Rights of the Accused and Justice

So still under rights to be accused, pag-usapan natin ang presumption of innocence. Mam-anang basis niyan, you now have section 14 paragraph 2 article 3 of the 1987 constitution. Mam-anang sabi, accordingly, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven. Ibig sabihin, Sa lahat ng criminal cases natin, ang accused is always presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. Meaning, hanggat hindi napapatunayan na guilty siya, ang presumption natin, innocent siya. Regardless if the person was caught in flagrante delito. Ibig sabihin, kahit na nahuli siya in the Act of Crime Commission, even if a lot of people were able to see him commit the crime. Anong presumption? Innocent siya. So always presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. Kaya nga, if you would notice it sa CLJ-1 ninyo, diba nagkaroon kayo ng overview ng buong criminal justice process? Anong mapapansin ninyo? Hanggat walang conviction ang court, hanggat walang judgment of guilt ang court, yung taong yan, hindi siya pwedeng tawagin as a criminal. We now use different labels or maybe different terminologies to denote to the person. Depende kung anong process ang ina-undergo niya sa criminal justice system. Parang ganito. So, kunyari, you now have a crime commission. So, a crime was committed. And a person allegedly committed said crime. So, itong taong to, allegedly ginawa niyo yung crime. Criminal na ba ang tawag natin sa kanya? Hindi. Bakit? Presumption of? Innocence. So, assuming that the person now is placed under investigation by the law enforcers, pwede na ba siyang tawagin criminal again? No. Kasi nga, if a person is merely undergoing investigation on the law enforcement level, ang tawag natin sa kanya is suspect. Mam, bakit suspect? Kasi nga, presumption of? Innocence. Take note. Ang presumption of innocence is a right not only afforded to an accused but also to a suspect. Kaya nga suspect ang tawag nyo and not criminal. Kasi ang presumption natin, innocent siya at hindi pa napapatunayan na guilty siya kaya he can never be called a criminal. Now, what if the prosecutor now would conduct preliminary investigation? Or maybe, kung yung taong... to is already under custody, magkakandak siya ng inquest proceeding. Can you now call the person a criminal again? No. Why? Presumption of innocence, right? So, dahil undergoing preliminary investigation siya, or maybe undergoing inquest siya, ano lang meron tayo dyan, you do not have a criminal, but rather you have what you call a respondent. Respondent lang siya, hindi pa siya criminal. Why? His guilt was not yet proven beyond reasonable doubt. Ngayon, si prosecutor was able to determine probable cause. And because of that, he was now prompted to file an information with the court. So dahil may probable cause, nag-file siya ng information sa court. Okay? So the case now is filed with the court. Ibig sabihin, yung case natin, nasa court na siya. So ibig sabihin, there is already a pending case. Basol. Itong taong to ba can already be considered as a criminal? Again, no. Presumption of innocence. And because the case is already filed with the court, ang tawag na natin sa kanya is accused. Not a criminal, but rather you call him an accused. Why? Presumption of innocence. Hanggat hindi napapatunayan yung guilt niya beyond reasonable doubt, ang presumption natin is innocent tong taong to. Mam, sino ba kasi ang pwedeng mag-invoke ng right to be presumed innocent? Ibig sabihin, sino ba ang pwedeng mag-invoke ng presumption of innocence? Anong sagot natin dyan? It can only be invoked by a person accused of a crime. I repeat, yung right to be presumed innocent or yung presumption of innocence can only be invoked by an individual accused of a crime. So, tao lang na inakusahan ng Crime Commission. Sila lang ang pwedeng mag-invoke ng right to be presumed innocent. So, based on that, ang iisipin ninyo. na ang criminal accusation against a person must always be substantiated by proof beyond reasonable doubt. I repeat, criminal accusations against a person must always be substantiated by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ibig sabihin, if you accuse a person of a crime, you need to make sure that it is supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ma'am, ano na ang proof beyond reasonable doubt? Ito yung quantum of evidence in a criminal case. Ano siya? Quantum of evidence in a criminal case. Ano ang sabi sa inyo sa CLJ-1 niyo? Quantum of evidence is the evidence needed to win a case. Ano siya? Evidence needed to win a case. So, kung gusto mong manalo sa isang kaso, kailangan meron kang quantum of evidence. Kaya lang, ang quantum of evidence per case, magkakaiba yan. Iba sa civil, iba sa admin case, iba sa criminal cases. Pag criminal case yan, ano ang quantum of evidence niya? You now have proof beyond reasonable doubt. Sa lahat ng quantum of evidence ito, ang pinaka mahirap isatisfy. Ma'am, bakit mahirap siyang isatisfy? Kasi nga, you have presumption of innocence. Ma'am, ano ba kasi ang proof beyond reasonable doubt? That degree of proof which excluding the possibility of error produces moral certainty. I repeat, that degree of proof which excluding the possibility of error produces moral certainty. For the last time, ano daw ang proof ba yung reasonable doubt? It is that degree of proof which excluding the possibility of error produces moral certainty. Ibig sabihin yan, it is the proof that is close to an absolute certainty. I-repeat, ano siya? It is the proof that is close to an absolute certainty. Kaya nga, di ba? If the judge now is sure that you committed the crime based on the evidence, meron ng moral certainty, sigurado yung judge based on the evidence na oo, ginawa mo yung crime, ano ang sabi? you have already satisfied the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ibig sabihin, pag certain yung court natin based on the evidence na guilty ka, meron tayong proof beyond reasonable doubt. Parang sa cases ng rape, diba? So, syempre, in rape cases, sino lang bang ando dyan? Most probably, you now have the rape victim and you now have the accused. So, kunyari yung accused, dinedenay niya na nakakilala niya yung babae. dini-deny niya na itong babaeng to is na mitna niya. So totally sabi niya, I do not know that woman. I haven't seen that woman. And then, ang evidence lang na meron na maipresent yung prosecutor natin is the DNA found dun sa katawan ng babae, tapos yung bite marks nung accused natin na rapist dun sa katawan ng babae. So what evidences are present? Ano lang ang available? Kasi niwala tayong witnesses eh. So ano lang meron, you now have the DNA coming from the semen sample found on the body of the woman, and at the same time, you now have the bite marks found dun sa katawan ng babae. So based on the bite marks, nag-match ngayon yung bite marks dun sa dental record nung accused. Tapos nahanapan pa ngayon yung tinatawag natin na DNA niya through the semen left on the woman's body. Kung papansin ninyo, dadalawang evidence lang yan, right? Pero based on that, pwede ba tayong magsabi na, oh, parang itong taong to guilty talaga. Kasi itong evidences na to would pinpoint that this person knew the woman. And that this person had coitus or maybe sex with this woman. Why? Kasi nga nahanapan ngayon yung DNA niya dun sa katawan nung babae. Aside from that, meron pang mga bite marks yung babae which matched na with the dental records of this guy. Question. Dadalawang evidence lang yan. Pero, would this evidence now produce moral certainty that this person committed the crime? If you would tell me yes, kung ikaw yung judge mako-convince ka, there is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Pero if you would tell me no, edi walang proof beyond reasonable doubt. Basta ang iisipin nyo lang in here, It's not about the number of evidences but rather the capability or the ability of an evidence to convince the reasonable mind of a judge that indeed, This person is guilty of the crime allegedly committed by him. Yun ang proof beyond reasonable doubt. So sa criminal cases natin, ano ang quantum of evidence that would be proof beyond reasonable doubt? Kaya nga, ang courts natin are required by the law itself to steadfastly safeguard the right to be presumed innocent of an accused. Dapat yung court mismo, vigilant siya. To assure na yung right to be presumed innocent ng isang akusado would be what? It would be monitored and it would be respected. Yun ang sinasabi ng presumption of innocence. Kaya nga, regardless kung yung taong yan has a very bad reputation in the community, regardless kung sobrang pangit ng reputation niya, dahil imagine meron pa siyang mga previous convictions, ang sabi, even if this person had previous convictions, even if this person has a very bad reputation in the community. Basta sa kasong to ang presumption natin, innocent siya. And he would only be considered as a criminal if it would be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Okay? Kaya nga diba, if you are an accused, do not be afraid. Kahit napangit ang reputation mo kasi, mandated ng Constitution that we respect. So, kaya nga meron tayong rules with regard to presumption of innocence. Ma'am, ano yung mga rules natin? Let's start with number one. The prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. So, kaninong responsibility na patunayang guilty yung akusado beyond reasonable doubt? That would be the function of the prosecution. Kaya nga, if you are an accused, kung ikaw yung akusado, kung ikaw yung defense, is it your work to prove your innocence? No. You do not need to prove your innocence. Hindi mo kailangang patunayan na inosente ka kasi nga, you are presumed innocent. So anong sabi? Kung sino man ang nagsasabing guilty ka, should be the one proving that you are guilty. Hindi mo kailangang patunayan inosente ka, presumed na yan. Kung sino man ang nag-a-allege na guilty ka, whoever alleges that you committed the crime should also be the person given the burden to prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And of course, in criminal cases, kaninong trabaho yan? That is the work of your prosecution. Kaya nga sa court, ang laging unang nag-present ng evidence ninyo would be the prosecution. Laging sinong nauuna? Yung prosecution. Bakit sila ang unang nag-present ng evidence? Kasi sila yung nag-a-allege na ginawa ng accused yung crime. So in effect, kailangan sila ang magpatunay na ginawa ng akusado yung crime. Kaya nga defense, all he has to do is to defend himself from the accusations made by the prosecution. And take note, the accusations made by the prosecution must be substantiated by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Dahil na kay prosecutor ang burden to prove the guilt of the accused, pupunta tayo sa number 2. The prosecution must also rely on the strength of its evidence. I repeat, saan dapat magre-rely ang prosecutor with regard to the case? He needs to rely on the strength of his evidence. Ibig sabihin, hindi niya pwedeng gamitin yung weakness ng evidence ng defense natin. Kasi ang tanging panghahawakan niya dyan, would be the available evidences na meron siya. So regardless kung mahina man or malakas yung evidence ng accused, saan lang aasa ang prosecution? Aasa lang siya lagi doon sa strength ng evidences niya. Ma'am, bakit ganun? Kasi, take note, the conviction of an accused must be based on the strength of the prosecution evidence and not on the weakness or absence of evidence of the defense. I-repeat, the conviction of an accused must be based on the strength of the prosecution evidence and not on the weakness or absence of evidence of the defense. Kaya nga diba, kahit walang evidence itong tinatawag natin na accused ninyo or defense ninyo, it does not necessarily mean na talo na siya sa kaso. Kasi okay, sabihin natin na wala siyang evidence or mahina yung evidence niya. At nagkataon, nung tinignan natin yung evidence ng prosecution, wala namang palang bearing. Wala rin kayang patunayan. May evidence pero the evidence does not prove anything in court. Would it now mean na matatalo na yung accused? Would it now mean that the accused would be convicted? No. Kasi laging ang basis ng conviction or laging basis ng court sa pag-decide ng case would be what? It would always be based on the strength of the prosecution evidence and not on the weakness or the absence of evidence of the defense. Laging ang burden na kay prosecutor. Okay? Ito ang very reason kung bakit, kung ikaw yung defense, meron tayong tinatawag na the murderer to evidence. I repeat, kung ikaw yung defense, kung ikaw yung akusado, anong meron ka? You have what you call your the murderer to evidence. Ma'am, ano yung the murderer to evidence? It is a remedy available to the accused or defense. I repeat, it is a remedy available to the accused or So, sino lang pwede mag-claim ng demurrer to evidence? Only the accused or yung tinatawag nating defense. Ngayon, anong remedy siya? Always remember that your demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss based on insufficiency or lack of evidence. I repeat, it is a motion to dismiss based on insufficiency or lack of evidence. For the last time, ano siya? It is a motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of evidence or lack of evidence. Ibig sabihin, itong demur to evidence, remedy siya ni accused or defense. Anong gusto mangyari ni defense or maybe ni accused? Gusto nilang madismiss yung kaso. Bakit nila gusto madismiss yung kaso? Kasi, itong prosecution do not have sufficient evidence. Or maybe, the prosecution may does not have any evidence at all. Wala silang evidence na may present against you or maybe kulang yung evidence to prove your guilt. So based on that, pwede silang mag-file ng motion para ma-dismiss na lang yung kaso. If you could still remember anong sabi natin kanina, kaninong trabaho na patunayang guilty si accused, it is actually the work of the prosecution. Kasi nga, first thing you need to remember, sabi natin kanina, the prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Based on that, yung prosecution niyo must rely on the strength of its evidence and not in the weakness of the defense kasi nga yung conviction ng accused dapat based siya sa strength ng prosecution evidence at hindi sa weakness or absence ng evidence ng defense. Based on that, dahil alam natin na hindi kailangang patunayan ni accused. ang innocence niya dahil kailangang prosecution ang magpatunay na guilty siya. The moment the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence or wala siyang evidence at all para patunayan na guilty si accused, what's the point of having trial now? What's the point of pursuing the case? So as a remedy, itong accused natin, pwede siya ngayong mag-file for a demurrer to evidence. Ibig sabihin, he can now file a motion to dismiss the case based on insufficiency or lack of evidence by the prosecution. Ma'am, bakit ganun? Kasi nga, again and again, we say na, kaninong trabaho na patunayang guilty ang accused, always the work of the prosecution. Kailangan bang patunayan ni accused na innocent siya? No, because, take note, there is always a presumption of innocence. Ganun siya ha. Napapalitan lang yung kwento ng isang trial if itong accused natin would be claiming justifying circumstances or maybe exempting circumstances. The moment mag-claim kasi siya ng tinatawag nating justifying circumstances o di naman kaya ang klinim niya exempting circumstances, ibig sabihin, he would now admit na ginawa niya yung act na ibinibintang sa kanya. He would now admit na he committed the crime, allegedly na ginawa niya. So, aaminin niya na. Pero, mag, anong gagawin niya? Mag-represent siya ngayon ng justifying or exempting circumstance. Na, oo, ginawa ko to, pero I should be excused from criminal liability. Kasi meron tong mga circumstances na to. If that's the case, syempre, what would happen? Inamin na niya ngayon na ginawa niya yung crime, right? So, ang gagawin ngayon, itong si prosecution. Hindi niya na kailangang patunayan na ginawa nung accused yung crime allegedly committed dahil si accused na mismo ang umamin na ginawa niya. Pero nag-present siya ngayon ng available, justifying, or maybe exempting circumstances. And because of that, what would happen now? Huwag nyo na ang pansinin si presumption of innocence kasi at this moment now, the burden to prove that said circumstances exist would now depend on the accused. So kailangan niya ng patunayan na yes, he committed said act pero there are exempting or maybe justifying circumstances. Kanino ng trabaho yun? It now falls on the so-called accused. Hindi na kailangan patunayan ni prosecution. Why? Kasi dito umami na si accused pero nag-present siya ng tinatawag natin na exempting or justifying circumstances. In such cases, nagkakaroon tayo ng tinatawag natin na reverse trial. Sa reverse trial, what would happen? Instead of the prosecution presenting evidence first, what would happen? It would be the accused presenting evidence first and Proving that yes, he committed the crime, yes, he committed said act, but he has a valid defense. Example, kunyari ako, napatay ko yung victim. Okay, so napatay ko yung victim. Now, kung hindi ko kasi aaminin na ako yung gumawa, or hindi ko aaminin na may ganong crime, I am presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. Kaya lang, The moment na aminin ko siya na yes, ginawa ko yun, but I acted in self-defense. What would happen now? Yung burden ngayon to prove that there were attending, justifying, or exempting circumstances would now be put on the accused. Hindi na kailangang patunayan ni prosecution. Bakit? Kasi umamin na ako. Yun nga lang ay presented circumstances that would justify or maybe exempt me from criminal liability. In effect, what would happen, magkakaroon ng reverse trial. It's up to me to prove the existence of said circumstances. Okay? So, ganun lang siya. Ang gagawin na lang dyan ng prosecution is to disprove yung sinasabi mo na attending circumstances. Okay? So, ganun lang siya. So, ano pa yung point na kailangan ninyong tandaan with regard to presumption of innocence? Itong flight. Ma'am, ano na ulit ang flight? Sabi natin, your flight now would talk about evasion or maybe escaping, right? So, pag sinabi natin flight, what's present here, you now have the act of escaping or maybe evading. Akusado ka pa lang ha, hindi ka pa convicted. So, you are a mere accused. And then, during the pendency of trial, what happened? Aba, hindi ka na mahanapan. So, anong sabi? There was flight. Now, listen. Generally ha, generally. Light, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established. I repeat, generally ha, generally. Light, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established. might be established. Guys, last na talaga ha. Last na talaga. Nung sabi generally, flight, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established. Ibig sabihin guys, pag nagkaroon ng flight, kunyari, pending yung kaso mo, tapos tumakas ka, right? Flight yan eh. So, tumakas ka. Bigla kang nawala. Tapos wala kang credible explanation. Wala kang justifiable reason for your flight. Ano ang sabi? Pwede siyang makonsider as a circumstance from which an inference of guilt. Guys ha, inference lang siya. From which an inference of guilt might be established. Ibig sabihin, because of the flight, without any credible explanation, pwedeng magkaroon ng presumption. Okay? na ay, baka guilty tong taong to, kaya siya tumakas. Pero because it is a mere circumstance from which said inference may be taken, it is a mere circumstance, it is not enough to convict you. Dahil mere circumstance lang siya ha, hindi siya enough para makonvict ka. Ibig sabihin, kung gusto mo makonvict yung tao beyond reasonable doubt, dapat yung flight accompanied pa siya ng iba pang mga circumstances. Kasi it is a mere circumstantial evidence. Ang circumstantial evidence nyo is not enough to convict a person. Ang iisang circumstantial evidence, hindi yan enough to prove the guilt of a person. Kailangan, yung circumstantial evidence nyo, supported pa siya ng iba pang mga circumstantial evidences. Kasi, taking it alone, it is not enough to convict you beyond reasonable doubt. Tapos, take note, ang pinoproduce lang niya is a mere inference. Na kung baga ba, baka guilty siya. Okay? Dagdag evidence lang siya against you. Gets? So generally, flight in the absence of a credible explanation would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established. Gets? Pero guys, it does not follow na pag hindi ka tumakas or nag-stay ka lang na agad-agad, sigurado tayo na innocent ka. Okay? Hindi siya ganun. Kasi take note, hindi porke nag-stay ka na agad-agad, sigurado yung court na innocent ka. Right? Yes, you are presumed innocent, but it does not necessarily mean na talagang innocent ka. Kaya nga meron pa rin tayong tinatawag na presentation of evidence. Diba? Now, merong case. Anong nangyari sa case na to? Itong babae, pinatay niya yung asawa niya. Okay? So, the woman killed her husband. Ma'am, bakit niya pinatay? Kasi nagselo siya. So, pinatay niya yung asawa niya dahil nagselo siya. Ngayon, habang yun yung allegation ha, the allegation was, tinatay niya yung asawa niya dahil nagselos siya. That's the allegation. So anong sabi natin? Presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. Now, itong babaeng to, bigla siyang nawala. So, nagtago siya. So, I repeat what happened dito sa babae during dependency of the case, bigla siyang nawala, nagtago siya. So ngayon, because of said flight, there was flight ha, sabi ngayon ng prosecution, oops, this is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be taken, right? So sabi ng prosecution, uy, there was flight. So presumably, guilty tong taong to kaya siya tumakas. Yun yung sabi ng prosecution. So they wanted said circumstance to be utilized as evidence against the woman. Pero, anong sabi ng Supreme Court? So upon analysis by the Supreme Court, it was actually proven na itong babaeng to kaya pala siya tumakas kasi she was afraid na magre-retaliate ngayon yung relatives ng husband niya. Kasi diba allegedly pinatay daw niya yung asawa niya. So ang fear niya pag hindi siya aalis dun sa lugar na yun, re-rest backan siya ngayon ng relatives ng husband niya. So because of her fear, tumakas siya ngayon. nagtago siya because she was afraid of the retaliation coming from the relatives of the husband. Now, based on that situation, was there flight? Yes. Next question. Meron bang credible explanation? Yes. And because there was a credible explanation, pwede bang gamitin yung flight niya as a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be established? Pwede ba? The answer is no. Kasi diba sabi natin, Ang flight, para maging circumstance na panggagalingan ng inference of guilt, kailangan may absence of credible explanation. In her situation, ano ang sabi? There was a credible explanation. She hid herself, nagtago siya because she was afraid from the possible retaliation coming from the relatives of her husband. Okay? So, ganun lang yung flight natin, ha? For it to be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established, kailangan walang credible explanation for said flight. Okay? Tapos, in case. Okay? In case gagamitin natin ng flight, ano lang siya? It is a mere circumstantial evidence. Meaning, flight alone cannot cause the conviction of the accused. Okay? Circumstantial evidence lang siya. It should still be supported by other evidences. Ganun lang siya ha, that is your light. So let's now talk about your equipoise rule. Ang equipoise rule ninyo is based on your presumption of innocence. Ma'am, ano ba yung equipoise rule na pinag-uusapan natin? Let's go back, CLJ1, right? So simple recall lang tayo, what is an equipoise rule? Ano ang sabi? If the evidence of the prosecution and the defense. I repeat. If the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are of the same weight, I repeat, If the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are of the same weight, Kama. Yung puta kama ah. Ano nga isura ti kama? Nga kama nga word. Okay? Ilagay nyo dyan ngayon yung symbol ng kama. I repeat ah. If the evidence of the prosecution and the accused are of the same weight, Kama. The balance of justice shall be tilted in favor of the defense. I repeat. The balance of justice shall be tilted in favor of the Defense. Ibig sabihin, ulitin natin ha, equipoise rule. If the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are of the same weight, you put a comma, the balance of justice shall be tilted in favor of the accused or the defense, right? So if the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are of the same weight, comma, the balance of justice shall be tilted in favor of the accused or the defense, right? shall be tilted in favor of the defense. Yung defense na yan, yan din lamang yung accused nyo. Ibig sabihin, kung si prosecution tapos si accused, magkatimbang lang yung weight ng evidences nila. So, kung baga ba, it's a draw. Pantay lang sila. Sinong mananalo? Take note. Sa courts natin, kaya sa judicial bodies natin, walang draw. Okay? Hindi yan boxing na draw. Walang ganun. Sa atin, dito sa judicial agencies natin, or dito sa courts natin, ano ang sabi? Matic yan. If yung evidence ng prosecution at saka defense, pareha lang sila ng weight, kailangan, anong mangyayari? Ititilt daw natin yung balance ng justice kay accused or kay defense. Ibig sabihin, pag pareha lang sila ng weight ng evidences, the accused should be acquitted. Kano ang sabi ng Epipoise Rule? Pag magkapareho ang weight ng evidence ng prosecution at saka ng accused, it would now result to the acquittal of the accused. Ma'am, bakit ganun? Take note. Presumption of innocence. Kanino ang burden to prove the guilt of the accused? Kay prosecution. Pag nagbalance ang evidence ng prosecution at accused, ibig sabihin pareha lang sila ng bigat. Napatunayan ba ni prosecution beyond reasonable doubt na guilty ang akusado? Definitely the answer is no. And because the accused is presumed innocent and the prosecution was not able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, dahil nga pantay lang yung evidence nila, what would be the outcome? The accused now should be acquitted. He was presumed innocent, therefore, kailangan ma-acquit siya. Yes? Yan yung tinatawag natin na equipoise rule. So pag, anong sabi? If the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are of the same weight, the balance of justice shall be tilted in favor of the accused. Ibig sabihin, it would now result to the acquittal of the accused. Okay? Yan ang equipoise rule. Saan siya nakabase? Nakabase siya ngayon sa right to be presumed innocent. So lagi siya nakabase sa presumption of innocent. Okay? So that is your equipoise rule. Have you ever heard the term trial by media? Diba? Very common siya dito sa society natin. Not only here in the Philippines, but actually all around the world. Ito yung isa sa pinaka-problem doon sa right to be presumed innocent. Why? Kasi even if our courts are able to protect said rights within the auspices of the court, Nagkakaproblema tayo kasi nga in the society itself, itong presumption of innocence is usually violated. Why? Kasi napapublicize ngayon yung tinatawag natin na crime and because of said publicity, what would now happen? Itong mga accused, even if they are presumed innocent in the eyes of the law, in the eyes of the society, they are already being labeled as They are already being labeled as guilty although wala pa namang narerender na judgment. Now, anong nagiging problem natin dito? Dahil covered siya under the Bill of Rights, what now happens? Hindi natin nai-invoke yung right to be presumed innocent against your civilians, right? Kasi pwede lang natin siyang gamitin against the government. So, government lagi. pwedeng gamitin against itong tinatawag natin na right to be presumed innocent. Pagdating ngayon dito sa tinatawag natin na mass media, mahirap siyang i-invoke, mahirap siyang i-claim. So imagine, you are presumed innocent pero because of the publicity done by mass media, anong nangyayari? You now appear as if you're guilty although wala pa naman talagang narerender na judgment yung court. Pero ma'am, totally ba? Would it totally mean na wala tayong remedy? Take note, there is always a remedy. In case of... Mass media ngayon ang nagiging problem mo dahil sa publicity na ginagawa nila doon sa crime, allegedly committed by you, and because of their acts now, what now happens? Yung presumption of innocence mo, naklaklawd na siya. Ibig sabihin, in the eyes of the society, as if guilty ka na talaga even without the judgment rendered by the court yet. So anong remedy mo ngayon? You can actually file for libel. Kasi diba, ano bang meron sa libel cases ninyo? You now have a public and malicious imputation of a crime, diba? So pag yung malicious imputation of a crime, ginawa ng mass media through writing or through publication. So sa newspaper o kaya sa mga magazines, anong pwede mong i-file against them, pwede kayong mag-file for the crime of libel. Pero in case it was via words. So, it's oral. You go for slander or maybe oral defamation. Ang slander tapos oral defamation, pareho lang yun. Okay? So, anong sabi? Ang trial by media is one of the most, how do you call it? It is one of the most popular problems with regard to presumption of innocence. Bakit ulit? Kasi, even though the court now would try to protect your right to be presumed innocent, Ang nagiging problem natin sa mass media is that they now try to give publicity to the crime to the point now na kahit wala pa namang conviction yung court, based on the reports made by mass media, what now happens? It now appears na talagang guilty ka, na talagang at fault ka. Ganon ngayon ang nagiging itsura mo in the eyes of the public. Ang problem natin, ang hirap ngayong i-claim ng right to be press yung innocent kasi The people violating it now would not be the government but rather, you now have your civilians, right? You now have private persons. So, at the end of the day, ano na lang remedy mo? Your remedy is actually to file a case for libel in case, okay? In case, yung nangyari or yung ginawa ng mass media is a public imputation of a crime. Kasi diba, sinabi na nilang ginawa mo, eh wala pa namang conviction. Eh you have the right to be presumed innocent, right? So, ang gagawin mo, magfafile ka na lang ng case na libel. In case, okay, in case the imputation was done through writing. So, through publication siya. So, written. Okay, magazines, newspapers, and the like. Pero in case it's oral lang naman, walang nangyaring written publication or whatsoever, you can go for slander or maybe oral defamation. Okay? Ganun siya ha. Very problematic kasi ang nag-violate dito would be private individuals and not the government sa trial by media natin. Okay? So, ganun lang siya. So, next right na tayo, you have the right to be heard. Pag sinabi ninyong the right to be heard, this would now talk about the right of an accused to be heard by himself and counsel. I-repeat ano siya, it is the right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel. Council. Ibig sabihin, sa right to be heard natin, it may be done or it may be enforced or exercised by the accused himself or maybe through the help of his counsel. Itong right na to is a right guaranteed by the Constitution itself. Tapos ang tanong, bakit ba siya available? Bakit ba siya nire-recognize? Take note, this right has always been recognized to make sure that justice is done to the accused. So, kung baga ba, if you want to be sure that there is justice, you need to hear the side of the accused. Kasi the right to be heard would tell you that the accused now has the right to at least explain himself or maybe to present his side of the story. Hindi naman pwedeng one-sided lang siya, right? In every case, there are always two stories behind it. The story told by the victim and the story told by the accused. Hindi po kaya ikaw yung akusado na agad-agad ginawa mo na. Press yung innocent ka nga, diba? So at the same time, because you are press yung innocent, kailangan bigyan ka rin ng court ng opportunity to explain your side of the story. Okay, parang ganito. Try to imagine yourself in a situation na pinagbibintangan ka about something pero you cannot even defend yourself. E diba, ang problem dito, if you are unable to defend yourself, what happens? Kung sino yung taong nagsasalita, most often than not, siya yung pinaniniwalaan. Say for instance, yung nangyari doon sa Tulfo, right? Meron yung soldier, so he impregnated his girlfriend, they were already engaged and then later on, He walked out, right? So, hindi niya na tinuloy yung kasal. So, the first time you listen to the story, parang ang sama-sama nung tingin natin sa soldier. Why? Kasi nga, parang, ano ba naman tong lalaking to? Parang nakabunti siya and then later on, iiwan na lang niya. So, parang ang tingin natin ngayon dun sa lalaki is that he's so bad, right? Now, question. Do we know his side of the story? Imagine, sinabihan na siya ng duwag, sinabihan na siya ng walang kwenta. And at the end of the day, hindi man lamang natin narinig yung side niya dun sa story. Na kumbaga ba, bakit nga kaya niya iniwan? The mere fact na buntis na and they were already engaged, ano pa ba ang possible reason para iwan niya yung babae, right? So he was not given the opportunity to tell his side of the story kasi nga during that time, hindi pa niya pwedeng maibigay yung side niya kasi nga it was not really available because Andun siya sa situation na hindi siya pwedeng makapagbigay ng statement niya. Kasi nga he was very busy nung tinawagan siya, right? Now, question. Kung ang papakinggan mo lang yung side ng victim, what would happen now? Parang ang nagmumukhang masama would be the person accused of doing something wrong, right? Kasi hindi pa natin alam yung side ng story niya. Pero, the moment na marinig mo na yung side ng story niya, do you think good things would change? Definitely the answer would be yes. Kasi you would be able to understand kung bakit nangyari to or talagang nangyari ba to. Ganon yung point ng tinatawag natin na right to be heard. You need to give the accused the opportunity to explain his side for us to understand. Kasi if you do not give him the opportunity to explain his side, ang possibility niyan is that he would not be able to defend himself. The right to be heard would always tell you that the accused... must be given the opportunity to testify on his behalf. Why do you need to testify on your behalf? Because you need to defend yourself. Because you need to explain your side. Because if you would not explain your side, the possibility is, hindi mo makiklear yung things na inaakusa sa'yo, na ibinibintang sa'yo. So as a part of due process, you should be given the right to be heard. Gets? Yun lang siya. So that is your... Right to be heard. So, take note, it is your opportunity or the right to be given the opportunity to defend yourself or to testify on your behalf. Okay? Take for instance, sa isang murder case, kunyari itong si Christian, what now happened? Inakusahan siya na pinatay niya, kunyari lang ha, kunyari. Kunyari si Christian allegedly pinatay daw niya si Joyce. So, a case was filed against Christian for ... the killing of Joyce. Now, kunyari itong si Christian, kinonvict siya ng trial court without even giving him the opportunity to testify on his behalf. So hindi siya inalaw na mag-testify. Ano ang sabi dyan? There is a violation of the right to be heard. So in effect, ano ang sabi? Dahil na-violate yung right to be heard ni Christian, what would happen? Whatever judgment is rendered now can be questioned to a higher court. Pwede siyang i-question at pwede siyang ma-render na nullity. Meaning, pwedeng mapawalang visa yung judgment because of the violation of Christian's right to be heard, which is mandated by Jew process. So, ganun lang siya. Next. So, next right na tayo, you have the right to assistance of counsel. Mama ng provided dyan, it is actually the right of the accused to be represented. by a competent and independent council, preferably of his own choice. I repeat, Ano ang sabi? It is the right of the accused to be represented by a competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice. Very familiar, di ba? Kasi pinag-usapan na natin siya doon sa rights of the suspect. Yun nga lang, oo, pareha sila na nagde-denote sa right to assistance of counsel pero magkaiba yung purpose ng rights nila. Okay? So, there would be a different purpose. So, same right. Right to assistance of counsel, pero found on different aspects, right? Yung una, as a right of a suspect, yung pangalawa, as a right of the accused. Unahin natin yung right of a suspect. Saan ba sila magkakatalo? You look at the purpose. Okay? You look at the purpose. Ano ba kasi, ang purpose ng right na to, if it falls under the right of a suspect. Always remember that its purpose is to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the suspect to admit or confess. I repeat. Anong purpose niya? Its purpose is to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the suspect to admit or confess. Guys, last na talaga ha. Ano siya? Anong purpose niya? To preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the suspect to admit or confess. Ibig sabihin, pag right of a suspect siya, ang right to assistance of counsel ginagamit siya to make sure na walang mangyayaring coercion. To make sure na walang confession or admission ang ma-pro-produce ng isang coercion kasi you are there to make sure na wala nga dapat mangyaring coercion. Gets? Kasi diba, pag merong nangyaring coercion, what now happens? Whatever confession or admission present there would now lead to the production of what? An inadmissible confession or admission. So, bawal siya under the exclusionary rule. Kaya ka may abogado eh, para siguraduhin mong walang ganong evidence na ma-proproduce. On the other hand, pag ginamit natin siya as a right of the accused, iba ang purpose niya. So ma'am, anong purpose ngayon ng right to assistance of counsel if we are now talking about the rights of the accused? Always remember na ang purpose niya is to assure that the fundamental rights of the accused would be protected and safeguarded all throughout the proceedings. I repeat, ano ang purpose ngayon ng right na ito under the rights of the accused that would be to assure that the fundamental rights of the accused would be protected and safeguarded all throughout the proceedings. Kaya nga, accordingly, ano ang sabi dyan? It is the lawyer's duty to make sure that he would be performing his functions with the zeal and vigor at his command. To protect and safeguard the fundamental rights of the accused. So paano daw niya iperperform yung function niya? He needs to perform it with zeal and vigor. He needs to make sure that he would do everything to protect and safeguard the fundamental rights of the accused. Kaya nga, yung right to assistance of counsel natin as a defense lawyer or as a defense counsel, you need to make sure na whether or not ginawa ng client mo, or whether or not alam mo na ginawa ng accused yung crime na ibinibintang sa kanya. Regardless, kailangan siguraduhin mo pa rin na you would do everything para ma-protect yung rights niya. Kaya nga diba, try to imagine, you are the lawyer. Siyempre, because your client trusts you, sasabihin niya kung ano talaga yung nangyari. So ngayon nalaman mo na talagang ginawa niya. Would it mean na pupunta ka sa court at sasabihin mo your honor ginawa niya talaga? Definitely the answer is no eh. Kasi you would still need to protect his rights. He is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. So you should do everything in your power to make sure na ma-proprotectahan yung fundamental rights niya. Mom, are you trying to tell us now na kailangan magsinungaling yung abogado? No. What I'm trying to say here is He needs to do everything to protect the rights of his client. Kaya nga pansinin nyo, diba merong mga cases na kahit alam nung tinatawag nating lawyer na guilty yung client niya, gagawin pa rin niya lahat. Para ma-acquit yung kliente niya. So anong gagawin niya? Hahanapin niya ngayon yung lapses ng law or maybe hahanapin niya ngayon yung lapses ng process. Or maybe hahanapin niya ngayon yung lapses ng prosecution. To make sure na ma-proprotectahan ko yung rights ng client ko. Kasi he expressed yung innocent unless proven otherwise. O di naman kaya. Kahit nasabihin natin obvious na obvious na yung evidences na to o would lead to the conviction of his client. Ano pa rin trabaho niya? He still needs to make sure na, okay, sige, kahit makonvict yung client ko, I would do everything. Okay? I would do everything to make sure na kahit makonvict siya, at least yung penalty na mai-impose sa kanya hindi magiging ganon kabigat. Okay? So, ganon siya. That is your right to assistance of Townsend. Now, try to imagine ha, Pag kunyari, si defense counsel, syempre, yung prosecution tatawag siya ng witness niya. So, pag tinawag ngayon ni prosecution yung witness niya, yung prosecution tatanungin niya yung witness niya, right? That is what you call direct examination. After questioning ngayon ni prosecution yung witness niya, tatawagin ngayon yung defense lawyer. Si defense lawyer ngayon, magkakandak siya ng cross-examination. Ma'am, bakit cross-examination? Kasi yung witness na kina-question mo is not your witness but rather the witness of the opposing party. So pag ang kina-question mong witness is witness ng other side. In this situation, the witness of the prosecution. Anong tawag mo doon sa questioning mo sa kanya? You call that cross-examination. Now, ikaw yung lawyer. Tapos nun anong ginawa mo? After the direct examination conducted by the prosecution on... his witness. Ikaw ngayon na defense counsel, pinatawag for cross-examination. What did you do? You did not perform any cross-examination. O di naman kaya, nag-perform ka ng cross-examination pero very lousy yung ginawa mong cross-examination. Napaka-nonsense. Question. May violation ba ng right to assistance of counsel? Yes. Kasi the lawyer here is not doing his best to to assure that the rights of this client is being protected. Imagine, hindi ka mag-cross-examine, or maybe nag-cross-examine ka, pero lousy siya, ibig sabihin, nonsense yung ginawa mo na questioning. That is already violative of the so-called right to counsel of your client, or the so-called accused. Mam, ano pa? Imaginein mo, you did not present any evidence in behalf of the accused. So wala ka man lamang pre-incent na evidence to rebut yung mga pre-incent na evidence ng opposing side. Ano ang sabi? Ops, ops, ops, parang meron na ating violation ng right to the assistance of counsel. Okay? So ganyan yung assistance of counsel ninyo. The right to be assisted by a competent and independent counsel, preferably of your own choice. Meron kayong tinatawag na counsel de officio. Ngayon, pag narinig nyo yung counsel de officio na yan, take note ha, a counsel de officio is a lawyer appointed by the court. I repeat, a lawyer appointed by the court to represent and defend the accused in case he cannot afford to employ one himself. I repeat, pag sinabi natin counsel de officio, sino siya? This is a lawyer appointed by the court to represent and defend the accused in case he cannot afford to employ one himself. Guys, last na talaga. Ano siya? He is a lawyer appointed by the court to represent and defend the accused in case he cannot afford to employ one himself. Ibig sabihin, yung counsel de officio ninyo ang nag-a-appoint yun court kasi nga, Itong accused natin does not have the resources para mag-appoint ng sarili niyang lawyer. Ma'am, pag-counsel de ofisyo po ba, pareho din lamang siya ng role with regard doon sa lawyer chosen by the accused himself? Definitely the answer is yes. Kahit na-counsel de ofisyo yan, same din lamang ang purpose niya dyan sa trial na yan. His role now would be the same to a lawyer. chosen by the accused himself. So anong function ng isang council de officio? Same thing. He needs to make sure that he would do everything in his power. To protect and safeguard the fundamental rights of the accused. Ma'am, saan usually nanggagaling ang mga counsel de ofisyo? Madalas galing sila sa public attorney's office. So kahit nagaling ng paw yung lawyer na yan, syempre, they would still perform everything in their power para i-safeguard yung rights and yung fundamental rights ng accused natin. Okay? So that is your counsel de ofisyo. He's a lawyer. Chosen by the or appointed by the court in case the accused cannot afford any. Right? So, pag hindi kaya ngayon ng accused natin na kumuha ng sariling lawyer niya, mag-a-appoint yung court ng lawyer niya. Gets counsel de official. Mam, bakit sila ina-appoint? Kasi nga, right to assistance of counsel. Hindi naman pwede na dahil wala kang pera na agad-agad hindi ka na marirepresent. So, as part of the help. given by the government to the accused, mag-a-appoint sila ng council de ofisyo. Anong counter-party council de ofisyo, you call him a council de parte. When you hear the word council de parte, this is a lawyer chosen by the party. I-repeat, a lawyer chosen by the party. So, sinong namili, sinong nag-appoint sa isang council de parte, yung party mismo. So, pag... At kunyari yung accused, meron siyang resources kaya kaya niyang mag-appoint ng sarili niyang lawyer. Yung lawyer na in-appoint niya is a council de parte. Or kunyari ikaw, mayaman ka, ikaw yung victim, afford mong kumuha ng private na lawyer mo. Yung private lawyer now who would be acting as the private prosecutor would now be considered as a council de parte. Mam, bakit? Chosen by the party or chosen by a party. Council Deporte. So yan, punta na tayo sa next right ng accused ninyo. You have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. Ang isipin ninyo, the very reason kung bakit tayo merong right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation is to furnish the accused with a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense. I repeat. Anong purpose ng right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation? Its purpose is to furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense. I repeat, pag sinabi natin na right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation, anong purpose niya? To furnish the accused with such a description. of the charge against him as will enable him to make a defense. Short to say, pag sinabi nating right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation, the very reason kung bakit meron niyang right na yan is to assure na alam ng akusado kung ano yung crime na ibinibintang sa kanya so that he would be able to at least prepare a possible defense. Ganto lang yan. Hindi mo kayang depensahan ang sarili mo sa isang bagay na hindi mo alam nag-eexist. It's very hard to do that. Kasi wala kang idea na meron palang ganyang existence. So paano mo mag-defend yung sarili mo properly if you do not know about it? Parang sa jowa mo lang yan. Galit yung jowa mo at hindi mo alam kung bakit siya galit. Question, ma-re-resolve mo ba yung problem? Ma-a-address mo ba yung issue kung totally clueless ka kung bakit siya galit? Baka hindi mo pa alam na galit yan eh. So if that's the case, how would you be able to address the problem? Ganun din dito sa right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. You need to know kung bakit ka isinasakdal. Para saan ka isinasakdal. So that, mapreparan mo yung sarili mo ng possible defense. Or para ma-address mo yung issue na yan. Yes? You cannot defend yourself. Against something that you do not know even exists. Ganon siya. So, right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. Ito ang very reason kung bakit meron tayong tinatawag na arraignment. Ma'am, ano na ang arraignment? Sabi natin in your CLJ-1, Arraignment is the reading of the case in open court. I repeat, it is the reading of the case in open court. To inform the accused. of the nature and cause of accusation. I repeat, pag sinabing arraignment, arraignment is the reading of the case in open court to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation. For the last time, ano siya? It is the reading of the case in open court to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation. Ibig sabihin, babasahin ngayon yung complaint or maybe yung information in open court. Para saan? Para sabihin sa'yo at para malaman mo kung bakit ka nasa court at para saan ka isinasakdal. Gets? Yun yung arraignment natin. Because of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation, your arraignment is something which is non-waivable. I-repeat ha, ang arraignment based on the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation is non-waivable. Ibig sabihin, you cannot waive it. Ibig sabihin, hindi ka pwedeng mag-proceed sa ibang stages ng court processes mo without having an arraignment. And take note, ang arraignment ninyo cannot be done in absensya. I repeat, anong sabi natin? An arraignment cannot be done in absensya. So, ibig sabihin, ang arraignment in absensya is void. I repeat, arraignment in absensya is void. Bawal siya. Kasi ganito, paano mo i-inform yung tao kung absent yung tao? Paano mo i-inform yung tao kung wala yung tao? Kung mag-i-inform ka, dapat andyan siya. Dapat naririnig ka niya, dapat physically he's there to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. So isipin niya ha, based on the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation, your arraignment is non-waivable. Ibig sabihin, you cannot proceed with the other stages of your court processes without the conduct of arraignment. Ano pa ang sabi? Hindi pwede ang arraignment in absensya. Pag nagkaroon ng arraignment in absensya, ibig sabihin, nagkaroon ng reading ng case in open court. Pero absent yung taong binabasahan mo, ano ang sabi? It is also void. Non-waivable nga, di ba? So you cannot proceed with the other stages and at the same time, hindi siya pwedeng mangyari in the absence of the accused. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. By the way, ano na ulit yung two parts ng arraignment? Number one, you now have the reading of the complaint or information. I repeat, ano yung first part ng tinatawag natin na arraignment? You have there the reading of the complaint or information. Pag nabasa mo na siya, ano ang next na nangyayari sa arraignment? you now have the entry of plea. I repeat, you have the entry of plea. So, after siyang ma-inform ng nature and cause of accusation by the reading of the complaint or information, ano ang next na mangyayari? Entry of plea. So, sasabihin niya guilty or not guilty. Okay? So, ganun ha, dun sa tinatawag natin na arraignment in relation to the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. So ano na ulit yung babasahin to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation against him? Babasahin yung complaint or information. With that regard, kailangan sufficient yung complaint or information meaning dapat makontain niya ngayon lahat tong anim na to para masabi natin na yes. The complaint or information is sufficient so as to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation against him. So ano ngayon yung anim na requirements in order for the complaint or information to be regarded as sufficient? Number one, you now have the name of the accused. I repeat, ano yung number one? You now have your name of the accused. So dapat, ando dyan yung pangalan niya. Ma'am, what if hindi po namin alam yung pangalan niya? So pag hindi nyo alam yung pangalan niya, pwede kayong gumamit ng tinatawag natin na... fictitious name. So, ano yung pinaka-common na fictitious name na ginagamit natin? You now have John Doe. Right? So, yung pinaka-common na ginagamit natin is John Doe. Pwede naman kaya, diba, meron tayong tinatawag na Juan de la Cruz. So, pag Filipino, you have the name Juan de la Cruz. Yan yung pinaka-common na fictitious names na ginagamit natin. In case, hindi mo alam yung totoong pangalan ng accused. Noong time na nag-file ka ng complaint, ang gagamitin natin is Juan de la Cruz or maybe John Doe. It is a fictitious name. Yun nga lang, you need to make sure na oo, kahit hindi naka-indicate yung totoong pangalan ng accused sa complaint or information, kailangan merong sufficient description. So, kailangan ma-describe mo ngayon yung tao na ina-accused mo ng crime. Para in the event... na malaman na natin yung totoong pangalan niya, ang gagawin na lang is ia-amend yung complaint or information. I repeat ha, so sufficiency of complaint or information, it must contain the name of the accused. In case you do not know the real name of the accused, you can use a fictitious name. Ano yung common na fictitious name natin? You have their John Doe, o di naman kaya you have their Juan de la Cruz. With the condition na pag fictitious name ang ilalagay mo, you need to make sure that you would be sufficiently describing the accused. So, kailangan i-describe mo siya ng mabuti, right? So, pag gumamit ka ng fictitious name and then later on nalaman na natin yung real name niya, what would you do? You are now going to amend the complaint or information for purposes of putting the real name of the person. Okay? Yun yung number one. Number two, kailangan nyo rin ilagay yung designation of the offense given by the statute. So, kunyari, pinatay ko yung asawa ko. So, the killing of a wife of her husband. Ano ang designation dyan ng statute? O ano ang designation ng law? Ano ang title na binibigay ng law sa crime na yan? Ang pangalan niyan would be parricide. So anong ilalagay natin dun sa complaint or information? You need to give there the designation of the offense given by the statute. Meaning, if I committed the crime of parricide, you write there, parricide. Now, sa number 3 natin, you also need to provide the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. I repeat, you need to provide there the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. Ibig sabihin, kailangan meron kang recital of facts. You are going to recite in the complaint or information the facts, which you now allege is designated as parricide. So, kunyari, dun sa complaint, anong nilagay nyo dyan na designation? Parricide. Tapos dun sa acts or omissions complained of, ilalagay nyo dyan, that one Charlene Agrito willfully stabbed her husband 45 times from behind, thus resulting to his death. So anong nilagay niyo dyan na acts or omissions complained of na designated as parricide? Na ito daw si Charlene Agrito willfully pinagsasaksak niya yung husband niya from behind, thus resulting to the death of the husband, right? So anong makikita niyo doon? You now have your acts or omissions complained of. Gets? Tapos anong designation? Parasite. Kasi, based on the acts or omissions, sino ang pumatay? Asawa. Sinong pinatay? Asawa. Right? So, the wife stopped the husband to death. Gets? So, based now on the acts or omissions sa recital na yan, ito yung designation natin. Now, Pag okay na tayo, meron na tayong acts or omissions complained of as constituting the crime, you now go to number 4, you now have the name of the offended party. So you are going to put there the name of the victim. Tapos number 5, you also need to put the approximate date of the commission of the offense. Take note, approximate date. So hindi kailangang eksaktong eksakto yung time, yung date or whatsoever. Except if. Okay? Except if the date is now an element of the crime. I repeat, except if the date is an element of a crime. Pag yung date, element siya ng crime, hindi pwedeng approximate date yan. Kailangan exact date. So, general rule, sufficiency of complaint or information, ano lang ilalagay ninyo? Approximate date of the commission of the crime. So, on or about? 12 o'clock in the afternoon of July 25, bla bla bla bla. So, approximate siya, right? Okay lang yun. Pero, the moment the date now becomes an element of the crime committed, kailangan exact date yan. Kailangan exact time. Ma'am, bigyan mo kami ng example ng crime kung saan date is an element. Perfect example there is the crime of infanticide. Sa infanticide ninyo, the victim is less than 3 days old. So anong sabi natin sa infanticide? The victim is less than 3 days old. Wala pang 3 days old yung bata. Wala pa siyang 72 hours nung pinatay mo siya. Now, what would you notice? Date here, time here is an element of the crime of infanticide. So anong ilalagay mo sa complaint or information? Kailangan ilagay mo yung exact date. You need to put the exact time kasi they are now considered as elements of the crime. Kasi the moment na mag-flat 3 days ka or the moment na mag-flat 72 hours ka, mapapalitan yung crime. Hindi na siya infanticide. It might now be considered as murder or maybe infanticide. Depende kung sino yung pumatay doon sa victim. Gets? In such cases, hindi approximate date ang ilalagay, it should be the exact date or maybe the exact time. Yes? Go now to number 6. You now have the place where the offense was committed. Ma'am, bakit kailangan natin ilagay yung place where the crime was committed? Kasi it would tell you kung kanino ang jurisdiction over the territory. Yes? And take note, jurisdiction over the territory is an element or a requisite of jurisdiction. So, ganun siya ha. So, in order to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation, kailangan kumpleto itong anim na ito. Kailangan para makonsider siya na sufficient enough to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation, dapat itong anim andyan sa complaint or information. Now, tignan niyo ha, in case merong conflict between the designation ng Tapos, dun sa recital of facts. Mama, ano na yung recital of facts? Yun yung acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. In case there is a conflict between the two, what would prevail? Ang magpre-prevail lagi is the acts or omissions complained of. Ang laging magpre-prevail would be the recital of facts. So, parang ganito. Kunyari, ang nilagay mo na designation is murder. So ano ang nilagay mong designation? Murder. Pero based on the acts or omissions complained of or based on the recital of facts doon sa information mo, ang nakalagay dyan na acts constituting the crime is not that of murder but rather that of homicide. So ano ang designation? Murder. Pero ang recital of facts would be homicide. Now what would prevail? Ang mag-pre-prevail would be the recital of facts. Ibig sabihin, Kahit na murder ang nakalagay dyan, kung ang recital of facts would now denote to homicide, ano magpre-prevail na crime? That would be homicide. Kunyari, ano ang designation murder? Pero dun sa recital of facts mo, ano lang nakalagay doon? That Mr. A. Stabbed Mr. B. Yun lang nilagay. Mr. A. Stabbed Mr. B. So based on that recital of facts, ano lang meron dyan? It's not murder, it is homicide. Pero sa designation murder, sa recital homicide, what would prevail? Always the recital of facts. So you would go for homicide. Gets? So ganun lang siya. That would be part of your right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. Okay? So yun lang siya. Kaya nga, pag walang nangyaring arraignment, what would happen? May violation ng right of the accused. to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. Ano ang possibility? In case may marender na judgment, there is a very high possibility that said judgment would now be rendered as void. Okay? So that's it.

Meaning, hanggat hindi napapatunayan na guilty siya, ang presumption natin, innocent siya. Regardless if the person was caught in flagrante delito. Ibig sabihin, kahit na nahuli siya in the Act of Crime Commission, even if a lot of people were able to see him commit the crime. Anong presumption?

Innocent siya. So always presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. Kaya nga, if you would notice it sa CLJ-1 ninyo, diba nagkaroon kayo ng overview ng buong criminal justice process?

Anong mapapansin ninyo? Hanggat walang conviction ang court, hanggat walang judgment of guilt ang court, yung taong yan, hindi siya pwedeng tawagin as a criminal. We now use different labels or maybe different terminologies to denote to the person. Depende kung anong process ang ina-undergo niya sa criminal justice system.

Parang ganito. So, kunyari, you now have a crime commission. So, a crime was committed. And a person allegedly committed said crime.

So, itong taong to, allegedly ginawa niyo yung crime. Criminal na ba ang tawag natin sa kanya? Hindi. Bakit?

Presumption of? Innocence. So, assuming that the person now is placed under investigation by the law enforcers, pwede na ba siyang tawagin criminal again? No. Kasi nga, if a person is merely undergoing investigation on the law enforcement level, ang tawag natin sa kanya is suspect.

Mam, bakit suspect? Kasi nga, presumption of? Innocence. Take note.

Ang presumption of innocence is a right not only afforded to an accused but also to a suspect. Kaya nga suspect ang tawag nyo and not criminal. Kasi ang presumption natin, innocent siya at hindi pa napapatunayan na guilty siya kaya he can never be called a criminal. Now, what if the prosecutor now would conduct preliminary investigation? Or maybe, kung yung taong...

to is already under custody, magkakandak siya ng inquest proceeding. Can you now call the person a criminal again? No.

Why? Presumption of innocence, right? So, dahil undergoing preliminary investigation siya, or maybe undergoing inquest siya, ano lang meron tayo dyan, you do not have a criminal, but rather you have what you call a respondent. Respondent lang siya, hindi pa siya criminal.

Why? His guilt was not yet proven beyond reasonable doubt. Ngayon, si prosecutor was able to determine probable cause. And because of that, he was now prompted to file an information with the court.

So dahil may probable cause, nag-file siya ng information sa court. Okay? So the case now is filed with the court. Ibig sabihin, yung case natin, nasa court na siya. So ibig sabihin, there is already a pending case.

Basol. Itong taong to ba can already be considered as a criminal? Again, no.

Presumption of innocence. And because the case is already filed with the court, ang tawag na natin sa kanya is accused. Not a criminal, but rather you call him an accused. Why?

Presumption of innocence. Hanggat hindi napapatunayan yung guilt niya beyond reasonable doubt, ang presumption natin is innocent tong taong to. Mam, sino ba kasi ang pwedeng mag-invoke ng right to be presumed innocent?

Ibig sabihin, sino ba ang pwedeng mag-invoke ng presumption of innocence? Anong sagot natin dyan? It can only be invoked by a person accused of a crime.

I repeat, yung right to be presumed innocent or yung presumption of innocence can only be invoked by an individual accused of a crime. So, tao lang na inakusahan ng Crime Commission. Sila lang ang pwedeng mag-invoke ng right to be presumed innocent. So, based on that, ang iisipin ninyo. na ang criminal accusation against a person must always be substantiated by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

I repeat, criminal accusations against a person must always be substantiated by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ibig sabihin, if you accuse a person of a crime, you need to make sure that it is supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ma'am, ano na ang proof beyond reasonable doubt?

Ito yung quantum of evidence in a criminal case. Ano siya? Quantum of evidence in a criminal case. Ano ang sabi sa inyo sa CLJ-1 niyo? Quantum of evidence is the evidence needed to win a case.

Ano siya? Evidence needed to win a case. So, kung gusto mong manalo sa isang kaso, kailangan meron kang quantum of evidence.

Kaya lang, ang quantum of evidence per case, magkakaiba yan. Iba sa civil, iba sa admin case, iba sa criminal cases. Pag criminal case yan, ano ang quantum of evidence niya?

You now have proof beyond reasonable doubt. Sa lahat ng quantum of evidence ito, ang pinaka mahirap isatisfy. Ma'am, bakit mahirap siyang isatisfy? Kasi nga, you have presumption of innocence.

Ma'am, ano ba kasi ang proof beyond reasonable doubt? That degree of proof which excluding the possibility of error produces moral certainty. I repeat, that degree of proof which excluding the possibility of error produces moral certainty.

For the last time, ano daw ang proof ba yung reasonable doubt? It is that degree of proof which excluding the possibility of error produces moral certainty. Ibig sabihin yan, it is the proof that is close to an absolute certainty.

I-repeat, ano siya? It is the proof that is close to an absolute certainty. Kaya nga, di ba?

If the judge now is sure that you committed the crime based on the evidence, meron ng moral certainty, sigurado yung judge based on the evidence na oo, ginawa mo yung crime, ano ang sabi? you have already satisfied the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ibig sabihin, pag certain yung court natin based on the evidence na guilty ka, meron tayong proof beyond reasonable doubt. Parang sa cases ng rape, diba?

So, syempre, in rape cases, sino lang bang ando dyan? Most probably, you now have the rape victim and you now have the accused. So, kunyari yung accused, dinedenay niya na nakakilala niya yung babae.

dini-deny niya na itong babaeng to is na mitna niya. So totally sabi niya, I do not know that woman. I haven't seen that woman. And then, ang evidence lang na meron na maipresent yung prosecutor natin is the DNA found dun sa katawan ng babae, tapos yung bite marks nung accused natin na rapist dun sa katawan ng babae.

So what evidences are present? Ano lang ang available? Kasi niwala tayong witnesses eh. So ano lang meron, you now have the DNA coming from the semen sample found on the body of the woman, and at the same time, you now have the bite marks found dun sa katawan ng babae.

So based on the bite marks, nag-match ngayon yung bite marks dun sa dental record nung accused. Tapos nahanapan pa ngayon yung tinatawag natin na DNA niya through the semen left on the woman's body. Kung papansin ninyo, dadalawang evidence lang yan, right? Pero based on that, pwede ba tayong magsabi na, oh, parang itong taong to guilty talaga.

Kasi itong evidences na to would pinpoint that this person knew the woman. And that this person had coitus or maybe sex with this woman. Why?

Kasi nga nahanapan ngayon yung DNA niya dun sa katawan nung babae. Aside from that, meron pang mga bite marks yung babae which matched na with the dental records of this guy. Question. Dadalawang evidence lang yan.

Pero, would this evidence now produce moral certainty that this person committed the crime? If you would tell me yes, kung ikaw yung judge mako-convince ka, there is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Pero if you would tell me no, edi walang proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Basta ang iisipin nyo lang in here, It's not about the number of evidences but rather the capability or the ability of an evidence to convince the reasonable mind of a judge that indeed, This person is guilty of the crime allegedly committed by him. Yun ang proof beyond reasonable doubt. So sa criminal cases natin, ano ang quantum of evidence that would be proof beyond reasonable doubt? Kaya nga, ang courts natin are required by the law itself to steadfastly safeguard the right to be presumed innocent of an accused.

Dapat yung court mismo, vigilant siya. To assure na yung right to be presumed innocent ng isang akusado would be what? It would be monitored and it would be respected.

Yun ang sinasabi ng presumption of innocence. Kaya nga, regardless kung yung taong yan has a very bad reputation in the community, regardless kung sobrang pangit ng reputation niya, dahil imagine meron pa siyang mga previous convictions, ang sabi, even if this person had previous convictions, even if this person has a very bad reputation in the community. Basta sa kasong to ang presumption natin, innocent siya.

And he would only be considered as a criminal if it would be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Okay? Kaya nga diba, if you are an accused, do not be afraid.

Kahit napangit ang reputation mo kasi, mandated ng Constitution that we respect. So, kaya nga meron tayong rules with regard to presumption of innocence. Ma'am, ano yung mga rules natin? Let's start with number one. The prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

So, kaninong responsibility na patunayang guilty yung akusado beyond reasonable doubt? That would be the function of the prosecution. Kaya nga, if you are an accused, kung ikaw yung akusado, kung ikaw yung defense, is it your work to prove your innocence?

No. You do not need to prove your innocence. Hindi mo kailangang patunayan na inosente ka kasi nga, you are presumed innocent. So anong sabi?

Kung sino man ang nagsasabing guilty ka, should be the one proving that you are guilty. Hindi mo kailangang patunayan inosente ka, presumed na yan. Kung sino man ang nag-a-allege na guilty ka, whoever alleges that you committed the crime should also be the person given the burden to prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And of course, in criminal cases, kaninong trabaho yan?

That is the work of your prosecution. Kaya nga sa court, ang laging unang nag-present ng evidence ninyo would be the prosecution. Laging sinong nauuna? Yung prosecution. Bakit sila ang unang nag-present ng evidence?

Kasi sila yung nag-a-allege na ginawa ng accused yung crime. So in effect, kailangan sila ang magpatunay na ginawa ng akusado yung crime. Kaya nga defense, all he has to do is to defend himself from the accusations made by the prosecution. And take note, the accusations made by the prosecution must be substantiated by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Dahil na kay prosecutor ang burden to prove the guilt of the accused, pupunta tayo sa number 2. The prosecution must also rely on the strength of its evidence.

I repeat, saan dapat magre-rely ang prosecutor with regard to the case? He needs to rely on the strength of his evidence. Ibig sabihin, hindi niya pwedeng gamitin yung weakness ng evidence ng defense natin.

Kasi ang tanging panghahawakan niya dyan, would be the available evidences na meron siya. So regardless kung mahina man or malakas yung evidence ng accused, saan lang aasa ang prosecution? Aasa lang siya lagi doon sa strength ng evidences niya.

Ma'am, bakit ganun? Kasi, take note, the conviction of an accused must be based on the strength of the prosecution evidence and not on the weakness or absence of evidence of the defense. I-repeat, the conviction of an accused must be based on the strength of the prosecution evidence and not on the weakness or absence of evidence of the defense. Kaya nga diba, kahit walang evidence itong tinatawag natin na accused ninyo or defense ninyo, it does not necessarily mean na talo na siya sa kaso. Kasi okay, sabihin natin na wala siyang evidence or mahina yung evidence niya.

At nagkataon, nung tinignan natin yung evidence ng prosecution, wala namang palang bearing. Wala rin kayang patunayan. May evidence pero the evidence does not prove anything in court. Would it now mean na matatalo na yung accused? Would it now mean that the accused would be convicted?

No. Kasi laging ang basis ng conviction or laging basis ng court sa pag-decide ng case would be what? It would always be based on the strength of the prosecution evidence and not on the weakness or the absence of evidence of the defense.

Laging ang burden na kay prosecutor. Okay? Ito ang very reason kung bakit, kung ikaw yung defense, meron tayong tinatawag na the murderer to evidence.

I repeat, kung ikaw yung defense, kung ikaw yung akusado, anong meron ka? You have what you call your the murderer to evidence. Ma'am, ano yung the murderer to evidence?

It is a remedy available to the accused or defense. I repeat, it is a remedy available to the accused or So, sino lang pwede mag-claim ng demurrer to evidence? Only the accused or yung tinatawag nating defense.

Ngayon, anong remedy siya? Always remember that your demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss based on insufficiency or lack of evidence. I repeat, it is a motion to dismiss based on insufficiency or lack of evidence.

For the last time, ano siya? It is a motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of evidence or lack of evidence. Ibig sabihin, itong demur to evidence, remedy siya ni accused or defense.

Anong gusto mangyari ni defense or maybe ni accused? Gusto nilang madismiss yung kaso. Bakit nila gusto madismiss yung kaso? Kasi, itong prosecution do not have sufficient evidence. Or maybe, the prosecution may does not have any evidence at all.

Wala silang evidence na may present against you or maybe kulang yung evidence to prove your guilt. So based on that, pwede silang mag-file ng motion para ma-dismiss na lang yung kaso. If you could still remember anong sabi natin kanina, kaninong trabaho na patunayang guilty si accused, it is actually the work of the prosecution.

Kasi nga, first thing you need to remember, sabi natin kanina, the prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Based on that, yung prosecution niyo must rely on the strength of its evidence and not in the weakness of the defense kasi nga yung conviction ng accused dapat based siya sa strength ng prosecution evidence at hindi sa weakness or absence ng evidence ng defense. Based on that, dahil alam natin na hindi kailangang patunayan ni accused.

ang innocence niya dahil kailangang prosecution ang magpatunay na guilty siya. The moment the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence or wala siyang evidence at all para patunayan na guilty si accused, what's the point of having trial now? What's the point of pursuing the case?

So as a remedy, itong accused natin, pwede siya ngayong mag-file for a demurrer to evidence. Ibig sabihin, he can now file a motion to dismiss the case based on insufficiency or lack of evidence by the prosecution. Ma'am, bakit ganun? Kasi nga, again and again, we say na, kaninong trabaho na patunayang guilty ang accused, always the work of the prosecution. Kailangan bang patunayan ni accused na innocent siya?

No, because, take note, there is always a presumption of innocence. Ganun siya ha. Napapalitan lang yung kwento ng isang trial if itong accused natin would be claiming justifying circumstances or maybe exempting circumstances.

The moment mag-claim kasi siya ng tinatawag nating justifying circumstances o di naman kaya ang klinim niya exempting circumstances, ibig sabihin, he would now admit na ginawa niya yung act na ibinibintang sa kanya. He would now admit na he committed the crime, allegedly na ginawa niya. So, aaminin niya na. Pero, mag, anong gagawin niya?

Mag-represent siya ngayon ng justifying or exempting circumstance. Na, oo, ginawa ko to, pero I should be excused from criminal liability. Kasi meron tong mga circumstances na to. If that's the case, syempre, what would happen? Inamin na niya ngayon na ginawa niya yung crime, right?

So, ang gagawin ngayon, itong si prosecution. Hindi niya na kailangang patunayan na ginawa nung accused yung crime allegedly committed dahil si accused na mismo ang umamin na ginawa niya. Pero nag-present siya ngayon ng available, justifying, or maybe exempting circumstances.

And because of that, what would happen now? Huwag nyo na ang pansinin si presumption of innocence kasi at this moment now, the burden to prove that said circumstances exist would now depend on the accused. So kailangan niya ng patunayan na yes, he committed said act pero there are exempting or maybe justifying circumstances. Kanino ng trabaho yun?

It now falls on the so-called accused. Hindi na kailangan patunayan ni prosecution. Why? Kasi dito umami na si accused pero nag-present siya ng tinatawag natin na exempting or justifying circumstances.

In such cases, nagkakaroon tayo ng tinatawag natin na reverse trial. Sa reverse trial, what would happen? Instead of the prosecution presenting evidence first, what would happen?

It would be the accused presenting evidence first and Proving that yes, he committed the crime, yes, he committed said act, but he has a valid defense. Example, kunyari ako, napatay ko yung victim. Okay, so napatay ko yung victim. Now, kung hindi ko kasi aaminin na ako yung gumawa, or hindi ko aaminin na may ganong crime, I am presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. Kaya lang, The moment na aminin ko siya na yes, ginawa ko yun, but I acted in self-defense.

What would happen now? Yung burden ngayon to prove that there were attending, justifying, or exempting circumstances would now be put on the accused. Hindi na kailangang patunayan ni prosecution. Bakit? Kasi umamin na ako.

Yun nga lang ay presented circumstances that would justify or maybe exempt me from criminal liability. In effect, what would happen, magkakaroon ng reverse trial. It's up to me to prove the existence of said circumstances. Okay? So, ganun lang siya.

Ang gagawin na lang dyan ng prosecution is to disprove yung sinasabi mo na attending circumstances. Okay? So, ganun lang siya. So, ano pa yung point na kailangan ninyong tandaan with regard to presumption of innocence?

Itong flight. Ma'am, ano na ulit ang flight? Sabi natin, your flight now would talk about evasion or maybe escaping, right?

So, pag sinabi natin flight, what's present here, you now have the act of escaping or maybe evading. Akusado ka pa lang ha, hindi ka pa convicted. So, you are a mere accused.

And then, during the pendency of trial, what happened? Aba, hindi ka na mahanapan. So, anong sabi?

There was flight. Now, listen. Generally ha, generally. Light, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established.

I repeat, generally ha, generally. Light, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established. might be established. Guys, last na talaga ha.

Last na talaga. Nung sabi generally, flight, in the absence of a credible explanation, would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established. Ibig sabihin guys, pag nagkaroon ng flight, kunyari, pending yung kaso mo, tapos tumakas ka, right?

Flight yan eh. So, tumakas ka. Bigla kang nawala.

Tapos wala kang credible explanation. Wala kang justifiable reason for your flight. Ano ang sabi? Pwede siyang makonsider as a circumstance from which an inference of guilt. Guys ha, inference lang siya.

From which an inference of guilt might be established. Ibig sabihin, because of the flight, without any credible explanation, pwedeng magkaroon ng presumption. Okay? na ay, baka guilty tong taong to, kaya siya tumakas.

Pero because it is a mere circumstance from which said inference may be taken, it is a mere circumstance, it is not enough to convict you. Dahil mere circumstance lang siya ha, hindi siya enough para makonvict ka. Ibig sabihin, kung gusto mo makonvict yung tao beyond reasonable doubt, dapat yung flight accompanied pa siya ng iba pang mga circumstances. Kasi it is a mere circumstantial evidence.

Ang circumstantial evidence nyo is not enough to convict a person. Ang iisang circumstantial evidence, hindi yan enough to prove the guilt of a person. Kailangan, yung circumstantial evidence nyo, supported pa siya ng iba pang mga circumstantial evidences.

Kasi, taking it alone, it is not enough to convict you beyond reasonable doubt. Tapos, take note, ang pinoproduce lang niya is a mere inference. Na kung baga ba, baka guilty siya.

Okay? Dagdag evidence lang siya against you. Gets? So generally, flight in the absence of a credible explanation would be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established. Gets?

Pero guys, it does not follow na pag hindi ka tumakas or nag-stay ka lang na agad-agad, sigurado tayo na innocent ka. Okay? Hindi siya ganun.

Kasi take note, hindi porke nag-stay ka na agad-agad, sigurado yung court na innocent ka. Right? Yes, you are presumed innocent, but it does not necessarily mean na talagang innocent ka. Kaya nga meron pa rin tayong tinatawag na presentation of evidence.

Diba? Now, merong case. Anong nangyari sa case na to? Itong babae, pinatay niya yung asawa niya. Okay?

So, the woman killed her husband. Ma'am, bakit niya pinatay? Kasi nagselo siya.

So, pinatay niya yung asawa niya dahil nagselo siya. Ngayon, habang yun yung allegation ha, the allegation was, tinatay niya yung asawa niya dahil nagselos siya. That's the allegation.

So anong sabi natin? Presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. Now, itong babaeng to, bigla siyang nawala.

So, nagtago siya. So, I repeat what happened dito sa babae during dependency of the case, bigla siyang nawala, nagtago siya. So ngayon, because of said flight, there was flight ha, sabi ngayon ng prosecution, oops, this is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be taken, right?

So sabi ng prosecution, uy, there was flight. So presumably, guilty tong taong to kaya siya tumakas. Yun yung sabi ng prosecution. So they wanted said circumstance to be utilized as evidence against the woman.

Pero, anong sabi ng Supreme Court? So upon analysis by the Supreme Court, it was actually proven na itong babaeng to kaya pala siya tumakas kasi she was afraid na magre-retaliate ngayon yung relatives ng husband niya. Kasi diba allegedly pinatay daw niya yung asawa niya. So ang fear niya pag hindi siya aalis dun sa lugar na yun, re-rest backan siya ngayon ng relatives ng husband niya.

So because of her fear, tumakas siya ngayon. nagtago siya because she was afraid of the retaliation coming from the relatives of the husband. Now, based on that situation, was there flight? Yes. Next question.

Meron bang credible explanation? Yes. And because there was a credible explanation, pwede bang gamitin yung flight niya as a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be established?

Pwede ba? The answer is no. Kasi diba sabi natin, Ang flight, para maging circumstance na panggagalingan ng inference of guilt, kailangan may absence of credible explanation.

In her situation, ano ang sabi? There was a credible explanation. She hid herself, nagtago siya because she was afraid from the possible retaliation coming from the relatives of her husband.

Okay? So, ganun lang yung flight natin, ha? For it to be a circumstance from which an inference of guilt might be established, kailangan walang credible explanation for said flight. Okay?

Tapos, in case. Okay? In case gagamitin natin ng flight, ano lang siya? It is a mere circumstantial evidence. Meaning, flight alone cannot cause the conviction of the accused.

Okay? Circumstantial evidence lang siya. It should still be supported by other evidences.

Ganun lang siya ha, that is your light. So let's now talk about your equipoise rule. Ang equipoise rule ninyo is based on your presumption of innocence. Ma'am, ano ba yung equipoise rule na pinag-uusapan natin?

Let's go back, CLJ1, right? So simple recall lang tayo, what is an equipoise rule? Ano ang sabi? If the evidence of the prosecution and the defense. I repeat.

If the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are of the same weight, I repeat, If the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are of the same weight, Kama. Yung puta kama ah. Ano nga isura ti kama?

Nga kama nga word. Okay? Ilagay nyo dyan ngayon yung symbol ng kama. I repeat ah.

If the evidence of the prosecution and the accused are of the same weight, Kama. The balance of justice shall be tilted in favor of the defense. I repeat. The balance of justice shall be tilted in favor of the Defense. Ibig sabihin, ulitin natin ha, equipoise rule.

If the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are of the same weight, you put a comma, the balance of justice shall be tilted in favor of the accused or the defense, right? So if the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are of the same weight, comma, the balance of justice shall be tilted in favor of the accused or the defense, right? shall be tilted in favor of the defense.

Yung defense na yan, yan din lamang yung accused nyo. Ibig sabihin, kung si prosecution tapos si accused, magkatimbang lang yung weight ng evidences nila. So, kung baga ba, it's a draw.

Pantay lang sila. Sinong mananalo? Take note.

Sa courts natin, kaya sa judicial bodies natin, walang draw. Okay? Hindi yan boxing na draw. Walang ganun.

Sa atin, dito sa judicial agencies natin, or dito sa courts natin, ano ang sabi? Matic yan. If yung evidence ng prosecution at saka defense, pareha lang sila ng weight, kailangan, anong mangyayari? Ititilt daw natin yung balance ng justice kay accused or kay defense.

Ibig sabihin, pag pareha lang sila ng weight ng evidences, the accused should be acquitted. Kano ang sabi ng Epipoise Rule? Pag magkapareho ang weight ng evidence ng prosecution at saka ng accused, it would now result to the acquittal of the accused.

Ma'am, bakit ganun? Take note. Presumption of innocence. Kanino ang burden to prove the guilt of the accused?

Kay prosecution. Pag nagbalance ang evidence ng prosecution at accused, ibig sabihin pareha lang sila ng bigat. Napatunayan ba ni prosecution beyond reasonable doubt na guilty ang akusado?

Definitely the answer is no. And because the accused is presumed innocent and the prosecution was not able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, dahil nga pantay lang yung evidence nila, what would be the outcome? The accused now should be acquitted. He was presumed innocent, therefore, kailangan ma-acquit siya.

Yes? Yan yung tinatawag natin na equipoise rule. So pag, anong sabi? If the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are of the same weight, the balance of justice shall be tilted in favor of the accused. Ibig sabihin, it would now result to the acquittal of the accused.

Okay? Yan ang equipoise rule. Saan siya nakabase?

Nakabase siya ngayon sa right to be presumed innocent. So lagi siya nakabase sa presumption of innocent. Okay?

So that is your equipoise rule. Have you ever heard the term trial by media? Diba? Very common siya dito sa society natin. Not only here in the Philippines, but actually all around the world.

Ito yung isa sa pinaka-problem doon sa right to be presumed innocent. Why? Kasi even if our courts are able to protect said rights within the auspices of the court, Nagkakaproblema tayo kasi nga in the society itself, itong presumption of innocence is usually violated. Why?

Kasi napapublicize ngayon yung tinatawag natin na crime and because of said publicity, what would now happen? Itong mga accused, even if they are presumed innocent in the eyes of the law, in the eyes of the society, they are already being labeled as They are already being labeled as guilty although wala pa namang narerender na judgment. Now, anong nagiging problem natin dito?

Dahil covered siya under the Bill of Rights, what now happens? Hindi natin nai-invoke yung right to be presumed innocent against your civilians, right? Kasi pwede lang natin siyang gamitin against the government.

So, government lagi. pwedeng gamitin against itong tinatawag natin na right to be presumed innocent. Pagdating ngayon dito sa tinatawag natin na mass media, mahirap siyang i-invoke, mahirap siyang i-claim. So imagine, you are presumed innocent pero because of the publicity done by mass media, anong nangyayari? You now appear as if you're guilty although wala pa naman talagang narerender na judgment yung court.

Pero ma'am, totally ba? Would it totally mean na wala tayong remedy? Take note, there is always a remedy.

In case of... Mass media ngayon ang nagiging problem mo dahil sa publicity na ginagawa nila doon sa crime, allegedly committed by you, and because of their acts now, what now happens? Yung presumption of innocence mo, naklaklawd na siya.

Ibig sabihin, in the eyes of the society, as if guilty ka na talaga even without the judgment rendered by the court yet. So anong remedy mo ngayon? You can actually file for libel.

Kasi diba, ano bang meron sa libel cases ninyo? You now have a public and malicious imputation of a crime, diba? So pag yung malicious imputation of a crime, ginawa ng mass media through writing or through publication. So sa newspaper o kaya sa mga magazines, anong pwede mong i-file against them, pwede kayong mag-file for the crime of libel. Pero in case it was via words.

So, it's oral. You go for slander or maybe oral defamation. Ang slander tapos oral defamation, pareho lang yun.

Okay? So, anong sabi? Ang trial by media is one of the most, how do you call it? It is one of the most popular problems with regard to presumption of innocence. Bakit ulit?

Kasi, even though the court now would try to protect your right to be presumed innocent, Ang nagiging problem natin sa mass media is that they now try to give publicity to the crime to the point now na kahit wala pa namang conviction yung court, based on the reports made by mass media, what now happens? It now appears na talagang guilty ka, na talagang at fault ka. Ganon ngayon ang nagiging itsura mo in the eyes of the public.

Ang problem natin, ang hirap ngayong i-claim ng right to be press yung innocent kasi The people violating it now would not be the government but rather, you now have your civilians, right? You now have private persons. So, at the end of the day, ano na lang remedy mo?

Your remedy is actually to file a case for libel in case, okay? In case, yung nangyari or yung ginawa ng mass media is a public imputation of a crime. Kasi diba, sinabi na nilang ginawa mo, eh wala pa namang conviction.

Eh you have the right to be presumed innocent, right? So, ang gagawin mo, magfafile ka na lang ng case na libel. In case, okay, in case the imputation was done through writing. So, through publication siya.

So, written. Okay, magazines, newspapers, and the like. Pero in case it's oral lang naman, walang nangyaring written publication or whatsoever, you can go for slander or maybe oral defamation. Okay? Ganun siya ha.

Very problematic kasi ang nag-violate dito would be private individuals and not the government sa trial by media natin. Okay? So, ganun lang siya. So, next right na tayo, you have the right to be heard. Pag sinabi ninyong the right to be heard, this would now talk about the right of an accused to be heard by himself and counsel.

I-repeat ano siya, it is the right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel. Council. Ibig sabihin, sa right to be heard natin, it may be done or it may be enforced or exercised by the accused himself or maybe through the help of his counsel.

Itong right na to is a right guaranteed by the Constitution itself. Tapos ang tanong, bakit ba siya available? Bakit ba siya nire-recognize? Take note, this right has always been recognized to make sure that justice is done to the accused. So, kung baga ba, if you want to be sure that there is justice, you need to hear the side of the accused.

Kasi the right to be heard would tell you that the accused now has the right to at least explain himself or maybe to present his side of the story. Hindi naman pwedeng one-sided lang siya, right? In every case, there are always two stories behind it.

The story told by the victim and the story told by the accused. Hindi po kaya ikaw yung akusado na agad-agad ginawa mo na. Press yung innocent ka nga, diba? So at the same time, because you are press yung innocent, kailangan bigyan ka rin ng court ng opportunity to explain your side of the story.

Okay, parang ganito. Try to imagine yourself in a situation na pinagbibintangan ka about something pero you cannot even defend yourself. E diba, ang problem dito, if you are unable to defend yourself, what happens?

Kung sino yung taong nagsasalita, most often than not, siya yung pinaniniwalaan. Say for instance, yung nangyari doon sa Tulfo, right? Meron yung soldier, so he impregnated his girlfriend, they were already engaged and then later on, He walked out, right?

So, hindi niya na tinuloy yung kasal. So, the first time you listen to the story, parang ang sama-sama nung tingin natin sa soldier. Why? Kasi nga, parang, ano ba naman tong lalaking to?

Parang nakabunti siya and then later on, iiwan na lang niya. So, parang ang tingin natin ngayon dun sa lalaki is that he's so bad, right? Now, question. Do we know his side of the story?

Imagine, sinabihan na siya ng duwag, sinabihan na siya ng walang kwenta. And at the end of the day, hindi man lamang natin narinig yung side niya dun sa story. Na kumbaga ba, bakit nga kaya niya iniwan?

The mere fact na buntis na and they were already engaged, ano pa ba ang possible reason para iwan niya yung babae, right? So he was not given the opportunity to tell his side of the story kasi nga during that time, hindi pa niya pwedeng maibigay yung side niya kasi nga it was not really available because Andun siya sa situation na hindi siya pwedeng makapagbigay ng statement niya. Kasi nga he was very busy nung tinawagan siya, right?

Now, question. Kung ang papakinggan mo lang yung side ng victim, what would happen now? Parang ang nagmumukhang masama would be the person accused of doing something wrong, right?

Kasi hindi pa natin alam yung side ng story niya. Pero, the moment na marinig mo na yung side ng story niya, do you think good things would change? Definitely the answer would be yes. Kasi you would be able to understand kung bakit nangyari to or talagang nangyari ba to.

Ganon yung point ng tinatawag natin na right to be heard. You need to give the accused the opportunity to explain his side for us to understand. Kasi if you do not give him the opportunity to explain his side, ang possibility niyan is that he would not be able to defend himself. The right to be heard would always tell you that the accused...

must be given the opportunity to testify on his behalf. Why do you need to testify on your behalf? Because you need to defend yourself. Because you need to explain your side. Because if you would not explain your side, the possibility is, hindi mo makiklear yung things na inaakusa sa'yo, na ibinibintang sa'yo.

So as a part of due process, you should be given the right to be heard. Gets? Yun lang siya.

So that is your... Right to be heard. So, take note, it is your opportunity or the right to be given the opportunity to defend yourself or to testify on your behalf. Okay?

Take for instance, sa isang murder case, kunyari itong si Christian, what now happened? Inakusahan siya na pinatay niya, kunyari lang ha, kunyari. Kunyari si Christian allegedly pinatay daw niya si Joyce.

So, a case was filed against Christian for ... the killing of Joyce. Now, kunyari itong si Christian, kinonvict siya ng trial court without even giving him the opportunity to testify on his behalf. So hindi siya inalaw na mag-testify. Ano ang sabi dyan?

There is a violation of the right to be heard. So in effect, ano ang sabi? Dahil na-violate yung right to be heard ni Christian, what would happen? Whatever judgment is rendered now can be questioned to a higher court. Pwede siyang i-question at pwede siyang ma-render na nullity.

Meaning, pwedeng mapawalang visa yung judgment because of the violation of Christian's right to be heard, which is mandated by Jew process. So, ganun lang siya. Next. So, next right na tayo, you have the right to assistance of counsel. Mama ng provided dyan, it is actually the right of the accused to be represented.

by a competent and independent council, preferably of his own choice. I repeat, Ano ang sabi? It is the right of the accused to be represented by a competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice.

Very familiar, di ba? Kasi pinag-usapan na natin siya doon sa rights of the suspect. Yun nga lang, oo, pareha sila na nagde-denote sa right to assistance of counsel pero magkaiba yung purpose ng rights nila. Okay? So, there would be a different purpose.

So, same right. Right to assistance of counsel, pero found on different aspects, right? Yung una, as a right of a suspect, yung pangalawa, as a right of the accused. Unahin natin yung right of a suspect. Saan ba sila magkakatalo?

You look at the purpose. Okay? You look at the purpose. Ano ba kasi, ang purpose ng right na to, if it falls under the right of a suspect.

Always remember that its purpose is to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the suspect to admit or confess. I repeat. Anong purpose niya? Its purpose is to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the suspect to admit or confess.

Guys, last na talaga ha. Ano siya? Anong purpose niya?

To preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the suspect to admit or confess. Ibig sabihin, pag right of a suspect siya, ang right to assistance of counsel ginagamit siya to make sure na walang mangyayaring coercion. To make sure na walang confession or admission ang ma-pro-produce ng isang coercion kasi you are there to make sure na wala nga dapat mangyaring coercion.

Gets? Kasi diba, pag merong nangyaring coercion, what now happens? Whatever confession or admission present there would now lead to the production of what? An inadmissible confession or admission. So, bawal siya under the exclusionary rule.

Kaya ka may abogado eh, para siguraduhin mong walang ganong evidence na ma-proproduce. On the other hand, pag ginamit natin siya as a right of the accused, iba ang purpose niya. So ma'am, anong purpose ngayon ng right to assistance of counsel if we are now talking about the rights of the accused? Always remember na ang purpose niya is to assure that the fundamental rights of the accused would be protected and safeguarded all throughout the proceedings.

I repeat, ano ang purpose ngayon ng right na ito under the rights of the accused that would be to assure that the fundamental rights of the accused would be protected and safeguarded all throughout the proceedings. Kaya nga, accordingly, ano ang sabi dyan? It is the lawyer's duty to make sure that he would be performing his functions with the zeal and vigor at his command.

To protect and safeguard the fundamental rights of the accused. So paano daw niya iperperform yung function niya? He needs to perform it with zeal and vigor.

He needs to make sure that he would do everything to protect and safeguard the fundamental rights of the accused. Kaya nga, yung right to assistance of counsel natin as a defense lawyer or as a defense counsel, you need to make sure na whether or not ginawa ng client mo, or whether or not alam mo na ginawa ng accused yung crime na ibinibintang sa kanya. Regardless, kailangan siguraduhin mo pa rin na you would do everything para ma-protect yung rights niya. Kaya nga diba, try to imagine, you are the lawyer.

Siyempre, because your client trusts you, sasabihin niya kung ano talaga yung nangyari. So ngayon nalaman mo na talagang ginawa niya. Would it mean na pupunta ka sa court at sasabihin mo your honor ginawa niya talaga? Definitely the answer is no eh. Kasi you would still need to protect his rights.

He is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. So you should do everything in your power to make sure na ma-proprotectahan yung fundamental rights niya. Mom, are you trying to tell us now na kailangan magsinungaling yung abogado?

No. What I'm trying to say here is He needs to do everything to protect the rights of his client. Kaya nga pansinin nyo, diba merong mga cases na kahit alam nung tinatawag nating lawyer na guilty yung client niya, gagawin pa rin niya lahat.

Para ma-acquit yung kliente niya. So anong gagawin niya? Hahanapin niya ngayon yung lapses ng law or maybe hahanapin niya ngayon yung lapses ng process.

Or maybe hahanapin niya ngayon yung lapses ng prosecution. To make sure na ma-proprotectahan ko yung rights ng client ko. Kasi he expressed yung innocent unless proven otherwise. O di naman kaya.

Kahit nasabihin natin obvious na obvious na yung evidences na to o would lead to the conviction of his client. Ano pa rin trabaho niya? He still needs to make sure na, okay, sige, kahit makonvict yung client ko, I would do everything.

Okay? I would do everything to make sure na kahit makonvict siya, at least yung penalty na mai-impose sa kanya hindi magiging ganon kabigat. Okay?

So, ganon siya. That is your right to assistance of Townsend. Now, try to imagine ha, Pag kunyari, si defense counsel, syempre, yung prosecution tatawag siya ng witness niya. So, pag tinawag ngayon ni prosecution yung witness niya, yung prosecution tatanungin niya yung witness niya, right? That is what you call direct examination.

After questioning ngayon ni prosecution yung witness niya, tatawagin ngayon yung defense lawyer. Si defense lawyer ngayon, magkakandak siya ng cross-examination. Ma'am, bakit cross-examination? Kasi yung witness na kina-question mo is not your witness but rather the witness of the opposing party. So pag ang kina-question mong witness is witness ng other side.

In this situation, the witness of the prosecution. Anong tawag mo doon sa questioning mo sa kanya? You call that cross-examination.

Now, ikaw yung lawyer. Tapos nun anong ginawa mo? After the direct examination conducted by the prosecution on... his witness. Ikaw ngayon na defense counsel, pinatawag for cross-examination.

What did you do? You did not perform any cross-examination. O di naman kaya, nag-perform ka ng cross-examination pero very lousy yung ginawa mong cross-examination.

Napaka-nonsense. Question. May violation ba ng right to assistance of counsel? Yes.

Kasi the lawyer here is not doing his best to to assure that the rights of this client is being protected. Imagine, hindi ka mag-cross-examine, or maybe nag-cross-examine ka, pero lousy siya, ibig sabihin, nonsense yung ginawa mo na questioning. That is already violative of the so-called right to counsel of your client, or the so-called accused. Mam, ano pa?

Imaginein mo, you did not present any evidence in behalf of the accused. So wala ka man lamang pre-incent na evidence to rebut yung mga pre-incent na evidence ng opposing side. Ano ang sabi? Ops, ops, ops, parang meron na ating violation ng right to the assistance of counsel. Okay?

So ganyan yung assistance of counsel ninyo. The right to be assisted by a competent and independent counsel, preferably of your own choice. Meron kayong tinatawag na counsel de officio. Ngayon, pag narinig nyo yung counsel de officio na yan, take note ha, a counsel de officio is a lawyer appointed by the court.

I repeat, a lawyer appointed by the court to represent and defend the accused in case he cannot afford to employ one himself. I repeat, pag sinabi natin counsel de officio, sino siya? This is a lawyer appointed by the court to represent and defend the accused in case he cannot afford to employ one himself. Guys, last na talaga.

Ano siya? He is a lawyer appointed by the court to represent and defend the accused in case he cannot afford to employ one himself. Ibig sabihin, yung counsel de officio ninyo ang nag-a-appoint yun court kasi nga, Itong accused natin does not have the resources para mag-appoint ng sarili niyang lawyer. Ma'am, pag-counsel de ofisyo po ba, pareho din lamang siya ng role with regard doon sa lawyer chosen by the accused himself?

Definitely the answer is yes. Kahit na-counsel de ofisyo yan, same din lamang ang purpose niya dyan sa trial na yan. His role now would be the same to a lawyer.

chosen by the accused himself. So anong function ng isang council de officio? Same thing. He needs to make sure that he would do everything in his power.

To protect and safeguard the fundamental rights of the accused. Ma'am, saan usually nanggagaling ang mga counsel de ofisyo? Madalas galing sila sa public attorney's office. So kahit nagaling ng paw yung lawyer na yan, syempre, they would still perform everything in their power para i-safeguard yung rights and yung fundamental rights ng accused natin. Okay?

So that is your counsel de ofisyo. He's a lawyer. Chosen by the or appointed by the court in case the accused cannot afford any. Right? So, pag hindi kaya ngayon ng accused natin na kumuha ng sariling lawyer niya, mag-a-appoint yung court ng lawyer niya.

Gets counsel de official. Mam, bakit sila ina-appoint? Kasi nga, right to assistance of counsel.

Hindi naman pwede na dahil wala kang pera na agad-agad hindi ka na marirepresent. So, as part of the help. given by the government to the accused, mag-a-appoint sila ng council de ofisyo.

Anong counter-party council de ofisyo, you call him a council de parte. When you hear the word council de parte, this is a lawyer chosen by the party. I-repeat, a lawyer chosen by the party. So, sinong namili, sinong nag-appoint sa isang council de parte, yung party mismo.

So, pag... At kunyari yung accused, meron siyang resources kaya kaya niyang mag-appoint ng sarili niyang lawyer. Yung lawyer na in-appoint niya is a council de parte.

Or kunyari ikaw, mayaman ka, ikaw yung victim, afford mong kumuha ng private na lawyer mo. Yung private lawyer now who would be acting as the private prosecutor would now be considered as a council de parte. Mam, bakit? Chosen by the party or chosen by a party.

Council Deporte. So yan, punta na tayo sa next right ng accused ninyo. You have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. Ang isipin ninyo, the very reason kung bakit tayo merong right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation is to furnish the accused with a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense.

I repeat. Anong purpose ng right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation? Its purpose is to furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense.

I repeat, pag sinabi natin na right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation, anong purpose niya? To furnish the accused with such a description. of the charge against him as will enable him to make a defense. Short to say, pag sinabi nating right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation, the very reason kung bakit meron niyang right na yan is to assure na alam ng akusado kung ano yung crime na ibinibintang sa kanya so that he would be able to at least prepare a possible defense.

Ganto lang yan. Hindi mo kayang depensahan ang sarili mo sa isang bagay na hindi mo alam nag-eexist. It's very hard to do that. Kasi wala kang idea na meron palang ganyang existence.

So paano mo mag-defend yung sarili mo properly if you do not know about it? Parang sa jowa mo lang yan. Galit yung jowa mo at hindi mo alam kung bakit siya galit.

Question, ma-re-resolve mo ba yung problem? Ma-a-address mo ba yung issue kung totally clueless ka kung bakit siya galit? Baka hindi mo pa alam na galit yan eh.

So if that's the case, how would you be able to address the problem? Ganun din dito sa right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. You need to know kung bakit ka isinasakdal.

Para saan ka isinasakdal. So that, mapreparan mo yung sarili mo ng possible defense. Or para ma-address mo yung issue na yan.

Yes? You cannot defend yourself. Against something that you do not know even exists.

Ganon siya. So, right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. Ito ang very reason kung bakit meron tayong tinatawag na arraignment. Ma'am, ano na ang arraignment? Sabi natin in your CLJ-1, Arraignment is the reading of the case in open court.

I repeat, it is the reading of the case in open court. To inform the accused. of the nature and cause of accusation. I repeat, pag sinabing arraignment, arraignment is the reading of the case in open court to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation. For the last time, ano siya?

It is the reading of the case in open court to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation. Ibig sabihin, babasahin ngayon yung complaint or maybe yung information in open court. Para saan?

Para sabihin sa'yo at para malaman mo kung bakit ka nasa court at para saan ka isinasakdal. Gets? Yun yung arraignment natin.

Because of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation, your arraignment is something which is non-waivable. I-repeat ha, ang arraignment based on the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation is non-waivable. Ibig sabihin, you cannot waive it.

Ibig sabihin, hindi ka pwedeng mag-proceed sa ibang stages ng court processes mo without having an arraignment. And take note, ang arraignment ninyo cannot be done in absensya. I repeat, anong sabi natin? An arraignment cannot be done in absensya.

So, ibig sabihin, ang arraignment in absensya is void. I repeat, arraignment in absensya is void. Bawal siya.

Kasi ganito, paano mo i-inform yung tao kung absent yung tao? Paano mo i-inform yung tao kung wala yung tao? Kung mag-i-inform ka, dapat andyan siya. Dapat naririnig ka niya, dapat physically he's there to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation.

So isipin niya ha, based on the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation, your arraignment is non-waivable. Ibig sabihin, you cannot proceed with the other stages of your court processes without the conduct of arraignment. Ano pa ang sabi? Hindi pwede ang arraignment in absensya. Pag nagkaroon ng arraignment in absensya, ibig sabihin, nagkaroon ng reading ng case in open court.

Pero absent yung taong binabasahan mo, ano ang sabi? It is also void. Non-waivable nga, di ba? So you cannot proceed with the other stages and at the same time, hindi siya pwedeng mangyari in the absence of the accused.

Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. By the way, ano na ulit yung two parts ng arraignment? Number one, you now have the reading of the complaint or information.

I repeat, ano yung first part ng tinatawag natin na arraignment? You have there the reading of the complaint or information. Pag nabasa mo na siya, ano ang next na nangyayari sa arraignment? you now have the entry of plea.

I repeat, you have the entry of plea. So, after siyang ma-inform ng nature and cause of accusation by the reading of the complaint or information, ano ang next na mangyayari? Entry of plea.

So, sasabihin niya guilty or not guilty. Okay? So, ganun ha, dun sa tinatawag natin na arraignment in relation to the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation.

So ano na ulit yung babasahin to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation against him? Babasahin yung complaint or information. With that regard, kailangan sufficient yung complaint or information meaning dapat makontain niya ngayon lahat tong anim na to para masabi natin na yes. The complaint or information is sufficient so as to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation against him.

So ano ngayon yung anim na requirements in order for the complaint or information to be regarded as sufficient? Number one, you now have the name of the accused. I repeat, ano yung number one? You now have your name of the accused.

So dapat, ando dyan yung pangalan niya. Ma'am, what if hindi po namin alam yung pangalan niya? So pag hindi nyo alam yung pangalan niya, pwede kayong gumamit ng tinatawag natin na...

fictitious name. So, ano yung pinaka-common na fictitious name na ginagamit natin? You now have John Doe.

Right? So, yung pinaka-common na ginagamit natin is John Doe. Pwede naman kaya, diba, meron tayong tinatawag na Juan de la Cruz. So, pag Filipino, you have the name Juan de la Cruz.

Yan yung pinaka-common na fictitious names na ginagamit natin. In case, hindi mo alam yung totoong pangalan ng accused. Noong time na nag-file ka ng complaint, ang gagamitin natin is Juan de la Cruz or maybe John Doe.

It is a fictitious name. Yun nga lang, you need to make sure na oo, kahit hindi naka-indicate yung totoong pangalan ng accused sa complaint or information, kailangan merong sufficient description. So, kailangan ma-describe mo ngayon yung tao na ina-accused mo ng crime.

Para in the event... na malaman na natin yung totoong pangalan niya, ang gagawin na lang is ia-amend yung complaint or information. I repeat ha, so sufficiency of complaint or information, it must contain the name of the accused.

In case you do not know the real name of the accused, you can use a fictitious name. Ano yung common na fictitious name natin? You have their John Doe, o di naman kaya you have their Juan de la Cruz. With the condition na pag fictitious name ang ilalagay mo, you need to make sure that you would be sufficiently describing the accused.

So, kailangan i-describe mo siya ng mabuti, right? So, pag gumamit ka ng fictitious name and then later on nalaman na natin yung real name niya, what would you do? You are now going to amend the complaint or information for purposes of putting the real name of the person.

Okay? Yun yung number one. Number two, kailangan nyo rin ilagay yung designation of the offense given by the statute.

So, kunyari, pinatay ko yung asawa ko. So, the killing of a wife of her husband. Ano ang designation dyan ng statute?

O ano ang designation ng law? Ano ang title na binibigay ng law sa crime na yan? Ang pangalan niyan would be parricide. So anong ilalagay natin dun sa complaint or information? You need to give there the designation of the offense given by the statute.

Meaning, if I committed the crime of parricide, you write there, parricide. Now, sa number 3 natin, you also need to provide the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. I repeat, you need to provide there the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. Ibig sabihin, kailangan meron kang recital of facts. You are going to recite in the complaint or information the facts, which you now allege is designated as parricide.

So, kunyari, dun sa complaint, anong nilagay nyo dyan na designation? Parricide. Tapos dun sa acts or omissions complained of, ilalagay nyo dyan, that one Charlene Agrito willfully stabbed her husband 45 times from behind, thus resulting to his death.

So anong nilagay niyo dyan na acts or omissions complained of na designated as parricide? Na ito daw si Charlene Agrito willfully pinagsasaksak niya yung husband niya from behind, thus resulting to the death of the husband, right? So anong makikita niyo doon? You now have your acts or omissions complained of. Gets?

Tapos anong designation? Parasite. Kasi, based on the acts or omissions, sino ang pumatay? Asawa. Sinong pinatay?

Asawa. Right? So, the wife stopped the husband to death. Gets?

So, based now on the acts or omissions sa recital na yan, ito yung designation natin. Now, Pag okay na tayo, meron na tayong acts or omissions complained of as constituting the crime, you now go to number 4, you now have the name of the offended party. So you are going to put there the name of the victim. Tapos number 5, you also need to put the approximate date of the commission of the offense. Take note, approximate date.

So hindi kailangang eksaktong eksakto yung time, yung date or whatsoever. Except if. Okay?

Except if the date is now an element of the crime. I repeat, except if the date is an element of a crime. Pag yung date, element siya ng crime, hindi pwedeng approximate date yan.

Kailangan exact date. So, general rule, sufficiency of complaint or information, ano lang ilalagay ninyo? Approximate date of the commission of the crime. So, on or about?

12 o'clock in the afternoon of July 25, bla bla bla bla. So, approximate siya, right? Okay lang yun. Pero, the moment the date now becomes an element of the crime committed, kailangan exact date yan.

Kailangan exact time. Ma'am, bigyan mo kami ng example ng crime kung saan date is an element. Perfect example there is the crime of infanticide. Sa infanticide ninyo, the victim is less than 3 days old.

So anong sabi natin sa infanticide? The victim is less than 3 days old. Wala pang 3 days old yung bata. Wala pa siyang 72 hours nung pinatay mo siya.

Now, what would you notice? Date here, time here is an element of the crime of infanticide. So anong ilalagay mo sa complaint or information? Kailangan ilagay mo yung exact date. You need to put the exact time kasi they are now considered as elements of the crime.

Kasi the moment na mag-flat 3 days ka or the moment na mag-flat 72 hours ka, mapapalitan yung crime. Hindi na siya infanticide. It might now be considered as murder or maybe infanticide. Depende kung sino yung pumatay doon sa victim.

Gets? In such cases, hindi approximate date ang ilalagay, it should be the exact date or maybe the exact time. Yes?

Go now to number 6. You now have the place where the offense was committed. Ma'am, bakit kailangan natin ilagay yung place where the crime was committed? Kasi it would tell you kung kanino ang jurisdiction over the territory.

Yes? And take note, jurisdiction over the territory is an element or a requisite of jurisdiction. So, ganun siya ha. So, in order to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation, kailangan kumpleto itong anim na ito.

Kailangan para makonsider siya na sufficient enough to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation, dapat itong anim andyan sa complaint or information. Now, tignan niyo ha, in case merong conflict between the designation ng Tapos, dun sa recital of facts. Mama, ano na yung recital of facts?

Yun yung acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. In case there is a conflict between the two, what would prevail? Ang magpre-prevail lagi is the acts or omissions complained of.

Ang laging magpre-prevail would be the recital of facts. So, parang ganito. Kunyari, ang nilagay mo na designation is murder.

So ano ang nilagay mong designation? Murder. Pero based on the acts or omissions complained of or based on the recital of facts doon sa information mo, ang nakalagay dyan na acts constituting the crime is not that of murder but rather that of homicide. So ano ang designation? Murder.

Pero ang recital of facts would be homicide. Now what would prevail? Ang mag-pre-prevail would be the recital of facts.

Ibig sabihin, Kahit na murder ang nakalagay dyan, kung ang recital of facts would now denote to homicide, ano magpre-prevail na crime? That would be homicide. Kunyari, ano ang designation murder? Pero dun sa recital of facts mo, ano lang nakalagay doon? That Mr. A. Stabbed Mr. B. Yun lang nilagay.

Mr. A. Stabbed Mr. B. So based on that recital of facts, ano lang meron dyan? It's not murder, it is homicide. Pero sa designation murder, sa recital homicide, what would prevail?

Always the recital of facts. So you would go for homicide. Gets? So ganun lang siya.

That would be part of your right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. Okay? So yun lang siya. Kaya nga, pag walang nangyaring arraignment, what would happen? May violation ng right of the accused.

to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. Ano ang possibility? In case may marender na judgment, there is a very high possibility that said judgment would now be rendered as void.

Okay? So that's it.

Transcript for:Rights of the Accused and Justice

Transcript for:
Rights of the Accused and Justice