RULE 115

Rights of Accused At Trial1

I. ARTICLE III, The Bill of Rights, Philippine Constitution

II. Rights of Accused At Trial

Section 1. Rig h ts o f ac c u s e d at th e trial. — In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be entitled to the following rights:

A. (a) To b e p re s u m e d in n o c e n t u n til th e c o n trary is p ro v e d b e y o n d

re as o n ab le d o u b t.
1. Sec. 14, Art. III, Bill of Rights
2. History & judicial affirmation of the right:
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)
3. Presumption of Innocence & Reasonable Doubt:
People v. Macaraeg, G.R. No. L-32806. October 23, 1973 (E.B)
4. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Meaning:
People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 1374. December 3, 1903, 3 Phil. 3-6
People v. Bacus, G.R. No. 60388, November 21, 1991

B. (b ) To b e in fo rm e d o f th e n atu re an d c au s e o f th e ac c u s atio n ag ain s t h im .

1. Sec. 14, Art. III, Bill of Rights

2. Right to be Informed and Its Objectives:
Enrile v. People, G.R. No. 213455, [August 11, 2015])**
People v. Flores, G.R. No. 128823-24. December 27, 2002
3. Trial in absentia only if arraigned:
Borja v. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-45667 June 20, 1977

C. (c ) Rig h t to b e p re s e n t an d d e fe n d in p e rs o n an d b y c o u n s e l at e v e ry
s tag e o f th e p ro c e e d in g s , fro m arraig n m e n t to p ro m u lg atio n o f th e
ju d g m e n t. ( Se c . 1 (c ), Ru le 115)
1. 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14(2)
2. Sec. 6 & 7, Rule 116 - Arraignment & Plea
3. Sec. 7 & 8, Rule 119, Trial
4. Section 34 of Rule 138
5. Due process in criminal cases primarily means right to counsel!
a) Due Process and Right to Counsel:
". . . the right of the accused to be assisted by counsel is
immutable."

1
Updated July 2018.

-1-
 Callangan v. People, G.R. No. 153414, June 27, 2006
No deprivation of right to counsel:
Ibañez v. People, G.R. No. 190798, [January 27, 2016])
b) History of the Right in the Philippines:
People v. Bermas, G.R. No. 120420, 21 April 1999
c) Right to be assisted by "effective" and not necessarily "intelligent"
counsel:
People v. Liwanag, G.R. No. 120468, August 15, 2001T
d) Accused choice of counsel not a plenary one:
People v. Larrañaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, [February 3, 2004]
e) Absolute and Invoked at Any Time:
Spouses Telan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95026, [October 4, 1991]

Other cases:
Right to counsel cannot be waived:
People v. Holgado, G.R. No. L-2809, March 22, 1950 [EB]
Instance when waived?:
Sayson v. People, G.R. No. 51745, [October 28, 1988],
248 PHIL 909-921)
People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001
Right to counsel de parte not absolute and may be waived:
People v. Serzo, Jr., G.R. No. 118435, [June 20,1997],
274 SCRA 553
Non-lawyer may litigate his case personally (Sec. 34, Rule 138):
Cruz v. Mijares, G.R. No. 154464, September 11, 2008
Cruz v. Cabrera, ADM. CASE NO. 5737, October 25, 2004
f) Ineffective counsel, gross negligence of counsel and right to counsel:
Callangan v. People, G.R. No. 153414, [June 27, 2006]
g) Duty of Counsel for the accused:
People v. Bermas, G.R. No. 120420, [April 21, 1999]
h) Power of court to appoint counsel de officio during absence of counsel de parte:
People v. Larrañaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, [February 3, 2004]

D. (d ) To te s tify as a w itn e s s in h is o w n b e h alf b u t s u b je c t to

c ro s s -e xam in atio n o n m atte rs c o v e re d b y d ire c t e xam in atio n . His
s ile n c e s h all n o t in an y m an n e r p re ju d ic e h im .

E. (e ) To b e e xe m p t fro m b e in g c o m p e lle d to b e a w itn e s s ag ain s t h im s e lf.

1. Privilege Against Self-incrimination at Trial:
Chavez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-29169, [August 19, 1968]**
2. Distinguished from before trial:
a) Privilege covers only testimonial compulsion:
Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62
b) Forced re-enactments is “communicative in nature”:
People v. Olvis, G.R. No. 71092, Sept. 30, 1987

-2-
 c) Not testimonial compulsion, examples:
(i) Forcing morphine out of mouth:
U.S. v. Ong Sui Hong, 36 Phil. 735
(ii) Examination of body for gonorrhea:
U.S. v. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145
(iii) Taking of paraffin test without counsel:
People v. Gamboa, 194 SCRA 372

F. (f) To c o n fro n t an d c ro s s -e xam in e th e w itn e s s e s ag ain s t h im at th e trial.

Eith e r p arty m ay u tilize as p art o f its e v id e n c e th e te s tim o n y o f a w itn e s s
w h o is d e c e as e d , o u t o f o r c an n o t w ith d u e d ilig e n c e b e f o u n d in th e
Ph ilip p in e s , u n av ailab le o r o th e rw is e u n ab le to te s tify , g iv e n in an o th e r
c as e o r p ro c e e d in g , ju d ic ial o r ad m in is trativ e , in v o lv in g th e s am e p artie s
an d s u b je c t m atte r, th e ad v e rs e p arty h av in g th e o p p o rtu n ity to
c ro s s -e xam in e h im .

1. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding:

Sec. 47. Rule 130, Rules of Court
2. Application for examination of witness for accused before trial:
Sec. 12 & 13, Rule 119 (See Rule 119 outline.)
3. Perpetuation of Testimony (Formerly Ru;e 134)
4. Right to confront and cross-examine witnesses:
Sections 12, 13 and 15, Rule 119
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (Sec. 25, Republic Act No. 7610)
Dowdell v. United States, 221 U. S. 325, 221 U. S. 330 (1911)
People v. Abatayo, G.R. No. 139456, [July 7, 2004]
Kim Liong v. People, G.R. No. 200630, June 4, 2018
Go v. People, G.R. No. 185527, [July 18, 2012]
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)
See J. Scalia, Dissent.
5. Right of court to control length of cross-examination & protect witnesses from
needless and prolonged cross-examination:
People v. Larrañaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, [February 3, 2004]

G. (g ) To h av e c o m p u ls o ry p ro c e s s is s u e d to s e c u re th e atte n d an c e o f
w itn e s s e s an d p ro d u c tio n o f o th e r e v id e n c e in h is b e h alf.
Sec. 14 (2), Art. III Bill of Rights
1. Subpoena:
- Rule 21, Rules of Court
2. Bail to secure attendance of material witness:
- Sec. 14, Rule 119
3. Sec., 10, Rule 21 applies only to civil cases:
People v. Montejo, G.R. No. L-24154, [October 31, 1967]**T
Geñorga v. Quitain, A.M. No. 981-CFI (Resolution), [July 29, 1977]
4. Conditional Examination of a Prosecution Witness Cannot Defeat the Rights
of the Accused to Public Trial and Confrontation of Witnesses; Sec. 15, Rule

-3-
 119:
Go v. C.A., G.R. No. 185527. July 18, 2012.
5. Production and inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution:
- Sec. 10, Rule 116

H. (h ) To h av e s p e e d y , im p artial an d p u b lic trial.

1. Speedy Trial and Speedy Disposition of Cases Distinguished
Cagang v. Sandiganbayan, Nos. 206438 and 206458, July 31, 2018 (EB)
- Sec. 16, Art. III, Bill of Rights
- Rule 119, Sec. 2-10
- Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases
(A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC) 25 April 2017
- See the Flowcharts
a) Meaning of and Standards:
Perez v. People, G.R. No. 164763. February 12, 2008
Almeda v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao), G.R. No. 204267,
[July 25, 2016]
b) Double Jeopardy Attaches:
Esmeña v. Pogoy, G.R. No. L-54110 February 20, 1981
Bonsubre, Jr. v. Yerro, G.R. No. 205952, [February 11, 2015])
2. Impartial Trial
Lai y Bilbao v. People, G.R. No. 175999, [July 1, 2015]
People v. Larrañaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, [February 3, 2004]
3. Public Trial
Meaning of:
Garcia v. Domingo, G.R. No. L-30104 (Resolution), [July 25, 1973]
Exception:
Sec. 21, Rule 119

I. (i) To ap p e al in all c as e s allo w e d an d in th e m an n e r p re s c rib e d b y law .

Tan y Chua v. People, G.R. No. 148194, [April 12, 2002]
Fake lawyer on appeal is denial of due process; effect:
Spouses Telan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95026, [October 4, 1991]
Statutory not Natural Right; Deny with Caution:
De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. 167492, [March 22, 2007]

-4-