Scribd
Upload
101 views2 pages

Rights of The Accused: Estrada v. Desierto (2001) Dumlao v. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392

The document discusses several cases related to the rights of the accused: 1. Estrada v. Desierto establishes that pervasive pre-trial publicity alone does not necessarily prejudice a defendant's right to a fair trial. Judges are trained to disregard off-court influences. 2. Corpuz v. People applies the "equipoise rule," which says that if evidence is evenly balanced, presumption of innocence favors the accused. However, evidence against Corpuz was overwhelming. 3. Dumlao v. Comelec dismissed plaintiffs' cases for lacking proper cause of action and failing to meet judicial review standards. However, it declared parts of an election law barring criminal defendants from office to be null

Uploaded by

hanzky22
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
101 views2 pages

Rights of The Accused: Estrada v. Desierto (2001) Dumlao v. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392

The document discusses several cases related to the rights of the accused: 1. Estrada v. Desierto establishes that pervasive pre-trial publicity alone does not necessarily prejudice a defendant's right to a fair trial. Judges are trained to disregard off-court influences. 2. Corpuz v. People applies the "equipoise rule," which says that if evidence is evenly balanced, presumption of innocence favors the accused. However, evidence against Corpuz was overwhelming. 3. Dumlao v. Comelec dismissed plaintiffs' cases for lacking proper cause of action and failing to meet judicial review standards. However, it declared parts of an election law barring criminal defendants from office to be null

Uploaded by

hanzky22
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1 Rights of the Accused

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

innocence of the accused must yield to the positive finding that he malversed the sum of
P50,310.87 to the prejudice of the public whose confidence he has breached.

Estrada v. Desierto (2001)


Facts: After Estradas impeachment proceedings were aborted and his resignation from the
Presidential post, a cluster of legal problems started appearing. A special panel of
investigators was forthwith created by the respondent Ombudsman to investigate the
charges against the petitioner. Petitioner filed with this Court a petition for prohibition with
a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioner contends that the respondent
Ombudsman should be stopped from conducting the investigation of the cases filed
against him due to the barrage of prejudicial publicity on his guilt.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be enjoined due to
prejudicial publicity
Held: No. Then and now, we now rule that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not
incompatible to a free press. To be sure, responsible reporting enhances an accuseds
right to a fair trial for, as well pointed out, a responsible press has always been regarded as
the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field. The
press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage
of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public
scrutiny and criticism.
Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial.
The mere fact that the trial of appellant was given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage
does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and
impaired his impartiality. Our judges are learned in the law and trained to disregard offcourt evidence and on-camera performances of parties to a litigation. Their mere exposure
to publications and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their impartiality.

Corpuz v. People, 194 SCRA 73


FACTS: Petitioner seeks for the reversal of the decision of the respondent court finding him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of malversation of public funds.
ISSUE: WON Equipoise Rule is applicable in the case at bar.
HELD: The equipoise rule invoked by the petitioner is applicable only where the evidence
of the parties is evenly balanced, in which case the constitutional presumption of
innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused. There is no such equipoise here.
The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the
petitioner with his nebulous claims of persecution and conspiracy. The presumed

Dumlao v. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392


FACTS: Patricio Dumlao was the former governor of Nueva Vizcaya. He has already retired
from his office. In 1980, he filed for reelection to the same office. Meanwhile, Batas
Pambansa Blg. 52 was enacted. This law provides, that retirees from public office like
Dumlao are disqualified to run for office. Dumlao invoked equal protection in the eye of the
law. His petition was joined by Atty. Romeo Igot and Alfredo Salapantan, Jr. These two
however have different issues. The suits of Igot and Salapantan are more of a taxpayers
suit.
ISSUE: Whether or not Dumlao, Igot, and Salapantan have a cause of action.
HELD: No. The SC pointed out the procedural lapses of this case for this case should have
never been merged. Dumlaos issue is different from Igots. They have separate issues.
Further, this case does not meet all the requisites so that itd be eligible for judicial review.
There are standards that have to be followed in the exercise of the function of judicial
review, namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest personal and
substantial by the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea that the function
be exercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the constitutional
question be passed upon in order to decide the case.
In this case, only the 3rd requisite was met. The SC ruled however that the provision
barring persons charged for crimes may not run for public office and that the filing of
complaints against them and after preliminary investigation would already disqualify them
from office as null and void.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335
Facts: Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a
misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law. At trial, Gideon appeared in court
without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because
he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideons request because Florida
law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital
offenses.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court decision did not violate the Due Process Clause
HELD: The Court held that the Sixth Amendments guarantee of counsel is a fundamental
right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies the states through the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In overturning Betts, Justice Black stated that
reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal

2 Rights of the Accused

justice, any person hauled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a
fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. He further wrote that the noble ideal of fair
trials before impartial tribunals in which ever defendant stands equal before the law . . .
cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a
lawyer to assist him.

You might also like