RULE 115 Rights of The Accused

RULE 115
RIGHTS OF THE
ACCUSED
This rule enumerates the rights
of a person accused of an
offense, which are both
constitutional as well as
statutory, save the right to
appeal, which is purely
statutory in character.
Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. — In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:
a. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved

beyond reasonable doubt.
Reasonable Doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of
the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the
mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt
is not demanded by the law to convict of any criminal charge but
moral certainty is required, and this certainty is required as to
every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense.
Equipoise rule – where the evidence of the parties
in a criminal case are evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt
in favor of the accused and must be acquitted.
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him.
An accused cannot be convicted of an offense
unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or
information. To convict him of an offense other
than that charged in the complaint or
information would be a violation of this
constitutional right (People vs. Ortega, 276
SCRA 166).
(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 right without the assistance of counsel
TO BE PRESENT AND DEFEND IN PERSON AND BY
COUNSEL AT EVERY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING
THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED IS REQUIRED
ONLY
1. During arraignment (Sec. 1b, rule 116)
2. Promulgation of judgment EXCEPT when the
conviction is for a light offense, in which case, it may be
pronounced in the presence of his counsel or a
representative
3. When ordered by the court for purposes of
identification
Not applicable in SC and CA - The law securing to
an accused person the right to be present at every
stage of the proceedings has no application to the
proceedings before the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court nor to the entry and promulgation
of their judgments The defendant need not be
present in court during the hearing of the appeal.
(Sec. 9 Rule 124)
Accused may waive his right to be
present during the trial. HOWEVER, his
presence may be compelled when he is
to be identified. (Aquino, Jr. vs. Military
Commission, 63 SCRA 546)
EFFECTS OF WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO
APPEAR BY THE ACCUSED
1. waiver of the right to present evidence;
2. prosecution can present evidence if
accused fails to appear;
3. the court can decide without accused’s
evidence.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
It is important to state that the provision of the
Constitution authorizing the trial in absentia of the
accused in case of his non-appearance AFTER
ARRAIGNMENT despite due notice simply means
that he thereby waives his right to meet the
witnesses face to face among others.
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.
REQUIREMENTS FOR TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
1. accused has been arraigned
2. he has been duly notified of the trial
3. his failure to appear is unjustified
An escapee who has been duly tried in absentia waives

his right to present evidence on his own behalf and to
confront and cross-examine witnesses who testified
against him. (Gimenez vs. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1)
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
The right covers the period beginning from custodial
investigation, well into the rendition of the judgment and
even on appeal. (People vs. Serzo, Jr., 274 SCRA 553)
If during the investigation the assisting lawyer left, or
come and go, the statement signed by the accused is still
inadmissible because the lawyer should assist his client
from the time the confessant answers the first question
asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the
extrajudicial confession. (People vs. Morial, 363 SCRA
96)
The right to counsel and the right to remain silent do
not cease even after a criminal complaint/information
has already been filed against the accused, AS LONG
AS he is still in custody.
The duty of the court to appoint a counsel de oficio

when the accused has no legal counsel of choice and
desires to employ the services of one is MANDATORY
only at the time of arraignment. (Sec. 6 Rule 116)
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to
cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination.
His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.
A denial of the defendant’s right to testify in his behalf would
constitute an unjustifiable violation of his constitutional right. (People
vs. Santiago, 46 Phil. 734)
If the accused testifies, he may be cross-examined but ONLY on
matters covered by his direct examination, unlike an ordinary
witness who can be cross-examined as to any matter stated in the
direct examination or connected therewith (Section 6, Rule 132). His
failure to testify is not taken against him but failure to produce
evidence in his behalf is considered against him (U.S. vs. Bay, 97 Phil.
495).
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against
himself.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
The accused is protected under this rule from questions which tend to
incriminate him, that is, which may subject him to penal liability.
The right may be waived by the failure of the accused to invoke the
privilege at the proper time, that is, AFTER the incriminating question is
asked and before his answer;
The privilege of the accused to be exempt from testifying as a witness

involves a prohibition against testimonial compulsion only and the
production by the accused of incriminating documents, and articles
demanded from him. (U.S. vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145)
EXCEPTIONS: immunity statutes such as:
1. RA 1379 – Forfeiture of Illegally obtained wealth
2. RA 749 – Bribery and Graft cases
RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED AGAINST SELF-
INCRIMINATION VS. RIGHT OF THAT OF AN
ORDINARY WITNESS
The ordinary witness may be compelled to take the
witness stand and claim the privilege as each question
requiring an incriminating answer is shot at him, an
accused may altogether refuse to take the witness stand
and refuse to answer any and all questions.
(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.
Confrontation is the act of setting a witness face-to-face with the
accused so that the latter may make any objection he has to the
witness, and the witness may identify the accused, and this must
take place in the presence of the court having jurisdiction to
permit the privilege of cross-examination.
The main purpose of the right to confrontation is to secure the

opportunity of cross-examination and the secondary purpose is to
enable the judge to observe the demeanor of witnesses.
(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure
the attendance of witnesses and production of
other evidence in his behalf
In any criminal proceeding, the
defendant enjoys the right to have
compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL
The right to a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and to prevent delay
by imposing on the courts and on the prosecution an obligation to proceed with
reasonable dispatch.
The courts, in determining whether the right of the accused to a speedy trial has
been denied, should consider such facts as the length of the delay, the accused’s
assertion or non-assertion of his right, and the prejudice to the accused resulting
from the delay.
There is NO violation of the right where the delay is imputable to the accused.
(Solis vs. Agloro, 64 SCRA 370)
REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE ACCUSED WHEN HIS
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IS VIOLATED
1. He should ask for the trial of the case not for the
dismissal;
2. Unreasonable delay of the trial of a criminal case as
to make the detention of defendant illegal gives ground
for habeas corpus as a remedy for obtaining release so as
to avoid detention for a reasonable period of time
3. Accused would be entitled to relief in a mandamus
proceeding to compel the dismissal of the information.
IMPARTIAL TRIAL
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.
(Mateo, Jr. vs. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 180)
Public trial – one held openly or publicly; it is sufficient
that the relatives and friends who want to watch the
proceedings are given the opportunity to witness the
proceedings.
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC IS VALID WHEN:

1. evidence to be produced is offensive to decency or
public morals;
2. upon motion of the accused; (Sec. 21, Rule 119)
RULE ON TRIAL BY PUBLICITY
The right of the accused to a fair trial is not
incompatible to a free press. Pervasive publicity is
not per se as prejudicial to the right to a fair trial.
To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there
must be allegations and proof that the judges have
been unduly influenced, not simply that they
might be, by the barrage of publicity. (People vs.
Teehankee, 249 SCRA 54)
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and, in the manner, prescribed by law.
The right to appeal from a judgment of conviction is fundamentally of
statutory origin. It is not a matter of absolute right, independently of
constitutional or statutory provisions allowing such appeal.
WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL

The right to appeal is personal to the accused and similarly to other
rights of kindred nature, it may be waived either expressly or by
implication. HOWEVER, where death penalty is imposed, such right
cannot be waived as the review of the judgment by the COURT OF
APPEALS is automatic and mandatory (A.M. NO. 00-5-03-SC).

RULE 115 Rights of The Accused

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RULE 115 Rights of The Accused

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RULE 115 Rights of The Accused

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RULE 115

a. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved

An escapee who has been duly tried in absentia waives

The duty of the court to appoint a counsel de oficio

The privilege of the accused to be exempt from testifying as a witness

The main purpose of the right to confrontation is to secure the

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC IS VALID WHEN:

WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL

You might also like