Miranda Doctrine – prior to any questioning
during custodial investigation, the person must
be warned that he has a right to remain silent,
that any statement he gives may be used as
evidence against him, and that he has the right
to the presence of an attorney, either retained
or appointed. The defendant may waive
effectuation of these rights, provided the
waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently.
Purpose of the Doctrine
In Miranda v Arizona, the US Supreme Court
established rules to protect a criminal
defendant's privilege against self-incrimination
from the pressures arising during custodial
investigation by the police. Thus, to provide
practical safeguards for the practical
reinforcement for the right against compulsory
self-incrimination, the Court held that “the
prosecution may not use statements, whether
exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from
custodial interrogation of the defendant unless
it demonstrates the use of procedural
safeguards effective to secure the privilege
against self-incrimination.
Requisites of the Miranda Doctrine
(1) any person under custodial investigation
has the right to remain silent;
(2) anything he says can and will be used
against him in a court of law;
(3) he has the right to talk to an attorney
before being questioned and to have his
counsel present when being questioned; and
(4) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be
provided before any questioning if he so
desires.
Custodial investigation defined
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.
Begins as soon as the investigation is no longer
a general inquiry unto an unsolved crime, and
direction is then aimed upon a particular
suspect who has been taken into custody and to
whom the police would then direct
interrogatory questions which tend to elicit
incriminating statements.
Shall include the practice of issuing an invitation
to a person who is investigated in connection
with an offense he is suspected to have
committed, without prejudice to the liability of
the inviting officer for any violation of law.
Extrajudicial confession is Admissible when:
(a) Voluntary
(b) With assistance of counsel
(c) In writing, and
(d) Express
Rights Under Custodial Investigation
(a) To be informed of right to remain silent
and to counsel
a. Carries the correlative obligation
on the part of the investigator to
explain and contemplates effective
communication which results in the
subject understanding what is
conveyed. (People v. Agustin)
(b) To be reminded that if he waives his right
to remain silent, anything he says can and will
be used against him
(c) To remain silent
(d) To have competent and independent
counsel preferably of own choice
(e) To be provided with counsel if the person
cannot afford the services of one
(f) No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation or any other means which vitiate
the free will shall be used against him
(g) Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited
(h) Confessions or admissions obtained in
violation of these rights are inadmissible as
evidence (exclusionary rule)
Rights That May Be Waived
[waiver must be in writing and in the presence
of counsel]
(a) Right to remain silent
(b) Right to Counsel
Rights That Cannot Be Waived
(a) Right to be informed of his right to remain
silent and to counsel
(b) Right to counsel when making the waiver of
the right to remain silent or to counsel
Right to counsel de parte is not
unlimited. Accused cannot repeatedly ask for
postponement. He must be provided with
counsel de oficio.
RA 7309: victims of unjust imprisonment may
file their claims with the Board of Claims under
DOJ
Res Gestae: The declaration of the accused
acknowledging guilt made to the police desk
officer after the crime was committed may be
given in evidence against him by the police
officer to whom the admission was made, as
part of the res gestae.
In People v. Galit, rights under custodial
investigation may be waived. The Constitution
says; “These rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of counsel.” In
localities where there are no lawyers, the State
must bring the individual to a place where there
is one.
Termination of rights under custodial
investigation: When Charges are filed against
the accused (in such case, Sections 14 and 17
come into play).
In Gutang v. People, the Court held that urine
sample is admissible. “What the Constitution
prohibits is the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communication from the
accused, but not an inclusion of his body in
evidence, when it may be material. In fact, an
accused may be validly compelled to be
photographed or measured, or his garments or
shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body
to enablke the foregoing things to be done,
without running afould of the proscription
against testimonial compulsion.
E. RIGHT TO BAIL
Section 13, Art. III. 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 – is security given for the release of a
person in custody of law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, to guaranty his appearance before
any court as may be required
Kinds of Bail
(a) Cash bond
(b) Security bond
Who May Invoke?
A person under detention even if no formal
charges have yet been filed (Rule 114, Rules of
Court)
Who Are Entitled?
(a) Persons charged with offenses punishable
by Reclusion Perpetua or Death, when evidence
of guilt is strong
(b) Persons convicted by the trial court. Bail is
only discretionary pending appeal.
(c) Persons who are members of the AFP
facing a court martial.
· In Paderanga v. CA, all persons actually
detained, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua or death
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties.
One is under the custody of the law either when
he has been arrested or has surrendered
himself to the jurisdiction of the court, as in the
case where through counsel petitioner for bail
who was confined in a hospital communicated
his submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Other Rights in Relation to Bail
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.
Factors in Fixing Amount of Bail
(a) Ability to post bail
(b) Nature of the offense
(c) Penalty imposed by law
(d) Character and reputation of the accused
(e) Health of the accused
(f) Strength of the evidence
(g) Probability of appearing at the trial
(h) Forfeiture of previous bail bonds
(i) Whether accused was a fugitive from
justice when arrested
(j) If accused is under bond in other cases
Implicit Limitations on the Right to Bail
(a) The person claiming the right must be in
actual detention or custody of the law.
In People v. Donato, charged with rebellion, a
bailable offense, Salas nevertheless agreed “to
remain in legal custody during the pendency of
the trial of his criminal case.” The Court held
that he does not have the right to bail, because
by his act he has waived his right.
(b) The constitutional right is available only in
criminal cases, not, e.g. in deportation and
extradition proceedings.
Note:
(a) Right to bail is not available in the military.
· In Comendador v. De Villa, soldier under
court martial does not enjoy the right to bail. It
is because of the disciplinary structure of the
military and because soldiers are allowed the
fiduciary right to bear arms and can therefore
cause great havoc... Nor can appeal be made to
the equal protection clause ebcause equal
protection applies only to those who are
equally situated.
(b) Apart from bail, a person may attain
provisional liberty through recognizance.
· In US v. Puruganan, the Court held that
extradition is not a criminal proceeding. Hence,
since bail is available only in criminal
proceedings, a respondent in an extradition
proceeding is not entitled to a bail. He should
apply for a bail in the court where he will be
tried.
F. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Section 14, Art. III.
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.
The Rights of the Accused Include
1. Criminal due process;
2. Presumption of innocence;
3. Right to be heard by himself or counsel;
4. Right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him;
5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial;
6. Right to meet the witnesses face to face;
7. Right to compulsory process to secure
attendance of witnesses and production of
evidence; and
8. Trial in absentia
1. Criminal Due Process
Criminal process includes
a) Investigation prior to the filing of charges
b) Preliminary examination and investigation
after charges are filed
c) Period of trial
Requirements of Criminal Due Process
1. Impartial and competent court in
accordance with procedure prescribed by law;
2. Proper observance of all the rights
accorded the accused under the Constitution
and the applicable statutes (example of
statutory right of the accused: right to
Preliminary investigation)
· Mistrial may be declared if shown that
proceedings were held under circumstances as
would prevent the accused from freely making
his defense or the judge from freely arriving at
his decision.
· There is violation of due process when law
not published and a person is impleaded for
violation of such law.
· There is violation of due process when
appeal is permitted by law but there is denial
thereof.
2. Presumption of Innocence
· Burden of proof to establish the guilt of
the accused is with the prosecution.
· Conviction depends on the strength of
prosecution, not on the weakness of the
defense
· The presumption may be overcome by
contrary presumption based on the experience
of human conduct. (e.g unexplained flight may
lead to an inference of guilt, as “the wicked flee
when no man pursueth, but the righteous are
as bold as a lion.”)
· 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 a purely arbitrary
mandate. – Cooley
· No inference of guilt may be drawn
against an accused for his failure to make a
statement of any sort.
· In Dumlao v. Comelec, for the purposes of
disqualification in an election, section 4 of BP
Blg. 52 says that” the filing of charges for the
commission of such crimes before civil court or
military tribunal after preliminary investigation
shall be prima facie evidence of such fact
(disqualification).” The Court held that this
provision violates the guarantee of presumption
of innocence. Although filing of charges is only
prima facie evidence and may be rebutted, the
proximity of elections and consequent risk of
not having time to rebut the prima facie
evidence already in effect make him suffer as
though guilty even before trial.
Equipoise Rule – evidence of both sides are
equally balanced, in which case the
constitutional presumption of innocence should
tilt the scales in favor of the accused.
3. Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel
· Indispensable in any criminal prosecution
where the stakes are the liberty or even the life
of the accused
· Assistance of counsel begins from the
time a person is taken into custody and placed
under investigation for the commission of a
crime.
▪ This is not subject to waiver.
· Right to counsel means the right to
effective representation.
· If the accused appears at arraignment
without counsel, the judge must:
(a) Inform the accused that he has a right to a
counsel before arraignment;
(b) Ask the accused if he desires the aid of
counsel;
(c) If the accused desires counsel, but cannot
afford one, a counsel de oficio must be
appointed;
(d) If the accused desires to obtain his own
counsel, the court must give him a reasonable
time to get one.
4. Nature and Cause of Accusation
Purpose for the Right to be informed of the
Nature and Cause of Accusation
(1) To furnish the accused with a description of
the charge against him as will enable him to
make his defenses;
(2) To avail himself of his conviction or
acquittal against a further prosecution for the
same cause;
(3) To inform the court of the facts alleged.
· The description and not the designation of
the offense is controlling (The real nature of the
crime charged is determined from the recital of
facts in the information. It is not determined
based on the caption or preamble thereof nor
from the specification of the provision of law
allegedly violated.)
· If the information fails to allege the
material elements of the offense, the accused
cannot be convicted thereof even if the
prosecution is able to present evidence during
the trial with respect to such elements.
Void for Vagueness Rule – accused is denied
the right to be informed of the charge against
him and to due process as well, where the
statute itself is couched in such indefinite
language that it is not possible for men of
ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom
what acts or omissions are punished and hence,
shall be avoided.
· In Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the Court
held that the Void for Vagueness Doctrine
merely requires a reasonable degree of
certainty and not absolute precision or
mathematical exactitude.
5. The Trial
Factors in Determining Whether There Is
Violation
(a) Time expired from the filing of the
information
(b) Length of delay involved
(c) Reasons for the delay
(d) Assertion or non-assertion of the right by
the accused
(e) Prejudice caused to the defendant.
· Effect of dismissal based on violation of
this right: it amounts to an acquittal and can be
used as basis to claim double jeopardy. This
would be the effect even if the dismissal was
made with the consent of the accused
Remedy if the Right is Violated
(1) He can move for the dismissal of the case;
(2) If he is detained, he can file a petition for
the issuance of writ of habeas corpus.
Speedy trial -
1. Free from vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays
2. To relieve the accused from needless
anxieties before sentence is pronounced upon
him
Impartial trial – the accused is entitled to the
“cold neutrality of an impartial judge”. It is an
element of due process.
· Public trial: The attendance at the trial is
open to all irrespective of their relationship to
the accused. However, if the evidence to be
adduced is “offensive to decency or public
morals”, the public may be excluded.
· The right of the accused to a public trial is
not violated if the hearings are conducted on
Saturdays, either with the consent of the
accused or if failed to object thereto.
· The right to be present covers the period
from arraignment to promulgation of sentence.
· General Rule: the accused may waive the
right to be present at the trial by not showing
up. However, the court can still compel the
attendance of the accused if necessary for
identification purposes.
▪ Exception: If the accused, after
arraignment, has stipulated that he is indeed
the person charged with the offense and named
in the information, and that any time a witness
refers to a name by which he is known, the
witness is to be understood as referring to him.
· Trial in Absentia is mandatory upon the
court whenever the accused has been
arraigned.
· There is also Promulgation in Absentia
· While the accused is entitled to be
present during promulgation of judgment, the
absence of his counsel during such
promulgation does not affect its validity
· The trial in absentia does not abrogate the
provisions of the Rules of Court regarding
forfeiture of bail bond if the accused fails to
appear at his trial.
· A court has the power to prohibit a person
admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines as
this is a necessary consequence of the nature
and function of a bail bond
6. The Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to
Face
Purposes of the Right to Meet the Witnesses
Face to Face
(1) To afford the accused an opportunity to
cross-examine the witness
(2) To allow the judge the opportunity to
observe the deportment of the witness
Principal Exceptions to this Right
(1) The admissibility of “dying declarations”
(2) Trial in absentia under Section 14(2)
· With respect to child testimony
· Testimony of witness who was not cross-
examined is not admissible as evidence for
being hearsay.
· If a prosecution witness dies before his
cross-examination can be completed, his direct
testimony cannot be stricken off the record,
provided the material points of his direct
testimony had been covered on cross.
· The right to confrontation may be waived.
7. Compulsory Process
· The accused is entitled to the issuance of
subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces
tecum for the purpose of compelling the
attendance of witness and the production of
evidence that he may need for his defense.
· Failure to obey – punishable as contempt
of court.
· There are exceptional circumstances when
the defendant may ask for conditional
examination, provided the expected testimony
is material of any witness under circumstances
that would make him unavailable from
attending the trial.

8. Trial in Absentia

Trial in Absentia May Only Be Allowed If the

Following Requisites Are Met:

(1) the accused has been validly arraigned;

(2) Accused has already been arraigned;

(3) Accused has been duly notified of the trial;

and

(4) His failure to appear is unjustifiable.