Defendants in criminal cases have now been granted by the Philippine Bill certain fundamentally important rights which they did not formerly enjoy; namely, to appear and defend in person or by counsel at every stage of the proceedings; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to testify as witnesses in their own behalf; to be exempt from testifying against themselves; to be confronted at the trial by, and to cross-examine, the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process issue for obtaining witnesses in their own favour; to have speedy and public trials; to be admitted to bail with sufficient sureties in all cases, except for capital offences.  None of these rights were enjoyed under the procedure in effect during the Spanish regime.  A man was prosecuted without being notified of the charges against him, and he was only made aware of the case against him after the sumario.  When all of the evidence of the prosecution had been taken the accused was heard in his own defence.  He was compelled to testify, and was subjected to a very inquisitorial examination, including questions which incriminated him.  Although he had the right to compel witnesses for the prosecution to ratify over their signatures the evidence against him given during the sumario, as the defence of the majority of the accused was in the hands of attorneys de officio they nearly always renounced this privilege of the defendant, and, as has already been said, bail was not admitted in any grave offence during the trial.

No sentence of acquittal in a criminal case can now be appealed from by the government.  Under the Spanish system sentences of acquittal of courts of first instance had to be referred for review to the proper audiencia and the fiscal of the latter could appeal from a sentence of acquittal by it.

The Philippine Bill grants to the inhabitants of the islands other important individual rights which they did not formerly possess.

The Spanish constitution was not in force here, and although the Penal Code contained provisions for punishing, in a way, officials who violated certain rights granted by the Spanish constitution, citizens had no expeditious method of securing their punishment.  Now the Code of Civil Procedure grants them certain special remedies by which their rights can be made good.  To illustrate:  Under the Spanish regime the only remedy for a man illegally detained was to bring a criminal action against the person illegally detaining him.  He did not have the remedy of the writ of habeas corpus nor the writ of prohibition against an official who attempted to make him the victim of some unlawful act.  His only remedy was to bring a criminal action against such official, or to sue him for damages.  He could not compel public officials to perform their ministerial duties by mandamus proceedings.

The individual rights conferred by the Philippine Bill, and the special remedies granted by the Code of Civil Procedure, assure to the inhabitants of the islands liberties and privileges entirely unknown to them during the days of Spanish sovereignty, and these liberties and privileges are adequately safeguarded.