Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ANNOTATION
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
By
JOSE AGATON R. SIBAL
________________
1. Due Process, p. 45
A Essentials of Due Process in Criminal Cases, p. 45
B Certainty and Due Process, p. 49
C Knowing Use of Perjured Testimony, p. 50
2. Right to Bail, p. 50
A Constitutional Provision, p. 50
B Importance of Right, p. 50
C Scope of Right, p. 51
D Hearing on Bail Application, p. 53
E No Excessive Bail, p. 54
3.
Constitutional Provision, p. 55
Presumption of Innocence, p. 55
Right to be Heard by Himself, p. 57
Right to Counsel, p. 58
Right to be Informed of Nature and Cause of
Accusation, p. 60
F Right to Speedy Trial, p. 62
G Right to Public Trial, p. 65
H Right to Confrontation, p. 66
4. Privilege Against SelfIncrimination, p. 68
A Constitutional Provision, p. 68
B History, p. 69
C Reason for the Rule, p. 69
D Prohibition Should be Liberally Construed, p. 70
E Scope of Prohibition, p. 70
45
45
F Waiver of Privilege, p. 71
5. Excessive Fines and Cruel, Degrading or
Inhuman Punishment, p. 73
6. Employment of Physical, Psychological or
Degrading Punishment, p. 74
7. Conclusion, p. 74
_______________
1. Due Process
1
Conde vs. Court of First Instance, 45 Phil. 173 Conde vs. Rivera, 45
Phil. 650.
4
46
76 Phil. 72.
87 Phil. 418.
10
47
COURT:
COURT:
NOTE:
Q.
12
13
14
15
16
17
48
Not only did such a question fail to inform the accused that it
was his right to have an attorney before arraignment, but, what is
worse, the question was so framed that it could have been
construed by the accused as a suggestion from the court that he
plead guilty if he had no attorney. And this is a denial of fair
hearing in violation of the due process clause contained in our
Constitution.
xxx
It must be added, in the instant case, that the accused who
was unaided by counsel pleaded guilty but with the following
qualification: but I was instructed by one Mr. Ocampo. The trial
19
49
20
20
21
22
23
Roth vs. U.S., 354 U.S. 476, 491, citing U.S. vs. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 7,
8.
50
50
Napue vs. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 see annotations: 3 L.ed. 2d, 1991 2
26
27
51
Teehankee vs. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634 People vs. Follantes, 63 Phil. 474
52 O.G. 5506.
30
31
52
Ching Juat vs. Ysip, 77 Phil. 848 see also Payao vs. Lesaca, 63 Phil.
218 People vs. Follantes, 63 Phil. 474 Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 83
SCRA 658.
33
1989.
34
19.
Sy Guan vs. Amparo, 79 Phil. 670 see also People vs. Alano, 81 Phil.
35
Under the Revised Penal Code capital offenses are: treason, qualified
Montano vs. Ocampo, 49 O.G. 1855 Bravo, Jr. vs. Borja, 134 SCRA
466 People vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 147 SCRA 219 People vs.
Albofera, 152 SCRA 123.
37
53
41
42
43
Gerardo vs. Judge, 47 O.G. 143 see also Section 15, Rule 114,
Marcos vs. Cruz, 67 Phil. 82 see also Ocampo vs. Bernabe, 77 Phil.
55 People vs. Bocar, 27 SCRA 512 Section 5, Rule 114, Revised Rules of
Court.
45
46
54
48
Ibid People vs. Alano, 81 Phil. 19 Sy Guan vs. Amparo, 79 Phil. 670.
49
Last sentence of Section 13, Article III see also opening sentence of
See Section 6, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Court for the guidelines in
55
Section 14, clause 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution see also Section 1,
54
55
56
Yee Hem vs. U.S., 268 U.S. 178 People vs. Simbulan, 124 SCRA 927.
57
58
59
See Cooley, supra, pp. 639641 see also People vs. Capilitan, 182
SCRA 313.
60
61
57
Aguirre vs. People, 155 SCRA 337 People vs. Guinto, 184 SCRA 287.
63
64
65
People vs. Beechman, 23 Phil. 274 Cf. Section 1(c), Rule 115, Revised
Rules of Court.
66
67
68
58
Diaz vs. U.S., 223 U.S. 442 People vs. Francisco, 46 Phil. 40.
70
71
72
Section 12, clause 1, Article III see also People vs. Manlapaz, 183
SCRA 300 the leading cases that have unfailingly applied the
constitutional edict are: Morales vs. Enrile, 121 SCRA 536 People vs.
Galit, 135 SCRA 465 People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 People vs. Albofera,
152 SCRA 128 People vs. Pinlac, 165 SCRA 674 Estacio vs.
Sandiganbayan, 183 SCRA 12 People vs. Aquino, 184 SCRA 205.
73
74
59
76
77
U.S. vs. Palisoc, 4 Phil. 207 People vs. Holgado, 85 Phil. 752.
78
U.S. vs. Escalante, 36 Phil. 743 People vs. Nang Kay, 88 Phil. 515.
79
Abriol vs. Homeres, 84 Phil. 525 against the case of Velasco vs.
Superintendent, 67 Phil. 538 see also Section 20, Rule 41, Revised Rules
of Court.
60
60
81
82
Johnson vs. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 quoted with approval in Abriol vs.
Section 14, clause 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution see also Section
1(b), Rule 115, Revised Rules of Court People vs. Regala, 113 SCRA 613
U.S. vs. Santos, 4 Phil. 419.
84
Cf. Section 9, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Court Rosario vs. U.S., 207
U.S. 368.
85
86
61
61
See People vs. Ramos, 122 SCRA 312 People vs. Caguioa, 95 SCRA
88
People vs. Nicandro, 141 SCRA 289 cited in People vs. Duhan, 142
2.
SCRA 100 People vs. Pinlac, 165 SCRA 674 See also People vs. Olapani,
174 SCRA 495.
89
90
91
92
62
him and
a copy must be furnished him by the Judge or
93
clerk.
The presumption would be, from the failure of the
accused and his counsel to seek any further information,
that he was sufficiently informed of the charge and was
satisfied with the complaint, understood what it meant,
and was willing
to go to trial on the assumption that it was
94
sufficient.
Although an accused is deaf and dumb it will be
presumed that adequate measures were taken by the trial
court to translate to him, by signs, the contents of the
information and to ascertain his manifestation,
in
95
connection with the acceptance of his plea.
The right of defendant to be informed of the nature and
cause of accusation cannot be waived.
F Right to Speedy Trial
The right to speedy trial is necessarily relative, consistent
with unreasonable
delays, and depends upon the
96
circumstances. It means therefore a right to free97 trial
from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays
and
98
also justice delayed is justice denied.
Detention
prisoners, in particulars, have the right to99 have their cases
tried and decided as speedily as possible. But the right to
speedy trial
does not extend to the pronouncement of
100
judgment.
Furthermore, the Court consistently maintained that
although a speedy determination of an action implies a
speedy trial,
________________
93
94
95
96
O.G. 489 Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil. 215 People vs. Romero, 93 Phil.
128 See also Section 16, Article III, 1987 Constitution Section 1(h), Rule
115, Revised Rules of Court.
97
Conde vs. Rivera, 45 Phil. 650 Esguerra vs. Court of First Instance,
95 Phil. 609 Kalaw vs. Apostol, 64 Phil. 852 Acosta vs. People, 5 SCRA
774.
98
99
100
63
Yiquez vs. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 235 citing Amberti vs. Court
14 Am. Jur. 858 see also Shioji vs. Harvey, 43 Phil. 333.
Mercado vs. Court of First Instance, 66 Phil. 215 Gunabe vs. Director
64
Ibid.
People vs. Abao, 97 Phil. 28 See also Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil.
215 and Kalaw vs. Apostol, 64 Phil. 852 for other examples of unjustified
delay.
8
10
65
13
People vs. Greeson, 230 Mich. 124 State vs. Keeler, 52 Mont. 205
Annotation: Ann. Cases, 1917, 625 156 A.L.R. 265 48 A.L.R. 2d.
See People vs. Murray, 89 Mich. 276, 50 N.W. 422, 1091 People vs.
Greeson, 230 Mich. 124 203 N.W. 141 State vs. Hensley, 75 Ohio St. 255
79 N.E. 462, 9 LRANS 277 Annotation: 9 Ann. Cases III 27 LRANS 487
Ann. Cases 1917 E. 625.
16
17
18
66
20
21
U.S. vs. Javier, 37 Phil. 449 State vs. Shaughnessy, 212 Wis. 322,
249 N.W. 522, 90 A.L.R. 368 Maltox vs. U.S., 156 U.S. 237 Kirby vs. U.S.,
174 U.S. 42 2 Wigmore on Evidence, Sections 13961397 Dowdell vs.
U.S., 227 U.S. 326.
22
Crossby vs. State, 82 S.E. 2d. 38 citing News Publishing Co. vs.
Butler, 22 S.E. 282 Richards vs. Harpe, 155 S.E. 85 See also People vs.
Bagano, 181 SCRA 747.
67
67
23
Section 14, clause 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution Section 19, Article IV,
21 Am. Jur. 2d. 360 see also U.S. vs. Javier, 37 Phil. 449.
26
People vs. Seneris, 99 SCRA 92 citing California vs. Green, 339 U.S. 157.
27
68
68
Fulgado vs. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 81 see also People vs.
30
31
32
69
B History
The provision that no one is bound to incriminate himself is
older than the Government of the United States. At an
early day it became a part of the common law of England.
It was established on the grounds of public policy and
humanityof policy, because if the party were required to
testify, it would place the witness under the strongest
temptation to commit the crime of perjury, and of
humanity, because it would prevent the extorting of
confessions by duress.
It had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial
methods of interrogating the accused 33person, which had
long obtained in the continental system.
In otherwords, the very object of adopting this provision
of law was to wipe such practices as formerly prevailed in
those Islands of requiring accused persons to submit to
judicial examinations, and to give testimony regarding the
offenses with which34they were charged.
In Emerys case, it was said that the principle applies
equally to any compulsory disclosure of the guilt of the
offender himself, whether sought directy as the object of
the inquiry, or indirectly and incidentally for the purpose of
establishing facts involved in an issue between the parties.
If the disclosure thus made would be capable of being
used against him as a confession of crime, or an admission
of facts tending to prove the commission of an offense,
such
34a
disclosure would be an accusation against himself.
C Reason for the Rule
In the language of Mr. Justice Bradley, in the Boyd case,
any compulsory discovery by extorting the partys oath x x
x to convict him of a crime x x x is contrary to the principles
of free government it is abhorent to the instincts of an
Englishman it is abhorent to the instinct of an American.
It may suit the
______________
33
575.
34
34a
70
U.S. vs. Navarro, 3 Phil. 143 see also Galman vs. Pamaran, 138
SCRA 294 People vs. Gardner, 144 N.Y. 119 U.S. vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil.
145.
36
Ward vs. State, 27 Okla, Crim. Rep. 362, 228 P. 498 People vs.
71
F Waiver of Privilege
There can be no implied waiver of a citizens right against
selfincrimination.
Any such renunciation cannot be predicated on such a
slender or tenuous reed as a dubious implication.
Otherwise, it would be easier to lose the human rights
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights than to protect or preserve
them it would be easier to enslave the citizen than for him
to remain free. Such a result was never intended by the
Founding Fathers.
Section 17 of the Bill of Rights stating that no person
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, applies
to both the ordinary witness and the suspect under
custodial investigation.
In support of the rule that there can be no implied
waiver of
______________
38
72
Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294, concurring opinion of the then
41
Ibid.
42
44
73
46
47
Ibid.
48
49
74
51
52
53
54
75
Galman vs. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 294 Johnson vs. Zerbst, 304 U.S.
458 cited Abriol vs. Homeres, 84 Phil. 525 and in Chavez vs. Court of
Appeals, 24 SCRA 663.
76
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.