The Supreme Court has approved the regulatory guidelines for the use of video conferencing technology that would allow detained persons to testify and be cross-examined on their criminal cases inside their detention cells.
Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez said the court’s video conference called “tele-hearing” would be pilot tested starting Sept. 1 in Davao City.
Marquez already inspected the necessary equipment for the system, which was installed in a hearing room built inside the Davao City jail.
“Tele-hearing” is the SC’s term for “video conferencing” that has long been practiced and adopted during court trial of cases in the technologically advanced countries like the United States.
The tele-hearing system means the holding of a conference among people at remote locations by means of transmitted audio and video signals.
Through these conferences, individuals meet one another in a real-time virtual manner ‘as if they were in the same room’ without the hassle and expense of traveling.
The SC en banc has approved the guidelines for “tele-hearing” following recommendations made by Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, who chairs the SC’s committee on revision of rules.
In a statement, the SC explained that the guidelines “aim to guarantee and preserve the constitutional rights of the accused in court proceedings who are persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) being detained in a district, city or provincial jail or a national inmate committed in a national penitentiary.”
It said the use of the system is designed “to eliminate the safety, security and health risks posed by the personal appearance of PDLs who are ‘considered to be high-risk or afflicted with highly contagious diseases.’”
“Such risk is not only posed on the accused but also to judges, court personnel, and the public in general. This will also guarantee the accused’s rights to be present and confront witnesses against them and to ensure the continuity of proceedings in criminal cases,” the high court said.
“The Court has been ‘employing modern technology, e.g., using live-link television testimony in criminal cases where the witness or the victim is a child and the presentation of testimonial evidence through electronic means in both civil and criminal cases,” it added.
In 2001, the high court gave the family courts the green light to use video-conferencing equipment in trials involving the testimonies of children.
“The Guidelines provide that ‘the remote appearance and testimony of an accused in a videoconference proceeding shall closely resemble his or her otherwise in-person courtroom testimony and experience,” the tribunal said.
“Further, ‘the dignity and solemnity in a videoconference proceeding shall be the same as those of an in-court proceeding. The remote location shall be viewed as an extension of the courtroom,” it pointed out.
The Guidelines also detail the procedures to be observed allowing the defense counsel to be physically present with the PDLs at the jail or in court at the PDLs’ option.
The SC explained that the guidelines also provide that the video cameras must be placed and positioned in such a way so as to cover the same image the PDLs at the remote location would see if he or she were physically present in the courtroom.
“The trial court, however, may exercise its discretion to suspend the videoconference proceeding when there are technical issues which would affect its fairness or if matters should arise warranting the PDLs’ physical appearance in the courtroom,” the SC said.
“Tele-hearing” will be tested for not more than two years between the Davao City Hall of Justice and the Davao City Jail; the Davao City Hall of Justice and the Special Intensive Care Area (SICA), Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan; and the Davao City Hall of Justice and the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City.