RULE 115

Rights of Accused
Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:
These rights are already provided by the constitutions under the Bill of Rights which are self-executing
provisions. Need not have to legislate to make them effective.

a. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Presumption of innocence ends when it is overcome in a final conviction. The quantum of evidence
which overcomes the presumption is “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. This does not mean such
a degree of proof as produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree
of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mine.

Every criminal conviction requires of the prosecution to prove two things:

1. The fact of the crime
2. The fact that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime

Sec 2, Rule 133 – Proof beyond reasonable doubt

In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mine.

Hence, if the evidence of guilt falls short of this requirement, the defense may logically not even
present evidence on its own behalf.

The prosecution
Is burdened with the duty of establishing with proof beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of an
accused.

The accused
To counter or overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution. To create doubt on the
evidence presented by the prosecution.

The Trial Court

Must be satisfied with moral certainty that an accused has indeed committed the crime on the basis
of facts and circumstances to warrant a judgment of conviction. Otherwise, the accused is entitled
to an acquittal.

Presumption of innocence vs Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty

Under our Constitution, an accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. This presumption
prevails over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty when the latter is
tainted with irregularities.

EQUIPOISE RULE
Provides that when the evidence in a criminal case are evenly balanced, the Constitutional
presumption of innocence tilts the scale in favor of the accused.

Courts should be guided by the principle that “it would be better to set free ten men who might be
probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not
commit.

1
 Effect when the accused plead self-defense
 Under this case, there is no more presumption of innocence.
 Self-defense, when invoked, as a justifying circumstance implies the admission by the
accused that he committed the criminal act. This time the burden of evidence is shifted to
the accused to prove such defense by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that
excludes any vestige/trace of criminal aggression on his part.

b. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

This right shall be invoked during the arraignment.

The Rules of Court specifically requires that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense, including the qualifying and aggravating circumstances, must be stated in ordinary and
concise language sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is
being charged and the attendant qualifying and aggravating circumstances present, so that the
accused can properly defend himself and the court can pronounce judgment.

Further, qualifying and aggravating circumstances proven at the trial would not be appreciated
when they were not alleged in the Information. It would be a denial of the accused’s basic right to
be due process (to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him) if he is
charged with homicide and consequently convicted with certain qualifying circumstances which
were not alleged in the information (murder).

How will the accused invoke this right?

Before the arraignment, the accused may move quash the information that fails to allege the acts
constituting the offense.

What will you look up if your client is charged with Murder?

The presence of the qualifying circumstances alleged in the Information.

Assuming the accused was charged for murder, can the court convict him of homicide?
Yes, the accused may be convicted of homicide instead of murder if the accused counsel overcame
or created a doubt on the existence of the qualifying circumstances alleged in the Information.

c. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from
arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at
the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered
by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at
the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When
an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on
all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be
allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly
protect his right without the assistance of counsel.

Can the accused defend himself without a lawyer?

Yes, the accused may be allowed by the court to defend himself when it sufficiently appears to the
court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel

RIGHT TO COUNSEL:
Means that the accused is simply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who commits
himself to the cause for the defense and acts accordingly.

2
COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: mean
An efficient and truly decisive legal assistance and not a simple perfunctory representation.

What is the extent of the right to counsel?

To be present and defend by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
promulgation of the judgment.

Supposing the accused is present but his lawyer is absent and the prosecution has already his
witnesses, can the judge continue the trial?
Yes, the judge can appoint a counsel de oficio.

What would justify a judge in appointing a counsel de oficio?

The judge is authorized to appoint a counsel de oficio if circumstances had already show that the
accused exercise of his right to counsel is already delaying the speedy disposition of the case.

The right to choose a counsel is not absolute. Otherwise, the pace of a criminal prosecution will be
entirely dictated by the accused, to the detriment of the eventual resolution of the case. Thus, if
the chosen counsel deliberately makes himself scarce, the court is not precluded from appointing
a de oficio counsel, which it considers competent and independent, to enable the trial to proceed
until the counsel of choice enters his appearance.

What does it mean your right to be present?

To be present at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the
judgment.

What if your client failed to appear during trial?

The waiver of the right of the accused to be present at the trial may be inferred from his absence
without justifiable cause provided he had prior notice of the said trial.

As a counsel, what will be your argument to the judge on your client’s absence when the prosecution
move to arrest your client?
 My client waive his right to be present at the trial. (Affidavit of waiver of appearance during
trial).

What will be argument when the presence of your client is required for the purpose of identification?
 Your honor, we have already admitted the identity of the accused. That the person being
tried here, who is my client, and the person named in the information is the same person.
To protect the reputation of the client.

What are the instances when the presence of the accused is necessary?
Arraignment (indispensable)
Trial – for the purpose of identification
Promulgation (indispensable) (except, on summary proceedings)

POLICE LINE-UP
 Is not part of the custodial inquest since the accused at that stage is not yet being
investigated, hence, the right to counsel does not yet attach.
 The process has not shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory and it is usually the
complaint who is interrogated and who gives a statement during the line-up.

3
d. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by
direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.

Accused
During cross-examination:
The questions that may be asked of the
accused in a cross-examination are limited to
the matters covered by the direct examination.
May refuse to take the witness stand.
May refuse to answer any and all questions.
Witness
During cross-examination:
The witness may be cross-examined by the
adverse party not only as to any matters stated
in the direct examination, or connected
therewith but the cross examiner is given
“sufficient fullness and freedom” to ask
questions that would test the accuracy and
truthfulness of the witness, his freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all
important facts bearing upon the issue. (sec 6,
Rule 132)
May be compelled to take the witness stand.
May claim his right against self-incrimination
only when the specific question requiring an
incriminating answer is shot at him.

e. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.

To curb the police-state practice of extracting a confession that leads suspects to make self-
incriminating statement. This is the reason why the presence of a counsel is indispensable in a
custodial investigation.

Assuming the accused already answered self-incriminating question, can his counsel later on move
to strike-down the question and answer that resulted in incriminating statement?
No, he should object that the moment the question is asked. Once the question is asked and your
counsel is sleeping, he cannot later on object that, it is deemed you have waived your right.

Transactional Immunity (blanket or total immunity)

Which protect the witness from future prosecution for crimes related to his testimony (i.e. state
witness-least guilty among the accused).

Use and derivative use Immunity

Which prevent the prosecution only from using the witness’ own testimony or any evidence derived
from the testimony against the witness.

f. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part
of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be
found in the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse
party having the opportunity to cross-examine him.

The cross-examination of a witness is essential:

1. To test her accuracy;
2. To expose falsehoods or halftruths;;
3. Uncover the truth which rehearsed direct examination testimonies may successfully suppress;
4. Demonstrate inconsistencies in substantial matters which create reasonable doubt as to the
guilt of the accused; and
5. Give substance to the constitutional right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him

4
g. To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other
evidence in his behalf.

The accused may move the court for the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum or a subpoena
duces tecum pursuant to the provisions of Rule 21.

In case of the unjustified failure of the witness to comply, the court or judge issuing the subpoena,
upon proof of the service of such subpoena and proof of his failure to attend, may issue a warrant
for his arrest (Sec 8, Rule 21).

h. To have speedy, impartial and public trial.

Essence of the right to speedy disposition
 Spurring dispatch on the administration of justice;
 To prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding a criminal prosecution suspended over
him for an indefinite time
 To assure that an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense of litigation

This looming unrest as well as the tactical disadvantages carried by the passage of time should be
weighed against the State and in favor of the individual.
1. A deliberate attempt to delay the trial to hamper the defense
Weight heavily against the government
2. A more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts
Weighted less heavily but should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such
circumstance must rest with the government
3. A valid reason such as missing witness
Justify appropriate delay

BALANCING TEST
In which the conduct of both the prosecution and defendant are weighed

Factors considered in determining whether a particular accused-defendant has been deprived of his
right: see Sec 3, Rule 119 – exclusions
1. Length of the delay (this is the triggering mechanism)
2. Reason for the delay
3. Defendant’s assertion of his right
4. Prejudice to the defendant
 To prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration
 To minimized anxiety and concern of the accused
 To limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired

EFFECTS OF THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

1. Dismissal of a criminal case on a motion “nolle prosequi”.
2. Dismissal of a criminal case equivalent to an acquittal, and double jeopardy may attach even if
the dismissal is with the consent of the accused.

To exercise the right to speedy trial:

1. The accused should ask for the trial of the case
2. Move for dismissal of the case, if
 The prosecution cannot produce its witnesses or evidences; and
 Its motion for postponement is denied

5
 REMEDY OF THE ACCUSED
Section 9, Rule 119
The information may be dismissed on motion of the ground of denial of his right to speedy trial.
ACCUSED PROSECUTION
The accused shall have the burden of proving Prosecution shall have the burden of going with
the motion the evidence to establish the exclusion of time
under sec 3, Rule 119 – exclusion.

i. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to appeal in the manner prescribed by
law. The right to appeal is statutory. Its suppression would be a violation of due process. An appeal
throws the whole case for review of all aspects, including those not raised by the parties.

An appeal is an essential part of the judicial system and trial courts have been advised by the Court
 to proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal
 to afford litigants the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause,
freed from the constraints of technicalities.

Matters for review by appellate court:

1. In criminal cases, the reviewing tribunal can correct or even reverse the trial court’s decision
on grounds other than those that the parties raise as errors.

2. The appellate court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court on the credibility of
witnesses, unless there appears in the record some facts or circumstances of weight and
influence which have been overlooked and, if considered, would affect the result.

Generally, the findings of the trial court relative to the credibility of the witness are normally
respected and not disturbed on appeal.