MODULE 3 (e) To be exempt from being compelled to

be a witness against himself.

RULE 115 RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. — (f) To confront and cross-examine the
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused witnesses against him at the trial. Either
shall be entitled to the following rights: party may utilize as part of its evidence the
testimony of a witness who is deceased,
(a) To be presumed innocent until the out of or can not with due diligence be
contrary is proved beyond reasonable found in the Philippines, unavailable or
doubt. otherwise unable to testify, given in
another case or proceeding, judicial or
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause administrative, involving the same parties
of the accusation against him. and subject matter, the adverse party
having the opportunity to cross-examine
(c) To be present and defend in person and him.
by counsel at every stage of the
proceedings, from arraignment to (g) To have compulsory process issued to
promulgation of the judgment. The secure the attendance of witnesses and
accused may, however, waive his production of other evidence in his behalf.
presence at the trial pursuant to the
stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his (h) To have speedy, impartial and public
presence is specifically ordered by the trial.
court for purposes of identification. The
absence of the accused without justifiable (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the
cause at the trial of which he had notice manner prescribed by law.
shall be considered a waiver of his right to
be present thereat. When an accused
under custody escapes, he shall be Right to be Presumed Innocent
deemed to have waived his right to be This is a non-waivable right. In all criminal
present on all subsequent trial dates until prosecutions, the accused is presumed
custody over him is regained. Upon innocent until the contrary is proved
motion, the accused may be allowed to beyond reasonable doubt. (CONST., Art.
defend himself in person when it III, Sec. 14).
su iciently appears to the court that he
can properly protect his right without the The presumption of innocence is founded
assistance of counsel. upon the first principles of justice and is
not a mere form but a substantial part of
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf the law. It is not overcome by mere
but subject to cross-examination on suspicion or conjecture; a probability that
matters covered by direct examination. the defendant committed the crime; nor
His silence shall not in any manner by the fact that he had the opportunity to
prejudice him. do so. Its purpose is to balance the scales
in what would otherwise be an uneven
contest between the lone individual pitted
against the People and all the resources at When the evidence for the prosecution
their command. (People v. Jampa, G.R. No. and defense are evenly balanced, the
177766, July 17, 2009) appreciation of such evidence calls for
tilting of the scales in favor of the accused.
Reasonable Doubt Every criminal (Bonot v. Prila, G.R. No. 219525, August 6,
conviction requires of the prosecution to 2018).
prove two things- the fact of the crime, i.e.,
the presence of all the elements of the The totality of the evidence presented by
crime for which the accused stands both the prosecution and the defense are
charged, and the fact that the accused is weighed, thus, avoiding general
the perpetrator of the crime (Cabugao v. conclusions based on isolated pieces of
People, G.R. No 163879, July 30,2014). evidence. Where the evidence in a
criminal case is evenly balanced, the
That doubt engendered by an investigation constitutional presumption of innocence
of the whole proof and an inability, after tilts the scale in favor of the accused
such investigation, to let the mind rest (People v. Librias, G.R. No. 208067,
easy upon the certainty of guilt (People v. September 14, 2016).
Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 175593, October 17,
2007). Validity of Statutes Providing for
Presumptions of Guilt
NOTE: Absolute certainty of guilt is not It is well-settled that there is no
demanded by the law to convict of any constitutional objection to the passage of
criminal charge but moral certainty is a law providing that the presumption of
required, and this certainty is required as innocence may be overcome by a contrary
to every proposition of proof requisite to reasonable presumption founded upon
constitute the o ense (Yadao v. People, the experience of human conduct, and
G.R. No.150917, September 7, 2006). enacting what evidence shall be su icient
to overcome such presumption of
Reason: The slightest possibility of an innocence.
innocent man being convicted for an
o ense he has not committed would be far The legislature may enact that when
more dreadful than letting a guilty person certain facts have been proven, they shall
go unpunished for a crime he may have be prima facie evidence of the existence of
perpetrated (People v. Baulite, G.R. No. the guilt of the accused and shift the
137599, October 8, 2001). burden of proof provided there be rational
connection between the facts proved and
The presumption of regularity in the the ultimate fact presumed so that the
performance of o icial duty cannot by inference of the one from proof of the
itself overcome the presumption of others is not unreasonable and arbitrary
innocence nor constitute proof beyond because of lack of connection between
reasonable doubt (People v. Sanchez, G.R. the two in common experience (Tio v.
No. 175832, October 15, 2008). Videogram Regulatory Board, G.R. No. L-
75697, June 18, 1987).
Equipoise Rule
NOTE: The Rules or the law may provide for 3. Arraignment;
a presumption of guilt. The statutory 4. Bill of particulars; and
presumption is merely prima facie. At no 5. Rules against Duplicity of o ense.
instance can the accused be denied the
right to rebut the presumption (Hizon v. GENERAL RULE: An accused cannot be
CA, G.R. No. 119619, December 13, 1996). convicted of an o ense unless it is clearly
charged in the Complaint or Information.
Examples of Statutory Presumptions of To convict him of an o ense other than
Guilt: that charged in the Complaint or
1. Unexplained flight of the accused Information would be a violation of this
(People v. Tablizo, G.R. No. 88190, constitutional right (People v. Ortega, G.R.
February 26, 1990); No. 116736, July 24, 1997).
2. Failure to explain possession of
stolen property (U.S. v. Espia, G.R. This right requires that the Information
No. L-5813, August 27, 1910); and should state the facts and the
3. Failure to account funds and circumstances constituting the crime
property of a public o icer charged in such a way that a person of
entrusted to him (Wa-acon v. common understanding may easily
People, G.R. No. 164575, comprehend and be informed of what it is
December 6, 2006). about. (Garcia v. Leonidas, G.R. No. L-
39863, May 29, 1975).
In cases of self-defense, the person
who invokes self-defense is deemed to EXCEPTION: When a person is charged in
have admitted the commission of the a Complaint with a crime and the evidence
o ense. Thus, a reverse trial may be does not show that he is guilty thereof, but
held (ROC, Rule 119, Sec.1). does show that he is guilty of some other
crime or a lesser o ense, the court may
Right to be Informed of the Nature and sentence him for the lesser o ense,
the Cause of the Accusation Against Provided, the lesser o ense is a cognate
Him o ense and is included in the Complaint
This right is not waivable. with the court. (People v. Toling, G.R. No. L-
28548, July 13, 1979).
Purpose: To notify the defendant of the
criminal acts imputed to him so that he The qualifying or aggravating
can duly prepare his defense and make an circumstances must be su iciently
appropriate plea (People v. Dimaano, G.R. alleged and proved in order to be
No. 168168, September 14, 2005). considered by the court (People v. Valdez,
G.R. No. 175602, February 13, 2013).
Means of Informing the Accused of the
Charge: Right to be Present and Defend in
1. Preliminary investigation; Person and by Counsel at Every Stage of
2. Requirement of Su icient the Proceeding
allegations in Information or GENERAL RULE: Presence of the accused
Complaint; during the criminal action is not required
and shall be based on his sole discretion E ects of Waiver:
(ROC, Rule 115, Sec. 1, par. (c)). 1. Waiver of the right to present
evidence and cross-examine
EXCEPTION: The presence of the accused witnesses;
is MANDATORY in the following: 2. Prosecution can present evidence
1. During Arraignment (ROC, Rule if accused fails to appear; and
116, Sec. 1, par. (b)); 3. The court can decide without
2. Promulgation of sentence except Accused’s evidence. (Gimenez v.
when the conviction is for a light Nazareno, G.R. No. L 37933, April
o ense, in which case, it may be 15, 1988).
pronounced in the presence of his
counsel or a representative Trial in Absentia
(Florendo v. CA, G.R. No. 110886, The provision of the Constitution
December 20, 1994); or authorizing the trial in absentia of the
3. When Ordered by the court for accused in case of his non appearance
purposes of identification (Carredo after arraignment despite due notice
v. People, G.R. No. 77542, March simply means that he thereby waives his
19, 1990). right to meet the witnesses face to face
among others. (Carredo v. People, G.R. No.
Not Applicable in SC and CA: The law 77542, March 19, 1990).
securing to an accused person the right to
be present at every stage of the Such waiver of a right of the accused does
proceedings has no application to the not mean a release of the accused from
proceedings before the CA and the SC nor his obligation under the bond to appear in
to the entry and promulgation of their court whenever so required. The accused
judgments. The defendant need not be may waive his right but not his duty or
present in court during the hearing of the obligation to the court (Carredo v. People,
appeal (ROC, Rule 124, Sec. 9). supra.).

Requirements of Waiver of the Right to Requirements for Trial in Absentia:

Appear: 1. The accused has been Arraigned;
1. Existence of the right; 2. He has been duly Notified of the
2. Knowledge of the existence trial; and
thereof; 3. His failure to appear is Unjustified
3. Intention to relinquish which must (Bernardo v. People, G.R. No.
be shown clearly and convincingly; 166980, April 4, 2007).
(People v. Bodoso, G.R. Nos.
149382-149383, March 5, 2003) An escapee who has been duly tried in
and absentia waives his right to present
4. Where the Constitution or law evidence on his own behalf and to
provides, it must be with the confront and cross-examine witnesses
Assistance of counsel to be valid who testified against him (Gimenez v.
(CONST. Art. III, Sec. 12, par. (1)). Nazareno, G.R. No. L-37974, April 15,
1988).
 because he is guilty but because he does
Right to Counsel not know how to establish his innocence.
The right to counsel may be waived but to And this can happen more easily to
ensure that the waiver is voluntary and persons who are ignorant or uneducated
intelligent, the waiver must be in writing (People v. Holgado, G.R. No. L-2809,
and in the presence of the counsel of the March 22, 1950).
accused (People v. Tamod, G.R. No. 80738
February 26, 1990). EXCEPTION: Appellant chose to be
represented in this case by a prominent
Di erence between the Right to and competent member of the Bar,
Counsel During Custodial Investigation, namely himself, even if there were other
Arraignment, and Trial: available counsel. Despite admonitions of
1. During custodial investigation – the trial court, he persisted in his decision
The State has the a irmative duty to try his own case. Appellant is now
to inform the suspect of his right to estopped from claiming that the trial court
a competent and independent violated his right to be represented by
counsel, who is preferably the counsel of his own choice. Note that he
choice of the accused. The State also brushed aside the court's o er of
must likewise provide him with assistance by another counsel, a PAO
such a counsel if he himself fails to lawyer. He declared there was no need
procure the services of one; therefore. (People v. Sesbreño, G.R. No.
2. During arraignment – The court 121764, September 9, 1999).
has the a irmative duty to inform
the accused of his right to counsel Consequence of Denial of Right to
and to provide him with one in case Counsel
he cannot a ord it. The court must Accused was deprived of his right to
act on its own volition, unless the counsel when he retained the services of a
right is waived by the accused; and person who misrepresented himself as a
3. During trial – It is the accused who lawyer. Retrial was ordered on the ground
must assert his right to counsel. of denial of constitutional right to counsel
The court will not act unless the (Sps. Telan v. CA, G.R. No. 95026, October
accused invokes his rights. 4, 1991).

Right to Counsel during Arraignment Rights of a Person under Custodial

and Trial Investigation:
GENERAL RULE: The right to counsel is 1. Right to Be Assisted by Counsel at
immutable and may be invoked at all times All Times;
even on appeal (Telan v. CA, G.R. No. 2. Right to Remain Silent;
95026, October 4, 1991). 3. Right to Be Informed, in a Language
Known to and Understood by Him,
Even the most intelligent or educated man of His Rights to Remain Silent and
may have no skill in the science of law, to Have Competent and
particularly in the rules of procedure, and, Independent Counsel, Preferably
without counsel, he may be convicted not of His Own Choice;
 4. Right to Be Allowed Visits by or Right to Be Assisted by Counsel at All
Conferences. Times
Waiver of the right to counsel must be
Custodial Investigation is the made with the assistance of counsel
questioning by law enforcement o icers of (CONST., Art. III, Sec. 12, par. (1)).
a suspect taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in a Specifically, in the following instances:
significant way. It includes the practice of 1. Signing of the written custodial
issuing an “invitation” to a person who is report; and
investigated in connection with an o ense 2. Signing of the written extra-judicial
he is suspected to have committed (R.A. confession.
No. 7438, Sec. 2).
Requisites for the Validity of an
NOTE: Roadside questioning of a motorist Extrajudicial Confession During
detained pursuant to a routine tra ic stop Custodial Investigation:
questioning does not fall under custodial a. It shall be in writing;
interrogation, nor can it be considered a b. signed by the person arrested,
formal arrest, by virtue of the nature of the detained or under custodial
questioning, the expectations of the investigation; and
motorist and the o icer, and the length of c. It must be signed in the
time the procedure is conducted. Since presence of his counsel, or in
the motorist therein was only subjected to the latter’s absence, upon a
modest questions while still at the scene valid waiver, which must be
of the tra ic stop, he was not at that signed in the presence of any of
moment placed under custody (such that the parents, elder brothers and
he should have been apprised of his sisters, his spouse, the
Miranda rights), and neither can treatment municipal mayor, the municipal
of this sort be fairly characterized as the judge, district school
functional equivalent of a formal arrest. supervisor, or priest or minister
of the gospel as chosen by him
This ruling does not imply that there can be (People v. Gallardo, G.R. No.
no arrest for a tra ic violation. Certainly, 113684. January 25, 2000).
when there is an intent on the part of the 3. Signing of the waiver to the
police o icer to deprive the motorist of provisions of Article 125 of the
liberty, or to take the latter into custody, Revised Penal Code in case of a
the former may be deemed to have lawful warrantless arrest (ROC,
arrested the motorist. In this case, Rule 112, Sec. 6).
however, the o icer’s issuance (or intent
to issue) a tra ic citation ticket negates Assisting counsel may be any lawyer,
the possibility of an arrest for the same except those:
violation (Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788, 1. Directly a ected by the case;
February 29, 2012). 2. Charged with conducting
preliminary investigation; and
 3. Charged with the prosecution of Barasina, G.R. No. 109993, January 21,
crimes (R.A. No. 7438, Sec. 3). 1994).

It is settled that the signature of an

To Be Informed, in a Language Known to accused in a receipt of property seized is
and Understood by Him, of His Rights to inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained
Remain Silent and to Have Competent without the assistance of counsel during
and Independent Counsel, Preferably of custodial investigation (People v. Endaya,
His Own Choice, Who Shall at All Times G.R. No. 205741, July 23, 2014).
Be Allowed to Confer Privately with the
Person Arrested, Detained or Under NOTE: The right to counsel and the right to
Custodial Investigation. remain silent do not cease even after a
criminal Complaint/Information has
The assisting lawyer, by his failure to already been filed against the accused, as
inform appellant of the latter's right to long as he is still in custody (People v.
remain silent, by his “coming and going” Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983, March 22,
during the custodial investigation, and by 1995).
his abrupt departure before the
termination of the proceedings, can hardly The duty of the court to appoint a counsel
be the counsel that the framers of the 1987 de o icio when the accused has no legal
Constitution contemplated when it added counsel of choice and desires to employ
the modifier “competent” to the word the services of one becomes mandatory
“counsel.” Thus, the statement signed by from the time of arraignment onwards
the accused is still inadmissible because (ROC, Rule 116, Sec. 6).
the lawyer should assist his client from the
time the confessant answers the first Right To Be Allowed Visits by or
question asked by the investigating o icer Conferences With:
until the signing of the extrajudicial 1. Any member of his immediate
confession (People v. Morial, G.R. No. Family (i.e., his or her spouse,
128177, August 15, 2001). fiancé or fiancée, parent or child,
brother or sister, grandparent or
A person under investigation has the right grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew
to be aided by a counsel “preferably of his or niece, and guardian or ward);
choice”. The word “preferably” does not 2. Any Medical doctor or Priest or
convey the message that the choice is religious minister, chosen by him or
exclusive so as to preclude other equally by any member of his immediate
competent and independent attorneys family or by his counsel; or
handling the case, otherwise, the tempo of 3. Any national NGO duly accredited
a custodial investigation will be solely in by the Commission on Human
the hands of an accused by stubbornly Rights or by any international NGO
insisting to be represented by a lawyer duly accredited by the O ice of the
who, for one reason or another, is not President (R.A. No. 7438, Sec. 2,
available to protect his interest (People v. par. (f)).
Consequences of Violation of Custodial against himself' signifies that he cannot be
Rights compelled to testify or produce evidence
Any arresting public o icer or employee, in the criminal case in which he is the
or any investigating o icer, shall su er a accused, or one of the accused. He
fine of P6,000.00 or a penalty of cannot be compelled to do so even by
imprisonment of not less than 8 years but subpoena or other process or order of the
not more than ten (10) years, or both. The Court. He cannot be required to be a
investigating o icer who has been witness either for the prosecution, or for a
previously convicted of a similar o ense co accused, or even for himself (People v.
shall su er the penalty of perpetual Ayson, G.R No 86215, July 7, 1989).
absolute disqualification (R.A. No. 7438,
Sec. 4). Silence should not prejudice the accused.
(ROC, Rule 115, Sec. 1, par. (d)).
Obstruction, Prevention or Prohibition
of Right to Visits or Conferences Right Against Self–Incrimination
Any person guilty thereof shall su er the The accused is protected under this rule
penalty of imprisonment of not less than from questions which tend to incriminate
four (4) years nor more than six (6) years him, that is, which may subject him to
and a fine of P4,000.00 (R.A. No. 7438, penal liability.
Sec. 4).
Incriminating Question
NOTE: The constitutional provision on That which may subject him to penal
custodial investigation does not apply to a liability
spontaneous statement, not elicited
through questioning by the authorities but Where available: Not only in criminal but
given in an ordinary manner whereby the also in government proceedings, civil,
suspect orally admits having committed administrative proceedings where there is
the crime. It does not also apply to an a penal sanction involved
admission or confession made before he
is placed under investigation (People v. When invoked: After the asking of a
Baloloy, G.R. No. 140740, April 12, 2002). question and before answering it.

Right to Testify as Witness in his Own The right against self-incrimination is not
Behalf self- executing or automatically
This is a waivable right. A denial of the operational. It must be claimed. If not
defendant’s right to testify on his behalf claimed by or on behalf of the witness, the
would constitute an unjustifiable violation protection does not come into play. It
of his constitutional right. follows that the right may be waived,
expressly, or impliedly, as by a failure to
Right to be Exempt from Being claim it at the appropriate time (People v.
Compelled to be a Witness Against Ayson, G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989).
Himself
The right of the defendant in a criminal NOTE: The right may be waived by the
case "to be exempt from being a witness failure of the accused to invoke the
privilege at the proper time, that is, after communications from the accused and
the incriminating question is asked and not the inclusion of his body in evidence
before his answer. when it may be material. The essence of
the right against self incrimination is
Scope Covered by the Right testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving
The constitutional guarantee, that no of evidence against himself through a
person shall be compelled in any criminal testimonial act.
case to be a witness against himself, is
limited to a prohibition against Drug Test is allowed for persons arrested
compulsory testimonial self- or apprehended for unlawful acts listed
incrimination. The corollary to the under Article II of RA 9165. The Drug Test in
proposition is that, an ocular inspection of Section 15 of RA 9165 does not cover
the body of the accused is permissible persons arrested or apprehended for any
(Villaflor v. Summers, G.R. No. 16444, unlawful act. Where a person was arrested
September 8, 1920). The proviso is that for extortion and thereafter subjected to
torture or force shall be avoided. drug test over his objection, t6he drug test
was a violation of petitioner’s right to
NOTE: The right is applicable to one who is privacy and right against self
compelled to produce a document, and incrimination. Accused refused to have his
one who is compelled to furnish a urine extracted and tested for drugs. He
specimen of his handwriting, for in both also asked for a lawyer prior to his urine
cases, the witness is required to furnish test. He was adamant in exercising his
evidence against himself (Beltran v. rights, but all of his e orts proved futile,
Samson, G.R. No. 32025, September 23, because he was still compelled to submit
1929). his urine for drug testing under those
circumstances. The urine sample was not
NOTE: In the case of Villamor v. Summers, material to the charge of extortion. (Dela
it was sought to exhibit something already Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 200748, July 23,
in existence, while in the case at bar 2014)
(Beltran v. Samson), the question deals
with something not yet in existence, and it Witnesses in Civil Cases
is precisely sought to compel the The Court treats a party in a civil case as
petitioner to make, prepare, or produce by an ordinary witness, who can invoke the
this means, evidence not yet in existence; right against self incrimination only when
in short, to create this evidence which may the incriminating question is propounded.
seriously incriminate him (Id.). It does not give a witness the right to
disregard a subpoena, to decline to
Right Against Self-Incrimination in Drug appear before the court at the time
Cases appointed, or to refuse to testify
The drug test is not covered by allowable altogether. The witness receiving a
nontestimonial compulsion. The subpoena must obey it, appear as
constitutional right of an accused against required, take the stand, be sworn and
self-incrimination proscribes the use of answer questions. It is only when a
physical or moral compulsion to extort particular question is addressed to him,
the answer to which may incriminate him Rights of the Accused in the Matter of
for some o ense, that he may refuse to Testifying or Producing Evidence
answer on the strength of the The accused has the right to testify as a
constitutional guaranty (People v. Ayson, witness in his own behalf but subject to
G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989). cross-examination on matters covered by
direct examination (ROC Rule 115, Sec.1
Instances NOT Covered by the Right (d))
Against Self-Incrimination:
1. Examination of a rapist and the Before the Case:
victim for gonorrhea is valid; (US v. 1. Right to be informed;
Tan Teng, G.R. No. 7081, 2. Right to remain silent and to
September 7,1912); counsel;
2. Examination of a woman for 3. Right not to be subjected to force or
pregnancy charged with adultery is violence or any other means which
valid (Villaflor v. Summers, G.R. No. vitiate free will; and
16444, September 8, 1920); 4. Right to have the evidence
3. Undergo ultraviolet light for obtained in violation of these rights
examination of presence of rejected (People v. Ayson, supra).
fluorescent powder dusted on
marked money used in buy-bust After the Case is Filed in Court:
operation (People v. Tranca, G.R. 1. Right to refuse to be a witness;
No. 110357, August 17, 1994); and 2. Right to not have any prejudice
4. DNA samples obtained from an whatsoever result to him by such
accused in a criminal case will not refusal;
violate the rights against self- 3. The right to testify on his own
incrimination. This privilege applies behalf subject to cross-
to evidence that is examination by the prosecution;
“communicative” in essence taken and
under duress (Herrera v. Alba, G.R. 4. While testifying, the right to refuse
No. 148220, June 15, 2005). a specific question which tends to
incriminate him for some other
Right of an Accused vs. Right of an crime (Id.).
Ordinary Witness
Right of an accused - An accused may Right to Confront and Cross-Examine
altogether refuse to take the witness stand the Witnesses Against Him at Trial
and refuse to answer any and all An escapee who has been duly tried in
questions. absentia waives his right to present
evidence on his own behalf and to
Right of an Ordinary Witness - The confront and cross-examine witnesses
ordinary witness may be compelled to who testified against him (People v.
take the witness stand and claim the Mapalao, G.R. No. 92415, May 14, 1991).
privilege as each requiring question an
incriminating answer is shot at him Purpose: The right to confront and cross-
examine witnesses is a basic,
fundamental human right vested Processes which may be resorted to, to
inalienably to an accused. This right compel the attendance of a person in
ensures that courts can confidently ferret court:
out the facts on the basis of which they 1. Subpoena ad testificandum (ROC,
can determine whether a crime occurred Rule 21);
and the level of culpability of the accused. 2. Subpoena duces tecum (ROC, Rule
It is a basic requirement of criminal 21);
justice. (Liong vs. People, G.R. No. 200630, 3. Warrant of arrest (ROC, Rule 113);
June 4, 2018). 4. Contempt (ROC, Rule 71);
5. Perpetuation of testimony (ROC,
Right may be waived: When a party has Rule 134); and
had the opportunity to cross-examine a 6. Modes of discovery (ROC, Rules
witness but failed to avail himself of it, he 23-28; Rule 119, Secs. 12, 13, & 15;
necessarily forfeits the right to cross- Vda. De Manguerra v. Risos, G.R.
examine and the testimony given on direct No. 152643, August 28, 2008).
examination will be allowed to remain in
the record (People v. Caparas, G.R. No. L- In any criminal proceeding, the defendant
47988, February 20, 1981). enjoys the right to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of
Right to Have Compulsory Process witnesses and the production of evidence
This is the right of the accused to have a in his behalf (CONST., Art. III, Sec. 14, par.
subpoena ad testificandum and/or a (2)).
subpoena duces tecum issued in his
behalf in order to compel the attendance Right to Have a Speedy, Impartial and
of witnesses and the production of other Public Trial
evidence. The right to have a speedy trial is waivable,
but not the right to have a public and
When there is reason to believe that a impartial trial.
material witness for the prosecution will
not appear and testify when required, the Purpose: The right of the accused to a
Court may order the witness to give bail in speedy trial and to a speedy disposition of
sum as it may deem proper for such the case against him was designed to
appearance. Upon refusal to give bail, the prevent the oppression of the citizen by
court must commit him to prison until he holding criminal prosecution suspended
complies or is legally discharged (People v over him for an indefinite time, and to
Montejo, G.R. No L-224154, October 31, prevent delays in the administration of
1967). justice by mandating the courts to
proceed with reasonable dispatch in the
Purpose: To assure a full and unimpeded trial of criminal cases (Corpuz v.
opportunity for him to meet what in the Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162214,
end could be a baseless suit or accusation November 11, 2004).
(People v. Caparas, G.R. No. L-47988,
February 20, 1981). Facts Considered to Determine if Right
to Speedy Trial has been Violated:
 1. Conduct of the parties (Lumanlaw
v. Peralta, Jr., G.R. No. 164953, NOTE: A public trial is not synonymous
February 13, 2006); with publicized trial; it only implies that the
2. Length of the delay; court doors must be open to those who
3. Reason for the delay; wish to come, sit in the available seats,
4. The accused’s Assertion or non- conduct themselves with decorum and
assertion of the right; and observe the trial process (Re: Request
5. Prejudice to the accused resulting Radio TV Coverage of the Trial in the
from the delay (Coscoluella v. Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 191411, against the Former President Joseph E.
July 15, 2013). Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29,
2001).
NOTE: There is no violation of the right
where the delay is imputable to the Exclusion of the Public is Valid When:
accused (Solis v. Agloro, A.M. No. 276-MJ, 1. Evidence to be produced is
June 27, 1975). This is because when the o ensive to decency or public
accused resorted to such tactical morals (ROC, Rule 119, Sec. 13); or
maneuvers, he waived his right to speedy 2. Upon motion of the accused (ROC,
trial (People v. Jardin, G.R. Nos. L-33037- Rule 119, Sec. 21).
42, August 17, 1983).
Rule on Trial by Prejudicial Publicity
Delay, however, is not determined through The right of the accused to a fair trial is not
mere mathematical reckoning but through incompatible to a free press. Pervasive
the examination of the facts and publicity is not per se prejudicial to the
circumstances surrounding each case. right to a fair trial. To warrant a finding of
Courts should appraise a reasonable prejudicial publicity, there must be
period from the point of view of how much allegations and proof that the judges have
time a competent and independent public been unduly influenced, not simply that
o icer would need in relation to the they might be, by the barrage of publicity
complexity of a given case. Nonetheless, (People v. Sanchez, G.R. Nos. 121039-45,
the accused must invoke his or her October 18, 2001).
constitutional rights in a timely manner.
The failure to do so could be considered by Right to Appeal on All Cases Allowed by
the courts as a waiver of right (Cagang v. Law and in the Manner Prescribed by
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 206438, July 31, Law
2018). The right to appeal from a judgment of
conviction is fundamentally of statutory
Public Trial origin. It is not a natural right and it may be
The trial must be public. It possesses that denied by the legislature as long as
character when anyone interested in hearing is conducted except the appellate
observing the manner a judge conducts jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which
the proceedings in his courtroom may do Congress cannot remove. But if there is a
so (Garcia v. Domingo, G.R. No. L-30104, statutory grant of appeal, denial of the
July 25, 1973). same is a violation of due process (Estarija
v. People, G.R. No. 173990, October 27, a criminal charge. Any pleading in an
2009; Hilario v. People, G.R. No. 161070, ecclesiastical count, whether the first one
April 14, 2008). or subsequent one. Any action at law (TAN,
supra at 1034, citing Philippine Legal
The right to appeal is a remedy that may be Encyclopedia by Jose Agaton Sibal, p.
exercised only in manner prescribed by 730).
the provisions of law authorizing such
exercise (Philippine Rabbit Bus v. People, Arraignment and Plea; When and How
G.R. No. 147703, April 14, 2004) Made (
1. In Open court where the Complaint
RULE 116 ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA or Information has been filed or
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA; HOW MADE assigned for trial;
Arraignment 2. By the Judge or clerk of court;
It is the formal mode and manner of 3. By Furnishing the accused with a
implementing the constitutional right of copy of the Complaint or
an accused to be informed of the nature Information;
and cause of the accusation against him 4. By reading it in a Language or
(Taglay v. Daray, G.R. No. 164258, August dialect known to the accused;
22, 2012). 5. By Asking the accused whether he
pleads guilty or not guilty;
Purposes of Arraignment: 6. Accused must Personally appear
1. To apprise the accused of the during arraignment and enter his
possible loss of freedom, even of plea; and
his life, depending on the nature of 7. Both arraignment and plea shall be
the crime imputed to him (People v. made of Record but failure to enter
Monteron, G.R. No. 130709, March of record shall not a ect the
6, 2002); validity of the proceedings (ROC,
2. To inform him why the prosecuting Rule 116, Sec. 1 (a-b)).
arm of the State is mobilized
against him (People v. Monteron, A counsel cannot enter a plea for the
Id.); and accused. A mere written motion or
3. To inform the accused of the manifestation is not a valid plea. The Rules
reason for his indictment, the of Court explicitly requires that the
specific charges he is bound to accused be present at the arraignment
face, and the corresponding and must personally enter his plea (Cabo
penalty that could be possibly v. Sandiganbayan, supra).
meted against him (Kummer v.
People, G.R. No. 174461, Where all Complaints were in English and
September 11, 2013). in technical legal language, the same not
having been translated to a language the
Plea accused understands, together with the
Formal answer of the defendant in lack of education of the accused, his guilty
common law pleading. The answer of plea thereto were void. The lack of
“guilty” or “not guilty” in an arraignment for education of the accused (People v.
Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 117485-86, April 22, 4. When the plea is indefinite or
1996). ambiguous (People v. Strong, G.R.
No. L-38626, March 14, 1975).
In multiple cases, the court, upon
personal examination of the accused, may Conditional Plea of Guilty
allow a waiver of the reading of the Plea entered by the accused subject to the
Information upon the full understanding proviso that a certain penalty be imposed
and express consent of the accused and upon him. It is equivalent to a plea of not
his/her counsel, whose consent shall be guilty (People v. Madraga, G.R. No.
expressly stated in both the 129299, November 15, 2000).
minutes/certificate of arraignment and the
order of arraignment. The court shall Plea of Guilty is a Judicial Confession
explain the waiver to the accused in the GENERAL RULE: It is elementary that a
language or dialect known to him/her, and plea of guilty is a judicial confession of
ensure the accused's full understanding of guilt — an admission of all the material
the consequences of the waiver before facts alleged in the Information, including
approving the same (A.M. No. 15-06-10- the aggravating circumstances alleged
SC, Subheading III, item no. 8). (People v. Comendador, G.R. No. L-38000,
September 19, 1980).
When Arraignment Shall Be Made
Arraignment and Pre-trial shall be set EXCEPTIONS:
within 10 calendar days from date of the 1. Where the plea of guilty was
court’s receipt of the case for a detained compelled by Violence or
accused, and within 30 calendar days intimidation (Camasura v. Marshal,
from the date the court acquires G.R. No. L-874, March 13, 1947);
jurisdiction (either by arrest or voluntary 2. When the accused did not fully
surrender over a non-detained accused Understand the meaning and
(A.M. No. 15-06-10 SC, Subheading III, consequences of his plea (People
item no. 8). v. Lizarte, G.R. No. L-43291, May
11, 1935);
When Plea of Not Guilty Should Be 3. Where the Information is
Entered Insu icient to sustain conviction of
1. When the accused so pleaded; the o ense charged (People v.
2. When he refuses to plead or makes Lopez, G.R. No. 1063, November
a conditional plea (ROC, Rule 116, 29, 1947);
Sec. 1, par. (c)); 4. Where the Information Does not
3. Where in admitting the act charge an o ense, any conviction
charged, he sets up matters of thereunder being void (Cadimas v.
defense (US v. Kelly, G.R. No. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L
12109, December 1, 1916) or with 9725, October 19, 1955); or
lawful justification (US v. Betiong, 5. Where the court has no Jurisdiction
G.R. No. 1185, April 14, 1903); (Cadimas v. Director of Prisons,
supra).
NOTE: Plea of guilty is mitigating if it is The accused may, before arraignment,
made before prosecution starts to present move for a bill of particulars to enable him
evidence (RPC, Art. 13, par. (7)). to plead and prepare for trial. (ROC, Rule
116, Sec. 9).
PLEA OF GUILTY TO CAPITAL OFFENSE;
RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE Purpose
When the Accused Pleads Guilty to a The o ice of a bill of particulars is to
Capital O ense, the Court Shall: supply vague facts or allegations in the
1. Conduct a searching inquiry into Complaint or Information to enable the
the: accused to properly plead and prepare for
a. Voluntariness of the plea; trial. It presupposes a valid Information,
and one that presents all the elements of the
b. Full comprehension of the crime charged, albeit under vague terms
consequences of his plea; (Enrile v. People, G.R. No. 213455, August
2. Require the prosecution to prove 11, 2015).
his guilt and the precise degree of
his culpability; and SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT
3. Ask the accused if he desires to
present evidence in his behalf and Grounds for Suspension:
allow him to do so if he desires Upon motion by the proper party, the
(ROC, Rule 116, Sec. 3). arraignment shall be suspended in the
following cases:
DUTY OF THE COURT TO INFORM 1. The accused appears to be
ACCUSED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL su ering from an Unsound mental
condition which e ectively renders
Without Counsel: him unable to fully understand the
1. It must Inform the defendant that it charge against him and to plead
is his right to have an attorney intelligently thereto;
before being arraigned; 2. There exists a valid Prejudicial
2. After giving him such Information, question; and
the court must ask him if he desires 3. A Petition for Review of the
the aid of an Attorney; resolution of the prosecutor is
3. If he desires and is unable to pending at the Department of
employ one, the court must assign Justice or the O ice of the
an attorney de O icio to defend President; provided that the period
him; and of suspension shall not exceed 60
4. If the accused desires to procure days counted from the filing of the
an attorney of his own, the court petition.
must grant him reasonable Time
therefor (People v. Holgado, G.R. NOTE: Motion to suspend arraignment
No. L 2809, March 22, 1950). based on grounds not stated under Sec.
11, Rule 116 shall be considered
BILL OF PARTICULARS unmeritorious and shall be denied outright
(A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, Subheading III, invoked in support of the motion to
item no. 2). quash (Lopez v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 103911, October 13,
While the pendency of a petition for review 1995).
is a ground for suspension of the
arraignment, the aforecited provision SECTION 1. TIME TO MOVE TO QUASH
limits the deferment of the arraignment to GENERAL RULE: The accused may move
a period of 60 days reckoned from the filing to quash the Complaint or Information at
of the petition with the reviewing o ice. any time before entering his plea (ROC,
After the expiration of said period, the trial Rule 117, Sec. 1).
court is bound to arraign the accused or to
deny the motion to defer arraignment EXCEPTIONS: Instances where a motion
(Samson v. Daway, supra). to quash may be filed after plea:
1. That the facts charged do Not
RULE 117 MOTION TO QUASH constitute an o ense (ROC, Rule
Motion to Quash 117, Sec. 9);
It is the mode by which an accused assails 2. That the court trying the case has
the validity of a criminal Complaint or no Jurisdiction over the o ense
Information filed against him for charged (Id.);
insu iciency on its face in point of law, or 3. That the criminal action or liability
for defects which are apparent in the face has been Extinguished (Id.);
of the Information. It is a hypothetical 4. The defendant would be placed in
admission of the facts alleged in the Double jeopardy (Id.); and
Information (People v. Odtuhan, G.R. No. 5. That the o icer who filed the
191566, July 17, 2013) Information had no authority to do
so (Quisay v. People, G.R. No.
GENERAL RULE: Evidence aliunde or 216920, January 13, 2016).
matters extrinsic to the Information are
not to be considered. To be sure, a motion SECTION 2. FORM AND CONTENTS
to quash should be based on a defect in Form and Contents of a Motion to Quash:
the Information which is evident on its 1. In Writing;
facet (Id). 2. Signed by the accused or his
counsel; and
EXCEPTIONS: 3. Shall Specify distinctly the factual
1. A motion to quash based on double and legal grounds therefor.
jeopardy or extinction of the
criminal action or liability may, by SECTION 3. GROUNDS
their nature, be based on matters The accused may move to quash the
outside of the allegations of the Complaint or Information on any of the
Information or Complaint. (RIANO, following:
supra at 459); and 1. That the facts charged do Not
2. Additional facts not alleged in the constitute an o ense;
Information but admitted or not
denied by the prosecution may be
 2. That the court trying the case has 2. If the motion to quash is based on
no Jurisdiction over the o ense the ground that the facts charged
charged; do not constitute an o ense, the
3. That the court trying the case has prosecution shall be given by the
no Jurisdiction over the person of court an opportunity to correct the
the accused; defect by amendment.
4. That it does not conform 3. In both instances, the motion to
substantially to the prescribed quash shall be granted if:
Form; a. The prosecution fails to
5. That the o icer who filed the make the amendment; or
Information had no Authority to do b. The Complaint or
so; Information still su ers
6. That More than one o ense is from the same defect
charged except when a single despite amendment.
punishment for various o enses is
prescribed by law; SECTION 5. EFFECT OF SUSTAINING THE
7. That the criminal action or liability MOTION TO QUASH
has been Extinguished; E ects if Court Sustains the Motion to
8. That it contains Averments which, if Quash:
true would constitute a legal 1. If the ground of the motion is either:
excuse or justification; and a. That the facts charged do
9. That the accused has been not constitute an o ense;
Previously convicted or acquitted b. That the o icer who filed the
of the o ense charged, or the case Information had no
against him was dismissed or authority to do so;
otherwise terminated without his c. That it does not conform
express consent. substantially to the
prescribed form; or
NOTE: The grounds are exclusive. A motion d. That more than one o ense
to quash Information when the ground is is charged.
not one of those stated in the Rules is a
prohibited motion and shall be denied Then, the court may order
outright before the scheduled arraignment that another Information be
without need of comment and/or filed or an amendment
opposition (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, thereof be made, as the
Subheading III, item no. 2). case may be, within a
definite period:
SECTION 4. AMENDMENT OF  If such order is made,
COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION and the accused is in
1. If the motion to quash is based on custody, he shall not be
an alleged defect of the Complaint discharged unless
or Information which can be cured admitted to bail; or
by amendment, the court shall  If such order is not
order that an amendment be made. made, or if having been
 made, another of the o ense charged, or the case
Information is not filed against him was dismissed or
within the time specified otherwise terminated without his
in the order, or within express consent.
such time as the court
may allow for good SECTION 7. FORMER CONVICTION OR
cause, the accused, if in ACQUITTAL; DOUBLE JEOPARDY
custody, shall be
discharged therefrom, Jeopardy
unless he is also in The peril in which a person is put when he
custody for some other is regularly charged with a crime before a
charge tribunal properly organized and
2. If the motion to quash is sustained competent to try him (People v. Jabajab,
upon any of the following grounds: G.R. Nos.L-9238-39. November 13, 1956).
a. That a criminal action or
liability has been Double jeopardy means that when a
extinguished; person is charged with an o ense and the
b. That it contains averments case is terminated either by acquittal or
which, if true, would conviction or in any other manner without
constitute a legal excuse or the express consent of the accused, the
justification; or latter cannot again be charged with the
c. That the accused has been same or identical o ense (Carmelo v.
previously convicted or People, G.R. No. L-3580, March 22, 1950).
acquitted of the o ense
charged. Requisites to Properly Invoke the
Defense of Double Jeopardy:
The court must state, in its order granting 1. First jeopardy must have Attached;
the motion, the release of the accused if 2. First jeopardy must have been
he is in custody or the cancellation of his Terminated; and
bond if he is on bail. 3. There is a Second jeopardy (Cudia
vs. Court of Appeals, supra).
SECTION 6. ORDER SUSTAINING THE
MOTION TO QUASH NOT A BAR TO First Requisite—First Jeopardy Must Have
ANOTHER PROSECUTION Attached:
GENERAL RULE: An order sustaining the 1. A valid Information is filed;
motion to quash is not a bar to another 2. Before a Court of competent
prosecution for the same o ense. jurisdiction;
3. After a valid Arraignment; and
EXCEPTIONS: 4. A valid Plea has been entered (Id.).
1. The motion was based on the
ground that the criminal action or Second Requisite—First Jeopardy Must
liability has been extinguished; and Have Been Terminated:
2. That the accused has been 1. The accused has been Acquitted;
previously convicted or acquitted 2. Convicted; or
 3. The case was dismissed or
otherwise Terminated without his
express consent (Id.).

SECTION 9. FAILURE TO MOVE TO

QUASH OR TO ALLEGE ANY GROUND
THEREFOR
The failure to assert any ground of a
motion to quash before he pleads, either
because he did not file a motion to quash
or failed to allege the same in said motion,
shall be deemed a waiver of any
objections.

Exceptions:
1. That the facts do Not constitute an
o ense
2. That the court trying the case has
no Jurisdiction over the o ense
charged;
3. That the criminal liability has been
Extinguished; and
4. That the defendant would be
placed in Double jeopardy (ROC,
Rule 117, Sec. 9); and
5. That the o icer who filed
Information had no authority to do
so (Quisay v. People, supra).