October 7, 2016

RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION (Section 12)

Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited..
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall
be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as
well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their
families.
Section 12 is the Rights of persons under custodial investigation which we all know as the
Miranda Warning culled from the US case of Miranda vs. Arizona.

Section 12 par. 1 provides for the rights under custodial investigation.

Par.2 prohibits the torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiate the free will shall be used against him use of secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited
Par. 3 is our exclusionary rule
Par. 4 is the mandate for the congress to enact a law which will provide for penal and
civil sanctions for violations of rights under custodial investigation as well as
compensation for the victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Lets start with par 1, it says:

(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
The rights under custodial investigation as Ive said was culled from the case of Miranda vs.
Arizona.
Miranda vs. Arizona
In this case the accused was arrested and then subjected to interrogation the result
of which is an extrajudicial confession presented to the court. And which confession
was the basis of his conviction. Thereafter the SC released him or acquitted him
because he was not warned of his rights prior to questioning.
What are the rights under Sec 12?
RIGHTS:
1. The right to remain silent

2. The right to counsel

3. The right to be informed of his rights
The most important of all these rights is the right to be informed. The Constitution requires
that in case of waiver the waiver must be in writing and the waiver must be in the presence
of Counsel. Meaning, that if you waive your right to counsel it must also be in the presence
of counsel.
WAIVER OF THE RIGHT
1. In writing
2. In the presence of counsel
CONSEQUENCE: Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. The consequence of the violation of
this right would be the exclusionary rule in that the extrajudicial confession would not be
admissible in evidence against the accused.
Custodial investigation the case of Miranda vs. Arizona means any questioning initiated by
law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived
of his freedom of action in any significant way. In other words, one that ceases to be a
general inquiry on the fact of the commission of an offense, or into an unsolved crime, and
begins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect having been taken into custody, and the
police carries out a process of interrogation to elicit incriminating statements.
What are the features to consider an interrogation or questioning as custodial
investigation?
1. That the person is already considered as a suspect. The investigation starts to focus
on a person as a suspect and is no longer a general inquiry or general investigation
as to the event or the crime was committed.
2. The suspect is already under custody whether you call it arrest or in any manner
deprived of his liberty of action.
3. The interrogation is conducted by police authorities.
In any case in which you are confronted with a question w/n the person is under custodial
investigation you only have to look at these 3 features. In RA 7433 (An Act Providing For
Rights Of Persons Arrested, Detained And Investigated) which was the law enacted by the
Congress in compliance with par 4 Sec 12, Custodial investigation includes the practice of
issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed. This would now negate all defenses made by police
authorities in evading violation of this right by saying that he was merely invited to the
station for questioning. But if the invitation is already in the sense that he was suspected of
the commission of the offense, is already considered as a suspect, and therefore invited,
then it is still considered as custodial investigation.
WHEN DOES THE RIGHT APPLIES?
From the time that the person was arrested and deprived of his freedom. Thereafter all the
questions propounded on him by the police for the purpose of eliciting admissions,
confessions or any information come within the ambit of custodial investigation.
From the time that the person is arrested or invited or in the custody of the police: - Thats
in:

People v. Arondain 366 SCRA 98 (2001)

Immediately after the arrest, when the police questioned him why he committed the
offense the answer to that question would be inadmissible in evidence without the
police having accorded the person the rights under custodial investigation. That is
the police failed to inform him of his right to remain silent and right to counsel.
People v. Tan, 286 SCRA 207 (1998)
The questioning happened inside the station in a casual conversation made by the
police and the accused was not being subjected to any pressure. He is still considered
as under custodial investigation there being already an arrest.
People v. Bravo, 318 SCRA 812 (1999)
The police cannot say that it was merely an informal investigation, informal
questioning prior to turning him over to the investigator. That informal questioning by
the police officer inside the station even if he is not the investigator for that case is
still considered as custodial investigation.
People v. Bariquit, 341 SCRA 600 (2000)
After the accused was arrested and while they were still walking along the highway
on the way to the police station they had a conversation. That conversation is also
considered as custodial investigation, so any admission or confession made by the
accused in the course of that conversation while they were walking towards the
police station is considered custodial investigation. And it would not be admissible in
evidence if the police had not informed him of his right to remain silent and right to
counsel.
People v. Malngan, 503 SCRA 204 (2006)
The SC emphasized the Barangay Chairman, Barangay captain and Barangay Tanod,
for the purpose of applying Section 12 is considered as a law enforcement officer.
When the housemaid here who was arrested for burning the house of here Amo and
taken into custody by the Brgy. Captain, any confession that she made to the
barangay captain and Barangay Tanod will be inadmissible in evidence if they did not
inform her of her right to remain silent and her right to counsel.
Effect of belated presence of a lawyer after the investigator takes confessions
What happens if during the investigation the suspect is willing or has given a confession but
without the valid waiver provided in Section 12. What happens to the belated presence of
counsel will it cure the defect that the confession was made without the presence of
counsel?
People v. Quidato, Jr., 297 SCRA 1 (1998)
The accused was arrested in Samal where during that time there was yet no lawyer.
The police conducted the investigation without the benefit of assistance of the lawyer
but deferred the signing of the statement of the accused. The following day the
investigator brought the accused to the PAO where the written statement was reread
before him and the PAO asked him w/n that was his statement, w/n there was duress
while he made the statement and w/n he will still attest to that statement. Thereafter
he signed the extrajudicial confession. The SC said that the belated presence of the
lawyer did not cure the defect because under custodial investigation under Sec 12,
he must be informed of his right to remain silent and right to counsel. In case of a
waiver, the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel. It means that
during the extra judicial confession either he must be assisted by the counsel or if he
waved his right, that waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel.
People v. Mojello, 425 SCRA 11 (2005)

More or less the same thing happened, when he was arrested there was no lawyer
available. The investigator initiated or commences the investigation and obtained an
extrajudicial confession from the accused but it was not reduced into writing. Two
days after they were brought before a lawyer and a new investigation or questioning
was conducted, this time in the presence of a lawyer. The SC said that in this case
what would be considered a defect in the prior investigation would now be cured with
the presence of the lawyer because the investigation was conducted all over again.
Even though improper interrogation methods were used at the outset, there is still a
possibility of obtaining a legally valid confession later on by properly interrogating
the subject under different conditions. Because this time when the questioning and
answering was done there was already the presence of the lawyer so he was being
interrogated under different conditions and circumstances than those which prevailed
originally. The belated presence of a lawyer would only cure a prior defect if the
interrogation is conducted all over again but not for the purpose of merely verifying
ones signature for his confession.
WHEN THE RIGHT DOES NOT APPLY?
1. The Miranda warning is not applicable for statements taken prior to the 1973
Constitution
Because the Miranda warning was constitutionalized or included in the Constitution
beginning the 1973 Constitution. Prior to that we have not yet heard of the Miranda
Rights. Before that, extrajudicial confessions were common because the only
requirement is that the confession is voluntary and knowingly given.
2. Not applicable to res gestae statements
Res gestae statement is a rule in evidence which literally means things done. It is
spontaneous statement in connection with the startling occurrence relating to the
fact and in effect forming part thereof.
For example:
You just killed someone and then nagulat ka, Patawad, hindi ko sinasadya! These
statements are considered as admissions and they form part of the startling
occurrence and therefore you cannot expect the police to say, shut your mouth first
I will recite the Miranda rights before you can say patawad. In fact in one case PP vs.
Dy(?) after the accused shot somebody, he immediately went to the police and told
them what happened, what can the police do but just to receive the statements.
There is no time for the police to inform of his right under the custodial investigation.
3. The Miranda warning is not applicable to statements made to private individuals. It is
the basic principle regarding the construction of the Bill of rights. Going back to the
case of:
People vs. Malngan, 503 SCRA 204 (2006)
A housemaid who burned the house of her Amo killing six people and who made a
confession before the Brgy. Captain. The SC said that confession is not admissible
because she was not informed of her rights under the Miranda warnings. But she had
the propensity to talk, she told the neighbor what she did. That statement made
before the neighbor is admissible in evidence the neighbor being a private individual
and not part of the law enforcement officers, authorities or agents of the State.
People vs. Salonga, 359 SCRA 310 (2001)
There was spot audit conducted by the internal affairs of Metrobank. Subject of the
spot audit was the acting assistant cashier of Metrobank. He admitted having issued

a cashiers check without a valid transaction and he pocketed the money amount he
benefited out of that check. Thereafter he was charged criminally. His admission was
reduced into writing, he signed it but without the presence of the lawyer. Can that
statement made before the internal affairs dept of the bank be presented in evidence
in a criminal case which was eventually filed against him? YES because the statement
was made before a private person. It does not partake of a custodial investigation, he
was not a suspect, it was merely a fact finding investigation. He was not under
custody, he was not arrested nor his freedom of action somewhat limited. The
questioning was conducted not by the police officers but by private individuals.
4. Confessions given to media men:
Are these admissible in evidence because we see this all the time? Every time that
they arrest somebody, for posterity sake, publicity - I dont know why they do it - they
present the arrested suspect before the public. Sometimes when there is a by-bust
operation media men would tail around and when an arrest happens they would take
the opportunity to question the accused. Bakit mo pinatay, saan kasama mo? Usually
then the suspect would also, TV na to, artista na ako the accused would blunder
because he feels free to answer. Are these admissions and confessions made before
media men admissible in evidence? Im talking about media men in the private sector
not the Public media. And the answer of course YES, these are admissible in evidence
because these were made before media-men even though it was on the occasion of
an arrest.
People vs. Endino, 352 SCRA 307 (2001)
But the SC cautioned the trial courts because of the inherent danger in the use of TV
as a medium for admitting once guilt because they were caught on the spot.
Sometimes you are honest when you are caught on the spot.
However, because of the inherent danger in the use of the television as a medium
for admitting ones guilt, and the recurrence of the phenomenon in several cases, it is
prudent that trial courts are reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further
admitting similar confessions.
The SC warns the trial courts for them at least to consider whether or not there is
collusion between arresting officers and the media. Because there are cases when if
they had an operation and there would be an arrest, they would take along with them
media men to conduct the investigation for them so there would be an easier access
to evidence that they may be able to present during the prosecution of the case.
Again Confessions given to media men are admissible in evidence but the SC made
this caveat.
5. Not applicable to statements given in administrative investigations.
Again you just have to look at the features of custodial investigation. In admin
investigation, admin investigations are NOT custodial investigation. The questioning
person is NOT the police authority, usually these are members of fact finding
investigations. That is in:
Sebastian v. Garchitorena, 343 SCRA 463 (2000)
There was a fact finding investigation conducted by the chief postal service officers.
That investigation, fact finding investigation is not custodial investigation but a mere
administrative investigation. The investigation was relative to missing postage
stamps. These employees who were questioned executed sworn statements without

the assistance of the counsels and without being warned of their rights. Later these
statements were submitted in evidence for criminal charges against them. These can
be used as evidence against them.
6. It does not apply also to police line-ups. (People v. Pavillare, 329 SCRA 684
(2000))
In other words, if you are invited to participate in a police line-up you cannot demand
to be warned under the rights of custodial investigation. You cannot invalidate the
proceedings of a police line-up on the ground that there was no recitation of your
rights under Sec 12 par 1. Police line-up is not part of custodial investigation this is
still part of that general inquiry there being no suspect yet and the police authorities
has not yet focused on you or has not yet zeroed in on you as the suspect for the
offense. It is still a general inquiry and the rights to custodial investigation do not yet
apply. The moment that a witness points to you as someone he thinks or he is sure of
was his assailant, the moment that you are taken for questioning after the police lineup then that is when the rights under custodial investigation will apply.
7. It does not apply to counter-affidavits submitted during preliminary investigation.
Ladian v. People, 393 SCRA 419 (2002)
The accused questions the presentation of his counter affidavit because he said he
was not informed of his right to remain silent. The filing of counter-affidavit is part of
the procedure before the office of the prosecutor in his preliminary investigation.
Necessarily he is not being questioned by the police officer, he writes his counteraffidavit either by himself or with the assistant of his or her own counsel.
THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
1. The rights under Sec. 12 must be relayed in clear and unequivocal terms. The rights
must be in the language understood by the suspect or the person investigated.
Thus the SC nullify the extrajudicial confession made because they found out that the
accused was waray speaking and does not understand English and his statement was
in English. It is therefore concluded that the accused did not understand the
recitation of the rights made by the police.
2. It must be complete.
In one case the SC did not admit the evidence because the police forgot to mention
that the accused has the right to counsel and if he does not have a counsel he will be
provided with one. The police said when the court asked the police, how did you tell
him of his rights? He said, I informed him that he has the right to remain silent,
anything he will say may and can be used against him in any court of law and that he
has a right to counsel. The SC you did not tell him he will be afforded with one if he
cannot afford one. That is the most important part of the right. Usually the accused
especially the indigent and the poor, will be thinking I have the right to counsel but I
cannot afford one. He will be pressed to engage the services of the counsel whom he
knows he cannot afford to pay. The natural tendency is for the accused to just submit
because I cannot afford the counsel anyway. The SC had the occasion to say that
among this rights this is the most important part - that if he cannot afford one he will
be provided with one. The recitation of the rights under Section 12 must be
COMPLETE. It is also important to tell him that he has the right to remain silent. There
should be no compulsion to make a confession specially if there is nothing to confess.

3. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a counsel to inform an accused of

the possible penalty for the crime he committed.
In one case the accused later on repudiated his extrajudicial confession because
according to him my counsel did not tell me that the offense for which I would be
charged is punishable by death. Had I known that it would be punishable by death I
will not confess. The SC said, ones resolved to confess should not be affected by the
degree of penalty for the crime that was committed if he is at all already resolved to
confess. In other words the counsel is not required to memorize the penalties under
Book 2 [RPC]
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
Is often overlooked like in the case:
People v. Guillen, 710 SCRA 533 (2013)
He was accused of rape by his neighbor, he was taken into custody and inside the
police station he was presented to his accuser. Of course nagwala si babae. The Trial
Court said that despite the accusations hurled before him he kept silent and in the
words of the SC he remained silent and passive despite being confronted by AAA with
the rape charge. In other words, he did not deny the accusation lodged against him
by the victim much less registers any vehement protest. His failure to deny is
tantamount to implied admission because a person accused of felony which he did
not commit should be as bold and ferocious as a lion in protecting the trampled rights
as an innocent person. What the Trial court is saying is, you were already being
accused face to face and if you really did not commit it you could have said
something to protect yourself. And because of that, because he remained silent he
was convicted.
The SC said the fact that he was already arrested as a suspect and taken into
custody, his rights under custodial investigation already xxx. His remaining silent is
merely an assertion of his right under Section 12 and should not be taken against him
nor be taken in evidence as proof of his guilt. When the appellant remained silent he
was merely exercising his basic and fundamental right to remain silent. At that stage
his silent should not be taken against him. It was error on the part of trial court to
conclude that there was deemed or implied admission of guilt. Precisely this right to
remain silent cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
Clearly, when appellant remained silent when confronted by the accusation of "AAA"
at the police station, he was exercising his basic and fundamental right to remain
silent. At that stage, his silence should not be taken against him. Thus, it was error on
the part of the trial court to state that appellants silence should be deemed as
implied admission of guilt. In fact, this right cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel and any admission obtained in violation of this rule shall be
inadmissible in evidence.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
1. Must be preferably of his own choice.
Preferably but not exclusively. Meaning if his preference is unavailable or
unreasonable in fact, baka gusto niya ACCRA or si Estelito Mendoza ang
magrepresent sa kanya then he may be provided with an alternative and this will not
exclude any other competent and available counsel. He cannot therefore thereafter
question the counsel provided him which he accepted on the ground that the lawyer

was not his preference. Again preferable does not mean exclusivity of choice, besides
the pace of prosecution should not be made to depend on the whims of the accused.
2. Counsel must be competent and independent
3. If he cannot afford the services of one, he must be provided with one
Lets talk about competent and independent counsel.

Competent counsel

What is required of a counsel to be considered competent? Because when you pass

the bar you are already considered as competent. It is only required for a lawyer to
be willing to fully safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as distinguished
from one who would merely be giving a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital
of the individuals constitutional rights.
Meaning, willing to fully safeguard the Constitutional Rights of the accused. And the
counsel must be present in every phase of the investigation. So from the time the
confessant answers the first question until the signing of the extra-judicial
confession.
There was this case where the accused was represented by counsel during his
extrajudicial confession and then later on the counsel was busy he had another
appointment. He told the police to continue with the questioning, but not to let the
accused sign yet because he will just be back to review the statement and to advise
the accused w/n to sign the confession. The SC said he was not at that time
considered as a competent counsel because he must be present during the entire
proceeding. His belated presence did not cure his absence during the portion of the
interrogation.
In the following cases the SC has not considered this lawyers or counsels as
independent.

Independent Counsel:
1. Fiscal

The Fiscal is not independent being under the prosecuting arm of the government.
People v. Matos-Viduya 189 SCRA 409 (1990)
The assistance of the fiscal during custodial investigation would be invalid and would
invalidate the extrajudicial confession. He is not expected to be impartial, better yet
he is expected to be biased in favor of the government because he is the peoples
lawyer.
2. Municipal Attorney or City Legal Officer
The City legal officer would not also be considered as an independent counsel. As a
legal officer of the municipality, he provides legal assistance and support to the
mayor of the municipality in carrying out the delivery of basic services to the people,
including the maintenance of peace and order. He is in the side of law enforcement.
3. Mayor (People v. Velarde 384 SCRA 646 (2002)

If the Mayor happens also to be a lawyer he cannot be considered as independent

counsel. Usually in cases where there is an arrest and an interrogation madaling
tawagin ang Mayor because he is everybodys friend/lawyer especially if the mayor is
a lawyer. But care should be made because a Mayor exercised operational
supervision and control over the PNP unit in his municipality, utilizing them for the
maintenance of peace and order. So he cannot also be considered as independent.
He is not expected to assist the accused in the way he would be interested in
prosecuting the crime. But in:
People v. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997)
The SC here said that the confession made to the Mayor while the accused was inside
the prison cell and upon the accused request na I would like to talk to the Mayor. He
talked with the Mayor and before the Mayor he confessed that that he did kill the
victim. The SC said in that case the Mayor was acting as a confidant of the accused
and so the confession was admissible in evidence. I just dont know where to draw
the line if you are a Mayor acting in your official capacity or personal capacity. In that
case the SC said he was requested by the accused and that he was acting as a
confidant of the accused not as the Mayor. Thats one strange case where the SC said
confession before the mayor is admissible in evidence
4. Brgy Captain (PP v. Tomaquin 435 SCRA 23, 2004)
He is called upon to enforce the law and ordinances in his barangay and ensure
peace and order at all times.
5. Lawyer regularly engaged by police and receives payment for his services
An independent lawyer but he is regularly engage by police and receives payment for
his services would not also be considered as independent because in this case he is a
suki. His independence is suspect. (People v. Labtan, 320 SCRA 140 (1999))
6. Station Commander
Station commander who is a lawyer he cannot assist accused during custodial
investigation. He, being a part of the police force.
People v. Obero 332 SCRA 190 (2000)
He is part of the police force who could not be expected to have effectively and
scrupulously assist accused in the investigation.
SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL
In the case of:

People v. Ordono 334 SCRA 673 (2000)

The accused informed the police that he is willing to confess. This was a rape with
homicide and the accused said he is willing to confess. But of course the police knew
of the Miranda Rights. They would not want to take an extrajudicial confession
without observing Sec 12, baka mapalpak it would be inadmissible in evidence for the
court but there was no lawyer around. What they did was to request the presence of
the parish priest, the Mayor as well as all the relatives available to obviate the
possibility of coercion. There was the presence of the parish priest, Mayor and all
relatives of the accused, would this suffice? In section 2 of RA 7438 it provides:

Sec. 2 (d), RA 7438.

Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under

custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence
of his counsel or in the latters absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of
any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the
municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as
chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as
evidence in any proceeding.
What does this section means? It means that the presence of any of the parents, elder
brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor as substitute counsel is only valid
when there is already a prior valid waiver. Meaning the waiver was in writing and in the
presence of counsel. In other words you cannot waive the right with the assistance of your
parents, it must be with the assistance of a counsel. In other words in this case, PP vs.
Ordono the good intention of the police to make that confession as public as possible, as
free from vitiation as they may be able to show it, would be futile because the constitution
requires no less than a lawyer to assist the accused specially if he waives his right. There
must be a prior valid waiver before this substitute persons can come in to assist during
extrajudicial confession made upon a valid waiver.
WAIVER OF RIGHTS
RULES IN DIFFERENT TIMES
1. Prior to January 17, 1973
For a valid waiver, what is only required is that the Waiver must be Voluntary;
Intelligent and with full understanding of the consequences of the waiver.
2. January 17, 1973:
Upon the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution we now have the Miranda Rights. Under
that Constitution it is required further that a person to be investigated must be
informed of his right to silence and to counsel. So the right to silence and to counsel
began or was first guaranteed during or under the 1973 Constitution. In interpreting
this right to remain silent and to counsel the SC has occasionally deferred in their
opinion and finally they put a stop in the case of Morales, Jr. v. Enrile and People v.
Galit.
3.

Morales, Jr. v. Enrile 121 SCRA 583 (1983); People v. Galit 135 SCRA 456 (March 20,
1985)
In case of the waiver of the right to remain silent and waiver of the right to counsel
the waiver must be with assistance of counsel. That was beginning 1985. You do not
have the 1987 Constitution yet. But that was a judge-made rule that in order for the
courts to accept an extrajudicial confession there must be a showing that it was
made with the assistant of counsel. And so it was thereafter constitutionalized or
written into constitution that the waiver must be with assistance of counsel and must
be in writing. As it stands right now, waiver must be in writing and in the presence of
counsel

FOUR FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

So 4 fundamental requirements must be complied with in order for the extrajudicial
confession to be admissible in evidence. This was enunciated in the case of:
People vs. Deniega 251 SCRA 626

1. the confession
2. the confession
counsel;
3. the confession
4. the confession

must be voluntary;
must be made with the assistance of competent and independent
must be express; and
must be in writing."

The basic is that you just go back to Section 12, what are the rights and how do you waive
that rights.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
Section 12 x x x
(3). Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
Section 17 is the right against self incrimination.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Inadmissible in evidence against him but admissible in evidence against the violator. In one
case the SC said, Even if the confession of an accused is gospel truth, if it was made
without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of
coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.
That is how strict the SC would admit extrajudicial confession. That even if it is the gospel
truth, even if it is shown that it was voluntarily given but if it was not made with the
assistance of counsel it would still be inadmissible.
It covers every form of evidence obtained in violation of Section 12 and 17, every confession
tainted with involuntariness.
The protection covers not only confessions but also admissions. Can you distinguish
confessions from admissions?
Confession is the acknowledgment of guilt, Admission would be declaration of facts and
circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime it may not include acknowledgment.
For example, I know where the weapon used to kill the victim was hidden or I hid the stained
shirt of the victim. It does not mean that it is already a confession. It covers confessions or
admissions that are merely implicit in any evidence that is communicative in nature.
This would include participation in a reenactment(?) of the crime, signature of the accused
on the receipts seized property or any other evidence that covers confession or admission.
Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan 302 SCRA 102 (1999)
The accused was caught stealing 622 letters but some of these letters contained
dollar bills, yan ang uso noon, we dont have pera padala pa and then you send it by
placing the dollar bill inside several folds of paper para hindi matax. We have a thief
inside a post office. After his arrest he was asked to affix his signature. Affixing of
signature by the way, after one is arrested, is already part of extrajudicial confession,
custodial investigation. The question is, is his signature admissible in evidence when
it was made without the assistance of counsel? What about the letters, would they be
admissible in evidence when they were seized after he was arrested? The envelopes
are of course admissible in evidence being a product of seizure incident to a valid
arrest but the signature is already an admission and therefore it cannot be taken in
evidence like in this case where he was made to sign without the assistance of

counsel. This is one example of an evidence that may be covered by the exclusionary
rule.
The exclusionary rule applies to third persons. What do you mean by an invalid extrajudicial
confession cannot be used against a third person. We have here in the cases of:
People v. Ramirez, 169 SCRA 711 (1989) and People v. Janson, 400 SCRA
584 (2003)
He pointed to another as his principal or pointed to another as his co-assailant. When
he made these confessions he was not assisted by counsel. Can these statements be
used as evidence against these third persons who he pointed as his principal or his
co-assailant? The SC said if it is an invalid extrajudicial confession it is not admissible
in evidence against him who made the confession more so it will not be admissible in
evidence against third persons. In this case his statement taken without assistance of
counsel is considered as hearsay. In order to admit the confession that confessant
may be presented before the courts. In that case there is opportunity for these third
persons to cross-examine him. In that case it may be admitted unless it is repeated in
open court or when the reasonable opportunity for the accused to cross-examine.
PRESUMPTIONS
We have different presumptions now on whether or not the police informed the accused of
his rights under section 12 or whether or not the police complied with the Miranda Warnings.
Whats the presumption? The presumption of regularity of office or regularity of
official acts does NOT apply because this is a mandate by the Constitution for them to
observe in so far as it concerns the application of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973
Constitution -- because this case of Tolentino was decided before the 1987 Constitution but
more or less they are still the same. In this case of:
People v. Tolentino, 145 SCRA 597 (1986)
The presumption of regularity of official acts, is no longer controlling in so far as it
concerns the application of [Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution].
It would be incumbent or the burden to show that they have afforded the accused of the
rights under custodial investigation or they have in fact informed him of the Miranda
Warnings is with the police officers. The burden is for them to prove that the confessant was
warned of his constitutionally protected rights. But once this has been proved and there is
an extrajudicial confession the burden is shifted to the confessant because it is already
proven that he was informed of his rights under the Miranda Warnings. It is now incumbent
upon the prosecution to prove during a trial that prior to questioning, the confessant was
warned of his constitutionality protected rights.
People v. Calvo 269 SCRA 676 (1997)
A confession constitutes evidence of high order since it is supported by the strong
presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess
to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience. This presumption of
spontaneity and voluntariness stands unless the defense proves otherwise.
There was already initial proof that he was accorded his rights under the Miranda Warnings
under custodial investigation. When he makes the extrajudicial confession with the
observance of the rights under Sec 12, if he later on questions his confession on the ground
that there were irregularities in the conduct of the investigation the burden to prove the
irregularity is with him. Because this time presumption of regularity of official act applies.

RIGHT TO BAIL
SEC. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The
right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Bail under Rule 114, Section 1, you are studying that in your crimpro.
RULE 114, Section 1. Bail defined. Bail is the security given for the release of a
person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his
appearance before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified.
Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or
recognizance.
NATURE & OBJECTIVE OF BAIL
In Manotok vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149, The SC said there are four considerations why
bail is available:
1. It relieves the accused from imprisonment.
2. It relieves the state from the obligation of keeping the accused in its custody
3. The power of the court over the accused is not affected. It is the same as if the
accused is under custody.
4. Bail secures the appearance of the accused in court and to perform acts which
the law may require from him.
The right to bail is made available as a constitutional right, as a corollary right to the right to
be presumed innocent. A person arrested for the commission of a crime is still presumed
innocent before his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt so he must be set free in the
mean time the trial is ongoing to prove the case against him. The right to bail makes that
release or freedom available to him. Its a win-win situation because it relieves the accused
of restrained on his freedom and it also relieves the state of the obligation to keep him. Ang
Mahal kaya ang magpakain sa bilibid. But the power of the court or jurisdiction of the court
is retained, so these are the effects of bail.
The custody of the accused is transferred from the State to the bond. The bond secures the
presence of the accused every time that his appearance is required by the court. When can
the right to bail be invoked? You hear that there is a case filed against you, of course you do
not want to go to prison or be arrested, can you file bail immediately? Can you apply for bail
immediately? The right to bail may be invoked only when the person is placed in custody. In
other words, there must first be an arrest or if you do not want to be arrested you surrender
your person because the court needs to acquire jurisdiction over your person first before you
can invoke the right to bail. As long as the person is placed custody the person or the
accused can already invoke the right to bail but prior to that there can never be an
application for bail.
The General Rule is this right is available ONLY in criminal proceedings because this is where
the rules allow for the detention of person.
BAIL IN EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS
The latest word is that of:

Govt. of Hong Kong v. Olalia, Jr., 521 SCRA 470 (2007)

Because prior to this 2007 case the SC said that an extradition proceeding is not a
criminal proceeding therefore there would be no right to bail. But then the person
whether we like or not, the person being subjected to the proceeding or be extradited
for that matter is placed in detention.
Extradition has thus been characterized as the right of a foreign power, created by
treaty, to demand the surrender of one accused or convicted of a crime within its
territorial jurisdiction, and the correlative duty of the other state to surrender him to
the demanding state. It is not a criminal proceeding.
But the SC made a new pronouncement in this case as viewed on the light of various
treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and
protection of human rights.
When we talk about international rights, we talk about rights of the State but the trend now
is focused on the rights of the individual. So we are parties to treaties involving protection of
human rights. The SC said the bail is available in extradition proceedings.
First, we note that the exercise of the States power to deprive an individual of his
liberty is not necessarily limited to criminal proceedings.
Why? There are proceedings admin in nature which has the effect of detaining a person,
example is deportation and quarantine proceedings. History would show in deportation
proceedings the SC has allowed application for bail although it is administrative in nature.
The latest word is that bail is available in extradition proceedings.
Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to close our eyes to our
jurisprudential history. Philippine jurisprudence, especially involving deportation, has
not limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings only.
Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all
earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extraditee may be subjected to
arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the
demanding state following the proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be a
necessary step in the process of extradition, but the length of time of the detention
should be reasonable.
BAIL IN MILITARY COURTS
SC is consistent that bail is not available in military courts or to the military accused before
the civil courts for crimes committed in relation to his duties as a military. Because according
to the SC in the case of:
Commendador vs De Villa, 200 SCRA 80
They are allowed fiduciary use of firearms and are paid out of the revenue collected
from the people so the SC said that the right to speedy trial is given more emphasis
in the military where right to bail does not exist. To emphasize, this rule is applicable
only when the offense is committed in relation to his official acts. When a military is
accused for something outside of his official acts like rape, acts of lasciviousness then
the right to bail is available.
BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT OR A MATTER OF DISCRETION
ART III, Section 13, 1987 CONSTITUTION

All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.
Bail is a matter of right for all persons before conviction that is what the Constitution
provides, except only when the accused is charged with the offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong.
Section 4 of Rule 114 and thereafter section 5 of the same rule has laid down specifically for
the guidance of the courts when the bail would be a matter a right and when the bail would
be a matter of discretion.
Under Section4 Bail AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
1. before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court
2. before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION
Im sure you have read section 5, Rule 114 when bail is discretionary and in the succeeding
paragraphs provided for instances when bail would be denied. And this is talking about if the
bail is discretionary it will be denied if the following are available (see section 5, Rule 114).
Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of
an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment,
admission to bail is discretionary. X X X
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the
accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the
prosecution, with notice to the accuse, of the following or other similar
circumstances:
a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the
crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated
the conditions of his bail without valid justification;
c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;
d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail;
or
e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of
the appeal.
1. Before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment
There is therefore no non-bailable offense. It is misleading to say that murder is a
non-bailable offense. Why? If you are charged with murder and murder is punishable
by death or reclusion perpetua na lang bail is a matter of discretion. Meaning the
court may still grant bail. It is thus misleading to say that there is such a thing as

non-bailable offense. Again as with these cases bail is a matter of discretion not a
matter of denial.
2. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment
This is also a matter of discretion. Take note, before conviction bail is a matter of right
if the offense charge is not punishable by death or reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. Before conviction matter of right, after conviction it is now a matter of
discretion because there is already an evidence that you committed a crime. So it is a
matter of discretion.
When bail is a matter of discretion. The grounds for denial are as follows.
GROUNDS FOR DENIAL:
1. Before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment when the evidence of guilt
is strong.
It will be denied only when the evidence of guilt is strong. Thats the only time that
you will say that it is non-bailable. It is not non-bailable because of the offense but it
is non-bailable because the evidence of guilt is strong and the offense is punishable
by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
2. If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6)
years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a
showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or
other similar circumstances:
We have now a case where he is tried for an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, before conviction bail is a matter a right. But
what if there is a conviction, if the penalty imposed is more than 6 years bail is
matter of discretion and it shall be denied if the following circumstances are present:
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed
the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;
(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional
pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on
bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency
of the appeal.
Pendency of the appeal talks about someone who has already been convicted, the bail is not
available after conviction of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment,
or death. Bail is not a matter of discretion anymore. Before conviction of an offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment bail is a matter of discretion.
When evidence of guilt is strong, bail would be denied the court will not exercise its
discretion it will deny it when evidence of guilt is strong. When there is already a conviction
for that offense, what does a conviction mean? The evidence of guilt is really strong because
he was in fact convicted, this time it will no longer be a matter of discretion, bail will no
longer be available

NON-BAILABLE
Conviction of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death
RIGHT TO A HEARING
If the bail is a matter of right like in the case of:
People vs Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991)
The hearing is for the purpose of fixing of the amount of bail, and not to determine
whether the evidence of guilt is strong. Why? You do not present any proof that evidence
is strong because bail is matter of right, whatever you do. Kahit mag tumbling tumbling
ka pa, bail is a matter of right. In this case, this is a case for rebellion the penalty is
prision mayor. The State insists that they would present proof that evidence of guilt is
strong because these are suspected rebels and they endanger the safety and security of
the State. The SC said, in their case, the offense charge against them is not punishable
by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death therefore bail is matter of right. There
is no occasion for the prosecution to present any proof that evidence of guilt is strong.
Ive been telling my students, what if he has escaped? When he has escaped the bail
would be forfeited. If he comes back and ask for bail should the bail be denied? No,
because bail is a matter of right. He has escaped 5 times; he kept coming back, dami
niyang pera, ang dami niyang naforfeit. Will the bail be denied? No because bail is a
matter of right. The hearing would be to fix the bail. What the court can do is increase
the bail if he is a flight risk. If there is a risk that he will commit the same offense while
he was enjoying his freedom what the court can do is only to fix the bail because bail is a
matter of right
When bail is a matter of discretion, the hearing is for the purpose of proving that the
evidence of guilt is strong.
Lardizabal vs. Reyes, 238 SCRA 640 (1994)
Reyes when he was still an MTC judge he was administratively fined for gross
ignorance of law and for not knowing when bail is a matter of right or a matter of
discretion. As an MTC judge he conducted the preliminary investigation for rape and
determines for himself that the evidence of guilt is not strong and set the bail at
80,000. When the accused moved for the reduction of bail he reduced it immediately
to 40,000. What happened here? Bail is a matter of discretion the prosecution should
be given an opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong. When the then
judge JBL Reyes determine for himself without the benefit of the presentation of
prosecution that the evidence of guilt is not strong, the SC said he committed gross
ignorance of the law.
People v. Sandiganbayan, 529 SCRA 764 (2007)
Involved here is Jinggoy Estrada when he was charge for plunder. Plunder, SC said is
a non-bailable offense which is quite misleading because it may still be bailable it
depends on whether the evidence of guilt is strong. In this case the prosecution has
not proven that the evidence of guilt is strong. Can that prosecution nonetheless
present other evidence to prove, for example that the accused is a flight risk so that
the bail would be denied? The SC said yes. If evidence of guilt is not strong because
bail is a matter of discretion, in this case the prosecution may present evidence to
convince the court to exercise its discretion not to grant the bail. Because in this case
bail is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion.
People v. Fitzgerald, 505 SCRA 573 (2006)

Involved an Australian national convicted of pedophilia. There was already conviction

and part of the conviction is the denial of the court of his bail. He moved for a new
trial and thereafter the court granted him bail and the SC said the grant of a new trial
allows only for the reception of newly discovered evidence but maintains evidence
already presented xxx. Since there was already finding that the evidence of guilt is
strong and in fact he was already barred from availing of the bail, that finding
remains. Because what they have is only new trial, it does not erase all other
evidence on record. In this case he was already denied bail and the subsequent grant
of bail on the ground that he was a sickly old man is not sufficient ground to grant
bail. Bail is not a sick pass for an ailing or aged detainee or prisoner needing medical
care outside the prison facility. A mere claim of illness is not a ground for bail. The SC
noted the pedophilia is a state of sexual disorder and sexual dysfunction that comes
out when the person is under stress or an opportunity lurks. Releasing him on bail
would present him an opportunity to commit the same crime of pedophilia. It was
grave abuse on the part of the judge to grant him bail because he was sick.
SUMMARY:
RIGHT
MetTC,
MTC,
MTCC,
or MCTC

Before & after

conviction

RTC

Before
conviction of
an offense not
punishable by
death, R.P.,
L.I.

DISCRETION

DENIED

before
conviction of
an offense
punishable by
death, R.P., L.I.

when the
evidence of
guilt is strong

Upon
conviction of
an offense not
punishable by
death, R.P., L.I.

If the penalty
imposed by is
imprisonment
exceeding six
(6) years & any
of the grounds
under Rule 114,
Sec 5 (a-e) is
resent

NOT
AVAILABLE

Conviction of
an offense
punishable by
death, R.P.,
L.I.

BAIL AND WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

In the same section the second sentence says:
SEC. 13, ART. III. XXX The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is suspended.XXX
The power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus is with the President as the Commander in
Chief. This is covered by Sec 18 Art VII.

SEC. 18, ART. VII

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with,
invasion.
In case the privilege of the writ is suspended those charge for crimes other than those
mentioned here - rebellion, offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion - will
not be affected. The writ would still be available. The suspension is only for those charge
with rebellion or offenses inherent or directly connected with invasion. Article 18 also
mandates that any person thus arrested or detained and this talks about those who are
arrested or detained for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion
it is mandated that they be judicially charge within three days otherwise shall be released.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus
arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be
released.
Thats the only effect of the suspension of the privilege writ, while it only affects those who
were charge with rebellion or invasion. They still must be judicially charge within 3 days so
there can be no complaints for arbitrary detention on the part of the arresting officer if they
are judicially charge within 3 days. Take note of the rule on arbitrary detention, when should
the charge be made. It depends on whether it is light offense, grave offense, just recall.
If you are charge for rebellion and offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion
pwede more than 36 hours. Therell be no violation of arbitrary detention, so you can be
charged within 72 hours. Nowhere can you find it there that the right to bail will be affected.
In fact theres already a guarantee under Section 13 that the right to bail shall not be
impaired even if the privilege of the writ is suspended.
BAIL AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Of course the right to travel may be impaired but there would be no violation of this
constitutional guarantee. Because even section 6 Article 3 provides that:
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by
law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to
travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health,
as may be provided by law.
Bail is a lawful order of the court and may validly impair ones right even the right to travel
abroad because the courts jurisdiction cannot reach beyond the country. Outside, the court
no longer exercises control over the person, it is a matter of necessity or practicability that
one of the conditions of the bail is impairment of the right to travel especially travel outside
the country.
When bail is granted excessive bail shall not be required because if it is excessive it would
be tantamount of denying him the right to bail.
STANDARDS FOR FIXING BAIL are in Section 9 of Rule 114
SEC. 13. XXX. XXX. Excessive bail shall not be required
(a) Financial capacity of the accused to give bail;
(b) Nature and circumstance of the offense;

(c) Penalty for the offense charged;

(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
(i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail. (SEC. 9, R114)
These are your grounds just review Section 9, rule 114. These are grounds for fixing the bail
and not grounds for denying the bail. Because here the presumption is bail is a matter of
right or even when the discretion exercises that of granting the bail this would be the
guidelines for the fixing of the amount of bail. Thus in:
Yap Jr. v. CA, 358 SCRA 564 (2001)
Where the accused was already convicted of misappropriating 5.5 Million and was
sentenced to jail and during appeal he was granted bail but the amount of bail was
fixed at 5.5 Million also. The SC said theres an effective denial of bail that was
granted in fixing the amount of bail.
The purpose for bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, [13] or
whenever so required by the court[14] The amount should be high enough to assure
the presence of the accused when required but no higher than is reasonably
calculated to fulfill this purpose.[15] To fix bail at an amount equivalent to the civil
liability of which petitioner is charged (in this case, P5,500,000.00) is to permit the
impression that the amount paid as bail is an exaction of the civil liability that
accused is charged of; this we cannot allow because bail is not intended as a
punishment, nor as a satisfaction of civil liability which should necessarily await the
judgment of the appellate court.
5.5 Million bail for 5.5 Million Misappropriated funds is excessive bail parang
binayaran niya na yon, he appealed it kasi nga wala siyang pera pambayad dun.
WAIVER
As any constitutional right, the right to bail can also be waived.
People vs Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991)
Rebel charged before the courts where bail is a matter of right. In this case
Commander Bilog entered into an agreement with the State or the prosecution that
the State would allow his co-accused to be set free and he is willing to remain in
custody. He filed a petition of a writ of habeas corpus to question his continued
detention because in his case bail is a matter of right. And the SC said that he agreed
to remain in custody on the condition that his co-accused would be set free it was
therefore a valid waiver of his right.
People v. Manes, 303 SCRA 231 (1999)
The accused before the trial commence filed a petition for bail. But I dont know the
court forgot about it, the court proceeded with hearing the case, forgetting about his
application for bail. Then he was convicted. On appeal he questioned the entire
proceedings because according to him the court neglected to resolve his application
for bail and thus he was denied constitutional right and the SC said he had all the
opportunity to bring to the attention his pending application for bail during trial and
when he failed to follow up that application and participated during the trial until its
conclusion then there is already an effective waiver of the right to bail.

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Section 14 is a reiteration of the due process clause, but then here we are talking about
procedural due process and specifically with regard to the accused. Ive been telling my
students that among all classes within which the state would be affording rights, it is the
class of the accused which is given more rights under the Constitution. Too bad that with the
extrajudicial killing we can no longer give them the entitlement to remain silent because
they are given the right to remain silent forever. So sayang because under the Constitution
an accused is afforded with more rights than any other ordinary citizen because this is a
David vs. Goliath adversarial proceeding. Look at De lima when all of the resources of the
government are used against the person wala ka talagang kalaban laban especially in an
avenue where there is no right to confrontation.
This is one example where the state can exercise their immense power and bear upon an
individual the full force of the law and all its resources. Thats why we have the bill of rights
to protect the accused versus this bigger adversary which is the State.
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and shall 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. However,
after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided,
that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Paragraph 1 is a reiteration of the right to due process, but this refers again to procedural
process. Paragraph 2 provides for the rights of the accused during the trial. Thats a very
long paragraph, to enumerate therefore rights under that section are as follows.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
1. Presumption of innocence
2. To be heard by himself and counsel
3. To be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him
4. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial
5. To confrontation
6. To have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses
7. Trial in absentia
This is on the presumption that the court hearing the case has competent jurisdiction,
without that jurisdiction all the entire proceedings are invalid.
1. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
All persons charged criminally are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise by
proof beyond reasonable doubt. With this presumption comes the right to bail and of
course the right against self incrimination. Because you are presumed innocent you
have the right to remain silent because the burden to prove that you are guilty
beyond reasonable doubt is with the State. In other words even if you remain silent
during the entire proceeding because the presumption is of your innocence then the
prosecution should not rely on your lack of evidence but rather on the weight of their
own evidence.

Is prima facie presumption in law violative of the presumption of innocence?

The presumption of innocence is not violative of the prima facie presumption
provided by law. For example, unexplained flight would be under the rules prima facie
presumption of guilt. In cases of malversation the failure of the accountable officer to
present the money or the return money under his custody would be prima facie
presumption that he has malverse the money.
Also in:

Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 your anti fencing law expressly provides that "mere
possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has
been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing.

PD No. 704, the Fisheries Decree, which provides that the discovery of
explosives or obnoxious substance in any fishing boat shall constitute a
presumption that the owner or operator were fishing with the use of
explosives or poisonous substance
Alangan naman nasa boat yan for safekeeping. Does this destroy the
presumption of innocence when the law provides for prima facie
presumptions? And the SC has ruled in:
Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 234 SCRA 63 (1994), Hizon vs CA
The SC said that it does not violate the presumption of innocence provided
that there is some rational connection between the facts proved (discovery of
explosive in your boat thats a fact proved) and the ultimate fact presumed
(discovery of explosives presumption is that your using it for illegal fishing).
So as long as there is some rational connection between the fact proved and
the ultimate fact presumed and the inference of one fact from proof of
another shall not be so unreasonable as to be purely arbitrary mandate then
the Constitutional presumption of innocence is not violated. What happens is
that the prosecution has already some evidence against you that is of such
degree as to prove your guilt if you did not overturn that evidence. If there is
therefore prima facie presumption provided by law the burden shifts to the
accused to prove. A prima facie is always a disputable presumption so the
burden is shifted on the accused to dispute the presumption.

It has been frequently decided, in case of statutory crimes, that no constitutional

provision is violated by a statute providing that proof by the state of some material
fact or facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and that then the burden is
shifted to the defendant for the purpose of showing that such act or acts are innocent
and are committed without unlawful intention.
According to Cooley, the constitutional presumption will not apply as long as there is
"some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed,
and the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to
be purely arbitrary mandate" Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 234 SCRA 63 (1994), Hizon
vs CA 265 SCRA 516 (1996)
2. RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL
The basic elements of the right to counsel as it is enforced are the following: (People
vs Holgado, 85 Phil 753 (1950)

1. The court is duty bound to inform the defendant that he has a right to an
attorney before he is arraigned;
2. The court must ask him if he desires the service of counsel;
3. If he does, and is unable to get one, the court must assign counsel de officio;
4. Or, if the accused wishes to procure private counsel, the court must give him
time to obtain one;