Public Trial

      Every trial of a case, whether criminal or civil, must be public to assure the people desirous to observe that justice is afforded to all the parties before the court in keeping with their right to a fair and impartial trial.

      In criminal prosecutions, the accused is not only entitled to a speedy trial, but at the same time, speedy disposition of his case, not only before the trial court, but also before a court of appellate jurisdiction.

      A trial is said to be public when the proceeding is open to the general public, but precluding the idea, however, that everyone of the public be accommodated. This constitutional requirement of a public trial is duly observed if a reasonable number of the public is permitted to attend under ordinary circumstances. Therefore, secret trials are not authorized, except only when the accused makes a request and in the opinion of the court, the public should be excluded in the interest of decency and morality. (Garcia vs. Domingo, 25 July 1973; 52SCRA 143)

      In the a fore cited case of People vs. Domingo, the Supreme Court declared that the trial must be made public, then laid down the criterion of what constitutes a public trial, as follows:

            "It possesses that character when everyone who is interested in observing the manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom may do so. There is no ban on such attendance, His being a stranger to the litigants is of no moment. No relationship to the parties need be shown. There is a well recognized exception though that warrants the exclusion of the public where the evidence may be characterized as "offensive to decency and public morals".

      The Supreme Court held: it suffices to satisfy the requirement of a trial being public if the accused could "have his friends, relatives and counsel present, no matter with what offense he may be charged".

Right to Due Process

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 or counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure 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.

      This constitutional prohibition against holding a person to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law is one of the most important safeguards of man's inalienable rights to life, liberty and property.

      In all criminal prosecution, due process requires that there be a law creating or defining clearly the acts constituting the offense, a court of competent jurisdiction, accusation in due form, motive and opportunity to answer the charge, trial according to the settled course of judicial proceedings, and a right to be discharged unless found guilty. In other words, procedural due process embodies the following essential requisites:

      1) a competent court or tribunal;
      2) having jurisdiction over the person or subject matter;
      3) defendant or party is given the opportunity to be heard; and
      4) judgment is rendered after trial based on the evidence adduced, which proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Presumption of Innocence

      A person charge for the commission of a crime is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, that is to say, until his guilt is proven by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose of the rule is not to protect the guilty but to prevent the conviction of innocent persons.

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

      Proof beyond reasonable doubt is that degree of proof whi9ch produces in the mind of an unprejudiced person, that moral certainty or moral conviction that the accused did commit the offense charged. It does not mean such degree of proof as excluding the possibility of error or mistake; it is sufficient if it produces absolute or moral certainty required by law. Moral certainty springs from such proof as will satisfy the judgment and conscience of the trial judge, as a reasonable man, that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged.

      Reasonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict the person charged for the commission of an offense, but moral certainty is required as to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute an offense.

      During the preliminary investigation of an accused charged for the commission of an offense, the State is required only to show prima facie evidence against the accused that he did not commit the crime charge. However, when the information is actually filed before the court in order to afford the accused a fair and impartial trial, the prosecution may not now rely on mere prima facie case against the accused; it must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the accused may not merely rely on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution, but must rely on the strength of his own defense for his acquittal.