CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018

Bill of Rights – Art. III, 1987 PC 4. Judgment rendered upon a lawful hearing
 Limitations against governmental powers
 Decided by the courts: balance conflict of rights Impartial & competent court – vested with jurisdiction as
conferred by law
 Rule 137, ROC: A judge may disqualify himself from
sitting in a case for just or valid reasons
*DUE PROCESS*
Jurisdiction
Art. III, Sec. 1 (1987 PC)
1. Actions in personam – jurisdiction over defendant
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
is acquired by voluntary appearance or service of
without DUE PROCESS of law…
summons (personal, substituted, or via publication
in exceptional cases)
Art. III, Sec. 1 (1987 PC)
2. Actions in rem – jurisdiction is derived from the
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
power it may exercise over the property (notice by
without DUE PROCESS of law.
publication is sufficient in cases of this nature)
 Dual aspect: substantial or procedural
 Minimum rights to notice and hearing  Judgment is binding only upon the parties who were
properly impleaded
Deprivation: to take away forcibly, prevent from possessing,
Notice and Hearing – the right to be heard
enjoying, or doing something; denial of the right to liberty
 Every litigant is entitled to his day in court
 Notice to a party is essential to enable him to adduce
LIFE – integrity of the physical person; right to reproduce;
evidence and to meet and refute the evidence
the unborn child; parenthood; a decent life
submitted by the other party
 A decision rendered without a hearing is null and void
LIBERTY – person’s freedom to act in such a manner as not
(David v. Aquilizan)
to injure the rights of others
 There was no denial of due process where the Regional
 Salus populi est suprema lex (The welfare of the
Director resolved the issues summarily on the basis of
people is the supreme law): the individual as a
position papers (Stronghold v. CA)
creature of society, should be prepared to
surrender part of his freedom for the benefit of the
Exceptions: When Notice & Hearing may be omitted
greater number
1. Nuisances
a. Per se – objectionable under any and all
 The courts may issue rules to protect constitutionally
circumstances because it presents an
guaranteed rights
immediate danger to the welfare of the
o Ex: Writ of Amparo – life, liberty, & security
community and may be abated summarily
 For forced disappearances
without judicial authorization
 May be filed against public officers or
b. Per accidens – objectionable only under
private persons/entities
some circumstances; it is the right thing in
the wrong place; only courts have the
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS (Prohibits Arbitrary Laws)
power to declare a thing as a nuisance
 w/n the law is a proper exercise of legislative
power; looks at the intrinsic validity of the law
2. Presumptions – statutory presumption does not
 the law must have a VALID governmental objective;
violate due process if based on human experience
i.e. the interest of the public vs. those of a
particular class; similar to police power
Judgment – to insure against arbitrariness, due process
 Requisites: (1) Activity sought to be regulated is of
requires that judgment be based upon lawful hearing
public interest; and (2) Means employed is not
previously conducted
unduly oppressive to individuals (is the means
 Art. VIII, Sec. 14 (1987 PC) says that “…no decision
necessary to obtain the objective; is there any
shall be rendered by any court without expressing
other way to attain it)
therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
on which it is based”
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS (Requisites)
 Notice & opportunity to be heard before judgment
is rendered affecting one’s person and property
For ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
 Depends on circumstances; it varies with the
1. Right to a hearing (to present one’s case & submit
subject matter and necessities of the situation
evidentiary support)
2. Tribunal must consider evidence presented
For JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
3. Decision must have something to support itself
1. Impartial court with power to hear and decide the
4. Evidence supporting the conclusion must be
case before it
substantial
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person or
5. Decision rendered must be based on evidence
property which is subject of the proceedings
submitted and on record and disclosed to the
3. Defendant’s notice and opportunity to be heard
parties

Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB

Cagayan State University – College of Law Page 1
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
6. There must be an independent consideration of
law and facts in arriving at a decision
7. Decision rendered must inform parties of various
issues involved and reasons for the decision
rendered in all controversial questions
Due process does not, in all situations, require a trial-type
proceeding. Litigants may be heard through pleadings,
written explanations, position papers, memoranda, or oral
arguments. (Orbase v. Ombudsman)
*EQUAL PROTECTION*
Art. III, Sec. 1 (1987 PC)
… nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.
The equality guaranteed is legal equality or equality of all
persons before the law. It does not demand absolute
equality. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated
alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both as to
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
If the act assailed partakes of unwarranted partiality, the
sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection (EP)
clause.
In PP v. Vera, the old Probation Law was violative of the EP
clause. It provided that the system shall be applicable only
in the provinces providing for the salary of a probation
officer granted by the provincial board. A person qualified
would be able to enjoy the benefits of probation in one
province while a person similarly situated in another would
be denied the same benefits.
Requisites of Valid Classification
1. Based on Substantial Distinctions
2. Germane to the purposes of the law
3. Not limited to Existing Conditions only
4. Applies Equally to all members of the Same Class
In the case of International School Alliance of Educators v.
Quisumbing, the issue stemmed from the better pay and
benefits received by foreign teachers as opposed to the local
hires. The Court said that persons who work with
substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort, and
responsibility under similar conditions, should be paid
similar salaries. Persons with the same position and rank,
perform equal work, hence, “equal pay for equal work.”
In Garcia v. Drilon, it was settled that RA 9262 (VAWC Law)
did not violate the EP clause by favoring women over men
as victims of violence and abuse to whom the State extends
its protection because of the following: there is an “unequal
power relationship between men and women; it is a fact
that women are more likely than men to become victims of
violence; and that there is a widespread gender bias against
women. All of these make for real differences justifying the
classification under the law.
In Biraogo v. The Phil. Truth Commission, the intent to
single out the previous Arroyo administration and not
including the past administrations similarly situated
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law Page 2
constitutes arbitrariness which is not sanctioned by the EP
clause.
 Duration of law must be enforced not only to the
present condition but as long as the situation ought to
be corrected or addressed continues to exist.
In Ormoc Sugar Co. v. The Treasurer of Ormoc City, the
singling out of the sugar refinery in the ordinance was
unconstitutional, though at that time it was the only
producer and exporter of refined sugar. The classification
should be in terms applicable to future conditions as well,
which should not exclude any other sugar refineries in the
same class as the OSC which will be put up in the future.
 Applicability to all – classification will be regarded as
invalid if all the members of the same class are not
similarly treated both as to right and obligations
In Tatad v. Secretary of Energy, the law deregulating the oil
industry is unconstitutional for discriminating against new
players by placing them at a competitive disadvantage vis-
à-vis the established big players by requiring them to meet
certain conditions already being observed by the large
companies (i.e. local refinery costing billions to construct).
In the Ichong v. Hernandez case, the Retail Trade
Nationalization Act was upheld by the Court, saying
classification was valid. The mere fact of alienage is the root
and cause of the distinction between the alien and national
as trader. The alien owes allegiance to its home country, his
stay here is for personal convenience. He naturally lacks the
spirit, loyalty, and enthusiasm for this country where he
temporarily stays.
*SEARCHES & SEIZURES*
Art. 3, Sec. 2 (1987 PC)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures shall be inviolable...
No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
person or things to be seized.
General Rule: Searches and seizures (S&S) are unreasonable
UNLESS authorized by a validly issued search warrant or
warrant of arrest
Requisites for a Valid Warrant
1. It must be issued upon Probable Cause
2. Which must be Personally Determined by the Judge
3. The complainant and witnesses must be Examined
Under Oath by the Judge
4. The warrant must Particularly Describe the place to
be searched and person or things to be seized
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine (Nardone v. US) – a
doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make
evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
evidence that was illegally obtained (i.e. evidence seized as
an incident of an unlawful arrest or an invalid SW; evidence
seized under a general warrant or a fishing expedition;
seizures incidental to illegal searches or arrests)
Probable Cause – set of facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched (Burgos v. Chief of Staff)
In Disini v. DOJ, it was held that computer date is
considered as personal property and protected from
unreasonable S&S. Sec. 19 of the Anti-Cybercrime law places
computer data under the control of the government without
a valid warrant. Sec. 12 is also unconstitutional for enabling
law enforcers to engage in fishing expeditions while going
through the computer files.
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause – to be made
personally by the Judge, and no other
 Rule 112, ROC – The judge shall personally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor. In case of doubt, he may
order additional evidence.
In Placer v. Villanueva, judicial determination is not merely
ministerial. While the judge could rely on the findings of the
prosecutor, he is nevertheless not bound thereby.
In Bureau of Customs v. Dela Rosa, WOA may be issued by
administrative authorities only to carry out a final finding of
a violation of law and not for investigation or prosecution.
In Salazar v. Achacoso, the Secretary of Labor may no
longer issue SW or WOA against alleged illegal recruiters.
They must go through the judicial process.
Examination of an Applicant
 Rule 126, Sec. 4, ROC – The judge, before issuing a
warrant, must personally examine the complainant
and any witnesses he may produce and attach their
sworn statements and affidavits, if any
In Alvarez v. CFI, the warrant should not have been issued
since the witness did not swear to the truth upon his own
knowledge but upon the information received by him from a
reliable person.
 Quashal of Search Warrant
1. Merely Interlocutory – if search warrant was
applied for as an incident of a pending criminal
case, quashal does not affect the proceedings since
there is still something left to be done by the court
(ex: determination of the guilt of the accused)
2. Terminates the Case – if the search warrant was
applied for in anticipation of a criminal case yet to
be filed, its quashal shall end the judicial process
Particularity of Description
 SW particularly describes the things to be seized
when the description therein is as specific as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow; or
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law Page 3
 When the description expresses a conclusion of
fact – not of law – by which the warrant officer may
be guided in making the search and seizure; or
 When the things described are limited to those
which bear a direct relation to the offense for
which the warrant was issued (Bache & Co. v. Ruiz)
 John Doe Warrant – can satisfy the requirement of
particularity of description if it contains a description
personae such as will enable the officer to identify the
accused (PP v. Veloso)
 General Warrant – is one that does not allege any
specific acts or omissions constituting the offense
charged in the application for the issuance of the
warrant; contravenes the explicit demand of the Bill of
Rights that the things to be seized be particularly
described
In Stonehill v. Diokno, the Court held the SW as invalid since
it authorized the S&S of records pertaining to ALL business
transactions regardless whether the transactions were legal
or illegal (general warrant).
Properties Subject to Seizure (Rule 126, Sec. 2, ROC)
Only the following are subject to search and seizure:
1. Property Subject of the Offense;
2. Property Stolen or Embezzled and Other Proceeds
or Fruits of the Offense; and
3. Property Used or Intended to be Used as the
Means of Committing an Offense
Rule 126, Sec. 13 (ROC) – if the search is an incident of a
lawful arrest, seizure may be made of dangerous weapons
or anything that may have been used or may constitute
proof in the commission of the offense
VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH
1. Consented Searches
Requisites of a Valid Waiver of Right
1. The right exists
2. Person had actual or constructive knowledge of the
existence of such right
3. There is an actual intention to relinquish such right
4.
 The right against unreasonable S&S is a
personal right. Thus, only the person being
searched can waive the same
 Waiver requires a positive act from the person.
Mere opposition is not a waiver
2. Incident to a lawful arrest
 An officer making an arrest may take from the
person arrested any of the following:
a. Any money or property found with him
used in committing the offense
b. The fruits or proceeds of the offense
c. Those which may be used to commit
violence or as a means of escape
d. Those which may be used as evidence in
the trial of the case
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
 The search must be made simultaneously with
the arrest and it may only be made in the area
within the reach of the person arrested
3. Vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration,
customs, and drug laws
In Sales v. PP, the Court held that the seizure was
valid. The search was made pursuant to routine
airport security procedure which is allowed under
RA 6235. It found no irregularity when the
petitioner was asked to empty his pockets upon the
frisker’s reasonable belief that what he felt in
frisking the petitioner’s short pants was a
prohibited or illegal substance.
4. Automobiles at borders or constructive borders
5. Prohibited articles in plain view
Seizure of evidence in plain view
 The articles must be open to the eye and hand;
plainly exposed to sight
 The officer comes upon them inadvertently
 Apparent that the item he observes may be
evidence of a crime or contraband
6. Buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary,
and building regulations
7. Stop and frisk operations (Terry search)
In Terry v. Ohio, even before an arrest, when an
officer is justified in believing that the individual
whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at
close range is presently dangerous, he may conduct
a limited protective search for concealed weapons
to allow him to pursue his investigation without
risk of violence.
8. Customs searches
Seizure of goods concealed to avoid custom duties
authorized under the Tariffs and Customs Code
 Those with police authority under the Code
may effect S&S without warrant to enforce
custom laws
 S&S at borders and ports of entry do not
require the existence of probable cause
 Exception: SW is required for the search of a
dwelling house
9. Conducted under exigient and emergency
circumstances
Search of moving vehicles
 This exception is based on exigiency, thus, if
there is a time to obtain a warrant in order to
search the vehicle, a warrant must first be
obtained (Exception: Continuing pursuit)
 Must also be made under probable cause
10. Military checkpoints
In Valmonte v. De Villa, military checkpoints were
held as valid as long as the vehicle is neither
searched nor its occupants subjected to a body
search and the inspection of the vehicle is limited
to a visual search.
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law Page 4
11. Tipped information in buy-bust or other drug
operations
12. Drugs in transit
In the case of PP v. Malmstedt¸ a passenger bus
was stopped at a military checkpoint on the tip
that a Caucasian from Sagada had prohibited
drugs in his possession. The soldiers who alighted
the bus, noticed a bulge in the accused’s pouch
which turned out to be hashish. His travelling bag
contained teddy bears also stuffed with hashish.
VALID WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
Rule 115, Sec. 5 (ROC) – A peace officer or even a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
1. When such a person has in fact just committed, is
actually mitting, or is attempting to commit an
offense in his presence (IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO)
 Stop-and-frisk: when a policemen observes
suspicious activity which leads him to believe
that a crime is to be committed, he can
investigate the person and may frisk him for
weapons as a measure of self-protection; he
can arrest such person then and there for
having committed an offense in his presence
2. When an offecomnse has in fact just been
committed and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it (HOT PURSUIT)
 The pursuit must be continuous from the time
of the commission of the offense to the time of
the arrest
 There must be no supervening event which
breaks the continuity of the chase
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment where he
is serving final judgment (convicted prisoner), or
temporarily confined while his case is pending
(detention prisoner), or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another
(either convicted or merely detained) (ESCAPED
PRISONER)
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION & CORRESPONDENCE
Art. III, Sec. 3 (1987 PC)
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall
be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by
law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceedings.
RA 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act)
1. The law does not distinguish between a party to
the private communication or a third person.
Hence, both could be held liable if they commit
prohibited acts specified in the Act. (Ramirez v. CA)
2. The use of a telephone extension to overhear a
private conversation is not a violation of RA 4200
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018

because it is not similar to any of the prohibited Requisites of Valid Waiver

devices under the law. Also, a telephone extension 1. Made IN WRITING
is not purposely installed for the purpose of 2. Made IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL
secretly intercepting or recording private
communication. (Gaanan v. IAC) In the case of PP v. Mahinay, the Supreme Court provided
for an update of the so-called Miranda Rights in the light of
In Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, the Court laid down the new legal developments. The person arrested or detained
two-fold test to the right to privacy. The first is a subjective must be informed of the following:
test, where one claiming the right must have an actual or 1. Shown his warrant of arrest; informed in a
legitimate expectation of privacy over a certain matter. The language known to and understood by him of the
second is an objective test, where his expectation of privacy reason of his arrest
must be one which the society is prepared to accept as
objectively reasonable. 2. Warned of his right to remain silent ; any
statement he makes may be used as evidence
Exclusionary Rule: Any evidence obtained shall be against him
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. However, in
the absence of governmental interference, the protection 3. His right to be assisted at all times and have the
against unreasonable S&S cannot be extended to acts presence of an independent and competent lawyer,
committed by private individuals. (PP v. Martin) preferably of his own choice
Ex: security guard at entrance of a mal inspecting bags of
mall-goers, personnel of LBC who opened pagkage 4. If he has no lawyer or cannot afford one, it will be
containing prohibited drugs provided for him; or maybe engaged by any person
on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon
petition
*R I G H T S O F T H E A C C U S E D* 5. No custodial investigation shall be conducted
except in the presence of his counsel, whether or
RIGHTS OF PERSON UNDER INVESTIGATION
not he has a lawyer; or after a valid waiver has
Art. III, Sec. 12. Rights of person under investigation for the
been made
commission of an offense
1. Right to Remain Silent
6. At any time, he has a right to communicate by the
2. Right to have Competent & Independent Counsel,
most expedient means with his lawyer, family,
preferably of his own choice
doctor, priest, NGOs; responsibility of the officer to
3. Right to be Provided with the Services of Counsel, if
ensure that this is accomplished
he cannot afford the services of one
4. Right to be Informed of These Rights
7. Right to waive any of said rights ; provided it is
made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently and
When does the rights become available?
ensure that he understood the same
1. AFTER a person has been taken into custody; or
2. When a person is deprived of freedom of action in
8. Waiver of his right to a lawyer must be done in
any significant way; or
writing and in the presence of counsel; warning
3. When the investigation is being conducted by the
him that if done otherwise, it is void even if he
government (Police, NBI, DOJ, PDEA) with respect
insists and chooses to speak
to a criminal offense; or
4. By signing of arrest reports and booking sheets
9. He may indicate in any manner at any time or
stage of the process that he does not wish to be
When are the rights not available
questioned; warning him that if he indicates such,
1. During police line-up
he will no longer be interrogated
a. Exception: Once investigators start to elicit
admissions or confessions from the
10. His initial waiver of his right to remain silent, his
suspects in the line-up
right to counsel, or any of his rights does not bar
2. During administrative investigations
him from invoking it at any time during the process
3. Confessions made by an accused at the time he
voluntarily surrendered to the police or outside the
11. Any statement or evidence obtained in violation of
context of a formal investigation
the foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory,
4. Statements made to a private person
in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in
evidence
Exclusionary Rule
1. Any confession or admission obtained in violation
of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence
RIGHT TO BAIL
against him
Art. III, Sec. 13 (1987 PC) - All persons ACTUALLY DETAINED
2. Any evidence from an illegally obtained confession
shall, BEFORE CONVICTION, be entitled to bail.
is also inadmissible
EXCEPT those charged with reclusion perpetua
WHEN EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS STRONG. They shall be

Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB

Cagayan State University – College of Law Page 5
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
bailable by sufficient sureties. Excessive bail shall not be
required.
In the case of Enrile, et. Al. (Plunder Case), he was allowed
bail even if crime was punishable with reclusion perpetua,
the Supreme Court citing his frail health as reasonable
exception. The court did not however rule on his argument
that the denial of bail for crimes punished by reclusion
perpetua is actually repugnant to the constitutionally-
guaranteed right of an accused to bail.
In the case of Pareja v. Gomez, even if the crime imputed to
the accused is punished by reclusion perpetua, he is still
entitled to bail if the evidence of guilt is not strong. This
does not have to be established by him; it is for the
prosecution to prove the contrary, although it is not
necessary to prove at this point his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
RIGHTS OF A PERSON CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE (ART. III, SEC. 14 – 1987 PC)
1. Due process of law
2. Presumed innocent
3. Heard by himself and counsel
4. Informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him
5. A speedy, impartial, and public trial
6. Meet the witnesses face to face
7. Compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence on his
behalf
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Art. III, Sec. 17 (1987 PC). No person shall be compelled to
be a witness against himself.
1. When is a question incriminating
a. When the answer of the accused or
witness would establish a fact which
would necessary link in a chain of
evidence to prove the commission of a
crime by the accused or the witness
2. The right cannot be invoked in legislative inquiries
3. An accused can refuse to take the witness stand by
invoking the right. However, an ordinary witness
cannot refuse to take the stand, he can only refuse
to answer specific questions which would
incriminate him in the commission of the offense.
4. What is PROHIBITED is the use of physical and
moral compulsion to extort or elicit evidence from
the witness which would not exist were it not for
the testimonial evidence compelled from the
witness.
5. The right DOES NOT PROHIBIT the examination of
the body of the accused or the use of findings with
respect to his body as physical evidence.
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law Page 6
6. The accused cannot be compelled to produce a
document in his possession which might tend to
incriminate him. However, a third person in
custody of the document may be compelled to
produce it.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
Art. III, Sec. 14 (a) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved…
In Fernandez v. PP, it has been said that when guilt is not
proven beyond moral certainty, the presumption of
innocence must be favored and exoneration granted as a
matter of right.
RIGHT TO BE HEARD
1. Right to be present at the trial, from arraignment
to promulgation of the sentence
2. After arraignment, the trial may proceed in
absentia:
a. If accused has been duly notified; and
b. His failure to appear is unjustifiable.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
1. Right to counsel means the right to have EFFECTIVE
REPRESENTATION
2. If accused appears at arraignment without counsel,
the judge must:
a. Inform the accused of his right to counsel
before arraignment;
b. Ask if he desires the aid of counsel;
c. If he cannot afford one, the court will
appoint a counsel de oficio;
d. If he wants to obtain his own, the court
must give him reasonable time
NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION
1. To furnish the accused with a description of the
charge against him as will enable him to make his
defenses;
2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal
against a further prosecution for the same cause;
and
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged for the
court to decide if they are sufficient in law to
support a conviction. (PP v. de la Cruz)
RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL, & PUBLIC TRIAL
1. Factors to determine whether the right to a
speedy trial has been violated
a. Time expired from the filing of the
information
b. Length of delay involved
c. Reasons for the delay
d. Assertion or non-assertion of the right by
the accsued
e. Prejudice caused to the defendant
2. Effect of dismissal based on the ground of
violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
a. If the dismissal is valid, it amounts to an
acquittal
b. Even if made with the consent of the
accused, this may be used as basis to as a
defense against double jeopardy
3. Remedy of the accused if his right to speedy trial
has been violated
a. Move for the dismissal of the case
b. If detained, file a petition for writ of
habeas corpus
4. Impartial Trial
a. The accused is entitled to the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge
b. An element of due process
5. Public Trial
a. Attendance is open to all irrespective of
their relationship to the accused
i. Except: if the evidence is adduced
as offensive to decency or public
morals
b. Right is not violated if conducted on
Saturdays, with the express consent or
failure to object
RIGHT TO MEET THE WITNESSES FACE TO FACE
1. Purpose of the right
a. Give the accused the opportunity to cross
examine the witness
b. Allow the judge the opportunity to
observe the deportment of a witness
2. Failure of accused to cross-examine a witness
a. If accused fails to cross due to his own
fault or without fault of the prosecutions,
the testimony should be excluded
3. When the right to cross is demandable
a. Demandable only during trials
b. Cannot be availed of during preliminary
investigation
c. Exceptions to the right of confrontation:
i. Dying declarations
ii. Trial in absentia
iii. With respect to child testimony
 While the rights of an accused only apply to the trial
phase of criminal cases, the right to a speedy
disposition of cases covers ALL PHASES of JUDICIAL,
QUASI-JUDICIAL, or ADMINISTRATIVE proceedings (Art.
III, Sec. 16 – 1987 PC)
RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS
The accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena
duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum for the purpose
of compelling the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence he may need for his defense.
PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law Page 7
Art. III, Sec. 19 (1987 PC) Excessive fines shall not be
imposed nor cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment
inflicted…
Due process requires equivalence between the degree of
the offense and the degree of the penalty
In the case of PP. v. Veneracion, Judge Veneracion, in his
decision in the case PP v. Galman, sentenced the accused to
reclusion perpetua only for committing the heinous crime of
rape with homicide, which at that time was punishable with
the death penalty, citing his religious beliefs. He was
removed from his office as a consequence.
In Echegaray v. SOJ, the plaintiff contended that death by
lethal injection was inhumane, therefore unconstitutional
but the Supreme Court sustained the legality of the death
penalty.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Art. III, Sec. 21 (1987 PC) No person shall be put twice in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution
for the same act.
1. Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy
a. Valid complaint or information
b. Competent court
c. Arraignment of the accused
d. Previous acquittal; conviction; dismissal/
termination without his consent
2. Complaint or Information
a. If original information is defective and the
case is dismissed on the motion of the
accused, it may be validly renewed with
the filing of the corrected information
b. If dismissed without the consent of the
accused due to defective information
when in fact it is not so, jeopardy attaches
3. Competent Court
a. Proper jurisdiction and proper venue
b. A decision rendered by a court without
jurisdiction cannot be valid
c. Double jeopardy requires valid previous
legal proceedings
4. Valid Plea
a. Jeopardy only attaches if the defendant
shall have pleaded to the charge against
him during arraignment
5. Termination of Case
a. Conviction, acquittal, or dismissal
b. As a general rule, a dismissal with the
express consent of the accused will not
bar another prosecution for the same act
c. Exceptions to this rule are the following
kinds of dismissal which are tantamount
to an acquittal:
i. Dismissal based on violation of
right to speedy trial
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
ii. Dismissal based on a demurer to
evidence on the merits of the
case
iii. Dismissal based on the
insufficiency of the evidence of
the prosecutor
6. Appeal to Final Judgment
a. Appeal of the prosecution to a judgment
of acquittal cannot be done as this would
put the accused in jeopardy for the same
offense
b. Appeal of the accused to his conviction is
a waiver to the right to plead double
jeopardy
7. Doctrine of Supervening Event
a. Accused may be prosecuted for another
offense if a subsequent development
changes the character of the first
indictment which he may have already
been charged or convicted
b. Rule 117, ROC – a conviction for an
offense will not bar a prosecution where:
i. The graver offense developed
due to a supervening fact arising
from the same act or omission
constitution the former charge
ii. The facts constituting the graver
charge were only known or
discovered after the filing of the
former information
iii. The plea of guilty to the lesser
offense was without the consent
of the prosecutor and the
offended party
c. Exception: if the facts could have been
discovered by the prosecution but were
not discovered prior to the filing of the
former information due to its
incompetence, it is not a supervening
event.
8. Act Violating Law and Ordinance
a. If the same act gives rise to offenses
defined by different national laws (ex: RPC
and national special law), there is no
double jeopardy
b. If the same act gives rise to crimes defined
in the PRC but under different chapters,
there is no double jeopardy (ex:
consented abduction and qualified
seduction)
c. If the act is punished by either a national
law and a local ordinance, acquittal or
conviction under either shall constitute a
bar to another prosecution for the same
act
*LIBERTY OF ABODE & TRAVEL*
Rights guaranteed under Art. III, Sec. 6 (1987 PC):
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law Page 8
1. Freedom to choose and change one’s place of
abode; and
2. Freedom to travel within the country and outside.
Right to travel and abode may be curtailed by the
following:
1. Liberty of abode – lawful order of the court; within
limits prescribed by law
2. Right to travel – may be curtailed even by
administrative officers; for the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health as may be
provided by law
In Marcos v. Manglapus, the right to travel and the liberty
of abode are distinct from the right to return to one’s
country, as shown by the fact that the Declaration of HR and
the Covenant of HR have separate guarantees for these.
Hence, the right to return to one’s country is not covered by
the specific right to travel and liberty of abode.
In Manotoc v. CA, the right to travel may be restricted since
the plaintiff is a defendant in several estafa cases and he is
merely out on bail. The condition of his bail bond require
that he would be available at any time that the court should
require his presence, was a valid restriction of his right to
travel.
*FREEDOM OF RELIGION*
Art III, Sec. 5 (1987 PC) provides for the following:
A. Non-establishment clause
B. Free exercise of religion
1. As a general rule, the State cannot meddle in the
internal affairs of the church, especially on
questions of faith and its dogmas, which are purely
ecclesiastical matters.
2. In Fonacier v. CA, the Court applied the internal
rules of the Aglipay Church to resolve the conflict as
between two persons claiming to be the head of
the church and thus vested with control of its
properties.
3. In UCCP, Inc. v. Bradford UCCI, Inc., the church’s
decision to disconnect its ties with another entity is
its sole prerogative and power. This is an
unquestionable ecclesiastical matter which is
outside the province of civil courts.
Freedom to Act on One’s Beliefs
In the US landmark case of Church of Lukumi
Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, City of Florida, the US
Supreme Court struck down a city ordinance which
prohibited the slaughter of animals if not for the
primary purpose of food consumption. Hence, it
illegalizes animal ritual sacrifice, which is a valid
exercise of religious belief by the church which practices
Santeria.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018
In the cases of St. Scholastica v. Sanos-Leus and
Escritor v. Estrada, the Supreme Court differentiated
religious immorality from secular immorality. It
espoused the doctrine of benevolent neutrality which
gives room for accommodation of religious exercise.
Escritor’s conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as
she has made a valid case of exemption from the law
based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion.
*FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION*
Art. III, Sec. 4 (1987 PC) No law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of
the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably
assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances
Protected Speech – includes every form of expression
as well as motion pictures, symbolic speech, and
peaceful picketing.
1. PRIOR RESTRAINT
a. Means governmental restrictions on
the press or other forms of expression
in advance of actual publication
b. Examples of Prior Restraint:
i. Movie censorship
ii. Injunction against publication
c. Exceptions:
i. During war
ii. Obscene publications
2. SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
a. Dangerous Tendency test – there
should be a rational connection
between the speech and the evil
apprehended
b. Clear and Present Danger test – there
exists a clear and present danger that
the words, when used under such
circumstances, are of such nature as
to create a Clear and Present Danger
that they will bring about the
substantive evils that the State has a
right to prevent
c. Balancing of Interests test – the
courts should balance the Public
Interest served by legislation vs.
Freedom of Speech; the courts will
decide where the greater weight
should be placed
Unprotected Speech
1. Libel
a. Fair Comment – statements of opinion,
not of fact, and not actionable, even if the
words used are neither mild nor
temperate; what is important is the
statements are not used to attack
personalities but opinions on decisions
and actions
Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB
Cagayan State University – College of Law Page 9
b. Opinions – with respect to public
personalities, opinions can be aired
regarding their public actuations;
comments on their private lives, if not
germane to their public personae, are not
protected
2. Obscenity (Test in Miller v. California)
a. Whether the average person, applying
contemporary community standards
would find that the work, taken as a
whole, appeals to prurient interest
b. Whether the work depicts or describes, in
a patently offensive way, sexual conduct,
specifically define by law
c. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks
serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value
* RIGHTS AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE *
Art. III, Sec. 18 (1987 PC) – involuntary servitude is a
condition of enforced or compulsory service of one to
another
Exceptions: (1) punishment for a crime which the party has
been duly convicted; (2) personal military or civil service in
the interest of national defense; (3) return to work order
issued by the DOLE Secretary or the President
In Caunca v. Salazar, a recruitment agency cannot detain a
maid from transferring to another employment for failure to
pay the amount advanced to her for her fare expense.
*NON - IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT*
Art. III, Sec. 20 (a987 PC) – The definition of debt under this
section refers to a contractual obligation, whether express
or implied, resulting in any liability to pay money
 If an accused fails to pay a fine imposed upon him, this
may result in subsidiary imprisonment because his
liability is ex delicto (arising from a crime) and not ex
contractu (arising from a contract).
In the Lozano v. Martinez case, the gravamen of the offense
being punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a
worthless check and not the non-payment of an obligation.
It is not intended to coerce a debtor to pay his debt.
* EX-POST FACTO LAW & BILL OF ATTAINDER *
Art. III, Sec. 22 (1987 PC) No ex post facto law or bill of
attainder shall be enacted.
Ex-Post Facto Law
1. Makes an action done before the passing of the
law, and which was innocent when done, criminal
and punishes such action
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Finals Reviewer – 2nd Semester, AY 2017-2018

2. Aggravates the crime or makes it greater than

when it was committed

3. Changes and inflicts a greater punishment than

that which the law annexed to the crime when it
was committed

4. Alters the legal rules of evidence and receive less

testimony that the law required at the time of the
commission of the offense in order to convict the
accused

5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies but in

effect, imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right,
which, when done, was lawful

6. Deprives a person accused of a crime of some

lawful protection to which he has become entitles
such as the protection of a former conviction or
acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty

The prohibition on ex post facto laws only applies to

RETROSPECTIVE PENAL LAWS.

Bill of Attainder
1. A legislative act which inflicts punishment without
judicial trial

2. Does not need to be directed at a specifically

named person

3. It may refer to easily ascertainable members of a

group in such a way as to inflict punishment on
them without judicial trial

4. Elements of a bill of attainder:

a. There must be a law
b. Which imposes a Penal Burden on a
Named Individual or Ascertainable
Members of a Group
c. The penal burden is Imposed Directly
Without Judicial Trial

*CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES*

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the

time of the adoption of this Constitution

2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the

Philippines

3. Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino

mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
attaining the age of majority

4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law

Paula Francesca A. Bariuan, 1B-LLB

Cagayan State University – College of Law Page 10