1.

Freedom from political beliefs (political prisoner)

Sec 18. No person shall be liable solely on account of his political beliefs or aspirations
2. Freedom against involuntary servitude (relate to Art II, Sec 4)
Sec 19. No involuntary servitude, in any form shall exist, except as payment for a crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted
Article II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may
call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required,
under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.
s. Right against cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment
Sec 20.
t. Right against imprisonment for non-payment of debt or poll tax
i. debt
1. Lozano v Martinez
Facts
A motion to quash the charge against the petitioners for violation of the BP 22 was made, contending
that the statute is unconstitutional for violating the right against non imprisonment of debt. Such
motion was denied by the RTC. The petitioners thus elevate the case to the Supreme Court for relief
Issue: WON BP 22 violates the constitutional right against imprisonment for nonpayment of debt
Held: No. What BP 22 punishes is not the nonpayment of obligation but the act of making or issuing
worthless checks and putting them in circulation. The enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by the
legislature that, as a matter of public policy, the making and issuance of a worthless check is deemed
public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions.

ii. Poll tax definition - taxes that are imposed on people residing in a specified territory whether
citizens or not without regard to their properties or their earnings
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punishable
under an ordinance or a law, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same offense
i. two kinds
1. same offense
Perez v ca
Facts
A criminal complaint was filed by Yolanda Mendoza against Eleuterio Perez for Consented Abduction
however he was acquitted. Subsequent to Perez's acquittal, Mendoza filed another criminal complaint
against Perez this time for Qualified Seduction. Perez filed a motion to quash invoking double jeopardy.
Issue
Whether the filing of an information for Qualified Seduction against Perez after he was acquitted for
Consented Abduction constitutes double jeopardy.
Held
The rule on double jeopardy is that, "No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense. The term same offense means identical offense or any attempt to commit the same or
frustration thereof or any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the former complaint or information. Although it is true that the two offenses for which
Perez was charged arose from the same facts, this does not preclude the filing of another information
against him if from those facts, two distinct offenses, each requiring different elements, arose.
Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction are not identical offenses as would make applicable the
rule on double jeopardy. Moreover, the very nature of these two offenses would negate any identity
between them

Note
There are similar elements between Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction, namely: (1) that the
offended party is a virgin, and, (2) that she must be over twelve (12) and under eighteen (18) years of
age. However, two elements differentiate the two crimes. Consented Abduction, in addition to the two
common elements, requires that: (1) the taking away of the offended party must be with her consent,
after solicitation or cajolery from the offender, and, (2) the taking away of the offended party must be
with lewd designs. On the other hand, an information for Qualified Seduction also requires that: (1) the
crime be committed by abuse of authority, confidence or relationship, and, (2) the offender has sexual
intercourse with the woman.
LAMERA V CA
Facts
Petitioner, while driving an owner type jeep allegedly "hit and bumped" a tricycle then driven by Ernesto
Reyes resulting in damage to the tricycle and injuries to Ernesto Reyes and Paulino Gonzal. As a
consequence thereof two information were filed against him, reckless imprudence resulting in damage
to property with multiple physical injuries under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of
paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code on Abandonment of one's victim. He was convicted
with the crime of abandonment of ones victim. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari contending that
the two information were based on the same act, the vehicular collision and thus would constitute
double jeopardy
Issue
whether or not prosecution for negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is a bar to
prosecution for abandonment under Article 275 of the same Code
Held
No. Said articles penalize different and distinct offenses. The protection against double jeopardy is only
for the same offense. A simple act may be an offense against two different provisions of law and if one
provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under
one does not bar prosecution under the other. Since the informations were for separate offenses the
first against a person and the second against public peace and order one cannot be pleaded as a bar
to the other under the rule on double jeopardy
2. same act
PEOPLE V RELOVA
Facts
In this petition for certiorari and mandamus, People of the Philippines seeks to set aside the orders of
Respondent Judge Hon. Relova quashing an information for theft filed against Mr. Opulencia on the
ground of double jeopardy and denying the petitioners motion for reconsideration.. On Feb.1 1975,
Batangas police together with personnel of Batangas Electric Light System, equipped with a
search warrant issued by a city judge of Batangas tosearch and examine the premises of the Opulencia
Carpena Ice Plant owned by one Manuel Opulencia. They discovered electric wiring devices have
been installed without authority from the city government and architecturally concealed inside the
walls of the building. Said devices are designed purposely to lower or decrease the readings
of electric current consumption in the plants electric meter. The case was dismissed on the ground of
prescription for the complaint was filed nine months prior to discovery when it should be 2months prior
to discovery that the act being a light felony and prescribed the right to file in court. On Nov 24, 1975,
another case wasfiled against Mr. Opulencia by the Assistant City Fiscal of Batangas for a violation of a
Batangas Ordinance regarding unauthorized electrical installations with resulting damage and prejudice
to City of Batangas in the amount of P41,062.16. Before arraignment, Opulencia filed a motion to quash
on the ground of double jeopardy. The Assistantfiscals claim is that it is not double jeopardy because
the first offense charged against the accused was unauthorized installation of electrical devices without
the approval and necessary authority from the City Government which was punishable by an ordinance,
where in the case was dismissed, as opposed to the second offense which is theft of electricity which is
punishable by the Revised Penal Code making it a different crime charged against the 1st complaint
against Mr.Opulencia.
Issue
Whether or Not the accused Mr. Opulencia can invoke double jeopardy as defense to the second
offense charged against him by theassistant fiscal of Batangas on the ground of theft of electricity
punishable by a statute against the Revised Penal Code.
ii. requisites
IVLER V MODESTO-SAN PEDRO
Facts
Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MeTC), with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent
Ponce); and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of
respondent Ponces husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponces vehicle.
On 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge on the first delict and was meted out the penalty of
public censure. Invoking this conviction, petitioner moved to quash the Information for the second delict
for placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence.

The MeTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two cases.
Issue
Whether petitioners constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings in
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of respondent
Ponces husband.
Held
Yes. On the issue on double jeopardy, the two charges were prosecuted by the court under the provision
of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code that penalizes quasi-offenses such as negligence. What this
provision contemplates in quasi-offenses of criminal negligence is punishing the act of negligence that if
intentionally done will constitute a criminal offense. Thus, the law punishes the negligent act and not
the result thereof. It takes into account the gravity of the offenses in determining the penalty but not to
qualify the substance of the offense. It treats a negligent act as single whether the injurious result
affects one or several persons. The offense of criminal negligence remains as one and cannot be split
into different crimes and prosecutions. The contention of the lower court to invoke Article 48 where
light offenses such as slight physical injuries cannot be complexed with grave or less grave felony such as
homicide that the court is compelled to separate both charges is untenable in this case. The principle of
prosecuting quasi offenses remain intact in the case thus the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for 2
offenses of similar charges on reckless imprudence. His prosecution on the first offense thus bars
another prosecution for the second offense by virtue of the principle of double jeopardy. The Supreme
Court reversed the decision of the lower court.
NAVALLO V SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts