Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

RIGHTS DURING TRIAL

The rights of the accused under Secs. 14, 16, 17 in Art. III. Study these:

To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,


To enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel,
To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
To have a speedy, impartial, and public trial,
To meet the witnesses face to face, and
To have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.
To be free from being compelled to be a witness against himself.

Why is it that the burden of proof to establish guilt of the accused is with
prosecution, and conviction of the accused depends on the strength of the evidence
of prosecution, not on the weakness of defense? What is the constitutional basis for
this rule?

What is the EQUIPOISE RULE?

RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL:


Q. What are the specific rights that accused may avail of for him to actively
expressed his right to be heard?
Q. If the accused appears at Arraignment without counsel, despite several postponements,
what is the duty of the judge, in this case?

5. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION Purpose?

Q. If Information/complaint filed is for murder, but the particular facts stated therein and later
proven in trial constitute only homicide. Should the Court convict accused for homicide, or murder as
charged/ or should court acquit the accused in this case? WHY? What is the rule?
6. What is VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE?
7. What is a Speedy Trial? What are the FACTORS to consider or determine whether or not
there is Violation of the Right to Speedy Trial?
8. What is the REMEDY?
9. What is the LEGAL EFFECT of dismissal for violation of the Right to Speedy Trial?
10. Does the right of Speedy Trial also include the right to prompt rendition of
judgment?

11. What is the purpose of holding trial in public as a rule; any exception?
12. What is the purpose of the Right to Confrontation? Can this right be waived by
the accused?
13. What are the EXCEPTIONS to the Right of Confrontation?
14. When should the accused avail of the Right to Compulsory Process?
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA is allowed in Sec. 14 (2).
What are the requisites of a valid trial in absentia?
Why is trial in absentia allowed only after arraignment?
If accused can validly waive his presence in the trial of his case, can the Accused also be
absent during promulgation of judgment?

CASE OUTLINE FOR RIGHTS OF ACCUSED


BEFORE AND DURING TRIAL
(SOURCE: The 2007-2008 Outline in CONSTITUTIONAL LAW By Dean Mariano F. Magsalin, Jr.)

RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION


Art. III, Sec , 12
Miranda vs. Arizona , 384 US , 436 (1966)

Custodial Investigation
People v. Lugod, G.R. 136253, February 21, 2001
People v. Del Rosario G.R. 127755, April 14, 1999
People v. Bolanos, 211 SCRA 262 (1992)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, [1980]
People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)

Administrative Investigations
People vs. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
Office of the Court Administrator v. Sumilang, 271 SCRA 316 (1997)
People v. Uy, G.R. No. 157399, November 17, 2005

Police Lineup
Gamboa vs.Cruz, 162 SCRA 642 (1988)
United States v. Wade, 388 U.A. 218 (1967)
People v. Escordial, G.R. 138934, January 16, 2002
People vs. Piedad, et al., G.R. No. 131923, December 5, 2002

Cases before January 17, 1973 not applicable


Magtoto vs.Manguera, 63 SCRA 4 (1975)

Rule under the 1973 Constitution (Voluntary, knowing & intelligent waiver)
People vs. Caguioa, 95 SCRA 2 (1980)
People vs. Tampus, 90 SCRA 624 (1980)
People v. Sayaboc, G.R. 147201, January 15, 2004

The Galit Rule


People vs. Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985)

Rule under the 1987 Constitution


Requirement of Competent & Independent Counsel
People vs. Bandula, 232 SCRA 566 (1994)
People v. Quidato, G.R. 117401, October 1, 1998
People v. Januario. 267 SCRA 608 (1997)
People v. Labtan, GR. No. 12793, December 8, 1999
People vs. Samus, G.R. 135957-58, September 17, 2002
People v. Tomaquin, G.R. No. 133138, July 23, 2004
People v. Bagnate, G.R. No. 133685-86 May 20, 2004

Counsel of Choice
People vs. Gallardo, G.R. No. 113684, Jan. 25, 2000
People vs. Barasina, 229 SCRA 450 (1994)

Counsels presence required in entire proceedings


People v. Morial, G.R. 129295, August 15, 2001

Seized Articles
People v. Castro. 274 SCRA 115 (1997)
People v. Wong Chuen Ming. 256 SCRA 182 (1996)
Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, 302 SCRA 102 (1999)
People v. Macabalang, G.R. 168694, November 27, 2006

Confession to Newsmen
People v. Andan. 269 SCRA 95 (1997)
People v. Endino, G.R. 133026, February 20, 2001
People vs. Ordono, G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000
People vs. Guillermo, GR. No. 147786, January 20, 2004

Other Confessions
People v. Malngan, G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006
People v. Gomez, 270 SCRA 432 (1997)
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990)
People v. Lugod, G.R. 136253, February 21, 2001

Re-enactment
People v. Luvendino, 211 SCRA 36 (1992)

Exclusionary rule
Art. III, Sec. 12 (3)
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
People v. Alicando 251 SCRA 293 (1995)
Harris vs. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971)
New York vs. Quarles, 104 S. U. 2626 (1984)

RIGHT TO BAIL
Art. III, Sec. 13

Bail Defined
Rule 114, Section 1, ROC

Kinds of Bail
Rule 114, Sections 10, 11, 14 & 15
When right may be invoked
Herras Teehankee vs. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634 (1945)
People vs. San Diego, 26 SCRA 522 (1968)
Cortes v. Judge Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387, September 10, 1997
Lavides v. CA, G.R. No. 129670. February 1, 2000
Government v. Judge Puruganan, G.R. 148571, December 17, 2002

Procedure for bail


Paderanga v. Drilon, 247 SCRA 741, (1995).
Go v. Bongolan. A.M. 99-1464, July 26, 1999
People v. Gako, G.R. 135045, December 15, 2000

Bail and Habeas Corpus


Enrile vs. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990)
People vs. Judge Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991)

Bail on appeal
People vs. Fortes, 223 SCRA 619 (1993)
Maguddatu v. CA, G.R. No. 139599. February 23, 2000
Obosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 114350, January 16, 1997

Standards for fixing bail


Rule 114, Sec. 9
Villasenor vs. Abano, 21 SCRA 312 (1967)
De la Camara vs. Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971)
Almeda vs. Villaluz, 66 SCRA 38 (1975)
Yap v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141529, June 6, 2001
Cabaero v. Caon, A.M. No. MTJ-01-369, September 20, 2001
Victory Liner v. Belosillo, G.r. 425 SCRA 79 (2004)

Bail and the Right to Travel Abroad


Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals, 142 SCRA 149 (1980)

RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED
Art. III, Sec. 14

Presumption of Innocence

Proof beyond reasonable doubt


People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59 (1971)

Order of Trial
Alejandro vs. Pepito, 96 SCRA 322 (1988)(modified by Rule 119 Sec. 3 (e)
Presumption of Guilt
Dumlao vs. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)
People vs. Mingoa, 92 Phil. 857 (1953)

Applicability to Juridical Persons


Feeder Intl Line vs. CA CR 94262 May 31, 1991

Official Duty
People vs. Martos, 211 SCRA 805 (1992)

Equipoise Rule
Corpuz vs. People, 194 SCRA 73 (1991)
Dizon Paminatuan v. People, July 11, 1994

Right to be heard personally or by counsel


Importance of Counsel
People vs. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752 (1950)
Delgado vs. CA, 145 SCRA 357 (1986)

Improvident Plea of guilt


People vs. Baluyot, 75 SCRA 148 (1977)
People vs. Magsi, 124 SCRA 69 (1983)
People v. Besonia, G.R. No. 151284-85, February 5, 2004
People v. Murillo, G.R. No. 134583, July 14, 2004

Right to Lawyer of Choice


People vs. Malunsing, 63 SCRA 493(1975)
Libuit v. People, G.R. No. 154363, September 13, 2005

Deprivation of Right to be Heard


Moslares v. CA, 291 SCRA 440 (1998)
Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation
Lack of Arraignment
Borja vs. Mendoza, 77 SCRA 422 (1977)
People v. Alcalde, G.R. 139225, May 29, 2002
People v. Dy, G.R. 115236, January 29, 2002

Sufficiency of the Information


People v. Sadiosa, 290 SCRA 82 (1998)
People v. Perez, G.R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998
People v. Lozano, G.R 125080, September 25, 1998
People v. Ladrillo, GR. No. 124342, December 8, 1999
People v. Valdesancho, G.R. 137051, May 30, 2001
People v. Alcaide, G.R. Nos. 139225-28, May 29, 2002
People vs. Ostia, G.R. No. 131804, February 26, 2003
People vs. Flores Jr., G.R. No. 128823-24, December 27, 2002
People v. Cachapero, G.R. No. 153008, May 20, 2004
Right to speedy, impartial and public trial
Speedy trial
Acevedo vs. Sarmiento, 36 SCRA 247 (1970)
People vs. Judge Laya, 161 SCRA 327 (1988)
Conde vs. Rivera, 45 Phil. 650 (1924)
Dacanay vs. People, 240 SCRA 490 (1995)
People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 139180, July 31, 2001
Solar Team Entertainment v. How, G.R. No. 140863, August 22, 2000
Valencia v. Sandiganbayan. G.R. No. 165996, October 17, 2005
Domondon v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166606. November 29, 2005

Public trial
Garcia vs. Domingo, 52 SCRA 143 (1970)
Perez v. Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001

Impartial trial
Tumey vs. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)
Soriano vs Angeles, G.R. No. 109920. August 31, 2000

Right to confront witnesses


U.S. v. Javier, 37 Phil. 449 (1918)

Right to secure attendance of witnesses


U.S. vs. Garcia, 10 Phil. 384 (1908)
People vs. Sandal, 54 Phil. 883 (1938)
People vs. De Luna, 174 SCRA 204 (1989)

Right to be present during trial

Trial in absentia
Rule 115, Sec. 1 (c)
People vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140285, September 27, 2006
When presence of the accused is a duty:

Arraignment and plea


Rule 116, Sec. 1 (b)

During trial for identification


Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 63 SCRA 546 (1975)
People vs. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)

Promulgation of sentence
Rule 120, Sec. 6
Exception: Light offenses
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Art. III, Sec. 17

Scope covers compulsory testimonial incrimination


United States vs. Tan Teh, 23 Phil. 145 (1912)
United States vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 (1917)
People vs. Otadura, 86 Phil. 244 (1950)
Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920)
Bermudez vs. Castillo, 64 Phil. 485 (1937)
Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil. 570 (1929)
People vs. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 (1994)
South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983)
Schemerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
People v. Rondero, GR. No. 125687, December 9, 1999
People vs. Gallarde, G.R. No. 133025. February 17, 2000.

In what proceedings available


Pascual vs. Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969)
Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)

Use Immunity v. Transactional Immunity.


Art. XIII, Sec. 18 (8)
R.A. No. 1379, Section 8
Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)
Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591

Exclusionary rule
Art. II, Sec. 12 (3)

Effect of denial of privilege by court


Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)

RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES


Art. III, Sec. 16
Art. VIII, Sec. 15
Art. VII, Sec. 19 par. 3
Art. IX, A, Sec. 17
Duterte v. Sandiganbayan, 289 SCRA 721 (1998)
Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan ; 159 SCRA 70 (1988)
Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 145851, November 22, 2001
Dimayacyac v. Judge Roxas, G.R. No. 136264, May 28, 2004
Bernat v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 158018. May 20, 2004

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen