(Slide 1)

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES – ARTICLE III

ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

WHAT IS THE RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS?

> It  is  the  right  of  the  accused  to  have  a  subpoena  and/or  a subpoena duces tecum issued in his
behalf in order to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence.
 

WHAT  HAPPENS  IF  A  WITNESS  REFUSES  TO   TESTIFY   WHEN REQUIRED?

> The court should order the witness to give bail or even order his arrest, if necessary
> Failure to obey a subpoena amounts to contempt of court
 

MAY A WITNESS BE EXCUSED FROM APPEARING AT TRIAL FOR THE REASON THAT HIS RESIDENCE
EXCEEDS 50 KILOMETERS FROM THE PLACE OF TRIAL?

> The provision in the Rules of Court providing for this exemption of excusing  a  witness  from 
appearance  before  a  Court,  judge  or officer of the province in which he is resides to the place of trial
by the usual course of travel applies only to CIVIL CASES and not to criminal cases.

-The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of the accused “to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor.” The prosecutor has the power to compel witnesses to attend by using the police
system at the government's disposal. Thus, the Sixth Amendment levels the playing field by allowing this
same ability to the Defendant. See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967).

-Compulsory process may be obtained by issuing a subpoena. However, if necessary, an arrest warrant
may be issued to compel a witness to appear before a court in order to provide material testimony.
(Slide 2)

Right To Be Present at Trial

Explanation of the right to be present at trial:

1. General Rule. The accused has a right “to be present in his own person whenever his presence
has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the
charge.”
Snyder v. Commonwealth  , 291 U.S. 97, 105-6 (1933).

2. Disruptive Accused.

1. In Illinois v. Allen,
397 U.S. 337 (1970), the Court held that a disruptive defendant can lose his right to be
present at trial if, after he has been warned by the judge that he will be removed if he
continues his disruptive behavior, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in a
manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that his trial cannot be
carried on with him in the courtroom. Once lost, the right to be present can be
reclaimed if the defendant is willing to conduct himself consistently with the decorum
and respect inherent in judicial proceedings.

2. RCM 804. A military judge faced with a disorderly and disruptive accused has 3
constitutionally permissible responses: (1) bind and gag the accused as a last resort,
thereby keeping him present; (2) cite the accused for criminal contempt; (3) remove the
accused from the courtroom until he promises to conduct himself properly.

3. Intentionally absent accused. Trial may continue in the absence of the accused when the
accused voluntarily absents himself from trial. R.C.M. 804(b) and
United States v McCollum  , 56 M.J. 837 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2002),
aff’d  , 58 M.J. 323, (2003) (accused voluntarily absented himself so that child-victim could testify
in the courtroom).