Bill of Rights - Section 14 - Section 14(1 No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law thereby People vs Horio(2

Bill of Rights - Section 14 - Section 14(1 No person shall...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 68 pages.

Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. Due Process This means that the accused can only be convicted by a tribunal which is required to comply with the stringent requirements of the rules of criminal procedure. For allegedly raping a 6 year-old girl, Nolito Boras was convicted of statutory rape by the RTC of Libmanan, Camarines Sur and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Prior to this, appellant was convicted for an alleged rape other than the one charged in the information. Was there due process? Answer: Yes. Accused-appellant cannot be convicted for the alleged rapes committed other than the one charged in the information; contrary ruling will violate his constitutional rights to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The victim even testified to other occasions of rape committed against her by accused-appellant prior to December 1991. A rule to the contrary will violate accused-appellant’s constitutional rights to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Such other alleged rapes committed which are not alleged in the information may be taken only as proof of specific intent or knowledge, plan, system or scheme. People vs. Boras. The undersigned Asst. Provincial Prosecutor on complaint of the offended party Dannilyn Catubig accuses Danilo Catubig of the crime of rape, penalized under the provisions of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the relationship of the accused and the offended party was not alleged in the information. Was there due process? Answer: Yes. The retroactive application of procedural rules, nevertheless, cannot adversely affect the rights of the private offended party that have become vested prior to the effectivity of said rules. Thus, in the case at bar, although relationship has not been alleged in the information, the offense having been committed, however, prior to the effectivity of the new rules, the civil liability already incurred by appellant remains unaffected thereby. People vs. Horio. The Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan with plunder as defined by, and penalized under Section 2 of RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659 the accused. Is a special civil action for certiorari proper to assail the denial of the demurrers to evidence?
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 68 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • Ulysses, Appellate court, Legal burden of proof, Trial court, Rights of the accused

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture