Rights of the Accused -to make the people in equal footing with a very powerful state
Stages
-procedural due process Sec 11
-no one can be made to answer for an act not punished by law
-right to be heard in an impartial court, or quasi judicial body or administrative body
- before the case is filed in court
- arrest
- custodial investigation:
-there has to be an arrest where the accused is deprived of his physical liberty or denied of any freedom of action in any significant way
-law enforcer must conduct the questioning (PDEA, police, brgy captain, tanod, NBI)
-made immediately after the arrest
-confession of the officer to the COA auditor is admissible because the admission was made not in a custodial investigation (COA auditor is not a law enforcer and the officer was not detained)
-accused who confessed to the media or in the presence of the governor without a legal counsel is admissible as evidence because the person who questioned him in not a law enforcer
-in a case where the police found X holding a gun and asked him if it is his gun and X claimed that it is his gun the court ruled that there is still no custodial investigation because he was not yet arrested! He answered spontaneously and voluntarily
-when the husband detained the wife in the house and started questioning the wife the court ruled that there was no custodial investigation because the interrogation was done not by a law enforcer but by the husband
-in a police line up and the witness identifies the suspect: is the testimony of the witness admissible as evidence when the suspect was not assisted by a legal counsel and not informed of their Miranda rights?
SC ruled that police line up generally is not part of custodial investigation therefore they need not be assisted by a counsel and informed of their Miranda rights
-however when there is only one person in the line up that is already considered as the start of custodial information because it is obvious that the person is the subject of such investigation
-custodial investigation is needed for entitlement of the following items
i. right to remain silent
-the right not to say anything/answer to questions that may be used against you or to implicate you
-is not limited to verbal reply, it includes all acts communicative in nature that you are asked to do
-the act must not be mechanical (urinating, removing clothes, foot/finger print, giving a sample of pubic hair, asking the suspect to take a substance to make him puke, weight, height)
-you must use your intelligence and free will to be able to invoke the right to remain silent (re-enacting the crime)
-hand writing
-if you are asked if it is your hand writing you must immediately invoke your right to remain silent because if you answer (yes/no), you already waive such right
- writing something is NOT a mechanical act (case of the postman caught stealing foreign letters, the initials were inadmissible but the letter was admissible)
-right can be waived
Requirements of waiver:
*Reduced into writing
*In the presence of a relative or principal/supervisor of public school in the locality or elective official in the locality
*with assistance of a counsel
ii. right to be assisted by an independent counsel
*must be competent and independent
*must be a lawyer who is vigilant in protecting the rights of the accused
*independent= no conflict of interest between lawyer and accused (ex. Mayor lawyer, fiscal lawyering for the accused, judge)
-in case of an NBI applicant who represented the accused= not an independent lawyer and there is a conflict of interest
-the choice to choose does not belong solely on the accused (as much as possible only/ preferably)
*can be waived but must be in writing and in the presence of another lawyer/counsel
iii. right to be informed of those rights
*cannot be waived
*burden of proof is in the police that indeed he informed the accused of his rights
iv. if detained: right against solitary confinement, away from family
v. the use of cruelty or torture to extract confession is prohibited (can be charged admin, civilly and criminally)
vi. Right to bail
*the only purpose is to guarantee you appearance in court when required
*for criminal offenses only (n/a to military courts or deportation cases [admin proceeding] or when subject of an extradition proceeding)
-except when there is a strong evidence that you will not flee during the pendency of the extradition case
*can be invoked even if there is still no case filed against you
*2 kinds
Bond
Cash as in cash not a check even managers check
Property (only lands can be the subject of property bonds)
-bring the tax declaration or the title and to annotate in the title that this property guarantees the bail bond of the accused. The property can be sold but subject to the encumbrance annotated in the title.
Surety bond (like insurance)
You pay premium to the surety company and they will guarantee your appearance in court in the amount as recommended in your bail bond
-example bail bond is 40K
Pay in advance 20% of the bail bond= 8K as the premium to the surety company
If you will jump bail then the surety company will pay the entire 40K (unless they will be able to bring the accused to the court)
If the accused will abscond then the bail bond will be forfeited to the court in favor of the government.
If he will not then it will be returned to him after the trial whether acquitted or convicted. (same in property bond)
Recognizance
You make a promise to the court that when you are needed to appear on court you appear in court.
Or the accused is released in recognizance to a respected person in the community.
Those convicted and qualified for probation can be released on recognizance because they are already convicted there is no danger when they won’t appear in court because an arrest warrant can always be issued.
When is bail demandable as a matter of rights, discretionary to the court or should be denied?
- First level courts
Penalty of 6 yrs below
Before conviction: mater of right
When the accused jumps bail before conviction: matter of right
(court can only increase the bail to avoid jump bail)
Convicted and appeals case to RTC: matter of right
(because the offense CHARGED in not a capital offense)
- RTC- 6 yrs and 1 day above
Bail should be denied when the accused is CHARGED with a capital offense (spl-life imprisonment, rpc- reclusion perpetua to death) and the evidence of guilt is strong.
Perpetua- 20 and 1 day above
If Prision mayor to Reclusion temporal before conviction: a matter of right
If already convicted with Prision mayor to Reclusion temporal and appealing to the CA: discretionary to the court to cancel bail bond or allow him to enjoy his liberty under the same bail bond (rule 114)
But if he has a record of the ff the bail bond should be denied:
*recidivist
*habitual delinquent
*evaded sentence before
*has a record of jumping bail
*has a record of violating conditions of parole or probation
Charged with capital punishment before conviction: judge will recommend no bail but can still apply for bail
-the court must hear the application for bail to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong
-if not strong then it is still a matter of right
But if CHARGED with Reclusion Perpetua but convicted with Reclusion Temporal or lower: it should be denied because it should be based on the charge and not the conviction
A minor charged with capital offense the bail is a matter of right because being a minor is privilege mitigating circumstance which could lower the charge to 2 degrees
Amount of bail:
Determined by the court and the only limit is that it must not be excessive
Consider the:
Nature of the charge, financial capacity of the accused, age of the accused, being a woman, health condition, risk of flight, evaded sentence before, etc
*not suspended when martial law or declared or when writ of habeas corpus is suspended
*if he avails of the bail he can still question the validity of his arrest and detention
From police:
-if no prosecutor: bring to the court to file a complaint
-if there is: bring to prosecutor for the prosecutor to file an information and file it in court
-the fiscal will before the expiration of the time period before the case is filed in court, conduct an inquest (based only on the complaint of the police or complainant unless the accused waives the right against illegal detention and would demand for PI, then in that case the fiscal will then give the accused 7 to 10 days to file his counter affidavit)
-once the case is filed in court he has 10 days from filing of case in court to demand his right to PI (if accused of a crime punishable of more than 6 yrs) and if granted by the court the case is remanded to the fiscal to conduct a PI
- preliminary investigation
-during the PI he is entitled to due process of law and must be given the right to answer the charges against him but there is no face to face confrontation/examination with the witness because that in not available in PI
-he is also granted the right to speedy disposition of his case- delay in the conduct of PI (3 yrs or more) is tantamount to denial of due process of law and can be the reason for dismissal of the case
-available also in admin and quasi judicial bodies
-speedy trial: hearing of merits (after last pleading is filed there is already the right to speedy disposition)= can lead to acquittal
-speedy disposition: moment it is submitted for decision it has to be resolved immediately= if committed by fiscal it can result to dismissal, if committed by the judge then still valid but judge can be subject to admin liability
- during the pendency of the case
Art 3 Sec 14 of the Constitution
- after the case is terminated
- double jeopardy
- cruel and excessive penalties
- right against ex post facto law
- bill of attainder
Habeas corpus:
Available when:
-you must be deprived of your freedom to action
-where a person is subjected to physical or moral restraint
-available also in unlawful denial of bail
-jurisdiction of court
Hospital:
Wife asking for habeas corpus for their child to produce the body of his wife:
cannot be granted because husband was allowed to go anywhere ergo there is no deprivation of the freedom to action
Parents asking for habeas corpus for the pageant judge to release or produce the body of their minor daughter:
court granted the habeas corpus because while there is no deprivation of physical liberty it cannot be limited to force but also applies to moral ascendancy or seduction
Habeas corpus vs writ of amparo
HC: the subject of the petition is more on the question of the legality of the deprivation of physical liberty (detention)
-the moment charges are filed in court the application of HC becomes moot and academic
WA: life, liberty, security- threatened to be killed WA is applicable
-can also be applied to private individual or group
-WA against a gang or drug syndicate who is after you
-writ of amparo is consolidated in the criminal case if a case is already filed
What will happen if Writ of HC is suspended?
-only the privilege is suspended (privilege of the court to inquire into the legality of detention)
Suspension of writ is limited to 60 days but you cannot be detained w/out judicial charges for more than 72 hrs (3 days).
This applies to persons who are charged for offense related to rebellion, subversion, and invasion or when public safety requires it. Court cannot inquire into the legality of this w/in 72 hrs.
Limitations of the power of the pres to suspend the writ:
- The moment the writ is suspended he must report to congress w/in 48 hrs and congress will and decide whether to revoke the suspension or not.
- Majority votes is needed voting jointly.
- Such suspension is subject to judicial review which can be raised by any person. (SC has 30 days to decide)
How is it lifted:
1. lifted by pres
2. lifted by congress
3. declared invalid by SC
4. 60 days expires
Rights of the accused during criminal prosecution:
(Arraignment until the promulgation of judgment)
Arraignment: the 1st time an accused is formally informed of the charges against him
Promulgation: the judgment is read
- Presumption of innocence
- Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the against you
- Right to be heard by himself and counsel
- Right to face to face confrontation of the witnesses of prosecution
- Right to speedy trial, impartial judge
- Right against self incrimination
- Right against double jeopardy
- Right against bill of attainder and ex post facto law
- Right against excessive fine
- Cruel and excessive fine and punishment
Presumption of innocence
-the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor
-in case of doubt resolve to presumption of innocence
-the conviction will not depend on the strength of his defense but of the strength of the evidence of prosecution
-if evidence of both sides is even: resolve in favor of acquittal (rule of equipoise)
-when the facts can be interpreted in favor or against the accused: construe it as favorable to the accused
Presumptions of law:
-does not violate the presumption of innocence because there is a natural connection between the presumed act and the thing that is to be proved
-presumption of fact and not of guilt
-the burden of proof is now on the accused
1. presumption that the possessor of a stolen item it the one who stole it
2. presumption that a person used for personal use the funds entrusted to him when he fails to produce such funds
Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge against him
-read it in a manner that the accused will understand it
-so that he can prepare his defenses
No trial if there is no arraignment!
Presence of the accused is indispensible- physically! The reading can be dispensed with but not his physical presence.
The title of the information will not govern rather it is the body of the facts in the information!
Any fact not contained in the information cannot be raised during the trial. Allowing such is a violation of this right.
Example: even if treachery is proved in the trial it still has no effect if it is not charged in the information.
The moment arraignment is made, no changes/amendment can no longer be allowed.
-if it is not an element of the crime (wrong date in rape may be changed because)
Right to be heard by himself and a counsel
-right to be present in every case of the trial and to be assisted with a counsel
-during arraignment the physical presence of accused and counsel are indispensible (warrant of arrest can be issued to compel the accused during arraignment)
-if the accused is not available on the date of hearing then the hearing can be postponed
-the assistance of counsel during trial can be waived
Case of laranaga:
-the counsels walked out. The judge gave them a PAO lawyer as counsel but the accused did not accept it. There is no deprivation of the right of a counsel here because they were given but they refused.
-during promulgation of judgment:
The presence of the accused can be waived, as long as the accused was notified. But better if he is there especially if the decision is convicting the accused. If acquittal there is no need because no accused in his right mind will appeal a case where he is acquitted.
-15 days to appeal starts from promulgation
-no trial during appeal, only summary of arguments and assistance of counsel is still a right of the accused
-trial in absentia
If the absence is unjustified the hearing may continue but accused has to be arraigned already and informed of the time, date and place of the trial
-when accused is needed for identification purposes the accused may still be compelled to appear in court despite the waiver of the accused
-but if accused will admit that indeed he is the accused then his presence may be waived
Right to speedy trial
-only to court proceedings
-RTC: 3 months
-CA: 12 months
-SC: 24 months
Directory only and not mandatory
-refers to the hearing of the case of the actual trial
-no fast rule as to what is speedy
-there maybe postponements as long as these are justified
-if there is delay in the trial there can be a dismissal of the case due to failure to prosecute and is tantamount to acquittal and double jeopardy sets in
2 ways where the accused may initiate the dismissal of the case and still invoke double jeopardy
- Demurrer to evidence is filed
- Speedy trial
Right to a Public trial
-anyone may go in and hear the hearing of a case
-in order for the accused to be assured that the public is watching the court
-trial by publicity however is not allowed
-this maybe waived by the accused especially when the issue is sensitive: only the accused can invoke this
Right to face to face confrontation (cross examine)
-if this is not done the testimony of the witness is inadmissible
-this is for the accused to test the credibility the testimony if the witness
-and for the court to be able to check the behavior of the witness
-an affidavit is inadmissible if the accused never had the chance to cross examine the affiant (doctor, nurse, specialist, etc)
-government hospital: there is a presumption of regularity of in the performance of his duty
-can an accused be convicted using this presumption of regularity only?
-no because there is still a presumption of evidence, the report still needs to be substantiated.
-if accused asks for postponement and the witness can no longer be found the testimony is admissible because the accused is deemed to have waived his right
Hearsay rule: when you testify it must be from your own personal knowledge
Exception:
- In a dying declaration (when the witness dies, the person who was able to hear the testimony of the witness who died)
- Minor child as a witness (through video only)
- An affidavit was prepared by some one who later on has become insane or could no longer be found
Right to compulsory process (can both be availed at the same time)
Subpoena ad testificandum
“fail not under penalty of court”
-compel the person to appear in court and give testimony (except if you live 50km or more from the court)
Subpoena duces tecum
-compel the person to bring the evidence to court
-what if he will be implicated by the testimony he will give?
-he can still be compelled to go to witness stand and invoke the right against self incrimination when such questions are already asked
-if he will be implicated if he testifies: he can apply for immunity
1. Transactional immunity
-the compelled testimony cannot be used against him neither can he be prosecuted in relation to his testimony (usually granted to state witness)
2. use and fruit immunity
-the compelled testimony or evidence cannot be used against him but he can be prosecuted using other evidence/testimony
Right against self incrimination (refuse at the outset)
Criminal prosecution: you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself (testimonial compulsion)
If an accused is compelled to testify for the prosecution, right there and then he should refuse to take the witness stand
This right is also available in legislative inquiry.
In admin proceedings: it is also applicable because you may be deprived of your profession/livelihood.
Ex: hayden could not be compelled to take the witness stand of the complainant.
But one maybe compelled to under go DNA testing and etc coz they are not testimonial.
But ordinary witnesses can only use this right when incrimination questions are asked. They cannot refuse at the outset.
Civil cases: (adverse witness= defendant)
It depends on the court, if the court allows he cannot refuse to take the witness stand but he can refuse to answer incriminating questions.
Criminal cases:
Voluntary admission is valid. What is prohibited is testimonial COMPULSION.
If there are 2 or more accused:
-there is conspiracy so the act of one is the act of all
-testimony of one against others would also incriminate his self
-he needs to be discharged as a state witness, he is no longer an accused so his testimony will no longer implicate him
-discharge as state witness is tantamount to acquittal
If there are 2 or more accused and not all are caught:
-the case will proceed with respect to the accused caught
What if the accused caught was convicted and the other accused is caught after? May the fiscal use the testimony of the convicted accused against the newly caught accused?
Yes, because he would no longer be implicated. This is true even if the accused caught first is acquitted.
Right against cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment
-those which will aggravate the penalty
-makes the suffering linger
-death penalty is not cruel nor inhumane (case of echegaray)
Right against excessive fine
-consider these:
Equivalent to the amount of the check that was issued: case of BP 22
Right against ex post facto law/ bill of attainder
Ex post facto law
-punishes an act or omission which when committed was not yet a crime/punished
-or a law which aggravates the offense charged to an act committed by a person in the past (change the nature)
-or when the penalty is increased
-or change the quantum of evidence needed
-or remove a privilege which protects the accused (presumption of guilt)
-applied retroactively to the disadvantage of the accused
-violates due process
Case of Nunez:
-accused complained that it is prejudicial to him because the place is far and the number of times he may be able to appeal is lessened
-this is not an ex post facto law because this has nothing to do with the charge/offense against him or the penalty. It was simply procedural so it can be applied retroactively.
-only applies to penal laws!
Case of changing political party:
-law was applied retroactively disqualifying him from running in the elections
-this is not an ex post facto law because election laws are POLITICAL in nature and NOT PENAL
Case of tax applied retroactively to a contract:
-this is not ex post facto law because this is TAX law and NOT PENAL
Case of extradition treaties:
-this is NOT a LAW so it is not ex post facto law
Case of transfer of prisoner from city jail to muntinlupa:
-
Double jeopardy
-filing in court not in the fiscal
-no person shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment of the same act
2 types:
- Punished by law and ordinance
- Cannot be prosecuted for same act/offense
Requisites for DJ:
- 1st jeopardy attaches
- 1st jeopardy is terminated
- 2nd jeopardy
Requisites for 1st jeopardy:
- Valid complaint or information
-an information filed by the prosecutor for concubinage is null and void and can be dismissed (if the offender party will file the information after, there is no double jeopardy)
-if the accused filed for the dismissal of the case due to defective information a new information for the same act can be filed without going against double jeopardy (accused gave consent to the dismissal of the case= estoppels)
- Filed before a competent court
1st court- no jurisdiction
2nd court with- jurisdiction
-there is no double jeopardy here because the 1st court was not competent
-but when the court dismisses it for lack of jurisdiction when it actually has the dismissal will entitle the accused to the right against double jeopardy
- To which the defendant has pleaded and ARRAIGNED
-must plead during the arraignment
-plea bargaining must be approved by victim and the fiscal
-but in the case the victim is absent (unexcused) the fiscal may enter consent for the victim
-if the plea is not valid it may be appealed and double jeopardy will not set it
-if the plea is valid then the fiscal may not appeal the case unless the accused himself appeals the case first
-when the accused who pleads guilty presents justifying/complete self defense evidence during the trial he is deemed to have vacated his plea of guilt (therefore he cannot avail of double jeopardy if another case from same act is filed against him)
The case can be appealed by the fiscal/prosecutor
- Of which he had been previously acquitted, convicted, dismissed or terminated without his express consent
–if a state witness is discharged as a state witness she is deemed acquitted so he cannot be charged for the same offense due to DJ
If dismissal was with consent of the accused:
-No double jeopardy coz it is deemed that he has waived this right
-the consent must be express and does not include mere silence or failure to object the dismissal
-except in speedy trial and insufficiency of evidence (demurrer)
-provisionary dismissal: 6 yrs and above- 2 yrs to reinstated, below 6 yrs- 1 yr to reinstate
2nd jeopardy
-when it is identical to the 1st jeopardy (same evidence presented)
-appeal of prosecution?
-if the four requirements are present the accused can no longer be prosecuted for:
1. the original offense charged
2. attempt stage
3. frustrated stage
4. any offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the original complaint/information
Example:
If you are acquitted of murder you can no longer be prosecuted for:
- Same murder
- Homicide (as this is embraced in the 1st offense)
If you were acquitted of homicide you can no longer be prosecuted for same homicide or murder.
Or from slight physical injuries to less serious physical injuries
Doctrine of supervening event (after termination of the 1st jeopardy)
-the accused maybe prosecuted for another offense if a subsequent development changes the character of the 1st indictment under which he may have already been charged or convicted
Example:
An accused was 1st prosecuted for slight PI but was later on changed to serious PI when the wounds resulted to permanent scars on the face of the victim.
-if during: the information should be amended and accused must enter a new plea
Inseparable offenses
-a person indicted for smoking opium should not be charged with a separate crime of possessing opium
-a person who stole several things from the same person on the same occasion can only be charged with only one crime of theft
Act violating law and ordinance
-if an act is punished by law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act
No comments:
Post a Comment