BASIC is the rule that in all criminal cases, the presumption of innocence of an accused as—as a fundamental constitutional guarantee—must be upheld at all times.
It must be noted that, at the trial, an accused enjoys certain rights.
Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: (1) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt; (2) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (3) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment xxx; (4) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination; (5) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself; (6) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial xxx; (7) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf; (8) To have speedy, impartial and public trial; and (9) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
A successful prosecution of a criminal action largely depends on proof of two things—the identification of the author of the crime and his actual commission of the same.
An ample proof that a crime has been committed has no use if the prosecution is unable to convincingly prove the offender’s identity. This is because the constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys is not demolished by an identification that is full of uncertainties. (People vs. Libunao, G.R. No. 247651, March 24, 2021)
To overturn the presumption of innocence, the prosecution must proffer proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty as to convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment.
The constitutional presumption of innocence requires the courts to take a more than casual consideration of every circumstance or doubt favoring the innocence of the accused. If there is doubt, that doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused in order to give flesh and bones to this constitutionally-protected right. (Tan vs. People, G.R. No. 232611, April 26, 2021)
It bears emphasis that “the Court, in the course of its review of criminal cases elevated to it, still commences its analysis from the fundamental principle that the accused before it is presumed innocent.” This presumption continues although the accused had been convicted in the trial court, as long as such conviction is still pending appeal. (People vs. Ansano, G.R. No. 232455, December 2, 2020)
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
The right to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise moment custodial investigation begins.
The right to be assisted by counsel is an indispensable component of due process in criminal prosecution and that such right is one of the most sacrosanct rights available to the accused. (Yap v. People, 885 SCRA 599)
RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION
Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that an accused shall have the right to meet the witnesses face to face, which is echoed in Section 1(f), Rule 115 of our Rules on Criminal Procedure.
The right of confrontation is held to apply specifically to criminal proceedings and to have a two-fold purpose: (1) to afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of witnesses by cross-examination, and (2) to allow the judge to observe the deportment of witnesses. (Go vs. People, 677 SCRA 213)
The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is a basic, fundamental human right vested inalienably to an accused. Denying an accused the right to cross-examine will render the testimony of the witness incomplete and inadmissible in evidence. (Liong v. People, 864 SCRA 10)
