Consti II case digest:ESTRADA VS DESIERTO:

Rights of an Accused During Trial SUMMARY OF RIGHTS: CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS

FACTS:

The geist of the petitioner herein started when Juan Ponce Enrile divulged that Joseph Estrada received more than 200M from jueteng, which was followed by the privilege speech of the minority leader, Guingone, entitled I accused that the petitioner herein received 70M from Singson.

Calls for the resignation of the petitioner aired. Among those who called for it were the archbishop Cardinal Sin, former president Cory Aquino, and Ramos.

House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of Impeachment which was signed by 115 members, or more than ⅓ of all the members of the House of Representatives to the Senate. Atty. Edgardo Espiritu who served as petitioner’s Secretary of Finance took the witness stand alleging that the petitioner herein that he has a Jose Velarde account showing that he has 3.3B. People also assembled in EDSA shrine praying for the resignation of the Petitioner, and even some 130, 000 member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines withdraw their support.

On January 20, President Arroyo had her oath as the new President of the Philippines. This take over of the position was also recognized by other State and when even the Former President of the United States called her to show recognizance.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be enjoined due to prejudicial publicity.

HELD:

The Supreme Court answered in negative.

There are two principal and philosophical schools of though how to deal with the rain unrestrained publicity during the investigation and trial of high profile cases.

1.    British Approach - approach the problem with the presumption that publicity will prejudice a jury. Thus English courts readily stay and stop criminal trials when the right of an accused to fair trial suffers a threat.

2.    American Approach - Assume a skeptical approach about the potential effect of pervasive publicity on the right ogf an accused to a fair trial. They have developed different strains of tests to resolve this issue: substantial; probability of irreparable harm, strong likelihood, clear and present danger..

The contention of the petitioner cannot be sustained that he was denied the right to impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.And publicity does not prove by itself that it so permeated the mind of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality.

There must be proof and allegation that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of publicity.

In the case at bar, the records DO NOT show that the trial judge acquired a fixed opinion as a result of prejudicial publicity, which is incapable of change even by evidence presented during the trial.

Wherefore, the petition was denied.