People of the Philippines vs. Juan dela Cruz

Maybe some of you who are not engaged in the legal world are curious why every criminal case is entitled People of the Philippines vs. Juan dela Cruz or so-and-so. Because an accused does not only offend his victim and the latter’s loved ones but he actually offends the state and its individual. For this reason, the State has the authority, under its police power:

1. to define and punish crimes; and

2. to lay down the rules of criminal procedure.

The accused, being an individual of the state whose interests are to be guarded and protected, is however, afforded the constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed by Article III, Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution and section 1, Rule 115 of the Rules of Court.

Constitutional Rights of the Accused: (Article III of the 1987 Constitution)

1. the Right to be Presumed Innocent until proven guilty; (Section 14)

2. the Right to Due Process of Law:

- the right to be heard.

- the right to have a competent and independent counsel/lawyer preferably of his own choice.

3. the Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

- to have a speedy, impartial and public trial.

4. the Right to meet the witness face to face

5. the Right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf;

6. Free access to the courts and other quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance; (section 11)

7. the Right against torture, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate his free will; (section 12)

8. the Right to Bail; (Section 13)

9. the Right to a Writ of Habeas Corpus; (Section 15);

10.the Right to a speedy disposition of his case; (Section 16)

11.the Right Against Self-incrimination; (Section 17);

- to exempt from being a witness against himself.

12.the Right Against Excessive Fines/Penalties; (section 19) and

13.the Right Against Double Jeopardy; (section 21)

Satutory Rights: (Section 1, Rule 115 of the Rules of Court)

1. to be Presumed Innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt;

2. to be present and defend himself in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings;

3. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

4. to testify as a witness in his own behalf;

5. to exempt from being a witness against himself (the Right Against Self-incrimination;)

6. to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against himself;

7. to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf;

8. to have a speedy and public trial; and

9. to have the right to appeal in all cases authorized by law.

A right which may be waived is the right of the accused to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against himself because it is a personal right. While the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him may NOT be waived because it involves public interest which may be affected.

Who are the Persons Criminally Liable?

Sad but true, the victims, his loved ones and society find it impossible to forgive culprits or criminals. That is, of course, the human natural inclination. But God is the God of impossible. He has exhibited his abundant mercy at the cross of Calvary. One of the criminals who hung there with Jesus received the forgiveness and the gift of salvation by believing Him (Luke 23:39-43). Christ has not only paid the price for our own sin but also the sins committed against us. This is the wonder of the cross! So if we desire to have a heart that is ready to forgive, we must begin to look at the cross.

Now putting spirituality aside, under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, a person must act with malice/intent or negligence/imprudence to be criminally liable. Suffice it to say, that only natural person can be active subject of crime because of the highly personal nature of criminal responsibility. Therefore, the officers, not the corporation, are the persons who may be held criminally liable.

However, a different degree of responsibility is imposed upon every person criminally liable particularly if a crime is committed by many. In the latter case, they are criminally liable either as: (Art. 16, RPC)

1. Principals;

2. Accomplices;

3. Accessories.

1. Principals

- 3 types of Principals:

a.) Principal by Direct Participation;

b.) Principal by Induction; or

c.) Principal by Indispensable Cooperation.

2. Accomplices

- Persons who cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime. There is however, NO previous agreement or NO conspiracy, only community of design is required, that is, KNOWING the criminal design of the Principal by Direct Participation. Examples:

a.) by previous acts

- lending of a dagger or pistol to the murderer, knowing the latter’s criminal intent.

- the pharmacist, knowing the criminal purpose of the accused in the crime of rape, furnishes him the drug that will put his victim to sleep in order to rape her.

b.) by simultaneous acts

- a person who held the hands of the victim while the Principal by Direct Participation was attacking the victim. Provided, he cooperated without previous agreement or understanding with the principal.

3. Accessories

- Those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, he took part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:

a.) by profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

- a person who received a property from another, and used it, knowing that the same had been stolen.

- In murder, one who shared in the reward given for the commission of the crime.

b.) by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.

c.) by harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided that:

i) if the accessory is a Public officer:

- with abuse of public functions

- any crime

ii) if Private person;

- the crime committed by the principal is either:

1.) treason,

2.) parricide,

3.) murder,

4.) an attempt to take the life of the President; or

5.) the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

If any of said crimes was not committed by the principal, such private person may be held liable for obstruction of justice under P.D. No. 1829.

Ano ba ang Cha-cha? (What is Cha-cha?)

“Cha-cha” in the Philippines does not pertain to Cha-cha-cha of a Latin American dance of Cuban origin, but instead it refers to the political and other related processes involved in amending or revising the current 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. It is also known as the Philippine Charter Change.

According to Justice Isagani Cruz, “the Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land must defer. All must bow to the mandate of this law.” (sounds like the Holy Bible huh?) Thus, we Filipino people must take diligence in the amendment and revision of this supreme law. In doing so, we must see to it, that it shall seek the benefit of every Filipino and shall promote the general welfare of the nation and not just being politically inclined or motivated.

In a legal sense, Amendment bears a different meaning from Revision. Amendment in legislation means an alteration or change of a particular provision of law. Whereas, Revision is the overhauling or rewriting of the entire instrument or law. For which reason, the modes enunciated by Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution for the Amendment of the constitution per se is reasonably different from Revision.

Step 1. PROPOSAL:

AMENDMENT

There are three (3) modes of amending the Constitution. It may be proposed by:

1. the Congress

• the Senate and House of Representatives, upon a vote of three-fourths (¾) of all its members voting separately.

House of Representatives = ¾ of all its members

Senate = ¾ of all its members

Therefore, the Congressmen or the members of the House of Representatives, even though the required ¾ vote had been met, cannot propose the amendment of the Constitution without the concurrence of a vote of three-fourths (¾) of all the members of the Senate.

2. a Constitutional Convention

• e.g. Constituent Assembly, Constitutional Convention

3. the People’s Initiative

• Provided however, that the petitioner must be at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.

REVISION

The 1987 Constitution specifically provides only two (2) modes of revising the Constitution:

1. the Congress

· the Senate and House of Representatives, upon a vote of three-fourths (¾) of all its members voting separately.

2. a Constitutional Convention

Step 2. RATIFICATION:

However, Amendment or Revision shall be valid only when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite or referendum (sec. 4, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution). It is simply means that the proposed amendment/s or revision/s has to be approved by the majority of Filipinos in order to be adopted.