POLITICAL LAW

Bill of Rights
Due Process of Law
No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due
process of law
A law which hears before it
co!de"!s, which proceeds upo!
i!#uiry a!d re!ders $udg"e!t
o!ly after trial
%udges have as "uch i!terest
as cou!sel i! the orderly a!d
e&peditious prese!tatio! of
evide!ce and have the duty to ask
questions that would elicit the facts on the
issues involve, clarify a"biguous
re"ar's by witnesses, and address the
points overlooked by counsel.
When the jude re!arked that the
testi!onies of two witnesses were incredible,
that another witness was totally confused and
appeared to be !entally i!balanced, and two
witnesses were liars, his co!!ents were $ust
ho!est observatio!s i!te!ded to
war! the wit!esses to be ca!did
to the court
(!owledge of i!su)cie!cy of
fu!ds in or credit with the bank is
presu"ed fro" the act of "a'i!g,
drawi!g, a!d issui!g chec'
pay"e!t which is refused by the
drawee ba!' for insu"ciency of funds
whe! prese!ted withi! *+ days
fro" the date of issue #ut this
presu"ptio! does !ot hold when the
"ar'er or drawer pays or "a'es
arra!ge"e!ts for the pay"e!t of
the chec' withi! , ba!'i!g days
after receivi!g !otice that such
chec' had bee! disho!ored $hus, it
is essential for the !aker or the drawer to be
noti%ed of the dishonor of the check, so that
he can pay the value thereof, or !ake
arrane!ents for its pay!ent within the
period prescribed by law. Abse!t such
!otice of disho!or, the !aker or the
drawer ca!!ot be co!victed of
violatin #.P. &&, as there would be a
violatio! of procedural due
process.
'f no pri!a facie %ndin is possible, the
petition !ay be dis!issed at the discretion of
the jude. (n the other hand, if there is a
pri!a facie %ndin, the jude !ust
i!!ediately issue a warrant for the arrest of
the e)tradite, who is at the sa!e ti!e
su!!oned to answer the petition and to
appear at the scheduled su!!ary hearins.
Prior to the issuance of the warrant, the jude
!ust not infor! or notify the potential
e)tradite of the pendency of the petition, lest
the latter be iven the opportunity to escape
and frustrate the proceedins.
'f bail can be ranted in deportation
cases, considerin that the -!iversal
.eclaratio! of /u"a! Rights applies
to deportatio! cases, there is no reason
why it cannot be invoked in e)tradition cases.
*)tradite !ust prove by 0clear a!d
co!vi!ci!g evide!ce1 that he is !ot a
2ight ris' and will abide with all
the orders a!d processes of the
e)tradition court for entitle!ent to bail.
$he right of a party to cross3
e&a"i!e the wit!ess agai!st hi"
in a civil case is an indispensable part of due
process. But i! ad"i!istrative
proceedi!gs, tech!ical rules of
procedure a!d evide!ce are !ot
strictly applied. +ince nothin on record
shows that petitioner asked for cross,
e)a!ination, he cannot arue that he has
been deprived of due process !erely because
no cross,e)a!ination took place.
$he 4li!g of a !otion for
reconsideration cures the defect of
abse!ce of a hearin.
$he essence of due process in
ad"i!istrative proceedi!gs is an
opportu!ity to e&plai! o!e5s side
or an opportu!ity to see'
reco!sideratio! of the action or rulin
co!plained.
1
$here are cases in which !otice a!d
heari!g !ay be dispe!sed with without
violatin due process.
*)a!ple-
Ca!cellatio! of the passport of
a person souht for the co!!ission of a
cri!e.
Preve!tive suspe!sio! of a civil
servant facin ad!inistrative chares.
.istrai!t of property for ta)
delinquency.
Padloc'i!g of restaurants found
unsanitary or of theaters showin
obscene !ovies, and the abate!ent of
nuisances per se.
/ourts should be liberal in settin aside
orders of default, because jud!ents of
default are frowned upon unless in cases
where it clearly appears that the reopenin of
the case is intended for delay.
Publicatio! as part of due process
Publication is i"perative to the
validity of laws.
Appeal and due process
Appeal is !ot a !atural right !or
is it part of due process 0enerally, it
!ay be allowed or denied by the leislature
i! its discretio!. But where the
Co!stitutio! gives a perso! the
right to appeal, e.., in the cases co!in
under the !ini!u! appellate jurisdiction of
the +upre!e /ourt +ec. 12&3, Art. 4''',
de!ial of the riht to appeal co!stitutes
violatio! of due process. Where
there is a statutory gra!t of the
right to appeal, denial of that re!edy
also co!stitutes a de!ial of due
process
't is !erely a statutory privilege,
!ay be e&ercised o!ly i! the
"a!!er a!d i! accorda!ce with the
provisions of law.
Preli!inary investiation and due process
5iht to preli!inary investiation is not a
constitutional riht, but is "erely a right
co!ferred by statute
$he abse!ce of a preli"i!ary
i!vestigatio! does !ot i"pair the
validity of the i!for"atio! or
otherwise re!der the sa"e
defective $he de!ial of the "otio!
for rei!vestigatio! ca!!ot likewise
i!validate the i!for"atio! or oust
the court of its $urisdictio! over the
case.
$he riht !ay be waived e)pressly or
by failure to i!vo'e it
But where there is a statutory
gra!t of the right to preli"i!ary
i!vestigatio!, de!ial of the sa"e
is a! i!fri!ge"e!t of the due
process clause
A preli!inary investiation is required to
be conducted before the 4li!g of a
co!plaint or infor!ation for an o6ense where
the pe!alty prescribed by law is at
least 6 years, 7 "o!ths, a!d 8 day
without regard to the 4!e
7owever, when a person is lawfully
arrested without a warra!t involvin
an o6ense which requires a preli!inary
investiation, the co!plaint or infor!ation
"ay be 4led by a prosecutor
without !eed of such
i!vestigatio! provided a! i!#uest
has bee! co!ducted in accordance with
e)istin rules. 'n the abse!ce or
u!availability of a! i!#uest
prosecutor, the co!plaint !ay be 4led
by the o9e!ded party or a peace
o)cer directly with the proper
court o! the basis of the a)davit
of the o9e!ded party or arresti!g
o)cer Before the co"plai!t or
i!for"atio! is 4led, the perso!
arrested "ay as' for a
preli"i!ary i!vestigatio!, but he
!ust sin a waiver of the provisions of
Art 87, of the Revised Pe!al
2
Code, as a"e!ded, i! the
prese!ce of his cou!sel After the
%lin of the co!plaint or infor!ation in court
without a preli!inary investiation, the
accused !ay, withi! , days fro" the
ti"e he lear!s of its 4li!g, ask for a
preli!inary investiation with the sa!e riht
to adduce evidence in his defense.
$he lack of preli!inary investiation is
!ot a grou!d for a "otio! to
#uash
$he riht is not waived by the %lin of
!otion to be ad!itted to bail. #ut the right
is waived whe! the accused fails
to i!vo'e it before or at the ti"e
of e!teri!g a plea at arraig!"e!t
8nreasonable delay in the ter!ination of
the preli!inary investiation by the
$anodbayan violated the due process clause.
#ut where the delay is due to the
co"ple&ity of the issues involved or
is caused by the petitio!er5s ow!
acts, not by the inaction of the prosecution,
there is no violation.
:#ual protectio! of the laws
The preve!tive suspe!sio! of
a police"a! lasti!g u!til
ter"i!atio! of the cri"i!al case
aainst hi! does not violate the police!an9s
riht to equal protection of laws. $here is
substa!tial disti!ctio! between
police!en and other overn!ent e!ployees.
police!en carry weapo!s and the bade
of the law, which ca! be used to
harass or i!ti"idate witnesses aainst
the!.
Right agai!st u!reaso!able
;earches a!d ;ei<ures
$he riht is perso!al. it !ay be
i!vo'ed o!ly by the perso!
e!titled to it
$he riht !ay be waived either e)pressly
or i!pliedly but the waiver "ust be
"ade by the perso! whose right
is i!vaded, not by one who is not duly
authori:ed to e6ect such waiver.
$he protectio! ca!!ot e&te!d
to acts co""itted by private
i!dividuals so as to brin the! within the
a!bit of alleed unlawful intrusion by the
overn!ent.
Ob$ectio!s to the warra!t of
arrest "ust be "ade before the
accused e!ters his plea ;ailure to do
so constitutes a waiver of his riht aainst
unlawful restraint of liberty.
$he 4li!g of charges a!d the
issua!ce of the warra!t of arrest
aainst a person invalidly detained will cure
the defect of that dete!tio!, or at
least de!y hi" the right to be
released
Where a cri!inal case is pendin, the
Court wherei! it is 4led, or the
assined branch thereof, has pri"ary
$urisdictio! to issue the search
warra!t. and where no such cri!inal case
has yet been %led, the e&ecutive
$udges, or their lawful substitutes,
in the areas and for the o6ense conte!plated
in /ircular <,=<, shall have pri!ary
jurisdiction. This does !ot "ea!
however, that a Court, whose
territorial $urisdictio! does !ot
e"brace the place to be
searched, ca!!ot issue a search
warra!t therefore, where the obtention
of such search warrant is necessitated and
justi%es by co"pelli!g
co!sideratio!s of urge!cy, subject,
ti!e and place.
#ut the !o!ent an infor!ation is %led
with the 5$/, it is that court which !ust issue
the warrant of arrest. $he >$/ ?ude who
continued with preli!inary investiation and
issued warrants of arrest violated procedure.
'f the case had already been re!anded to the
>$//, after the infor!ation for perjury was
erroneously %led with the 5$/, it was error for
3
the 5$/ ?ude not to recall the warrant of
arrest issued, because contrary to her clai!,
the issuance of a warrant is not a !inisterial
function of the jude.
Where a search warrant is issued by one
court and the cri!inal action based on the
results of the search is afterwards
co!!enced in another court, it is !ot the
rule that a "otio! to #uash the
warra!t or to retrieve thi!gs
thereu!der sei<ed !ay be 4led o!ly
with the issui!g court ;uch a
"otio! "ay be 4led for the 4rst
ti"e i! either the issui!g court or
that i! which the cri"i!al actio!
is pe!di!g
$he jude !ay order the quashal of the
warrant he issued eve! after the sa"e
had already bee! i"ple"e!ted,
particularly whe! such #uashal is
based o! the 4!di!g that there is
!o o9e!se co""itted
$he require!ent that probable cause is
to be deter!ined only by a jude does not
e)tend to deportation cases which are not
cri!inal but purely ad!inistrative in nature.
Where a search warrant was issued for
the sei:ure of shabu and dru paraphernalia,
but probable cause was found to e)ist only
with respect to the shabu, the warrant
ca!!ot be i!validated i! toto. it is
still valid with respect to the shabu.
Where the trial jude conducted an
inquiry not only to deter!ine the e)istence of
probable cause, but also to deter!ine what
the chare should be and who should be
chare, it was held that the jude acted
beyo!d his authority.
'n the cases when it is the jude who
hi!self conducts the preli!inary
investiation, for hi! to issue a warrant of
arrest, the investiation jude !ust
<. have e&a"i!ed, u!der oath a!d
i! writi!g, the co"plai!a!t a!d
his wit!esses.
&. be satis4ed that there is probable
cause. and
@. that there is a !eed to place the
respondent u!der i""ediate
custody i! order !ot to
frustrate the e!ds of $ustice
Issua!ce of a ;earch Warra!t
5equires that the jude "ust
perso!ally e&a"i!e i! the for" of
searchi!g #uestio!s a!d a!swers,
i! writi!g a!d u!der oath, the
co!plainants and any witnesses he !ay
produce o! facts perso!ally '!ow!
to the", and attach to the record their
sworn state!ents toether with any a"davits
sub!itted.
$he personal e)a!ination !ust !ot be
"erely routi!ary or pro for"a, but
"ust be probi!g a!d e&haustive
Particularity of descriptio!
Warrant of Arrest
A warrant of arrest is said to particularly
describe the person to be sei:ed if it contains
the na!eAs of the personAs to be arrested. 'f
the na!e of the person to be arrested is not
known, then a B?ohn DoeC warrant !ay be
issued. A B?ohn DoeC warrant will satisfy the
constitutional require!ent of particularity of
description if there is so"e
descriptio! perso!a which will
e!able the o)cer to ide!tify the
accused
A search warrant !ay be said to
particularly describe the thins to be sei:ed
whe! the descriptio! therei! is as
speci4c as the circu"sta!ces will
ordi!arily allow
A search warrant is severable.
$he eneral description of !ost of the
docu!ents in the warrant ,,,if there are
others particularly described
333will !ot i!validate the e!tire
warra!t
4
't was held that even while the
o9e!se of illegal possessio! of
4rear"s is "alu" prohibitu", it
does !ot follow that the sub$ect
4rear" is illegal per se $hus,
inas!uch as the consent to the search was
li!ited in scope to the search for NPA rebels,
the co!4scatio! of the %rear! was held
invalid.
Place to be searched
$he place to be searched should likewise
be particularly described.
$he place to be searched, as described in
the warrant, ca!!ot be a"pli4ed or
"odi4ed by the peace o)cers5
ow! perso!al '!owledge of the
pre"ises or the evidence which they
adduced in support of their application for a
warrant.
$he /onstitution requires search warrants
to particularly describe not only the place to
be searched, but also the persons to be
searched. $he validity of the search warrant
was upheld despite the "ista'e i!
the !a"e of the perso!s to be
searched, because the authorities
co!ducted surveilla!ce a!d a
test3 buy operatio! before
obtai!i!g the search warra!t a!d
subse#ue!tly i"ple"e!ti!g it
$hey had perso!al '!owledge of the
ide!tity of the perso!s a!d the
place to be searched, althouh they
did not speci%cally know the na!es of the
accused.
Properties subject to sei:ure
a. ;ub$ect of the o6ense.
b. ;tole! or e"be<<led property and
other proceeds or fruits of the
o6ense. and
c. Property used or i!te!ded to be
used as "ea!s for the
co""issio! of an o6ense.
't is !ot !ecessary that the
property to be searched or sei<ed
should be ow!ed by the person aainst
who! the warrant is issued. it is su)cie!t
that the property is withi! his co!trol
or possessio!.
Co!duct of the ;earch
No search of a house, roo! or any of the
pre!ises shall be !ade e&cept i! the
prese!ce of the lawful occupa!t
thereof or a!y "e"ber of his
fa"ily, or in the abse!ce of the
latter, in the prese!ce of two
wit!esses of su)cie!t age a!d
discretio!, residi!g i! the sa"e
locality
(id!appi!g with serious illegal
dete!tio! is dee!ed a co!ti!ui!g
cri"e.
0Reliable i!for"atio!1 alo!e,
abse!t of a!y overt act i!dicative
of a felo!ious e!terprise i! the
prese!ce a!d withi! the view of the
arrestin o"cers, is not su"cient to
constitute probable cause to justify the arrest.
;or a successful prosecution for the sale
of illeal drus after a by,bust operation,
what is i"porta!t is the fact that
the poseur3buyer received the
goods fro" the accused3appella!t
a!d the sa"e was prese!ted i!
court as evide!ce $here is !o rule
of law that re#uires that there
"ust be si"ulta!eous e&cha!ge
of the "ar'ed "o!ey a!d the
prohibited drug between the poseur,
buyer and the pusher. $here is also !o rule
that re#uires the police to use
o!ly "ar'ed "o!ey i! buy3bust
operatio!s
$he !ere discovery of !arked !oney on
the person of the accused did not !ean that
he was cauht in the act of sellin !arijuana.
The "ar'ed "o!ey was !ot
prohibited per se
There "ust be a large
"easure of i""ediacy betwee!
5
the ti"e the o9e!se is co""itted
a!d the ti"e of the arrest, a!d if
there was a! appreciable lapse of
ti"e betwee! the arrest a!d the
co""issio! of the cri"e, a
warra!t of arrest "ust be
secured Aside fro! the sense of
i!!ediacy, it is also "a!datory that
the perso! "a'i!g the arrest has
perso!al '!owledge of certai!
facts i!dicati!g that the perso! to
be ta'e! i!to custody has
co""itted the cri"e
Where the police!en saw the victi!
dead at the hospital and when they inspected
the cri!e scene, they found the instru!ents
of death ,,, and the eyewitnesses reported the
happenin and pointed to 0erente as of the
killers, the warrantless arrest of 0erente
o!ly three hours after the 'illi!g
was held valid, since the police!en had
personal knowlede of the violent death of
the victi! and of the facts indicatin that
0erente and two others had killed the victi!.
Note, however, that the waiver is
li"ited to the illegal arrest It
does !ot e&te!d to the search
"ade as a! i!cide!t thereto, or to
the subsequent sei:ure of evidence alleedly
found durin the search. $hus, whe! the
arrest is i!cipie!tly illegal 333 eve!
if the right to #uestio! the sa"e
is dee"ed waived by the accused
e!teri!g his plea 333 it follows that
the subse#ue!t search is si"ilarly
illegal A!y evide!ce obtai!ed i!
violatio! of the co!stitutio!al
provisio! is legally i!ad"issible i!
evide!ce u!der the e&clusio!ary
rule
Warra!tless ;earches
When the riht is voluntarily waived, the
consent !ust be volu!tary, i.e.,
unequivocal, speci%c and intelliently iven,
u!co!ta"i!ated by a!y duress or
coercio!
$he police!en opened a tin can in the
jeepney of the accused but the accused did
!ot protest, the +upre!e /ourt held that
there was co!se!t.
0Co!se!t1 give! u!der
i!ti"idati!g or coercive
circu"sta!ces is !ot co!se!t
withi! the purview of the
co!stitutio!al guara!tee $he
+upre!e /ourt said that ac#uiesce!ce i!
the loss of fu!da"e!tals right is
!ot to be presu"ed. $he fact that a
person failed to object to a search does not
a!ount to per!ission thereto. 'n any case,
any presu!ption in favor of reularity would
be severely di!inished by the alleation of
appellants that the arresti!g o)cers
poi!ted a gu! at the" before askin
the! to open the subject bo).
Waiver !ust be iven by the person
whose riht is violated.
+cope of the waiver.
't was held that where per!ission to
enter the residence is iven to search for
rebels, it is illeal to search the roo!s therein
and sei:e %rear!s without a search warrant.
;earch of vessels a!d aircraft
A 4shi!g vessel found to be violati!g
4shery laws !ay be sei<ed without
a warra!t on two rounds-
8 #ecause they are usually e#uipped
with powerful "otors that enable
the! to elude pursuit, and
7 #ecause the sei:ure would be an
accident to a lawful arrest. The court
upheld the warra!tless search
of a 4!ishi!g boat "ade by
the police o! the stre!gth of a
report sub"itted by Tas'
=orce Ba!tay .agat
;earch of "ovi!g vehicles
A chec'poi!t search !ay either be a
"ere routi!e i!spectio!, or it !ay
6
involve an e&te!sive. ;or a !ere routi!e
inspection, the search is nor!ally per!issible
when it is li"ited to a "ere visual
search, where the occupa!ts are !ot
sub$ected to a physical or body
search. (n the other hand, when the
vehicle is stopped and subjected to an
e&te!sive search, it would be
constitutionally per"issible o!ly if the
o"cers conductin the search had
reaso!able or probable cause to
believe, before the search, that
either the !otorist is a law o9e!der or
they will 4!d the i!stru"e!tality
or evide!ce pertai!i!g to a cri"e
in the vehicle to be searched.
$he Bplain viewC doctrine is usually
applied where the police o"cer is not
searchin for evidence aainst the accused,
but nonetheless i!adverte!tly co"es
upo! a! i!cri"i!ati!g ob$ect
An object is in Bplain viewC if the object
itself is plai!ly e&posed to sight.
Where the object sei:ed is i!side a
closed pac'age, the object is !ot i!
plai! view and, therefore, cannot be
sei:ed without a warrant. /owever, if the
pac'age proclai"s its co!te!ts,
whether by its disti!ctive
co!4guratio!, its tra!spare!cy, or
if its co!te!ts are obvious to a!
observer, the! the co!te!ts are i!
plai! view and !ay be sei:ed. 'f the
packae is such that an e&perie!ced
observer could i!fer fro" its
appeara!ce that it co!tai!s
prohibited articles, then the article is
dee!ed in plain view.
$he peace o"ces entered the dwellin
ar!ed with a search warrant for the sei:ure of
shabu and dru paraphernalia. 'n the course
of the search, they 2presu!ably3 found the
shabu %rst, and the ca!e upon an article
wrapped in newspaper which turned out to be
!arijuana. (n the issue of whether the
!arijuana !ay be validly sei:ed, the +upre!e
/ourt said once the valid portion of the search
warrant has been e)ecuted, the Bplain viewC
doctrine can no loner provide any basis for
ad!ittin the other ite!s subsequently found.
>ote that the "ari$ua!a was
wrapped i! !ewspaper which was
!ot tra!spare!t
Althouh the !arijuana plants were
found in an unfenced lot, they were not
apparent. A police tea! had to be dispatched
to search for and uproot the prohibited Dora.
Accordinly, the plain view doctrine could not
be validly invoked to justify the sei:ure.
't is reconition of the fact that when
e)ecutin police o"cers co!e across
i!!ediately incri!inatin evidence not
covered by the warrant, they should !ot
be re#uired to close their eyes to
it, regardless of whether it is
evide!ce of the cri"e they are
i!vestigati!g or evide!ce of so"e
other cri"e
*)clusionary 5ule- *vidence obtained in
violation of +ec. &, Art. ''', shall be
inad!issible for any purpose in any
proceedin because it is Bthe fruit of the
poiso!ed tree.C
$he property illeally sei:ed !ay be
used i! evide!ce i! the case 4led
agai!st the o)cer respo!sible for
the illegal sei<ure
Privacy of Co""u!icatio!s a!d
Correspo!de!ce
*)ceptions-
a. Lawful order of the court. or
b. When public safety or order
requires otherwise, as !ay be provided
by law.
A letter written by the accused to a
witness which was produced by the witness
durin the trial is ad!issible in evidence. it
was !ot the result of a! u!lawful
search, !or through a!
u!warra!ted i!trusio! or i!vasio!
i!to the privacy of the accused 't
was produced by the recipie!t of the
letter who identi%ed the sa!e.
=reedo" of :&pressio!
7
No law shall be passed abridgi!g the
freedo" of speech, of e&pressio!
or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to asse"ble and
petitio! the gover!"e!t for
redress of grieva!ces.
Aspects?
;reedo! fro! ce!sorship or prior
restrai!t
$here need !ot be total
suppressio!. even restrictio! of
circulatio! constitutes censorship.
>$5/# e)ercised only for purposes of
0classi4catio!1, !ot ce!sorship.
$he overn!ental interest souht to be
pro!oted can be achieved by !eans other
than the suppression of freedo! of
e)pression.
;reedo! fro! subse#ue!t
pu!ish"e!t
Libel
A public a!d "alicious
i"putatio! of a cri"e, or of a vice or
defect, real, or i"agi!ary, or any act,
o!ission, condition, status, or circu!stance
te!di!g to cause the disho!or,
discredit, or co!te"pt of a natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the !e!ory of
one who is dead.
*very defa!atory i!putation is
presu"ed to be "alicious. #ut this
presu!ption of !alice does !ot e&ist i! the
followi!g i!sta!ces-
<. A private co""u!icatio! !ade
by any person to another in the
perfor"a!ce of a!y legal,
"oral, or social duty. and
&. A fair a!d true report , "ade i!
good faith, without a!y
co""e!ts or re"ar's of any
$udicial, legislative or other
o)cial proceedi!gs which are !ot
of a co!4de!tial !ature, or of any
state!ent, report or speech delivered in
said proceedins, or of a!y act
perfor"ed by public o)cers i!
the e&ercise of their fu!ctio!s.
$he public has the right to be
i!for"ed o! the "e!tal, "oral
a!d physical 4t!ess of ca!didates
for public o)ce 7owever, the rule
applies o!ly to fair co""e!t o!
"atters of public i!terest, fair
co""e!t bei!g that which is true,
or if false, e&presses the real opi!io!
of the author based upo!
reaso!able degree of care a!d o!
reaso!able grou!ds $he principle
does not rant an absolute license to authors
or writers to destroy the persons of
candidates for public o"ce by e)posin the
latter to public conte!pt or ridicule by
providin the eneral public with publications
tai!ted with e&press or actual
"alice 'n the latter case, the re"edy of
the perso! allegedly libeled is to
show proof tha! a! article was
writte! with the author5s
'!owledge that it was false or
with rec'less disregard of
whether it was false or !ot
Obsce!ity, @uideli!es?
<. Whether the average perso!,
applyi!g co!te"porary
sta!dards, would %nd that the work,
ta'e! as a whole, appeals to the
prurie!t i!terest.
&. Whether the work depicts or describes,
in a pate!tly o9e!sive way,
se&ual co!duct speci%cally de%ned
by the applicable state law. and
@. Whether the work, ta'e! as a
whole, lac's serious literary,
artistic, political or scie!ti4c
value.
No one will be subjected to prosecution
for the sale or e&posure of obscene
!aterials u!less these !aterials depict
or describe pate!tly o9e!sive 0hard
core1 se&ual co!duct What re!ains
clear is that obscenity is an issue proper for
judicial deter!ination and should be treated
8
on a case,to,case basis, and on the jude9s
sound discretion.
;reedo! of the press is subordinate to the
decision, authority, interity and
independence of the judiciary and the proper
ad!inistration of justice.
/lear and Present daner rule.
$he substantive evil !ust be e)tre!ely
serious and the deree of i!!inence
e)tre!ely hih before utterances can be
punished.
$he rule is that the daner created !ust not
only be clear and present but also traceable
to the ideas e)pressed.
A per!it to hold a public asse!bly shall not
be necessary where the !eetin is to be held
in a private place, in the ca!pus of a
overn!ent,owned or operated educational
institution, or in a freedo! park. Where a
per!it is required, the written application
shall be %led with the !ayor9s o"ce at least 1
days before the scheduled !eetin and shall
be acted upon within two days, otherwise the
per!it shall be dee!ed ranted.
$he per!it can only be denied on the round
of Bclear and present danerC to public order,
public safety, public convenience, public
!orals or public health.
;reedo! of 5eliion.
Where the dispute involves the property
rihts of the reliious roup, or the relations
of the !e!bers where property rihts are
involved, the civil courts !ay assu!e
jurisdiction.
*cclesiastical a6air as Bone that concerns
doctrine, creed or for! of worship of the
church, or at the adoption and enforce!ent
within a reliious association of needful laws
and reulations for the overn!ent of the
!e!bership, and the power of e)cludin fro!
such associations those dee!ed unworthy of
!e!bership.C #ased on this de%nition, an
ecclesiastical a6air involves the relationship
between the church and its !e!bers and
relates to !atters of faith, reliious doctrines,
worship and overnance of the conreation.
*)a!ples of these a6airs in which the +tate
cannot !eddle are proceedins for
e)co!!unication, ordination or reliious
!inisters, ad!inistration of sacra!ents, and
other activities, to which is attached reliious
sini%cance. 'n this case, what is involved is
the relationship of the church as an e!ployer
and the !inister as an e!ployee. 't is purely
secular and has no relation whatsoever with
the practice of faith, worship or doctrine of
the church.
Liberty (f abode and of travel
A lawful order of the court is also a valid
restriction on the riht to travel.
5iht to infor!ation.
't was held that the riht to infor!ation
conte!plates inclusion of neotiations leadin
to the consu!!ation of the transaction.
(therwise, the people can never e)ercise the
riht if no contract is consu!!ated, or if one
is consu!!ated, it !ay be too late for the
public to e)pose its defects.
*)ceptions. $he riht does not e)tend to
!atters reconi:ed as
privileed infor!ation rooted in separation of
powers, nor to infor!ation on !ilitary and
diplo!atic secrets, infor!ation a6ectin
national security, and infor!ation on
investiations of cri!es by law enforce!ent
aencies before the prosecution of the
accused.
't was held that while the !anner of
e)a!inin public records !ay be subject to
reasonable reulation by the overn!ent
aency in custody thereof, the duty to
disclose the infor!ation of public concern,
and to a6ord access to public records, cannot
be discretionary on the part of said aencies.
Non,i!pair!ent clause.
Li!itations-
a3 Police Power. $he reason for this is that
public welfare is superior to private rihts.
A !unicipal :onin ordinance is a police
!easure and prevails over a restriction
contained in the title to property.
*!inent Do!ain. +ee Eabilin v. N7A, <1F
+/5A F&@
$a)ation.
>iranda Doctrine
5ihts are available only durin custodial
investiation. $he rihts uaranteed in +ec.
<&, Art. 'll, e)ist only in Gcustodial
investiationG or Gin, custody interroation of
accused person.
$his uarantee does not apply to a
spontaneous state!ent, not elicited throuh
questionin by the authorities but iven in an
ordinary !anner whereby the suspect orally
ad!itted havin co!!itted the o6ense.
9
Neither can it apply to ad!issions or
confessions !ade by a suspect before he was
placed under custodial investiation. ln this
case, the narration before the #aranay
/aptain prior to custodial investiation was
ad!issible in evidence, but not ad!issions
!ade before ?ude Dicon, inas!uch as the
questionin by the jude was done after the
suspect had been arrested and such
questionin already constituted custodial
investiation.
't was held that fro! the Hti!e Del 5osario
was GinvitedG for questionin at the house of
the baranay captain, he was already under
e6ective custodial investiation. #ecause he
was not apprised nor !ade aware thereof by
the investiatin o"cers, and because the
prosecution failed to establish that Del
5osario had waived his riht to re!ain silent,
his verbal ad!issions were inad!issible
aainst hi!.
'nvestiations not considered custodial
interroation. A person under nor!al audit
investiation is not under custodial
investiation, because an audit e)a!iner can
hardly be dee!ed to be the law enforce!ent
o"cer conte!plated in the rule. #ecause the
/ourt Ad!inistrator is not a law enforce!ent
o"cer, an investiation conducted by hi!
does not constitute custodial investiation
within the conte!plation of the constitutional
uarantee.
't was held that when an arrested person
sins a bookin sheet and an arrest report at
the police station, he does not ad!it the
co!!ission of an o6ense nor confess to any
incri!inatin circu!stance. $he bookin
sheet is no !ore than a record of arrest and a
state!ent on how the arrest was !ade.
$he rihts uaranteed by this provision refer
to testi!onial co!pulsion only.
attaches upon the start of the investiation,
i.e., when the investiatin o"cer starts to
ask questions to elicit infor!ation andAor
confessions or ad!issions fro! the
respondent. At that point, the person bein
interroated !ust be assisted by counsel to
avoid the pernicious practice of e)tortin false
or coerced ad!issions fro! the lips of the
person underoin investiation.
When, because of the non,availability of
practisin lawyers' in that re!ote town, no
counsel could be provided, the police should
have already desisted fro! continuin with
the interroation, even if the accused ave
consent to the investiation.
$o be co!petent and independent, it is only
required for the lawyer to be Gwillin to
safeuard the constitutional rihts of the
accused, as distinuished fro! one who would
!erely be ivin a routine pere!ptory and
!eaninless recital of the individual9s
constitutional rihts.

the +upre!e /ourt stressed that the
/onstitution requires that the counsel be
independent. (bviously, he cannot be a
special counsel, public or private prosecutor,
counsel of the police, or a !unicipal, attorney,
whose interest is ad!ittedly adverse to the
accused.
the !ere fact that the lawyer was retired
!e!ber of the ?ude AdvocateIs ("ce does
not cast any doubt on his i!pairtiality in
assistin the accused durin custodial
investiation.

the suspect has the %nal choice as he !ay
reject the /(8N+*L chosen for hi! and ask
for another one. A lawyer provided by the
investiators is dee!ed enaed by the
accused when he does not raise any objection
aainst the counselIs appoint!ent durin the
course of the investiation, and the accused
thereafter subscribes to the veracity of the
state!ent before the swearin o"cer.
the +upre!e /ourt, reiteratin the foreoin,
said that !akin the accused read his
constitutional rihts is si!ply not enouh. $he
prosecution !ust show that the accused
understood he read, and that he understood
the consequences of his waiver.
any e)trajudicial confession !ade by a
person arrested, detained or under custodial
investiation shall be in writin and sined by
such person in the presence of his counsel or
in the latterIs absence, upon a valid waiver,
and in the presence of any of parents, older
brothers and sisters, his spouse, the !unicipal
!ayor, the !unicipal jude, district school
supervisor, or priest or !inister of the ospel
as chosen by hi!. otherwise, such
e)trajudicial confession shall be inad!issible
as evidence in any proceedin.

Where appellant, after havin been
apprehended, but without the assistance of
counsel, volunteered infor!ation that he had
killed his wife and even led the authorities to
10
the place where he alleedly buried the
deceased 2which yielded eiht bones after the
police had du the site3 it was held that the
e)trajudicial confession of the appellant is
inad!issible for failure to co!ply with the
constitutional require!ents. even as the
e)trajudicial confession was in writin and
sined by /(8N+*L, because the accused
was not iven the >iranda warnins Ji.e.,
infor!ed of his riht to re!ain silent, that
anythin he says can and will be used aainst
hi!, and that he is entitled to the assistance
of counselK, the confession was held
inad!issible in evidence.

the voluntary but uncounselled confession of
the accused to the >ayor and to the !edia
was ad!issible in evidence. 'n this case, it
was noted that it was the accused who freely,
spontaneously and voluntarily souht the
>ayor for a private !eetin, and the >ayor
did not know that the accused was oin to
confess his uilt. Accused talked with the
>ayor as a con%dant, not as a law
enforce!ent o"cer.
$he person arrested, detained, invited
or under custodial investiation !ust be
infor!ed in a lanuae known to and
understood by hi! of the reason for the arrest
and he !ust be shown the warrant of arrest if
any. *very other warnin, infor!ationor
co!!unication !ust be in a lanuae known
to and understood by the said person
$he person arrested !ust be infor!ed that
his initial waiver of his riht to re!ain silent,
the riht to counsel or any of his rihts does
not bar hi! fro! invokin it at any ti!e
durin the process, reardless of whether he
!ay have answered so!e questions or
volunteered so!e state!ents.
;ruit of the poisonous tree. Accordin to this
rule, once the pri!ary source 2Gthe treeG3 is
shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any
secondary or derivative evidence 2Gthe fruitG3
derived fro! it is also ad!issible. $he rule is
based upon on the principle that evidence
illeally obtained by the +tate should not be
used to ain other evidence, because the
oriinally illeally obtained evidence taints all
evidence subsequently obtained. $hus in this
case, the uncounselled ad!ission bein
inad!issible, the pillow and the $,shirt with
alleed bloodstains L bein evidence derived
fro! the uncounselled confession L would,
likewise, be inad!issible.
5eceipt of sei:ed property inad!issible.$he
5eceipt of +ei:ed property sined by the
accused without the assistance of counsel and
with the accused not havin been %rst
infor!ed of his constitutional rihts is totally
ad!issible in evidence. Where the suspect
was !ade to sin a bond paper which was
used to wrap the !arijuana sticks before the
sa!e were sub!itted to the laboratory for
e)a!ination, the +upre!e /ourt held that this
was in the nature of an uncounselled
confession and therefore inad!issible in
evidence.

Despite the valid warrantless arrest and
search, as a result of a buy,bust operation,
nonetheless, where the accused, insistin that
he would like to wait for counsel,, was !ade
to sin the photocopy of the !arked P&M,bill,
5eceipt of Property +ei:ed, and the #ookin
and 'nfor!ation +heet, without assistance of
counsel, there was clearly a violation of +ec.
<&, Art. 'll, of the /onstitution.
7owever, in People v. Lansanan, <=1 +/5A
NOP, althouh the accused was not assisted
by counsel when he initialled the P<M bills that
the police found tucked in his waist, it was
held that neither his riht aainst self,
incri!ination nor his rihts uaranteed by the
>iranda doctrine was violated, because his
possession of the !arked bills did not
constitute a cri!e, the subject of the
prosecution bein his act of sellin !arijuana
ciarettes. Likewise, in People v. >orico, &PF
+/5A &<P, it was held that the sinin of the
#ookin +heet and the Arrest 5eport without
the bene%t of counsel does not violate the
/onstitution because it is not an ad!ission of
uilt.
5e,enact!ent of the cri!e. Not bein clear
fro! the record that before the re,enact!ent
was staed by the accused, he had been
infor!ed of his constitutional rihts, and that
he had validly waived such rihts before
proceedin with the de!onstration, the
+upre!e /ourt declined to uphold the
ad!issibility of evidence relatin to the re,
enact!ent.
Waiver of the e)clusionary rule. ;or
failure of the accused to
object to the o6er in evidence, the
uncounselled confession was ad!itted
in evidence.
5iht to #ail.
7owever, it is principle that the riht to bail
can be availed of only by a person who is in
custody of the law or otherwise deprived of
his liberty, and it would be pre!ature, not to
say inconruous, to %le a petition for bail for
so!eone whose freedo! has yet to be
curtailed.
'f an accused who is chared with a cri!e
punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted
11
by the trial court and sentenced to su6er such
a penalty, bail is neither a !atter of riht on
the part of the accused nor a !atter of
discretion on the part of the court- an
application for bail !ust be denied.
$raditionally, the riht to bail is not available
to the !ilitary.
even if the prosecution refuses to adduce
evidence or fails to interpose an objection to
the !otion for bail, it is still !andatory the
court to conduct a hearin, or ask searchin
and clari%catory questions fro! which it !ay
infer the strenth of the evidence of uilt, or
lack of it, aainst the accused.
the rule is that a person deprived of his liberty
by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender
!ay apply for bail as soon as he is deprived of
his liberty, even before a co!plaint or
infor!ation is %led aainst hi!.

#ail, a !atter of riht. All persons in custody
shall QiK before or after conviction by the
>etropolitan $rial /ourt. >unicipal $rial /ourt,
>unicipal $rial /ourt in /ities and >unicipal
/ircuit $rial /ourt, and QiiK before conviction by
the 5eional $rial /ourt of an o6ense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
life i!prison!ent be ad!itted to bail as a
!atter of riht with su"cient sureties, or be
released on reconi:ance as prescribed by
law or this 5ule.
#ail when discretionary. 8pon conviction by
the 5eional
$rial /ourt of an o6ense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life
i!prison!ent, the court, on application, !ay
ad!it the accused to bail. $he accused shall
be denied bail, or his bail previously ranted
shall be cancelled, upon showin by the
prosecution with notice to the accused, of the
followin or other si!ilar circu!stances- 2i3
that the accused is a recidivist, quasi,
recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
co!!itted the cri!e aravated by the
circu!stance of reiteration. 2ii3 that the
accused is found to have previously escaped
fro! leal con%ne!ent, evaded sentence or
has violated the conditions of his bail without
valid justi%cation. 2iii3 that the accused
co!!itted the o6ense while on probation,
parole, or under conditional pardon. 2iv.3 that
the circu!stances of the accused or his case
indicate the probability of Diht if released on
bail. or 2v.3 that there is undue risk that durin
the pendency of the appeal, the accused !ay
co!!it another cri!e.

Waiver of the riht to bail. $he riht to bail is
another of the constitutional rihts which can
be waived.
/onstitutional 5ihts of the Accused.
't was found that the si),year delay in the
ter!ination of the preli!inary
investiation was caused by petitionerIs own
acts, not by inaction of the
prosecution. Accordinly, there was no
violation of the petitionerIs riht to
due process of law or of his riht to speedy
disposition of the case.

$he cross,e)a!ination of the accused and the
witnesses by the trial court indicated bias,
and thus violated due process.
#ut where the questions propounded by the
court are !erely for clari%cation, to clear up
dubious points and elicit relevant evidence,
such questionin will not constitute bias.

$he /ourt held that under the principle of
presu!ption of innocence, it is !erely
required that the +tate establish a pri!a facie
case, after which the burden of proof is shifted
to the accused.
*quipoise rule. $he equipoise rule invoked by
the petitioner is applicable only where the
evidence adduced by the parties are evenly
balanced, 'n which case the constitutional
presu!ption of innocence should tilt the
scales in favor of the accused.
$he riht to counsel durin the trial is not
subject to wajver.
$he decision of conviction was set aside
where it appeared that there was !erely a pro
for!a appoint!ent of a counsel de o"cio who
did not e)ert his best e6orts for the protection
of the accused
where the accused, a /antonese, could not
understand *nlish, Pilipino or any Philippine
dialect, it was held that he was denied the
riht to counsel because althouh he was
provided with one, he could not understand or
co!!unicate with his counsel concernin his
defense.
$here is no denial of the riht to counsel
where the counsel de o%cio was appointed
durin the absence of the accused9s counsel
de parte pursuant to the courtIs desire to
%nish the case as early as possible under the
continuous trial syste!.
$he lon standin rule is that a client is bound
by the !istakes of his lawyer. *)cept when
the nelience or inco!petence of counsel is
dee!ed so ross as to have prejudiced the
constitutional riht of the accused to be
heard.

the conviction of the accused who was a deaf,
!ute was reversed by the +upre!e /ourt
12
because no one who knew how to
co!!unicate with the accused was utili:ed
by the trial court durin the entire
proceedin. *very ele!ent of the o6ense
!ust be alleed in the co!plaint or
infor!ation, because the accused is
presu!ed to have no independent knowlede
of the facts that constitute the o6ense
chared.
but is not necessary to state in the co!plaint
or infor!ation the precise ti!e when the
o6ense was co!!itted, e)cept when ti!e is a
!aterial inredient of the o6ense.
$he description not the desination of the
o6ense controls. $he accused can be
convicted only of the cri!e alleed or
necessarily included in the alleations in the
infor!ation.
$he +upre!e /ourt said that the accused !ay
be convicted of as !any o6enses chared in
the infor!ation and proved durin the trial,
where he fails to object to such duplicitous
'nfor!ation durin the arrain!ent.
+peedy trial- a trial free fro! ve)atious,
capricious and oppressive delays.
#ut justice and fairness, not speed, are the
objectives. Accused is entitled to
dis!issal, equivalent to acquittal, if trial is
unreasonably delayed.

. 5epublic Act No. OP=@ Q$he +peedy
$rial ActK, which
provides, a!on others, that the arrain!ent
of an accused shall be held
within @M days fro! %lin of the infor!ation,
or fro! the date the accused has
appeared before the justice, jude or court in
which the chare is pendin
whichever date last occurs. $hereafter, where
a plea of not uilty is entered,
the accused shall have at least <1 days to
prepare for trial. $rial shall
co!!ence within @M days fro! arrain!ent
as %)ed by the court. 'n no case
shall the entire trial period e)ceed <OM days
fro! the %rst day of trial, e)cept
as otherwise authori:ed by the /hief ?ustice of
the +upre!e /ourt.
5.A. OP=@ is a !eans of enforcin the riht of
the accused to a speedy trial. $he spirit of
thelaw is that the accused !ust o on record
in the attitude of de!andin a trial or
resistin delay. 'f he does not do this, he
!ust be held in law to have waived the
privilee.

$he testi!ony of a witness who has not
sub!itted hi!self cross,e)a!ination is not
ad!issible in evidence. $he a"davits of
witnesses who are not presented durin the
trial L and thus, are not subjected to cross
,e)a!ination L are inad!issible because
they are hearsay.
+/5A @@=, where the +upre!e /ourt said that
the failure of the prosecution
to present as witness the poseur,buyer in a
buy,bust operation was fatal to the
prosecutionIs case, because without tha
testi!ony of the latter there is no convincin
evidence that the accused was a r!arijuana
peddler and not si!ply the victi! of
instiation.
A subpoena is a process directed to a person
requirin hi! to attend and to testify at the
hearin or trial of an action or at any
investiation conducted under the laws of the
Philippipes, or for the takin of his deposition.
#efore a subpoena duces tecu! !ay issue,
the court !ust %rst be satis%ed that the
followin requisites are present- 2<3 the books
docu!ents, or other thins requested !ust
appear pri!a facie relevant to the issue
subject of the controversy 2test of relevancy3.
and 2&3 such books !ust be reasonably
described by the parties to be readily
identi%ed 2test of de%niteness.3
*ven after the accused has waived further
appearance durin the trial, he can be
ordered arrested by the court for non,
appearance upon su!!ons to appear for
purposes of identi%cation.
presence of the accused is !andatory- 2i3
durin arrain!ent and plea. 2ii3 durin trial,
for identi%cation. and 2iii3 durin pro!ulation
of sentence unless for a liht o6ense wherein
the accused !ay appear by counsel or
representive.
An accused who escapes fro! con%ne!ent,
or ju!ps bail, or Dees to a
forein country, loses his standin in court,
and unless he surrenders or sub!its hi!self
to the jurisdiction of the court, he is dee!ed
to have waived his riht to seek relief fro!
the court, includin the riht to appeal his
conviction.
7abeas corpu. I$he privilee of the writ of
habeas us shall not be suspended e)cept in
cases of invasion or rebellion when public
safety requires it.

't !ay e)tend to cases by which rihtful
custody of any person is withheld fro! the
person entitled thereto.
'n /aunca v. +ala:ar, O& Phil O1<, the writ was
issued on the round that !oral restraint the
13
e!ployer to prevent the house!aid fro!
leavin.
!ay also be availed of in case of unlawful
denial of bail.
$he ulti!ate purpose of the writ is to relieve a
person fro! unlawful restraint. 't is essentially
a writ of inquiry and is ranted to test the
riht under which he was detained. *ven if
the detention is, at its inception, illeal,
supervenin events, such as the issuance of a
judicial process !ay prevent the dischare of
the detained person
the fact that the preli!inary investiation was
invalid and that the o6ense had already
prescribed do not constitute valid rounds for
the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. $he
re!edy is to %le a !otion to quash the
warrant of arrest, or to %le a !otion to quash
the infor!ation based on prescription.
5estrictive custody and !onitorin of
!ove!ent or whereabouts of police o"cers
under investiation by their superiors is not a
for! of illeal detention or restraint of liberty.
'n case of invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it, 2the President3 !ay,
for a period not e)ceedin si)ty days,
suspend the privilee of the writ of habeas
corpus ) ) ). Within forty,eiht hours fro! )
) ) the suspension of the privilee of the writ
of habeas corpus, the President shall sub!it a
report in person or in writin to the /onress.
$he /onress, votin jointly, by a vote of at
least a !ajority of all its !e!bers in reular
or special session, !ay revoke such
procla!ation or suspension, which revocation
shall not be set aside by the President. 8pon
the initiative of the President, the /onress
!ay, in the sa!e !anner, e)tend such
procla!ation or suspension for a period to be
deter!ined by the /onress, if the invasion
or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it. ) ) ) $he +upre!e /ourt !ay
review, in an appropriate proceedin %led by
any citi:en, the su"ciency of the factual basis
for the procla!ation of !artial law or the
suspension of the privilee of the writ or the
e)tension thereof, and !ust pro!ulate its
decision thereon within thirty days fro! the
%lin. R)) the suspension of the privilee of
the writ shall apply only to persons judicially
chared for rebellion or o6enses inherent in or
directly connected with invasion. Durin the
suspension of the privilee of the writ, any
person thus arrested or detained shall be
judicially chared within three days, otherwise
he shall be released.
+uspension of privilee does not suspend
riht to bail.
+peedy disposition of cases.
+elf S incri!ination. GNo person shall be
co!pelled to be a witness aainst hi!self.
As a rule, it !ay be invoked only when and as
the question callin for an incri!inatin
answer is asked, since the witness has no way
of knowin in advance the nature or e6ect of
the question to be put to hi!. $his is true,
however, only of an ordinary witness.
'n a cri!inal prosecution, the accused !ay
not be co!pelled to take the witness stand,
on the reasonable assu!ption that the
purpose of the interroation will be to
incri!inate hi!. $he sa!e principle shall
apply to the respondent in an ad!inistrative
proceedin where the respondent !ay be
subjected to sanctions of a penal character,
such as the cancellation of his license to
practice !edicine. or the forfeiture of
property.
$he riht aainst self,incri!ination is si!ply
aainst the leal process of e)tractin fro!
the lips of the accused an ad!ission of his
uilt. lt does not apply where the evidence
souht to be e)cluded is not an incri!inatin
state!ent but an object evidence.
$he prohibition e)tends to the co!pulsion for
the production of docu!ents, papers and
chattels that !ay be used as evidence
aainst witness, e)cept where the +tate has a
riht to inspect the sa!e such as the books of
accounts of corporations, under the police or
ta)in power.
$he privilee also protects the accused
aainst any atte!pt to co!pel hi! to furnish
a speci!en of his handwritin in connection
with a prosecution for falsi%cation.
'!!unity. $he i!!unity ranted to the
witness !ay be either
transactional i!!unity, such as that which
!ay be ranted by the /o!!ision
on 7u!an 5ihts to any person whose
testi!ony or whose possession of
docu!ents or other evidence is necessary or
convenient to deter!ine the truth
in any investiation conducted by it or under
its authority, which !ake the witness i!!une
fro! cri!inal prosecution for an o6ense to
which his co!pelled testi!ony relates. or use
and fruit i!!unity which prohibits the use of
$he witness9 co!pelled testi!ony and its
fruits in any !anner in connection with the
cri!inal prosecution of the witness.
Waiver. $he riht aainst self,incri!ination
!ay be waived, either directly or by a failure
to invoke it, provided the waiver is certain and
14
unequivocal and intelliently !ade. $hus, the
accused who takes the witness stand
voluntarily and o6ers testi!ony in his behalf
!ay be cross,e)a!ined and asked
incri!inatin questions on any !atter he
testi%ed to on direct e)a!ination.
Prohibited punishnients.

>ere severity does not constitute cruel or
unusual punish!ents. $o violate the
constitutional uarantee, the penalty !ust be
Darantly and plainly oppressive, wholly
disproportionate to the nature of the o6ense
as to shock the !oral sense of the
co!!unity.

$he +upre!e /ourt said that the suspension
of the e)ecution of the death sentence
indisputably an e)ercise of judicial power, as
an essential aspect of jurisdiction. 't is not a
usurpation of the presidential power of
reprieve, althouh its e6ect is the sa!e, i.e.,
the te!porary suspension of the e)ecution of
the death convict. 'n the sa!e vein, it cannot
be denied that /onress can, at any ti!e,
a!end 5.A. NF1= by reducin the penalty of
death to life i!prison!ent. $he e6ect of
such a!end!ent is like co!!utation of
sentence. $he powers of the *)ecutive, the
Leislative and the ?udiciary to save the life
of a death convict do not e)clude eacn other
for the si!ple reason that there is no hiher
riht than the riht to life.

Non,i!prison!ent for debt. Q+ec, &M. Art. 'll-
,GNo person shall i!prisoned for debt or non,
pay!ent of a poll ta).
Double ?eopardy. Q+ec. &< Art. '''- GNo person
shall be twice put in jeopardy of punish!ent
for the sa!e o6ense. 'f an act is punished by
a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the sa!e act.
Double jeopardy does not attach in
preli!inary investiation.
because private respondent Navarro had not
yet been arrained, double jeopardy !ay not
be validly invoked.
$here is no double jeopardy where the
accused was sentenced on plea,barainin
approved by the court but without the
consent of the %scal. Neither will double
jeopardy attach where the cri!inal case was
!istakenly dis!issed by the court durin a
hearin that had already been earlier
cancelled and re!oved fro! the court
calendar for that day.
Dis!issal of action. the dis!issal of the action
!ay either be a per!anent dis!issal or a
provisional dis!issal. A per!anent dis!issal
of a cri!inal case !ay refer to the
ter!ination of the case on the !erits,
resultin in either the conviction or acquittal
of the accused. to the dis!issal of the case
because of the prosecutionIs failure to
prosecute. or to the dis!issal thereof on the
round of unreasonable delay in the
proceedins in violation of the riht of the
accused to speedy trial. 'n contrast, a
provisional dis!issal of a cri!inal case is
dis!issal without prejudice to reinstate!ent
thereof before the order of dis!issal beco!es
%nal, or to the subsequent %lin of a new
infor!ation within the periods allowed under
the 5evised Penal /ode or the 5evised 5ules
of /ourt.

/onsent of the accused to the dis!issal
cannot be i!plied or presu!ed. it !ust be
e)pressed as to have no doubt as to the
aceused9s confor!ity. When the dis!issal is
!ade at the instance of the accused, there is
no double jeopardy.
When the round for the !otion to dis!iss is
insu"ciency of evidednce. $hus, the rant of
a de!urrer to evidence is equivalent to an
acquittal, and any further prosecution of the
accused would violate the constitutional
proscription aainst double jeopardy.

5evival of the cri!inal cases provisionally
dis!issed. +ec. O, 5ule <<N, 5evised 5ules on
/ri!inal Procedure, provides a ti!e,bar of two
2&3 years, within which the +tate !ay revive
cri!inal cases provisionally dis!issed with
the e)press consent of the accused and with a
priori notice to o6ended party, if the o6ense
chared is penali:ed by !ore than si) 2F3
years i!prison!ent. and one 2<3 year if he
penalty i!posable does not e)ceed si) 2F3
years i!prison!ent or a %ne in whatever
a!ount.
Appeal by the prosecution. $he rule on double
jeopardy prohibits the +tate fro! appealin or
%lin a petition for review of a jud!ent of a
acquittal that was based on the !erits of the
case.
$he +upre!e /ourt reiterated the principle
that after trial on
the !erits, an acquittal is i!!ediately %nal
and cannot be appealed, because
double jeopardy would have set in. $he only
e)ception is where there is a %ndin of
!istrial resultin in a denial of due process.
15

't was held that the court acted without
jurisdiction when it dis!issed the case !erely
because none of the witnesses noti%ed by the
trial court appeared durin the pre,trial.
Dischare of co,accused. $he dischare fro!
the infor!ation of a co,accused wno is to be
utili:ed as a overn!ent witness !ust be
considered solid for purposes of deter!inin
whether a second prohibited jeopardy would
attach upon reinstate!ent as a co,accused )
) ) Petitioner, havin been acquitted of the
chare of quali%ed theft, could not be
subsequently reinstated as a co,accused in
the sa!e infor!ation without a prohibited
second jeopardy arisin under the
circu!stances absent satisfactory proof that
he had refused or failed to testify asinst his
co,accused.
/ri!es /overed- With the presence of the
requisites, the accused cannot be prosecuted
anew for an identical o6ense, or for any
atte!pt to co!!it the sa!e or frustration
thereof, or for any o6ense which necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the
o6ense chared in the oriinal co!plaint or
infor!ation.
doctrine of +upervenin *vent. $he accused
!ay still be prosecuted for another o6ense 'f
a subsequent develop!ent chanes the
character of the %rst indict!ent under which
he !ay have already been chared or
convicted. $hus, under +ection N, 5ule <<N,
5ules of /ourt, the conviction of the accused
shall not be a bar to another prosecution for
an o6ense which necessarily includes the
o6ense chared in the oriinal co!plaint or
infor!ation when- 2a3 the raver o6ense
developed due to supervenin facts arisin
fro! the sa!e act or o!ission. 2b3 the facts
constitutin the raver o6ense arose or were
discovered only after the %lin of the for!er
co!plaint or infor!ation. or 2c3 the plea of
uilty to a lesser o6ense was !ade without
the consent of the %scal or the o6ended party.
*) post facto law and #ill of attainder.

$he a!endatory law to 5A @M<= i!posin
suspension pendente life of public o"cers
accused of o6enses involvin fraudulent use
of public funds, was held not to be an e) post
facto law, because the suspension was not
punitive but !erely preventive. it was held
that the retroactive application of the $reaty
of *)tradition 2between the Philippines and
Australia3 does not violate the prohibition
aainst e) post facto laws, because the $reaty
is neither a piece of cri!inal leislation nor a
cri!inal procedural statute. it !erely
provided for the e)tradition of persons wanted
for o6enses already co!!itted at the ti!e
the treaty was rati%ed.
231
16