N.

Rights of the accused

1. Criminal Due Process

True to the mandate of the due process clause, the basic rights of notice and
hearing pervade not only in criminal and civil proceedings, but in administrative
proceedings as well. Non-observance of these rights will invalidate the
proceedings. Individuals are entitled to be notified of any pending case affecting
their interests, and upon notice, they may claim the right to appear therein and
present their side and to refute the position of the opposing parties (Cruz,
Philippine Administrative Law, 1996 ed., p. 64). (Secretary of Justice v. Lantion,
322 SCRA 160, 186-188, Jan. 18, 2000, En Banc [Melo])

Q: What are the elements of due process as applied to criminal proceedings?

ANS: The elements of due process as applied to criminal proceedings are as
follows:
i. The accused has been heard in a court of competent jurisdiction;
ii. The accused is proceeded against under the orderly processes of
law;
iii. The accused has been given notice and an opportunity to be heard;
and
iv. The judgment awarded is within the authority of a constitutional law.
(Mejia vs. Pamaran, G.R. No. 56741-42, April 15, 1988).

2. Bail
Q: What is bail?
ANS: 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. (Rules of Court, Rule 114,
Sec.1)

All persons, except those charges 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 when the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. (Constitution, Article
III, Sec. 13)

Q: What are the different kinds of bail?

ANS: Bail may be granted as a matter of right or of discretion.
i. Bail as a matter of right – all criminal cases within the competence
of the MeTC, MTC, or MCTC because these courts have no
 jurisdiction to try capital offenses, or offenses punishable with
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and prior to conviction by
the RTC for any offenses not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, or even prior to conviction for an
offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment when evidence of guilt is not strong.
ii. Bail as a matter of discretion – upon conviction by the RTC of an
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment; or if the RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment
exceeding six years, provided none of the circumstances
enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present;
as follows:
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 offenses 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 under risk that he may commit another
crime during the pendency of his appeal. (Enrile vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015)

Q: When is a hearing mandatory is granting of bail?

ANS: For purposes of admission to bail, the determination of whether or not
evidence of guilt is strong in criminal cases involving capital offenses, or offenses
punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment lies within the discretion
of the trial court. But such discretion may be exercised only after the hearing
called to ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose of whether
or not he should be granted provisional liberty. Therefore, bail cannot be allowed
when its grants is a matter of discretion on the part of the trial court unless there
has been a hearing with notice to the Prosecution.

The hearings which may be either summary or otherwise, in the discretion of the
court should primarily determine whether or not the evidence of guilt against the
accused is strong. (Enrile vs. SandiganBayan, G.R. No. 213847, August 18,
2015)
Q: In resolving bail application of the accused who is charged with a capital
offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
what guidelines should be complied with by the trial judge?
ANS: In resolving bail applications of an accused who is charged with capital
offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the
trial judge is expected to comply with the following guidelines outlined in the case
of Cortes vs. Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1378, September 10, 1997, to wit:
i. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify
the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require
him to submit his recommendation (Rules of Court, Rule 114, Sec.
18);
ii. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the
application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution
refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is
strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound
discretion (Rules of Court, Rule 114, Sec. 7);
iii. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the
summary of evidence of the prosecution;
iv. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon
the approval of the bail bond (Rules of Court, Rule 114, Sec. 9).
Otherwise, petition should be denied. (Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015)

Imposed in Baylon v. Sison was this mandatory duty to conduct a hearing despite
the prosecution's refusal to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to
grant and fix bail. (Joselito V. Narciso v. Flor Marie Sta. Romana-Cruz, G.R. No.
134504, March 17, 2000, 3rd Div. [Panganiban])

Q: May a prospective extradite be granted bail?

ANS: Yes. If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no justification why
it should not also be allowed in extradition cases. After all, both are
administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is
not in issue. While our extradition law, P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition
Law) does not provide for the grant of bail to an extradite, however, there is no
provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail,, a right to due
process under the Constitution. (Government of Hongkong Special
Administration Region vs. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007)

The decision of the SC in Government of the USA v. Judge Purganan which says
that “no bail rule applies in extradition since bail is available only to one who had
arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws” was re-examined
 and, after re-examination, the rule now is that an extraditee may be allowed to
post bail during the pendency of an extradition proceeding. However, for him to
be allowed to post bail, still he must prove that (1) once granted bail he will not
be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) that there exists special,
humanitarian and compelling circumstances that will justify the grant of bail to
him, by a clear and convincing evidence.

The reason why the Purganan ruling was re-examined is because of the modern
trend in public international law where an individual person is no longer
considered a mere object of international law but rather as a subject thereof, and
the primacy given to human rights, among which is the right to liberty.

3. Presumption of Innocence
Q: What is the right to presumption of innocence?
ANS: The right means that 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 degree of proof, excluding possibility of
error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree
of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (Rules of Court,
Rule 133, Sec.2)

4. Right to Be Heard
Q: Discuss the right of the accused to be heard?
ANS: It is a fundamental principle of due process which basically means that a
person must be heard before being condemned. (People vs. Bermas, G.R. No.
120420, April 21, 1999)

5. Assistance of Counsel
Q: Discuss the right of the accused to be assisted by counsel?
ANS: The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the
courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections. The
right assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the proceedings,
particularly at the trial of the case, his bearing constantly in mind of the basic
rights of the accused, his being well-versed on the case, and his knowing the
fundamental procedures, essential laws and existing jurisprudence. Tersely put,
it means an efficient and truly decisive legal assistance and not a simple
perfunctory representation. (People vs. Bermas, G.R. No. 120420, April 21,
1999)

The right of the accused to counsel in a criminal proceedings has never been
subject to waiver (Flores vs. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35707, May 31, 1979)