Sei sulla pagina 1di 13

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 NOTES (STARTING Valmonte vs.

De Villa-
FROM WEEK 7) When invasive search is justified : If
vehicles are stopped and extensively
Bache vs. Ruiz - searched , it is because a reasonable
Personal Examination: Personal examination
belief of the men at the checkpoints
by the judge by his witness is necessary to that either the motorist is a law
enable him to determine the existence or non- offender or the contents of the vehicle
existence of probable cause. are or have been instruments of some
The determination of whether or not a probable offense.
cause exist calls for the exercise of judgement Constitutionality of checkpoints:
after a judicial appraisal of facts of facts and Checkpoints are not illegal per se. Thus,
should not be allowed to be delegated in the under exceptional circumstance, as
absence of any rule to the contrary. where the survival of organized
Single offense: The SC amended sec 3 of rule
government is on the balance , or
122 of the former Rules of Court by providing in where the lives of the people are in
its counterpart under the revised Rules of Court grave peril , checkpoints may be
that A search warrant shall no issue upon allowed and installed by the
probable cause with one specific offense. Not government. Implicit in this proposition
satisfied with this qualification, the SC added a is, that when the situation clears and
paragraph directing that No search warrant
such grave perils are removed,
shall issue for more than one specific offense. checkpoints will have absolutely no
Particular Description: The warrant should reason to remain.
particularly describe the things to be seized.
The intent of this requirement is to limit the
Posadas vs. CA (Stop and Frisk Buri
things to be seized to those particularly
Bag Posadas was standing with the
described in the search warrant- to leave the
bag when he was approached by police
officers of the law with no discretion regarding
officers prompting him to flee the
which articles they shall seize, tot the end that
area) From the foregoing provision of
unreasonable searches and seizures may not
Law (Sec. 5 Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules
be made- that abuses may not be committed.
on CrimPro), it is clear that an arrest
A warrant is said to be particular if: when the
w/o warrant may be effected by a
description therein is as specific as the
peace officer or private person, among
circumstances will ordinarily allow; or when the
others, when in his presence the person
description expresses a conclusion of fact-not
to be arrested, committed, is actually
by law- by which the warrant officer may be
committing, or is attempting to commit
guided in making the search and seizure, or
and offense or when and offense has in
when the things described are limited to those
fact just been committed, and he has
which bear direct relation to the offense for
personal knowledge of the facts
which the warrant is issued.
indicating that the person arrested has
General Warrant- All embracing as to include
committed it.
all
Stop and Frisk situation: The object of
which is to determine the identity of
the suspicious individual or to maintain expectation is implicit in airport security
a status quo momentarily while the procedure. There is little question that
police officer seeks to obtain such searches are reasonable , given
information. their minimal instrusiveness, the gravity
Terry vs. Ohio (Stop an Frisk on of the safety interests involved, and the
suspicious individuals) US Supreme reduced privacy expectation associated
Court held that a police officer may in with airline travel.
appropriate circumstances and in an Prudente vs. Dayrit The probable
appropriate manner approach a person cause for a valid search warrant has
for the purpose of investigating been defined as such facts and
possible criminal behaviour even circumstances which would lead a
though there is no probable cause to reasonably discreet and prudent man to
make an arrest. believe that an offense has been
Soliven vs. Makasiar (Arrest: No committed and that objects sought in
personal examination require) SC connection with the offence are in the
held that in satisfying himself of the place sought to be searched.
existence of probable cause for the Salazar vs. Achacoso: May the POEA
issuance of warrant of arrest, the judge validly issue warrants of search and
is not required to personally examine seizure under art. 38 of the labor code?
the complainant and his witnesses. The SC held that the said article
Following established doctrine and paragraph c of the labor cose is
procedure he shall unconstitutional and of no force and
a. Personally evaluate the report and effect. The SC stated that in deportation
the supporting documents cases, an arrest ordered by the
submitted by the fiscal regarding president or his duly authorized
the existence of probable cause representatives in order to carry out a
and, on the basis thereof, issue final decision of deportation is valid.
arrest. Aniag vs.COMELEC (COMELEC
b. If on the basis thereof he finds no established spot checkpoints) : Aside
probable cause, he may disregard from a search incident to a lawful
the fiscals report and require the arrest, a warrantless search had been
submission of supporting affidavits upheld in cases of moving vehicles and
of witnesses to aid him in arriving the seiqzure of evidence in plain view as
at a conclusion as to the existence well as the search conducted at police
of probable cause and military checkpoints which we
People vs. Johnson- persons may lose declare aare not illegal per se, and we
their protection of the search and stressed that the warrantless search is
seizure clause by exposure of their not violative of the Constitution for as
persons or property to the public in a long as the vehicle is neither searched
manner reflecting a lack of subjective nor its occupants subjected to a body
expectation of privacy, which search, and the inspection of the
vehicle is merely limited to a visual detention and search. Consent to a
search. An extensive search without search must be shown by clear and
warrant could only be resorted to if the convincing evidence.
officer conducting the search that Plainview doctrine: It cannot likewise
either the motorist was a law offender be said that the cable wires found in
or that they would find the petitioner's vehicle were in plain view,
instrumentality or evidence pertaining making its warrantless seizure valid.
to the commission of a crime in the Jurisprudence is to the effect that an
vehicle to be searched. object is in plain view if the object itself
Valeroso vs. CA : It is reasonable for is plainly exposed to sight. Where the
the arresting officer to search the object seized was inside a closed
person arrested in order to remove any package, the object itself is not in plain
weapon that the latter might use in view and therefore cannot be seized
order to resist arrest or effect his without a warrant. However, if the
escape. package proclaims its contents,
A valid arrest allows the seizure of whether by its distinctive configuration,
evidence or dangerous weapons either its transparency, or if its contents are
on the person o the one arrested or obvious to an observer, then the
with in the area of his immediate contents are in plain view and may be
control. seized. In other words, if the package is
Plain view doctrine: usually applied such that an experienced observer
where a police officer is not searching could infer from its appearance that it
for evidence against the accused but contains the prohibited article, then the
nonetheless inadvertently comes across article is deemed in plain view. It must
an incriminating object. be immediately apparent to the police
People vs. Musa (Musa selling that the items that they observe may be
marijuana in violation of art. 2 sec. 4 of evidence of a crime, contraband or
RA 6425)- In a buy-bust operation otherwise subject to seizure
conducted to entrap a rug-pusher, the Go vs. CA
law enforcement agents may seize the Petitioner Go shot another
marked money found on the person of because of road rage. The shooting was
the pusher immediately after the arrest witnessed by a security guard. The
even without arrest and search police retrieved an empty shell and one
warrants. It must be immediately round of live ammunition for a 9mm
apparent to the police that the items calibre pistol. The Court held that the
that they observe may be evidence of a warrantless arrest or detention of
crime contraband or otherwise subject petitioner in the instant case falls within
to seizure. the terms of section 3 rule 113 of the
Cabales vs. CA (passenger jeep was 1985 Rules on CRIMPRO. The arresting
unusually covered with kakawati officers were not present within the
leaves)- Consent must be voluntary in meaning of section5(a) at the time
order to validate and otherwise illegal petitioner had allegedly shot the victim.
Neither could the arrest be effected offenses committed in furtherance
when the shooting had in fact just been thereof or in connection therewith
committed within the meaning of constitute direct assaults against the
section 5(b). None of the arresting State and are in the nature of
officers had any personal knowledge of continuing crimes. The arrest or
facts indicating that petitioner was the capture is thus impelled by the
gunman who shot the victim. exigencies of the situation that
involves the very survival of society
Umil vs. Ramos (Continuing crime)- and its government and duly
Warrantless arrest when lawful (Sec 5, constituted authorities.
rule 113 RC) a peace officer or a
Habeas corpus: privilege of the writ of
private person may w/o warrant, arrest
habeas corpus exist as an aid and
a person:
efficient remedy to release persons from
a. when in his presence, the person to
unlawful restraint.
be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is Aberca vs. Ver: Gen. Ver, under the
attempting to commit an offense Task Force Makabansa conducted pre-
b. when the offense has in fact just emptive strike against known
been committed and he has communist-terrorist underground
personal knowledge of facts houses in view of increasing reports
indicating that the person to be about plans sow disturbance in Metro
arrested has committed it. Manila. During the raids, a number of
c. When the person to be arrested is a personal item were confiscated. The SC
prisoner who has escaped from a held that respondents invocation of
penal establishment or place where the doctrine of state immunity. The
he is serving final judgement or suspension of the privilege of the
temporarily confined while his case privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
is pending or has escaped while does not destroy petitioners rights and
being transferred from one cause of action for damages for illegal
confinement to another. arrest and detention n other violations
In the case at bar, Rolando Dural (the of their constitutional rights.
subject of the arrest) was arrested for Government of the United States vs.
being a member of the NPA, an Paruganan: In extradition proceedings,
outlawed subversive organization. are prospective extradites entitled to
Subversion being a continuing offense, notice and hearing before warrants for
the arrest of Dural without warrant is their arrest can be issued? The SC held
justified as it can be said that he was that No, they cannot. The SC said that
committing an offense when he was sec. 6 of PD 1069, the Extradition law
arrested. The crimes of rebellion, uses the word immediate to qualify
subversion, conspiracy or proposal to the arrest of the accused. This
commit such crimes, and crimes or qualification would be rendered
nugatory by setting for hearing the incident took place. All of the accused
issuance of the arrest warrant. Hearing willingly participated in the re-
entails sending notices to the opposing enactment and pictures of the re-
parties, receiving facts and arguments enactment were taken. The SC said that
from them. Arrest subsequent to a the extra-judicial confessions in
hearing can no longer be considered question are inadmissible in evidence,
immediate. immediate means the same having been executed by the
impairing a sense of urgency and appellants during custodial
swiftness in the determination of investigation without the assistance of
whether a warrant of arrest should be counsel, particularly when the
issued. confessants manifested the waiver of
As for the notice: a notice of the their right to counsel.
request for their arrest and setting it for People vs.Tranca: The defense (Carlos
hearing at some future date would give Tranca, charged with the violation of
them ample opportunity to prepare an the Dangerous Drug Act of 1972)
execute an escape. contends that the right against self
People vs. Marra: Custodial incrimination was violated when Tranca
investigation involves any questioning was made to undergo and ultra violet
initiated by law enforcement officers examination after his exposure to the
after a person has been taken into marked money which were dusted with
custody or otherwise deprived of this fluorescent powder during the buy-bust
freedom of action in any significant operation. The defense also argues that
way. In this case, the appellant was not Chief Chemist Teresita alberto failed to
under custodial investigation when he inform the accused of his right to
made the admission. counsel before subjecting him to the
People vs. Bolanos: In this case, the examination. The SC held that these
admission was made by the appellant contentions are without merit. What is
inside the police vehicle after he was prohibited by the constitutional
apprehended by the police (under guarantee against self incrimination is
custodial investigation). The officers the use of physical or moral compulsion
failed to inform appellant of his to extort communication from the
constitutional right to be informed, to witness, not an inclusion of his body in
remain silent and to have a counsel of evidence, when it may be material. It is
his choice as provided by Art.3 Sec12 of a prohibition against legal process to
the 1987 Constitution. Therefore, the Sc extract from the defendants own lips,
held that the Constitutional rights of against his will, an admission of guilt.
the accused appellant have been Nor can the subjection of the accuseds
violated. body to ultraviolet radiation, in order to
People vs. Jungco: The police determine the presence of ultraviolet
investigators conducted a re-enactment powder, be considered a custodial
of the crime at the place where the investigation so as to warrant the
presence of counsel.
People vs. Ayson Private respondent statement indicating the whereabouts
was charged with estafa. The evidence of the gun in supermarket where
presented was a handwritten defendant was apprehended and gun
admission. itself were admissible despite officers
Miranda rights: to prohibit failure to read defendant his Miranda
incommunicado interrogation of rights before attempting to locate
individuals in a police dominated weapon in view of existence of a
atmosphere resulting in self- public safety, exception to requirement
incriminating statement without full that Miranda warnings be given before
warnings of constitutional rights. a suspects answers may be admitted
exist only in custodial interrogation. into evidence, and that the availability
- Not every statement made to the of that exception does not depend
police by a person involved in some upon the motivation of the individual
crime is wthin the scope of the officers involved .
constitutional protection.
the defendant in a criminal actiona Vilavicencio vs. Lukban- Mayor Lukban
can refuse to testify altogether. It must ordered the segregated district for
be made clear that if the defendant in a women of ill repute. The city
criminal action be asked a question authorities quietly perfected the
which might incriminate him, not for arrangements for the transfer of the
the crime with which is charged but for women in Davao and some parts of
some other crime, distinct from that of Mindanao as labourers. The women
which he is accused , he may decline to were not given the opportunity to
answer that specific question, on the collect their belongings. The women
strength of the right against self- were not asked if they wished to depart
incrimination. from that region. Neither directly or
New York vs. Quarles: 2 Police officers, indirectly given their consent to the
after being approached by a woman deportation. The relatives and the
describing the rapist who allegedy friends of the deported women applied
raped her went inside a supermarket for the writ of habeas corpus. The writ
where the assailant carrying a gun was granted by the SC. The writ of
supposedly entered. The police officer habeas corpus may be granted by the
spotted the assailant. The respondent SC or any judge thereof enforceable
ran towards the back of the store and anywhere in the Philippines . The
the police officer pursued him. When essential object and purpose of the writ
the police officer got him, he was of habeas corpus is to inquire into all
frisked but it was discovered that he manner of involuntary restraint and to
was wearing an empty shoulder relieve a person therefrom if such
holster. After being handcuffed, the restraint is illegal. The place of
police officer asked him where the gun confinement is, therefore, not
was and the respondent answered. The important to the relief, if the guilty
US SC held that the defendants initial party is within the reach of process, so
that by the power of the court, he can - the right of authority sustains
be compelled to release his grasp. In the proposition that such sentence is
the case at bar, the writ was granted void only as to the excess imposed in
because there was no showing of the case the parts are separable, the rule
impossibility of the performance; and being that the petitioner is not entitled
they did not present writings that to his discharge on a writ of habeas
waived the right to be present by those corpus unless he has served out so
interested. much of the sentence as was valid.
Gumabon vs. Director of the Bureau of
Prisons Petitioners were sentenced
on May 5, 1953 to suffer reclusion Secretary of National Defense vs.
perpetua. Each of the petitioners has Manalo- This case is connected with
served more than 13 years. The the alleged abduction and torture
detention complained of finds its origin suffered by the Manalo brothers from
in what has been judicially ordained, he the hands of the members of the
range o inquiry in a habeas corpus Military. Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution
proceeding is considerably narrowed. not only limits the states power over a
-Its latitudinarian scope to persons home, but more importantly
assure that illegality of restraint and protects the privacy and the sanctity of
detention to be avoided is one of the the person himself.
truisms of the law. -The purpose of this
-the writ imposes on judges the constitutional guarantee against
grave responsibility of ascertaining unreasonable searches and seizures is
whether there is any legal justification to prevent violations of private security
for a depravation of physical freedom. in person and property and unlawful
- if the person alleged to be invasion of the security of the home by
restained of his liberty is in the custody officers of the law acting under
of an officer under process issued by a legislative or judicial sanction and to
court or a judge or by virtue of a give remedy against such usurpation
judgement or order of a court of record when attempted. In the case at bar, the
and that the judge had jurisdiction to SC raised three points with regard to
issue the process, render the the right to security of a person: 1. The
judgement, or make the order, the writ right to security of person is freedom
does not lie. from fear, 2. The right to security of a
-Once deprivation of a person is a guarantee of bodily and
constitutional right is shown to exist, psychological integrity or security, 3.
that court that rendered the The right to security of person is a
gjudgement is deemed ousted of guarantee of protection of ones rights
jurisdiction and habeas corpus is the by the government.
appropriate remedy to assail the -Article III Sec. 2 guarantees
legality of the detention. freedom from dehumanizing abuses of
person under investigation for the may be considered., as a generally
commission of an offense. Victims of accepted principle of international law
enforced disappearances who are not and, under our Constitution, is part of
even investigated should all the more the law of the land. However, it is
be protected from degradation. distinct and separate from the right to
-Sec. 1 of the Amparo rule: travel and enjoys a different protection
Freedom from fear is the right and any under the International Covenant of
threat to the right to life, liberty or Civil and political rights.
security is actionable wrong. Herras vs. Rovila- Petitioner was a
Manotoc v. CA- Petitioner is one of the political detainee delivered by the
two principal slockholders of trans- Counter Intelligence Corp, US Army to
insular management inc and the the Commonwealth Government. She
Manotoc Securities Inc, a stock filed a petition praying that her
brokerage house. Petitioner was immediate release be ordered (no
charged with Estafa. The SC held that a evidence).
court has a power to prohibit a person -Petition for provisional liberty
admitted to bail from leaving the under bail was denied. There was no
country. The condition imposed upon information yet presented when she
petitioner to make himself available at filed or bail.
all times whenever the court requires - Section 1 (16), Article 3 of the
his presence operates as a valid Commonwealth Constitution- All
restriction on his right to travel. In this persons right to bail even if no
case, the petitioner failed to specify the information yet was filed.
duration of the proposed travel or Government o the US vs. Purganan
shown that his surety has agreed to it. (Right to bail of a person subject of an
He has no presented no compelling extradition)- WON Mark Jimenez who
reason for the court to allow him to is entitled to bail and provisional liberty.
leave the country. Petitioner US Government contends
Marcos vs. Manglapus- The individual that there is no provision in the
right involved is not the right to travel Constitution granting the right to bail to
from the Philippines to other countries a person subject of an extradition. SC
or within. These are what the right to agreed with this contention. The SC
travel normally connote (domestic and held that the word conviction on the
outbound right to travel). The right to bail clause applies only when a person
return to ones country, a totally has been arrested and detained for
distinct right under international law. violation of Philippine Criminal Laws. It
-Right to return to ones country is not does not apply to extradition
among the rights specifically proceedings because extradition courts
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which do not render judgement of conviction
treats only of the liberty of abode and or acquittal.
the right to travel, but it is our (SC) well-
considered view that the right to return
-Also, it is not arbitrary because it is two government bodies, to the extreme
ensured by 1. DOJs filing in court, the detriment o a person charge will be
petition with its supporting documents, 2. avoided. Administrative and legislative
Extradition judges independent prima facie determination of guilt should not be
determination 3. Opportunity of extradite substituted for judicial determination.
once he is under the courts custody to Petitions for live tv coverage (Estrada /
apply for bail Ampatuan) *wala akong Ampatuan

-Exception to no bail rule( tow- -Estrada: KBP requested to allow


tiered requirement): when the extraditee live media coverage to assure the public of
has been arrested or placed under the full transparency in the proceedings. The
custody of the law, bail may be applied only right of the accused must be preferred.
upon the clear and convincing showing 1. Television can work profound changes in
That once granted bail, applicant will not be the behaviour of the people it focuses on. A
a flight risk or danger to the community 2. public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly
That there exist special humanitarian and dealt with and would not be unjustly
compelling circumstances including as a condemned and that his rights are not
matter of reciprocity, those cited by the compromised. Public trial is not publicized
highest court in the requesting state when it trial.
grants liberty in extradition cases therein.

Dumlao vs. COMELEC (Presumption of


innocence)-Explicit is the Constitutional People vs. Holgado (The appellant
provision that in al criminal pleaded guilty without attorney during
prosecutions, the accuse shall be arraignment)- The proceedings in the
presumed innocent until the contrary is RTC are irregular in the beginning.
proved. Under the Rules of Court, when the
-An accusation, according to the defendant appears without attorney,
fundamental law is not synonymous the court has 4 important duties: 1. It
with guilt. must inform the defendant that it is his
-The challenged proviso duty to have attorney before being
contravenes with the constitutional arraigned 2. After giving him such
presumption of innocence since a information the court must ask him if
candidate is disqualified from running he desires the aid of an attorney 3. If
for public office on the ground alone he desires and is unable to employ the
that charges have been filed against attorney, the court must assign
him before a civil, or military tribunal. attorney de oficio to defend him and 4.
-Best that evidence pro and con of If the accused desires to procure an
acts of disloyalty be aired before the attorney of his own the court must
courts rather before an Administrative grant him a reasonable time thereof.
body like the COMELEC a highly -The SC held that in criminal
possible conflict of findings between cases there can be no fair hearing
unless the accused be given the
opportunity to be heard by counsel. The availed even if the case was
right to be heard would be of little avail commenced by private individuals.
if it does not include the right to be Tumey vs. Ohio (Impartial Judge)- The
heard by counsel. Even the most plaintiff was arrested for possession of
intelligent or educated man may have intoxicating liquor. He moved for the
no skill in the science of the law, dismissal of the judge who is the mayor
particularly in the rules of procedure, of the city because under an Ohio
and, without counsel, he may be statue, the mayor, acting as a judge will
convicted not because he is guilty but get paid for every conviction made.
because he does not know how to Justice Taft delivered the opinion of the
establish his innocence. And this can US SC and said that the officers acting in
happen more easily to persons who are a judicial or quasi judicial capacity are
ignorant or uneducated. It is essential disqualified by their interest in their
that the court should assign one de controversy to be decided is of course
oficio if he so desires and he is poor and the general rule. One is in respect to
grant him a reasonable time to produce the effect o the membership of a judge
an attorney of his own. in a class of taxpayers or others to be
affected by a principle of law, statutory
or constitutional, to be applied in a case
between other parties and in which the
Acevedo vs. Sarmiento- Petitioner as judge has no other interest.
charged with damage to property - All questions of judicial
through reckless imprudence. In 1965 qualification may not involve
came the trial, in 1967 the witness did constitutional validity. Thus, matter
not show up (more than 6 years). of kinship, personal bias, state
-Respondent denied the motion to policy, remoteness of interest
dismiss. would seem generally to be matters
-The order of dismissal given in open merely of legislative discretion. But
court had the effect of an acquittal. it certainly violates the 14th
-The right to a speedy trial means one Amendment and deprives
free from vexatious, capricious and defendant in a criminal case of due
oppressive delays, its salutary objective process of law subject his liberty,
bring to assure that an innocent person property to the judgement of the
may be free from anxiety and expense court, the judge which has a direct,
of a court litigation or , if otherwise, of personal, substantial pecuniary
having his guilt detrimental within the interest in reaching a conclusion
shortest possible time compatible with against him in his case.
the presentation and consideration of Garcia vs. Domingo- Eight criminal
whatever legitimate defense he may actions were filed against the
interpose. Right to speedy trial can be respondents. The trial of the cases in
question was held with the conformity
of the accused and their counsel in the
chambers of petitioner Judge. During -Compulsion as it is understood here
the days of trial, the accused were at all does not necessarily connote the use of
times represented by their respective violence, it may be the product of
counsel not only in defense of their unintentional statements.
clients but as prosecutors of the -Where as an ordinary witness may be
accusations filed at their clients compelled to take the witness stand
instance. The respondents did not and claim the privilege as each question
object to any supposed irregularity in requiring an incriminating answer is
the proceedings. The trial was held shot at him and the accused may
exclusively in the chambers and not in altogether refuse to take the witness
the court room open to public. It stand and refuse to answer any and all
posses that character when anyone questions.
interested is observing the manner a -to be effective, a waiver must be
judge conducts the proceedings in his certain and unequivocal, and
courtroom may do so. The thought that intelligently, understandably, and
lies behind this safeguard is the belief willingly made; such waiver follows only
that thereby the accused is afforded where liberty of choice has been fully
further protection, that his trial is likely accorded.
to be conducted with regularity and US vs. Tan Teng- Defendant was guilty
not tainted with any impropriety. of rape and was taken to the police
Reduce the number of those who could station and stripped of his clothing and
be present- not indicative of any examined. The substance was taken
transgression of the right to public trial. from the body of the defendant without
It suffices to satisfy the requirement his objection.
of a trial being public if the accused - But the prohibition of compelling a
could have his friends, relatives and man in a criminal court to be a witness
counsel present no matter with what against himself, is a prohibition of the
offense he may be charged. use of physical or moral compulsion , to
Chavez vs. CA- The accused took the extort communication from him, not an
witness stand as the first witness of the exclusion of hisbody as evidence, when
prosecution. it may be material .
-The right against self incrimination is a -The main purpose of the provision is to
constitutional privilege intended to prohibit compulsory oral examination
shield the guilty and the imprudent as of prisoners before trial or upon trial for
well as the innocent and foresighted of the purpose of extorting unwilling
policy because it would place the confessions or declarations implicating
witness against the strongest them for the commission of a crime.
temptation to commit perjury, and of US vs. Ong Sin Hong- Counsel for the
humanity because it would be to extort appellant raises the constitutional
a confession of truth by a kind of duress question that the accused was
every species and degree of which the compelled to be a witness against
law abhors. himself as a result of forcing the
accused to discharge the morphine immune from prosecution
from his mouth. The SC held that to notwithstanding his invocation of the
force a prohibited drug from the person right against self incrimination. He is
of an accused is along the same line as merely saved from the use against such
requiring him to exhibit himself before statement and nothing more.
the court; or putting in evidence papers People v. De la Cruz- Defendant was
and other articles taken from the room sentenced to imprisonment for years
of the accused in his absence. It would and to pay a fine of 5 thousand pesos
be forced construction of the Paragraph plus costs; barred from engaging in
of the Philppine Bill of Rights in aversion wholesale and retail business for five
to hold that any article or substance, or after he retailed a can of milk at ten
thing taken from a person accused of centavos more than the ceiling price.
crime could not be taken or given in -The prohibition on punishments refers
evidence. The main purpose of the not only to the mode but to the extent
provision is to prohibit testimonial thereof.
compulsion by oral examination in People v. Dacuycuy (cruel
order to extort unwilling confessions distinguished from incomplete)- A
from prisoners implicating them in the punishment authorized by statue is not
commission of a crime. cruel or unusual or disproportional to
Pascual vs. Board of Medical the nature of the offense unless it is a
Examinees- Must be given a liberal and barbarous one unknown to the law or
broad interpretation favourable to the so wholly disproportionate to the
person invoking it. Initial hearing of an nature of the offense as to shock the
administrative case for alleged moral sense of the community. The
immorality enables the citizen to create prohibition against cruel and unusual
a zone of privacy which government punishment is aimed at the form or
may not force to surrender to his character of the punishment rather
detriment. than its severity in respect to its
Galman v. Pamaran (use v. duration or amount.
Transactional immunity)- Immunity Loney vs.People- Petitioner s, officers
statutes are classified into use and of a mining corporation in Marinduque
transactional immunity where charged by DOJ with the
-Use Immunity: prohibits the use of violation of article 91(b), subparagraph
witness compelled testimony and its 5 and 6 of PD 1067 ,Section 8 of PD 984,
fruits in any manner in connection with section 108 of RA7942 and Art. 365 of
the criminal prosecution of witness. the RPC for reckless imprudence
-Transactional Immunity: grants resulting to damage to property. The SC
immunity to the witness from ruled that a single act or incident might
prosecution for an offense to which his offend against two or more entirely
compelled testimony relates. distinct and unrelated provisions of
-Merely testifying and/ or producing
evidence do not render the witness
(___)thus justifying the prosecution of
the accused for more than one offense.
Ivler v.San Pedro- Jason Ivler was
charged with 2 separate offense of
reckless imprudence resulting in slight
physical injuries and reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide and
damage to property. Ivler pleaded
guilty with the criminal case of physical
injuries and was metted out with public
censure. Invoking his conviction,
petitioner moved to quash the
information in the other charge for
placing him in double jeopardy of
second punishment for the same
offense of reckless imprudence. The SC
held that the accuseds negative right
not to be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense
protects him from, among others, post-
conviction prosecution for the same
offense, with the prior verdict rendered
by a court of competent jurisdiction
upon a valid information.
-Reckless imprudence is a single crime,
its consequences on persons and
property are material only to determine
the penalty. In this case, the 2 charges
against petitioner arising from the same
facts were prosecuted under the same
provision of the RPC.

Potrebbero piacerti anche