense and ward off the attack.” So the accused cannot rely forever in the presumption of innocence. This is a disputable presumption. The prosecution can destroy that presumption by presenting evidence that you are guilty and once the prosecution has presented that you cannot anymore rely on this presumption. It is now your duty to present evidence that you are innocent. b.) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Yes, you should know why you are there. It is very awkward that you are charged without even knowing what the charge is all about. That is why there is an arraignment to make everything formal. Q: Can you waive the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him? A: NO. It is not waivable because public interest is involved in this right, the public having an interest in seeing to it that no person is unlawfully deprived of his life or liberty. (U.S. vs. Palisoc, 4 Phil. 207) There are certain rights of the accused that are waivable; there are certain rights that cannot be waived. For example: to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved –

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

112

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 115 Rights of the Accused

can you waive that? “Ah OK lang, you can presume me guilty!” I don’t think the court will agree with that. That is not waivable. And mind you, there was a bar examination in the past, where the examiner asked this question – “among the rights of the accused outline those which can be waived and cannot be waived.” So practically you have to know [a] – [i]. It’s not only a question of enumerate the rights of the accused but segregate those which can be waived and those which cannot be waived. Medyo mahirap yan. But if you have a lot of common sense, [meaning, ang common sense is common sa iyo!] malaman mo man ba! “To be presumed innocent – pwede bang ma-waive ito? Mukang hindi man...” Yaan! 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 pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for 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 defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.

Paragraph [c] is quite important. This is a right to be present from arraignment to promulgation – right yan eh! – I want to be there. Q: But technically, do you have the obligation to be there? A: NO. This right is waivable because the law says the accused may however waive his presence during the trial, unless the presence of the accused is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. This was taken from the case of NINOY AQUINO, JR vs. MILITARY COMMISSION where Ninoy was arrested and tried in a military court and he refused to participate in the proceedings. And issue now is, can he be forced by the court to appear? SC: YES, because how can he be identified if he will not appear? That is why it is now found in the Rules. CARREDO vs. PEOPLE 183 SCRA 273 ISSUE: After arraignment he can waive his presence during the trial, but can he be ordered arrested by the court for an appearance, upon summons to appear for purposes of identification? HELD: YES. “Waiver of appearance and trial in absentia does not mean that the prosecution is thereby deprived of its right to require the presence of the accused for purposes of identification by its witnesses which is vital for the conviction of the accused. Such waiver of a right of the accused does not mean a release of the accused from his obligation under the bond to appear in court whenever so required. The accused may waive his right but not his duty or obligation to the court.” So, you can waive your right but not your duty. That is one of the conditions in the bond under Rule 114, Section 2 [b] – “the accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so required by the court or these Rules.” Q: Now, what happens if during the trial, the accused did not show up but he was notified? Can the trial proceed without him? A: YES, 2nd sentence of paragraph [c] provides, “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.” This is taken from Article II, Section 14 (2), - Trial in absentia.

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

113

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 115 Rights of the Accused

But take note that in trial in absentia, it assumes that: 1. the court already acquired jurisdiction over your person; 2. you were arrested; and 3. you must first be arraigned. So arraignment is a prerequisite for trial in absentia to apply. Q: What is the difference between these two sentences in [c]: “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” and “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”? A: In the first sentence, the accused is absent without justifiable cause during the particular trial date, and so the trial may continue. But he can still appear in the next trial. He only waived his right to be present on that date but he has not waived his right to be present on subsequent trial dates. He has not waived his right to present evidence. In the second sentence, iba eh. You escaped or you jumped bail. You are not only waiving your right to be present on this date but on all subsequent dates. And therefore, there can be a judgment against you when the prosecution rests. This trial in absentia was explained by the SC in the case of PEOPLE vs. AGBULOS 222 SCRA 196 (1993) HELD: The prisoner cannot by simply escaping thwart his continued prosecution and possibly eventual conviction provided that: 1. he has been arraigned; 2. he has been duly notified of the trial; and 3. his failure to appear is unjustified. (But how can the prosecution establish that the accused has been duly notified of the trial? How can you notify a person who is hiding? And how can you say that his failure to appear is unjustified?) “The fugitive is deemed to have waived such notice precisely because he has escaped, and it is also this escape that makes his failure to appear at his trial unjustified. Escape can never be a legal justification. His escape will, legally speaking, operate to his disadvantage as he will be unable to attend his trial, which will continue even in his absence and most likely result in his conviction.” GIMENEZ vs. NAZARENO 160 SCRA 1 (1988) FACTS: The accused is arraigned, then he escaped from jail. The prosecution moved for the trial to proceed without him – trial in absentia. So the prosecution presented all its witnesses, and then it rested and submitted the case for decision based on the prosecution’s evidence alone – parang ex-parte ba. The judge said “NO, we will have to hear the accused. Trial in absentia means the prosecution can present its evidence without him but the case will not be decided until we catch him because we have to hear him.” The prosecution went to the SC. ISSUE #1: Is the court’s interpretation of trial in absentia correct? HELD: NO. Definitely, that is not the meaning of trial in absentia. Pagtapos na, eh di tapos na! why wait for the accused? However, there are questions. Does an accused, who has been duly tried in absentia retain his rights to present evidence on his behalf and to confront and cross-examine witnesses who testified against him? The court said that, “Upon the termination of a trial in absentia, the court has the duty to rule upon the evidence presented in court. The court need not wait for the time until the accused who escape from custody finally decides to appear in court to present his evidence and cross-examine the

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

114

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 115 Rights of the Accused

witnesses against him. To allow the delay of proceedings for this purpose is to render ineffective the constitutional provision on trial in absentia.” ISSUE #2: Why is it that an escapee who has been tried in absentia does not retain his right to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence? How come those rights are lost? HELD: “By his failure to appear during the trial of which he had notice, he virtually waived these rights. This Court has consistently held that the right of the accused to confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses is a personal right and may be waived. In the same vein, his right to present evidence on his behalf, a right given to him for his own benefit and protection, may be waived by him.” So an escape can be considered a waiver. ISSUE #3: If judgment is rendered as to the said accused and chances are you would be convicted, would it not violate his right to be presumed innocent and right to due process? HELD: NO, he is still presumed innocent. “A judgment of conviction must still be based upon the evidence presented in court. Such evidence must prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Also, there can be no violation of due process since the accused was given the opportunity to be heard.” If the prosecution does not present anything, he would be acquitted. Now, the last sentence of paragraph [c]: “Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.”

Take note that under the first sentence of [c] he can be present and defend in person and by counsel. For example, ayaw niya ng abogado? “I will defend myself!” Anong mangyari diyan? Is the right to counsel waivable by the accused? YES. The right to counsel may be waived by the accused BUT the waiver must be clear, intelligent and competent. (People vs. Ben, L-8320, Dec. 20, 1955) But now, the guideline is clearer – the accused can be allowed to defend himself in person “when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.” Meaning, although he is not a lawyer, parang marunong and may common sense naman… the court will say, “Magbasa ka ng Constitution, Criminal Law, Evidence?” Accused: “Oo! Basahin ko lahat yan! Pag-aralan ko! I will defend myself!” Ah problema mo na yan. And of course, whether he succeed we do not know. That is your risk. I think there is something wrong with that accused. Even lawyers when they have cases, they hire another lawyer. He will not depend on his own skills. Eh kung layman ka? I saw that happen. Ah talagang kawawa ka. Kahit na siguro yung prosecutor na pinaka-banga, yariin ka talaga because he will invoke many rules, laws, jurisprudence… eh anong malay mo diyan? According to one statesmen, “A lawyer who handles his own case has a FOOL for a client.” Did you understand that? Meaning: Sino ang lawyer? Lawyer: “Ako!” Sino naman ang client? Lawyer: “Ako rin!” Ah GAGO ka! Q: Now, I will expand the question: Sabi ng offended party, “Alright, ayaw ng akusado na may abogado. Ako rin! Ayoko ko rin ng abugado! I’ll be the one to prosecute him!” Eh meron mang private prosecutor? “Ah hindi na kailangan ng private prosecutor! Siya personal, ako personal din!” Can he do that? A: Let’s go back to Rule 110, Section 16 on whether the rights of the accused and the offended party are same:

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

115

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 115 Rights of the Accused

“Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.”

So their rights are different. The offended party cannot intervene personally. The law will not allow it. He must have a counsel. Sabihin niya, “Wala man akong pera pang-hire ng private prosecutor?” Eh di yung fiscal! The fiscal will be the one to come in. That is why we have public prosecutors precisely to handle criminal cases. d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to crossexamination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.

This is the right of the accused to testify on his own behalf. But he has no obligation to testify. If you connect this to the next right – [e] to be exempt to be a witness against himself (that is why you cannot compel him to testify) – once he testifies on his own behalf, he waives the privilege against self-incrimination and he can be cross-examined like any other witness. He cannot say, “I will testify but I refuse to be cross-examined.” That would be unfair no? So, you are waiving your right against self-incrimination if you testify in your own behalf because the law is clear – subject to cross-examination on matters covered by the direct examination. You can be cross-examined on matters covered by direct examination. Let’s go back to Evidence. Q: What is the rule on cross-examination? A: Look at Rule 132, Section 6: “Upon termination of the direct examination, the witness may be crossexamined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue.”

So, masyadong broad eh! – You can be cross-examined on matters or connected with matters in the direct examination with sufficient fullness and freedom, etc. – very liberal! It is called the ENGLISH RULE on cross-examination. The AMERICAN RULE on cross-examination is different – the witness can be crossexamined ONLY on matters stated in the direct examination. In the Philippines, we followed the English Rule because of Rule 132, Section 6. However, it seems the American Rule on cross-examination is applied, as an exception, when you are talking about cross-examining an accused in a criminal case because of paragraph [d] – subject to cross-examination on matters covered by the direct examination. So we follow the American Rule on cross-examination of the accused in criminal cases. Mas limitado! Sabihin mo sa mga judges yan! Maraming hindi alam yan eh, because I knew of a graduate here, ginamit niya talaga ang rule. Pag-cross-examine ng prosecution sa kanyang cliente who is the accused, object siya, “Objection!” Prosecution: “No! This is cross-examination! We are testing the credibility of the accused to testify.” Sabi niya, “No! No! No! We are following the American Rule on cross-examination of the accused under Rule 115 and you are citing the English Rule – the general rule – under Rule 132!” Sabi ng judge, “Ano ba yang American Rule, English Rule?” Naloko na! Sabi nung lawyer, “Ganito pala ito! What I learned in law school is different from what I see!” Talagang ganyan yan. Kailangang masanay kayo diyan. Just like [Atty.] Ceniza. He was talking to me last week. He was telling me of what happened in Davao Oriental in one MTC. Sabi niya, “Ganito! Ganito! Parang niluto man ako?!” Talagang niluto ka! Ganyan gud yan diyan sa Davao Oriental – they knew each other! So you have to get

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

116

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 115 Rights of the Accused

used to it. Kapag matapang ka, file ka ng kaso. File-an mo silang lahat! That is the beauty of law in the classroom, and the tragedy of law outside! Yaan! Q: Now, what is the effect if the accused does not want to testify on his own behalf? A: No unfavorable deduction can be drawn from the neglect or refusal of an accused to testify. (U.S. vs. Luzon, 4 Phil. 343) His silence is not in any manner prejudice him. (paragraph [d]) Meaning, if he refuses to testify, that should not be taken against him because of his right to remain silent. He can testify if he wants to. Kung ayaw niya, puwede rin. Admission by silence is not generally applicable. ALTHOUGH there are one or two decisions of the SC where it said that if the evidence presented by the prosecution is overwhelming, the accused should testify. One of these cases is the 1998 case of PEOPLE vs. DELMENDO 296 SCRA 371 [1998] ISSUE: If the accused refuses to testify, can it be taken against him? HELD: General Rule is NO. BUT the SC said in this case, “An adverse inference may also be deduced from accused’s failure to take the witness stand. While his failure to testify cannot be considered against him, it may however help in determining his guilt. The unexplained failure of the accused to testify, under a circumstance where the crime imputed to him is so serious that places in the balance his very life and that his testimony might at least help in advancing his defense, gives rise to an inference that he did not want to testify because he does not want to betray himself.” “An innocent person will at once naturally and emphatically repel an accusation of crime, as a matter of self-preservation, and as precaution against prejudicing himself. A person’s silence, therefore, particularly when it is persistent, may justify an inference that he is not innocent. Thus, we have the general principle that when an accused is silent when he should speak, in circumstances where an innocent person so situated would have spoken, on being accused of a crime, his silence and omission are admissible in evidence against him. Accordingly, it has been aptly said that silence may be assent as well as consent, and may, where a direct and specific accusation of crime is made, be regarded under some circumstances as a quasi-confession.” And to my mind, that was the risk which Erap was taking during the impeachment trial because his lawyers never agree that Erap will testify because lalong masisira si Erap kung mag-testify siya. Estrada is their greatest nightmare. He is one person who cannot control his mouth and once he starts talking, he does not know what his saying. That is why his lawyers are already afraid that if the second envelope will be opened, the evidence of the prosecution becomes overwhelming, and there is no other choice but to Estrada to testify. So hangga’t maaga pa, patayin na! But they were not anticipating that by killing that evidence, it hastens Estrada’s downfall! [e] To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.

This is the right against self-incrimination – Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare. Take note that the right of the accused against self-incrimination is not limited to testimonial evidence. According to the SC, it refers not only to testimonial compulsion but also to production by the accused of incriminating documents and things. (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62) So you cannot subpoena his personal documents. However, supposed you are asked to perform a mechanical act, for example footprint, “Ilagay mo nga yang paa mo diyan beh! Let’s find out kung pareho kayo ng size nung

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

117

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 115 Rights of the Accused

footprint.” This is not covered. Mechanical lang yan eh – physical act. However, to produce specimen signature requires concentration and intelligence. This is covered by the protection. (People vs. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244; Bermudez vs. Castillo, 64 Phil. 433; Beltran vs. Samson, 53 Phil. 570) There was a tricky question in the Bar exam in the past: PROBLEM: The accused is charged with falsification for writing a falsified letter. The prosecution present its evidence that this letter was written by the accused. The accused said, “No, that is not my handwriting.” On cross-examination, he was asked to write on a piece of paper as dictated. The defense object on the ground of violation of the right to self-incrimination. Rule on the objection. ANSWER: The objection should be overruled. The case is not covered by the right against self-incrimination. He can be compelled because he testified that it is not his handwriting. From that moment he waived his right against self-incrimination. It is unfair that you say it is not your signature and I have no way of telling you to give me a specimen. Q: How is the right against self-incrimination be waived? A: The privilege is waivable by the accused taking the stand and testifying as a witness or by freely answering the incriminating questions put to him. (U.S. vs. Grant, 18 Phil. 122; U.S. vs. Rota, 9 Phil. 426) Or by not objecting. Q: What is the reason for the right of an accused against self-incrimination? A: The rule was established on the ground of public policy, because if the accused were required to testify, he would be placed under the strongest temptation to commit perjury, and of humanity, because it would prevent the extortion of confession by duress. (U.S. vs. Navarro, 3 Phil. 143) So, if you require him to testify, chances are he will lie. That is why according to former U.S. SC Justice Black, “The accused should not be fried by his own fat. [e di cooking oil!] No sane man will burn his own shirt nor he will get a stone to hit his own head. [eh kung gusto ko pala? Anong paki mo?] The privilege against self-incrimination is one of the great landmarks in man’s struggle to make himself civilized. We do not make even the most hardened criminal sign his own death warrant or dig his own grave.” Our own SC also followed that kind of explanation through Justice Reynato Puno in the 1994 case of MAPA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 231 SCRA 783 HELD: “The days of inquisitions brought about the most despicable abuses against human rights. Not the least of these abuses is the expert use of coerced confessions to send to the guillotine even the guiltless. To guard against the recurrence of this totalitarian method, the right against self-incrimination was ensconced in the fundamental laws of all civilized countries.” (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 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.

Q: Is the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him waivable? A: YES as ruled by the SC in the case of GIMENEZ VS. NAZARENO, (160 SCRA 1), such right is waived if the accused decides to run away, jumps bail, or disappears – he is automatically waiving the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. Q: Now what is the reason behind this right? Why is there such a right?

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

118

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 115 Rights of the Accused

A: It is intended to prevent the conviction of an accused upon mere depositions and affidavits; to preserve the right of the accused to test the recollection of witnesses against him; and to enable the court to observe the demeanor of the witnesses who are testifying. (Dowdell vs. U.S., 221 U.S. 325; U.S. vs. Anastacio, 6 Phil. 413) You have taken up Evidence. Those are the important factors for the court to gauge the credibility of witnesses. Demeanor ba – their manner of testifying. How can the court exercise that option if he does not even see the witnesses? So more or less, that is the reason behind it. To borrow the language of an American justice commenting on this issue, “It ensures that convictions will not be based on the charges of unseen and unknown, hence unchallengeable individuals". Another Justice, Justice Scalla, he is still an incumbent of the Federal Supreme Court, describing this right, he said, “It is always more difficult to tell a lie about a person to his face than behind his back, and even if the lie is told, it will often be told less convincingly.” Meaning, it is easier to tell a lie ba against somebody if he is not in front of you. Pero pagkaharap na, parang alanganin kang magsinungaling eh. And even if you still tell a lie, it becomes not so convincing if you will lie about a person in front of you. But if he is not there, you become very persuasive in your talk. These are the psychological reasons behind that. Q: What are the EXCEPTIONS to the right of the accused to confront and examine witnesses against him? A: The following: 1. Second portion of paragraph [f]: 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 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.

Sometimes there is no choice. Now, one good example where the testimony of a witness is admissible even if he does not appear in the trial is when the witness is about to die. Malapit ng mamatay, so you need to take his testimony in advance. In civil cases we call it deposition. In the criminal procedure, deposition is called conditional examination of a witness. That is governed by Rule 119 Sections 12, 13, and 15. 2. when there is a separate civil action filed against the accused by the offended party and he made a reservation Normally, the prosecution witnesses in the criminal case are also the witnesses for the plaintiff in the civil case. Assuming nauna ang trial ng civil case, these witnesses testified during the trial of the civil case, they were crossexamined by the lawyer of the defendant who is also the accused in the criminal case. Now, under the law, when the criminal case is tried, these witnesses have to testify again in the criminal case, practically they will have to repeat their testimony. The trouble is, in the meantime, some of these witnesses died. Q: Can the testimony recorded in the civil case be now admissible in the criminal case when there is no more confrontation there? A: Yes. because that is the exception, “when the testimony of the witness who is now deceased, 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.” As a matter of fact, this is also considered as one of the exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. It is the 11th exception to the Hearsay Rule. Try to connect this with Rule 130 on Evidence. How many exceptions are there to the Hearsay Rule?

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

119

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 115 Rights of the Accused

eleven (11) iyan eh – starting from dying declaration. That is the last exception – testimony or deposition at a former trial or proceeding. Yaan! That is considered as an exception to the right against confrontation. 3. The exceptions to the hearsay rule are likewise exceptions to this right of the accused. (U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil. 530) If there are 11 to this. Like dying So there are 11 witnesses against

exceptions to the hearsay rule, all of them are also exceptions declaration, how can you cross-examine iyung taong patay na. exceptions to the right to confront and cross-examine the him which are all found in the rules on evidence.

Q: One last point, does the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against you, include your right to know their names and addresses in advance? A: NO, the accused has no such right because the case of the prosecution might be endangered if the accused were to know the prosecution witnesses in advance, for known witnesses might be subjected to pressure or cowered not to testify. (People vs. Palacio, L13933, May 25, 1960) So, you confront them during the trial, not now. (g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.

I think that is self-explanatory, that is one of your rights as an accused. As a matter of fact, the question has been asked in the bar. Q: Suppose my witness is somewhere there in Cagayan de Oro, can I secure a subpoena to compel him when under the rules on subpoena a witness is not bound if he resides more than 100 kilometers? A: That has already been answered in the cases of PEOPLE VS. MONTEJO and MILLORCA VS. QUITAIN. The SC said that the 100-km limitation (formerly 50 kms.) does not apply when you are talking of witnesses for the defense in a criminal case because of the Constitutional right to have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf. That right cannot be precluded by provisions in the Rules of Court. (h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.

There 1. 2. 3.

are actually three rights here: the right to a speedy trial; the right to an impartial trial; and the right to a public trial.

Q: What do you mean by speedy trial? Meaning, no postponements? not even one postponement? A: NO. That is not the interpretation. In the case of ALVIZO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN 220 SCRA 55 HELD: It must not be lost sight of that the concept of speedy disposition of cases is a RELATIVE term and must necessarily be a flexible concept. Delays per se are understandably attendant to all prosecutions and are constitutionally permissible with the monition that the attendant delay must NOT be OPPRESSIVE. [Hindi palagi. Pa-minsan-minsan okay lang man ba] Hence, the doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether or not that right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are: a.) the length of delay; b.) the reasons for such delay; c.) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

120

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 115 Rights of the Accused

d.) the prejudice caused by the delay. Q: What are the remedies of an accused whose rights to a speedy trial is being violated because the prosecution keeps on postponing the case? How do you invoke this right to speedy trial? A: There are three (3) possible remedies: 1. The accused should OPPOSE the postponement and insist on trial. If the court denies the postponement and directs the prosecution to proceed and cannot do so because he does not have the evidence, the accused should move for dismissal of the case on the ground of failure to prosecute or insufficiency of evidence. (Jaca vs. Blanco, 86 Phil. 452; Gandicela vs. Lutero, 88 Phil. 299; People vs. Diaz, 94 Phil. 714) The dismissal is equivalent to an acquittal and there is no way for that case to be brought back because it will amount to double jeopardy. (People vs. Diaz, 94 Phil. 714) 2. If the court grants the postponement everytime the fiscal asks for it, over the protest of the accused, the latter’s remedy is mandamus to compel dismissal of the case; (Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil. 215) 3. If the accused is restrained of his liberty, his remedy is habeas corpus to obtain his freedom. (Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil. 215; Conde vs. Rivera, 45 Phil. 650) Q: When is trial impartial? A: There should be no bias otherwise, the trial will not be fair – you are not given due process. If the court or the judge has already pre-ordained your guilt. “Every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.” (Villapando vs. Quitain, January 20, 1977) Q: Right to a public trial – this is one of the features of the accusatorial system. What is the reason for public trial? A: The requirement of public trial is for the benefit of the accused, that the public may see that he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of responsibility and to the importance of their functions. (1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p. 647) Meaning, everybody is on their toes. You don't want to commit a mistake eh, mahihiya ka eh, maraming nanonood. The judge, the prosecutor, the witnesses, the defense counsel, everybody is careful because they are watched by the public. Look at what happened in the impeachment trial, everybody wants to be careful there because, imagine how many millions of people are watching you there on T.V. So, pati ang mga senators di makatulog, some are sleepy no, mapapahiya ka, you are ashamed na makita ka ng camera natutulog ka or you are using your cellphone. I was reading an interview with Davide, he was asked how he was able to cope with his hours – full concentration iyan eh, because he has to listen to every question because you do not know when an objection will come. Senators can just relax and pretend they are listening. Davide has to make the ruling. So he has 5 or 6 hours of full concentration. Katakot-takot daw na bitamina at kape. [bato?] Please connect this provision on Speedy Trial with Rule 119 Section 9 which is a new provision taken from the Speedy Trial Act. What is the heading of Section 9 Rule 119? Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within time limits. So there is such a provision. When your case will not move, the accused may question the delay why his case has not been set for trial. That is a new provision taken from the Speedy Trial Act. [i] To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

121

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition

Rule 115 Rights of the Accused

There is something you will notice here – all the rights of the accused in this Rule, from [a] to [h], are also found in the Constitution. These are all Constitutional rights except the last – [i]. The right to appeal is purely statutory which may be granted or withheld at the pleasure of the State. (People vs. Ang Gioc, 73 Phil. 366)

 editor-in-chief: mortmort editors: jayceebelle balite • j-j torres • michael peloton • maying dadula • jessamyn agustin • lyle santos • paul ryan ongkingco • dynn gutierrez • maya quitain • riezl locsin • patrick tabar • maritess gonzales • maricel culpable • kenneth leyva • jenny namoc • ferdinand vido • melissa suarez • rayda sullano • rucel cayetano • rod quiachon • hannah examen • myra montecalvo • genie salvaña • grace salesa • leo gillesania • gemma betonio • jenny aquiatan • michael pito • karen de leon • elma tormon • judee uy • pao angeles • jet pascua • contributing editors: bathsheba baldoza • marlo masangkay

 SPACE-FILLER #4:

After my wife had an ultrasound, I asked my motherin-law to guess the sex of the twins her daughter was carrying. “Two boys,” she said. I shook my head. “It must be two girls,” she offered. Again I told her no. “Well, then,” she asked, “what are they?” Source: Reader’s November 2000

Digest,

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

122