M. Rights of the Accused

O. Rights of the Accused

Rights of the Accused (1987 CONST., art. III, secs. 13–17, 21 and 22)

• Criminal due process: No person may be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (Art. III, sec. 14[1])
• Bail: Before conviction, a person may be released on sufficient bail or on recognizance as provided by law. The exception is a person charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not impair the right to bail, and excessive bail may not be required. (Art. III, sec. 13)
• Presumption of innocence and trial rights: An accused is presumed innocent until proved otherwise. The accused has the right to be heard personally and through counsel; to know the nature and cause of the accusation; to a speedy, impartial, and public trial; to confront witnesses; and to compulsory process for witnesses and evidence in the accused’s behalf. After arraignment, trial may proceed in the accused’s absence if the accused was duly notified and the failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Art. III, sec. 14[2])
• Habeas corpus: The privilege of the writ may be suspended only in cases of invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it. (Art. III, sec. 15)
• Speedy disposition: Everyone has the right to a speedy disposition of cases before judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative bodies. (Art. III, sec. 16)
• Self-incrimination: No person may be compelled to testify against himself or herself. (Art. III, sec. 17)
• Double jeopardy: No person may be twice placed in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If both a law and an ordinance punish an act, conviction or acquittal under either bars another prosecution for that act. (Art. III, sec. 21)
• Prohibited enactments: No ex post facto law or bill of attainder may be enacted. (Art. III, sec. 22)

Under Section 13, Article 3, Before Conviction, Bail is Either:

• A matter of right: When the offense charged is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. To this extent, the right is absolute.
• A matter of discretion: When the offense charged is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, it shall be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong. Once it is determined that the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail becomes a matter of right. (People v. Nitcha, G.R. No. 113517, Jan. 19, 1995)

Discretion refers to the court’s discretion to determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.

Do not confuse interpretation of Bail under Bill of Rights with the interpretation of Bail under Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as to:

• Bail as a Matter of Right (Sec 4),
• Bail as a Matter of Discretion (Sec 5),
• Non-Bailable offenses (Sec 7).

When Rights End

The Criminal Process includes:

• Investigation prior to the filing of charges
• Preliminary examination and investigation after charges are filed
• Period of trial

Heinous Crimes

Heinous crimes are those which are grievous, odious, and hateful; and by reason of their manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity, and perversity, are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized, and ordered society. (People v. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, Feb. 7, 1997)

Under RA 9346, secs. 2–3, the death penalty shall not be imposed in any case. The following were historical exceptions under Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code:

• Guilty person is more than 70 years old;
• Guilty person is below 18 years old; and
• Where upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the SC, the required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty. (REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 47)

When an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the plea, require the prosecution to prove guilt and the precise degree of culpability, and allow the accused to present evidence; the death penalty may not be imposed. (Rule 116, sec. 3, Rules of Criminal Procedure; RA 9346, sec. 2) (People v. Vinuya, G.R. No. 125925, Jan. 28, 1999)

Health Considerations

A mere claim of illness is not a ground for bail. Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or prisoner needing medical care outside the prison facility. (People v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, Oct. 27, 2006)

BUT SEE: The currently fragile state of Enrile’s health presents another compelling justification for his admission to bail.

Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Indeed, denying him bail despite imperiling his health and life would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration during the trial.

Accordingly, we conclude that the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during the trial; and unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing of the fragile health and advanced age of Enrile. As such, the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail. (Juan Ponce Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, Aug. 18, 2015)

A person is considered to be “in the custody of law” when:

• He is arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest or by warrantless arrest.
• He has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to the proper authorities.

The Court held that when the person has actually posted a bail bond, which was accepted by the court, he has effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court over his person. (Paderanga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115407, Aug. 28, 1995)

Other Rights in Relation to Bail:

The right to bail remains even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required (PHIL. CONST., art. 3, § 13).

In fixing the amount of bail, the court considers the following (ROC, Rule 114, § 9):

• The accused’s financial ability to give bail;
• Forfeiture of other bail;
• Whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested;
• The probability that the accused will appear at trial;
• The penalty for the offense charged;
• Other pending cases in which the accused is on bail;
• The accused’s character and reputation;
• The accused’s age and health;
• The weight of the evidence against the accused; and
• The nature and circumstances of the offense.

When an accused has the right to bail, an excessive amount must not make that right ineffective (De La Camara v. Enage, G.R. Nos. L32951-2, Sept. 17, 1971).

Setting bail at an amount equal to the civil liability charged against the petitioner could make bail appear to be a means of collecting that liability. Bail is neither a punishment nor payment of civil liability, which must await the appellate court’s judgment (Yap v. CA, G.R. 141529, June 6, 2001).

Courts Cannot Strictly Require Cash Bond

The condition that the accused may have provisional liberty only upon his posting of a cash bond is abhorrent to the nature of bail and transgresses our law on the matter. The allowance of a cash bond in lieu of sureties is authorized in this jurisdiction only because our rules expressly provide for it. And even where cash bail is allowed, the option to deposit cash in lieu of a surety bond primarily belongs to the accused.

Recognizance

Whenever allowed by law or the Rules, the court may release a person in custody to his own recognizance or that of a responsible person. When furnished by a surety, it is in the nature of a contract between the surety and the state. Recognizance is governed, among other applicable provisions, by RA 10389, which sets the conditions and procedure for release on recognizance of qualified indigent accused persons, and Rule 114, sec. 15, Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

Apart from bail, a person may attain provisional liberty on his own recognizance or that of a responsible person whenever allowed by law or the Rules. When furnished by a responsible person, recognizance is an obligation of record entered into before a court, guaranteeing the appearance of the accused for trial. It is in the nature of a contract between the surety and the state. (People v. Abner, G.R. No. L2508, Oct. 27, 1950)

Denial of Commission of Offenses

Persons invoking the benefit of amnesty must first admit to their complicity in the crimes charged. Amnesty presupposes the commission of a crime, and when the accused maintains that he has not committed the crime, he cannot have any use for amnesty [Vera v. People, G.R. No. L-1814 (1963)].

Right to Bail of Military Personnel

Tradition has recognized the non-existence of the right to bail because of the disciplinary structure of the military and because soldiers are allowed the fiduciary right to bear arms and can therefore cause great havoc. (Bernas, The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011).

Right to a Hearing

In cases where the accused is charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, a hearing, mandatory in nature and which should be summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court, is required with the participation of both the defense and a duly notified representative of the prosecution for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.

The constitutional right to bail necessarily includes the right to a hearing. When bail is denied without a hearing, a fundamental right is violated. Hence, the presentation of evidence for the prosecution in private inquiry, in the absence of the detainee, and the subsequent issuance of an order on the basis of the private inquiry, cannot be allowed. The hearing, however, need not be separate and distinct from the trial itself. And it need only be summary. The right to a prompt hearing is waived by agreeing to postponements.

Parallel to the accused’s right to a hearing is the prosecution’s right to present evidence. If the prosecution is denied such right, the grant of bail is void. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

Concept

Its principal effect is that no person shall be convicted unless the prosecution has proved him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011)

Petitioner, which is a corporate entity, has no personality to invoke the right to be presumed innocent which right is available only to an individual who is an accused in a criminal case (Feeder International Line v. CA, G.R. 94262, May 31, 1991).

Conviction in Illegal Drugs Cases

To convict an accused of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must not only prove that the sale took place, but also present the corpus delicti in evidence. The only time that conviction may be sustained despite noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements is if there were justifiable grounds provided. Before the courts may consider the seized drugs as evidence despite noncompliance with the legal requirements, justifiable grounds must be identified and proven. The prosecution must establish the steps taken to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. It is the positive duty to establish its reason for the procedural lapses. (People v. Ternida y Munar, G.R. No. 212626, June 3, 2019)

Both the RTC and CA seriously overlooked the longstanding legal tenet that the starting point of every criminal prosecution is that the accused has the constitutional right to be presumed innocent. This presumption of innocence is overturned only when the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof in criminal cases that it has proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, with each and every element of the crime charged in the information proven to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein.

This burden of proof never shifts. The accused can simply rely on his right to be presumed innocent. It is thus immaterial, in this case or in any other cases involving dangerous drugs, that the accused put forth a weak defense.

The prosecution therefore, in cases involving dangerous drugs, always has the burden of proving compliance with RA 9165, which lays down the procedure that police operatives must follow to maintain the integrity of the confiscated drugs used as evidence. In this case, there were far too many unexplained absences in the procedure: the time and place in the markings on the sachets, certificate of inventory, pictures during the actual buy-bust operation, inventory of the evidence and witnesses present. The chain of custody was clearly broken.

The Court cannot presume that the accused committed the crimes they have been charged with as the State must fully establish that. Nor can the Court shirk from their responsibility of protecting the liberties of our citizenry just because the lawmen are shielded by the presumption of the regularity of their performance of duty. This by no means defeats the much stronger presumption of innocence in favor of  every person whose life, property and liberty comes under the risk of forfeiture on the strength of a false accusation of committing some crime. When catching drug pushers, police officers must always be advised to do so within the bounds of the law.

With the chain of custody having been compromised, then X deserves acquittal as his right to the presumption of innocence has not been overturned. (People vs. Dagdag, G.R. No. 225503, Jun. 26, 2019)

The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a constitutionally protected right; therefore, the burden lies with the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crimes of sale and possession of illegal drugs due to unexplained breaches of procedure committed by the buy-bust team in the seizure, custody, and handling of the seized drugs. Given the fact that a buy-bust operation is a planned operation, it is questionable why the buy-bust team could not have ensured the presence of the required witnesses pursuant to Sec 21, Art II of RA 9165, or at the very least marked, photographed, and inventoried the seized items immediately after seizure or confiscation. In other words, the prosecution was not able to overcome the presumption of innocence of X. (People v. Fulinara y Fabelania, G.R. No. 237975, Jun. 19, 2019)

Continues Pending Appeal

Presumption of innocence persists even when there is conviction by lower court and case is still on appeal. Such presumption is not destroyed until there is proof that accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011)

Equipoise Rule

Where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused. (People v. Erguiza, G.R. No. 171348, Nov. 26 2008)

Anti-Hazing Law

Section 14 of the Anti-Hazing Law provides that an accused's presence during a hazing is prima facie evidence of his or her participation. However, this does not violate the constitutional presumption of innocence. The constitutional presumption of innocence is not violated when there is a logical connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed. When such prima facie evidence is unexplained or not contradicted by the accused, the conviction founded on such evidence will be valid. However, the prosecution must still prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The existence of a disputable presumption does not preclude the presentation of contrary evidence. Neither has it been shown how Section 14 does away with the requirement that the prosecution must prove the participation of the accused in the hazing beyond reasonable doubt. (Fuertes v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 208162, Jan. 07, 2020)

Right to counsel

In criminal cases, the right of an accused person to be assisted by a member of the bar is immutable. Otherwise, there would be a grave denial of due process. Thus, even if the judgment had become final and executory, it may still be recalled, and the accused afforded the opportunity to be heard by himself and counsel.

An accused has the right to counsel during custodial investigation and at every critical stage of the criminal proceedings. At trial, the accused may waive counsel only through a valid waiver made in accordance with the Rules. (1987 Constitution, Art. III, §§ 12(1), 14(2); ROC, Rule 116, §§ 6–8) More so, in the case of an on-going litigation, it is a right that must be exercised at every step of the way, with the lawyer faithfully keeping his client. (Telan v. CA, G.R. No. 95026 Oct. 4, 1991)

Duty of Court to Inform Accused of his Right to Counsel

• Inform accused that he has the right to have his own counsel before being arraigned;
• After giving such information, to ask accused whether he desires the aid of counsel;
• If he so desires to procure the services of counsel, the court must grant him reasonable time to do so; and
• If he so desires to have counsel but is unable to employ one, the court must assign a counsel de officio to defend him. (People v. Agbayani, G.R. No. 122770, Jan 16, 1998) (ROC, Rule 116, § 6)

The right to counsel of an accused is guaranteed by our Constitution, our laws and our Rules of Court. During custodial investigation, arraignment, trial and even on appeal, the accused is given the option to be represented by a counsel of his choice. But when he neglects or refuses to exercise this option during arraignment and trial, the court shall appoint one for him. While the right to be represented by counsel is absolute, the accused's option to hire one of his own choice is limited. (People v. Serzo, G.R. No. 118435, June 20, 1997)

When an accused unaided by counsel qualifiedly admits his guilt to an ambiguous or vague information from which a serious crime can be deduced, it is not prudent for the trial court to render a serious judgment finding the accused guilty of a capital offense without absolutely any evidence to determine and clarify the true facts of the case. (People v. Holgado, G.R. No. L-2809, March 22, 1950)

Covers Both Confession & Admission

Admission – an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact.

Confession – a declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein. (Aquino v. Paiste, G.R. No. 147782, June 25, 2008)

Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation

Inter Alios Acta Rule

General Rule: An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is not admissible against his or her co-accused because it is considered as hearsay against them. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.

Exception: An admission made by a conspirator under Section 31, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. This provision states that the act or declaration of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration. It is admissible against a co-accused when it is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation of said co-accused in the crime.

Thus, in order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that:

• The conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself;
• The admission relates to the common object; and
• It has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. (People v. Cachuela, G.R. No. 191752, June 10, 2013)

In order that an extra-judicial confession may be used against a co-accused of the confessant, there must be a finding of other circumstantial evidence which when taken together with the confession would establish the guilt of a co-accused beyond reasonable doubt. (People v. Constancio, G.R. No. 206226, April 04, 2016)

Even after charges are filed, the police may still attempt to extract extrajudicial confessions or admissions outside judicial supervision. For this reason, Section 12(1) still applies. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

Entrapment

It is recognized that in every arrest, there is a certain amount of entrapment used to outwit the persons violating or about to violate the law. Not every deception is forbidden. Instigation is the inducing of another to violate the law, the "seduction" of an otherwise innocent person into a criminal career.

Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigating person and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him, there is instigation and no conviction may be had.

Where, however, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused and the criminal offense is completed, the fact that a person acting as a decoy for the state, or public officials furnished the accused an opportunity for commission of the offense, or that the accused is aided in the commission of the crime in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute him, there is permissible entrapment and the accused may be convicted. The law tolerates the use of decoys and other artifices to catch a criminal. (People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299 January 22, 1999)

Application for Bail, Not a Waiver

An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. (ROC, Rule 114, § 26)