Consti 2 Combined Notes

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 - CRUZ
CHAPTER 14 regulation by the legislature and to change

of the conditions
THE IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
3. Public Office – It is not a property right; it
- Article III, Section 10 of 1987 Constitution
cannot be the subject of a contract between
provides: “No law impairing the obligation of
the incumbent and the government
contracts shall be passed”
– The office itself, if created by a statute,
- Purpose: to safeguard the integrity of valid
may be modified or even abolished
contractual agreements against unwarranted
– Exception: Where the salary has already
interference by the State
been earned, in which case, it will be
- General Rule: these contractual obligations
deemed a vested property right that cannot
should be respected and should not be tampered
be withdrawn or reduced by retroactive
with by subsequent laws that will change the
legislation
intention of the parties or modify their rights and
obligations; the will of the obligor and obligee must
- In the case of Land Bank of the Philippines v.
be observed
Republic, it was held that the constitutional
- Exceptions: This rule is not absolute.
guarantee may not be used by the petitioner to
1. There are instances when contracts that are
validate its interest over the land as a mortgagee,
valid at the time of their conclusion may
especially when the State‟s restraint upon the right
become invalid; or
to have an interest or ownership over forest lands is
2. Some of their provisions may be rendered
a valid exercise of police power of the state
inoperative or illegal, by virtue of
supervening legislations
LAW
- Includes the following:
CONTRACT
1. Statutes enacted by the national legislature;
- It refers to any lawful agreement on property or
2. Executive and administrative regulations
property rights, whether real or personal, tangible
promulgated under a valid delegation of
or intangible.
power; and
- Regarding franchises:
3. Municipal ordinances passed by the local
- In the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward,
legislative bodies
the term “contracts” has been considered as
- The term does not include the following:
including franchises or charters granted to private
1. Judicial decisions
persons or entities, like an authorization to operate
2. Adjudications made by administrative
a public utility
bodies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial
- In our jurisdiction, however, it has been ruled by
powers
the Supreme Court in the case of Manila Electric
- Rule: To impair, the law must retroact so as to
Company v. Province of Laguna that a franchise
affect existing contracts concluded before its
partakes the nature of a grant and is beyond the
enactment. There will be no impairment if the law is
purview of the non-impairment clause of the
made to operate prospectively only.
constitution
- The term does not cover the following:
OBLIGATION
1. Licenses – these involve grant of privileges
- It is the vinculum juris or the tie that binds the
only that are essentially revocable
parties to each other
2. Marriage Contract – it is regarded as a
social institution that is subject at all times to
AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 1

- It is the law or duty that binds the parties to Luisita Inc. v. Luisita Industrial Park
perform their undertaking or agreement according t Corporation
its terms and intent - Other inherent powers of the state, such as
eminent domain and taxation, may validly limit the
IMPAIRMENT impairment clause
- It is anything that diminished the efficiency of the 1. Eminent Domain – In the case of Long
contract Island Water Supply Co v. Brooklyn, the
- The degree of diminution is immaterial – as long Court held that a contract is a property and,
as the original rights of either party is changed to like any other property, may be taken for
his prejudice, there is an impairment of the public use, subject to the rule on just
obligation of the contract. compensation
- Rule regarding remedies: 2. Taxes – A lawful tax on a new subject, or
- There will be impairment only if all of an increased tax on an old one, does not
them are withdrawn, with the result that interfere with a contract or impair its
either party will be unable to enforce his obligation within the meaning of the
rights under the original agreement Constitution.
- There will be no impairment as long as - However, when the law grants tax
substantial and efficacious remedies exemption in exchange for a valuable
remain. consideration, such exemption is
- This rule holds true even if the remedy considered a contract and cannot be
retained is the most difficult to employ and it repealed because of the impairment clause.
is the easier ones that are withdrawn - All other tax exemptions, however, are not
contractual and may be revoked at will by
LIMITATIONS the legislature
- A contract valid at the time of its execution may be
modified or even completely invalidated by CASES
subsequent law if the law is a proper exercise of  Stone v. Mississippi
the police power of the state. – A franchise granted by the government for the
- The police power is superior to the non- operation of a lottery by a private corporation was
impairment clause and the constitutional revoked when the legislature subsequently
guaranty of non-impairment is limited by the imposed a prohibition on all kinds of gambling
exercise of the police power of the State within the state.
- Police power legislation adopted by the
state to promote health, morals, peace,  Gold Clause Cases
education, good order, safety, and the – The creditors in many contracts of loan stipulated
general welfare of the people prevail not that their loans would be repaid in gold currency
only over future contracts, but even those even if the conversion of the legal tender from gold
already in existence. to silver takes place
- All private contracts must yield to the – The US Supreme Court ruled that as the subject
superior and legitimate measures taken by of the contract is currency, it was within the
the State to promote public welfare. exclusive power of the legislature to control. Hence,
- This rule applies even to contracts imbued the agreement was subject to modification by the
with public interest, as was ruled by the State in the exercise of police power
Supreme Court in the case of Hacienda

 Ilusorio v. Court of Agrarian Relations 2. Law that aggravates a crime or makes it

– The issue posed is whether or not a pre-existing greater than it was when committed
share tenancy contract could be validly converted
in accordance with the provisions of a subsequent 3. Law that changes punishment and
law inflicts greater punishment than the law
– The Court held that it was allowed because the annexed to the crime when committed.
constitutional prohibition is not absolute.
– It held that the constitutional prohibition has no
application to statutes relating to public subjects 4. Law that alters the legal rules of
within the domain of general legislative powers of evidence and receives less or different
the State, and involving the public right and welfare. testimony than the law required at the
time of the commission of the offense in
order to convict the offender.
 PAGCOR v. BIR
– The petitioner contended that the repeal of the
law providing for its exemption from corporate 5. Law which, assuming to regulate civil
income taxes constituted as a violation of the non- rights and remedies only, in effect
impairment clause imposes a penalty or deprivation of a
– The Court held that the petitioner‟s franchise is right for something which when done,
subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by was lawful
Congress It is not violative of the non-impairment
clause
6. Law which deprives persons accused of
CHAPTER 15 crime of some lawful protection to which
they have become entitled (protection of
EX POST FACTO LAWS
former conviction or acquittal;
- The equivalent of the impairment clause in
proclamation of amnesty)
criminal matters is the prohibition against
the passage of ex post facto laws.
- It is like the law impairing the obligation of CHARACTERISTICS OF EX POST FACTO LAWS
the contract, operates retroactively to affect 1. Law must refer to criminal matters
antecedent acts. 2. Law must be retroactive in its application
- Never considered if law operates 3. Law must be to the prejudice of the
prospectively since its strictures would accused.
cover only offenses committed after and not
before its enactment Illustrative Cases
Republic v. Fernandez
EX POST FACTO LAW – one that would make a - War Profits Tax Law: retroactively imposing
previous act criminal although it was not so at the taxes on properties and income acquired
time it was committed during the Japanese occupation = NOT EX
- KINDS OF EX POST FACTO LAWS POST FACTO LAW
1. Law that makes criminal an act done - Ex post facto law prohibition applies only to
before the passage of the law criminal or penal matters and not to laws
- act was innocent when done and which concern civil matters or proceedings
punishes such an act after or which affect or regulate civil or private
rights
- Application of a bank inquiry order under the

 Administrative orders and Memorandum provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act
orders are not covered by the proscription would be violative of the Ex Post Facto
against ex-post facto laws clause
- Transactions already in place when AMLA
Bayot v. Sandiganbayan was passed are exempt from scrutiny
- Law amending RA 3019: suspension of through a bank inquiry order but it cannot
pendent lite of any public officer or yield any interpretation that records of
employee accused of offenses involving transactions undertaken after the enactment
fraudulent use of public funds or property, of AMLA are similarly exempt.
including those charged earlier = NOT EX
POST FACTO even if retroactive People v. Vilo
- Suspension was not punitive but merely - Court sustained retroactive application of
preventive amendatory law allowing affirmation of
- P.D. No. 1606 itself creating death sentence by only eight justices
Sandiganbayan was not a penal law although unanimity was required when the
crime committed by the defendant
 Similar ruling concerning habeas corpus - Amendment was merely procedural in
proceedings and proclamation suspending nature and did not partake of the nature of
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus = not ex post fact law
a statute within the contemplation of Article
7 Section 18  Remedial laws may be given retroactive
effect and may be made to apply to actions
US v. Gomez Coronel pending and undetermined at the time of
- Information for adultery filed by the their passage
prosecutor was dismissed  No vested rights in the rules of procedure
- Because, the time of the alleged  Remedial Statute does not create new
commission of the offense, prosecution rights or take away vested rights but only
could be commenced only on complaint of operates in furtherance of the remedy or
the offended spouse = EX POST FACTO confirmation of already existing rights.
- Amendatory law permitting the prosecutor to  ALL PROCEDURAL LAWS are retroactive:
initiate the charge = EX POST FACTO person has no vested right in any particular
People v. Estrada remedy
- R.A. 9160: made to apply to Estrada for
acts allegedly committed by him prior to its Adonis v. Tesoro
enactment = EX POST FACTO - Petitioner sought retroactive application of
- Prior to its enactment, numbered accounts Supreme Court‟s Administrative Circular no.
or anonymous accounts were permitted 08-2008 authorizing judges “in the exercise
banking transactions, whether they be of sound discretion and taking into
allowed by law or by mere banking consideration the peculiar circumstances of
regulation each case” to impose mere fine instead of
imprisonment in libel cases
Republic v. Eugenio - Court Rejected Plea: clear reading of the
Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 and

considering the attendant circumstances of - Law expressly provides that such

the case, benefits of the administrative renunciation shall operate to exempt such
circular cannot be given retroactive effect in persons from liability.
his case.
- Too late for Adonis to raise such argument BILL OF ATTAINDER
for his case has already become final and - In Ferrer Case: Bill of attainder was doubly
executor and already serving his sentence. objectionable because of its ex post facto
features – historic explanation for uniting the
 Even if the law be penal and retroactive – two in one clause
does not operate to the disadvantage of the - If statute is bill of attainder it was also ex
accused post facto but if it is not ex post facto,
 Law reducing penalty for murder from death reasons that it is not are persuasive that it
to life imprisonment applied retroactively cannot be a bill of attainder
benefits than prejudices the convict but if
punishment is made heavier it will be Characteristics
considered ex post facto - Bill of attainder: legislative act that inflicts
Valeroso v. People punishment without trial
- Additional fine of P15,000.00 is imposed by - Essence: being the substitution of legislative
RA 8284: still advantageous to accused fiat for a judicial determination of guilt.
because it lowers imprisonment penalty to - Only when a statute applies either to named
prission correcccional in its maximum period individuals or to easily ascertainable
from reclusion temporal in its maximum members of a group in such way as to inflict
period to reclusion perpertua under PD punishment on them without a judicial trial
1866 that it becomes a bill of attainder
- Law looks forward, never backward, Lex - Prohibition seeks to prevent acts of violence
prospicit, non repsicit and injustice brought about by the passage
- New law was prospective not retroactive of such bills
effect
Tuason v. Register of Deeds, Caloocan
 Penal laws that favor a guilty person who is - Bill of attainder is essentially a usurpation of
not a habitual criminal shall be given judicial power by a legislative body
retroactive effect. - Envisages and effects the imposition of a
penalty, deprivation of life or liberty or
People v. Ferrer property not by the ordinary process of
- Supreme Court rejected the argument that judicial trial but by legislative fiat
Anti subversion act was unconstitutional on - Intent and effect a penal judgment visited
the ground that it punished past upon an identified person or group of
membership in the communist party persons without a prior charge or demand
- Prohibition applied to acts committed after without notice and hearing without an
the approval of such act opportunity to defend without any of the
- Those who knowingly affiliate themselves civilized forms and safeguards of the judicial
with and become or remain members after process as we know it
June 20, 1957 are punished. - Archetypal bill of attainder wielded as
means of legislative oppression

US v. Lovett CHAPTER 16
- Law had provision prohibiting payment from
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
public funds of compensation to
respondents who were individually named
provides: “No person shall be imprisoned for debt
therein except for jury or military service
or non-payment of poll tax
unless they were reappointed by the
- The motive is humanitarian
President
- Similar to the statutes invalidated in the test
HISTORY
oath cases of Ex Parte Garland and
- In Roman law, the brutal quartering of the body of
Cummings v. Missouri
the delinquent debtor by his creditor, in proportion
- Fact that punishment is inflicted through the
to their claims were allowed
instrumentality of an act specially cutting the
- In the Middle Ages, the debtor was not killed for
pay of certain named individuals found
his defaults but merely imprisoned until he was able
guilty of disloyalty makes it no less galling or
to pay his obligations
effective than if it had been done by an act
- At present, this was added as an additional
which had the conduct as criminal
guaranty of the liberty of persons against their
incarceration for the enforcement of purely private
Cummings v. Missouri
debts because only of their misfortune of being
- Iron-Clad Oath: both ex post facto and bill of
poor
attainder
- Cannot be punished until judicially tried;
DEBT
cannot be tried for an act innocent when
- It refers to any civil obligation arising from
committed; cannot be made to bear witness
contract, express or implied
against himself = all of these are violated in
- In the case of Ganaway v. Quillen, it includes
Iron-Clad Oath
even debts obtained through fraud, since the
Constitution made no distinction.
 In a bill of attainder, punishment is a
- As long as the obligation to pay arises ex
prerequisite
contractu, it is considered a private matter and the
State cannot be employed in a criminal action to
Bureau of Customs Employees Association v.
enforce the former‟s right.
Teves
- Remedy of creditor: A civil action only for the
- Provided for the removal of the bureau‟s
recovery of the unpaid debt
employees who would not be able to meet
their revenue targets as prescribed under
CRIME
the law
- A debtor can be validly punished in a criminal
- Removal shall be without the benefit of a
action if he contracted his debt through fraud
hearing and immediately executor
- In such cases, the act for which he is
- RA 9335 is not a bill of attainder: does not
penalized is the deception he employed in
possess the elements of such
securing the debt, not his default in paying
Does not seek to inflict punishment without judicial
it.
trial merely lays down grounds for termination of
- The responsibility of the debtor arises ex delicto or
BIR or BOC official or employee and provides
from the commission of the crime
consequences thereof
- It is not considered as a debt under this provision

– The thrust of the law is to prohibit the issuance of

worthless checks as it has deleterious effects on
public interest
POLL TAX
- It is a specific fixed sum levied upon every person  People v. Merillo
belonging to a certain class, without regard to his – The accused was charged with violation of the
property or occupation law requiring employers to pay the salaries of their
- General Rule: Since tax is not a debt, the failure employees at least once every two weeks, and
to pay the same can be validly punished with providing that failure to do so will be considered
imprisonment prima facie evidence of fraud committed through
- Exception: Failure to pay a poll tax false pretenses
- The exception is pursuant to the social – The Supreme Court held the law to b valid, as
justice policy, which reflects the tender what is being punished is the fraud or deceit of the
regard for the law for the underprivileged employer who, being able to make the payment,
who cannot afford even the nominal cost of shall abstain or refuse to do so.
the poll tax
CASES  Flores v. Tatad
 Serafin v. Lindayag – The suspension of a civil servant for failure to pay
– A criminal complaint was filed against the a just and admitted debt is an administrative
accused for his failure to pay the PhP1,500 he sanction and it does not violate the prohibition
owes to his creditor, despite due notice. The judge against imprisonment for debt.
issued a warrant for the arrest of the defendant
– The Supreme Court annulled this act, declaring it
CHAPTER 17
to be violative of the prohibition against
imprisonment for debt INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
- Defined as the condition of one who is
 Sura v. Martin compelled by force, coercion or
– The defendant in a civil action was ordered imprisonment against his will to labor for
arrested for contempt of court because of his another whether he is paid or not
failure, due to his insolvency, to pay the plaintiff - Includes slavery: civil relation in which man
past and future support has absolute power over the life, fortune
– The arrest was declared invalid, as it authorized and liberty of another
his imprisonment for debt in violation of the - Includes peonage: condition of enforced
Constitution servitude by which the servitor is restrained
of his liberty and compelled to labor in
 Lozano v. Martinez liquidation of some debt or obligation real or
– Discussed the constitutionality of BP No. 22, with pretended against his will
regard to the constitutional prohibition for - Intended against the recurrence of much-
imprisonment for debt abhorred practice employed to excess by
– BP No. 22 punishes the act of making and issuing the past dictatorship of arresting political
a worthless check or a check that is dishonored critics and dissenters and sometimes even
upon its presentation for payment. As such, it is not without the filing of charges against them as
the nonpayment of the obligation which the law a means of punishing them for their
punishes. opposition to the administration

- Restraint of the individual so he can be - To prevent disruption to the detriment of the

compelled to work for another, be it the public of essential services being performed
government or a private party violates the by the strikers
constitutional guaranty subject to certain
exceptions  UNEMANCIPATED MINORS come under
the patria potestas
EXCEPTIONS :obliged to obey their parents so long as
- Punishment for a crime whereof the party they are under parental power and to
shall have been duly convicted observe respect and reverence toward them
: malefactors may be validly punished with always
imprisonment and compelled to work in
atonement for their crimes APPLICATION
- Person may not as a rule be compelled to Cuenca v. Salazar
accept a public office he may not refuse to - SC released on habeas corpus a
do so if position is intended for the defense housemaid who was being detained and
of the State required to render domestic services in
: Article 2 Section 4 – all citizens may be payment for the money advanced for her
required under conditions provided by law to transportation from the province
render personal military or civil service - Revised Penal Code: penalties are imposed
upon any person who in order to require or
People v. Zosa enforce the payment of a debt shall compel
- SC upheld National Defense Act requiring the debtor to work for him against his will as
able-bodied 20 year old males to undergo a household servant or farm laborer
military training in preparation for their duty
to defend the state Pollock v. Williams
- US SC declared unconstitutional a statute
 Persons may be validly pressed into service providing that any person who receives and
under the posse comitatus for the advance in consideration of his promise to
apprehension of criminals perform some work but subsequently fails or
US v. Pompeya refuses to do so shall be presumed prima
- SC declared that in the pursuit of persons facie to have induced the advance with
who have violated the law such as brigands, intent to defraud: effect of such presumption
authorities might command all male would be to compel him to perform the work
inhabitants of certain age to assist them for fear of criminal prosecution in violation of
- Justified under police power the prohibition against involuntary servitude
Kaisahan ng manggagawa sa kahoy v. Gotamco Imbong v. Ochoa

Sawmills - Constitutionality of Sec. 17 of RH Law
- Striking workers in industries affected with requiring private and non government health
public interest may be required to return to care service providers to render 48 hours of
their work pending settlement of the labor pro bono reproductive health services,
dispute saying it amounts to involuntary servitude
because it required medical practitioners to
perform acts against their will

- SC Disagreed: practice of medicine is - To whom directed: to the person detaining

imbued with public interest for it involves the another, commanding him to produce the body of
very lives of the people and such power and the prisoner at the designated time and place, with
privilege to practice such requires certain the day and cause of his caption and detention, and
responsibility to do, to submit to, and to receive whatever the
- Subject to the power of congress to court awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf.
prescribe qualifications for the practice of
such profession - Inquiry of the writ: Whether or not the
- Involuntary Servitude connote presence of proceedings in the assailed order are, for any
force, threats, intimidation or other similar reason, null and void; to determine the legality of
means of coercion and compulsion: there is the restraint under which a person is held
none of these in the law assailed
- Here, it only encourages private and non- * Mere errors and irregularities, which do not render
government reproductive healthcare service the proceedings void are not grounds for relief by
providers to render pro bono service habeas corpus because, in such cases, the
- No penalty is imposed should they choose restraint is not illegal
to do otherwise - It should not be granted in advance of a trial. The
- Also enjoy liberty to choose which kind of orderly course of a trial must be pursued and the
reproductive healthcare service they wish to usual remedies must be exhausted before resorting
provide to the writ
- Conscientious objectors are exempt from - It is not issued / not granted in the following
this provision as long as their religious cases:
beliefs and convictions do not allow them to 1. When the person is in custody because of a
render reproductive health service, pro bono judicial process or a valid judgment; a
or otherwise person who is lawfully detained may not
CHAPTER 18 avail himself of this remedy.
2. When the law provides for other remedies in
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
the regular course
- It is a prerogative writ of liberty employed to test
3. When there is an absence of exceptional
the validity of a person‟s detention.
circumstances
- If a person is restrained of his liberty, he or
4. When the person in whose behalf the writ is
someone acting on his behalf, may file a petition for
sought is out on bail
habeas corpus to secure his release. This action
5. Where the decision is tainted only with
shall take precedence in the calendar of the court
errors of law
and must be acted upon immediately
6.
- It exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to
- If the alleged error does not go to the jurisdiction
relieve persons from unlawful restraint and as an
of the court, the proper remedy would be an
effective defense of personal freedom
ordinary appeal
- Purpose: to relieve a person from unlawful

- If the error alleged denial of the right to a speedy
restraint
trial the same is considered jurisdictional and may
be corrected on habeas corpus
- Parties: The petitioner (prisoner) and the person
holding the petitioner in custody
WHEN AVAILABLE

1. Restraint MONTENEGRO AND LANSANG DOCTRINE

- When the person is subjected to physical  Montenegro v. Castaneda
restraint, such as arbitrary detention, or – Posed the issue of whether the Supreme Court
even moral restraint. shall have the competence to ascertain the
existence of the grounds for the purpose of
2. Rightful custody of a minor determining the validity of the suspension
- It is also available in cases involving the – The Court held in the case that the determination
rightful custody over a minor of the President of the existence of the grounds
- General Rule: Parents should have should be conclusive upon the courts, as the
custody over their minor children President was in a better position to ascertain the
- Exception: The State has the right to real state of peace and order in the country
intervene where the parents, rather than
care for such children, treat them cruelly  Lansang v. Garcia
and abusively, impairing their growth and – It reversed the above-mentioned doctrine and
well-being and leaving them emotionally declared that the Supreme Court had the power to
scarred. inquire into the factual basis of the suspension and
to annul the same if no legal ground could be
3. For prisoners established.
- The prisoner may secure his release if he
was convicted by a court without jurisdiction  Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile
or where his sentence has become invalid – The Court reversed the decision in the case of
- The writ may also be resorted to in case of Lansang and revived the Montenegro doctrine
unlawful denial of bail when it held that the question was a political
question to be resolved solely by the President
PROCEDURE
1. When an application for habeas corpus is  1987 Consitution
filed and the court finds the petition in – Abrogated the ruling in Garcia-Padilla and
proper form, it will issue the writ as a matter expressly constitutionalized the Lansang doctrine
of course, ordering the production of the
person allegedly detained and requiring the SUSPENSION OF PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT
respondent to justify the detention - Article III, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution
provides that “the privilege of the writ of habeas
2. Response of the respondent corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of
a. If it was shown that the person in invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
custody is being held for a crime requires it”
covered by the proclamation
suspending the privilege of the writ - It must be noted that it is not the writ itself, but
and in a place where it is effective, only its privilege that may be suspended
the court will dismiss the petition
b. In all other cases, the court will - The suspension of the privilege is the exception
continue the proceedings to and not the rule itself. The rule is the affirmation
determine the validity of the person‟s and not the limitation of liberty
detention

- In the absence of the exceptional circumstances Supreme Court must decide the challenge
mentioned, the privilege of the writ of habeas within 30 days from the time it is filed.
corpus may not be suspended and the individual 8. The challenge may be filed by any citizen
shall be entitled to the full protection of the writ 9. Martial law does not automatically suspend
against any attempt to restrain him the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
the operation of the Constitution
GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OF PRIVILEGE 10. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of
AND LIMITATIONS habeas corpus shall apply only to those
- The President is entrusted with the power to persons facing charges of rebellion or
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, offenses inherent in or directly connected
subject to certain limitations and conditions, with invasion.
which may be summarized as follows: 11. A person arrested for such offenses must
1. The grounds for the suspension of the be judicially charged therewith within three
privilege of the writ and the proclamation of days. Otherwise, he shall be released.
martial law are limited to invasion or
rebellion when the public safety requires it. ILAGAN CASE (Ilagan v. Enrile)
2. The duration of such suspension or A. Facts
proclamation shall not exceed 60 days, – Atty Ilagan, Atty. Arellano, and Atty. Risoner were
following which it shall be automatically all arrested on the basis of a mission order signed
lifted by General Echevarria.
3. Within 48 hours after such suspension or – A petition for habeas corpus was then filed on
proclamation, the President shall personally behalf of the three lawyers
or in writing report his action to the – The respondents contended that the detainees
Congress were covered by a preventive detention action
4. If not in session, the Congress shall issued against them and that the privilege of the
convene within 24 hours following the writ of habeas corpus was suspended as to them.
proclamation or suspension
5. The Congress may, by a majority vote of all B. Original Decision
its members voting jointly, revoke his action. – For lack of evidence linking them to such acts,
This revocation may not be set aside by the the Supreme Court ordered their temporary release
President on the recognizance of their principal counsel.
6. By the same vote and in the same manner,
the Congress may, upon the initiative of the C. Motion for Reconsideration
President, extend his suspension or – The respondents stated that an Information for
proclamation for a period to be determined rebellion was filed against the detained attorneys
by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion before the RTC of Davao and that a warrant of
shall continue and if the public safety arrest had been issued against them
requires it – They argued that the petition should be dismissed
7. The action of the President and the for being moot and academic
Congress shall be subjected to review by
the Supreme Court, which shall have the D. Resolution
authority to determine the sufficiency of the – The Court granted their motion, and held that the
factual basis of such action. It is no longer petition had indeed been rendered moot and
considered a political question. The

academic by the subsequent filing of an Information - Not only direct evidence, but also circumstantial
against the lawyers. evidence, indicia, and presumptions may be
– They said that the principal function of the special considered, so long as they lead to the conclusion
proceeding of habeas corpus is to inquire into the consistent with the admissible evidence adduced
legality of one‟s incarceration
– Since the attorneys have been incarcerated by - It must be shown by the required quantum of
virtue of a judicial order, the remedy of habeas proof that their disappearance was carried out by,
corpus no longer lies or with the authorization, support, or acquiescence
of, the government or a political organization,
E. Dissent followed by a refusal to acknowledge the same, or
– The majority decision was based on the give information on the fate or whereabouts of the
erroneous premise that the trial court had persons
jurisdiction to issue the warrant of arrest and that
the denial of a preliminary investigation of the - Who may file:
petition was a mere informality or defect 1. Immediate family or relative of the
– The trial court was totally devoid and ousted of aggrieved party
jurisdiction to issue the warrant because of the 2. If there is no known member of the
gross denial to the petitioners of their constitutional immediate family, any concerned citizen,
right to due process organization, association, or institution may
file it
WRIT OF AMPARO
- This petition is a special proceeding and a remedy - Extralegal killings and enforced
available to any person whose right to life, liberty disappearances
and security is violated or threatened with violation – the arrest, detention, abduction, or any
by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or other form of deprivation of liberty by agents
employee, or of a private individual or entity of the State or by persons or groups of
persons acting with their authorization,
- It is an extraordinary remedy adopted to address support, or acquiescence, followed by a
the special concerts of extra-legal killings and refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of
enforced disappearances liberty or by concealment of the fate or
whereabouts of the disappeared person,
- Under this writ, the courts can order the which place such a person outside the
respondent to exert more and actual effort in protection of the law.
locating the missing person and showing that he is – Elements:
in good condition and is not maltreated by the a) That there be an arrest, detention,
authorities abduction, or any form of deprivation of
liberty
- It provides more protection to him than is available b) That it be carried out by, or with the
under the writ of habeas corpus authorization, support, or acquiesce of
the State or a political organization
- Quantum of proof: mere substantial evidence is c) That it be followed by the State or
required political organization‟s refusal to
acknowledge or give information on the

fate or whereabouts of the person 8. To address fears of persons who anticipate

subject of the amparo petition the possibility of more harassment cases,
d) That the intention for such refusal is to false accusations, and potential violence
remove the subject person from the from respondents (Sps. Nerio and Pador v.
protection of the law for a prolonged Barangay Captain Arcayan)
period of time
- The alleged threat must be actual, and not merely
* Even if the writ was issued against a private one of supposition or with the likelihood of
individual, still, government involvement in the happening; only actual threats can qualify as a
disappearance remains an indispensable element violation that may be addressed under the Rule on
- It was not issued in the following circumstances / the writ
cases:
1. Mere inclusion of persons‟ names in an WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
“order of battle list” (Ladaga v. Mapagu) - Intended to insure the human right to privacy by
requiring the respondent to produce the necessary
2. To address the fear of being abducted or information to locate the missing person or such
killed by the petitioner (Re: Saez v. data about him that have been gathered in secret to
Macapagal-Arroyo) support the suspicion that he has been taken into
custody in violation of his constitutional right or,
3. In favor of persons merely in the custody of worse, salvaged without the benefit of a lawful trial
the police and allegedly under the threat of
deprivation of liberty (Salcedo v, Bollozos) - It may also be sought to secure destruction of
such secret information gathered in violation of the
4. For the protection of property or commercial person‟s right to privacy to justify summary action
rights (Roxas v. Macapagal Arroyo; Tapuz against him by the government or any private entity
v. del Rosario)
- Conceptualized as a judicial remedy for enforcing
5. In connection with the threatened demolition the right to privacy, most especially the right to
of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of informational privacy of the individual
the court (Canlas v. Napico Homeowners‟
Association) - It operates to protect a person‟s right to control
information regarding himself, particularly where
6. To secure the release of a person charged such is being collected through unlawful means in
with qualified theft who was then in a order to achieve unlawful ends
hospital
(So v. Tacla) - Indispensable requirement: a showing, at least
by circumstantial evidence, of an actual or
7. Against a security guards who do not work threatened violation of the right to privacy in life,
for the government and are not shown to liberty, or security of the victim
have any link or connection to some covert
police, military, or government operation - It requires concrete allegations of unjustified and
(Navia v. Pardico) unlawful violation of the tight to privacy related to
the right to life, liberty, or security

CASES 3. To define and impose the

A. Habeas Corpus appropriate remedies to address
 Caunca v. Salazar the disappearance
– A housemaid is prevented from leaving her
employ because of the influence of the person  Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo
detaining her – The Court declared that the President, as
– This was considered by the Court as a moral Commander-in-Chief, can be held responsible or
restraint, which is a ground for the issuance of the accountable for extrajudicial killings and enforced
writ disappearances in the context of amapro
proceedings on the basis of the doctrine of
 In the matter of the petition of Habeas command responsibility
Corpus of Rodriguez – The requisites of the doctrine are as follows:
– A nephew who had been taking care of his a) The existence of a superior-
grandmother filed a petition for a writ of habeas subordinate relationship between
corpus against his relatives when they had taken the accused as superior and the
her away from him perpetrator as his subordinate
– The Court ruled he was not entitled to the b) The superior knew or had reason
issuance of the writ, there being no showing that to know that the crime was about
the grandmother was being detained or restrained to be or had been committed
of her liberty c) The superior failed to take the
necessary and reasonable
 Ampatuan v. Macaraig measures to prevent the criminal
– A habeas corpus petition was filed by a police acts or punish perpetrators
officer who sought to be liberated from his thereof
superiors‟ order placing him under restrictive – The President necessarily possesses control over
custody and monitoring of movements or the military and that qualifies him as a superior
whereabouts within the purview of the doctrine.
– It was held that it was, at best, nominal restraint – He can be presumed to have knowledge of the
that is beyond the ambit of habeas corpus. It was commission of irregularities, crimes, or offenses
neither effective nor actual restraint that would call pertinent to extrajudicial killings and enforced
for the grant of the remedy prayed for. disappearances
– It is a permissible precautionary measure to
assure the PNP authorities that the police officers  Balao v. Macapagal-Arroyo
concerned are always accounted for. – The Court clarified that in amparo proceedings,
the commanders may be impleaded, not actually on
B. Amparo the basis of command responsibility, but rather on
 Burgos v. Esperon the ground of their responsibility, or at least
– The Supreme Court declared that its role in a writ accountability
of amparo proceeding is merely to determine the
following:
1. Whether an enforced
disappearance has taken place
2. To determine who is responsible
or accountable

: embodies several new rules aimed against

delay in the administration of justice by
judicial and administrative tribunals
 Article 8 Section 5(3): SC is now expressly

CHAPTER 19 permitted to temporarily assign a judge from
SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES one station to another when the public
- “Justice delayed is justice denied” interest so requires, when there is a
- In Philippine context, cases are known to necessity for a less occupied judge to help a
drag for years busier colleague
: one of the reasons would be the number of  Paragraph 5 of Sec. 5 – Rules of court shall
litigations filed provide a simplified and inexpensive
: leniency of the procedural laws which procedure for the speedy disposition of
permit parties to employ gambits that only cases
result in delay in the decision of their cases  Article 5 Sec. 15(1) – maximum periods are
prescribed for the decision or resolution of
- Section 16, Bill of Rights cases
“all persons shall have the right to a speedy - 24 months in the case of the SC
disposition of their cases before all judicial, - 12 months all lower collegiate counts unless
quasi-judicial or administrative bodies” reduced by SC
: implementation depends ultimately upon - 3 months for all lower courts
the SC, no paragon of speedy justice either
but is not entirely its fault.  Article 9-A Section 7 – each Con Comm
Vector Shipping Corporation v. Macasa shall decide by a majority vote of all its
- Claims of the heirs of those who died when members any case or matter brought before
MV Dona Paz sank more than 20 years it within 60 days from its submission for
earlier decision or resolution
- Vigorous efforts exerted by petitioners to
further delay the final resolution of their  General Principle – rules prescribing the
petition to the evident prejudice of the time within which certain acts must be done
respondents who had anticipated the same or certain proceedings taken are considered
for more than two decades absolutely indispensable to the prevention
- SC said that to await the review of of needless delays and the orderly and
Department of National Defense of BMI speedy discharge of judicial business; these
findings would limit the courts‟ jurisdiction to rules are regarded as mandatory
try, hear and decide cases filed before them
- Prolong the Macasas‟ agony but would
result in another tragedy at the expense of  Constitutional right is not limited to the
speedy justice accused in criminal proceedings but
extends to all parties in all cases
 Constitution reiterates this concept in : any party to a case may demand
Section 14(2) on the rule that the accused expeditious action to all officials who are
shall be entitled to a speedy trial tasked with the administration of justice

 SC consistently held that the dismissal of a. Length of delay

the case for violation of this right is the b. Reason for delay
general rule although it may be deemed c. Assertion or failure to assert
waived if not seasonably invoked before the such right by the accused
trial court, generally not be raised for the d. Prejudice caused by the delay
first time on appeal
Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan
Ombudsman v. Jurado - Passage of time may make it difficult or
- Lapse of 2 years from submission of a fact impossible for the government to carry its
finding report and recommendation burden
- Cannot be considered as inordinate delay - For the Government to sustain its right to try
- Guaranty is a flexible concept: facts the accused despite delay it must show 2
surrounding each case must be evaluated things
and taken into account 1. That accused suffered no serious
- Speedy disposition : Only applicable to prejudice beyond that which ensued
proceedings attended by vexatious, from the ordinary and inevitable delay
capricious and oppressive delays 2. No more delay than is reasonably
: unjustified postponements of the trial are attributable to the ordinary processes of
sought and secured justice
: without cause or justifiable motive, a long - Closely related to the length of delay is the
period of time is allowed to elapse without reason thereof. Different weights should be
the party having his case tried. assigned to different reason or justifications
: MERE MATHEMATICAL RECKONING OF invoked by the state
TIME INVOLVED IS NOT DETERMINANT
OF THE CONCEPT Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan
- Delay in proceedings could be excused by
Rules for purposes of determining the the fact that the case had to undergo careful
existence of delay in cases review and revision through different levels
1. Fixed Time Period Rule – there is delay in the ombudsman before it is finally
if the proper resolution of the case is not approved
done within a specified period of time - Preliminary investigation proceedings were
terminated only on May 21, 2009, 8 years
2. Demand-Waiver Rule – Defendant is after the filing of the complaint upon
considered to have waived any approval of the resolution and information
consideration of his right to a speedy which was prepared 6 years earlier
trial for any period prior to which he has - March 27, 2003: 2 years after complaint
not demanded trial was filed, court acquitted the accused
: prior demand is necessary because of the violation of the right to
speedy disposition
3. Balancing Test – applicable in Philippine - Not Cosculluela‟s duty to follow up on the
jurisdiction prosecution of their case
- Conduct of both prosecution and - Ombudsman‟s responsibility to expedite the
defense are weighed same within the bounds of reasonable
- Following factors to be considered

timeliness in view of its mandate to promptly SECTION 1 v. SECTION 14(1)

act on all complaints lodged before it
- Defendant has no duty to bring himself to SECTION 1 SECTION 14(1)
trial Deals with due process Restricted to criminal
- State has duty of insuring that the trial is in general cases only
consistent with due process Applies to all kinds of
proceedings – be it civil,
People v. Sandiganbayan criminal, or
- Fact-finding investigation should not be administrative
deemed separate from preliminary Covers both substantive Purely focuses on the
investigation conducted by the ombudsman and procedural aspects procedural requirements
if the aggregate time for both constitutes of due process
inordinate and oppressive delay in the
disposition of any case PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS
- Denying the accused the right to preliminary
CHAPTER 20 investigation, as required by law, will constitute a
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSSED denial of due process
CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS - The right to a preliminary investigation is not
among the rights granted to the accused in the Bill
- Article III, Section 14(1) of 1987 Constitution
of Rights. It is a purely statutory right.
provides: “No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law” ᴸ HOWEVER, a denial of this right, in the absence
of a waiver, will violate (criminal) due process.
- Criminal due process requires that the accused be
tried by an impartial and competent court in - In the case of Sales v. Sandiganbayan, the Court
accordance with the procedure prescribed by law stressed that while the right to preliminary
and with proper observance of all the rights investigation is a statutory right rather than a
constitutional right, it is a component part of due
accorded to him under the Constitution and the
process in criminal justice. To deny the accused‟s
applicable statutes
- Under the abovementioned definition, the claim to a preliminary investigation would be to
following conditions must be present: deprive him of the full measure of his right to due
1. Trial by an impartial and competent process.
court - While preliminary investigations are not quasi-
judicial proceedings, the conduct of such is subject
2. Trial in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by law to the requirements of both substantive and
3. Proper observance of all the rights procedural due process
accorded to the accused under the - It is considered a judicial proceeding wherein the
Constitution and the applicable prosecutor or investigating officer, by the nature of
his functions, acts as a quasi-judicial officer.
statute
ᴸ The authority of a prosecutor or investigating
officer duly empowered to conduct a preliminary
investigation is no less than that of a judge.
- Upon the filing of the complaint, the prosecutor
shall take the appropriate action based on the
affidavits and other supporting documents
submitted by the complainant.

ᴸ The prosecutor may either: 1. The accused from freely making his
1. Dismiss the complaint if he does not defense; or
see sufficient reason to proceed with 2. The judge from freely arriving at his
the case; or decision.
2. File the information, if he finds
probable cause DUE PROCESS DENIED
1. Where the judgment rendered by the
- General Rule: Denial of the right to preliminary lower court is not on the basis of the
investigation would deprive the accused of the full merits of the testimony of the witness,
measure of due process but rather on the basis of his person and
- Exception: past performance (People v. Sanchez,
1. Ombudsman 2008)
ᴸ The Ombudsman has full discretion to determine 2. Where a person is impleaded for the
whether a criminal case should be filed, including violation of a law, administrative
whether a preliminary investigation is warranted regulation, or municipal ordinance not
ᴸ The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman previously published, as he would not
need not conduct a preliminary investigation know what acts he must do or avoid to
upon receipt of a complaint if it is found to be prevent criminal prosecution.
“utterly devoid of merit” by his investigating 3. Where appeal is permitted by the
prosecutors Constitution or by statute, denial thereof
ᴸ The power of the Ombudsman to dismiss a will also violate due process.
complaint outright without a preliminary
investigation was upheld in a number of cases. CASES
2. Accused pleads to the charge A. Preliminary Investigations
ᴸ When an accused pleads to the charge, he is  Salonga v. Pano
deemed to have waived the right to preliminary - Petitioner moved for the dismissal of
investigation and the right to question any the subversion charges against him
irregularity that surrounds it on the ground of lack of a prima
facie case. The Supreme Court
TRIAL upheld his motion.
- The basic ingredient of criminal due process - The Court found that the supposed
- It should be conducted with the rudiments of fair evidence against him was extremely
play tenuous, testimony of the supposed
- The accused has a right to complain if the judge witnesses contradictory and
has a personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome incredible, etc.
of the case, such as in the following cases: ᴸ According to the Court, the respondent judge
1. Where he is allowed to share the fines he should have taken these factors into consideration
may impose (Tumey v. Ohio) before concluding that a prima facie case exists
2. Where he is covered by the disqualification against the petitioner
enumerated in Rule 137, Section 1 of the - They stressed the citizen‟s right to
Rules of Court be free, not only from arbitrary arrest
- MISTRIAL – may be declared if it is shown that and punishment, but also from
the proceedings were held under such unwarranted and vexatious
circumstances as would prevent either: prosecution.

- A preliminary investigation serves courtroom, intimidating the defense

not only the purposes of the State. It counsel and their clients, and
is a part of the guarantee of freedom practically compelling a conviction.
and fair play, which are birthrights of  Sheppard v. Maxwell
all those who live in our country. o The proceedings were annulled
ᴸ Therefore, it is imperative upon the judge or fiscal where a massive persecution
to relieve the accused from the pain of going campaign was launched against the
through a trial, once it is ascertained that the defendant by the newspapers and,
evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie by this adverse trial by publicity, the
case, or that no probable cause exists. minds of the jurors were poisoned,
resulting to his being declared guilty.
B. Trial / Mistrial  Martelino v. Alejandrino
 Galman v. Sandiganbayan - The Supreme Court held that the
o The case concerns the second spate of publicity in the case did not
motion for reconsideration of the focus on the guilt of the petitioners,
decision of Sandiganbayan in but rather on the responsibility of the
acquitting all of the accused in the Government for what was claimed to
slaying of Benigno S. Aquino and be a „massacre‟ of Muslim trainees.
Rolando Galman - Absent in the case is a showing of
o The Court created a fact-finding the failure of the court martial to
commission that concluded that the protect the accused from massive
trial had been rigged and the publicity encouraged by those
acquittal pre-ordained by President connected with the conduct of the
Marcos. trial, either by failure to control the
o The Court annulled the proceedings release of information, or remove the
of the respondent court and ordered trial to another venue, or to postpone
a new trial of the case. it until the deluge of prejudicial
o They declared that the interference publicity subsided.
and pressure of the President was
vioative of due process and C. Other Cases on Criminal Due Process
prevented a fair and impartial trial.  Rochin v. California
o The criminal collusion as to the - Police authorities forced an emetic
handling and treatment of the cases solution through a tube in the
by the public respondent completely stomach of a suspect to eject two
disqualified Sandiganbayan and narcotic pills he had swallowed to
voided ab initio its verdict. prevent their use as evidence
o The Court declared the sham trial a against him
mock trial and that the pre- - The U.S. Supreme Court absolved
determined acquittal was unlawful the accused, describing the acts of
and void ab initio. the police officers as “too close to
 Moore v. Dempsey the rack and the screw”
o The proceedings were annulled  Breithanpat v. Abram
where it was shown that a mob had - A doctor extracted a small amount of
crowded into and surrounded the blood from a person while he was

unconscious to determine whether 1. As long as the questions will tend to

or not he was intoxicated at the time incriminate, the witness is entitled to the
of the vehicular accident in which he privilege.
was involved. - In all other cases, he may not
- It was held that the said act and the refuse to answer, provide that the
subsequent use of the results of the question is (1) relevant and
blood test as evidence against him otherwise (2) allowed, even if the
did not violate due process. answer may tend to embarrass him
or subject him to civil liability
2. The kernel of the right is against, not all
SELF-INCRIMINATION
compulsion, but testimonial compulsion
only
- A person may be compelled to
provides: “No person shall be compelled to be a
submit to a physical examination of
witness against himself.”
his body to determine his
- Basis: humanitarian and practical considerations
involvement in an offense of which
1. Humanitarian – intended to prevent the
he was accused
State, with all its coercive powers, from
o The Constitutional prohibition of
extracting from the suspect testimony that
compelling a man in a criminal court
may convict him
to be a witness against himself is a
2. Practical – a person subjected to such
prohibition on the use of physical or
compulsion is likely to perjure himself for his
moral compulsion to extort
own protection
communication from him, not an
- When available: available in all government
exclusion of his body as evidence
proceedings, including civil actions and
when it may be material.
administrative or legislative investigations
ᴸ The right of the accused against self-incrimination
RIGHT MAY BE INVOKED
may be invoked in administrative investigations
1. The prohibition applies to the compulsion for
that partake the nature of or are analogous to
the production of documents, papers, and
criminal proceedings
chattels that may be used as evidence
- Who may claim:
against the witness.
1. Person accused of an offense
o Exception: where the State has the
2. Any witness to whom an incriminating
right to inspect the same, such as
person is addressed
the books of accounts of
ᴸ Witnesses or resource persons in legislative
corporations, under the police
inquires neither stand as accused in a criminal
power.
case, nor will they be subjected to any penalty by
2. The privilege protects the accused against
reason of their testimonies. Hence, they cannot
any attempt to compel him to furnish a
altogether decline appearing before the
specimen of his handwriting in connection
respondent, although they may invoke the
with his prosecution
privilege when a question calling for an
o The Court explained in the case of
incriminating answer is propounded.
Beltran v. Samson, that writing is
something more than moving the
CONDITIONS
body, or the hand, or the fingers. It is

not a purely mechanical act because 2. When an accused takes the witness stand
it requires the application of and offers testimony on his behalf. In this
intelligence and attention. In the case, the witness may be cross-examined
case of Beltran, the petition, if and asked incriminating questions on any
compelled, would furnish a means to matter he testified to on direct examination.
determine whether or not he is the
falsifier CASES
A. (Non-)Testimonial Compulsion
RIGHT MAY NOT BE INVOKED  U.S. v. Tan
1. Where the question asked relates to a past o A person charged with rape was
criminality for which the witness can no examined for gonorrhea, which may
longer be prosecuted, as where the crime have been transmitted to the victim.
has: o The Supreme Court held that the
a. already prescribed; or examination was valid, saying that it
b. he has already been acquitted or was no different from examining his
convicted thereof. fingerprints or other parts or
2. Where he has been previously granted ffeatures of his body for identification
immunity under a validly enacted statute purposes.
 Villaflor v. Summers
WHEN AVAILABLE o Woman accused of adultery was
- General Rule: The privilege against self- examined to ascertain if she was
incrimination may be invoked only when and as the pregnant.
incriminating question is asked (Rule for ordinary o Quoting Justice Holmes, the
witnesses) Supreme Court held in the case that
ᴸ This is because the witness has no way of the Constitutional prohibition of
knowing in advance the nature or effect of the compelling a man in a criminal court
question to be propounded to him. to be a witness against himself is a
- Exception: In the case of the accused himself, prohibition on the use of physical or
he can refuse at the outset and altogether to take moral compulsion to extort
the stand as a witness, on the reasonable communication from him, not an
assumption that the purpose of his interrogation will exclusion of his body as evidence
be to incriminate him when it may be material.
 Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs
WAIVER o Section 36(f) of the Comprehensive
- The right may be waived, either directly or by Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA
failure to invoke it, provided that: 9165) requires that “all persons
1. The waiver is certain and unequivocal; and charged before the prosecutor‟s
2. The waiver is intelligently, understandingly, office with a criminal offense having
and willingly made. an imposable penalty of not less
- The following were considered to have waived than 6 years and 1 day shall
the privilege: undergo a mandatory drug test”
1. One who under subpoena duces tecum o In declaring the provision violative
voluntarily surrenders an incriminating of the right against self-incrimination,
paper which is put in evidence against him as well as the right to privacy, the

Court declared that it found no valid is shot at him, an accused may

justification for mandatory drug altogether refuse to take the
testing for persons accused of witness stand and refuse to
crimes. answer any and all questions.
o In case of persons charged with a The reason for this is that, in
crime before the prosecutor‟s office, reality, the purpose of calling an
a mandatory drug testing can never accused as a witness for the
be random or suspicionless. People would be to incriminate
o These concepts are antithetical to him.
their being made defendants in a - The above-mentioned rule
criminal complaint. They are not intends to avoid and prohibit the
randomly picked; neither are they certainly inhuman procedure of
beyond suspicion compelling a person to furnish
- To impose a mandatory drug the missing evidence necessary
testing on the accused is a for his conviction.
blatant attempt to harness a
medical test as a tool for criminal CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
prosecution. - Article III, Section 12 of 1987 Constitution
B. When may the right be invoked provides:
 Chavez v. CA (1) Any person under investigation for the
- The prosecutor called the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
accused as his first witness. The informed of his right to remain silent and to have
accused objected, invoking his competent and independent counsel preferably of
right against self-incrimination. his own choice. If a person cannot afford the
He was compelled to testify service of counsel, he must be provided with one.
under pressure from the court. These rights cannot be waived except in writing
He was thereafter convicted on and in the presence of counsel.
the strength of the testimony
elicited from him. He filed a (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation,
petition for habeas corpus. or any other means which vitiate the free will shall
- The Supreme Court granted his be used against him. Secret detention places,
petition, noting that the solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of
petitioner-accused was detention are prohibited.
peremptorily asked to create
evidence against himself. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in
- The Court stressed that an violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
accused occupies a different tier inadmissible in evidence against him.
of protection from an ordinary
witness. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil
- Whereas an ordinary witness sanctions for violations of this section as well as
may be compelled to take the compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of
witness stand and claim the torture or similar practices, and their families.
privilege as each question - It refers to any questioning initiated by law
requiring an incriminating answer enforcement officers after a person has been taken

into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of 1. Situations where the statements are
action in any significant way. spontaneously made, as when it was the
- It begins when: accused himself who went to the police
1. there is no longer a general inquiry into an station and voluntarily made the statement
unsolved crime; and eventually used as evidence against him at
2. the investigation has started to focus on a his trial.
particular person as a suspect – i.e., when 2. Right to counsel, in particular, may not be
the police officer starts interrogating or invoked by “resource persons” in the public
exacting a confession from the suspect in hearings conducted by Congress
connection with an alleged offense. ᴸ While a party‟s right to the assistance of counsel
- It presupposes that he is suspected of having is sacred in proceedings criminal in nature, there is
committed a crime and that the investigator is trying no such requirement in administrative
to elicit information or a confession from him. proceedings. Administrative bodies are under no
- The rule begins to operate at once, as soon as: duty to provide the person with counsel because
1. the investigation ceases to be a general assistance of counsel is not an absolute
inquiry into an unsolved crime; and requirement.
2. direction is aimed upon a particular suspect ᴸ Assistance of counsel is not indispensable in
who has been taken into custody and to administrative proceedings
whom the police would then direct 3. Right may not be invoked in administrative
interrogatory questions investigations
- Any objection with respect to a violation of these ᴸ Section 12 is limited to criminal investigations
rights must be raised before arraignment
REQUISITES OF ADMISSIBLE EXTRAJUDICIAL
RIGHT MAY BE INVOKED CONFESSION
1. In preliminary investigations and in certain - The extrajudicial confession must be:
pre-trial proceedings that can be deemed 1. Voluntary;
„critical stages‟ in the criminal process 2. With the assistance of counsel;
ᴸ People v. Sunga: The preliminary investigation 3. In writing; and
can be no different from the in-custody 4. Express
interrogations by the police, for a suspect who
takes part in a preliminary investigation will be MIRANDA CASE
subjected to no less than the State‟s processes, - In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the
oftentimes intimidating and relentless, of pursuing U.S. Supreme Court laid the fundamental principles
those who might be liable for criminal prosecution. and guidelines to be followed during custodial
2. According to R.A.7438, custodial investigations:
investigation shall include the practice of 1. The prosecution may not use statements,
issuing an „invitation‟ to a person who is whether exculpatory or inculpatory,
investigated in connection with an offense stemming from the custodial interrogation of
he is suspected to have committed, without the defendant, unless it demonstrates the
prejudice to the liability of the „inviting‟ use of the procedural safeguards (as
officer for any violation of the law mentioned below) effective to secure the
privilege against self-incrimination
RIGHT MAY NOT BE INVOKED 2. Prior to any questioning, the person must be
warned:

a. that he has a right to remain silent; discourage attempts to secure confessions through
b. that any statement he does make violence.
may be used as evidence against - Claims of torture are easily concocted and
him; and cannot be given credence, unless substantiated by
c. that he has a right to the presence of competent and independent corroborating
an attorney, either retained or evidence, like medical certificates.
appointed.
3. The defendant may waive effectuation of RIGHT TO COUNSEL
these rights, provided that the waiver is - Section 12 stresses the right of a person under
made voluntarily, knowingly, and investigation to “competent and independent
intelligently. counsel, preferably of his own choice” to be
4. If he indicates in any manner and at any provided free if he cannot afford counsel de parte.
stage of the process that he wishes to - This right, along with the other rights guaranteed
consult with an attorney before speaking, in Subsection 1, may be waived by the suspect so
there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the long as:
individual indicates in any manner that he 1. He does this in writing; and
does not wish to be questioned, the police 2. In the presence of counsel, who has
may not question him. presumably advised him
5. The mere fact that he may have answered
some questions or volunteered some POLICE LINE-UP
statements on his own does not deprive him - The Court overturned their ruling in People v.
of the right to refrain from answering any Macam in recent cases. The jurisprudence, as it
further inquiries until he has consulted with stands at present, is that the right to counsel is not
an attorney and thereafter consents to be available during a police line-up as this is not
questioned. considered part of the custodial investigation.
- A police line-up is not part of the custodial
SECTION 12(2) investigation, hence, the right to counsel cannot yet
- More protection is accorded to the suspect who be invoked at this stage.
otherwise may be easily pressured, by physical - Reason:
force or other forms of compulsion, including the 1. The process has not yet shifted from the
condition of being held incommunicado or in investigatory to the accusatory
solitary confinement or being held in secret 2. It is usually the witness or the complainant
detention places, into making damaging who is interrogated and who gives a
confessions statement in the course of the line-up
- Relative to this, Justice Fernando declared that ● OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATIONS
the imperative requirements of truth and humanity - It may be done in any of the following ways:
condemn the utilization of force and violence to 1. Show-ups – the suspect alone is
extract confessions from unwilling victims. A brought face-to-face with the witness
desirable end cannot be attained by for identification
unconstitutional means. 2. Mug shots – the photographs are
- In People v. Barros, the Court made a reminder shown to the witness to identify the
that the swearing officers should have the suspect
confessants physically examined by independent
doctors before administering the oath, to

3. Line-ups – a witness identifies the bags seized from him and eventually
suspect from a group of persons used as evidence against him.
lined up for that purpose o The Court construed the accused‟s
- In resolving the admissibility and relying on act of affixing his signatures as a
these out-of-court identifications, the court tacit admission of the crime charged.
must consider the following factors: o As the accused was not informed of
1. Witness‟ opportunity to view the his Miranda rights when he affixed
criminal at the time of the crime his signatures, the admission was
2. The witness‟ degree of attention at declared inadmissible evidence, for
that time having been obtained in violation of
3. The accuracy of any prior their constitutional rights.
description given by the witness  Oregon v. Mathiason
4. The level of certainty demonstrated - The U.S. Supreme Court held that if
by the witness at the identification a motorist who has been detained
5. The length of time between the pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is
crime and the identification subjected to treatment that renders
6. The suggestiveness of the him „in custody‟ for practical
identification procedure purposes, he will be entitled to the
full panoply of protections prescribed
SECTION 12(4) by Miranda.
- A new provision in which it is hoped that such  People v. Compil
abuses may be deterred and, if committed, - Upon the accused‟s arrest in
punished with the appropriate civil and criminal Quezon where he fled, he was
sanctions that, besides compensating the victims subjected by the police to informal
for their injuries, should also serve as a warning inculpatory interrogation that
against the repetition of such acts continued during their trip back to
- This section is reinforced by R.A. 7309 wherein Manila, where his formal
victims of unjust imprisonment, arbitrary or illegal investigation was conducted at the
detention, or violent crimes may file a claim for police station. He was not even
damages with the Board of Claims under the DOJ. assisted by counsel, who arrived the
following day.
CASES - The Supreme Court held that his
A. Right may be invoked right to counsel began in the
 People v. Bokingo interrogation that started in Quezon
o The Court considered as - The operative act is when the
inadmissible the statements of the police investigation is no longer a
accused made, without assistance of general inquiry into an unsolved
counsel, during his preliminary crime, but has begun to focus on a
investigation, during which he particular suspect who has been
mentioned his plan to kill the victim. taken into custody by the police to
 People v. Wong Chuen Ming carry out a process of interrogation
o The Court considered as that lends itself to eliciting
inadmissible the signatures affixed incriminatory statements.
by the accused on boxes and plastic

B. Right may not be invoked C. Inadmissibility in evidence / Accused being

 Berkemer v. McCarty informed of his rights
o A “roadside questioning” of a  People v. Buscato
motorist detained pursuant to a - The accused were convicted on the
routine stop has not been basis of extrajudicial confessions
considered as a custodial extracted through their maltreatment
investigation, or even a formal during their custodial investigation.
arrest. - Their conviction was reversed on
o BUT, take into consideration the the ground that the physical, mental
ruling in the case of Oregon v. and moral coercion exterted upon
Mathiason them rendered the confessions
 Tanenggee v. People inadmissible, as contrary to the
- A written statement made in the constitutional rights.
course of an administrative  People v. Ramos
investigation and given “voluntarily, - The Court excluded the admissions
knowingly, and intelligently” was made by the accused during his
held to be admissible in evidence custodial investigation.
against him. - Although there was evidence that he
 Aquino v. Paiste was appraised of his rights under the
- The Supreme Court declared that an provision, the Court observed that
amicable settlement, executed the appellant has only finished
before NBI agents, with the Grade 6, which means that he is not
assistance of counsel, presumed to adequately educated to understand
be competent and independent, is fully and fairly the significance of his
not and cannot partake of the nature constitutional rights to silence and
of an extrajudicial confession or consel.
admission - The Court stressed that it is not
- Instead, it is a contract between the enough that the police investigator
parties within the parameters of their merely informed him of his
mutually-recognized and admitted constitutional rights. The
rights and obligations. interrogating officer must have the
- The Court noted that the presence of patience in explaining these rights to
counsel then safeguarded the him.
petitioner‟s rights, even if the - The records of the case do not
custodial investigation did nt push reveal that these requirements were
through and precluded any threat of fully complied with, nor was there
violence, coercion, or intimidation. any showing that the appellant was
 Eugenio v. People represented by counsel during the
- The Court held that mere custodial investigation.
uncounseled „statement‟ made  People v. Gustafsson
during a custodial investigation, - The Court considered as
without any proof that the same was inadmissible the affidavit of the
used as prosecution evidence¸ accused
cannot serve to invalidate the trial

- The accused executed the affidavit - Uncounseled admissions to

without the assistance of counsel neighbors and barangay kagawads
and without first being informed of which were not made during
her right to remain silent shortly after custodial investigations have been
airport personnel found drugs inside admitted in evidence.
what was believed to be her trolley  People v. Buluran
bag. - Any allegation of violence of rights
- She admitted in the sworn statement during custodial investigation is
that she owned the luggage in which relevant and material only to cases
the drugs were found. She executed in which the extrajudicial admission
the document at the airport because or confession extracted becomes the
she was told then that she could basis of their conviction.
board her flight to Germany after she  People v. Galit
signed the document. However, she - The Court emphasized the proper
was instead taken to the NBI and the treatment of a person under
DOJ, and was thereafter charged custodial investigation.
and later prosecuted. - The confession was rejected
 People v. Lucero because of the proven torture
- The information elicited from the inflicted on the accused.
accused without his first being - Moreover, before his interrogation,
informed of his rights would be he was informed of his rights in a
inadmissible against him. lengthy statement followed by the
 People v. Andan question of whether he was ready to
- The Court considered as make his statement, to which he
admissible the uncounseled replied, “Opo”.
confessions made by the accused to - According to the Court, such long
a mayor, whom he treated as a question followed by a monosyllabic
confidante and who did not even answer does not satisfy the
question him, and voluntary requirements of the law that the
statements made to news reporters accused was informed of his
during a televised interview. rights
- However, they held as inadmissible  People v. Pecardal
confessions made during his - At the time the accused-appellant
custodial investigation leading to the was apprehended, he was only
subsequent discovery and seizure seventeen years old, which is a
from his house the evidence susceptible age.
eventually used against him. - A teenager could easily succumb to
 People v. Mayo the pressure exerted upon him by
- Uncounseled extrajudicial hardened investigators. Thus, the
statements given to barangay pressure in the case was irresistible.
tanods and barangay chairmen have  People v. Capitin
been considered as inadmissible - The confession of the accused was
 People v. Gil held to be completely inadmissible
because it was taken without the

observance of the safeguards issue and is otherwise not excluded

provided in the Bill of Rights for the by the law or rules, is not affected
protection of the accused facing even if taken in the course of the
custodial investigations. custodial investigation
- The Court noted that there was the  People v. Suarez
usual mechanical advise of the - The re-enactment of the crime in the
suspect‟s rights, followed by the absence of counsel is inadmissible
query of whether or not she was in evidence against the accused.
waiving her right to such assistance,  Abay v. People
followed by the stereotyped answer. - An extrajudicial confession obtained
- The answer of the accused thereto without the assistance of counsel but
could not have possibly been later affirmed by the accused in
composed by the accused in her open court was considered as
state of mind at the time, and given admissible against him
her limited knowledge of Tagalog  People v. Alvarez
- It is not believable that the organized - Where the confession is used as a
and ready and ready answer, with all circumstantial evidence to show the
its legal overtones, could have come probability of participation by the co-
from the 22-year-old housemaid conspirator, that confession is
who, on top of her deficiencies with receivable as evidence against a
the language of the law, was co-accused
presumably not thinking clearly at  People v. Bokingo
the time because she was under - An extrajudicial confession which is
strong emotional stress. inadmissible against an accused
- As with confessions written in because of a violation of his rights
advance by the police authorities, would likewise be inadmissible
the same disapprobation should against his co-accused
apply in cases were a confession  Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan
was signed by a person whose o An extrajudicial confession or
sanity was dubious, where the admission of one accused is
intelligence was not only limited but admissible only against the said
impaired. accused, but is inadmissible
 People v. Cabrera against the other accused
- The confession was rejected on the D. Extrajudicial Confession
strength of the medical evidence of  People v. Muit
the defendants‟ manhandling by the - The Court held that one of the
police authority. indicia of voluntariness in the
 People v. Hong Wai Pang execution of the petitioner‟s
- The infraction of the “Miranda extrajudicial statement is that it
Rights” render inadmissible only the contains many details and facts
extrajudicial confession or admission which the investigating officers could
made during such investigation. not have known and could not have
- The admissibility of other evidence, supplied without the knowledge and
provided that they are relevant to the information given by him.

- The extrajudicial statement shall be that the lawyer be able to advise and
considered to have been voluntarily assist his client from the time the
executed if the defendant: confessant answers the first
1. did not present evidence of question asked by the investigating
compulsion officer until the signing of the
2. did not institute any criminal extrajudicial confession
or administrative action  People v. Serzo
against his supposed - The right to counsel is not unlimited
intimidators - Where the accused repeatedly
3. where no physical evidence asked for postponement of his trial
of violence was presented on the ground that he is still looking
E. Right to Counsel for a counsel de parte, the court
 People v. Lucero should then appoint a counsel de
- The counsel de oficio was present at oficio for him.
the start of the custodial - The accused is merely given an
investigation but left after a while to option to be represented by a
attend the wake of the friend. counsel of his choice.
- The next morning, two CIS agents - When he neglects or refuses to
took Lucero and his signed exercise this option, the court shall
confession to the lawyer‟s house, appoint one for him.
and the lawyer simply asked him if
he had freely signed it. E. Objections with respect to a violation of the
- When the accused said yes, rights
obviously under the pressure from  People v. Concepcion
his military escort, the lawyer also - The Court stressed that it was “too
signed the confession to late in the day” for the appellants to
authenticate its regularity. raise the alleged illegalities after a
- The Court rejected this confession, valid information has been filed, the
holding that the Constitution requires accused arraigned, trial commenced
not just any kind of counsel, but and completed, and a judgment of
effective and vigilant counsel. conviction rendered.
 People v. Cachuela BAIL
- Whether or not an extrajudicial - Article III, Section 13 of 1987 Constitution
confession made with the assistance provides:
of a lawyer provided by the same All persons, except those charged with offenses
agency which was conducting the punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of
investigation can be considered as guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable
admissible in evidence. by sufficient sureties, or be released on
- The Supreme Court held that recognizance as may be provided by law. The right
Nabiglas‟ confession was not made to bail shall not be impaired even when the
with the assistance of a competent privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
and independent counsel Excessive bail shall not be required.
- An effective and vigilant counsel - It is the security given for the release of a person
necessarily and logically requires in custody of the law, furnished by him or a

bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance - Therefore, the accused is still entitled to bail if,
before any court as may be required. for example, he is charged with murder, and the
- Purpose: to secure their provisional release evidence adduced by the prosecution at the
- Who may avail of the right to bail: hearing on the petition for bail indicates only a case
1. One who is indicted (formally charged) and of homicide
under detention may petition for bail
2. Those who, although they have not yet BAIL HEARING vs. DETERMINATION OF
been formally charged, but is under PROBABLE CAUSE
investigation for the offense and detained, - A hearing on bail is separate and distinct from
may also petition for bail the initial hearing to determine the existence of
ᴸ Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides that “any probable cause.
person in custody who is not yet charged in court - The standard of strong evidence of guilt which
may apply for bail with any court in the province, is sufficient to deny bail to an accused is markedly
city, or municipality where he is held” higher than the standard of judicial probable cause
- Consequently, a person who is not in the custody which is sufficient to initiate a criminal case.
of law cannot ask for bail
- When may bail be availed: It may be availed as HEARING
matter of right in the following instances, according - Notice and hearing are required, whether bail is a
to the Revised Rules of Court matter of right or discretion.
1. Before or after conviction by the MeTC or - Hearing on the petition for bail is required to
MTC in cities; and satisfy due process. It may either be:
2. Before conviction by the RTC of an 1. Summary in nature; or
offense not punishable by reclusion 2. Held in the course of the trial itself
perpetua or life imprisonment ᴸ A separate hearing is not indispensable
- Note: There is no such this as “constructive bail” - Bail may not be granted upon mere ex parte
motion
THOSE ENTITLED TO BAIL - In a number of cases, the Court reaffirmed the
- General Rule: All those accused and under procedural necessity of a hearing, whether
detention may avail of bail summary or otherwise, relative to the grant of bail,
- Exception: especially in cases involving offenses punishable
1. Those charged with offenses punishable by by death, imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua,
reclusion perpetua, death, or life where bail is a matter of discretion
imprisonment, even if a lesser penalty may - Reliance on a previous order granting bail does
be imposed upon conviction owing to not justify the absence of a hearing in a
mitigating circumstances (Section 13, Article subsequent petition for bail
III, 1987 Constitution)
ᴸ Exception to the Exception: Even if the crime PROSECUTOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS
imputed to him is punishable by reclusion perpetua, - The fact that a public prosecutor may recommend
he is still entitled to bail if the evidence of guilt is bail for the accused would not warrant dispensing
not strong with the hearing
2. A Court may not release on bail an accused - The public prosecutor‟s recommendation of bail is
who has confessed to the crime (Valerio v. not material in deciding whether to conduct the
CA) mandatory hearing or not

- Their recommendation, while persuasive, does 5. Health and age of the accused
not necessarily bind the trial judge, in whom 6. Weight of evidence against him
alone the discretion to determine whether to grant 7. Probability of his appearing at the trial
bail or not is vested. 8. Forfeiture of other bonds by him
- Whatever the public prosecutor would 9. The fact that he was a fugitive from justice
recommend, including the amount of bail, would be when arrested
non-binding 10. Pendency of other cases which he is under
bond
DUTIES OF A JUDGE - The above guidelines should be observed to
- The duties of a judge once an application for bail prevent violation of the prohibition against
is filed are as follows: excessive bail
1. In all cases whether the bail is a matter of
right or discretion, notify the prosecutor of BAIL AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION
the hearing of the application for bail or - The grant of bail is a matter of discretion upon
require him to submit his recommendation conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable
2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment
conduct a hearing of the application for bail, It has been ruled that after one is convicted by the
whether or not the prosecution refuses to trial court, the presumption of innocence, and with
present evidence to show that the guilt of it, the constitutional right to bail, ends.
the accused is strong, for purposes of - ‘Tough on bail pending appeal’ policy – the
enabling the court to exercise its sound presence of bail-negating conditions mandate the
discretion denial or revocation of bail pending appeal, such as
3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is those circumstances deemed to be as grave as
strong based on the summary of evidence conviction by the trial court for an offense
of the prosecution punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, imprisonment, where bail is prohibited
discharge the accused upon approval of the
bail bond. Otherwise, the petition should be CHALLENGING LEGALITY OF THE ARREST,
denied etc.
- Section 26, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court
PROBABILITY OF ABSCONDING provides that an application for or admission to bail
- The mere probability of escape does not warrant shall not bar the accused from either:
the denial of the right to bail 1. Challenging the validity of his arrest
ᴸ The remedy is to increase the bail, provided that 2. Assailing the legality of the warrant issued
it is not excessive therefor
- BUT, after the conviction of the RTC, the accused 3. Assailing the regularity or questioning the
may be denied bail if there is risk of his absconding absence of a preliminary investigation of the
charge against him
GUIDELINES (AMOUNT OF BAIL) - The challenge must be raised before he enters
- The Court should consider the following: his plea
1. Financial ability of the accused to give bail - The court shall resolve the matter as early as
2. Nature and circumstances of the offense practicable, but not later than the start of the trial of
3. Penalty for the offense charged the case
4. Character and reputation of the accused

- The principle that the accused is precluded from - The respondent court fixed bail for
questioning the legality of his arrest after the appellant in the amount of
arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters his P5.5M, equivalent to his civil liability
plea and participates during trial, without previously to the complainant as found by the
invoking his objections thereto trial court.
- The Supreme Court reduced the
CASES amount to PhP200,000
 Pantilo v. Canoy - The Court ruled that bail is not
- The Court annulled the bail intended for punishment nor as a
“verbally” granted by the respondent satisfaction of civil liability, which
judge without any written application should necessarily await the
therefor judgment of the appellate court
- They emphasized that there is no  Leviste v. Alameda
such specie of bail as “constructive - It was held that the petitioner did not
bail” under the Rules of Court waive his right to challenge the
 Gacal v. Infante regularity of the reinvestigation of
- Even if the prosecution fails to the charge against him and the
adduce evidence in opposition to an legality of his arrest, especially
application for bail of an accused, considering that he vigorously raised
the court may still require the them prior to his arraignment.
prosecution to answer questions in - In the case, the petitioner refused to
order to ascertain, not only the enter his plea during his
strength of the State‟s evidence, but arraignment, since the issues he
also the adequacy of the amount of raised were still pending resolution
bail by the appellate court, thus
 De la Rama v. People‟s Court prompting the trial court to enter a
- The Court granted bail, even plea of not guilty for him
though the evidence of guilt was - The principle that the accused is
strong, in view of the illness of the precluded from questioning the
accused, which required his legality of his arrest after
hospitalization. arraignment is true only if he
 De la Camara v. Enage voluntarily enters his plea and
- The accused was required by the participates during trial, without
lower court to post bail in the amount previously invoking his objections
of PhP1,195,200.00 to secure his thereto
temporary liberty pending his trial for - There must be clear and convincing
multiple murder and multiple proof that the petitioner had an
frustrated murder actual intention to relinquish his right
- This is an example of a clearly to question the existence of probable
excessive bail, as the defendant cause
clearly did not have the funds for the  Ambil v. Sandiganbayan
excessive bail posted. The - The Court rejected the claim of a
defendant escaped. provincial governor that he had the
 Yap v. CA authority of a “provincial jailer”

- They emphasized that the power to - Because of the constitutional presumption of

order the release or transfer of a innocence afforded to the accused, it s required
person under detention by legal that there be sufficient evidence to remove every
process is vested in the court, not in vestige of reasonable doubt.
the provincial government, much - Absolute certainty is not demanded by the law
less the governor. to convict, but moral certainty is required, and this
certainty is required as to every proposition of proof
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE requisite to constitute the offense
- Article III, Section 14(2) of 1987 Constitution - It is incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate
provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused that the culpability lies.
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is - Only a showing of proof beyond reasonable
proved …” doubt would justify conviction.
- It must be emphasized that accusation is not - Suspicion, no matter how strong, must never
synonymous with guilt. sway judgment.
- In the Philippine jurisdiction, the accused is - Where there is reasonable doubt, the accused
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. must be acquitted even though their innocence may
- The Court emphasized this in the case of People not have been established.
v. Opida. They pronounced in the case that the - When the guilt is not proven with moral certainty,
scales of justice should even be tipped in favor of the presumption of innocence must be favored, and
the accused because of the constitutional exoneration must be granted as a matter of right
presumption of innocence, which is available to * Direct evidence is not the only basis on which a
every accused. court draws its findings of guilt. Established facts
- Purpose: the person accused is confronted by the that form a chain of circumstances can lead the
full panoply of State authority. It is important, mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of
therefore, in the interest of justice, to even the odds reasoning towards conviction.
by guaranteeing him certain rights during his trial.
- This presumption prevails until a promulgation of OVERCOMING PRESUMPTION
final conviction is made - The constitutional presumption may be overcome
by contrary presumptions based on human
DUTY OF THE PROSECUTION conduct, such as the following:
- The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome 1. Unexplained flight may lead to an
the presumption of innocence by presenting the inference of guilt, as the “wicked flee when
quantum of evidence required. no man persueth, but the righteous are as
- It is the responsibility of the prosecution to bold as the lion”
establish the defendant‟s guilt beyond reasonable ᴸ BUT, non-flight may not, on its own, stand as
doubt. Otherwise, he is entitled to an acquittal. “proof of innocence”.
- Conviction will depend not on the weakness of his 2. Escape from detention during the
defense, but on the strength of the prosecution pendency of the case before the pendency
- The onus probandi on the prosecution is not of the case before the trial court is itself an
discharged by casting doubts upon the innocence indication of his guilt
of the accused, but by elimination all doubts as to 3. Failure on the part of the accused to
his guilt explain his possession of stolen
property may give rise to the reasonable
QUANTUM OF PROOF

presumption that it was he himself who had 1. People v. Arciga: No inference of guilt may
stolen it. be drawn against an accused for his failure
4. Possession of dangerous drugs to make a statement of any sort. The
constitutes prima facie evidence of neglect or refusal of the accused shall not in
knowledge or animus possidendi and would any manner prejudice or be used against
be sufficient to convict him
ᴸ Exception: When the accused is able to present 2. People v. Solis: While the accused has the
a satisfactory explanation of his possession of the right to be silent, they run the risk of an
same inference from the non-production of
5. Inability of an accountable officer to evidence.
produce funds or property entrusted to 3. People v. Resano: Failure or refusal of the
him will be considered prima facie evidence accused to testify may prejudice him if the
that he has appropriated them to his prosecution has already established a
personal uses. prima facie case against him
- The constitutional presumption will not apply as
long as there is some rational connection between CASES
the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and A. Presumption of Innocence / Duty of the
the inference of one fact from proof of another shall Prosecution
not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary  People v. Sunga
mandate. - In this prosecution for the crime of
rape, the Supreme Court
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF OFFICIAL emphasized that although the
FUNCTIONS defense of the appellant was weak,
- This presumption cannot, by itself, affect the he nevertheless could not be
constitutional presumption of innocence enjoyed by convicted because of the
the accused, especially when the evidence of the constitutitional presumption of
prosecution is weak. innocence, especially since the
- In case of conflict between the presumption of evidence of the prosecution was
regularity and the presumption of innocence, the weaker.
latter must prevail, as the law imposes upon the  Dumlao v. COMELEC
prosecution the highest degree of proof of evidence o The challenged statute disqualified
to sustain conviction. from running for local election office
- In a criminal case, the presumption of innocence “any person who has committed any
can be overcome by the presumption of regularity act of disloyalty to the state provided
when the latter is accompanied by strong evidence that he filing of charges for the
supporting the guilt of the accused. commission of such crimes before a
civil court or military tribunal after
SILENCE preliminary investigation shall be
- Duty to apprise: the duty lies with the defense prima facie evidence of such fact.”
counsel, not with the court o The Supreme Court struck down
- The Supreme Court has made the following this provision because of the right
rulings regarding the silence of the accused and its of the accused to be presumed
effect on the presumption of innocence: innocent until the contrary is proved.

o The challenged proviso  Ligot v. Republic

contravenes the constitutional o The Court annulled the “freeze
presumption of innocence, seeing order” over the various accounts of
as the candidate is disqualified from the petitioner, which the CA
running for public office on the extended “until after all the
ground alone that charges have appropriate proceedings and/or
been filed against him before a civil investigations being conducted are
or military tribunal. Clearly, it terminated”
condemns before one is fully heard. o Such CA resolution effectively bars
o In ultimate effect, except as to the the Ligots from using any of their
degree of proof, no distinction is property covered by the freeze
made between a person convicted of order.
acts of disloyalty and one against o The term of the CA borders on
whom charges have been filed for inflicting a punishment to the Ligots,
such acts. It virtually placed the in violation of their constitutionally
person in the same category as a protected right to be presumed
person already convicted of a crime. innocent, because the unreasonable
 People v. Tempongko denial of their property comes before
o The Court, in absolving the final conviction.
accused, ruled that it remains
unconvinced that the appellant B. Contrary Presumptions
raped the complainant. They were  People v. Asilan
not prepared to accept, to the point - The Supreme Court noted that culprits
of moral certainty, that the behave differently and even erratically in
complainant was telling the truth. externalizing and manifesting their guilt.
o The ambiguous evidence of the Some may escape or flee – which is a
prosecution cannot justify the circumstance strongly illustrative of guilt –
Court‟s condemning the appellant to while others may remain in the same vicinity
prison for the rest of his life, where so as to create a semblance of regularity.
there are whispers of doubt that he  People v. Cachuela
is guilty. - Just a few days after the robbery, the
 Joseph v. Villaluz accused was caught trying to sell the stolen
o After the prosecution has adduced firearms
evidence, the presumption of - The Supreme Court noted that the accused
innocence must yield to what has was not able to overcome the disputable
been amply and persuasively presumption that he had stolen the firearms,
demonstrated. especially after it was established that he
 People v. Regulacion did not impute ill-motive on the part of the
o The Court held that it was incumbent arresting officers that would impel the latter
on the accused, who had admitted to to fabricate evidence against him.
the killing, to establish his case of  People v. Lagman
self-defense instead of merely - The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia
relying on the weakness of the in a house or building owned or occupied by
prosecution a particular person raises the presumption

of knowledge and possession thereof which, ᴸ BUT, the waiver must be clear and must be
standing alone, is sufficient to convict. coupled with an actual intention of the accused to
relinquish the right
RIGHT TO BE HEARD
- Article III, Section 14(2) of 1987 Constitution also COUNSEL DE OFICIO
provides that the accused “… shall enjoy the right - It is essential for the court to assign one de oficio
to be heard by himself and counsel …” for him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him
- This provision is to give emphasis where added a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own
emphasis is due. - This rule is stressed in the case of the illiterate
The right is indispensable in any criminal defendant with a modicum of intelligence who
prosecution obviously cannot defend himself and would have to
- Rationale: In criminal proceedings, the stakes are depend upon the assistance of counsel.
the liberty of the accused who, for this reason, must - The counsel de oficio should not merely make
be given a chance to defend himself. motion of defending the accused, but exert his
- The constitutional right includes: utmost efforts as if he were representing a paying
1. Right to present evidence in one‟s defense client.
2. Right to be present and defend oneself in ᴸ The Court has reversed convictions based on
person at every stage of the proceedings pleas of guilty made on the advice of a counsel de
oficio presumably seeking to avoid the
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL inconvenience of unremunerated service.
- Begins: From the time a person is taken into ᴸ In these cases, the judge should exercise extra
custody and placed under investigation for the care in informing the accused of his rights and the
commission of the crime consequences of his plea of guilty and in
- The right becomes more important when he is ascertaining the presence of different
already on trial and confronted by the prosecutor. circumstances to be taken into account in the
- The intricacies of courtroom procedure are not imposition of the proper penalty.
within the knowledge of the ordinary layman, let - The duty of the court is not ended with the
alone one who is ignorant and unlettered. appointment of a counsel de oficio, as it should see
ᴸ This is why the accused is entitled to be heard in to it that the counsel does his duty to the defendant
his defense not only by himself, but also with the
assistance of counsel. CASES
 People v. Lumague
WAIVER - The Court set aside the conviction of the
- General Rule: This right has never been three co-accused
considered subject to waiver - It was found that they were denied due
- Reason: Without counsel, he may be convicted process when they had not been given a
not because he is guilty, but because he does not chance to testify and present additional
know how to establish his innocence evidence on their behalf
- The right is immutable, otherwise, there would be  People v. Magsi
grave denial of due process - The Supreme Court chided the trial court for
- Exception: The right to be assisted by cousel its pro forma appointment of a counsel de
may be waived during a custodial investigation oficio who did not exert his best efforts for
the protection of his non-paying client, and
its own failure to explain to the defendant

the meaning of the accusation against him - The defendant is entitled to know the nature and
and the consequences of his plea of guilty cause of the accusation against him so he can
- As such, the Court set aside the case and adequately prepare for his defense
remanded it to the court a quo for further ᴸ He cannot do this if he has to guess at the charge
proceedings that has been leveled against him, because of the
 People v. Malunsing ambiguous nature of the complaint or information
- A defendant in a murder case manifested - The three-fold purpose of this constitutional
that he had lost his confidence in his guaranty is as follows:
counsel and wanted to retain a counsel de 1. Furnish the accused with a description of
parte. Nevertheless, the court appointed the charge against him, as will enable him
him the same de oficio counsel. The to make his defense
counsel did not confer with his client, and no 2. Avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for
evidence was adduced in behalf of the protection against a further prosecution for
defendant, unlike his co-accused. the same cause
- The Court remanded the case for new trial 3. Inform the court of the facts alleged, so that
in view of the violation of the constitutional it may decide whether they are sufficient in
rights of the accused law to support a conviction
 Public Attorney‟s Office v. Sandiganbayan - According to the Rules of Court, the complaint or
- PAO asserted that the accused, who was a information should contain the following:
former present, was not an indigent 1. The designation given to the offense by
- The petition to withdraw as counsel de oficio statute
of PAO was denied by the respondent court. ᴸ If there is no such designation, reference should
This denial was sustained by the Supreme be made to the section or subsection of the statute
Court punishing it
 Lagua v. CA 2. The statements of acts or omissions
- Where the accused, being out on bail while constituting the same
the appeal is pending, had every ᴸ The act or omission should be stated in ordinary
opportunity to contact his counsel of record and concise language
or procure the services of a new counsel for
purposes of properly pursuing his appeal, SUFFICIENCY
he shall be considered as having lot this - A complaint or information is sufficient if it states
remedy for failure to comply with the orders the:
of the CA requiring him to file his appellant‟s 1. Name of the accused
brief 2. Designation of the offense given by the
- Negligence and mistakes of the counsel are statute
binding on the client 3. The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense
NATURE AND CAUSE OF 4. Approximate date of the commission of the
offense
ACCUSATION 5. Place where the offense was committed
- Article III, Section 14(2) of 1987 Constitution also - Test of sufficiency: whether it enables a person
provides that the accused shall have the right “… to of common understanding to know the charge
be informed of the nature and cause of the against him and the court to render judgment
accusation against him …”

CONFLICT IN THE INFORMATION be inapplicable to the

1. Description not the designation is complaint or information as
controlling amended
o Even if there is an erroneous 3. Variance in the offense charged and the
designation, the accused may still be offense proved
validly convicted of the crime - When there is a variance between
described in the information the offense charged and the offense
o The real nature of the criminal proved, and the latter is included in
charge is determined, not from the or necessarily includes the offense
caption, preamble, or specification of proved, the accused shall be
provision of law, but from the actual convicted of the offenses proved
recital of the facts in the complaint or included in the offense charged, or
information of the offense charged included in
o It is the recital of the facts of the the offense proved when some of
commission of the offense, not the the essential elements of the former,
nomenclature of the offense, that as alleged in the information,
determines the crime being charged constitute the latter
in the information - Necessarily included – when the
2. Change in the date essential ingredient of the offense
- A mere change in the date of the charged constitutes or forms part of
commission of the crime, if the those constituting the offense proved
disparity is not great, is more formal
than substantial VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE
- Such an amendment will not - An instance wherein the defendant is denied the
prejudice the accused, since the right to be informed of the charge against him
proposed amendment will not alter where the statute itself is couched in such indefinite
the nature of the offense language that it is not possible for men of ordinary
- Amendment to form – an intelligence to determine therefrom what acts or
amendment which merely states an omissions are punished and, hence, should be
additional precision something which avoided
is already contained therein and - Test: Whether the language conveys a sufficiently
adds nothing essential definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when
ᴸ Can be made at any time measured by common understanding and practice
- Test as to whether the rights of the - This doctrine merely requires a reasonable
accused are prejudiced by the degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld, not
amendment of the complaint or absolute precision or mathematical exactitude
information: - Flexibility, rather than meticulous specificity is
1. When the defense under the permissible as long as the metes and bounds of the
complaint or information, as it statute are clearly delineated
originally stood, would no - An act will not be held invalid merely because it
longer be available after the could have been more explicit of its wordings or
amendment is made more detailed in its provisions
2. When the evidence the
accused might have would ARRAIGNMENT

- During this stage, the accused, for the first time, is - Three conditions that the trial judge must
granted the opportunity to know the exact charge observe to obviate an improvident guilty plea:
that confronts him. 1. It must conduct a searching inquiry into the
- This is an indispensable part of the proceedings voluntariness and the full comprehension of
against him the accused as to the consequences of his
- Importance: It is imperative that he is made fully plea
aware of the possible loss of freedom, even of his 2. It must require the prosecution to present
life, depending on the nature of the crime imputed evidence to prove the guilt of the accused
to him. and the precise degree of his culpability
ᴸ He must be fully informed of why the prosecuting 3. It must ask the accused as to whether he
arm of the state is mobilized against him desires to present evidence on his behalf,
ᴸ It assures that he is fully acquainted with the and allow him to do so if he desires
nature of the crime imputed to him and the
circumstances under which it is allegedly
committed CASES
ᴸ Its importance is based on the constitutional right A. General
of the accused to be informed  Patula v. People
o An accused cannot be convicted of
WAIVER an offense that is not clearly charged
A. Waiver of the right to be informed (in its in the complaint or information. To
entirety) convict him of an offense other than
- The right to be informed cannot be waived for that charged in the complaint or
reasons of public policy information would be violative of his
- Therefore, it is imperative that the complaint or constitutional right.
information failed against the accused be complete o To emphasize, the accused cannot
to meets its objectives be convicted of a crime, even if duly
B. Waiver of the right to question the proven, unless the crime is alleged
sufficiency of the Information or necessarily included in the
- This right is deemed to have been waived by the information filed against him
accused if he fails to object upon his (1)  People v. de la Cruz
arraignment or (2) during trial - The Court rejected the contention of
the appellant that the treachery
DUTY OF JUDGES (PLEA OF GUILTY) stated in the information was not
- The judge has the following duties if the accused specified therein as a qualifying
were to plead guilty: circumstance in an ordinary and
1. Even if the accused were to plead guilty, the concise language sufficient to
judge would still be bound to exercise extra enable a person of common
care in informing the accused of his right understanding to know that those
and of the consequences of his plea of were qualifying circumstances
guilty, - The Court found that the information
2. He should ascertain the presence of the clearly forewarns the applicant of
different circumstances to be taken into such circumstances and that these
account in the imposition of a proper penalty allegations, once proven beyond

reasonable doubt, qualify the killing indicate that they committed the
to murder offense “in relation to their office”
- The use of the words  Guy v. People
“aggravating/qualifying o The accused was held to be validly
circumstances” will not add any convicted for violation of Section
essential element to the crime. 3(e), even though the information did
Neither will the use of such words not expressly state that the same
apprise the accused of the nature of was committed “in relation to his
the charge. office”
- A specific allegation of the attendant o The information clearly specifies the
circumstance, coupled with the circumstances regarding his use of
designation of the offense and a his office for the commission of the
statement of acts constituting the same and that it was committed “in
same would be sufficient to warn the the course of the performance of
accused. their official functions…”
o The Court held that the specific acts
B. Conflict in the Designation and Description of the accused need not be
 Soriano v. Sandiganbayan described in detail, as it is enough
o A prosecutor entrapped by NBI was that the offense be described with
charged for violating Section 3(b) of sufficient particularity to make the
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices accused fully understand what he is
Act being charged with
o The Court ruled that, while the law  People v. Ramirez
was inapplicable as to him, they o A person charged with rape, of
rejected his submission that he which he was later absolved, could
could not be convicted of bribery not be convicted of qualified
o They ruled that a reading of the seduction which was not included in
information clearly makes out a case the information
of bribery o A charge for the latter should be filed
 People v. Espejon alleging the presence of all the
o In a prosecution for rape, the elements thereof, including the
material fact or circumstance to be virginity of the victim
considered is the occurrence of the  People v. Abino
rape, not the time of its commission o Convicting the appellant of rape by
o The failure to specify the exact date intimidation under an information
or time when it was committed does charging him with raping his
not ipso facto make the information daughter while she was “asleep and
defective on its face unconscious” would violate his right
 Herrera v. Sandiganbayan to be informed of the nature and
o The accused, who were public cause of the accusation against him
officers, could not have been  People v. Montes
convicted of the charge in the o The charge of rape was not
original information which did not conclusively proved, but the trial
court sentenced the accused to life

imprisonment for having “indirectly proved, the accused shall be

caused” the death of the convicted of the offenses proved
complainant who took her own life included in the offense charged, or
two days after the event of the offense charged included in
o The Court ruled that the lower court the offense proved when some of
erred in convicting him, as he was the essential elements of the former,
never charged with the crime of as alleged in the information,
homicide constitute the latter
 People v. Ortega  People v. Manansala
o A person charged with homicide by o The Supreme Court affirmed the
drowning could not be convicted of conviction of the accused of illegal
homicide by stabbing, which was not possession of marijuana on the
the crime alleged in the information basis of an information which
 People v. Pangilinan accused him of illegally selling the
o An allegation in the information that same
the accused appellant “willfully, o They held that the illegal sale of
unlawfully, and feloniously marijuana absorbs the illegal
committed sexual abuse on his possession, except when the seller
daughter, either raping her or was also apprehended in the
committing acts of lasciviousness on possession of another quantity of
her” is not a sufficient averment of marijuana not covered by or
the acts constituting the offense included in the illegal sale
o These are conclusions of law, not of o This is based on the premise that
facts illegal possession, being an element
o The information is void, as being of illegal sale, was necessarily
violative of the accused‟s included in the illegal sale
constitutional rights o If any other substance was found in
his possession that was not the
C. Offense Charged / Offense Proved subject of the illegal sale, he should
 People v. Valdez be prosecuted under a distinct and
o The Supreme Court changed on separate information charging him
appeal a conviction of murder to with illegal possession, otherwise, it
homicide upon review of the details would constitute as a violation of his
alleged in the information which constitutional right
designated the offense as murder,
but failed to allege any aggravating D. Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine
circumstance  Lanzetta v. New Jersey
o They held that the allegations in the o A law imposing penalties upon a
information are controlling in the person for being a “gangster” is
ultimate analysis constitutionally flawed if it does not
- When there is a variance between define the word with such
the offense charged and the offense reasonable specificity as to
proved, and the latter is included in sufficiently inform the ordinary
or necessarily includes the offense individual of its meaning and, thus,

enable him to avoid violation of its  People v. Crisologo

provision o A deaf-mute was accused of robbery
 Gallego v. Sandiganbayan with homicide, but the arraignment
o The petitioner challenged the use of was deferred for 6 years because
the words “unwarranted”, “manifest there was no sign language expert
partiality”, etc. in the Anti-Graft and to assist him.
Corrupt Practice Act o Finally waiving the reading of the
o The Court held that the use of such information, he was still tried, still
words had definite connotations and, without the assistance of a sign-
thus, did not make the law invalid for language expert, and was eventually
vagueness convicted
 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan o The Supreme Court reversed the
o The petitioner invoked the doctrine lower court‟s ruling, declaring that
in questioning the Anti-Plunder Law the accused was denied his
because of the alleged ambiguity in fundamental right to due process of
certain words and phrases found in law, and various other
many of its provisions constitutionally-guaranteed rights
o The Supreme Court rejected his  Lanzetta v. Parazo
challenge ruling that flexibility, rather o A deaf-mute and mental retardate
than meticulous specificity, is could not adequately defend himself
permissible as long as the metes at the trial for lack of a qualified sign-
and bounds of the statute are clearly language expert or any other means
delineated to communicate to him the crime he
 Garcia v. Drilon was alleged to have committed
o A challenge raised against certain o His conviction was reverse, and
penal provisions of the AVAWC law remanded to the lower court for a re-
was likewise rejected by the trial
Supreme Court
o They ruled that there is nothing in THE TRIAL
the definition of VAWC that is vague “to have a speedy, impartial and public trial”
or ambiguous that will confuse the - Trial must be public and speedy as well as
petitioner in his defense. impartial
o The acts enumerate are easily 1. Impartiality
understood and provide adequate 1. Judge must not only be impartial but must
contrast between the innocent and also appear impartial
the prohibited acts 2. Publicity of the trial
o They are worded with sufficient 1. Necessary to prevent abuses that may be
definiteness that persons of ordinary committed by the court to the prejudice of the
intelligence can understand what defendant.
conduct is being prohibited and need 2. Accused is also entitled to the company of
not guess at its meanings nor differ his relatives and friends to give him support
3. Rule is not absolute
in its application
1. Up to the court to bar the public in certain
cases
E. Duty of the Judge

2. SC prohibited live radio and TV coverage of disposition of cases, warrants the dismissal of
court proceedings the criminal case
 Pres. Cory Aquino‟s case against paper  Can be obtained regardless of the nature of
columnist - it necessary to protect the the case
parties‟ right to due process, to prevent the
distraction of the participants in the  Conde v. Rivera
proceedings and in the last analysis, to  Court dismissed all charges against the
avoid miscarriage of justice accused who was required to dance on
o Massive intrusion of representatives of the courts and subjected to a number of
news media into the trial itself can also unjustified postponements that resulted in
alter or destroy the constitutionally unconscionable delay of her trial.
necessary judicial atmosphere and
 Amberti v. CA
decorum that the requirements of
impartiality imposed by due proves of law  Speedy determination of an action implies
are denied and a defendant in criminal a speedy trial, speed is not he chief
proceedings should not be forced to run a objective of a trial
gauntlet of reporters and photographers  Martin v. Ver
each time he enters or leaves a court  Right to a speedy trial cannot be
room. quantified into a specified number of
 EXCEPTION – Maguindanao Massacre days or months but must be
Trial examined in the light of days or
o Crafted a win-win situation that shall not months but must be examined in the
compromise tights in the criminal light of the surrounding
administration of justice, sacrifice press circumstances.
freedom and allied rights and interfere - When can speedy disposition of cases be
with the integrity, dignity and solemnity of applied? It can be applied if the following are
judicial proceedings. considered:
o Networks must comply with the rules set 1. Length of delay
forth by the court in airing such broadcast 2. Reasons for the delay
of the trial like the usage of only one 3. Assertion or failure to assert such right by the
camera without panning or having a close- accused
up shot as well as not manipulating the 4. Prejudice caused by such delay
lighting of the room nor recording and
later on showcasing such footage. There - TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
is a real time showcase of such hearing. 1. After arraignment, trial may proceed
o Given that there are 57 victims, more than notwithstanding the absence of the accused
200 witnesses and 197 accused, it is provided that he has been duly notified and his
impossible for the court room to failure to appear is unjustifiable
accommodate such amount of people. 2. Requisites of TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
o Speedy trial 1. Accused has already been arraigned
 One free from vexatious, capricious and 2. He has been duly notified of the trial
oppressive delays 3. His failure to appear is unjustified
 Intended to relieve the accused of needless o Does not abrogate the provisions of the Rules of
anxieties and inconveniences before court regarding forfeiture of the bail bond if the
accused fails to appear at his trial
sentence is pronounced upon him o Cases
 Applicable to trial in general  People v. Salas
 Inordinate delay in resolving criminal : Before trial in absentia, accused may be a
complaint, being violative of the constitutional fugitive and escape detention and trial will not
guarantee of right to due process and speedy continue thus giving him further advantage.
With trial in absentia, as long as the 3
requisites are met, trial may go on despite the - Two-fold purpose

accused‟ absence. 1. Afford the accused an opportunity to test the
testimony of witnesses by cross examination
 Borja v. Mendoza 2. Allow he judge to observe the deportment of
: Requisites of trial in absentia must be met. A witnesses
judgment of conviction may be set aside by the : Enables the court to observe the demeanor of
SC if the accused had been tried and the witness and assess his credibility.
convicted in his absence before he had been - Right of a party to confront and cross-examine
formally arraigned. opposing witnesses in a judicial litigation is a
fundamental right which is part of due process.
 Manotoc v. CA Such has always been understood as requiring not
: Person was granted bail and wanted to go
necessarily an actual cross-examination but merely
overseas to attend to certain business matters
: Court prohibited and said that it has the an opportunity to exercise the right to cross
power to do so for he is on bail and a examine if desired
necessary consequence of such is that the - There is less propensity to lie when one is actually
person must be within the reach of the court confronted than when testimony is given behind his
which cannot be done if one is abroad. back. Such will also test his demeanor and the
weight of such testimony
 Ivler v. Modesto
: General Rule – Depositions and ex parte
: Defendant‟s absence merely renders his
bondsman potentially liable on its bond affidavits are inadmissible unless the person
: Defendant retains his standing and should he making them are presented in court for
fail to surrender, will be tried in absentia and examination by the judge and the accused
could be convicted or acquitted. : Exception – Dying Declaration
: 30-day period granted to bondsman to - If the prosecution witness dies before his cross
produce the accused underscores the fact that examination can be completed, his direct testimony
mere non-appearance does not ipso facto
cannot be stricken off the record
convert the accused‟s status to that of a
fugitive without standing. - The right to cross- examine is not without limit.
Trial court has the power to direct the course of the
THE RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION trial either to shorten or extend the direct or cross
“To meet the witnesses face to face” examination of a counsel
- Intends to secure the accused in the right to be - CASES
tried so far as facts provable by witnesses are  People v. Ramos
concerned, by only such witnesses as meet him : Affiant had not been presented in court and so
face to face at trial, who give their testimony in
could be cross examined by the defense
his presence and give to the accused an
opportunity of cross-examination. making the decision null
- Intended to prevent conviction upon deposition
or ex parte affidavits, and particularly to preserve  Combate v. San Jose
the right of the accused to test the recollection of : convicting the accused on mere affidavits and
the witness in the exercise of the right of cross- denying him the right to counsel, trial and to
examination
cross-examine is never allowable and the
- A person facing criminal prosecution should
know in fairness who his accusers are and must conviction is nulled.
be given a chance to cross-examine them on
their charges  Talino v. Sandiganbayan
- Its chief purpose is to secure the opportunity for : If there are several co-accused and are given
cross-examnation a separate trial, the evidence given against

them at one trial where they had no opportunity 3. Marquez v. Sandiganbayan

to cross-examine the witness at another trial is : Sandiganbayan as having gravely abused its
inadmissible discretion when it denied the Motion to refer
prosecution‟s evidence for examination by the
 Go v. People questioned documents section of NBI filed by the
: Examination of witnesses must be done orally accused
before a judge in open court : Sandiganbayan unduly rejected his opportunity
 People v. Ng Yik Bun to be heard and to produce evidence of his
: Accused is considered to waive his right to choice in his defense.
confrontation and to be present at trial when he
raises such for the first time on appeal. PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS
- Sec. 19, Article 13 of the Consti states that
COMPULSORY PROCESS excessive fines or inhuman punishments may not
“to have compulsory process to secure the be inflicted as well as physical, psychological or
attendance of witnesses and the production of degrading punishments and prisoners must not
evidence in his behalf” be put in substandard or subhuman conditions in
- Accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena penal facilities
and subpoena duces tecum for the purpose of - Mere imposition of penalties do not violate such.
compelling the attendance of witnesses and the Only when it is inhuman, barbarous and shocking
production of evidence that he may need for his to the conscience
defense 1. Cruelty must be inherent in the
- Failure to obey such process is punishable by penalty
contempt of court 2. Torture is considered a cruel
- In exceptional circumstances, defendant may ask punishment for it involves deliberate design to
for conditional examination provided that the increase the suffering of the prisoner in a
expected testimony be material manner so flagrant and oppressive as to revolt
- Not applicable to proceedings before the court of the moral sense of the community
tax appeals as well as the right to cross-examine 3. Death sentence is not allowed
- Must be invoked during trial and failure to do so except as a penalty for heinous crimes
constitutes a waiver that cannot be rectified or (currently suspended)
undone on appeal - Penalty not normally proportionate to the offense
- CASES may be imposed in some instances without
1. People v. Bardaje violation of the constitution if the offense has
: Witness was subpoenaed on request of the become so rampant as to require the adoption of
accused but instead of taking steps to compel a more effective deterrent.
her attendance, judge held the defense - Court has the power to impose fines within the
responsible for bringing her to trial. Such is limits of the law (Art. 66 of RPC)
considered a denial of compulsory process - In fixing the amount in each case, attention shall
be given, not only to the mitigating and
2. Fajardo v. Garcia aggravating circumstance but also to the wealth
: SC sustained the refusal of RTC to grant leave and means of the culprit
to serve written interrogatories on a doctor who - CASES
had already left for abroad 1. Louisiana v. Resweber

: mechanical failure in electric chair prevented means, it is only just and proper that the latter be
the execution of the petitioner but it is not cruel taken into account in fixing the amount.
for there was no purpose to inflict pain, nor any
unnecessary pain involved in the proposed 8. Dabalos v. RTC
execution : higher penalty prescribed for VAWC against the
punishment for the same degree of physical
2. Echagaray v. Sec. of Justice, People v. harm is imposed for the legislative intent is to
Tongko purposely impose a more severe sanction on the
: infliction of pain in lethal injection is merely offenders whose violent act/s physically harm
incidental in carrying out the death penalty and women with whom they have or had a sexual or
does not fall within the constitutional proscription dating relationship, and/or their children with the
: Cruel – calculated to give pain or distress end view of promoting the protection of women
and children.
3. People v. Dionisio
: Mere severity does not constitute cruel and Double Jeopardy
unusual punishment “no person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the
same offense”
4. People v. Estoista - Res judicata in prison grey
: it takes more than merely being harsh, 1. Right against DJ prohibits the prosecution o
excessive, out of proportion or severe for a any person for the crime of which he has
penalty to be obnoxious to the constitution previously been acquitted or convicted
: Punishment must be flagrantly and plainly 2. Object is to set the effects of the first
oppressive, wholly disproportionate to the nature prosecution forever at rest
of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the 3. Accused shall not thereafter be subjected to
community the dangers and anxiety of a second charge
against him for the same offense.
5. Generics Act Case - Rule 117 Sec. 7 RRC: conviction or acquittal of
: Penalty for suspension or cancellation of the the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be
physician‟s license is neither cruel, inhuman or a bar to another prosecution for the offense
degrading. No different from penalty of charged, or for any attempt to commit the same
suspension or disbarment inflicted on lawyers frustration thereof or for any offense which
and judges who misbehave. necessarily includes or is necessarily included in
the offense charged in the former complaint or
6. People v. De la Cruz information
: penalty of 5 years imprisonment 5,000 pesos - DJ is not applicable in administrative cases for
for a person convicted of profiteering is not a rules that govern criminal prosecutions strictly
cruel punishment in view of the national policy apply to a prosecution for contempt
against the offense - SC: alleged contemner should be accorded the
same rights as that of the accused, dismissal in
7. People v. Ching Kuan indirect contempt charge amounts to acquittal
: Authorizing imposition of unequal fines aims which bars a second prosecution
precisely at equality before the law. Lightness or - REQUISITES OF DJ
severity depends upon the culprit‟s wealth or 1. Valid complaint or information
2. Filed before a competent court

3. To which defendant had pleased : Prosecution for estafa was dismissed for
4. Of which he had been previously acquitted lack of territorial jurisdiction
or convicted or which was dismissed or : charge was commenced in CFI Manila,
otherwise terminated without his express accused moved to quash under DJ but DJ
consent was not available because the defendant
had not been in danger of conviction in the
1. COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION original prosecution
- Prosecution based on invalid complaint or
information can‟t lead to a valid judgment hence  Garcia v. Exec. Secretary
will not place the accused under jeopardy : court martial is a court and the
- Original info is defective and the case is prosecution of an accused before it is a
dismissed on motion of the accused, it may criminal and not an administrative case
validly be renewed with the filing of a corrected : bare to another prosecution of the
information. But, if without express consent of defendant for the same offense, because
the accused, information is dismissed on the latter would place the accused in jeopardy
ground that it is defective, another prosecution : court martial has jurisdiction to try an
based on the same allegation will constitute DJ officer of soldier for a crime, it judgment will
- Herrera v. Sandiganbayan be accorded finality and conclusiveness as
: petitioners not having been placed in danger of to the issues involved which attend the
being convicted when they entered their plea of judgments of a civil court in a case which it
not guilty to the info which did not allage that may legally take cognizance
they committed the offense specified therein “in
relation to their office”. SC said complaint or info  Olaguer v. Military Commission
as “insufficient” as it could not have provided for : military tribunals had no jurisdiction to try
their conviction cases of civilians which fell under the
competence of the ordinary civil courts
2. COMPETENT COURT even during the period of martial law. Such
- Court without jurisdiction can‟t render a valid judgments were invalidated.
judgment
- Person charged before it cannot plead DJ when  Cruz v. Enrile
tried anew for the same offense by competent No breach of DJ in punishing the same
court offense in retrial of petitioners‟ cases for
- DJ requires valid previous proceedings absence of the jurisdiction of the courts
- Court martial and civil court have concurrent martial to try and convict them prevented
jurisdiction, a decision by one court will bar the first jeopardy from attaching.
another for the prosecution of the same offense
in the other court 3. VALID PLEA
- Information motu proprio dismissed for lack of - Defendant is never placed under jeopardy until
jurisdiction by a court which is actually after shall have pleaded to the charge against
competent to hear it, the dismissal will inure to him during the arraignment
the benefit of the accused - People v. Balisacan
- CASES o Pleading guilty and testifying to prove
 People v. Galano mitigating circumstances has the effect of
vacating plea of guilty

o No standing plea at the time the court 1. Laurel Law – permits provisional release of
rendered its judgment, therefore there is no the accused without the necessity of posting
DJ in an appeal to the acquittal bail under certain conditions.
- Los Banos v. Pedro - IBP provides deserving indigents with free legal
o Sec. 5 Rule 117 of RRC – grant of a motion aid, including representation in court
to quash filed by the defendant before he - Accused who cannot afford retained counsel can
makes his plea can be appealed as the ask for assistance of counsel de oficio.
defendant has not been placed in jeopardy
o Unless the basis of the dismissal is the - PAO – forefront agency providing indigent
extinction of criminal liability and DJ litigants with legal services, counseling and
assistance.
4. TERMINATION OF CASE - Attached to the DOJ and has scores of offices
- Acquittal: executory upon rendition and entitles and hundreds of lawyers all over the country
the accused to immediate release - Amount to be defrayed in the services of
- Conviction: appealble within 15 days but summons, subpoena, and other court
becomes final if convict starts serving processes in behalf of its clients would have to
sentence even before the expiration of this be taken from the operating expenses of PAO.
period The amount advanced by PAO‟s clients as
- Dismissal: varies according to nature, may be costs of suit, attorney‟s fees or contingent fees
expressly consented to by the defendant prior to the deposit thereof in the National
- General Rule: dismissal with the express Treasury.
consent of the accused will not bar another
prosecution RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
: consent is considered a waiver of his right - Section 21 Rule 3, 1997 Rules of Civil
against DJ, must be express and such Procedure
excludes mere silence or failure of the accused 1. Indigent party may be authorized to
to object litigate his action as an indigent if the
- Exception: dismissal without the express court, upon ex parte application and
consent of the accused hearing, is satisfied that the party is one
who has no money or property sufficient
and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities for himself and his family
2. Includes an exemption from payment of
CHAPTER 21 docket and other lawful fees and of
transcripts of stenographic notes which
FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
the court may order to be furnished him.
- Courts of Justice should be available to the
- Section 19, Rule 141
pauper as to the affluent in the protection of their
- Exempts indigent litigants from payment
respective rights
of legal fees, provided their gross income
- Inspired by social justice policy and covered by
and that of their immediate family do not
the equal protection clause
exceed an amount double the monthly
- Implemented by the Rules of Court in favor of
minimum wage of an employee and they
the pauper litigant and Laurel Law
do not own real property with a fair

market value as stated in the current tax 2. Right to run for public office
declaration of more than 300,000 pesos. 3. Right to exploit natural resources
4. Right to operate public utilities
5. Right to administer educational institutions
CASES
6. Right to manage mass media
- Spouses Algura v. Local Gov‟t Unit of the City
of Naga NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS v. NATURALIZED
1. Constitution affords litigants, moneyed or CITIZENS
poor; equal acess to the courts. It - Although they are both considered citizens of the
specifically provides that poverty shall not Philippines and are ordinarily considered equal,
bar any person from having access to the there are distinctions made by the Constitution as
to them.
courts
- In particular, by specific fiat, all constitutional
2. Access to justice by all, especially by the offices are open only to natural-born citizens and
poor, is not simply an ideal in our society. barred to the naturalized Filipinos
1. Existence is essential in a democracy
2. One of the most precious rights which JUS SANGUINIS / JUS SOLI
must be shielded and secured 1. Jus Sanguinis – citizenship is conferred by
- Yanson v. Secretary of DOLE virtue of blood relationship
– To illustrate, a child born of Filipino father
1. Rejected the plea of the petitioner who had
is a citizen of the Philippines
asked for the reduction of her appeal bond – This is still the basis of acquisition of
in a labor case which, she contended Philippine citizenship
should be based on her “Capacity to pay” 2. Jus Soli – citizenship is conferred by virtue
invoking her right to free access to courts. of the place of birth
2. Cited Guico v. Quisumbing, Secretary of – To illustrate, a child born in the United
States, despite having parents of a different
Labor
nationality, could still claim American citizenship
1. Sympathy for petitioner cannot override
fidelity to the law CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES
2. Rationale behind the strigency of such - Article IV, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution
requirement is that the employer- enumerates those who are considered citizens of
apellant may choose between a cash the Philippines:
bond and a surety bond. Limitations in 1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at
the time of the adoption of this constitution
his liquidity should pose no obstacle to
- This paragraph gives reference to those who were
his perfecting an appeal by posting a citizens under the 1935 Constitution, viz:
mere surety bond. 1. Those who were
citizens of the
CHAPTER 22 Philippine Islands at
the time of the
CITIZENSHIP adoption of the
- It refers to membership in a political community Commonwealth
with all its concomitant rights and responsibilities Constitution on
- It confers upon the individual certain prerogatives November 15, 1935
which may be denied the alien, although both of 2. Those born in the
them come under the term “person”, as protected Philippine Islands of
by the due process and equal protection clauses. foreign parents who,
- Some of the exclusive rights enjoyed by the prior to the adoption
citizen are as follows: of the Commonwealth
1. Right to vote Constitution, had

been elected to public of the 1973 Constitution,

office in the Philippine where it was first adopted
Islands ᴸ Therefore, a child born in 1970 of an alien father
3. Those whose fathers and a Filipino mother is still considered a foreigner,
were citizens of the following the citizenship of his father
Philippines ᴸ However, a child born on or after January 17,
4. Those whose 1973, when the 1973 Constitution was ratified, will
mothers were citizens be considered a citizen of the Philippines, by virtue
of the Philippines of his mother‟s citizenship
and, upon attaining - Likewise, those born to a
the majority age, father who has been
elected Philippine naturalized as a Filipino
citizenship himself is considered to be a
5. Those who were Filipino citizen born to a
naturalized in Filipino father.
accordance with law 3. Those born before January 17, 1973 of
- Also included are those who are considered or Filipino mothers, who elect Filipino
became citizens under the 1973 Constitution, so citizenship upon attaining the age of
long as they retained their Philippine citizenship majority
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are - Who may avail of the right of
citizens election: It is available only to those
 Rule under the 1935 Constitution born to Filipino mothers under the
- General Rule: If the child 1935 Constitution who, had the
was born to an alien father charter not been changed, would
and a Filipino mother, he have been able to elect Philippine
followed the citizenship of the citizenship upon attaining the age of
father and, at best, acquired majority
only inchoate Philippine ᴸ Therefore, a child born in 1970 of an alien father
citizenship which he could and a Filipino mother may still exercise the right of
perfect by election upon election after he reached the majority age in 1988,
attaining majority age. although the 1935 Constitution was no longer in
- Exception: Those born out force
of lawful wedlock, in which - When election is not necessary:
case he acquired the 1. When the child is
citizenship of the only legally born of a Filipino
known parent (i.e., the mother under the
mother) present Constitution
 Rule under the 1987 Constitution 2. When, for some
- The child is considered a reason, the Filipino
natural-born Filipino provided mother lost her
either of his parents is a citizenship upon
Filipino citizen marriage to the
- The Filipino citizenship of the foreigner under the
mother will now also confer present Constitution,
natural-born citizenship upon the right of election
the child, without the cannot be claimed by
necessity of election as the offspring
before ᴸ Exception: If the Filipino mother‟s child was born
- This has prospective before the 1973 Constitution took effect
application only, beginning - This provision had only a transitory
on the date of the effectivity operation, ending after children born

to Filipino mothers up to noon of ᴸ For example, the alien woman married to a

January 17, 1973 shall have availed Filipino citizen shall acquire citizenship only if she
themselves of the right of election herself might be lawfully naturalized
- The right could be exercised ● Procedure
ordinarily only within three years 1. Judicial naturalization (under CA 473)
from the attainment of the majority a) At least one year before he files his
age petition for naturalization, the
- Statutory formalities: applicant shall file with the OSG a
1. Statement of election declaration of his intention to be a
under oath citizen of the Philippines
2. Oath of allegiance - Purpose: to enable the
3. Registration of government to make initial
election and of the investigation in to his
oath with the nearest circumstances to determine,
civil registry at least tentatively, his fitness
4. Those naturalized in accordance with the for Philippine citizenship and
laws to test his sincerity
NATURALIZATION b) Filing of the petition for
- It is a process by which a foreigner acquires, naturalization with the RTC of the
voluntarily or by operation of law, the citizenship of province or city where he has
another state resided for at least 1 year
- It may either be: - The petition must state the
1. Direct naturalization following date:
a) by individual proceedings, usually 1. The name/s of the
judicial, under general naturalization petitioner/s
laws 2. Places of residence in
b) by special act of the legislature, the Philippines
often in favor of distinguished 3. Date of his arrival
foreigners who have rendered some 4. His occupation
notable service to the local state 5. Date and place of
c) by collective change of nationality birth
(or naturalization en masse) as a 6. The name/s and
result of cession or subjugation personal
d) in some cases, by adoption of circumstances of his
orphan minors as nationals of the wife and children, if
State where they are born any
2. Derivative naturalization 7. Allegations that he
a) on the wife of the naturalized possesses the
husband qualifications and
b) on the minor of the naturalized none of the
parent disqualifications for
c) on the alien woman upon marriage naturalization
to a national c) Upon receipt of the petition, the clerk
- NOTE: This type of of court shall have the duty of
naturalization does not publishing the same in the Official
always follow as a matter of Gazette and in one newspaper of
course, for it is usually made general circulation in the province or
subject to stringent city once a week for three
restrictions and conditions consecutive weeks and post notices
thereof and of the hearing

- This requirement is not established for exclusive instruction of children

jurisdictional, and non- of persons of particular nationality or race, in any of
observance thereof will the branches of education or industry for a period of
render the proceedings null not less than two years
and void 5. Having been born in the Philippines
d) At least six months after the last c. He must be of good moral character
publication but in no case within 30 and believes in the principles
days before any election, the underlying the Philippine Constitution,
hearing shall begin and must have conducted himself in a
- The petitioner shall proper and irreproachable manner
establish all the allegations of during the entire period of his
his petition, to be residence in the Philippines in his
corroborated by at least two relation with the constituted
credible withnesses government as well as with the
- The Republic shall be community in which he is living.
represented by the Solicitor d. He must own real estate in the
General or his authorized Philippines worth not less than five
representative thousand pesos, Philippine currency,
or must have some known lucrative
1. Qualifications (must trade, profession, or lawful occupation;
be possessed by him ᴸ “Some known lucrative trade, profession or
at the time he applies lawful occupation” – means not only that the
for naturalization, not person having employment gets enough for his
subsequently): ordinary necessities in life; it must be shown that
a. He must be there is an appreciable margin of his income over
not less than his expenses as to be able to provide for an
18 years of adequate support in the event of nonemployment,
age on the sickness, or disability
day of the ᴸ Only the applicant‟s income should be
hearing of the considered, without considering his/her spouse‟s
petition; income
b. He must have e. He must be able to speak and write
resided in the English or Spanish and any one of the
Philippines for principal Philippine languages; and
a continuous f. He must have enrolled his minor
period of not children of school age, in any of the
less than ten public schools or private schools
years; recognized by the Office of Private
Education1 of the Philippines, where
ᴸ Exception: the ten- year residency requirement is the Philippine history, government and
reduced to five years when the applicant possesses civics are taught or prescribed as part
any of the following special qualifications: of the school curriculum, during the
1. Having honorably held office under the entire period of the residence in the
Government of the Philippines or under any of the Philippines required of him prior to the
provinces, cities, municipalities, or political hearing of his petition for naturalization
subdivisions thereof as Philippine citizen.
2. Having established a new industry or introduced 2. Disqualifications
a useful invention in the Philippines a. Persons opposed to organize government or are
3. Being married to a Filipino woman affiliated with any association or group of persons
4. Having been engaged as a teacher in the who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all
Philippines in a public or recognized private school organized governments

b. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or Philippine citizenship and renounce

propriety of violence, personal assault, or allegiance to any foreign state
assassination for the success and predominance of 2. Administrative naturalization (under RA
their ideas 9139)
c. Polygamists or believers in the practice of – provides for the grant of citizenship by
polygamy administrative proceedings, subject to certain
d. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral requirements dictated by national security and
turpitude interest
e. Persons suffering from mental alienation or – Qualifications:
incurable contagious diseases 1. Born in the Philippines and residing
f. Persons who, during their period of residence in therein since birth
the Philippines, have not mingled socially with the 2. Not less than 18 years of age at the
Filipinos, or have not evinced a sincere desire to time of the filing of his/her petition
learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and 3. Be of good moral character and
ideals of the Filipinos believes in the principles underlying
g. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the the Philippine Constitution, and must
Philippines is at war, during the period of such war have conducted himself in a proper
h. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose and irreproachable manner during
laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become the entire period of his residence in
naturalized citizens or subject thereof the Philippines in his relation with
e) If the petitioner is able to prove that the constituted government as well
he has all the qualifications and as with the community in which he is
none of the disqualifications, his living.
petition shall be granted and the 4. Must have received his/her primary
decision shall become final 30 days and secondary education in any
from notice. public school or private educational
f) The above-mentioned decision shall institution duly recognized by the
become executory only after the Department of Education, Culture,
period of two years during which and Sports, where Philippine history,
the petitioner shall continue to be government, and civics are taught
under probation, as it were, so that and prescribed as part of the school
the government can be doubly sure curriculum and where enrollment is
that he is entitled to be a naturalized not limited to any race or nationality
citizen of the Philippines ᴸ Provided, that should s/he have minor children of
g) Following the two-year probation school age, s/he must have enrolled them in similar
period, the applicant may apply for schools
administration of the oath of 5. Must have a known trade, business,
citizenship in accordance with the profession, or lawful occupation,
decision approving his petition for from which s/he derives income
naturalization. sufficient for his/her support and, if
- The court shall grant this s/he is married and/or has
motion, provided that it is dependents, also that of his/ her
established that he: family
1. Has not left the Philippines ᴸ Exception: Applicants who are college degree
2. Has devoted himself to a lawful calling holders but are unable to practice their profession
3. Has not been convicted of any violation of law because they are disqualified to do so by reason of
4. Has not committed any act in contravention of their citizenship
any government-announced policy 6. Must be able to read, write and
h) The last step is the administration speak Filipino or any of the dialects
of the oath of citizenship, by virtue of the Philippines
of which the petitioner shall embrace

7. Must have mingled with the Filipinos ᴸ If they shall fail to take the oath within this period
and evinced a sincere desire to learn of time, the approval of the petition shall be
and embrace the customs, traditions deemed abandoned
and ideals of the Filipino people f. Within five days after the applicant
– Disqualifications: (Same as that in CA 473) has taken the oath, the Bureau of
– Procedure: Immigration shall forward a copy of
a. The person desiring to acquire the petitioner’s oath to the proper
Philippine citizenship shall file a LCR
petition with the Special Committee g. The Bureau of Immigration shall
on Naturalization, stating therein all cancel the alien certificates of
the required information and registration of the applicant
accompanied by the required h. After the approval of the petition for
documents administrative naturalization and
b. Within 60 days from the receipt of cancellation of the applicant‟s alien
the report of the agencies which certificate of registration, the
were furnished with a copy of the applicant‟s lawful wife and minor
petition or the date of the last children may file a petition for
publication of the petition, whichever cancellation of their alien
comes later, the Committee shall certificates of registration with the
consider and review all relevant Committee, subject to a filing fee
and material information it has and a naturalization fee
received pertaining to the petition ᴸ NOTE: If the applicant is a married woman, the
ᴸ they may, for this purpose, call the petitioner for approval of her petition for administrative
interview to ascertain his/her identity, the naturalization will not benefit her alien husband.
authenticity of the petition, and determine the However, her minor children may file a petition for
truthfulness of the statements and declarations cancellation of their alien certificates of registration
made threin with the BI, subject to the requirements of existing
ᴸ If they have received any information adverse to laws.
the petition, they shall allow the petitioner to – The Special Committee may cancel certificates
answer, explain, or refute the information. of naturalization issued :
c. If the Committee believes that the a) If it finds that the naturalized person
petitioner has all the qualifications or his duly authorized representative
and none of the disqualifications, made any false statement or
they shall approve the petition and misrepresentation or committed any
notify the petitioner of such fact of violation of law, rules and
approval. Otherwise, they shall regulations in connection with the
disprove the same. petition for naturalization, or if he
d. Within thirty days from the receipt of otherwise obtains Philippine
notice of the approval of his/her citizenship fraudulently or illegally
petition, the applicant shall pay the b) If the naturalized person or his wife,
Committee a naturalization fee of or any or his minor children who
PhP100,000.00. Upon the full acquire Filipino citizenship by virtue
payment of this fee, a certificate of of his naturalization shall, within five
naturalization shall be issued (5) years next following the grant of
e. Within sixty days from the issuance Philippine citizenship, establish
of the certificate, the petitioner shall permanent residence in a foreign
take the oath of allegiance in the country, that individual's certificate of
proper forum, upon proof of the naturalization or acquired citizenship
payment of the required fees shall be cancelled or revoked
ᴸ The fact of such person's remaining for more than
one (1) year in his country of origin, or two (2)

years in any foreign country, shall be that he registers as such before any
considered prima facie evidence of intent to Philippine consulate within one year
permanently reside therein after attaining majority age and
c) If the naturalized person or his wife takes the oath of allegiance
or child with acquired citizenship ● Revocation
allows himself or herself to be used  Naturalization is not an incontestable or
as a dummy in violation of any irrevocable status
constitutional or legal provision  A person may be denaturalized on petition
requiring Philippine citizenship as a of the Solicitor General on the basis of the
condition for the exercise, use or following grounds:
enjoyment of a right, franchise or 1. His certificate of naturalization was
privilege obtained fraudulently
d) If the naturalized person or his wife 2. He established permanent
or child with acquired citizenship residence abroad within 5 years
commits any act inimical to national after his naturalization
security 3. The petition was based on an
– NOTE: In case the naturalized person holds any invalid declaration of intention
hereditary title, or belongs to any order of nobility, 4. His minor children failed to comply
he shall make an express renunciation of his title with the educational requirements
or membership in this order of nobility before the through his fault or neglect
Special Committee or its duly authorized 5. He allowed himself to be used as
representative, and such renunciation shall be a dummy in violation of our
included in the records of his application for naturalization laws
citizenship.  Effects of the revocation:
● Effects 1. If the revocation is based on
1. Naturalization shall confer upon the grounds affecting the intrinsic
petitioner all the rights of a Philippine validity of the proceedings, it shall
citizen, except those reserve only to divest the wife and children of their
natural-born citizens of the Philippines derivative naturalization
2. It shall vest Philippine citizenship upon his 2. If the revocation is based on
wife, is she might herself be naturalized grounds personal to the
3. Minor children denaturalized Filipino, his wife and
a. Minor children born in the children shall retain their Philippine
Philippines shall also be considered citizenship
citizens of the Philippines  It is only the State that may
b. Minor children born outside of the question the illegality or invalidity of
Philippines who was residing in the procured certificate of
the country at the time of the naturalization in the appropriate
naturalization shall also be denaturalization proceedings.
considered a Filipino ᴸ It is not, for example, a matter that may be raised
c. Minor children born outside of the by private persons in an election case involving the
Philippines before his parent’s naturalized citizen‟s descendant
naturalization shall be considered a
citizen only during his minority ALIEN CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
unless he begins to permanently - No election of Philippine citizenship shall be
reside in the Philippines while still a accepted for registration under CA 625 unless the
minor party exercising the right of election has complied
d. A child born outside of the with the requirements of the Alien Registration Act
Philippines after his parent’s of 1950
naturalization shall be considered a - Obtaining an Alien Certificate of Registration,
citizen of the Philippines provided effects:
1. It is not tantamount to a repudiation of should not be understood as having

original citizenship a curative effect on any irregularity in
2. It is does not result in an acquisition of the acquisition of citizenship for
alien citizenship those covered by the 1935
3. An application for and holding of the an Constitution
Alien Certificate of Registration is not an act  Republic v. Sagun
constituting renunciation of Philippine - Being a legitimate child, the
citizenship respondent‟s citizenship followed
ᴸ For renunciation to effectively result in the loss of that of her father who is Chinese,
citizenship, the same must be express unless she elects Philippine
citizenship upon attaining the age of
majority
JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF CITIZENSHIP - Only legitimate children follow the
- There is no proceeding established for the citizenship of their father, and those
judicial declaration of the citizenship of an illegitimate children are under the
individual. parental authority of the mother, and
- There is no specific legislation authorizing the follow her nationality
institution of a judicial proceeding to declare that a - An illegitimate child of a Filipina
given person is part of our citizenry need not perform any act to confer
- Such judicial declaration cannot even be upon him all the rights and privileges
decreed pursuant to an alternative prayer therefor attached to citizens of the
in a naturalization proceeding Philippines. He automatically
becomes a citizen himself.
B. Naturalization
CASES  Republic v. Batuigas
A. Citizenship (in general) - The petition for naturalization of the
 Labo v. COMELEC responded was allowed, despite the
- The Court stressed the importance objections of the Solicitor General as
of not taking advantage of one‟s to her lack of a “lucrative income”
citizenship in this case. - The Court said that Azucena is a
- They ruled that, while the citizen has teacher by profession and has
the right to renounce the Philippines actually exercised her profession
if he sees fit and transfer his before she had to quit to assume her
allegiance to another state, he family duties
cannot expect to be welcomed back - Together, the spouses were all able
with open arms once his taste for the to raise their five children, provided
adopted country has gone sour them with education, and all have
- His original Philippine citizenship become professionals and
may be restored only after a formal responsible citizens of the country.
act of rededication to the country This is proof enough of her lucrative
and he solemnly affirms once again trade.
his total and excusive loyalty to the - Her profession never leaves her; she
Republic. This may not be may resume teaching at any time
accomplished by election to - The Court reiterated that the main
public office. objective of extending the
 Re: Application For Admission to the citizenship privilege to the alien wife
Philippine Baar, Vicente D. Ching is to maintain a unity and allegiance
- The 1973 and 1987 Constitution among family members
provisions on election Philippine
citizenship (when the child is born of MIXED MARRIAGES
a Filipino mother but an alien father) -
- Old Constitution: 1. Alien woman must file a petition for the

Filipino woman who married an alien cancellation of certificate of her alien
forfeited her citizenship if under the law registration; alleging among other things
of her husband‟s state, she was that she is married to a Filipino citizen and
required to follow his citizenship that she is not disqualified from acquiring
her husband‟s citizenship
- Reversed by Article 4 Sec. 4 2. accompanied or supported by the joint
Citizens of the Philippines who marry affidavit of the petitioner and her Filipino
aliens shall retain their Philippine husband to the effect that the petitioner
Citizenship unless by their act or does not belong to any of the groups
omission, they are deemed under the disqualified from becoming a naturalized
law to have renounced it. Filipino citizen
* does not preclude filing of judicial
CA No. 473 proceeding instead of administrative
Section 15 proceeding under CA 473
- Any woman who is now or may hereafter be
married to a citizen of the Philippines, and LOSS AND REACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP
who might herself be lawfully naturalized CA No. 63
shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines - Philippine Citizenship is lost through
- Alien woman must not be laboring under any 1. by naturalization in a foreign country
of the disqualifications prescribed by law for 2. by express renunciation of citizenship
naturalization in her own right as a Filipino 3. by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to
citizen; She can establish her claim to support the constitution or laws of a foreign
Philippine Citizenship in administrative country upon attaining 18 yrs. Of age or more
proceedings before the Immigration - Filipino may not divest himself of
authorities only and will not have to file a Philippine Citizenship in any manner while the
judicial action RP is at war with any country
4. by rendering service to or accepting
CASE commission in the armed forces of a foreign
- Moy ya Lim Yao v. Comissioner of country; provided, the rendering of service to
Immigration or acceptance of such commission in the
- Filipino, native born or naturalized armed forces of a foreign country and the
becomes ipso facto a filipina provided she taking of an oath of allegiance incident thereto,
is not disqualified to be a citizen of the with consent of RP, shall not divest a Filipino
Philippines under section 4 of CA 473. of his citizenship if either of the circumstances
- Alien woman married to an alien who is are present
subsequently naturalized here follows the a. RP has a defensive and/or offensive pact
Philippine citizenship of her husband the of alliance with the said foreign country
moment he takes his oath provided that b. said foreign country maintains armed
she doesn‟t suffer from any of the forces in PH territory with the consent of RP
qualifications under said section 5. by cancellation of the certificate of
- Steps taken by an alien woman married to naturalization
a Filipino citizen

6. by having been declared by competent effectivity of the law in 2003 and are allowed to
authority, a deserter of the Philippine Armed retain their PH Citizenship.
Forces in times of war  Unmarried minor children will also acquire PH
7. woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner by Citizenship
virtue of the laws the laws in force in her  One intends to run for Public office or
husband‟s country, she acquires his nationality appointive public office in the PH, his oath of
allegiance to this country must contain a
Philippine Citizenship may be reacquired by rejection or renunciation of all other countries,
1. Naturalization (applicant must possess no cannot or ceases to be dual citizen
disqualification)
2. Repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS
AirCorps, provided that a woman who lost her - Sec. 2, Article 4, 1987 Consti
citizenship by reason of her marriage to alien  Natural-born citizens: PH citizens from birth
spouse may be repatriated : did not perform any act to acquire or perfect
3. Direct Act of Congress citizenship
: those who elect PH citizenship under 1935
CASES consti
- Bengson v. HRET
: Cruz was a natural born Filipino enlisted in the DUAL ALLEGIANCE
US Armed forces and lost his PH Citizenship. In - Mercado v. Manzano
1994 he was repatriated under RA 2630 and - Manzano, a dual citizen, was born in the US of
was elected in 1998 to the House of Filipino parents and was therefore a Filipino
Representatives citizen under Jus Sanguinis and an American
: Court said citizen under Jus Soli
- Cruz is deemed to have recovered his - SC found that upon attaining majority age, he
original status as a natural born citizen, a voted in the 1992, 1995, 1998 elections
status which he acquired from birth as the effectively electing PH citizenship in
son of a Filipino citizen. Act of repatriation accordance with 1935 consti, ceasing to be a
allows him to recover or return to his original dual citizen and qualified to be elected to the
status before he lost his Philippine disputed position.
Citizenship - Consti policy embodied in Art. 4 Sec. 5 is not
against dual citizenship but dual loyalty
DUAL CITIZENSHIP  Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
- Recognized in this country, allows natural born public interest and shall be dealt with by law
Filipinos to enjoy their rights they used to enjoy  Dual citizenship is allowable but never with
here before they acquired a new citizenship Dual allegiance
abroad
- RA 9225 RA 9225 – CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND
 Former Filipinos may reacquire their PH REACQUISTION ACT OF 2003
citizenship by simply taking the prescribed - Restoration or retention of the original citizenship
oath of allegiance to the PH of any natural-born Filipino who has acquired
 Privilege is also available to natural born citizenship in a foreign country through
Filipinos who are naturalized after the naturalization proceedings, provided he takes
oath.

- Prescribed oath does not contain the standard  Personal and sworn renunciation must be
clause that a naturalized renounces his done in accordance with the exact tenure of
allegiance to any other state, it is assumed when Sec. 5(2) of RA 9225
he swears and recognize and accepts the  Renunciation of foreign citizen must be
supreme authority of the Philippines sworn before an officer authorized to
- Natural-born PH Citizens who have been or administer oath.
intend to be naturalized in a foreign country, shall, - Jacot v. Dal
upon taking the oath, be deemed to have  Act of running for public office does not suffice to
reacquired or retain PH citizenship upon taking serve as an effective renunciation of foreign
such oath. citizenship for purposes of qualifying for public
- Those who retain or acquire citizenship under the office.
law shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be - Lewis v. Comelec
subject to all attendant liabilities under existing  Dual citizenship under the law does not have to
law of PH and subject to certain conditions. reside in the PH to be able to vote in our
Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage elections
must meet the requirements under Section 1,  No provision in the dual citizenship law RA
Article 5 of the Consti 9225 requiring duals to actually establish
 RA 9189 Overseas Absentee Voting Act of residence and physically stay in the PH first
2003 before they can vote
 Those seeking elective pubic office in the PH - Macalintal v. Comelec
must meet the qualifications for holding such  Upheld the right of non-resident Filipinos to vote
public office as required by the consti and under the provisions of the overseas absentee
existing laws voting act of 2003
 Must make a personal and sworn  No provision in the dual citizenship law, requiring
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship duals to actually establish residence and
before any public officer authorized to physically stay in the PH first before they can
administer an oath. Upon taking 2 nd oath, exercise their right to vote
citizen ceases to be dual citizen  Section 2 of overseas absentee voting act
 Right to vote or be elected or appointed to  Only those Filipinos who meet the
any public office in the PH cannot be requirements under Sec. 1, which include the
exercised by or extended to those who residence qualifications, can be considered
o Candidates for or are occupying any public as among those qualified
office in the country which they are - Japson v. Comelec
naturalized  Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance
o In active service as non/commissioned  DC arises when as a result of concurrent
officers in the armed forces of the country applications of the different laws of two or
of which they are naturalized citizens; more states, a person is considered a national
those intending to practice their profession by said states. It is involuntary
in the PH shall apply with the proper  DA a situation in which a person
authority for a license or permit to engage simultaneously owes by some positive act,
loyalty to two or more states. Voluntary
CASES  Animus revertendi is needed
- Sobejana v. Comelec  RA 9225 imposes no residency requirement for
the reacquisition or retention of PH citizenship

nor does it mention such reacquisition or

retention of PH citizenship on the current
residence of the concerned natural born Filipino.
 It treats citizenship independently of residence
 “What RA 9225 does is allow DC to natural born
PH citizens who have lost PH Citizenship by
reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country”
 Does not recognize dual allegiance
 What happens to the other citizenship is not a
concern of the law


Consti 2 Combined Notes

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Consti 2 Combined Notes

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 - CRUZ

CHAPTER 14 regulation by the legislature and to change

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 1

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 2

 Ilusorio v. Court of Agrarian Relations 2. Law that aggravates a crime or makes it

- Application of a bank inquiry order under the

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 4

considering the attendant circumstances of - Law expressly provides that such

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 5

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 6

– The thrust of the law is to prohibit the issuance of

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 7

- Restraint of the individual so he can be - To prevent disruption to the detriment of the

Kaisahan ng manggagawa sa kahoy v. Gotamco Imbong v. Ochoa

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 8

- SC Disagreed: practice of medicine is - To whom directed: to the person detaining

- Purpose: to relieve a person from unlawful

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 9

1. Restraint MONTENEGRO AND LANSANG DOCTRINE

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 10

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 11

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 12

fate or whereabouts of the person 8. To address fears of persons who anticipate

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 13

CASES 3. To define and impose the

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 14

: embodies several new rules aimed against

 Article 8 Section 5(3): SC is now expressly

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 15

 SC consistently held that the dismissal of a. Length of delay

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 16

timeliness in view of its mandate to promptly SECTION 1 v. SECTION 14(1)

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 17

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 18

- A preliminary investigation serves courtroom, intimidating the defense

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 19

unconscious to determine whether 1. As long as the questions will tend to

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 20

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 21

Court declared that it found no valid is shot at him, an accused may

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 22

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 23

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 24

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 25

B. Right may not be invoked C. Inadmissibility in evidence / Accused being

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 26

- The accused executed the affidavit - Uncounseled admissions to

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 27

observance of the safeguards issue and is otherwise not excluded

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 28

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 29

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 30

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 31

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 32

- They emphasized that the power to - Because of the constitutional presumption of

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 33

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 34

o The challenged proviso  Ligot v. Republic

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 35

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 36

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 37

CONFLICT IN THE INFORMATION be inapplicable to the

AGCAOILI | CORTEZ Page 38