RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS

Sec. 14 (1), Art. 3, 1987 Constitution

“No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.”

As applied to judicial proceedings, it may be laid down with certainty that the requirements
of due process is satisfied if the following conditions are present, namely: (1) There must be a court
or tribunal clothed 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 which is the subject
of the proceedings; (3) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment
must be rendered upon lawful hearing

Case Source: Lorenzana vs. Cayetano, 78 SCRA 485, citing el Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palangca, 37
Phil. 934 and Macabingkil vs. Yatco, 21 SCRA 151; People vs. Sebreño, 314 SCRA 87; Aguirre vs. People,
363 SCRA 672

Due process of law requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, and that
every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of the judge

Case Source: Mateo Jr. vs. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 18, citing Gutierrez vs. Santos, 2 SCRA 249

A finding of guilt for an offense , no matter how light, for which one is not properly charged
and tried cannot be countenanced without violating the rudimentary requirements of due process.

Case Source: Summary Dismissal Board and the Regional Appellate Board, PNP, Region VI, Iloilo City
vs. Torcita, 330 SCRA 153

RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT

Section 14 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution; Section 1 (a), Rule 115
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused is presumed innocent until contrary is proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

The presumption of innocence in favour of accused persons and the requirement that guilt be
established beyond reasonable doubt were embodied in the Siete Partidas and for centuries have
been part of the laws of the laws of the Philippines.

Case Source: U.S. vs. Navarro, 3 Phil 143

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to demonstrate guilt. Every vestige of doubt having
a rational basis must be removed.

Case Source: People vs. Joven, 64 SCRA 126; People vs. Capilitan, 182 SCRA 313
 All essential elements constituting the offense charged must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt, in case of reasonable doubt that the offenders guilt has been shown, he is entitled to an
acquittal.

Case Source: People vs. Macaraeg, 53 SCRA 285; U.S. vs. Blanza 34 Phil 639

It is the degree of proof which after an investigation of the whole record produces moral
certainty in an unprejudiced mind of the culpability of the person.

Case Source: People vs. Beltran, 61 SCRA 255

When the evidence works a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of
innocence withdraws its protection.

Case Source: State vs. Quigley R.I. 263, 58 TL. 905

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION

Section 14 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution

A person accused of a crime has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against him.

In criminal cases, the liberty, even the life, of the accused is at stake, and it is always wise and
proper that he be fully apprised of the charges in order to avoid possible surprises that he may lead
into injustice.

Case Source: People vs. Zulueta, 89 Phil. 752

Every material fact and essential element of the offense charged must be stated with precision
and certainty in the question, in simple and understandable language, in sufficient detail to enable the
person to prepare his defense.

Case Source: Garcia vs. Leonidas, 64 SCRA 233

The complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to
constitute the crime charged.

Case Source: U.S. vs. Karelsen, 3 Phil. 223, 226 (1904), citing U.S. vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
 No person may be properly convicted of a crime not adequately alleged in the information
since it would result not only in a violation of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against him, but also in actually misleading him.

Case Source: Esguerra vs, People, 108 Phil. 1078

A judgement punishing the accused for an offense of which he was not legally informed,
denies him due process of law.

Case Source: People vs. Despavellador, 1 SCRA 205

RIGHT TO BE PRESENT; TRIAL IN ABSENTIA

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused has an absolute right to be personally present during
the entire proceedings from arraignment to sentence, and a transgression of such right is a reversible
error.

Case Source: Cf. U.S. vs. Karelsen, 3 Phil. 223; U.S. vs. Palisoc, 4 Phil. 207

The evidence taken in a case to which the accused was not a party and in which he was not
heard, cannot received against him.

Case Source: U.S. vs. Bello, 11 Phil. 526

The purpose of the rule is to speed up the disposition of criminal cases, trial of which could in
the past be indefinitely deferred, and many times completely abandoned because of the defendant’s
escape. So, when all the requisites for trial in absentia are present, the trial judge cannot refuse to try
the accused who had already been arraigned and escaped.

Case Source: People vs. Salas, 143 SCRA 163

The requisites for trial in absentia are: (1) that there has been an arraignment; (2) that the
accused has been notified; (3) that he fails to appear and his failure to do so is unjustified.

Case Source: Giminez vs. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1; People vs. Mamalias, 328 SCRA 760

The provision of the Constitution authorizing trial in absentia of the accused in case of his non-
appearance after arraignment despite due notice means that he waives his right to meet the witness
face to face among others. An express waiver of appearance after arraignment has the same effect.

Case Source: Carredo vs. People, 183 SCRA 273

Case Source: People vs. Francisco, 46 Phil. 403

There can be no trial in absentia unless the accused has been arraigned.

Case Source: Borja vs. Mendoza, 77 SCRA 442; Lavides vs. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 321

RIGHT TO DEFEND BY HIMSELF AND BY COUNSEL

In case the accused preferred to defend himself personally in the trial court, he cannot be
heard to complain that he has not been assisted by an attorney in the proceedings thus had. When an
accused person in a criminal case chose to defend himself in person, none of his rights are infringed
by the fact that the action was prosecuted without an intervention of an attorney in his behalf.

Case Source: U.S. vs. Co Leng, 21 Phil. 426

This constitutional requirement is satisfied when a counsel is: (1) engaged by anyone acting
on behalf of the person under investigation; or (2) appointed by the court upon petition of the said
person or by someone on his behalf.

Case Source: People vs. Espiritu, 302 SCRA 533

If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except when done in writing and in the presence of counsel. But a police line-up is
not part of the custodial investigation, hence, the appellants were not yet entitled to counsel. This is
because the confrontation between the State and the person under investigation has not yet begun.
Also, the bringing of the suspect to the police station for identification is not custodial investigation.

Case Source: People vs. Dimaano, 209 SCRA 819; People vs. Hatton, 210 SCRA 1

On the other hand, the Supreme Court reiterated that the right to counsel attaches upon the
start of the investigation, when the investigation officer starts to ask questions to elicit information,
confession or admission from the accused.

Case Source: People vs. Macam 238 SCRA 306; People vs. Lucero, 244 SCRA 425
RIGHT TO TESTIFY IN HIS OWN BEHALF

The defendant in criminal case has the perfect right to appear as a witness in his own behalf,
and his testimony must be considered in the same light as the testimony of any other witness.

Case Source: U.S. vs. Patala, 2 Phil. 752

A denial of the defendant’s right to testify in his behalf would constitute an unjustifiable
violation of his constitutional right.

Case Source: People vs. Santiago, 46 Phil. 734

If the accused testified in his own behalf, then he may be cross-examined as any other witness.
He may be cross-examined as to any matter cited in his direct examination, or connected therewith.
He may not during cross-examination refuse to answer any question on the ground that the answer
he will give, or evidence he will produce would have a tendency to incriminate him for the crime with
which he is charged.

Case Source: People v. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216

RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRMINATION

The right of a person to be exempt from being compelled to testify against himself was
established on grounds of public policy and of humanity – of policy, because if the party were required
to testify, it would place the witness under the strongest temptation to commit the crime of perjury;
and of humanity— because it would prevent the extortion of confessions by address.

Case Source: U.S. v.s Navarro, 3 Phil 143

To maintain a “fair-stale individual balance”, to require the government “to shoulder the
entire load”, to respect the inviolability of human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice
demands that the government seeking to punish an individual procure the evidence against him by its
own independent labors, rather than the cruel, though simple, expedient of compelling it from his
own mouth.

Case Source: People vs. Buscato, 74 SCRA 30

Involuntary confessions had been rejected by all courts not only on the ground of its
unreliability but also, more importantly, on humanitarian principles which abhor all forms of torture
or unfairness towards the accused in criminal proceedings

Case Source: People vs. Bagasala, 39 SCRA 236

Case Source: People vs. Jimenez, 71 SCRA 186

RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION AND CROSS EXAMINATION

It was intended to prevent the conviction of the accused upon depositions or ex-parte
affidavits and, particularly, to preserve the right of the accused to test the recollection of the witnesses
in the exercise of the right to cross examination

Case Source: People vs. Liwanag, 73 Phil 473, citing U.S. v.s. Javier, 37 Phil. 449

The right of confrontation serves three essential purposes: (1) it insures that the witness will
give his testimony under oath, thus deterring lying by the threat of a perjury charge; (2) it forces the
witness to submit to cross-examination, a valuable instrument in exposing falsehood and bringing out
the truth; and (3) it enable the court to observe the demeanor of the witness and assess his credibility.

Case Source: Toledo vs. People and Hon. Kapunan, Jr., 85 SCRA 35

It would seem, however, that of these purposes the most fundamental is “to secure the
opportunity for cross-examination” in that if the opportunity of cross-examination has been secured,
the function and test of confrontation has also been accomplished, the confrontation being merely
the dramatic preliminary to cross-examination

Case Source: U.S. vs. Anastacio, 6 Phil. 413

To introduce the testimony of a witness taken in one criminal case in another criminal case,
over the objection of the accused in the latter case is impermissible, even though such defendant may
have been present in court when the witness testified.

Case Source: U. S. v.s Remigio, 35 Phil. 719

The right to meet the witnesses face to face is a personal privilege, which may be waived
expressly or impliedly by one’s conduct incompatible with his assertion of the right to confront one’s
accusers. It is a right which one has to assert and demand, otherwise it is deemed to have neen waived.

Case Source: U.S. vs. Anastacio; CIR vs. Solidum, 71 O.G.. 5245; U.S. vs. Laranja, 21 Phil. 500; Fulgado
vs. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 81
RIGHT TO COMPULSARY PROCESS

Section 14 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution

The defendant enjoys the right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.

Failure to issue subpoena to compel the attendance of witnesses has been held to be a
deprivation of the right of the accused to due process and to the full opportunity to procure the
attendance of witnesses on his behalf.

Case Source: People vs. Espada, [CA], 39 O.G. 2641

And while the opposite provision speaks of “compulsory process”, its purpose is undoubtedly
to compel anybody, not otherwise barred, to take the witness stand upon petition of the accused.
Otherwise, it would be insane to subpoena a person if he cannot be compelled to testify and the
primordial right of the defendant in a criminal case to defend himself at evert stage of the proceeding
would be an empty illusion.

Case Source: Gutierrez vs. Anabiran, 1 C.A. Rep. 158

RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

The right to speedy trial means one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, its
salutary objective being to assure that an innocent person may be freed from the anxiety and expense
of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt determined within the shortest possible time
compatible with the presentation and the consideration of whatever lehitimate defense he may
interpose.

Case Source: Conde vs. Rivera, 45 Phil. 650; Accebedo vs. Sarmiento, 36 SCRA 247; Peope vs.
Martelino, G.R. No. 81861

The right to speedy trial is necessarily relative. It is consistent with delays and depends upon
circumstances. It secures rights to a defendant. It does not preclude the rights of a public justice.

Case Source: Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil. 215, citing American case authorities

It has been pronounced with good authority that a speedy trial means one that can be had as
soon as possible, after a person is indicted, and within such time as the prosecution with reasonable
diligence could prepare for it. It should be a trial conducted in accordance with the requirements of
fixed legal rules and proceedings without vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.

Case Source: U.S. vs. Pellejera, 17 Phil. 587; Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil. 215; Kalaw vs. Apostol, 64
Phil 582, cited in Benavidez vs. Maglanoc, 1 CA Rep. 81
 An indefinite postponement of the hearing is subversive of the right to speedy trial and
dismissal of the case following a number of requests for continuance on the part of the prosecution is
not an abuse of discretion.

Case Source: Rustia vs. Joaquin, 71 Phil. 22; People vs. Abaño, 97 Phil. 28

But where is appears that the delay in the disposition of criminal action was due partly to the
accused himself, as when he escaped from jail, it is not transgressive of the right of the accused, for
regard to the accused’s right to speedy trial should not be carried to the extreme of practically denying
the prosecution its day in court from causes its control. In short, there is no violation to the right when
it is imputable to the accused.

Case Source: Manabat vs. Timbang, 74 Phil. 295; U.S. vs. Pellejera, 17 Phil. 587; People vs. Alipao, 96
Phil. 20; Solis vs. Agloro, 64 SCRA 270

RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL TRIAL

In the language of Justice Dizon: “it has been said… that due process of law requires a hearing
before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, and that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than
the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.”

Case Source: Mateo, Jr. vs. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 18

RIGHT TO PUBLIC TRIAL

A public trial is one which is not limited or restricted to anyone particular class of the
community, but is open to the free observation of all, and the guaranty of a public trial is fulfilled
where the trial is held at a place where any member of the general public can attend, subject to the
rulings of the court as to the conduct of visitors in the courtroom.

Case Source: People vs. Greeson, 230 Mich 124, 203 NW 141; Cooley vs. State, [Okla. Crim.], 361, P.
2d 307, 84 ALR 2d 997

The right to a public trial, however, is one of the rights which the defendant could waive, as
when he failed to object to the irregularity thereof in the course of the proceedings.

Case Source: U.S. vs. Mercado, 4 Phil. 304

RIGHT TO APPEAL
 The right to appeal from a judgement of conviction is fundamentally of statutory origin. In
other words, an appeal from a judgement of conviction is not a matter of absolute right, independently
of constitutional or statutory provisions allowing such appeal. A review by an appellate court of the
final judgement in a criminal case, however grave the offense of which the accused is convicted, is not
necessary element of due process of law.

Case Source: Duarte vs. Dada, 32 Phil. 36; U.S. vs. Gomez Jesus, 31 Phil. 218

While the court may legally render judgment convicting a defendant when the latter pleads
guilty and commit him to prison before the lapse of the 15-day period for perfecting the appeal, it is
the duty of the court to ascertain first if the accused ahs understood the nature and consequences of
his plea of guilty and of his waiver of appeal, and when it appears from the record that the accused
was not well aware of the extent and meaning of his waiver, it is the duty of the court to admit the
appeal that he may file within the period fixed by law.

Case Source: Macali vs. Revilla, 48 Phil. 751