Annotation on Due Process

A N N O T A T I O N DUE PROCESS By ALICIA GONZALEZ-DECANO* ___________________ § I. Preliminary Statement, p. 558 § II. Due Process Defined, p. 559 § III. Jurisprudence on Due Process, p. 560 § IV. Illustrative Cases, p. 560 ___________________ § I. Preliminary Statement Our countrymen clamor for justice as many of them are deprived of such priceless jewel of democracy. As we looked around, we see various shocking incidents of life such as: carefree innocent young children being locked up in jail; bystanders, protesters, demonstrators, being picked up and ganged up; young boys and girls in school being kidnapped; women roaming around the cities of Metro Manila, either for the purpose of looking for odd jobs or wandering just to view the cities of pleasure, money and sins; and men and women _______________ _______________ * Retired Judge, Professorial Lecturer IV and Consultant (Law and Political Science Cluster, UST Graduate School) and Dean, College of Law & Law Professor, Pan Pacific University North Philippines (PUNP), Urdaneta City. 559

VOL. 627, AUGUST 10, 10, 2010

559

Due Process

languishing in jail, whose cases have never been terminated due to the snail pace of justice, without due process. It is on this scenario that this article is thought of. Before going into the doctrines or jurisprudence on due process, a definition of term is in order. § II. Due Process Defined

Due process is a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial (Raquiza vs. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50, cited by Sibal, Philippine Legal Encyclopedia, Central Book Supply, Inc., Q.C., 1986, p. 257) Due process of law does not necessarily mean a judicial proceeding in the regular courts. The guarantee of due process, viewed in its procedural aspect, requires no particular form of procedure. It implies due notice to the individual of the proceedings, an opportunity to defend himself and the problem of the propriety of the deprivations, under the circumstances presented, must be resolved in a manner consistent with essential fairness. It means essentially a fair and imported trust and reasonable opportunity for the preparation of defense. ( Aquino, Jr. vs. Military Commission, No. 2 , 63 SCRA 546 [1975], cited by Sibal, supra) Procedure is merely means to an end, and rules of procedure must be construed liberally so as to afford litigants a speedy and inexpensive means of resolving their controversy. On the other hand, the principle of due process, in general means simply that before a party may be held bound by court proceedings, he must have been impleaded therein or notified thereof and thus given an opportunity to defend his rights. (Torres vs. Caluag , 17 SCRA 808 [1966], cited by Sibal, supra) 560

560

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Due Process

§ III. Jurisprudence on Due Process Due process may be procedural, or may be a denial of the constitutional processes. Procedural, when the regular rules of law are complied with. Constitutional due process, when the elements or the material requirements of the Constitution are complied with. Due process may likewise be criminal due process which requires that the accused must be proceeded against under the orderly processes of law. There is likewise known due process in labor cases. § IV. Illustrative Cases The following cases are illustrative of all these kinds of due process:

1. In the case of Manuel Roxas, et al. vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 114944, May 29, 2002, 382 SCRA 396, the Supreme Court held: “x x x It appears that petitioners were deprived of due process when the Special Prosecutor reinstated the complaint against them without their knowledge. Due process of law requires that every litigant must be given an opportunity to be heard. He has the right to be present and defend himself in person at every stage of the proceedings. x x x”

The Highest Tribunal continued: “x x x It did not give petitioners notice of the reinvestigation, which would have enabled them to participate in the proceedings. But when it later found probable cause against petitioners, it should have first given them notice and afforded them an opportunity to be heard before ordering their inclusion in Criminal Case No. 18956. The finding of probable cause against petitioners in proceedings which they had neither knowledge of nor participation in (sic) violated their right to procedural due process. At the very least, they should have been notified that the complaint against them has not yet been finally disposed of; or that the fight was not yet over, so to 561

VOL. 627, AUGUST 10, 2010

561

Due Process

speak. They should have been apprised of their possible implication in the criminal case to enable them to meet any new accusations against them head-on, and to prepare for their defense. x x x”

2. People vs. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, May 28, 2002, 382 SCRA 365, postulates the doctrine of due process when the Highest Tribunal decreed: “x x x Fundamental fairness requires that both the prosecution and the accused should be afforded the opportunity to be heard and to adduce evidence on the presence or absence of the predicate facts upon which the application of the new rule depends. In the light of the lack of or the conflicting evidence in the various requirements to determine the applicability of Section 8, Rule 117, this Court is not in a position to rule whether or not the refiling of the cases for multiple murder against respondent Lacson should be enjoined. The predicate facts involved disputed facts and arguable questions of law. The reception of evidence on

these various issues cannot be done in this Court but before the trial court. x x x”

3. People vs. Alcalde, G.R. Nos. 139225-28, May 29, 2002, 382 SCRA 621, elucidates the violation of due process. Said the Supreme Court: “x x x The constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him under the Bill of Rights carries with it the correlative obligation to effectively convey to the accused the information to enable him to effectively prepare for his defense. At the bottom is the issue of fair trial. While not every aberration of the mind or exhibition of mental deficiency on the part of the accused is sufficient to justify suspension of the proceedings, the trial court must be fully satisfied that the accused would have a fair trial with the assistance the law secures or gives. Under the circumstances in these cases, the trial court gravely failed in this regard. x x x”

The Highest Tribunal decreed further: “x x x Even if the zeal of an accused’s lawyer fell short of that required of him, that is, for him to have asked the court to suspend the arraignment of his client on the ground of the latter’s unsound mental health, the greater demand of due process overwhelms such 562

562


inadequate zeal. It is also worthy to maintain Atty. Vasquez’s apparent lackadaisical attitude in these cases which amounted to disregard of the strict demand of fidelity to his oath as a lawyer, duty to his client, and responsibility as an officer of the court. He knew from the very beginning that Arnel was hospitalized for mental disorder. The latter’s strange appearance at his arraignment was enough reason for a counsel to ask for the deferment of arraignment and for leave of court to have Arnel subjected to psychological examination and psychiatric evaluation. Then, too, he should have presented the doctor who treated Arnel in the UST hospital for his recurring mental illness. Irrefutably, Atty. Vasquez’s behavior in the defense of Arnel, fell short of the demanding duty to present every defense that the law permits to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty but by due process of law. Even if Atty. Vasquez’s zeal for Arnel’s case fell short of that required of him, that is, for him to

have asked the court to suspend the arraignment of Arnel, on the ground of the latter’s unsound mental health, the greater demand of due process overwhelms such inadequate zeal.”

4. People vs. Bernas, G.R. Nos. 133583-85, February 20, 2002, 377 SCRA 391, illustrates the details of due process when an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense before the court. Due process dictates that the ruling of the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case should be followed to the latter. The Supreme Court held: “x x x The trial must observe the following rules when an accused desires to plead guilty to a capital offense: (1) the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full compensation of the consequences of the pleas; (2) the court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) The court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.”

The Supreme Court continued to explain the meaning of Searching Inquiry and how it is done: “x x x Searching Inquiry should be conducted as follows: (1) ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent 563

VOL. 627, AUGUST 10, 2010

563

Due Process

counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and (c) under what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the investigations. These the court shall do in order to rule out the possibility that the accused has been coerced or placed under a state of duress either by actual threats or physical harm coming from malevolent or avenging quarters; (2) ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had conferred with, and completely explained to the accused the meaning and consequences of a plea of guilty; (3) elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as his age, socio-economic status, and educational background, which may serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilty; (4) inform the accused of the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the penalty under the law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence. Not infrequently indeed an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment

or upon bad advice or because of bad promises of the authorities or parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty of the judge to see to it that the accused does not labor under these mistaken impressions; (5) require the accused to fully narrate the incident that spawned the charges against him or make him reenact the manner in which he perpetrated the crime, or cause him to supply missing details of significance. x x x”

5. People vs. Monteron, G.R. No. 130709, March 6, 2002, 378 SCRA 340, discusses constitutional due process. The Highest Tribunal articulated: “x x x Constitutional due process demands that the accused in a criminal case should be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The rationale behind this constitutional guarantee are: first, to furnish the accused with the description of the charge against him as well enable to make his defense; second, to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for the protection against a further prosecution for the same cause; and third, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had.”

The Supreme Court ruled further: 564

564


“x x x In fulfillment of the aforesaid constitutional guarantee, Rule 116, Section 1(a) of the Rules of Court mandates that an accused be arraigned in open court and asked to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty of the crime charged. The purpose of arraignment is to apprise the accused of the possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him, or at the very least to inform him of why the prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized against him. Consequently, when accused-appelant entered a negative plea during his arraignment, the same was not binding on the court as an indication of his innocence. Rather, it is a general denial of the charges impugned against him and an exercise of his right to be heard of his plea. x x x”

6. People vs. Dumalahay, G.R. Nos. 131837-38, April 2, 2002, 380 SCRA 37, speaks of due process as followed in the taking of extrajudicial confessors and the invoking of the Miranda doctrine.

Said the Supreme Court: “x x x Where it is shown that extrajudicial confessions were given with all the safeguards required under the Miranda Doctrine, the admissible in evidence. The sworn statements of the three accused show that they were properly apprised of their right to remain silent and right to counsel, in accordance with the constitutional guarantee. At 8:00 in the morning of the next day, the three accused proceeded to the office of Atty. Rexel Pacuribot, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. All of the three accused, still accompanied by Atty. Ubayubay, subscribed and swore to their respective written confessions. Before administering the oaths, Atty. Pacuribot reminded the three accused of the constitutional rights under the Miranda Doctrine and verified that their statements were voluntarily given. Atty. Pacuribot also translated the contents of each confession in the Visayan dialect, to ensure that each accused understood the same before signing it. No ill-motive was imputed on these two lawyers to testify falsely against the accused. Their participation in these cases merely involved the performance of their legal duties as officers of the court. x x x More importantly, the confessions are replete with details which could only be supplied by the accused, reflecting spontaneity and coherence which psychologically can not be associated with a mood to 565

VOL. 627, AUGUST 10, 2010

565

Due Process

which violence and torture have been applied. These factors are clear indicia that the confessions were voluntarily given. x x x”

7. People vs. Orbita, G.R. No. 136591, July 11, 2002, 384 SCRA 393, speaks of due process. In more specific terms, the Supreme Court expounded: “x x x The accused can not complain that he was denied due process when the trial court convicted him of raping the complainant, a mental retardate, under an information that did not allege her mental state, where he had notice that the prosecution would prove that the complainant had a mental age of a child below ten (10) and was given all the opportunity to meet the evidence of the prosecution on the issue. He could not say he was taken by surprise and was not able to defend himself. Indeed, he has never taken this posture. x x x”

8. Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC (4th Division), G.R. No. 115785, August 4, 2000, 337 SCRA 286, explains Constitutional due process in this wise: “x x x The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side—with respect to the procedural aspect of private respondent’s dismissal, he was given ample opportunity to present his side and to defend himself against the charges against him. He had every opportunity to be heard. x x x The fact that respondent Diamante was not able to confront Pineda did not mean that he was deprived of his right to due process. x x x”

9. Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 14361841, May 30, 2002, 385 SCRA 436 deals with Criminal due process. The Supreme Court postulated: “x x x Criminal due process requires that the accused must be proceeded against under the orderly processes of law. In all criminal cases, the judge should follow the step-by-step procedure required by the Rules. The reason for this is to assure that the state makes no mistake in taking the life or liberty except that of the guilty. x x x” 566

566


10. Gerken vs. Quintos, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1441, July 31, 2002, 386 SCRA 520, discusses right to Bail and Preliminary Investigation. The Supreme Court decreed: “x x x Respondent Judge, possibly through ignorance, disregarded the procedure for preliminary investigation as provided in Rule 112, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and thereby deprived complainants of their right to due process. x x x”

The Supreme Court further mentioned: “x x x The right to preliminary investigation is a substantive right, a denial of which constitutes a deprivation of the accused’s right to due process, and such denial is aggravated where the accused is detained without bail for his provisional liberty. It is important that those charged with the duty of conducting preliminary investigations do so scrupulously in accordance with

the procedure provided in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. x x x”

11. Government of the United States of America vs. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, October 14, 2002, 389 SCRA 623, explains among others, the meaning of due process. The Supreme Court articulated: “x x x The detention of a potential extraditee prior to the conclusion of the extradition proceedings does not amount to a violation of his right to due process—while the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard, it does not always call for a prior opportunity to be heard—contrary to his intention, his detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition proceedings does not amount to a violation of his right to due process. We iterate the familiar doctrine that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard but, at the same time, point out that the doctrine does not call for a prior opportunity to be heard. Where the circumstances—such as those present in an extradition case— call for it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough. In the present case, respondent will be given full opportunity to be heard subsequently, when the extradition court hears the Petition for Extradition. Hence, there is no violation of his right to due process and fundamental fairness. x x x” 567

VOL. 627, AUGUST 10, 2010

567

Due Process

12. Mariveles Shipping Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144134, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 573, speaks among others of due process. The Supreme Court expounded: “x x x The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. The requirement of the due process in labor cases before a Labor Arbiter is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit their position papers to which they are supposed to attach all the supporting documents or documentary evidence that would prove their respective claims, in the event the Labor Arbiter determines that no formal hearing would be conducted or that such hearing was not necessary. Not all cases require a trial type hearing. In any event, as found by the NLRC, petitioner was given ample opportunity to present its side in several hearings conducted before the Labor Arbiter and in the position papers and

other supporting documents that it had submitted, We find that such opportunity more than satisfies the requirement of due process in labor cases. x x x”

13. Allied Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144412, November 18, 2003, 416 SCRA 65, discusses among others, due process in labor cases. Said the Supreme Court: “x x x The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. On the requirement of hearing, this court has held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. An actual hearing is not necessary. The exchange of several letters, in which Galanida’s wife, a lawyer with the City Prosecutor’s Office, assisted him, gave Galanida an opportunity to respond to the charges against him. x x x”

14. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152454, November 18, 2003, 416 SCRA 133, speaks of the two aspects of due process. The Supreme Court expounded: “x x x Due process of law has two aspects: substantive and procedural due process. In order that a particular act may not be im568

568


pugned as violative of due process clause, there must be compliance with both substantive and the procedural requirements thereof.”

In the present context, substantive due process refers to the intrinsic validity of a law that interfere with the right of a person to his property. On the other hand, procedural due process means compliance with the procedure or steps, even periods, prescribed by the statute in conformity with the standards of fair play and without arbitrariness on the part of those who are called upon to administer it. Insofar as substantive due process is concerned, there is no showing that R.A. 1379 is unfair, unreasonable, or unjust. In other words, respondent Marcoses are not being deprived of their property through forfeiture for arbitrary reasons on or flimsy grounds. x x x” A careful study of the Provision of R.A. 1379 readily discloses that the forfeiture proceedings in the Sandiganbayan did not violate the substantive rights of

respondent Marcoses. These processes are civil in nature, not criminal as contended by the Marcoses. The Supreme Court continued: “x x x Due process, a constitutional precept, does not therefore always and in all situations require a trial type proceeding. The essence of due process is found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit one’s evidence in support of his defense. What the law prohibits is not merely the absence of a provisions notice but the absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard. This opportunity was made completely available to respondents who participated in all stages of the litigation. x x x” ——o0o——

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Annotation on Due Process

Recommend Documents