ConstiLaw II Transcription

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BASONG, CAVALIDA, CONFESOR, DEL ROSARIO, ESTILLORE
V.
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

YAP JR. VS. CA:
Petitioner contests the condition imposed by the Court of Appeals that he secure
a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a
resident of the area and that he will remain to be a resident therein until final
judgment is rendered or in case he transfers his residence, it must be with prior
notice to the court. Petitioner claims that it violates his liberty of abode and travel.
Further, he claims that the hold departure order on him is enough.
Article III Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same
within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired
except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public
health, as may be provided by law.
SC: The right to change abode and travel within the Philippines being invoked by
petitioner, are not absolute rights. It can be regulated by lawful order. The order of
the CA in releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as
contemplated by Art. III, Sec. 6. The condition imposed by the CA is simply
consistent with the nature and function of a bail bond, which is to ensure that
petitioner will make himself available at all times whenever the Court requires his
presence.
*Abode the place where you want live
you have the right to live anywhere you want to within the limits
prescribed by law or by the courts
ex: one is prohibited from living in a park or any public place
Liberty of abode can only be regulated if it is upon lawful order of the

court (destierro, imprisonment)
The right to travel in the Philippine context includes the right to travel
within the country and to depart the country but does NOT include the
right to travel back from the outside going into the country
MIRASOL VS. DPWH:

This case involves toll ways. There was a directive issued that regulated the use of
motorcycles on toll roads and limited access highways. In short, the motorcycles
could not enter the toll ways so People said that DPWH is limiting their right to
travel.
MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS:

Marcos was on his death bed when he expressed the dire to return to the
Philippines so that he could die in his own country. The president at the time,
Corazon Aquino, denied him the opportunity to return to the country. Considering
the guarantee of the right to travel and the liberty of abode, may President Aquino
ban the return of Mr. Marcos to Philippines?
SC: A toll way is not an ordinary road. It is a facility designed to promote fast
access and fast transportation. This is a valid regulatory measure based on safety.
Furthermore, the right to travel does not involve the right to choose any vehicle in
traversing the toll way. The right refers to the right to move from one place to
another. Petitioners can traverse the toll way any time as long as they sue a
private or public four wheel vehicle. Petitioners are free to access the toll way but
the mode by which they wish to travel the toll way can be subjected to the
limitations of the regulation. The right to travel does not include the best transport
nor the most convenient route.
SC: The right to travel and the liberty of abode are different from the right to return
to ones country, as shown by the fact that the Declaration of Human Rights and
Covenant on Human Rights have separate guarantees for these. Hence, the right
to return to ones country is not covered by the specific right to travel and liberty
of abode do not apply. (implicitly, the court says that the right to return, not being
specifically guaranteed must be treated simply under the general rubric of liberty.
Article III, Section 6: the law regarding abode only includes the right to travel
around the country and the right to depart from the country BUT not the right to
return.
REYES VS. CA:

In this case, when you have a hold departure order and your case is dismissed,
what you should do is file a motion to file all departure orders with the court that
issued the hold departure order.The court issued the order so you have to lift it with
the same court. In this case, the motion was filed with the department of justice
so the venue was wrong.
The right to travel cannot be regulated except in the

1.
Interest of national security;
2.
Public safety; or
3.
Public health
*YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TRAVEL ABROAD IF:

1. you state the urgency of why you need to travel abroad so the court will look
into the reasons why you need to travel abroad
2. you have to state the duration (how long your stay will be and when are you
coming back to the country)
SALONGA VS. HERMOSO:

Salonga asked for a certification of eligibility to travel. The Supreme Court ordered
the travel processing centers (this was during the Martial Law) not to cause any
inconvenience or annoyance on the part of the persons traveling abroad. This is
precisely because the right to travel is considered a cherished right and is in fact
part of the universal declaration of human rights.
VI) RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS

(Rights Of The Accused; Miranda Warning)
SILVERIO VS. CA:

(note: ones right to travel takes a backseat if one has several criminal cases filed
against oneself) Silverio was facing a criminal case, he was out on bail, and he had
a hold departure order. If there is a hold departure ordered against you, you cannot
leave the country. Despite this order, Silverio was able to leave the country several
times so the prosecution wanted his passport to be cancelled because he went
abroad without the permission of the court.
Article III, Section 12.

(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of counsel.
SC: If you have a criminal case filed against you, you can only travel abroad if you
file a motion for leave so that you can go abroad. Furthermore, it is part of the
inherent power of the court to use all means necessary to carry their orders into
effect in criminal cases pending before them.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other

means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited.
COJUANGCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN:

Cojuangco was the president of San Miguel Corporation. He wanted to lift the ban
on his foreign travel because he wanted to oversee the stages of the international
operation of SMC.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or

Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
SC: Cojuangco is allowed to go abroad only if he asks for the permission of the court.
Cojuangco has been traveling back and forth and he has always come back and
faced the court when asked by the court. He was thus allowed to go out the
country.
COPY OF : KRISTINE CONFESOR
Page 1 of 19
~2016~
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations
of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of
victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
It outlines the duties of the police and the arresting officers as well as provides
penalties for violators.
Here, it was stated that the right commences when the person is arrested.
Once he is arrested, he is given those rights (right to remain silent, right to
independent counsel, the waiver of counsel must be in writing and with the
assistance of counsel)
this section is otherwise known as the Miranda Warning from the case
of Miranda vs. Arizona
Justice Cruz: more than half of the rights in the Bill of Rights are found to give
privileges to the accused because they would like to favor the disadvantaged
precisely because of the presumption of innocence.
Q: How does one know when to invoke ones rights under Section12?
There are three requisites:

1.
The right attaches when the person is under custody or in jail or
this person is deprived of any freedom of action in any significant
way.
2.
When the person is under investigation subject to questioning or
interrogation by the law enforcer
3.
The questioning must be in relation to a crime
the Miranda rule is not applicable to confessions executed before January

17, 1973 (the date when the 1973 constitution took effect).
This is important because before the 1973 Constitution, there was no

mention of the right to remain silent, right to counsel, the right to be given
counsel if you cannot afford one AND the constitution DOES NOT have a
retroactive application.
*Evolution of consent
1935 Constitution: there was no definite provision of the Miranda rights. There
was no right to remain silent and right to counsel.
1973 Constitution: although there was already the right to remain silent and the
right to counsel, there was no specific requirement as to any waiver because if
you read the relevant section under the said constitution, there was no mention of
any waiver there. How do we know that the waiver is voluntarily made? There
must be a meaningful transmission of rights. The individual circumstances must
be considered:
1. Education
2. Cultural Background
3. Level of intelligence
if the questioning ceases to become a general inquiry and starts to

zoom in on crime and the officers are already trying to get a
confession, your right already attaches
Q: Why do we have Section 12?
this is to prohibit the police from coercing confessions and to prohibit

a police dominated atmosphere where the police would ask questions
leading to the utterance of self-incriminating statements
guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as

would lead the accused to admit something false, not to prevent him
from freely and voluntarily telling the truth [People v. Ordono]
2(c) CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION report shall be

1. reduced to writing by the investigating officer,
2. provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the
person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it
shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by
the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer
3. in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person,
4. otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no
effect whatsoever.
Q: When are you considered under investigation or under interrogation?
PEOPLE VS. DIMAANO rights under Section 12 can be raised when the
investigating officers start to question and elicit information or a
confession from the accused.
2(d) EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION Any extrajudicial confession

1. made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation
shall be in
writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or
in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, in the presence of any of
the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor,
the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the
gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall
be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS

UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS:
PEOPLE VS. HATTON:

if it is a police lineup, you are not yet under custodial investigation or interrogation.
Here, you do not yet need counsel because you are not yet being questioned and
there is no enforcement officer that is trying to elicit a confession from you. A
police lineup is only for the purpose of identification and not for investigation or
interrogation.
HO WAI PANG VS. PEOPLE:

There was a flight from Hong Kong to NAIA. The Chinese nationals in this flight
were searched by immigration and it was discovered that they were carrying
chocolate boxes but inside there was shabu. They were questioned by the NBI and
asked to write statements. This was questioned because during their confession,
they were not assisted by counsel in violation of Section 12. The court said that
they did not confess to anything. They were caught in flagrante delicto so their rights
under Section 12 were not violated because there was no need to confess to the crime.
PEOPLE VS. ESPEJO:

the person here was being interviewed by a newspaper woman and he confessed
to her that he killed the victim. During the trial, the woman was summoned as a
witness and she testified that the accused admitted the murder to her. The
Supreme Court said that the testimony of the woman can be used against him
because custodial investigation refers to an investigation by the police and in this
case, the confession was made to a private person.
LUZ VS. PEOPLE:

This was the motorcycle case. The driver was arrested and he was invited to the
police station. The police found out that he was carrying shabu. In this case, the
court said that he was not yet under arrest because he was being prosecuted for
the violation of a municipal ordinance. So since he was not under arrest, he could
not avail of his rights under Section 12.
PEOPLE VS. BOLAOS:

he was arrested but before they actually reached the police station, he was
already asked by the police if he was the one that killed the victim. The issue here
is whether or not he was already under custodial investigation when he was still
on a vehicle going to the station? Yes because the investigating officer was
already starting to question him in relation to the crime. It does not matter where
you are.
PEOPLE VS. LARA: this involves a police lineup. In a police lineup, you are not
entitled to a lawyer because it is merely for identification.
*RA NO. 7438: AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF

PERSONS ARRESTED, DETAINED OR FACING
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.
a)
Page 2 of 19
~2016~
Miranda rule not applicable to confessions executed before January 17,

1973
saw him. He said that his rights under Section 12 were violated BUT again, it is not
yet under custodial investigation.
PEOPLE VS. RIBADAJO: in the Bilibid, one prisoner stabbed another prisoner and
when he was investigated, he confessed to the crime. He questioned his
conviction because he claimed that he was not apprised of his right to remain
silent, to have effective counsel, etc. SC: since this case happened on November
18, 1971 which means that it happened before January 17, 1973, the accused
could not avail of his rights because the constitution does not have any retroactive
effect.
PEOPLE VS. PAVILLARE:

he was accused of kidnapping an Indian national. He was asked to join a police
lineup which he then questioned. The Supreme Court said that he is not yet under
custodial investigation since he Is still in a police lineup.
e)
FILOTEO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN: Filoteo was the mastermind in hijacking a postal

delivery van and he gave an extrajudicial confession but he then claimed that he
was entitled to counsel, etc. The court said that he could not do this because the
constitution does not have any retroactive application. The lawyer of Filoteo
argued that Article 22 of the RPC provides that penal laws shall have a retroactive
effect insofar as they favor a person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual
criminal. SC: a penal law is different from the constitution itself. It is not applicable.
*you already have the
right to remain silent,
the right to competent and effective counsel, AND
the right to be informed.
SANTOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN: they were accused of some banking anomalies

and they were brought to the NBI. They confessed and signed a waiver. Here, the
court said that under the 1987 Constitution, your rights are found under Section
12. Before in the 1973 Constitution, they were under Section 20 and nowhere in
this section was it stated that there is a waiver unlike in Section 12 now.
SC: A comparison of these provisions would readily show that the 1973
Constitution does not specify the right against uncounseled waiver of the right to
counsel. Under the 1935 and the 1973 Constitution, the Miranda doctrine still did not
apply.
b)
This right refers to the transmission of meaningful information to the

accused that the accused really understood his rights and not just a
ceremonial recitation of abstract principles.
The police officer has to make sure that the person arrested really
understood his rights
PEOPLE VS. CASIMIRO:

there was a buy bust operation and he was arrested. It was then found out that
the officers informed him of his rights but according to them, the accused merely
said ok in a reply.
SC this is not enough. The warning was incomplete because it did not include the
statement that if the accused could not afford counsel, one would be assigned to
him. The warning was perfunctory and was made without any effort to find out if he
understood it.
Not applicable to res gestae statements/spontaneous statements
*RES GESTAE refers to the statements made by the accused because of a

startling occurrence. He/she made a statement on a spontaneous basis and the
Miranda doctrine does not apply to these statements.
PEOPLE VS SAYABOC:
there the Supreme Court said that the accused has the right to information or the
transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and
perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.
PEOPLE VS. BALOLOY:

in this case, a police officer was informed of the name of the suspect who killed a
little girl. The officer then put the suspect in a corner and he showed him the rope
that was used to kill the girl. Upon seeing the rope, Baloloy immediately
apologized for killing the girl. He voluntarily narrated that he raped and killed the
child. SC : a spontaneous statement because he was not even asked whether he
was the one who raped and killed the girl. The information was volunteered by
Baloloy before he was even arrested and placed in custody so the constitution
provision on custodial investigation does not apply in this case.
PEOPLE VS. BAGNATE:

if you ask a person if he understood the rights, you should do so in a language
understood by him. If the person does not understand English, the rights under
Section 12 would have no meaning because the accused did not understand his
rights in the first place.
a) *PRE-GALIT RULE: (JAN. 17, 1973-MARCH 20, 1985)
It was said that before the 1973 Constitution there was no right to counsel, no
right to be informed but after the 1973 Constitution, there is already a right but
there was no discussion of waivers.
The case of Galit then came out. In this case, the Supreme Court categorically said
that when there is waiver, it must be made in writing and in the presence of counsel.
The Galit ruling was on March 1985 so if you look at it, the 1973 took effect on
January 17, 1973 so until March 20, 1985, you could not claim your rights on Section
12 regarding the waiver because there was still no Galit rule that was established by
the SC. After March 1985, you can already use the Galit ruling.
JESALVA VS. PEOPLE:

Jesalva drove certain persons who were drunk and he was the last person seen
with the victim. When Jesalva was confronted by the mayor, he admitted that he
was the one who killed the victim. SC: if they are spontaneous statements made
by the accused, the Miranda doctrine does not apply.
c)
Tests of Validity of waiver of Miranda rights right to be informed
Not applicable to statements given in administrative investigations
PEOPLE VS. TIN LAN UY:

In this case, there was no suspect yet but he voluntarily gave information but not
before the police but to an MTC personnel.
SC : the rule is not applicable to administrative investigations.
b) GALIT RULE: (MARCH 20, 1985-FEB 2, 1987)

In the case, there were long questions followed by monosyllabic answers which
did not satisfy the requirements of the law that the accused be informed of his
rights under the constitution. His statement did not even contain any waiver to the
right to counsel and yet during the investigation, he was not assisted by one. This
constitutes a gross violation of his rights.
ASTUDILLO VS. PEOPLE:

certain appliances and cash were missing but the accused admitted to the
accountant. SC: His admission to the accountant could be used against him
because the accountant is not a law enforcement officer thus his right to remain
silent, to have a counsel of his choice, etc could not be used just yet because
these were private persons.
Because of this ruling, the Supreme Court now requires that if you are going to waive
your right, you have to do so in writing with counsel.
Q: Does the GALIT RULE have a retroactive application?

d)
Custodial Phase of Investigation police lineups

SANTOS VS SANDIGANBAYAN
It does not have retroactive effect.
SC: Clearly then, the Morales-Galit rulings are inapplicable in these cases as the
extrajudicial confessions in question here, were taken on February 13, February 17
and March 22, 1982, long before the date of promulgation of the Morales Decision
on April 26, 1983. Prior to this date, the guidelines requiring that waiver of the right
*a police lineup is NOT considered part of custodial investigations

DELA TORRE VS. CA:
there were 6 electric meters owned by Cathay Pacific which were missing. Dela
Torre was asked to join a police lineup and he was pointed out by the people who
Page 3 of 19
~2016~
to counsel by an accused can be properly made only with the presence and
assistance of counsel, had yet to be formulated and pronounced by this Court.
Bail is basically the money of the property that you give to the court when you are
facing a certain criminal case to insure that you will be coming back to court if
and when required. Is a security, like if you have a hearing in the next few months,
to be sure that you will come back for the hearing, you post bail.
c) NEW RULE ON WAIVER (Feb.2, 1987)

Art. III, Section 12 (1); Waiver must be in writing and made in the presence of
counsel of choice. Under the new constitution, a confession now must satisfy four
fundamental requirements in order to be admissible and for the waiver to be valid:
1.
the confession must be voluntary
2.
the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel
3.
the confession must be express
4.
the confession must be in writing
Bail is generally a matter of right

There are many forms of bail, it could be in the form of cash. Usually, when there
is a case filed against you, and the fiscal issues a resolution finding probable
cause, in the last part there is a bail recommended because there is now what we
call a bail bond guide- a manual booklet for prosecutors which gives the amounts
of bail depending on the case filed. So if its put there, 80 thousand you can place
cash. If you dont have cash you can use a surety or insurance, you go to an
accredited insurance, the insurance will be the one to pay the 80k but you just pay
a premium for that 80k, usually 10 %. The problem is you have to renew it every
year and that 8k (10%) will not be given back to you. Whereas if cash, when later
on you were found not guilty, the entire 80k will be given back to you.
PEOPLE VS MENDOZA AND PEOPLE VS GONZALES

Your rights under custodial investigation can be waived. In both cases, the
confessions were inadmissible but the defense counsel failed to object to its
admissibility during the presentation of evidence and during the trial. If you fail to
object to the inadmissibility of the evidence, because it violates your rights under
custodial investigation, these rights can be waived as the court pronounced in
both Mendoza and Gonzales cases.
f)
It could also be real property, show a Torrens transfer certificate of title that you
own a certain land, you have it assessed by the Clerk of Court and they will assess
how much the property is and you can use that property as a bail. ONLY REAL
PROPERTY because one client said that she had an engagement ring and asked if
she may use it as bond, NO. You can only use real property not personal property.
The burden of proving voluntariness is on the prosecution
PEOPLE v BACOR
In this case, there was a confession to the PAO attorney and SPO3 Ydulzura. This
confession, the burden of proving the voluntariness of his confession is on the
prosecution.
g)
1.
2.
1)
Finally, you can go out on bail on recognizance (Sec 15). Recognizance is when
youre facing a case and you are released to a prominent person in society. He will
be the one to take charge and say that during the next hearing, I will make sure
that he will come to court, so you have to be a prominent person in society of
known probity and integrity. Recognizance however is available only for minor
offenses, not major.
What can be waived?

Right to remain silent
Right to counsel (but such shall be made in writing and in the presence of
counsel)
Who decides what bail he should use?

Its the accused. The court may say cash lang, bawal ang property, no, its the
accuseds choice.
What cannot be waived?

Right To Be Informed Of The Miranda Rights
The constitutional right to bail is again available to criminal cases the right is not
available in the military.
You cannot say Yah, I already know my rights I can waive my right to remain
silent and right to counsel but the police still says Sir, you have the right to remain
silent, anything can and will be used against you in a court of law, and you say to
the police Hey, Im a lawyer. I teach Consti 2, I know Miranda rights. Miranda is
my favorite word. But this right CANNOT be waived. The police is obliged to still
give you your Miranda rights, even if you listen or not but the right to be given the
Miranda warnings cannot be waived.
1)
PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN
This involves Erap and Jinggoy. They were investigated by the ombudsman and
were later on tried before the Sandiganbayan. To be tried before the
Sandiganbayan, your salary grade must be 27 and above and the crime must be
committed in relation to your office. Here, Jinggoy was facing a plunder charge
(RA 7080) so he wanted to go out on bail, which was opposed. Now, if youre
facing a capital offense its stated in Sec 13 except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, you have a case
for rape or violation of the dangerous drugs act- you are found with 1kilo of shabu,
can you go out on bail?
h)
Exclusionary Rule
READ EXCULSIONARY RULE
Here, you have to remember like in the case of ANDAN, a rape case involving a
nursing student. She was raped and then killed and was found in a pigpen.
What happened was, when he was confronted with the concrete block which he
used to hit the head of the woman, and he was shown this concrete block by the
mayor, he voluntarily confessed his guilt without anyone actually asking him for a
confession, again, this was done in a spontaneous manner so this could not be
covered.
Read Marcelo- in flagrante delicto
VII)
When right may be invoked?
You can file a motion for a bail hearing and you have to show to the court that the
evidence of guilt is not strong. If evidence of guilt is not strong, you can be granted
bail, if strong no bail. Thats why if you look at Sec 13 charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, if its not strong
you can still avail of the right to bail.
RIGHT TO BAIL
SC: Jinggoy was not really a flight risk. Everytime he was asked to go to court, he
would come to court and he was just elected as senator, the court said that it
would be highly improbable that her would forfeit his seat in senate and go abroad
and become a fugitive from justice. So he was granted bail because of the social
standing and the possibility of escape of Jinggoy Estrada.
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses

punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,
shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to
bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
VALERO V. CA
Milagros was accused of killing her husband, although she did not actually kill him,
she was the mastermind, because the man who actually killed him confessed.
Therefore she was a principal by inducement, she applied for bail but the court
said, No, evidence against you is strong. The person who killed your husband said
you are the master mind so you should not be granted bail.
Q: What is bail?
A: Sec. 1 of Rule 114
THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Section 1. Bail defined. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in
custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance
before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be
given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.
TRILLANES VS PIMENTEL
Page 4 of 19
~2016~
Oakwood mutiny. Evidence of guilt was strong, they could not avail of the right to
bail]
amount of the bail, what is the criteria or basis for fixing bail? In this case, the
court mentioned certain guidelines in fixing bail such as:
1.
the ability of the accused to give bail
2.
nature of the offense
3.
penalty for the offense charged
4.
character of the accused
5.
health of the accused
6.
character and strength of evidence
7.
probability of the accused to appear in trial
8.
forfeiture of other bonds
9.
whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested
10. if the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases.
With regard for standard of fixing bail, just look at the case of VILLA SEOR V
ABANO
QUI v PEOPLE
Child abuse case, she was convicted in the RTC and pending appeal before the
CA, she filed an application for bail, what did the court say? You were already
convicted, all the more we will not give you your right to bail. The right to bail is a
right enshrined in the bill of rights, the court should exercise grave caution
because you were already convicted of course you will already be a flight risk.
2)
When is bail a matter or right, when is it a matter or discretion, and when is

it not allowed?
Bail is a matter of right
before and after conviction by the municipal trial court
before conviction by the RTC for offenses punishable by RT or less or

12yrs &1 day 20yrs
before conviction by the RTC for offenses punishable by RP or death

when evidence of guilt is NOT strong.
DE LA CAMARA VS ENAGE
In this case, he was the municipal mayor of Magsaysay and he was facing
multiple murder charges (14) he was given bail but his amount of bail was
1,195,200.00.
SC: he was basically charged with2 offenses, the amount of bail of 1,195,200.00
when evidence of guilt is not strong is excessive and too much the last sentence
of Sec 13 specifically states that Excessive bail shall not be required.
Bail as a matter of discretion
if after conviction of offense punishable by imprisonment of 6yrs and

1 day 20 yrs or PC RT if none of the ff circumstances are not
present:
Admin Circular 12-94:
If the accused is a recidivist , quasi recidivist, or a habitual delinquent;
If the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal

confinement or evaded sentence;
If the accused committed the offense while on probation or parole or

pardon;
That the circumstance of the accused has the ability of flight/ flight
risk;
When there is a due risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the
accused may commit another crime
so if the prosecution is able to prove this and the offense is punishable by penalty
of 6yrs and 1 day 20 yrs, bail is a matter of discretion.
YAP JR. VS CA
He was facing an estafa case for 5.5 million his bail bond was also 5.5 million.
SC: the amount of 5.5 million is unreasonable, excessive and constitutes an
effective denial of the petitioners right to bail. Why? Because you have the right to
bail but because the amount of bail is too much and you cannot afford it, it will
render nugatory your right in the 1st place. These issues are laid to rest because
we now have a bail bond guide for prosecutors, for you to know the amount of bail
for a specific case.
5)
Right to bail and right to travel abroad
Remember that the right to travel can be impaired if you are out on bail.
MANOTOK VS COURT OF APPEALS
SC: the court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the
Philippines because this is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of
a bail bond. Why? If the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines, he may be
placed beyond the reach of the courts. Thats why because the court has the
inherent power and because of the condition of the bail bond, that you have to be
there if and when required by the court
Bail not allowed
if after final judgment by the court- there is already finality, the case is
already finished
before conviction by the RTC for offenses punishable by RP when

evidence of guilt is strong;
after conviction by offenses punishable by RP, death or life

imprisonment WHEN THE CASE IS ON APPEAL (Qui v PP)
after conviction for an offense punishable by 6yrs and 1 day- 20 yrs and
circumstances under Admin Circ 12-94 are present
3)
SANTIAGO VS VASQUEZ
Case of Madam Miriam because of a graft and corrupt practices case when she
was the chairman of the BIR, she allowed certain Indians to come in. Now, she
wanted to study in Harvard and had to leave for the US, court said that she will not
be allowed since she was out on bail. Court said that since she was amenable to
the conditions of the bail bond, we can prohibit your right to travel abroad.
Bail in military courts
COMENDADOR VS DE VILLA AND ASWAT VS GALIDO

In both cases, they were members of the military and subject to court martial
because they violated certain articles of war, the SC is clear:
Bail is not available in military courts.
6)
PEOPLE VS DONATO
Donato was facing a rebellion charge, now when the penalty was higher, the
penalty for rebellion was PM, 6 yrs and 1 day- 12 yrs. If its PM, bail is a matter of
right, what happened here was he was granted bail but the other side said he has
been evading the police for 13 years it was only now that they were able to
capture him. His address was unknown, he has been using certain aliases, he has
been giving a false address and he even has a reward for his arrest of 250,00.00,
we should not grant bail.
Remember: It is the prosecution that has the burden to prove or present evidence
that bail should be denied. Now in ordinary cases if the penalty is RP or higher, the
prosecution has the burden to prove that evidence of guilt is STRONG. If it is a
matter or discretion, it is the prosecutions burden to prove is that the accused
suffers from those mentioned in Admin Circ 12-94.
Now, if its a matter of right (ex. Before conviction by the MTC), the prosecution
has the burden to prove THE AMOUNT OF BAIL.
4)
SC: Since bail is a matter of right and he was not facing a capital offense, despite
all those circumstances the prosecution has presented, he is allowed to go out on
bail because bail is a matter of right. With regard to the waiver of bail, in this case
Salas was the one principally charged with rebellion. Salas said let my girlfriend
go out and I will stay in jail so have my companion released so they released her.
After releasing her, Salas said, that he will exercise his right to bail.
Standards in fixing bail
VILLASEOR v ABANO
He was facing a murder case and he was admitted on bail for 60,000 pesos, now
his original bond was reduced to 40k but because he was not able to attend, it
was cancelled and of course if your bail is cancelled you have to file for a MR to
reinstate the bail bond. Now in reinstating, the judge said that they question the
Waiver of the right to bail
Page 5 of 19
~2016~
SC: The right to bail is a personal right and since you waived it in exchange for you
companion being freed, you do not have the right to bail anymore, why? Because
you have already waived such right. Therefore, you can waive your right to bail
being a purely personal right.
was actually Pagasian. He was not the accused ha, he was the witness but later
on convicted by the judge. Si Domo ang kaso nga theft against him was acquitted,
so this was challenged. What did the court say? It was a violation of the due
process. Why? The Brgy. Captain was not even informed of the court the charged
against him. In fact, I think, he was not even the accused. He had no idea that he
was on trial. He did not presented any evidence on his behalf on violation of
requirements under due process of Sec. 14.
VIII) RIGHTS DURIAL TRIAL

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 and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial,
and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
Production of evidence in his behalf.
PAGULIAN V. SECRETARY OF COMMISSION. Pagulian here was a civilian but he

was tried by a Military Tribunal because it was during Martial Law. So civilian
under Military Tribunal. Pagulian went to the SC assailing the validity of his
conviction.
SC: the due process in sec. 14 is trial by judicial process and not by executive or
military process. Therefore, there was a violation of due process. Even during Martial
Law, all cases should be tried under civilian courts. Pending cases involving
civilians in a military tribunal should be transferred to civilian courts when the
national emergency already ceases.
2)
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.
If you look at section 14 of the trial rights of the accused, he has ten rights there.
What are these rights?
1.
right to due process
2.
right to presumption of innocence
3.
right to be heard
4.
right to counsel,
5.
right to be informed,
6.
right to a speedy trial,
7.
right to have an impartial trial,
8.
right to a public trial,
9.
right to meet the witnesses face to face
10. right to a compulsory process.
Atty. Dela Bandas notes.
1)
Right to due process, again we already encountered the term due process
when we discussed section 1. This right of the accused under due process
is the biggest right among all of the ten rights. According to Justice Cruz, it
is by reason that the right to due process mentioned here, only refers to
procedural due process, substantive due process is not included. The
procedure laid down by law in trying an accused that has been charged of a
crime.
Does it violate the constitution? Well there is a logical connection between

the fact issue and the fact proof and at the same time, all these
presumptions are still rebuttable. They can still be overcome by evidence.
Q: What are the four elements of due process that are applicable to criminal
cases.
PEOPLE V. TONGIO,
Marcos here issued a General Order directing that if there are any crimes against
tourist, the case must be tried and finished within 24 days. so Tongio here was
charged for kidnapping Vietnamese tourist. Lets say on May 12 they were
arrested; May 15, they were charged; May 19, they were arraigned; May 20, the
prosecution presented witnesses; may 21, the defendants presented their
witnesses; May 25, they was judgment and all of them were sentenced to death.
This was challenged saying that paspasa ba ani. However the court said here,
there was no violation of due process maskin paspas kayo. Why? Because again
the four elements of due process: TJOL
1)
the tribunal is clothed by judicial power who hear and decide the case;
2)
jurisdiction is lawfully acquired over the person of the accused and
over the offense;
3)
the accused was given a opportunity to be heard; and
4)
Judgment rendered upon a lawful hearing.
3)
Right to be heard, this means basically the right to present evidence on

ones behalf. The right to testify on ones favor, the right to call witnesses,
the right to be given reasonable opportunity to present witnesses.
4)
Right to counsel Right to counsel. This means the right to counsel during
trial. You are entitled to under sec.14, effective representation when you are
facing a criminal case. The court is duty bound to inform the accused that
he has the right to counsel before he is arraigned. So you know what
arraignment is. Now the court must ask the accused in accordance with
sec. 14 of his trial rights oh Mr. Accused, do you wish to secure the services of
a private counsel? If the accused says yes, he must be given time to secure
the services of counsel. What if he cannot afford one diba, the court must
decide a counsel de officio for him. And the counsel de officio must assist the
accused. So at all times, the accused has the right to effective
representation under sec. 14. However, the accused can waive this right.
The accused may represent himself in fact in any litigation.
PEOPLE V. ONDADO.
In this case the judge asked the accused Do you have an Attorney and are you
going to plead guilty? against the accused. The accused says I have no lawyer
but I will plead guilty. He was arraigned and later on sentenced. What did the SC
say? The judge did not follow guidelines mentioned. The right of the accused to
counsel was violated because there was no fair hearing, not given an opportunity to be
heard by a counsel. So there was a violation because he did not have counsel.
As long as all the elements are present, there was no violation. Take note the four
elements in the due process of section 14. Anyway, the purpose there was to
boost tourism diba you will not commit crime against tourist if you know na ingana
ka paspas ang trial.
DELGADO V. CA.
In this case, woman charged with estafa but represented by a lawyer. Her lawyer
failed to appear despite to prior notice. She was convicted. The problem here was
ang iyang lawyer I think si Atty. Icko was not really a member of the Bar. Fake nga
PAGASIAN V. AZURA.
The case was against Domo Pagasian was a witness. The case was for theft. It
appears that the cause for the report by the police because it was testified that it
Right to Presumption of Innocence. This is found in section 14. You are

presumed innocent until proven guilty. Have you already discussed
Demurrer to Evidence? Wala pa. Demurer to Evidence is basically a motion
which bind if the prosecution unable to establish the guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. So there is an insufficiency of evidence. Precisely you file
that motion because you say: Ay, I am presumed innocent until proven guilty
and you have not proven my guilt beyond reasonable doubt so I dont need to
present my evidence, Ill have the court dismiss it base on your evidence laid
down of the prosecution. That is allowed, that is under the Revised Rules of
Court. So you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, however there are
certain exceptions:
Article 217 of RPC, diba if the failure of the officer to produce money in his
charge, is a prima facie evidence of malversation. Presumed innocent ka,
however if public officer ka then incharge ka sa money, and it is not
accounted for, it is a prima facie evidence of malversation already; or
violation of Anti-Fencing law, diba kanang kinawat kawaton. Possession of
stolen property, in the absence of adequate explanation, you are already
presumed to be the author of the crime of the stolen and yet there is a
presumption of innocence. So there are certain exceptions.
Page 6 of 19
~2016~
lawyer. So she said, Why am I being convicted when my lawyer is not really a
lawyer. Is that a violation of your right to counsel under sec. 14? SC said yes thats
a violation.
case filed by the wife of Mr. A, so when the judge said Is your husband Mr.
A? Yes . Ah he was my client before when I was still a private practitioner, so
I think would have to inhibit because that would violate your right to an
impartial trial. Diba, because he is no longer impartial because there is
already a conflict of interest.
The accused can demand a new trial at the same time, the reason for this is there is a
big danger when a fake lawyer will not be able to present and adequate defense in
behalf of the accused. In this case also, the right of counsel may be raised by the
accused or the prosecution. Because if you look at it, the government will look
stupid if they will raise this issue upon discovery that they will be defeated by a
fake lawyer. Ulaw pud sa prosecution mapildi ka sa fake nga lawyer. Pati ang
constitution muingon nga oy violation na, mag new trial ta diba because you are
defeated by a fake lawyer.
5)
The Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation. The accused

has the right to be informed the nature of the charge against him. That is the
very purpose of arraignment. The information charged the accused of the
crime must be stated with precision what the accused actually did. There
must be a specific allegation of the fact and circumstance necessary for the
crime charged. The information has to be read to the accused but not just
read. Read in English or in a dialect the accused knows and understand. The
purpose of this right is precisely to enable the accused to defend himself and
enable him to avail of the protection against double jeopardy if prosecuted or
charge against second time around for the same offense.
6)
Right to Speedy Trial. The Right to a speedy trial according to one case does
not include the lees appeals. So speedy trial didto lang sa court of origin. If
youre on appeal, you cannot use sec. 14, right to speedy trial because in the first
place that does not already a trial, its already an appeal. Now, there is no really
mathematical formula to compute how long really is. Meaning when can
you invoke your right to speedy trial if the case has been dragging on for
four years, five years or so. I think the only guideline put here in the SC is that
as long as it is not a vexatious and capricious, delay is allowed. It depends really
on the attendant circumstances.
MATTEO V. VILLALUZ.
I think the accused here were charged for the offense of robbery in band with
homicide. Robbery in band so daghan sila with homicide. In the meantime, another
suspect in another case, Reyes was arrested. Reyes executed a extrajudicial
confession that he signed and swore before a certain judge Villaluz. So he
confessed before judge Villaluz that the petitioners actually committed the crime
of robbery with homicide. So what happened then? It proceed in the sala of judge
Villaluz. Later on he repudiated his statement. Okay ning atras siya. I was really
forced to sign the confession because I was threatened with violence by certain
police. So with that, I am repudiating my previous statement and confession. With
that repudiation, petitioner said You bring that declaration before the judge.
Judge youre supposed to disqualify yourself because how can you try this case
impartially when you already know the facts and circumstances as mentioned by
the confession of Reyes against us. Judge said no, I will not disqualify myself.
What did the court say? The petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for.
Respondent judge could not totally immune to what apparently was asserting
before him in such extrajudicial statement. It was unlikely that he was not in a
slightest bit offended. Oh diba he was offended. Why did you repudiate your
statement, I did not force you. His sense of fairness could be easily be blunted
because he who attested to the execution of the statement it cannot be doubted
that respondent ruled that such extrajudicial statement was executed freely. So
that was in violation of their right to an impartial trial, because the judge already
approved of what has happened. Precisely the Reyes confessed before him. So he
was supposed to inhibit himself because it was violation of the right of the
accused to an impartial trial.
8)
Example, the accused here was charged of statutory rape, the case was
scheduled for hearing, but the prosecutor was absent. So just because the
prosecutor was absent, judge dismissed the case. What did the court say,
by disposing the criminal case based on the right of the accused to a
speedy trial, the court should carefully weigh the circumstances attending
each case. They should balance the right of the accused and the state who
punish who violates penal laws. The prosecutor cannot be faulted for his
failure to attend the hearing because on said date in good faith, he believed
that that date was a Muslim legal holiday when it was really not. The judge
should not dismiss it automatically. So in using your right your right to speedy
trial, you really have to look at the circumstances whether it is good faith and the
reason really for the delay and at the same time the invocation of the accused of
such right because this right is also waivable. If the case is already dragging in
court for 20 years but the accused already saying that ah I have the right to
a speedy trial, the accused will drag because his right can also be waived, so
it has to be invoked by the accused. So we have to look at
1.
the extent of the delay, and
2.
the reason for the delay and of course
3.
the invocation of the accused of this right under speedy trial
What happened, on the witness stand, very luoy ba because grade one or
grade two lang ang nahuman sa victim. Murag Ilocano man to siya or
Ilonggo so she was not good in English. So kindly state what happened. Te
gidala ko sa sagbutan, okay then the interpreter would interpret- she was
brought in the grassy area. When she started to depict the scene, there were
children in the court, so the judge said, op because she was about to tell
how she was abused, use a metaphor nalang. Intawon, ning ingon siya ug te
gi metaphor ako kaduha. It was really sensitive that the judge said, op do
not use the literal words, use metaphor. Anyway, right to a public trial.
Hehehehehe #metaphor
Of course there is SPEEDY TRIAL ACT now, there is Republic Act. In real
practice now, lets say, the complainant does not go to court, so the
prosecution does not have evidence against the accused, precisely the
complainant can no longer be found. The court usually set this to three to
four consecutive meetings. After three to four consecutive meetings, if the
private complainant fails to appear, that is the time that you will invoke the
right of the accused of the speedy trial and the case will be dismissed.
7)
Right to an Impartial Tribunal. Meaning the right to have an impartial judge.

The impartiality must not only be in reality but also even in appearance. In
Legal Ethics, Diba the judge, there must be a bold neutrality of an impartial
judge. A judge should be like Caezars wife, irreproachable. So meaning,
dapat he must be fair and he must be impartial and hue must only fair and
impartial in reality, he must be seen as fair and impartial even in appearance
okay. That is the requirement under sec.14. Now cases. There was a case I
had last week in Manila. There was this judge, he was a private practitioner
then I think the case is for annulment. When he was still a private
practitioner, his client was Mr. A now when he was the judge, an annulment
Right to a Public Trial. Publicity of the trial is necessary to prevent the

abuses that may be committed by the court to the prejudice of the
defendant. Now you have a right to a public trial. The requirement here in
public trial is that as long as the courts doors are open to the public, that
already suffices the requirement of a public trial. However, there are
instances when the judge can exclude the public from the court room.
Especially if there are sensitive cases involving rape or child abuse. So this
right again belongs to the accused and this is cannot be waived. So the
judge here can exclude the public if it is a sensitive case. Like, I was not here
on Wednesday because I have a trial in QC, very funny- rape case. (rape isnt
funny)
Page 7 of 19
~2016~
9)
Right to meet witnesses with a right to confrontation. The right to

confrontation intends to secure the accused the right to be tried so far as
the facts (inaudible) by the witnesses concerned. It was intended to prevent
conviction of the accused upon an ex parte affidavit. Meaning, if you were
the accused, you have the right to meet the witnesses against you. Makita
gyud nimo bisan pag nag testify against you. Why? Because:
a) So that you could cross examine the witnesses who said that you
allegedly commit the crime and at the same time
b) so that the judge could examine the demeanor of the witness
whether he or she is telling the truth.
10)
Right to Compulsory process. This refers to the subpoena. A person accused

can obtain subpoena from the court in order to compel the attendance of the
witnesses in his behalf. However, you have to remember but you will learn
this later on, if the person resides more than 100 km from the place of the
trial, he was not bound by the subpoena. But this rule only applies to civil
cases and not to criminal cases. If it is criminal case, crime committed in
Davao, even if you are from Manila, element of territoriality, crime is here and
tried here in the courts of Davao then the witness is in Manila, can you get
the witness? Yes, is it more than 100 km? I think yes, but this is a criminal
case. Comparing it to a civil case, if your witness is in Manila and the civil
case is in Davao, even if you are able to get the subpoena from the court, the
witness cannot be compelled because it is beyond 100 km. And in the Bar it
came out, it was called the VIATORY RIGHT.
It is the an instance where the witness can refuse to follow the

subpoena because either previously, he already went to the trial, but
the expenses were not paid or precisely because he resides more than
100 km from the place of the trial.
there is no word uttered, then the privilege does not applied even if
there is some compulsion.
VILLAFLOR V. SUMMER.
The accused committed adultery. Now during trial, the judge ordered the woman
to undergo an examination to see if she was pregnant by the other man. The
woman said Oy if I am found pregnant by another man that would mean that I
committed adultery. You know the crime of adultery diba. Diba if you look at the
facts, if ma-positive ko na I am pregnant with another man then I committed
adultery so I will become a witness against myself and under sec. 17, I cannot be
compelled to be a witness against myself. So she objected. What did the SC say?
It is not a violation of your right because again sec. 17, only covers testimonial or
compulsory oral examination or this has even evolved over the years. If one uses
his intelligence or imagination he cannot be compelled to such act. But if yous
say, purely mechanical act without using anymore your intelligence or your
imagination, you can be compelled by the court.
So basically those are the ten Rights of the Accused under sec. 14. Now the last
sentence under sec. 14 refers to TRIAL IN ABSENTIA,
Trial in Absentia, if youll try to read the last sentence of sec. 14, can trial proceed
even if the accused is not present? That is the last sentence. However after
arraignment, trial may proceed not withstanding to the absence of the accused
provided that he has duly been notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Examples:
1)
Accused was prosecuted for (inaudible) then when he ran, he left his
shoe parang Cinderella lang. On trial, he was asked to put on the shoe.
So kay perfect match man gyud nah. So the accused said I will not
wear the shoe, I will be a witness against himself. What did the court
say? That is purely mechanical act. You do not use your intelligence or
imagination to put your feet on the shoe. Therefore you can be
compelled to wear the shoe.
THREE REQUIREMENTS
a)
the accused has previously been arraigned;
b)
he was notified of the proceedings. Meaning as long as notices were
sent to his last known address that is already sufficient; and
c)
His failure to appear is unjustified.
Exceptions:
1)
Arraignment. At all times, the accused must be present during
arraignment. Why? He is the one who will be arraigned personally;
2)
During the identification stage at the trial, the one you see in movies
who committed the crime, is he in court can you point him kana mao
na so thats the other time when the accused is required to be present;
and
3)
During promulgation of judgment. If there is judgment the accused
has to be there. Why? If he is not there, he loses all his remedies under
the Rules of Court to appeal of unsa pana atuang mga rights diha noh
that we will learn under criminal procedure. So those are three
exceptions: Arraignment, Identification and Judgment.
2)
BELTRAN V. SAMSON.
In this case, falsification. Falsified ang mga signatures and writing. What did the
judge say accused can you write on a piece of paper a specimen of your
handwriting? he said Why? Because I will compare your handwriting with the
falsified writing in evidence. Accused said Thats a violation of my right against
self incrimination. Handwriting is that a purely mechanical act or do you use your
intelligence and imagination when you are handwriting? The court said. That is a
violation of right against self incrimination. Why? If magsulat ka mechanical ba diay
nah, you think about your writing baya diba, so you use your intelligence, your
imagination. Use can use your right under sec. 17.
GIMENEZ V. NAZARENO.
Case against A, B and C, trial continued. While trial was going on C was able to
escape but the trial continued with regard to A and B kay naka-escape man si C.
On judgment, A and B were found guilty but the judge said okay A and B you are
guilty but for C, I will hold his sentence because he has rights under sec. 14 diba.
You have the right to counsel, you have the right to present evidence on your
favor, so I will withhold my judgment as against C. A and B challenged that. SC
said the judge should also convict C. Why? Because trial in absentia can already
set in A, B and C had already been arraigned, notices were sent to A, B and C at
their last known address, he was able to escape therefore his failure to appear is
not justified therefore, trial can still proceed despite the absence of C and he
should be still convicted based on the evidence presented.
IX)
Now coverage of this right, if you look at it, the privilege against self incrimination
extends to criminal but also to civil and administrative cases. However, the
difference there is: IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE ACCUSED CAN ALTOGETHER
REFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND.
Case: People v. A. A can altogether say I will not take the witness stand so the
prosecution on trial say, A please go to the witness stand he can say that That
will violate my right against self incrimination. Some authors call that a
Prohibition of Inquiry kanag the accused can refuse to take the witness stand.
However, with regard to civil cases, and administrative cases, you cannot refuse
to take the witness stand but you only have the option to refuse to answer if and
when the question becomes self incriminating.
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

SECTION 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.
When does it become incriminating? When it tends to establish any guilt against
you, that is when you can say that the question is incriminating. So for
criminal cases, you can refuse to take the witness stand.
This is based on public policy and humanity.

1.
2.
In Civil and administrative cases refuse to answer only when the question is
incriminating. That is when you can invoke your right. This is applicable to all
kinds and types of proceeding.
Public policy. If you place the accused in a situation where he could

not invoke the privilege you will be under the strong temptation to
commit perjury. If you remove sec. 17 and the accused is on the
witness stand or a witness is there did you commit the crime? and
you do not have the right under sec. 17 the accused will just say No I
did not and he will commit perjury, he will lie thats why sec. 17 was
put.
PEOPLE V. CODILLA.
Accused here charged of rape. When he was on the witness stand, he was asked
to address himself before the public and not in the private room. According to the
complainant when she was raped, she struggle against the man and there are
scratches and bruises against him. So the court said, okay you undress I will see if
there are bite marks or scratches. Accused said No if I will undress and if you will
see bite marks and scratches, I will be becoming a witness against myself. Can he
be asked to remove his clothes? Again, go to the guidelines. Removing of clothes, is
that a purely mechanical act or does that involve intelligence or imagination. Court
said, you can be forced to remove your clothes. That is not a violation of your right.
Humanity, precisely to extort the confession of the accused via any

form of duress or violence diba. That is why sec. 17 was included. You
cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. Now the scope
of this right, remember this, only covers testimonial incrimination. Sec.
17 is only applicable to compulsory oral examination. It is not
applicable to purely mechanical acts. What do you mean by this? If
Re-enactment of a crime. The accused is asked could you remember

how you killed this person? You are using your intelligence and
imagination, so you cannot do that.
Page 8 of 19
~2016~
speedy disposition of cases does not only apply to criminal cases. It even applies
to judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. The right to speedy disposition
of cases, is not only available during trial, but in any stage or in all phases of the
proceedings. So this provision is broader. Thats why you also have pertinent
constitutional provisions concerning the right to speedy disposition of cases that
are not only found in the Bill of Rights, but throughout the Constitution. Example
given, the ff provisions:
Paraffin Test. Diba to know if ikaw ang nagbaril, naa man nay mga certain
chemicals that the police used. Can they force you to go to a paraffin test to see if
you were actually the one who use the handgun? Yes. Because they are not
subjecting you to use your intelligence or imagination. That is a purely mechanical
act.
CHAVEZ V. CA.
Accused here was charged with theft of a motorcycle. The prosecution called the
accused to the witness stand. The judge said okay you can take the witness stand
and you can only refuse to answer if and when the question become
incriminating. The accused questioned that. SC said, the accused can altogether
refuse to take the witness stand because that will be a violation of his right
against self incrimination.
Art. 8 SECTION 15.

(1)
All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be
decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission
for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve
months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower
courts.
(2)
A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution
upon the filing of the last pending, brief, or memorandum required by the
Rules of Court or by the court itself.
(3)
Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this
effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be
issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter,
and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or
resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.
(4)
Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court,
without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in
consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted
thereto for determination, without further delay.
USE IMMUNITY V. TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY

1.
TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY, this is the type of immunity granted
when if the person is compelled to testify is now (inaudible)to any
liability or the acts under investigation. So if we say transactional
immunity, just take note, it is an immunity granted wherein a person
who is compelled to testify, diba you cannot be compelled to testify
against yourself but if you are granted with immunity, it depends on
the type of immunity. In transactional immunity, the person is now
compelled to testify but he is free from any and all liability for acts
under investigation. This is granted by the person whose testimony is
necessary and he is now immune from criminal prosecution for any
offense.
a)
b)
c)
Art. 7, SECTION 18, PAR. 3

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision
thereon within thirty days from its filing.
Examples for this are:

the Social Justice in Human Rights. The Commission on human
Rights can grant immunity.
An Act declaring forfeiture in favor of the state.
The anti-graft and corrupt practices act.
Also, the Constitutional Commissions have their respective mandatory deadline.

So if you look at it, in the cases before the
2.
USE AND PROOF IMMUNITY is the type of immunity where a person

is forced to testify and answer intimidating questions but those
answers cannot be used against him, only what he said but pwede
ang other evidence can still be used against him. That is use and proof
immunity. However, he is not free altogether from the liability if there
are other evidences not based on his testimony. Meaning for use and
proof immunity, only his testimony, diba he was compelled to testify,
what he testified cannot be used against him but others pwede.
SUPREME COURT
LOWER COLLEGIATE COURTS
LOWER COURTS
24 mos
12 mos
3 mos from the time they are
submitted for decision
Again, delays are allowed because of certain reasons. You have to know how long
the delay is, or the reason, malay mo nagkasakit yung judge; or the invocation of
the accused, diba, this right is waivable. If the accused does not invoke his right, it
is deemed waive. And the prejudice caused by the delay of the case. Just take
note of the mandatory periods.
Example:
A, B, C and D are accused and D is the state witness, if D is granted
use and proof immunity. This testimony cannot be used in any matter
with the criminal prosecution in that particular case and this
testimony cannot be used to convict him but this does not mean that
he cannot be convicted because it is only his testimony that cannot be
used, other evidences can still be used against him. So broader gyud
ang transactional immunity, ang use immunity kadtong what you said,
what you testified mao ra to ang dili pwede magamit. Okay!
These periods are mandatory for the judges; but for the judges, it is merely
directory. Meaning, if nilampas lets say, for 12 months. IS the decision no longer
valid? The decisions are still valid even if rendered outside of the periods. SC said
that speedy disposition is characterized as one which is free from vexatious,
oppressive, or inordinate delays.
This is not a repetition of right to speedy trial under Sec. 14. One of the 10 trial
rights of the accused includes the right to a speedy trial. Why is it reflected again
in Sec. 16?
DIMARUCUT V. PEOPLE
Criminal case convicting him of frustrated homicide. He asked for time to file brief.
Wala nakafile ug brief. When youre on appeal, the higher court will ask you to
make of an appellants brief. Its actually a summary of all your arguments in
support of your petition. In this case, he asked for several extensions of time to file
brief citing several reasons, syempre nadugay. In this case, I think its more on the
gross negligence of counsel. In this case, the party blame his lawyer for the loss of
the case. HELD: To constitute negligence as a violation of your right, it must not
be mere simple negligence, but gross negligence on part of the counsel. For a
claim of counsels gross negligence to prosper, nothing short of clear
abandonment of the clients cause must be shown. Here, petitioners counsel failed
to file the appellants brief. While this omission can plausibly qualify as simple
negligence, it does not amount to gross negligence to justify the annulment of the
proceeding below.
If you look at it, Sec. 16 is broader than the right to speedy trial. Why? It is because
Sec. 14 only refers to cases during trial stage. Whereas, section 16 on the right to
ANGELES V. SEMPIO-DIY
Review on Privilege against Self-Incrimination: It only applies to compulsory

testimonial self-incrimination and does not include purely mechanical acts
X)
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

SECTION 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.
Page 9 of 19
~2016~
Case of two judges. Here, It is the stance of the complainant that Judge Sempio
Diy merely sat on the cases for an unreasonable length of time and failed to
resolve them within the constitutionally prescribed 90-day period thereby violating
the right to speedy disposition of cases. HELD: There was a clear violation of the
right to speedy disposition of cases. But again, according to Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct, really admonishes all judges to dispose of the
court's business promptly and decide cases within the period specified under the
Constitution. IF you are not able to decide the case within the mandatory periods,
you will be subject to disciplinary proceedings. But in most jurisprudence that Ive
read, usually theyre just admonished, not really terminated from service. In this
case, respondent Judge Sempio Diy was ADMONISHED to be more circumspect
in observing the reglementary period for disposing of motions.
they send you the bill when youve already changed your address? That can be a
ground for imprisonment.
LOZANO V. MARTINEZ
He was convicted for violation of BP22. He challenged said law because he said
that diba I have a loan from you, as payment I issued to you a check. Isulod ang
check after 1 month. But when the creditor puts it in the bank, it was dishonored
for having been withdrawn against insufficient funds. Some people call it DAIF or
its drawn against closed account. So here, Lozano challenged it saying Am I not
being imprisoned here, for failing to pay my debt? HELD: Not a violation. Why?
Under BP 22, you are not being imprisoned or charged because you did not pay a
debt. But the gravamen of the offense is the issuance of worthless checks.
Remember, checks are not mere contracts, but are commercial instruments
which the public and the banking system has the right to rely on. Because of
checks, diba na smoothen ang business transactions, and if you issue worthless
checks, that will of course affect the commercial or business transactions. That is
why, under BP 22, you are not imprisoned because you did not pay a debt, but
because you issued a worthless check.
RAYMUNDO V. ANDOY
Here, this is a BP 22 case, a hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration. Here, it
was always delayed and reset to further dates. Here, the problem was, BP 22 falls
under the Rules on Summary Procedure--- What do you mean by that? Summary?
Diba with dispatch, fast. And because it was delayed for so long, it went against
the nature of the proceeding which is supposed to be fast, and yet, because of the
delays, the judge was not able to sign it within the 30-day reglamentary period
after the last pleading was filed. HELD: The Constitution mandates that all cases
or matters filed before all lower courts shall be decided or resolved within 90 days
from the time the case is submitted for decision. Judges are enjoined to dispose
of the courts business promptly and expeditiously and to decide cases within the
period fixed by law. Failure to comply with the mandated period constitutes a
serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of
their cases a lapse that undermines the peoples faith and confidence in the
judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute. This constitutional policy
is reiterated in Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires
a judge to dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within the
required periods.
XI)
RE: POLL TAX This refers to residence certificates-yang cedula. You can get that
from your city hall, sa inyong barangay. But you cannot be imprisoned for
nonpayment of polltax.
AGBANLOG V. PEOPLE
Malversation. If you are a public officer charged with the custody of public funds,
and you failed to account for that, there is a presumption that you have malversed
the public funds. That is one exemption from presumption of innocence under
Sec. 14.
PEOPLE V. NITAFAN
Again, BP 22 but this involves a memorandum check. Basically, it is still a check
but says that the drawer has to pay the payor without any other condition. Its still
a check because it is still drawn against the drawee bank. Diba ang check ang
essence is to tell the bank to pay you. I am the drawer, I will pay you. The drawee
is the bank. I will tell the bank to tell the payor. Its not merely a promissory note
which is basically an I owe you, and I will pay you soon which may or may not be
notarized. But in a memorandum check, its still a check and still a violation of BP
22. Will this violate section 20? NO. because it only involves civil obligations.
. SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

A.
What acts cannot be criminalized?

1. Mere beliefs and aspirations (Sec. 18, p.1)
2. Debts and Civil Obligations (Sec. 20)
3. Acts which when done were innocent (Ex-post Facto Laws; Sec. 22)
VERGARA V. GEDORIO
Petitioners here are tenants of property. They were cited in contempt for failure to
heed the order of the court to pay monthly rentals. They said that they did not
know where to pay the rentals. Despite that the court ordered them to pay a fine
and undergo imprisonment until and unless they comply with the orders of the
court. Violation of Section 20? HELD: . Debt, as used in the Constitution, refers to
civil debt or one not arising from a criminal offense; it means any liability to pay
arising out of a contract, express or implied. They payment of rentals is covered
by the constitutional guarantee against imprisonment. Just take note of debt and
civil obligations: it only involves obligations that are civil in nature and cannot be
invoked against the State.
SECTION 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his

political beliefs and aspirations.
This is included in freedom of thought similar to Freedom of Religion. Freedom to
believe is absolute, but freedom to act based on such belief is subject to State
regulations. Because of Sec. 18, just because you engender some political belief
or aspiration, you cannot be detained or imprisoned SOLELY---the word there is
SOLELY, if you just believe, its okay but if you act upon such belief, thats another
story. Just like if you are a political prisoner, you cannot be detained solely for
what you believed in. Actually, if you are a member of the communist party of the
Philippines, that in itself alone na communista ka, you cannot be detained solely
because of that. Like in your criminal law 2, in rebellion, once you act based upon
your belief, now thats another story. Thats why the RA 1700 was already
repealed. Under this Anti-Subversion Law, mere membership is already punished.
But this is already repealed because it violates several constitutional provisions
such as Sec. 18.
SECTION 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be

enacted.
2 concepts
a)
Ex post Facto Law
b)
Bill of Attainder
SECTION 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or nonpayment of a poll tax
An EXPOST FACTO LAW among others is one which changes the penalty and
inflicts a greater punishment than what the law provides annex to the crime when
committed. There are six instances wherein the SC said that it is an expost facto
legislation.
(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which
was innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime when committed;
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or
different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission
of the offense;
The meaning of debt here is contractual obligation that is civil obligation. In

common parlance we here Ah, wala may makulong sa utang. Thats what its
meant. This section 20. Is that true? Yes, actually. I used to be counsel for certain
credit card companies. Some people ask me Atty. Why am I imprisoned Diba,
when you have a credit card, and you dont pay, usually the credit card companies
through the lawyers, send demand letters and we warn them that they can be
imprisoned. Is that true? Yes, partly. Because under the Access Regulations
Device Act, if you have not declared that you changed your address, that creates a
presumption that you are running away from the Credit Card Company. How will
Page 10 of 19
~2016~
(5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes
penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was
lawful; and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he
has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or
acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
BILL OF ATTAINDER: It is basically a legislative act which inflicts punishment

without judicial trial. It is a law saying na this is your punishment, without any trial.
What the characteristics? LLP
(1)
Their convictions or sentences pronounced by the legislative department
instead of the judicial department
(2)
The sentenced pronounced or the punishment inflicted is determined by no
previous law or rule
(3)
That the investigation of the guilt of the accused if such was made is not
generally conducted in his presence
Essentially, it is a criminal law with a retroactive effect that is prejudicial to the

accused. It is a law which makes an act criminal when at the time it was
committed it was not yet criminal. But because of that law, I am prosecuted for
violation of such law.
Example:
A law which prohibits urinating in sidewalks. And then my neighbor saw me
urinating last week; and theres a law which provides Those who will urinate in
public shall be imprisoned for 10years. So my neighbor files a case against me.
That law is an expost facto law. Why? At the time that I committed it, it was not
yet prohibited/crime.
Elements
(1)
Theres a law imposing a penal burden to a certain individual or easily
ascertainable members of a group
(2)
That the penal burden is imposed directly by law without judicial trial
Example:
For all those who urinate in public, automatically if youre caught, youre
imprisoned for 10 years. That violates the very essence of separation of powers.
That is a bill of attainder. The judiciary is supposed to impose the
penalty/punishment upon you, not the legislative branch.
SALVADOR V. MAPA
President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 13 creating the
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans. There was also a
Memorandum No. 61 which fixed the functions of the committee on behest loans.
What is a behest loan? Diba, that AO 13 created to look at it. Its basically a loan
granted by the government at the behest of a certain previous government official.
Several loan accounts were referred to the Committee for investigation, including
the loan transactions between Metals Exploration Asia, Inc. (MEA), now Philippine
Eagle Mines, Inc. (PEMI) and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). After
examining and studying the documents relative to the loan transactions, the
Committee determined that they bore the characteristics of behest loans, as
defined under Memorandum Order No. 61 because the stockholders and officers
of PEMI were known cronies of then President Ferdinand Marcos; the loan was
under-collateralized; and PEMI was undercapitalized at the time the loan was
granted. AO 13 is challenged for being an expost facto law.
PEOPLE V. FERRER
This involves the membership in CPPNPA. However in this case, I dont like this
case very much because the SC upheld the validity of the Anti-Subversion Act.
Again, this was already repealed. But here, this was upheld and put there several
qualifications. Because under this law, you can be punished if you knowingly
become a member of the Communist-Party of the Phil. Here, the SC said
knowingly. So if you do not know, there was no conspiracy, say to overthrow the
govt, you will not be punished for its violation. So they put there several
qualifications. So just because you are a member of the CPPNPA, you are not
automatically a criminal. You are still allowed to undergo trial. But altogether, this
Act has since been repealed.
REPUBLIC V. RMDC
The Mines and Geosciences Board, granted a license to mine marble deposits in
the mountains of Biak-na-Bato in Bulacan. Pres. Aquino came up with PP No. 84
to cancel the said licenses. It was challenged for being a bill-of-attainder. HELD: It
is stressed that at the time President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 84 on
March 9, 1987, she was still validly exercising legislative powers under the
Provisional Constitution of 1986. Section 1 of Article II of Proclamation No. 3,
which promulgated the Provisional Constitution, granted her legislative power
until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution. The grant
of such power is also explicitly recognized and provided for in Section 6 of Article
XVII of the 1987 Constitution.
HELD: No. It was not a criminal law. The constitutional doctrine that outlaws an ex
post facto law generally prohibits the retrospective penal laws. Penal laws are
those acts of the legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for
their violations; or those that define crimes, treat of their nature, and provide for
their punishment. The subject administrative and memorandum orders clearly do
not come within the shadow of this definition. Administrative Order No. 13 creates
the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, and provides
for its composition and functions. It does not mete out penalty for the act of
granting behest loans. Memorandum Order No. 61 merely provides a frame of
reference for determining behest loans. Not being penal laws, Administrative Order No.
13 and Memorandum Order No. 61 cannot be characterized as ex post facto laws.
It is settled that an ex post facto law is limited in its scope only to matters criminal in
nature. Proclamation 84, which merely restored the area excluded from the Biakna-Bato national park by canceling respondents license, is clearly not penal in
character.
PEOPLE V. CASTA
The crime of murder was committed by Casta on August 20, 1989 which was
before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659 on December 31, 1993 amending
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code on murder, raising the penalty to RP to
death from RTMax-Death. Prior to its amendment the penalty for the crime of
murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code was reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death.
BOCEA V. TEVES
Attrition act of 2005. There is a law saying that if the BIR reach their revenue
targets, they will be given bonus. At the same time, if the BIR is not able to meet
their target, they will be sanctioned and terminated. Members question if it is a bill
of attainder for providing a punishment if they will not reach the quota. HELD: R.A.
No. 9335 does not possess the elements of a bill of attainder. It does not seek to
inflict punishment without a judicial trial. R.A. No. 9335 merely lays down the
grounds for the termination of a BIR or BOC official or employee and provides for the
consequences thereof. The democratic processes are still followed and the
constitutional rights of the concerned employee are amply protected.
HELD: In light of the greater penalty that attaches under the amendment, the
previous penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death will have to
be imposed in order not to run afoul of the constitutional prohibition against ex
post facto laws. Under Section 22 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no ex
post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. An ex post facto law, among
others, is one that changes the penalty and inflicts a greater punishment than what
the law annexed to the crime when committed - the situation that would obtain if the
amendment under Republic Act No. 7659 would be applied.
B.
NASI-VILLAR V. PEOPLE Illegal recruitment occurred in 1993. There was a law RA

8042 which criminalizes illegal recruitment. But this only took effect in 1995.
However, illegal recruitment was already punished here under the Labor Code.
Take note, it is not an expost facto law if it applies prospectively.
1.
Page 11 of 19
~2016~
WHAT PUNISHMENTS CANNOT BE IMPOSED?

1)
Involuntary Servitude
2)
Excessive Fines
3)
Cruel. Degrading and Inhuman Punishments
4)
Indefinite Imprisonment
Involuntary Servitude
that 21k is now small and that as a consequence, the penalty is now deemed
excessive because of inflation and is now obsolete. HELD: Your remedy is not
against the courts but to the legislative department/Congress to amend law.
Otherwise, well just have to apply what is stated in the law.
SECTION 18. (2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist

except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted.
This does away with slavery. If you dont want to work for anyone, you can
resign.EXN Pilots. Usually, the airline company will pay for your education. Say, in
the contract, youll have to work for 10 years to recover what has been spent for
you for 10 years. This was challenged actually, when a pilot wanted to move to
greener pastures like one pilot who wanted to move to Cathay Pacific kay nauyab
niya isa ka FA. The Capt. Now wanted to get away w/ his previous company and
invoked Art. 18. HELD: There is a recognized exception where the company has to
recoup certain expenses.
3.
Cruel, Degrading, and inhuman punishments
Any punishment is in some sense cruel. What makes it objectionable is that if it is
degrading or inhuman. When cruel? When it is flagrantly and plainly oppressive
and wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral
sense of the community or when it involves torture or lingering death
Example:
penalty for urinating like 10 years, it is cruel for it shocks the moral senses of the
community.
1)
Those which public sentiment will regard as cruel and obsolete (refers
to the form of punishment)
Example : crucifixion, stoning to death, boiling in oil, inserting a durian
in the anal orifice
Or of course, if youre a criminal, you cannot say you do not want to go to jail
because that is involuntary servitude. That is a recognized exception.
Some companies will not allow you to resign because according to them, your
services are still needed and they will have to provide for a necessary replacement
for you. Can they do that? No, that violates section 18.
SARMIENTO V. TUICO Asian Transmission Corporation fired Sarmiento who was
a Union Leader because he was carrying a deadly weapon inside the work
premises. This led the other union members held a strike and all of them did not
go to work. Under the Labor Code, the DOLE can assume jurisdiction in such a
case. In this case, DOLE assumed jurisdiction in the conflict and ordered that
pending investigation, the workers must not go on strike and return to their
respective works. Workers invoked section 18. HELD: Return-to-Work Order is valid
and does not constitute Involuntary Servitude. ***So thats one recognized
exception, if the DOLE assumes jurisdiction over a labor-conflict. In that case, if
they do not return, they can be terminated. The worker can of course give up his
work, thus severing his ties with the company, if he does not want to obey the
order; but the order must be obeyed if he wants to retain his work even if his
inclination is to strike.
2.
Those which are disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral

senses of the community.
Example: Massacre of a family and the penalty is only 1-30 days
(disproportionate)
3)
It usually involves so much pain and suffering that civilized people

cannot tolerate.
PEOPLE V. ECHEGARAY
Prosecuted for the rape of his own child. He now claims that death penalty is
cruel, excessive, and inhuman punishment in violation of his constitutional right
Held: Precisely because this is a heinous crime which involves rape of your own
daughter. Under RA 7659, "x x x the crimes punishable by death under this Act are
heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of
their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are
repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and
morality in a just, civilized and ordered society." Therefore, death penalty should be
allowed. Why? In the first place there is already a law and congress already
published it. And the court will just apply the law.
Excessive Fines
SECTION 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death
penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death
penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Lethal Injection, Cruel? NO. it does not involve torture, or any lingering death. In
fact, you die in a peaceful manner.
When is it Excessive? Factors to Determine

1)
Financial Condition of the Convict
2)
Amount fixed should be within the limits established by law
3)
Mitigating or Aggravating circumstances at the crime
4)
Death Penalty
5)
Right to be protected against physical, psychological, or degrading
punishments
PEOPLE V. TONGCO
He was sentenced to 27 years due to Estafa. The penalty depends on the amount.
If you look at it, it is not harsh, excessive, or out of proportion because the penalty
is provided for by the law.
LIM V. PEOPLE AND PEREZ CASE
Just take note that the purpose for the law indeed clearly in the increase of the
penalty was motivated by a laudable purpose that effectuates the suppression of
an evil which undermines the economic growth of a country. So just really look at
the form. But as to the severity, if it is fixed by law, usually the court will decide as
to what the penalty really is.
If the amount is so disproportionate to the offense committed. Nature of the

offense must be taken into account.
PEOPLE V. DELA CRUZ
He sold meat for 30 cents/kilo but there was an executive order which limits only
for 20 cents. He admitted overpricing it for 10centavos. So because of this, he
was meted a penalty of 2 mos. He claims it to be excessive. HELD: What you are
selling is an important ingredient and it is possible that you would be earning not
only centavos but even thousands. Hence, the national policy in profiting in
foodstuffs. The damage could be greater. The imprisonment is not excessive.
4.
C.
Indefinite Imprisonment
THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment
for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar
to another prosecution for the same act.
PEOPLE V. DACUYCUY
4670 or Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. The fine was fixed but as to the
imprisonment, the law lets the judge decide what imprisonment shall be imposed.
This was struck down precisely because of the lack of standards and just leave it
to the court for discretion. That should not be allowed. It was also an undue
delegation of legislative power.
In a movie, she was accused of killing her husband. She went through trial. She
was convicted and then she got parole because she already served the minimum
sentence and then she was able to get out of jail. All this time, the husband staged
his death. When she found out, she came hunting for her husband because shed
already served the time in jail. So when she already confronted her husband, she
said Im going to kill you. He said, If you are going to kill me, the police are
outside and they are going to charge you with my murder. But she said, Thats
already double jeopardy. I already killed you before. I served the time. Even if I kill
AGBANLOG V. PEOPLE
Malversation. The treasurer failed to account for 21k pesos. He was convicted
sometime in the 80s. He malversed was 21k. He invoked inflation and contended
2)
Page 12 of 19
~2016~
you now, I can no longer be prosecuted. Meaning, a person has the right, under
Section 21, in that he or she cannot be put twice in jeopardy in an offense.
THERE MUST BE A VALID COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION.

PEOPLE V. MANABAG
There was a complaint for rape that was signed by the chief of police. In rape
cases, the complaint should be filed by the offended party, not the police. So when
this was discovered, the case was dismissed and it was refiled. Accused invoke
his right against double jeopardy. Does the double jeopardy set in here? No,
because for the first jeopardy to attach, there must be a valid complaint or information.
In the case, the complaint was signed, not by the offended party, but the police
officer. Therefore, the first jeopardy did not attach because there was no valid
complaint or information.
The right against double jeopardy basically prohibits the prosecution for any
person for a crime of which he has been previously acquitted or convicted. The
object is to set the effects of the first prosecution forever at rest, assuring the
accused that he shall no longer thereafter be subject to the dangers and anxiety of
a second charge against him for the same offense.
REQUISITES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY - AVSS
st
1)
The 1 jeopardy must have attached prior to the second
st
2)
The 1 jeopardy must have been validly terminated
nd
3)
The 2 jeopardy must be for the same offense or same act
FILED IN A COMPENTENT COURT

PEOPLE V. ESCALONA
The accused was charged with illegal possession of dynamite. The case was
heard before the MTC judge during preliminary investigation. The judge arraigned
the accused and the accused immediately pleaded guilty. After the plea of guilt, he
found out that Uy, pag illegal possession of dynamite, dili man diay dapat sa MTC.
Dapat sa RTC. So they dismissed the case and refiled it with the RTC. Here comes
the accused saying, I can already invoke my right against double jeopardy. Has the
first jeopardy already attached? No, because the complaint or information was not
filed before the competent court na dapat sa RTC pero sa MTC man gi-file. Gi-dismiss
sa MTC, gi-refile sa MTC. There was no double jeopardy because the MTC has no
jurisdiction to hear the case.
Q: When can you say that the first jeopardy has already attached?
A: Pursuant to jurisprudence:
1)
When there is already a valid complaint or information
2)
When the complaint or information was filed in a competent court
3)
If the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded
Q: When can you say that the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated?
1)
When the accused is acquitted
2)
When the accused is convicted
3)
When the case is otherwise dismissed without the express consent of
the accused
Q: When can you say that the second jeopardy is for the same offense?
1)
When the two offenses are identical
2)
When the second is an attempt to commit the first
3)
When the second is a frustration of the first
4)
When the first necessarily includes the second
5)
When the first is necessarily included in the second
Lets say proper venue. Accused is charged for bigamy in Pampanga but the
second marriage happened in Rizal. When it was found out that it was charged in
the wrong place, the case in Pampanga was dismissed and it was refiled in Rizal.
Accused invoked his right against double jeopardy. Has the double jeopardy set
in? No, because the court in Pampanga didnt have proper jurisdiction. It was the
wrong venue. It should have been filed in Rizal where the second marriage took
place. Therefore, since it was not the proper venue, the accused cannot invoke his
right against double jeopardy.
Q: When can you say if the second jeopardy is for the same act?
1) When the first charge for an act punished by a law and an ordinance, the
second charge either is for the same act
THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN ARRAIGNED AND HAS PLEADED

US V. SOLIS
There were two men courting the same woman. There was a rivalry which
resulted in one killing the other. Accused was charged with murder. Before the
arraignment, the fiscal immediately called for a dismissal saying that Ah, I dont
see a case against him. Later on, the fiscal said Ah, there was a case against
him. I will refile the case nalang. Can the fiscal refile the case? Can the accused
claim his right against double jeopardy? There was no double jeopardy because it
was before arraignment. For the first jeopardy to attach, the accused must have
been validly arraigned and pleaded.
This is all found under Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court (Motion to Quash). It
basically lays down the requisites for double jeopardy.
RULE 117, SECTION 7.
FORMER CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL; DOUBLE JEOPARDY. When an accused
has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon
a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the
charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall
be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to
commit the same (lets say attempted homicide and homicide) or frustration
(frustrated homicide and homicide) thereof, or for any offense which necessarily
includes or is necessarily included (homicide murder or vice versa) in the
offense charged in the former complaint or information.
PEOPLE V. BALISAGA
Accused was charged with homicide. He was able to present mitigating
circumstances and he was able to prove self-defense. He was acquitted. The
fiscal appealed and the accused raised his right against double jeopardy. There
was no double jeopardy because the accused has not entered a valid plea. When
he presented an evidence for self-defense, he was actually pleading not guilty.
Precisely, he presented his case of self-defense. The judge should have
immediately suspended the proceedings and asked the accused be re-arraigned
so that the plea would be not guilty. In this case, I think nag plea naman siyag
guilty and yet he was using the defense of self-defense. So, there was no valid
plea. Since there was no valid plea, the first jeopardy could not attach and
therefore double jeopardy could not be invoked.
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution
for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former
complaint or information under any of the following instances:
(THREE EXCEPTIONS)
a.
the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the
same act or omission constituting the former charge; (That is what we call
the Supervening Fact Doctrine)
b.
the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered
only after a plea was entered (That is what we call the newly discovered
evidence exception) in the former complaint or information; or
c.
the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the
prosecutor and of the offended party except as provided in section 1 (f) of
Rule 116.
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or serves in whole or in
part the judgment, he shall be credited with the same in the event of conviction for
the graver offense. (7a)
In the first requisite, all three must be present. Absent any one of them, there is no
double jeopardy. When do you say that the first jeopardy must have been validly
terminated? Diba, you have when accused is acquitted, convicted, or otherwise
dismissed without the express consent.
BERNATE V. SECRETARY
Accused was charged with illegal possession with the Military Commission. At the
same time, a similar case was also filed before the fiscals office and the court. So
the accused challenged this saying that his right against double jeopardy has
been violated. I am facing a case before the Military Commission. I am also facing a
case before the fiscals office and the court. Can he invoke his right against double
jeopardy? No, because both cases are still pending. Wala pa siya na acquit, wala pa
Page 13 of 19
~2016~
siya na convict, wala pa na dismiss. Why? Its still pending so you cannot invoke
your right against double jeopardy.
4)
Q: When can you say that there is a dismissal? How do you know if there is a
dismissal?
A: There is a dismissal when the case is terminated but not on its merits. Diba kay
if its on its merits, hes acquitted. If its not on its merits, then there is a dismissal.
The rule is, when the dismissal of the case is without the consent of the accused,
he can later invoke the right against double jeopardy. So he can say, You cannot
reopen or you cannot retry me.
PEOPLE V. BULAOG
The accused was charged with rebellion in Laguna. At the same time, he was also
charged with subversion in Manila. Now, he was convicted in Laguna and he
appealed with the CA, which affirmed his conviction. He then went up to the SC
saying that it violated his right against double jeopardy. Did the right against
double jeopardy already attach? No, because one case is still on trial, kadtong case
before Manila. The other case is still on appeal, so still pending. Therefore, the first
jeopardy has not yet been validly terminated.
PEOPLE V. CUENCO
The accused was arraigned for the violation of the Trust Receipts Law. He filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground that the contract is purely civil. The judge
dismissed the case. The prosecutor appealed to the SC. The accused now invoked
double jeopardy. Could he invoke double jeopardy? No, because the dismissal was
with the consent of the accused. In fact, it was the accused that filed the motion
of the dismissal of the case. Therefore, it was with his consent. We said that the
first jeopardy could only be validly terminated if it is without the express consent of the
accused.
Q: Now, what are the instances where the prosecution may appeal without placing
the accused in double jeopardy?
1)
When there is a violation of due process of the state
2)
When judgment of acquittal was issued by the judge with grave abuse of
discretion
GALMAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN
The Company was charged with the Sandiganbayan. All of them were acquitted.
The family of the victims moved to reconsider and challenged the same saying
that the court trying the Company, during the Marcos time, was a dummy court.
Meaning, the State was not even able to present evidence and at the same time,
before the actual case, the Justices were already summoned before the
Malacanang. Gi-briefing na sila ni Marcos na Acquit na ha. They were indeed
acquitted. Subsequently, the case was reopened. The accused invoked his right
against double jeopardy. Why are you reopening the case when I was already
acquitted? Diba the second requisite is that the accused has already been
acquitted. Why am I being charged again with the same offense when I am
already acquitted? SC held that since there was a deprivation of due process on
the part of the State, the State was not able to properly present its evidence, you
are allowed to reopen the case and it will not violate the right of the accused
against double jeopardy. Take note ha. If there is a depravation of due process on
the part of the State, it will not place the accused in double jeopardy.
When is the dismissal considered without the consent?

PEOPLE V. ILAGAN
The accused was arraigned for serious physical injuries. After arraignment, fiscal
moved for the dismissal. The accused just kept quiet. The case was refiled. So
accused invoked his right against double jeopardy. The SC said, But you just kept
quiet. Is silence considered as consent? SC said that mere silence is not consent.
Diba I told you that dismissal without the express consent. Being silent is not
tantamount to express consent.
Express consent is either given orally or in writing. It is a positive, direct, and clear act
requiring no interference to supply the meaning. If you look at it, even if the
accused files for a motion for reinvestigation, it is not an equivalent to express
consent.
GENERAL RULE: Dismissal with express consent will not give rise to double
jeopardy.
EXNs: (There is double jeopardy even if the dismissal is with the consent of the
accused): SIS
1) When the dismissal is grounded on the right to speedy trial
2) When the dismissal is based on insufficiency of evidence
3) When the accused is discharged as a state witness
Second, when the acquittal was issued by the court with grave abuse of
discretion. This is very difficult to prove because what you are assigning here is
not only an ordinary error of the court but an error made in grave abuse of
discretion. Ordinary errors committed by a court cannot be a ground for appeals
because accused has already been acquitted. So this is very hard to prove. When
it comes to an acquittal, the chance of the appeal or for the reopening of trial is
very, very strict, precisely because this error is strictly construed.
SALCEDO V. MENDOZA
The prosecution asked for three postponements of the trial. The accused moved
to dismiss the case by invoking his right to speedy trial. Judge granted the motion,
thus the motion was dismissed. Later on, the judge changed his mind and granted
the motion for reconsideration. He reinstated the case. So the accused argued
that there was double jeopardy. The Court held that the dismissal grounded on the
right to speedy trial even if it is upon the motion of the accused will already give rise to
double jeopardy.
When you are on appeal, can the court increase or decrease the penalty? Yes,
because an appeal is deemed a waiver against the right against double jeopardy. So,
lets say you were charged and sentenced to two months. You say, No, dapat one
month lang. You appeal it and upon appeal, the CA says, Ay dapat six months.
Pwede ba na? Yes, because an appeal is deemed a waiver of the right against
double jeopardy.
PABANTONG V. SOZA
Accused was convicted with qualified seduction and sentenced to six months.
The accused appealed. After his appeal, the court convicting him said, Uy, di man
ni seduction. Rape man gyud ni. So on appeal, he was found guilty of rape and
sentenced to life imprisonment. The accused invoked his right against double
jeopardy. SC held that since he appealed, its deemed a waiver of his right against
double jeopardy. He can be charged by the court with graver offense.
PEOPLE V. DE VERA
The accused was charged with the Dangerous Drugs Law. Five hearings were
postponed because the prosecution had no witnesses. The accused moved to
dismiss it and it was granted. After the dismissal, the witness for the prosecution
showed up after a few minutes. The judge reinstated the case. The accused now
claims that his right against double jeopardy was violated. Was there double
jeopardy? No, because the order of dismissal was not yet final. The decision
contemplated here is dapat the decision must be in writing. In this case, verbally pa
man niya. So wala pa.
Q: When can you say if a dismissal has the consent of the accused?
A: It is with consent when there is a provisional dismissal. It is dismissed
provisionally and later on, after the passage of
one year, in cases before the MTC, and
two years in cases before the RTC, the dismissal becomes permanent
and not only provisional.
PEOPLE V. CITY COURT OF SILAY

On insufficiency of evidence, the accused was prosecuted. After the prosecution
presented their evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence. Do you know
what a demurrer is? Diba if the prosecution was not able to convict the accused
beyond reasonable doubt kay insufficient and evidence. So the court granted the
motion. So na-acquit. The State appealed. The accused invoked his right against
double jeopardy. Is there double jeopardy? There is already double jeopardy because
the ground for the dismissal was insufficiency of evidence. Again, there is double
Q: When is a dismissal with the consent?

1) The dismissal is without prejudice. Meaning, pwede siya ma refile.
2) Upon motion of the accused
3) When the accused, in fact, agrees to the dismissal
When the accused filed a motion for reconsideration
Page 14 of 19
~2016~
jeopardy even if the dismissal is with the consent, if the dismissal is based on
insufficiency of evidence.
Is there double jeopardy? YES, there is already double jeopardy because it arises
from THE SAME ACT. What act? The act of installing jumper cables. SC said in
jeopardy for the SAME OFFENSE, court compares the elements of the same
offenses. While in jeopardy for the SAME ACT, court compares the two
information. In this case, the court stated that both information concerned acts
performed on the same dates, therefore both information are for the same act and
because it is for the same act, double jeopardy has now set in.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION:

Even if the dismissal is with the consent of the accused, and is grounded on
speedy trial or insufficiency of evidence, it will not still give rise to double jeopardy
if:
1) There is a violation of due process on the part of the state
2) If there was grave abuse of discretion
So if try to compare same offenses versus the same act, as to basis,

EXAMPLE: Judge was still conducting trial in one case. He told the parties that
their case will be tried later. Because of this, the fiscal and the parties went out of
the court room. When they returned, nobody was there in the court room. They
were told that their case was already dismissed kay wala man ang parties. Due to
the dismissal, the fiscal asked the judge to reinstate the case to which the judge
agreed to. However, the accused now claimed double jeopardy. Was there double
jeopardy? NO. Double jeopardy will not lie in this case because the prosecution was
deprived of due process by such dismissal. It was not given the opportunity to present
its case and its evidence.
SAME OFFENSE
look at the provision of the law
elements of both offenses
SAME ACT
statute and an ordinance
acts in space and time
As to point of inquiry, in order to determine what type of jeopardy is involved, what

do you try to look into?
For the SAME OFFENSE, you look at the elements of both offenses. Ug pareha ra
ug elements, pareha nga crime, same offense.
THE SECOND JEOPARDY MUST BE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE

Q: How do you know if its the same offense?
A: The same evidence test is used to determine whether the same evidence would
be necessary to support the two cases
EXCEPTION:
1) Supervening Fact Doctrine
2) Newly discovered evidence
3) With the plead of a lesser offense is without the consent of the fiscal or the
offended party
But if it is for the SAME ACT, the point of inquiry there is acts in space and time.
Meaning if it is committed on the same day, at the same time, on the same place,
that is when you can now invoke double jeopardy for the same act.
PEOPLE V. CITY COURT

IVLER V. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO (RECIT)
MERO V. PEOPLE
Accused was charged with serious physical injuries. He pleaded guilty. So valid
information, pleaded guilty, already started serving sentence. After he already pled
guilty, the following day namatay ang victim. So from serious physical injuries kay
gikulata niya, namatay. So here comes new information now for homicide. So the
accused invoked his right against double jeopardy alleging that he was already
prosecuted previously for serious physical injuries regarding the same victim and
cannot now be charged again for killing him. Can he be charged? Can he invoke
his right against double jeopardy? NO, because his death was a supervening fact.
Namatay man. So pwede ka ma-charge again now for homicide precisely because
there is a supervening fact.
FLORES VS MONTEMAYOR
Nagreklamo man gud ang accused because gi-imbestigahan siya sa
Ombudsman, gi-imbestigahan pa gyud siya sa Philippine Anti-Graft Commission.
He said, I was already investigated before by the Ombudsman. Why am I being
investigated again now by the Anti-Graft Commission? SC said preliminary
investigation done by the Ombudsman doesnt constitute double jeopardy because P.I.
is not part of trial. So wala pa man ka na-convict, wala pa man ka na-acquit, wala pa
man na-dismiss without the consent. So wala pa na terminate ang first jeopardy.
EQUIPOISE RULEI
Kung tabla-tabla ang evidence, what does the Court supposed to do? Equipoise
rule basically states that if the evidence is issued based on certain facts, the party
who has the burden of proof loses. Diba tablA-tabla mo but if you have the burden
and you are not able to discharge that burden, you lose
PEOPLE V. VILLARAMA
The accused here was charged with possession of illegal drugs. Accused pleabargained to a lesser offense. The judge accepted the bargain. What did the court
say? If the plea of guilty is without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party, that
plea of guilty is null and void. Diba we said that the diba dapat ang sa exception with
a plea to a lesser offense is without the consent of the fiscal or the offended party.
In this case, the plea bargain was without the consent of the fiscal or the offended
party. Because of that, it will not give rise to double jeopardy. Kay wala man nag
signify ang fiscal and offended party.
D.
Article 3, Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall
not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the
public safety requires it.
We go to the same act. Diba we said that you cannot be prosecuted for the same
offense. Now, what is that second sentence under Section 21?
What is Habeas Corpus? It is a writ issued by the court directed to a person

detaining another commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a
designated time and place, with the day and cause of his capture and detention, to
do, or to submit to, and to receive whatever the court of judge awarding the writ
shall consider in his behalf.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES: The accused can only be charged of two crimes if the act
committed violates two different statutes. Thats why you have the case of People
v. Relova. That is a prime example for double jeopardy for the same act.
habeas thats a latin term for to have.

Corpus thats a latin term for body
= TO HAVE THE BODY
Its basically an order issued by the Court directed to a person detaining another
so this is a remedy when you have an illegal restraint on your liberty.
PEOPLE V. RELOVA
The ice-plant owner installed jumper cables. Ang jumper cables, I think that
decreases or steals electricity from, diba kanang nag-install ka ug jumper sa
imong neighbor para you get his or her electricity. He was charged with violation
of an ordinance. The case was dismissed because of prescription. Now the fiscal
charged him again for theft of electricity under the Revised Penal Code. The
accused invoked double jeopardy. Fiscal said that It could not be for the same
offense because we charged you under an ordinance which was dismissed because of
prescription. We are now charging you with an entirely new offense. So it would not be
double jeopardy for the same offense kay lahi man. Ang isa ordinance, ang isa
under the RPC.
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Now remember, the writ can never be suspended. If you read Section 15, it is only
the privilege of the writ that can be suspended only in cases of invasion or rebellion.
Page 15 of 19
~2016~
If there is a suspension of a privilege, it will only apply to those charged with

rebellion or crimes inherent or related to invasion. It does not apply to ordinary
offenses or ordinary crimes.
SC: Habeas Corpus will only lie if the restraint of liberty is in the nature of an illegal
or involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. In this case, it was not illegal
because it was the daughters who looked after Eufemia. There is no proof that
Eufemia is being detained or restrained of her liberty by respondents. Nothing on
record reveals that she was forcibly taken by the respondents. On the contrary, the
respondents being the adopted children are taking care of her.
At the same time, even if the privilege is suspended, the writ will still be issued by
the court. Only, the person will not be released even if he filed a habeas corpus
case if he is covered by the suspended writ. If the officer has grounds to actually
detain him, that person will still be detained of course, involving cases of
invasion and rebellion only.
So you can only file a habeas corpus case, if there is an illegal restraint on your
liberty. In this case, it was not illegal because it was the kids of Eufemia who took
care of her.
Also, if you are not charged within 72 hours, without a warrant, you still must be
released. Do you notice under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, diba dapat irelease ka after 72 hours?
GIBBS FLETCHER VS. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

In this case, he was sentenced for committing a crime and according to him, he
was serving 12 to 17 years. But according to him, his sentence was commuted by
virtue of a proclamation of President FVR. So he filed a case of Habeas Corpus
saying, The sentence has already been commuted. So, since Im still in jail
thats an illegal restraint on my liberty.
Of course, the court will still determine if there is sufficient basis for the
suspension of the Writ.
Even if the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended, the right to bail
will still not be denied.
Could he be freed?
Basically, if you look at the writ of habeas corpus,
this is a remedy that you use:
(1)
If you are detained without charges
(2)
When youve already served your sentence
(3)
This can also apply to custody of children
(4)
When a person is being detained in the hospital for non-payment of
hospital bills
You file a case for habeas corpus that is your remedy if there is an illegal restraint on
your liberty.
1)
If you look at Rule 102 of Revised Rules of Court which deals with habeas corpus,
in Section 4, it provides: If it appears to the person to be restrained of his liberty is
in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge; or by virtue
of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that court or judge had jurisdiction
to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be
allowed -- plainly stated, you can still be confined by virtue of a judicial process or
valid judgment or if there are other grounds to continue to detain you.
In this case, there is really no presidential proclamation from Pres. FVR. I think
Fletcher was not able to present the proclamation from FVR that his sentence
was indeed commuted. But assuming that his sentence was commuted, Fletcher
here was also facing trial for another case for estafa in fact there was a warrant
for his arrest. Therefore, if there are other grounds for the police officers to detain you,
even if assuming your sentence will still be commuted, he would still be in jail because
there are other grounds to detain him.
FUNCTIONS OF THE WRIT
VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN

This is a 1919 case. What happened? Mayor Lukban of Manila herded 170
prostitutes and brought them to Davao. Once they were in Davao, Mayor said that
they should just stay there. They were not allowed to leave Davao. The relatives of
these prostitutes filed a case for habeas corpus, saying Why are our relatives not
allowed to leave Davao? On the other hand, Mayor Lukban said, Theyre not being
imprisoned. They can still move within Davao City. Theyre free to do whatever
they want as long as they remain inside Davao City.
AMPATUAN VS. MACARAIG

PO1 Ampatuan was charged with murder for killing a certain COMELEC official.
Case went through preliminary investigation and I think there was no probable
cause which was the reason why his release was ordered by the Chief
Investigating Prosecutor. However, he was still not released. So his wife filed a
case for habeas corpus.
Could the Writ of Habeas Corpus be issued in this case?

SC: Yes. Because it is a remedy involved if theres any restraint which would
preclude the freedom of action. Yes, they can move around Davao City but they could
not be allowed to exit or leave Davao City. So its basically a remedy if youre deprived
of your freedom of locomotion, freedom of travel. Interestingly, since these
prostitutes were not allowed to leave Davao City, they eventually --- prominent
members of families of Davao City. So if youre from a prominent family here in
Davao, chances are your ascendants are prostitutes. Thats true. I can name two
families.
So again, if there are other grounds to detain you, you will still be imprisoned. In
this case, assuming that there was no probable cause in the murder case, he was
also facing an administrative charge here for grave misconduct. Therefore, he was
under restrictive custody. Under the DILG Act, especially for police officers, even if
you are facing criminal charges before the court, administrative cases could still be
filed against you. So in this case, even assuming that the criminal case had been
dismissed, although it was on appeal, there was another valid ground to detain
him which was under the DILG Act, he was facing an administrative case for grave
misconduct. Therefore, there could be a valid continued detention on the part of
PO1 Ampatuan.
IN RE GONZALES
This involves the Oakwood Mutiny in where they were facing charges for coup
detat. Bail was granted although still they were not released thats why they
filed a case for habeas corpus. But in this case, if you read the case, eventually
they were released.
2)
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS A POST CONVICTION REMEDY
If youve already served your sentence, and youre still not allowed to leave jail,
that is the remedy you should avail of, the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
SC: Since they were already released, the habeas corpus case had already been
rendered moot and academic. Precisely because, the objective is to release. Eh narelease naman. So, moot and academic.
Like in this case of
VELUZ VS. VILLANUEVA

This involves the custody of an old woman. Rodriguez here was a 94 old widow,
who had poor state of mental health, and of course deteriorating cognitive
abilities. She was living with petitioner who was her nephew. The problem is, the
old woman was taken by her alleged adoptive daughters and family. So the
petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus, saying Youre illegally detaining my
aunt. Now, on the other hand, the respondents state that, Were family. Were the
adoptive daughters of Eufemia and her late husband, Maximo Rodriguez.
LAMEN VS. DIRECTOR

He was found guilty of possession and selling of 3 matchboxes of marijuana. He
was in jail. While he was serving his sentence, there was a new law which
lessened the penalty. Petitioner said that since his penalty was lessened and he
had already served the minimum of his sentence, he had the right to file a case for
habeas corpus.
SC: Since the decision of his case had become final and in fact petitioner is
already serving sentence, we cannot alter or modify the penalty imposed.
Will the Writ of Habeas Corpus lie?

Page 16 of 19
~2016~
Nevertheless, the writ of habeas corpus comes to his rescue since he has
undergone imprisonment for the period for more than the maximum period of his
detention. He proved that he is also not a habitual delinquent.
worth not more than P10,000. If it also backed up by affidavits of your witnesses,
you will be allowed. So therefore, youre giving life to Section 11 in that just
because of poverty you should not be denied access to courts or quasi-judicial
bodies. So Martinez was allowed to litigate as a pauper litigant.
The writ of habeas corpus in this case was granted by the court. Precisely
because he had already served the maximum sentence.
2.
So, again, it is a post conviction remedy.

3)
Art. III, Sec. 12(4) - The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions
for violations of this section as well as compensation to the
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their
families.
SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT
SECTION 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of
the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of
invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place
the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from
the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the
Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its
Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or
suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the
initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the
invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) Supreme Court shall have the following
powers (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such
rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
Art. XIII, Sec. 18(3) Commission on Human Rights shall have the
following powers and functions (3) Provide appropriate legal
measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within
the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for
preventive measures and legal aid services to the under-privileged
whose human rights have been violated or need protection;
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of
a call. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
WRIT OF AMPARO That is AM 07-9-12 SC dated Sept. 25, 2007

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA That is AM 8-1-16-SC dated January 22, 2008
Both, the rule on Amparo and the rule on Habeas Data, they were deemed(?) by
the SC because it was in response to certain killings and enforced
disappearances. If they pose a threat to your life, you can avail of this remedy on
the Rule of Writ of Amparo or Habeas Data. However, there are certain
requirements you have to follow if the court will grant a Writ of Amparo. There
was only 1 case so far in Davao regarding the Writ of Amparo which was denied
by the same court. Precisely because there are certain requirements that you have
to follow.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize
the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where
civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly
connected with, invasion.
Rule of Writ of Amparo
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person
thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise
he shall be released.
E.
The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right
to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
thereof.
AFFIRMATIVE RIGHTS
1.
Free access to the courts .
Section Who May File.

The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party of by any qualified person or
entity in the following order:
a.
Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children
and parents of the aggrieved party;
b.
Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of
those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
c.
Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there
is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the
aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other
authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an
authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the right of all others,
observing the order established herein.
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by
reason of poverty.
MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE
On appeal, Martinez filed a Motion to litigate as an indigent (pauper). Now, is that
allowed even if youre on appeal?
SC: Yes! We therefore hold that the motion to litigate as an indigent can be made
even before the appellate courts, either for the prosecution of appeals in petitions
for review, or in special civil actions. We believe that this interpretation is more in
keeping with our Bill of Rights which decrees that free action to courts and quasi
judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied by reason of
poverty.
Even in court now, you are allowed to litigate as a pauper litigant if youre able to
show that your gross income is not 3,000 a month. If you divide that per month,
that would be P30 per day. So, if that is your monthly income, of course you
cannot afford the services of counsel, you cant even afford to pay the filing fees in
court. In fact in this case, his real property was only a bahay kubo which was
Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights
Contents of Petition.
The petition shall be signed and verified and shall allege the following:
a.
The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
Page 17 of 19
~2016~
b.
The name and personal circumstances of the respondent for the

threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the
respondent may be described by an assumed appellation; (I read the
petition that was filed in Davao City, it was not put there how his life, liberty
and security was threatened by a member of the Philippine Army. So in
this case, you have to state with precision with detail how your life, liberty
and security was threatened or violated.)
c.
The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the
respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the
attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
d.
The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal
circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or
individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation,
together with any report;
e.
The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the
fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the
person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
f.
The relief prayed for.
The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs.
SC: No. It is not the proper remedy. SC laid down the basis or the spirit or why the
Rule of the Writ of Amparo or Writ of Habeas Data was enacted. In this case, the
petition was fatally defective both in form and in substance because they did not
follow the contents of the petition and they were really no grounds for the petition.
Thus SC said, notably, none of the supporting affidavits compellingly show that the
threats to life, liberty and security of the petitioner is imminent or continuing. Similarly,
a petition for Habeas Data is pre(?) so that the PNP will release the report on the
burning of the homes of the petitioners and the acts of violence being employed.
These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Habeas Data requires as a
minimum. Thus rendering the petition fatally deficient. Specifically, we see no
concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to privacy,
related to the right to life, liberty or security.
In this case of Tapuz, it was basically a land dispute. It is commercial in character. If
you have a land dispute, you cannot avail of the remedy of the Writ of Amparo and Writ
of Habeas Data. Precisely these remedies were made in response to extrajudicial
killings, enforced disappearances.
CANLAS VS. NAPICO
They filed a Writ of Amparo on the premise that they were deprived of their liberty
and freedom as a result of the nefarious activities of the respondents., saying that
the petitioners are settlers of a parcel of land and that their dwellings as of the
time of the filing were in danger. Okay, again, land dispute. The threatened
demolition (because they were scared that their house will be demolished
because of the alleged acts of terrorism done by the other party) of their house
constituted, according to them, a threat on their life, liberty and security.
Of course under the Rule of the Writ of Amparo, the court will hold a summary
hearing. Summary hearing meaning with dispatch paspas sya. Precisely, youre
being kidnapped, or youre being detained. So the court here under the Rule of the
Writ of Amparo grants interim reliefs like the
(1) Temporary Protection Order,
(2) Inspection Order and
(3) Production Order.
SC: The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of a court,

which in this case was affirmed with finality, is not included among the enumeration of
rights as stated for which the remedy of the Writ of Amparo is made available. Their
claim to their dwelling, assuming that they still have any, despite the final and
executory judgment adverse to them, does not constitute the right to life, liberty and
security. Therefore there is no legal basis for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo.
What is Habeas Data?

From the word itself: habeas is to have and data
The writ of habeas data is remedy available to any person whose right to privacy
in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of
a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
So more often than not, if youre not able to comply strictly with the Rule, the court
will deny it. So the next case is one of the few cases where the Court granted the
Writ of Amparo.
Who may file?

The aggrieved party may file a petition. However again, in case of extra-legal
killings or disappearances, a member of the immediate family or an ascendant or
descendant.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE VS. RAYMOND AND REYNALDO MANALO

This case pertains to the abduction of Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo. They were
forcibly taken from their respective homes in Bulacan, sometime in Feb 14, 2006
by unidentified armed men and thereafter were forcibly disappeared. Thus they
filed a case of abduction. In this case they were kidnapped by the members of the
CAFGU and AFP and they were tortured. They gave a harrowed account on how
they were tortured by these military and CAFGU personnel. Fortunately, they were
able to escape and thereafter filed this case and asked from the Court a Writ of
Amparo.
Remember that the Writ of Habeas Data is enforceable anywhere in the

Philippines. Even if the judge in Davao issues it, its applicable throughout the
entire country.
What Are The Contents Of The Petition?
(a) state the personal circumstances of the petition and the respondent
(b) the manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and
(c) how it affects the right to life, liberty or security.
HABEAS DATA,
its really the information; because of
that information which the government
has against you, your right to privacy is
being violated.
SC: A careful perusal of the evidence presented, we affirm the findings of the CA
that these two were abducted from their houses in Bulacan and were
continuously detained until they escaped on August 13, 2007. So almost a year
they were under torture. The abduction, detention, torture, and escape of the
respondents were narrated by respondent Raymond Manalo in a clear and
convincing manner. The account is dotted with countless candid details of
respondents harrowing experience and tenacious will to escape, captured
through his different senses and etched in his memory.
WRIT OF AMPARO
your life, liberty and security is being
violated or threatened by a member or
official of the government
They were convinced too, that the reason for the abduction (because they were
alleged sympathizers of the NPA) was the suspicion that they were members or
sympathizers of the NPA. Considering that the abductors were looking for Ka
Bestre, who turned out to be Rolando, the brother of the petitioners.
TAPUZ VS. DEL ROSARIO

This was a land dispute. The spouses Samson filed a complaint of Forcible Entry
against Tapuz. Forcible entry under Rule 70 under the Revised Rules of Court, that
is remedy that you avail of if you want to eject a certain person from your
property. For example, I am the owner and you are squatting there. I want to eject
you: so I file a case for Forcible Entry. Now, the respondents here said that the
petitioners were armed with bolos and firearms and entered the disputed
property. Thus this case, they filed for several remedies: (1) habeas data, (2) writ
of amparo and (3) petition for certiorari and try to stop the people from entering
their property.
Court issued the Writ of Amparo and this served as a warning against to all the military
personnel as well the civilian armed force volunteers not to go near them within a
certain radius. Precisely to protect the threatened violation of their rights to life, liberty
and security.
Currently, Im handling a case of rebellion and subversion thats why Im going
back and forth to Quezon City and its always postponed. Anyway, they are
currently detained in the New Bilibid Prison. So far they are being treated well by
the PNP and the military personnel. At least diba? A case is pending against them
So they filed a Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data, was it the proper remedy?
Page 18 of 19
~2016~
than they being actually tortured in the mountains. According to them they were
only sympathizers of the NPA. Our defense is that they did not engage in any
actual activities in furtherance of their beliefs. Diba? Freedom to believe is
absolute.
MANILA ELECTRIC VS. LIM
There was a letter posted in MERALCO against a certain Cherry Lim. In the letter it
said, Walang hiya ka. Inubos mo na nga yung mga resources ng Meralco, uubusin
mo pa ang naiiwang resources? Lumayas ka! Wala kang utang na loob!
That letter was posted and distributed. Because of that, there was a memorandum
directing Cherry Lim to be reassigned to the Alabang Sector. Because under the guise
of a quest of information or data, allegedly in possession of the petitioners. So she
said, Please spare me, I dont want to be transferred. What is the information that
you hold against me anyway? So she filed a case for habeas data. She asked the
court to issue a Writ of Habeas Data.
SC: cited sec 1. Writ of Habeas Data is a remedy available to any person again whose
right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing
of data or information, regarding the person, family home and correspondence of the
aggrieved party.
The HABEAS DATA rule is precisely designed to protect by means of judicial
complaint the image, privacy, honor, information and freedom of information of an
individual. It is meant to provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth and to
informational privacy. Thus, safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a
persons life, liberty and security. It bears reiteration that, like the Writ of Amparo,
Habeas Data was not conceived as a response given the lack of defective and
available remedies to address the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and
enforced disappearances. Its intent is to address the violations of or threats to life,
liberty or security as a remedy independently from those provided under the
prevailing rule.
I highly suggest that you read thoroughly the rules of the Writ of Amparo and the
Writ of Habeas Data. Okay? I think this already came out in the bar, but I have a
feeling that it could come out again. Just know the contents of the petition and
the essence of both the rules of Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data.
And that is Constitutional Law 2. *applause*
Page 19 of 19
~2016~

ConstiLaw II Transcription

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ConstiLaw II Transcription

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

BASONG, CAVALIDA, CONFESOR, DEL ROSARIO, ESTILLORE

LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

*Abode the place where you want live

ex: one is prohibited from living in a park or any public place

Liberty of abode can only be regulated if it is upon lawful order of the

MIRASOL VS. DPWH:

MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS:

REYES VS. CA:

The right to travel cannot be regulated except in the

*YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TRAVEL ABROAD IF:

SALONGA VS. HERMOSO:

VI) RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS

SILVERIO VS. CA:

Article III, Section 12.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other

COJUANGCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN:

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or

There are three requisites:

the Miranda rule is not applicable to confessions executed before January

This is important because before the 1973 Constitution, there was no

if the questioning ceases to become a general inquiry and starts to

Q: Why do we have Section 12?

this is to prohibit the police from coercing confessions and to prohibit

guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state as

2(c) CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION report shall be

Q: When are you considered under investigation or under interrogation?

2(d) EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION Any extrajudicial confession

BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS

PEOPLE VS. HATTON:

HO WAI PANG VS. PEOPLE:

PEOPLE VS. ESPEJO:

LUZ VS. PEOPLE:

PEOPLE VS. BOLAOS:

*RA NO. 7438: AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF

Miranda rule not applicable to confessions executed before January 17,

PEOPLE VS. PAVILLARE:

FILOTEO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN: Filoteo was the mastermind in hijacking a postal

*you already have the

right to remain silent,

the right to competent and effective counsel, AND

the right to be informed.

SANTOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN: they were accused of some banking anomalies

This right refers to the transmission of meaningful information to the

PEOPLE VS. CASIMIRO:

Not applicable to res gestae statements/spontaneous statements

*RES GESTAE refers to the statements made by the accused because of a

PEOPLE VS. BALOLOY:

PEOPLE VS. BAGNATE:

JESALVA VS. PEOPLE:

Tests of Validity of waiver of Miranda rights right to be informed

Not applicable to statements given in administrative investigations

PEOPLE VS. TIN LAN UY:

b) GALIT RULE: (MARCH 20, 1985-FEB 2, 1987)

ASTUDILLO VS. PEOPLE:

Q: Does the GALIT RULE have a retroactive application?

Custodial Phase of Investigation police lineups

*a police lineup is NOT considered part of custodial investigations

c) NEW RULE ON WAIVER (Feb.2, 1987)

Bail is generally a matter of right

PEOPLE VS MENDOZA AND PEOPLE VS GONZALES

The burden of proving voluntariness is on the prosecution

What can be waived?

Who decides what bail he should use?