(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the

trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a
witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found
in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in
another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the
same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the
opportunity to cross-examine him.

The basis of the right to confront witnesses is the constitutional right of the accused
to meet the witnesses face to face (Section 2. Art. III, 1987 Constitution). It is a
fundamental right which is part of due process not only in criminal, but also in civil
proceedings and other proceedings before administrative bodies with quasi-judicial
powers.
It is intended to prevent the conviction of an accused upon mere depositions and
affidavits; to preserve the right of the accused to test the recollection of witnesses
against him; and to enable the court to observe the demeanor of the witnesses who are
testifying.
Such right is waived if the accused decides to run away, jumps bail, or disappears
he is automatically waiving the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses
against him.
Exceptions to the rule.-

1. The right of confrontation and cross-examination cannot be invoked if the
witnesses against the accused had already testifies in another proceeding involving the
same parties and subject matter, where the latter had opportunity to cross-examine the
former. This witness may be dead already; he is out of the country; he cannot be found
with diligence if in the Philippines; he is available or otherwise unable to testify due to
sickness or some other similar reasons
2 The right of confrontation and cross examination may be waived expressly after
arraignment or impliedly by non-appearance of the accused in the trial. They be waived
right of cross-examination is a personal one. It may be waived expressly or impliedly by
conduct. A party given the right to cross-examine a witness forfeits that right if he
failed, due to his own fault, to avail himself of that right.
3. The right of confrontation is sometimes dispensed with or excused in admissible
hearsay evidence like in dying declarations of the victim of the crime. A dead person
cannot be cross-examined.

(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of
witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.

The right of the accused to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of the evidence in his behalf is
guaranteed under the Constitution (Section 14(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution).
The accused can request the court for the issuance of subpoena
testificandum to a witness ordering him to appear and testify on the date and
hour indicated in the subpoena. If the witness, despite receipt of the subpoena,
failed to appear without justifiable reason, he may be punished for contempt of
court for which he may be imprisoned and/or fined for disobeying a lawful order
of the court.
This rule is true even if the residence of the witness is beyond 100
kilometers from the place of trial by usual course of travel. That has already
been answered in the cases of PEOPLE VS. MONTEJO and MILLORCA VS.
QUITAIN. The SC said that the 100-km limitation (formerly 50 kms.) does not
apply when you are talking of witnesses for the defense in a criminal case
because of the Constitutional right to have compulsory process issued to secure
the attendance of witnesses in his behalf. That right cannot be precluded by
provisions in the Rules of Court.


(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.

There are actually three rights here:
1. the right to a speedy trial;
2. the right to an impartial trial; and
3. the right to a public trial.

Q: What do you mean by speedy trial? In the case of ALVIZO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
220 SCRA 55

HELD: It must not be lost sight of that the concept of speedy disposition of
cases is a RELATIVE term and must necessarily be a flexible concept. Delays per se
are understandably attendant to all prosecutions and are constitutionally permissible
with the monition that the attendant delay must NOT be OPPRESSIVE.Hence, the
doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether or not that right has been
violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are:
a.) the length of delay;
b.) the reasons for such delay;
c.) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and
d.) the prejudice caused by the delay.


Q: What are the remedies of an accused whose rights to a speedy trial is being
violated because the prosecution keeps on postponing the case? How do you invoke
this right to speedy trial?
A: There are three (3) possible remedies:

1. The accused should OPPOSE the postponement and insist on trial. If the
court denies the postponement and directs the prosecution to proceed and
cannot do so because he does not have the evidence, the accused should
move for dismissal of the case on the ground of failure to prosecute or
insufficiency of evidence. (Jaca vs. Blanco, 86 Phil. 452; Gandicela vs. Lutero,
88 Phil. 299; People vs. Diaz, 94 Phil. 714) The dismissal is equivalent to an
acquittal and there is no way for that case to be brought back because it will
amount to double jeopardy. (People vs. Diaz, 94 Phil. 714)

2. If the court grants the postponement everytime the fiscal asks for it, over the
protest of the accused, the latters remedy is mandamus to compel dismissal
of the case; (Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil. 215)

3. If the accused is restrained of his liberty, his remedy is habeas corpus to
obtain his freedom. (Mercado vs. Santos, 66 Phil. 215; Conde vs. Rivera, 45
Phil. 650)


Q: When is trial impartial?
A: There should be no bias otherwise, the trial will not be fair you are not given
due process. If the court or the judge has already pre-ordained your guilt. Every
litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
(Villapando vs. Quitain, January 20, 1977)

Q: Right to a public trial this is one of the features of the accusatorial system.
What is the reason for public trial?
A: The requirement of public trial is for the benefit of the accused, that the public
may see that he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence
of spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of responsibility and to the
importance of their functions. (1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p. 647)

Please connect this provision on Speedy Trial with Rule 119 Section 9 which is a new
provision taken from the Speedy Trial Act. What is the heading of Section 9 Rule 119?
Remedy where accused is not brought to trial within time limits. So there is such a
provision. When your case will not move, the accused may question the delay why his
case has not been set for trial. That is a new provision taken from the Speedy Trial Act.

[i] To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law

There is something you will notice here all the rights of the accused in this Rule,
from [a] to [h], are also found in the Constitution. These are all Constitutional rights
except the last [i]. The right to appeal is purely statutory which may be granted or
withheld at the pleasure of the State. (People vs. Ang Gioc, 73 Phil. 366)