JYCHAN

CONSTI II REVIEWER (Post-midterms)

Art. III, Sec. 2

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be personally determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place and the
persons or things to be seized.

 Protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself

 Guarantee against unlawful arrests.
 Searches and seizures are unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search
warrant or warrant of arrest.
 Essential requisites of a valid warrant:
o It must be issued upon probable cause
o Probable cause must be determined personally by a judge
 PROBABLE CAUSE:
 Such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a
warrant that are in themselves sufficient to induce a cautious
man to rely upon them.
 Probable cause for warrant of arrests: Such facts and
circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by
the person sought to be arrested.
 Probable cause for search warrants: such facts and
circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed
and that the objects sought in connection of the offense are in
the place to be searched.
 Concerned with probability and not absolute or even moral
certainty.
 There must be personal knowledge.
o Such judge must examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce
 Test of sufficiency: whether it had been drawn in such a manner that
perjury could be charged thereon and affiant can be held liable for
damages caused.
o The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the
person or things to be seized.

SJS v. DDB
- Random-drug testing
JYCHAN

- Right to privacy yields to certain paramount rights of the public and defers to police
power.
- Probable cause standard is not needed if not in a criminal context.

Stonehill v. Diokno
- Search warrants:
o Documents found in corporations (juridical persons) is okay
 Objection of search and seizure is a personal right
o Warrants must particularly describe the things to be seized.
o There must be probable cause
o Applicant and witnesses must testify facts personally known. (People v.
Francisco)
o No to general warrants.

People v. Veloso
- John Doe warrants are valid if the description personae will enable the arresting
officers to still be able to identify the person to be arrested.

Bache & Co. v. Ruiz

- Judge must personally examine the complainant and witnesses, under Revised Rules
of Court.
- Search warrant must be filed for a specific offense. In this case, it was filed for four
distinct offenses under Tax Code.
- Search Warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized.
- Particularity of things:
1. Specific as facts and circumstances permit
2. Expresses a conclusion of fact
3. Objects described are limited to the crime.

Roan v. Gonzales
- Search Warrant must not be based from hearsay.

Soliven v. Makasiar
- Personal examination is not required.
- What the Court needs is the judge’s sole personal responsibility to satisfy
himself/herself of the existence of probable cause.
- Judge must personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by
the fiscal.
- If none, he/she may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of
supporting affidavits of witnesses.

Lim, Sr. v. Felix

- Judge may ascertain facts through own personal determination and relying on
certification/recommendation by Prosecutor.
 HOWEVER, there must be a report and supporting documents necessary to
the certification.
JYCHAN

 Judge must also go beyond the prosecutor’s certification and investigation

when necessary.
 There should be evidence before the Judge when Judge issues a warrant.

People v. Francisco
- Search warrant must have the correct address.
- There must be a particular description of the place to be searched and the person or
things to be seized.
- It is not a sweeping authority to undertake a fishing expedition.

Microsoft v. Farajallah
- Initial hearsay or tips from confidential informants could serve as basis for a search
warrant if followed up personally and validated by the recipient.

Ogayon v. People
- There must be substantial basis for the search warrant.
- The Judge must personally and thoroughly examine the applicant and witnesses.

WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

- Valid Warrantless Searches:
 Search incidental to lawful arrest
 Search of a moving vehicle
 Evidence in plain view
 Stop and frisk/Terry ruling
 Customs search
 Consented searches
 Exigent and urgent circumstances
 Random and suspicion-less drug-testing searches in school
- No presumption of regularity of warrantless searches.

SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARRESTS:

MHP v. CA
- Warrantless seizure may only be valid if a search is incidental to a lawful arrest.
- If time is sufficient, then they should apply for a warrant.
- There should be probable cause to justify the warrantless seizure.

Padilla v. CA
- Search must be:
 Within the immediate control of the accused
 Contemporary to the arrest
 For a lawful purpose

SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES

JYCHAN

People v. CFI
- For moving vehicles, a search warrant is not needed.
- It is justified by a traditional exception.
- CAROLL DOCTRINE: where seizure is impossible except without search warrant, the
seizing officer acts unlawfully and at his peril, unless he can show the Court probable
cause.

People v. Lo Ho Wing
- There must be probable cause.
- Probable cause must have existed prior.

People v. Malmstedt
- Malmstedt was searched and arrested while he was transporting prohibited drugs.
He was also caught in flagrante delicto.

Asuncion v. CA
- General rule: if there is complete knowledge of the person and car to be searched,
search warrant must be obtained.
 EXCEPTION: if there is uncertainty as to when the person and vehicle will
arrive. (urgency of the situation)

Posada v. CA; Aniag v. COMELEC

- Rules on checkpoints:
 Checkpoints may be set up when there are crimes being committed.
 Checkpoints need not be announced.
 Only visual searches. Body searches may be allowed, IF there is probable
cause.

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

Padilla v. CA
- Plain view:
 Prior valid intrusion (valid warrantless arrest)
 Evidence inadvertently discovered by police
 Evidence immediately apparent
 Plain view justified mere seizure without further search.

People v. Valdez
- Police officers must not be searching for evidence.
- It must be immediately apparent. Further search must not be needed.

Arizona v. Hicks
- Additional requirement for probable cause, if done in a non-public place or a
dwelling place.
JYCHAN

People v. Miclat
- As long as it is in your plain view, presence is not required.
- In this case, the policemen were peeping through a small opening.

STOP AND FRISK

- Designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate
him, and pat him for weapon(s), wherein the police observes an unusual conduct
which leads him to reasonably conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity
may be afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing with is armed and presently
dangerous. (Terry v. Ohio)

Malacat v. CA
- Stop and frisk rule
 A reasonable suspicion must exist, in light of police’s experience and
surrounding conditions.
 Policeman must be in official duty

CUSTOMS SEARCH

Papa v. Mago
- Commissioner of Customs can effect warrantless searches and seizure and
warrantless arrests because the Tariff Code does not require a warrant.
 Except if done in a dwelling house.
- REQUIREMENTS:
 Police authority under Tariff Code
 Search is done because of the customs law.
 It is not done in a dwelling house.

(Airport security procedure search)

People v. Canton
- Terry ruling: outside areas only
 RA 6235 provides that the holder of an airline ticket and his hand-carried
luggage are subject to search or seizure of prohibited materials and
substances.
- Johnson ruling: less privacy is expected. It is reasonable.

CONSENTED WARRANTLESS SEARCH

Padilla v. CA
- Voluntary surrender
JYCHAN

Manalili v. CA
- Requirements for a valid waiver of the right against unreasonable searches and
seizure:
 The right to be waived existed
 The person waiving it had knowledge, actual or constructive
 S/he had an actual intention to relinquish such right.

Luz v. People
- Consent must be shown by clear and convincing evidence
- It must be voluntary
- Circumstances to be considered:
 Age
 Defendant is in a public/secluded location
 Objection/Passively looked on
 Education, intelligence
 Presence of officers
 Belief that no incriminating evidence could be found
 Nature of questioning
 Environment
 Vulnerable subjective state

People v. Aruta
- Lack of objection does not equate to voluntary surrender
- Act of handing over the bag cannot be construed as voluntary surrender.
- There must be actual intention to relinquish such right.

People v. Damaso
- Consent/Waiver can only be done by the owner.

Spouses Veroy
- Consented search is only limited to the to the objects waived expressly by the
owner.

EXIGENT AND URGENT CIRCUMSTANCES

People v. De Gracia
- If there is general chaos and disorder, and if the courts are closed, then there is a
valid warrantless search.
- REQUIREMENTS:
 Reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed.
 More than sufficient probable cause
 No opportunity to apply for and secure a warrant.

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OF WHATEVER NATURE AND FOR WHATEVER PURPOSES

JYCHAN

MD v. Natividad
- A subpoena is not a search warrant, but a Court order to produce documents and
deliver them to the Court.
Camara v. Municipal Court
- A person may demand a search warrant from an inspector of a housing regulation,
otherwise the latter is deemed to have waived his right.

LAWFUL ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT:

- A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant arrest a person:

 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense (IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO)
 When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it (HOT PURSUIT)
 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
- In flagrante delicto
- Hot pursuit
- Continuing crime

Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago
- Deportation
- It must be based on probable cause:
 Probable cause
- Warrantless arrests for deportation purposes are valid since they fall under
“whatever nature and for whatever purposes”
- Harvey was a pedophile who was under surveillance for 3 months.
- There were formal deportation charges.
- Deportation hearings
 They do not require probable cause.
 There is a specific charge for arrest or deportation
 Fair hearing

Go v. CA
- It must be immediate. A warrantless arrest cannot take place six days after the crime
was committed.
JYCHAN

IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO

 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually

committing, or is attempting to commit an offense

People v. Aminnudin
- Person to be arrested must have committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense.
 There must be an overt act that a crime has been, is, or about to be
committed.
 Overt act must be in the presence of the officer.

People v. Miclat
- Policemen were conducting a surveillance operation in the area.
- The police saw petitioner arranging the stacks of shabu, which were plainly exposed
to Antonio.

Comerciante v. People
- Policemen allegedly saw petitioners. But, policemen were on a motor vehicle,
running at 30 km/hour and were 10m away from the petitioners.
- “Improper and unpleasant movements”
- No overt act as it is implausible for PO3 Calag to be able to identify with accuracy.

Ongcoma Hadji Homar v. People

- Jaywalking is not a crime.
- Accosting is different from arresting.
- They could not identify the area where Homar was jaywalking and that it was illegal
to pass through that area.

HOT PURSUIT

 When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it (HOT PURSUIT)

People v. Burgos
- A crime must have been committed prior to the arrest. In this case, Burgos was
plowing the field.
- It must be from the personal knowledge of the policemen. In this case, it was from
the verbal report.

People v. Jayson
- There was a shooting, policemen were summoned to the scene. Jayson was pointed
by the witnesses only moments after the shooting. Jayson was merely 10m away.
JYCHAN

Pestilos v. Generoso
- Police blotter was filed in 4:15am, the crime was committed at 3:15am.
- There was an attempted murder on the part of the petitioner.
- The facts and circumstances were from the personal observations of the policemen
(and thus, it is within personal knowledge)
- Prosecutor: w/n a crime has been committed. He submits documents
- Judge: facts and circumstances that a reasonably prudent and discreet person would
believe that there was a crime committed… (deposition)
- Law enforcer: officer’s knowledge that accused has committed. (raw evidence)

People v. Mengote
- Looking side to side and holding one’s abdomen is INSUFFICIENT BASES for reasonable
suspicion.

Valdez v. People
- No suspicious action on the part of the petitioner.
- Running away is not a suspicious action. And thus, there is no probable cause.

Manalili v. CA
- Swaying, red eyes is sufficient enough for probable cause. The cemetery (area where
he was caught) was also known to be a drug den. The people who were pursuing him
were from the Anti-Narcotics Unit and thus, are knowledgeable.

CONTINUING OFFENSE

Umil v. Ramos
- A warrantless arrest that took place days after an offense has been committed is
valid for continuing offenses.
 “Continuing Crime is defined as a single crime, consisting of a series of acts
but all arising from one criminal resolution. Although there is a series of acts,
there is only one crime committed; hence, only one penalty shall be
imposed.” People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 179943

Art. III, Sec. 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.

 It is sufficient that the person is indigent.

JYCHAN

 Persons who have no property or sources of income sufficient for their

support, aside from their own labor through self-supporting when able to
work and in employment.

Art. III, Sec. 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.
(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.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(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.

 Investigation: investigation conducted by the police authorities, which will include

investigations conducted by the municipal police, the PC, and the NBI and such other
police agencies in our government.
 Rights under custodial investigation:
o Right to remain silent
o Right to have a competent and independent counsel
o Right to be informed of these rights

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

People v. Camat
- Procedure during custodial investigation:
1. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to
inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of
arrest, if any.
2. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to
counsel, and that any statement he might make could be used against him.
3. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a
relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means - by telephone if
possible - or by letter or messenger.
- Extrajudicial confession, if admissible, is only applicable to the confessor.
- Right to counsel can be waived, but only if done in the presence of a counsel.
- Custodial investigation must be conducted with the presence of a counsel.
- Custodial investigation: where the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been
JYCHAN

taken into police custody, and the police carry out a process of interrogation that
lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements.
- There is no presumption of regularity in custodial investigations.

People v. Malngan
- Barangay Tanods are deemed as law enforcement officers, and thus, she was already
in custodial investigation at that time they interrogated her.
- Admission to neighbor is admissible as evidence.
- Custodial investigation is the stage where the police investigation is no longer a
general inquiry but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody.

People v. Lauga
- Bantay-bayan is considered as a law enforcement officer, as well.

Miranda v. Arizona
- Nature of a custodial investigation is coercive and may vitiate free will and even the
truth.

People v. Taliman
- Admission: declaration of fact
- Confession: declaration of guilt

People v. Bolanos
- A custodial investigation can take place even in a moving vehicle

People v. Tan
- Custodial investigation shall include the practice of issuing an ‘invitation’ to a person
who is investigated in connection with an offence he is suspected to have committed
without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer.
- FOR A CONFESSION TO BE ADMISSIBLE:
 Voluntary
 Made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel
 It must be express
 It must be in writing.

People v. Macam
- Generally, police line-ups are not custodial investigations. (SEE: Gamboa v. Cruz)
- However, police line-ups after custodial investigations, where any identification of
an uncounseled accused is inadmissible. (See: People v. Escordial, too!)

People v. Tanenggee
- Admissions made to private individuals are admissible as evidence.
JYCHAN

People v. Chavez
- For confession/admission to be inadmissible, compulsion must come from law
enforcers and not from family members. (in this case, it was the mom.)
- The admission/confession from the mother is qualified as hearsay.

Anonymous Complaint v. Lyn Maceda

- The rights enumerated in this provision can only be applied to criminal cases. NOT to
civil cases or administrative cases.

People v. Ordoo
- Custodial investigation began when the accused voluntarily went to the Santol Police
Station to confess and the investigating officer started to ask questions to elicit
information and/or confession from them.
- Police officers should have resisted and should have waited for a lawyer to assist
them.
- Right to be informed of their rights cannot be limited to merely translating it to their
dialect.

People v. Ang Chun Kit

- The accused’s signature on the receipt or lists of items confiscated from him is
inadmissible in evidence as there is no showing that he was then assisted by counsel.
- Signing in the booking sheet does not prove anything, though.

People v. Guting
- Accused-appellant was not under custodial investigation when he admitted that he
stabbed his father to death. It was done spontaneously and voluntarily given, and
was not elicited through questioning by the police authorities. Accused appellant
was only arrested and subjected to custodial investigation only after his confession.

RIGHT TO COUNSEL

People v. Sunga
- Counsel cannot be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the
police, or a municipal attorney.
- It is also the duty of the law enforcers to inform him of his rights in its full, proper,
and precise extent.
- Right to counsel involves more than the mere presence of a counsel. It requires an
efficient and decisive legal assistance.

People v. Lucero
- Lawyer suddenly disappeared because of friend’s wake
- The Constitution requires an effective and vigilant counsel. The counsel must be
there during the entire duration of the custodial investigation.
JYCHAN

People v. Calvo
- A confession is not rendered involuntarily just because defendant was told that he
should tell the truth or it would be better to tell the truth.

INTERLOCKING CONFESSIONS

People v. Lising
- General Rule: An extrajudicial confession applies only to the person making it. If he
implicates other accused in the same confession, it is not admissible as evidence
against the other accused. This is known as res inter alios acta.
- EXCEPTION: Interlocking Confessions: where several extrajudicial statements had
been made by several persons charged with an offense and there could have been
no collusion with reference to said several confessions, the facts that the statements
are in all material respects identical, is confirmatory of the confession of the co-
defendants and is admissible against other persons implicated therein.
- They are also admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated
therein to show the probability of the latter’s actual participation in the commission
of the crime and may likewise serve as corroborative evidence if it is clear from other
facts and circumstances that other persons had participated in the perpetration of
the crime charged and proved

WHEN TO OBJECT

People v. Macasiray
- For oral evidence of confession/admission: While they are being uttered
- For documentary evidence: When they are formally offered marking of evidence is
not equal to formal offer

Art. III, Sec. 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.

De La Camara v. Enage
- Bail is based on the presumption of innocence, and exists only to assure the
attendance of the accused to the proceedings. Excessive bail removes the purpose of
bail.
- FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED:
 Ability of the accused to give bail;
 Nature of the offense;
 Penalty of the offense charged;
JYCHAN

 Character and reputation of the accused; e. Health of the accused;

 Character and strength of the evidence;
 Probability of the accused appearing in the trial;
 Forfeiture of other bonds;
 Whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
 If the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases.

Yap v. CA
- While CA exercised its discretion in favour of allowing bail to petitioner, it was doing
so for humanitarian reasons. But imposing bail in an excessive amount could render
meaningless the right to bail. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that
appropriate conditions have been imposed in the bail bond to ensure against the risk
of flight, particularly, the combination of the hold-departure order and the
requirement that petitioner inform the court of any change of residence and of his
whereabouts. Although an increase in the amount of bail while the case is on appeal
may be meritorious, we find that the setting of the amount at P5,500,000.00 is
unreasonable, excessive, and constitutes an effective denial of petitioners right to
bail.

Hong Kong v. Olalia

- The modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the worth of
the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. UDHR is now customarily
binding upon the members of the international community.
 In Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, the Supreme Court granted bail to a
prospective deportee.
 The Philippines has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of
every person to liberty and due process. In other words, the Philippines is
under obligation to make available to every person under detention
remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty (including right
to bail).
 Therefore, if bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no justification
on why it should not be allowed in extradition cases.
 Extradition cases are administrative in character. Its object is to prevent the
escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his return
to the state from which he fled for the purpose of trial or punishment.
 However, the means employed to attain extradition is the machinery
of criminal law (immediate arrest and temporary detention)
 clear and convincing evidence
 Extradition
 deprivation of liberty
 provisional arrest

Enrile v. Sandiganbayan
- Old age and failing health is an adequate reason to grant bail.
JYCHAN

Art. III, Sec. 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. 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.

 Rights in this article:

o Right to be presumed innocent
o Right to be heard by himself or counsel
o Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
o Right to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial
o Right to meet the witnesses face to face
o Right to have a compulsory process to secure their attendance and the
production of evidence.
o After arraignment, he may choose not to appear, given that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
 The right to counsel under custodial investigation is indispensable [until validly
waived].
 The right to counsel under Sec. 14 is dispensable only after the arraignment.

PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE

Luling v. US
- Prima facie presumption of guilt that a crime has been committed does not violate
the right to be presumed innocent because it is necessary that the prosecution
would prove the fact in order for the prima facie presumption to arise.

Dumlao v. COMELEC
- When the law provides for a prima facie presumption that a person has been
convicted, the provision violates this right.

RIGHT TO COUNSEL

People v. Holgado
- If a defendant appears without a lawyer, he must be informed by the court of his
right to have attorney being arraigned, and if he desires one, Court must assign one
to him.
- DUTIES OF THE COURT:
 It must inform the defendant that it is his right to have attorney before being
arraigned;
JYCHAN

 After giving him such information the court must ask him if he desires the aid
of an attorney;
 If he desires and is unable to employ attorney, the court must assign attorney
de oficio to defend him;
 If the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own the court must grant
him a reasonable time therefor.
- Not one of the said duties were complied by the trial court. The question asked by
the court was: “Do you have an attorney or are you going to plead guilty?”
- It could be construed by the accused that if he didn’t have a lawyer, he was going to
have to plead guilty.

RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL TRIAL

People v. Regala
- An impartial trial necessarily requires an impartial judge to conduct the same. In
other words, if there is no impartial judge, there can be no fair and impartial trial.
- Regala failed to point out the any part or stage of the trial which showed the bias
and prejudice of the judge. Regala’s previous conviction of the crimes of malicious
mischief and slight physical injuries was testified to only by the witness last
presented by the prosecution in its evidence in chief. And the trial Judge, contrary to
Regala’s claim, gave due consideration to his evidence as shown by the fact that in
the decision of conviction, the trial Judge examined extensively the testimonies of all
the eight witnesses for the defense.

Mateo v. Villaluz
- The judge subscribed the extrajudicial statement given.
- The judge should have inhibited himself. Outside of pecuniary interest, there may be
other causes that could erode the trait of objectivity. It is well that if any such should
make its appearance and difficult to resist, the judge must disqualify himself to avoid
being misunderstood, and that his reputation is preserved.
- FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
 Pecuniary interest of the judge,
 Relationship or previous participation in the matter that calls for
adjudication,
 Previous participation in the matter that calls for adjudication, and
 Other causes that may call for inhibition.

RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE CHARGES

People v. Ching
- An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offence,
subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.
- To be considered as valid and sufficient, an information must state:
 the name of the accused
 designation of the offence given by the statute
 acts or omissions complained of as constituting an offense
JYCHAN

 name of the offended party

 approximate date of the commission of the offense
 Section 11 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of CrimPro provides that it
is not necessary to state in the information the precise date the
offence was committed, except when it is a material ingredient of the
offence and that the offence may be alleged to have been committed
on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission.
 place where the offence was committed

People v. Begino
- Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. If the same
are not pleaded, but proved, they shall only be considered as aggravating
circumstances. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the
charges against him and a denial of due process, if he would be charged with
qualified rape, even if the attendant circumstance was not alleged in the indictment
on which he was arraigned.
- It is a fundamental rule that every element of the crime charged must be alleged in
the complaint or information. It is to enable the accused to properly prepare his
defense.

RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

Conde v. Rivera
- There is a violation of her right to a speedy trial. Her trials have been arbitrarily
postponed without her consent, and this is palpably and openly unjust to her and a
detriment to the public. By the use of reasonable diligence, the prosecution could
have settled upon the appropriate information, could have attended to the formal
preliminary examination, and could have prepared the case for a trial. The Court is
under a moral and legal obligation to see these proceedings come to an end.
- Where a prosecution officer, without a good cause, secures postponements of the
trial beyond a reasonable period of time, the accused is entitled to relief by a
proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information.

Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan
- FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN THE RIGHT HAS BEEN DELAYED:
 Length of delay,
 Reason of the delay,
 Defendant’s assertion of his right
 Prejudice to the defendant.

Tan v. People
- FACTORS AFFECTING THE SPEED OF DISPOSITION OF CASES
 Complexity of the cases
 Period of responses
 Amendment of laws
JYCHAN

RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL

In Re: Oliver
- An accused is entitled to a public trial, no matter what the offence is charged.

RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES

Tampar v. Usman
- The right to confrontation or cross-examine may have been violated when the
decision is solely based on oaths done by either parties.

RIGHT TO BE PRESENT IN PROCEEDINGS

Carredo v. People
- It is important to state that the Constitution simple means that he hereby waives is
right to meet the witnesses face to face among others. However, such waiver does
not mean that the prosecution is deprived of its right to require the presence of the
accused for purposes of identification by its witnesses which is vital for the
conviction of the accused. The accused may waive his right, but not his duty or
obligation to court.

Art. III, Sec. 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.

 When the privilege of writ of habeas corpus is suspended, the Court can only require
the law enforcer to explain that the person was detained because of an offense
covered by the suspension and nothing further.

Art. III, Sec. 16

All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Binay v. Sandiganbayan
- The constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases is not only limited to
criminal proceedings, but to all parties in all cases and proceedings.
- However, it is deemed violated only when the proceedings is attended by vexatious,
capricious, oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of trials are
asked for an secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive.
- Factors:
 length of delay
 reasons for such delay
JYCHAN

 assertion or failure to assure such right by the accused

 prejudice caused by the delay

Art. III, Sec. 17

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

 Right against self-incrimination

 Prohibition against testimonial compulsion by oral examinations.

US v. Tan Teng
- In a case like the present, it is always difficult to secure positive and direct proof.
Such crimes as the present are generally proven by circumstantial evidence.
Furthermore, the purpose of the provision to not be compelled to be a witness
against him is to prohibit compulsory oral examination. In this case, it was not
obtained from a testimony, but his body itself.
People v. Ong Siu Hong
- To force a prohibited drug from the person is along the same line as requiring him to
exhibit himself before the court. It would be a forced construction of the paragraph
of the Phil. Bill of Rights. The main purpose of the said provision is to prohibit
testimonial compulsion by oral examinations.

Villaflor v. Summers
- The constitutional guarantee is limited to a prohibition against compulsory
testimonial self-incrimination. An ocular inspection of the body of the accused is
permissible, provided that the torture of force shall be avoided.
- It is a reasonable presumption that the physicians will comply with due care to
ensure that no violence will be used and not to embarrass the patient any more than
is absolutely necessary.

Beltran v. Samson
- The provision in the Jones Law provides that: “nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself.” This text is not limited to declaration, but also
to being a witness.
- Hence, there is the well-established doctrine that the constitutional inhibition is
directed not merely to giving of oral testimony, but embraces as well the furnishing
of evidence by other means than by word of mouth, the divulging, in short, of any
fact which the accused has a right to hold secret.
- In the case at bar writing means that the petitioner herein is to furnish a means to
determine whether or not he is the falsifier, as the petition of the respondent fiscal
clearly states. Except that it is more serious, the court believes the present case is
similar to that of producing documents or chattels in one's possession. We say that,
for the purposes of the constitutional privilege, there is a similarity between one
who is compelled to produce a document, and one who is compelled to furnish a
JYCHAN

specimen of his handwriting, for in both cases, the witness is required to furnish
evidence against himself.

RIGHT IS APPLICABLE WHEN:

Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr.

- This right applies to proceedings that have an effect of forfeiture of penalty.
- An accused may refuse to take the witness stand on the ground that he may
incriminate himself. A witness, however, in a judicial and other proceedings cannot
refuse to take the witness stand but he may refuse to answer incriminating question.
(Arnault v. Nazareno)

Art. III, Sec. 18

(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Art. III, Sec. 19

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.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any
prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under
subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

 Mere unusual length of punishment is not cruel per se nor inhuman.

People v. Estoista
- It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a
penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. The punishment must be flagrantly and
plainly oppressive, wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to
shock the moral sense of the community.

People v. Echegaray
- Death Penalty:
 It is only applicable to heinous crimes—heinous crime should be defined by
Congress;
 That a crime, which is a heinous crime, should be punishable by death; and
 There is a compelling reason to implement it.
JYCHAN

Corpuz v. People
- Doctrine of Relative Constitutionality does not apply in criminal statutes.
- All penalties are generally harsh, being punitive nature, but it is left to the lawmakers
whether or not they are excessive or amounting to cruel punishment.

Art. III, Sec. 20

No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

Lozano v. Martinez
- An essential element for BP 22 is knowledge, and thus, it is aimed to put a stop of
issuing checks that are worthless. The gravamen of the offence is the act of making
and issuing a worthless check. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the
law punishes. It is to prohibit the issuance of worthless checks, since they transcend
the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction. The mischief
it creates is not only to the payee or holder, but to the general public. It is an offence
against public order.

Art. III, Sec. 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.

 Right against double jeopardy

 FIRST JEOPARDY ATTACHED:

o Good indictment
 valid complaint
 valid information
o Court with Competent Jurisdiction
 Venue is jurisdictional (but venue may be changed for
exceptions see: case of Crisologo)
 Penalties
o Arraignment
o After valid plea

 FIRST JEOPARDY TERMINATED

o Acquittal (valid)
o Final conviction
o Dismissal without express consent of accused
o Dismissal on merits
 Violation of a constitutional right
 speedy trial
 due process
JYCHAN

 SECOND JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE

o Identical
o 1. homicide and homicide
o Attempt/Frustration of the other
o One offense necessarily includes the other
o One offense is necessarily included in the other

People v. Relova
- The first sentence of Sec 22 sets forth the general rule that the right is not available
where the second prosecution is for an offence that is different from the offence
charged in the first, although both the offences may be based on the same act or set
of acts. However, an exception is that the prior offence charged under an ordinance
is different from the offence charged subsequently under a national statute.
- The taking of electricity was integral with the unauthorized installation of the said
devices. The Identity of offences that must be shown need not be absolute Identity:
the first and second offences may be regarded as the "same offence" where the
second offence necessarily includes the first offence or is necessarily included in
such first offence or where the second offence is an attempt to commit the first or a
frustration thereof.

People v. Ylagan
- All the law requires is that the accused has been brought to trial in a court of
competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge
sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction after issue properly joined.

Asistio v. People
- The accused-appellee cannot contend that she will be placed in double jeopardy
upon this appeal. It must be stressed that the dismissal of the case against her was
premised upon her filing of a demurrer to evidence and the finding (though
erroneous) that the trial court is bereft of jurisdiction.
- Requisites for double jeopardy:
 Valid complaint or information
 Court of competent jurisdiction
 Accused has pleaded to the charge
 Accused has been convicted or acquitted or the case dismissed or terminated
without the express consent of the accused.
- The said case was only dismissed because of the lack of jurisdiction over the offense
charged. The RTC did not decide the case on its merits, or on the issue of whether or
not the petitioner is guilty or innocent based on the evidence proffered by the
prosecution. And thus, this case is still subject to ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of
the Rules of Court.

Bulaong v. People
- The defense of double jeopardy is available only where an accused was either
convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without
JYCHAN

his consent. It is not the situation in this case. He was not convicted, terminated
without his consent, or acquitted in the case filed in the CFI for subversion. It is the
conviction, acquittal, dismissal, or termination of the case that bars further
prosecution for the same offense or any attempt to commit the same or frustration
thereof, for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
offense charged in the former complaint or information.

People v. Melo
- Supervening fact: Death of victim was not present during the first prosecution. It
calls for a valid amendment of the information.
- Supervening fact is an event that will change the nature of the offense.

People v. Tiozon
- The accused cannot plead one as a bar to the other, because the first one is
punished by a special law, while the second, homicide or murder, is punished by the
RPC.
- It can be invoked only for the same offense or identical offenses.
- The protection against double jeopardy is only for the same offense. A simple act
may be an offense against 2 different provisions of law and if one provision requires
proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under
one does not bar prosecution under the other.
Chiok v. People
- A decision of acquittal is final.
- Except:
 When the trial is sham or
 Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction

Art. III, Sec. 22

No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

People v. Ferrer
- A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its
essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilty. It is
only when a statute applies either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable
members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment without a judicial trial
does it become a bill of attainder. (IF YOU WERE PART OF A MINORITY, THEY CAN
JUST JAIL YOU. So this is for the protection of freedoms of expression, association,
and these minorities.)

Virata v. Sandiganbayan
- Elements of a bill of attainder:
 There’s a law
 There’s a named individual or a group that’s ascertainable
 There’s no trial
JYCHAN

Lacson v. Sandiganbayan
- RA 8249 is not an ex post facto statute. Ex post facto law generally prohibit
retrospectively of penal laws. However, RA 8249 is not a penal law. It is a substantive
law on jurisdiction, which is not penal in character.
- - An ex post facto law is one that:
 which makes an act done criminal before the passing of the law and which
was innocent when committed, and punishes such action; or
 which aggravates a crime or makes it greater that when it was committed; or
 which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the
law annexed to the crime when it was committed,
 which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense
in order to convict the defendant.
 Every law which, in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the
situation of a person to his disadvantage.
 that which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect
imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful;
 deprives a person accused of 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.
-

Art. IV, Sec. 1

The following are citizens of the Philippines:
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority; and
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Art. IV, Sec. 2

Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having
to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed
natural-born citizens.

 Ways of acquiring citizenship:

o Jus soli – Nationality is based on where one is born
o Jus sanguinis – Nationality is based on the parents’ nationality
o Naturalization – Acquiring citizenship based on a country’s laws
 In Political law, the filiation or status of the child regarding his legitimacy is
immaterial in determining his citizenship. What matters is the child’s parentage or
JYCHAN

his blood relation with his parents. Citizenship under political law will determine
whether a person can exercise political rights.
 In Civil law, citizenship will dictate what law on personal and family rights should
apply to the person.
 Any definition of citizenship is like the National Territory. But, it has to be met by
standards of international law. It is the discretion of any state to determine who her
nationals are.

Tecson v. COMELEC
- Organic Act:
 inhabitant of the PH (native-born inhabitant, inhabitant who was a native of
Peninsular Spain, and inhabitant who obtained Spanish papers on or before
April 11, 1899), and a Spanish subject on April 11, 1899
 April 11 1899- July 1, 1902 -> JUS SOLI
- March 23, 1912: Amendment to the Philippine Bill of 1902 -> Philippine citizens
 All inhabitant of the PH who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, resided
in said island, and their children born.
- Jones Law
 A native-born inhabitant of the PH:
 Citizen of the Philippines as of April 11, 1899
 Subject of spain on April 11, 1899
 residing in the PH on the said date
 since that date, not a citizen of some other country
- 1935 Constitution
 citizens of the PH at time of adoption of Constitution
 born in the Philippines of foreign parents who had been elected to public
office in the Philippines
 Fathers are citizens of PH
 mothers are citizens of PH and upon reaching age of majority, they elect
Philippine citizenship
 naturalized
- 1973 Constitution
 Citizens of the PH at the time of adoption of the Constitution
 Fathers or mothers are citizens of PH
 A female citizen of the PH who marries an alien retains her citizenship
unless by her act or omission she is deemed to have renounced her
citizenship
 Those who elect Philippine citizenship
 Naturalized
- Natural-born citizens
 Those who are citizens of the PH from birth without having to perform any
act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship

Co v. Electoral Tribunal
- Furthermore, father became a naturalized Filipino when Ong, Jr. was only nine. As
such under Sec 15 of the Revised Naturalization act, it applies to him for he was then
JYCHAN

a minor residing in this country. HOWEVER, respondent traces his natural born
citizenship through his mother.
- Election becomes material because Sec 2 of Article IV accords natural born status to
children born of Filipino mothers before Jan 17, 1973 if they elect citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority.
- However, to expect the respondent to have formally or in writing elected citizenship
is unnatural and unnecessary.

People v. Sagun
- As she is a legitimate child of a Chinese national, it is required for her to do election.
Even then, it is not a tedious and painstaking process.
- The reasonable time that is contemplated by the Constitution is within 3 years from
reaching the age of majority. However, it took her 12 years to do so, and even then,
there was no satisfactory explanation.

So v. Republic of the Philippines

- Administrative naturalization -> RA 9139;
 This covers native-born aliens who lived here in the Philippines for all their
lives, never saw any other country and all along thought they were Filipinos,
and have demonstrated love and loyalty to the PH.
- Judicial naturalization -> CA No. 473;
 CA 473 covers all aliens, regardless of class.

Maquiling v. COMELEC
- The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is a positive
and voluntary act of representation as to one’s nationality and citizenship. Though it
does not divest Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation, but it recants the Oath
of Renunciation required to qualify one to run an elective position.
- According to Section 5, par 2 of the Citizenship and Reacquisition Act of 2003, those
who retain/reacquire PH citizenship under this act shall enjoy full civil and political
rights.
 However, those seeking elective public in the PH shall meet the qualifications
required by the Constitution and existing laws, and at the time of the filing of
the COC, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
before any public officer authorized to administer an oath.
- The legal presumption of his renunciation of his foreign citizenship does not operate
permanently and is open to attack when the citizen performs positive acts showing
his continued possession of a foreign citizenship

Art. IV, Sec. 3

Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
JYCHAN

Bengson v. HRET
- There are 2 ways of acquiring citizenship: by birth and naturalization. At the same
time, Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may reacquire the same via
three modes:
 Naturalization - can be used for both acquisition and reacquisition of PH
citizenship.
 Repatriation - may take places under various statutes:
 desertion of the armed forces
 service in the armed forces of the allied forces in WW2
 service in the armed forces of the US
 marriage of a Filipino citizen to an alien
 political and economic necessity
 Angat v. Republic : under RA 965 and 2630, person desiring to
reacquire citizenship would not be required to file a petition in Court.
All he has to do is to take an oath of allegiance and to register that
fact with the civil registry in the place of residence
 Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality.

David v. Agbay
- Under RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003), Section 2, it
was deemed that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall
be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this
Act. Under Section 3, it also supplies that natural-born citizens who, after the
effectivity of this act, become citizens of another country, shall retain their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
 There is a difference between “re-acquiring” and “retaining”. The law makes
a distinction between those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign
citizens before and after the effectivity of RA 9225.

Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC
- Foundlings are natural-born Filipinos because the probability of having a Filipino
parent is higher than having parents who are both foreigners. Foundlings are a class
of their own.

Art. IV, Sec. 4

Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act
or omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.

Reyes v. COMELEC
- The reacquisition of her Filipino citizenship requires her to take the oath of
allegiance to the PH before the Consul-General of the PH Consulate in the US, and a
personal and sworn renunciation of her American citizenship, which she did not
comply.
JYCHAN

- The burden of proof has been shifted to her after the establishment of the fact that
she is a holder of an American passport. She has yet to prove otherwise, and thus,
the inevitable conclusion that she misrepresented in her COC that she is a natural-
born Filipino citizenship. Until she can establish that she is a dual Filipino-American
citizen, and that she made a valid soon renunciation, she remains to be an American
citizen and thus, ineligible to run for office.
- Her oath of allegiance in connection with her appointment as Provincial
Administrator of Marinduque cannot be considered as compliance with Sec 3 of RA
9225. Her oath of office as Provincial Administrator cannot be considered as the oath
of allegiance.

Art. IV, Sec. 5

Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.

AASJS-Calilung v. Datumanong
- Article IV, Section V is a declaration of a policy and not a self-executing provision.
The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. The framers of RA 9225
were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized
citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin, even after their
naturalization.

Art. V, Sec. 1
Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by
law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines
for at least one year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six
months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

Macalintal v. COMELEC
- Section 1, Article V specifically provides that suffrage may be exercised by all citizens
of the Philippines, who are not disqualified by law, at least 18, and are residents in
the Philippines for at least 1 year and in the place where they propose to vote for at
least 6 mos immediately preceding the election.
 Section 5d places that one is disqualified from voting if he/she is an
immigrant or permanent resident in a host country, unless he/she shall
execute an affidavit that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent
residence in the PH not later than 3 years from approval of his/her
registration.
 This is an explicit expression that he had not abandoned his domicile
of origin.
- All laws are presumed to be constitutional.
JYCHAN

- RA 9189 is to enfranchise overseas qualified Filipinos.

- The Constitution must be construed as a whole.
 Article V, Section 2 provides that Congress shall provide a system for voting
by qualified Filipinos abroad.
- An absentee remains attached to his residence in the PH as residence is considered
synonymous with domicile.
 Domicile: the fact of deciding or physical presence in a fixed place AND
animus manendi (the intention of returning there permanently)

Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC
- There is no provision in the dual citizenship law, RA 9225, that requires “duals” to
actually establish residence and physically stay in the Philippines before they can
exercise their right to vote. RA 9225, though, implicitly grants the same right of
suffrage to non-residents as that granted to an absentee voter under RA 9189.
 RA 9189 defines the terms, Absentee Voting and Overseas Absentee Voter: a
citizen of the PH who is qualified to register and vote under this Act, who is
abroad on the day of elections

Art. V, Sec. 2
The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as
well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote
without the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under
existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect
the secrecy of the ballot.

Kabataan Party List v. COMELEC

- The right to vote is not a natural right, but is a right created by law. It is a privilege
granted by the State to such persons or classes as are most likely to exercise it for
the public good.

Art. XIII, Sec. 1

The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and
enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political
inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power
for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of
property and its increments.
JYCHAN

Miriam College v. CA
- Who may teach
- What may be taught
- How it shall be taught
 the right of the school to discipline its students is apparent here. A school
cannot function in an atmosphere of anarchy.
- Who may be admitted to study