2nd Part Bill of Rights

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BASONG, CAVALIDA, CONFESOR, DEL ROSARIO, ESTILLORE
V.
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL
Petitioner contests the condition imposed by the Court of Appeals that

he secure a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his
residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be a
resident therein until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers
his residence, it must be with prior notice to the court. Petitioner claims
that it violates his liberty of abode and travel. Further, he claims that the
hold departure order on him is enough.
Article III Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing

the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be
impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall
the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of
national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.
SC: The right to change abode and travel within the Philippines being
invoked by petitioner, are not absolute rights. It can be regulated by
lawful order. The order of the CA in releasing petitioner on bail
constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by Art. III, Sec. 6. The
condition imposed by the CA is simply consistent with the nature and
function of a bail bond, which is to ensure that petitioner will make
himself available at all times whenever the Court requires his presence.
*Abode the place where you want live
you have the right to live anywhere you want to within the
limits prescribed by law or by the courts
ex: one is prohibited from living in a park or any public place
Liberty of abode can only be regulated if it is upon lawful

order of the court (destierro, imprisonment)
The right to travel in the Philippine context includes the right

to travel within the country and to depart the country but
does NOT include the right to travel back from the outside
going into the country
MIRASOL VS. DPWH:

This case involves toll ways. There was a directive issued that regulated
the use of motorcycles on toll roads and limited access highways. In
short, the motorcycles could not enter the toll ways so People said that
DPWH is limiting their right to travel.
MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS:

Marcos was on his death bed when he expressed the dire to return to
the Philippines so that he could die in his own country. The president at
the time, Corazon Aquino, denied him the opportunity to return to the
country. Considering the guarantee of the right to travel and the liberty
of abode, may President Aquino ban the return of Mr. Marcos to
Philippines?
SC: A toll way is not an ordinary road. It is a facility designed to promote

fast access and fast transportation. This is a valid regulatory measure
based on safety. Furthermore, the right to travel does not involve the right
to choose any vehicle in traversing the toll way. The right refers to the right
to move from one place to another. Petitioners can traverse the toll way
any time as long as they sue a private or public four wheel vehicle.
Petitioners are free to access the toll way but the mode by which they
wish to travel the toll way can be subjected to the limitations of the
regulation. The right to travel does not include the best transport nor the
most convenient route.
SC: The right to travel and the liberty of abode are different from the
right to return to ones country, as shown by the fact that the
Declaration of Human Rights and Covenant on Human Rights have
separate guarantees for these. Hence, the right to return to ones
country is not covered by the specific right to travel and liberty of abode
do not apply. (implicitly, the court says that the right to return, not being
specifically guaranteed must be treated simply under the general rubric
of liberty.
Article III, Section 6: the law regarding abode only includes the right to
travel around the country and the right to depart from the country BUT
not the right to return.
REYES VS. CA:

In this case, when you have a hold departure order and your case is
dismissed, what you should do is file a motion to file all departure
orders with the court that issued the hold departure order.The court
issued the order so you have to lift it with the same court. In this case,
the motion was filed with the department of justice so the venue was
wrong.
The right to travel cannot be regulated except in the

1. Interest of national security;
2. Public safety; or
3. Public health
*YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TRAVEL ABROAD IF:

1. you state the urgency of why you need to travel abroad so the court
will look into the reasons why you need to travel abroad
2. you have to state the duration (how long your stay will be and when
are you coming back to the country)
SALONGA VS. HERMOSO:

Salonga asked for a certification of eligibility to travel. The Supreme
Court ordered the travel processing centers (this was during the Martial
Law) not to cause any inconvenience or annoyance on the part of the
persons traveling abroad. This is precisely because the right to travel is
considered a cherished right and is in fact part of the universal
declaration of human rights.
VI) RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS

(Rights Of The Accused; Miranda Warning)
Article III, Section 12.
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel.
SILVERIO VS. CA:

(note: ones right to travel takes a backseat if one has several criminal
cases filed against oneself) Silverio was facing a criminal case, he was
out on bail, and he had a hold departure order. If there is a hold departure
ordered against you, you cannot leave the country. Despite this order,
Silverio was able to leave the country several times so the prosecution
wanted his passport to be cancelled because he went abroad without
the permission of the court.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any

other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against
him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
SC: If you have a criminal case filed against you, you can only travel
abroad if you file a motion for leave so that you can go abroad.
Furthermore, it is part of the inherent power of the court to use all
means necessary to carry their orders into effect in criminal cases
pending before them.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this

or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.
COJUANGCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN:

Cojuangco was the president of San Miguel Corporation. He wanted to
lift the ban on his foreign travel because he wanted to oversee the
stages of the international operation of SMC.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this section as well as compensation to and
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and
their families.
SC: Cojuangco is allowed to go abroad only if he asks for the permission

of the court. Cojuangco has been traveling back and forth and he has
always come back and faced the court when asked by the court. He
was thus allowed to go out the country.
YAP JR. VS. CA:

COPY OF : KRISTINE CONFESOR
Page 1 of 18
~2016~
this section is otherwise known as the Miranda Warning from

the case of Miranda vs. Arizona
Justice Cruz: more than half of the rights in the Bill of Rights are found
to give privileges to the accused because they would like to favor the
disadvantaged precisely because of the presumption of innocence.
1935 Constitution: there was no definite provision of the Miranda rights.

There was no right to remain silent and right to counsel.
1973 Constitution: although there was already the right to remain silent
and the right to counsel, there was no specific requirement as to any
waiver because if you read the relevant section under the said
constitution, there was no mention of any waiver there. How do we
know that the waiver is voluntarily made? There must be a meaningful
transmission of rights. The individual circumstances must be
considered:
1. Education
2. Cultural Background
3. Level of intelligence
Q: How does one know when to invoke ones rights under Section12?
There are three requisites:
1. The right attaches when the person is under custody or
in jail or this person is deprived of any freedom of action in
any significant way.
2. When the person is under investigation subject to
questioning or interrogation by the law enforcer
3. The questioning must be in relation to a crime
if the questioning ceases to become a general inquiry and

starts to zoom in on crime and the officers are already trying
to get a confession, your right already attaches
2(c) CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION report shall be

1. reduced to writing by the investigating officer,
2. provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked
if the person arrested or detained does not know how to
read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to
him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by
the investigating officer
3. in the language or dialect known to such arrested or
detained person,
4. otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void
and of no effect whatsoever.
Q: Why do we have Section 12?

this is to prohibit the police from coercing confessions and to
prohibit a police dominated atmosphere where the police
would ask questions leading to the utterance of selfincriminating statements
guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the
state as would lead the accused to admit something false,
not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth
[People v. Ordono]
2(d) EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION Any extrajudicial confession

1. made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in
writing and signed by such person in the presence of his
counsel or
in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, in the presence
of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the
municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor,
or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise,
such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence
in any proceeding.
Q: When are you considered under investigation or under interrogation?

PEOPLE VS. DIMAANO rights under Section 12 can be raised
when the investigating officers start to question and elicit
information or a confession from the accused.
BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS

UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS:
PEOPLE VS. HATTON:

if it is a police lineup, you are not yet under custodial investigation or
interrogation. Here, you do not yet need counsel because you are not
yet being questioned and there is no enforcement officer that is trying
to elicit a confession from you. A police lineup is only for the purpose of
identification and not for investigation or interrogation.
HO WAI PANG VS. PEOPLE:

There was a flight from Hong Kong to NAIA. The Chinese nationals in
this flight were searched by immigration and it was discovered that they
were carrying chocolate boxes but inside there was shabu. They were
questioned by the NBI and asked to write statements. This was
questioned because during their confession, they were not assisted by
counsel in violation of Section 12. The court said that they did not
confess to anything. They were caught in flagrante delicto so their rights
under Section 12 were not violated because there was no need to confess to
the crime.
PEOPLE VS. ESPEJO:

the person here was being interviewed by a newspaper woman and he
confessed to her that he killed the victim. During the trial, the woman
was summoned as a witness and she testified that the accused
admitted the murder to her. The Supreme Court said that the testimony
of the woman can be used against him because custodial investigation
refers to an investigation by the police and in this case, the confession was
made to a private person.
LUZ VS. PEOPLE:

This was the motorcycle case. The driver was arrested and he was
invited to the police station. The police found out that he was carrying
shabu. In this case, the court said that he was not yet under arrest
because he was being prosecuted for the violation of a municipal
ordinance. So since he was not under arrest, he could not avail of his
rights under Section 12.
PEOPLE VS. BOLAOS:

he was arrested but before they actually reached the police station, he
was already asked by the police if he was the one that killed the victim.
The issue here is whether or not he was already under custodial
investigation when he was still on a vehicle going to the station? Yes
because the investigating officer was already starting to question him in
relation to the crime. It does not matter where you are.
PEOPLE VS. LARA: this involves a police lineup. In a police lineup, you
are not entitled to a lawyer because it is merely for identification.
a)
*RA NO. 7438: AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF

PERSONS ARRESTED, DETAINED OR FACING
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.
PEOPLE VS. RIBADAJO: in the Bilibid, one prisoner stabbed another

prisoner and when he was investigated, he confessed to the crime. He
questioned his conviction because he claimed that he was not apprised
of his right to remain silent, to have effective counsel, etc. SC: since this
case happened on November 18, 1971 which means that it happened
before January 17, 1973, the accused could not avail of his rights because
the constitution does not have any retroactive effect.
It outlines the duties of the police and the arresting officers as well as
provides penalties for violators.
Here, it was stated that the right commences when the person is
arrested. Once he is arrested, he is given those rights (right to
remain silent, right to independent counsel, the waiver of counsel
must be in writing and with the assistance of counsel)
the Miranda rule is not applicable to confessions executed before

January 17, 1973 (the date when the 1973 constitution took
effect).
This is important because before the 1973 Constitution, there was

no mention of the right to remain silent, right to counsel, the right
to be given counsel if you cannot afford one AND the constitution
DOES NOT have a retroactive application.
FILOTEO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN: Filoteo was the mastermind in

hijacking a postal delivery van and he gave an extrajudicial confession
but he then claimed that he was entitled to counsel, etc. The court said
that he could not do this because the constitution does not have any
retroactive application. The lawyer of Filoteo argued that Article 22 of
the RPC provides that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar
as they favor a person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal.
SC: a penal law is different from the constitution itself. It is not applicable.
SANTOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN: they were accused of some banking
anomalies and they were brought to the NBI. They confessed and
*Evolution of consent
Miranda rule not applicable to confessions executed before

January 17, 1973
Page 2 of 18
~2016~
signed a waiver. Here, the court said that under the 1987 Constitution,
your rights are found under Section 12. Before in the 1973 Constitution,
they were under Section 20 and nowhere in this section was it stated
that there is a waiver unlike in Section 12 now.
SC: A comparison of these provisions would readily show that the 1973
Constitution does not specify the right against uncounseled waiver of
the right to counsel. Under the 1935 and the 1973 Constitution, the
Miranda doctrine still did not apply.
b)
Not applicable
statements
to
res
gestae
there was a buy bust operation and he was arrested. It was then found
out that the officers informed him of his rights but according to them,
the accused merely said ok in a reply.
SC this is not enough. The warning was incomplete because it did not
include the statement that if the accused could not afford counsel, one
would be assigned to him. The warning was perfunctory and was made
without any effort to find out if he understood it.
statements/spontaneous
PEOPLE VS SAYABOC:
there the Supreme Court said that the accused has the right to
information or the transmission of meaningful information rather than just
the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
principle.
*RES GESTAE refers to the statements made by the accused because

of a startling occurrence. He/she made a statement on a spontaneous
basis and the Miranda doctrine does not apply to these statements.
PEOPLE VS. BAGNATE:

if you ask a person if he understood the rights, you should do so in a
language understood by him. If the person does not understand English,
the rights under Section 12 would have no meaning because the
accused did not understand his rights in the first place.
PEOPLE VS. BALOLOY:

in this case, a police officer was informed of the name of the suspect
who killed a little girl. The officer then put the suspect in a corner and he
showed him the rope that was used to kill the girl. Upon seeing the rope,
Baloloy immediately apologized for killing the girl. He voluntarily
narrated that he raped and killed the child. SC : a spontaneous
statement because he was not even asked whether he was the one who
raped and killed the girl. The information was volunteered by Baloloy
before he was even arrested and placed in custody so the constitution
provision on custodial investigation does not apply in this case.
a) *PRE-GALIT RULE: (JAN. 17, 1973-MARCH 20, 1985)

It was said that before the 1973 Constitution there was no right to
counsel, no right to be informed but after the 1973 Constitution, there is
already a right but there was no discussion of waivers.
The case of Galit then came out. In this case, the Supreme Court
categorically said that when there is waiver, it must be made in writing
and in the presence of counsel. The Galit ruling was on March 1985 so if
you look at it, the 1973 took effect on January 17, 1973 so until March
20, 1985, you could not claim your rights on Section 12 regarding the waiver
because there was still no Galit rule that was established by the SC. After
March 1985, you can already use the Galit ruling.
JESALVA VS. PEOPLE:

Jesalva drove certain persons who were drunk and he was the last
person seen with the victim. When Jesalva was confronted by the
mayor, he admitted that he was the one who killed the victim. SC: if they
are spontaneous statements made by the accused, the Miranda
doctrine does not apply.
c)
Not applicable
investigations
to
statements
given
in
b) GALIT RULE: (MARCH 20, 1985-FEB 2, 1987)

In the case, there were long questions followed by monosyllabic
answers which did not satisfy the requirements of the law that the
accused be informed of his rights under the constitution. His statement
did not even contain any waiver to the right to counsel and yet during
the investigation, he was not assisted by one. This constitutes a gross
violation of his rights.
administrative
PEOPLE VS. TIN LAN UY:

In this case, there was no suspect yet but he voluntarily gave
information but not before the police but to an MTC personnel.
SC : the rule is not applicable to administrative investigations.
Because of this ruling, the Supreme Court now requires that if you are going
to waive your right, you have to do so in writing with counsel.
ASTUDILLO VS. PEOPLE:

certain appliances and cash were missing but the accused admitted to
the accountant. SC: His admission to the accountant could be used
against him because the accountant is not a law enforcement officer thus
his right to remain silent, to have a counsel of his choice, etc could not
be used just yet because these were private persons.
d)
Q: Does the GALIT RULE have a retroactive application?

SANTOS VS SANDIGANBAYAN
It does not have retroactive effect.
SC: Clearly then, the Morales-Galit rulings are inapplicable in these
cases as the extrajudicial confessions in question here, were taken on
February 13, February 17 and March 22, 1982, long before the date of
promulgation of the Morales Decision on April 26, 1983. Prior to this
date, the guidelines requiring that waiver of the right to counsel by an
accused can be properly made only with the presence and assistance
of counsel, had yet to be formulated and pronounced by this Court.
Custodial Phase of Investigation police lineups
*a police lineup is NOT considered part of custodial investigations

DELA TORRE VS. CA:
there were 6 electric meters owned by Cathay Pacific which were
missing. Dela Torre was asked to join a police lineup and he was
pointed out by the people who saw him. He said that his rights under
Section 12 were violated BUT again, it is not yet under custodial
investigation.
c) NEW RULE ON WAIVER (Feb.2, 1987)

Art. III, Section 12 (1); Waiver must be in writing and made in the
presence of counsel of choice. Under the new constitution, a confession
now must satisfy four fundamental requirements in order to be
admissible and for the waiver to be valid:
1. the confession must be voluntary
2. the confession must be made with the assistance of
competent and independent counsel
3. the confession must be express
4. the confession must be in writing
PEOPLE VS. PAVILLARE:

he was accused of kidnapping an Indian national. He was asked to join
a police lineup which he then questioned. The Supreme Court said that
he is not yet under custodial investigation since he Is still in a police
lineup.
e)
Tests of Validity of waiver of Miranda rights right to be

informed
PEOPLE VS MENDOZA AND PEOPLE VS GONZALES

Your rights under custodial investigation can be waived. In both cases,
the confessions were inadmissible but the defense counsel failed to
object to its admissibility during the presentation of evidence and
during the trial. If you fail to object to the inadmissibility of the evidence,
because it violates your rights under custodial investigation, these
rights can be waived as the court pronounced in both Mendoza and
Gonzales cases.
*you already have the

right to remain silent,
the right to competent and effective counsel, AND
the right to be informed.
This right refers to the transmission of meaningful

information to the accused that the accused really understood
his rights and not just a ceremonial recitation of abstract
principles.
The police officer has to make sure that the person arrested
really understood his rights
f)
PEOPLE v BACOR
PEOPLE VS. CASIMIRO:

The burden of proving voluntariness is on the prosecution
Page 3 of 18
~2016~
In this case, there was a confession to the PAO attorney and SPO3
Ydulzura. This confession, the burden of proving the voluntariness of
his confession is on the prosecution.
have to be a prominent person in society of known probity and integrity.

Recognizance however is available only for minor offenses, not major.
Who decides what bail he should use?
Its the accused. The court may say cash lang, bawal ang property, no,
its the accuseds choice.
g) What can be waived?

1. Right to remain silent
2. Right to counsel (but such shall be made in writing and in the
presence of counsel)
The constitutional right to bail is again available to criminal cases the

right is not available in the military.
What cannot be waived?

1) Right To Be Informed Of The Miranda Rights
1) When right may be invoked?
You cannot say Yah, I already know my rights I can waive my right to
remain silent and right to counsel but the police still says Sir, you have
the right to remain silent, anything can and will be used against you in a
court of law, and you say to the police Hey, Im a lawyer. I teach Consti
2, I know Miranda rights. Miranda is my favorite word. But this right
CANNOT be waived. The police is obliged to still give you your Miranda
rights, even if you listen or not but the right to be given the Miranda
warnings cannot be waived.
PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN
This involves Erap and Jinggoy. They were investigated by the
ombudsman and were later on tried before the Sandiganbayan. To be
tried before the Sandiganbayan, your salary grade must be 27 and
above and the crime must be committed in relation to your office. Here,
Jinggoy was facing a plunder charge (RA 7080) so he wanted to go out
on bail, which was opposed. Now, if youre facing a capital offense its
stated in Sec 13 except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, you have a case for
rape or violation of the dangerous drugs act- you are found with 1kilo of
shabu, can you go out on bail?
h) Exclusionary Rule
READ EXCULSIONARY RULE
Here, you have to remember like in the case of ANDAN, a rape case
involving a nursing student. She was raped and then killed and was
found in a pigpen.
What happened was, when he was confronted with the concrete block
which he used to hit the head of the woman, and he was shown this
concrete block by the mayor, he voluntarily confessed his guilt without
anyone actually asking him for a confession, again, this was done in a
spontaneous manner so this could not be covered.
Read Marcelo- in flagrante delicto
VII)
You can file a motion for a bail hearing and you have to show to the
court that the evidence of guilt is not strong. If evidence of guilt is not
strong, you can be granted bail, if strong no bail. Thats why if you look
at Sec 13 charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, if its not strong you can still avail of the right
to bail.
SC: Jinggoy was not really a flight risk. Everytime he was asked to go to
court, he would come to court and he was just elected as senator, the
court said that it would be highly improbable that her would forfeit his
seat in senate and go abroad and become a fugitive from justice. So he
was granted bail because of the social standing and the possibility of
escape of Jinggoy Estrada.
RIGHT TO BAIL
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
VALERO V. CA
Milagros was accused of killing her husband, although she did not
actually kill him, she was the mastermind, because the man who
actually killed him confessed. Therefore she was a principal by
inducement, she applied for bail but the court said, No, evidence
against you is strong. The person who killed your husband said you are
the master mind so you should not be granted bail.
Q: What is bail?
A: Sec. 1 of Rule 114
THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Section 1. Bail defined. Bail is the security given for the release of a
person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee
his appearance before any court as required under the conditions
hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety,
property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.
TRILLANES VS PIMENTEL
Oakwood mutiny. Evidence of guilt was strong, they could not avail of
the right to bail]
QUI v PEOPLE
Child abuse case, she was convicted in the RTC and pending appeal
before the CA, she filed an application for bail, what did the court say?
You were already convicted, all the more we will not give you your right
to bail. The right to bail is a right enshrined in the bill of rights, the court
should exercise grave caution because you were already convicted of
course you will already be a flight risk.
Bail is basically the money of the property that you give to the court
when you are facing a certain criminal case to insure that you will be
coming back to court if and when required. Is a security, like if you have
a hearing in the next few months, to be sure that you will come back for
the hearing, you post bail.
Bail is generally a matter of right
There are many forms of bail, it could be in the form of cash. Usually,
when there is a case filed against you, and the fiscal issues a resolution
finding probable cause, in the last part there is a bail recommended
because there is now what we call a bail bond guide- a manual booklet
for prosecutors which gives the amounts of bail depending on the case
filed. So if its put there, 80 thousand you can place cash. If you dont
have cash you can use a surety or insurance, you go to an accredited
insurance, the insurance will be the one to pay the 80k but you just pay
a premium for that 80k, usually 10 %. The problem is you have to renew
it every year and that 8k (10%) will not be given back to you. Whereas if
cash, when later on you were found not guilty, the entire 80k will be
given back to you.
2)
Bail is a matter of right

before and after conviction by the municipal trial court
before conviction by the RTC for offenses punishable by RT or
less or 12yrs &1 day 20yrs
before conviction by the RTC for offenses punishable by RP or
death when evidence of guilt is NOT strong.
Bail as a matter of discretion
if after conviction of offense punishable by imprisonment of
6yrs and 1 day 20 yrs or PC RT if none of the ff
circumstances are not present:
Admin Circular 12-94:
If the accused is a recidivist , quasi recidivist, or a habitual
delinquent;
If the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal
confinement or evaded sentence;
If the accused committed the offense while on probation or
parole or pardon;
That the circumstance of the accused has the ability of flight/
flight risk;
It could also be real property, show a Torrens transfer certificate of title

that you own a certain land, you have it assessed by the Clerk of Court
and they will assess how much the property is and you can use that
property as a bail. ONLY REAL PROPERTY because one client said that
she had an engagement ring and asked if she may use it as bond, NO.
You can only use real property not personal property.
Finally, you can go out on bail on recognizance (Sec 15). Recognizance
is when youre facing a case and you are released to a prominent
person in society. He will be the one to take charge and say that during
the next hearing, I will make sure that he will come to court, so you
When is bail a matter or right, when is it a matter or discretion,

and when is it not allowed?
Page 4 of 18
~2016~
When there is a due risk that during the pendency of the

appeal, the accused may commit another crime
so if the prosecution is able to prove this and the offense is punishable
by penalty of 6yrs and 1 day 20 yrs, bail is a matter of discretion.
MANOTOK VS COURT OF APPEALS

SC: the court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from
leaving the Philippines because this is a necessary consequence of the
nature and function of a bail bond. Why? If the accused were allowed to
leave the Philippines, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts.
Thats why because the court has the inherent power and because of
the condition of the bail bond, that you have to be there if and when
required by the court
Bail not allowed
if after final judgment by the court- there is already finality, the

case is already finished
before conviction by the RTC for offenses punishable by RP

when evidence of guilt is strong;
after conviction by offenses punishable by RP, death or life

imprisonment WHEN THE CASE IS ON APPEAL (Qui v PP)
after conviction for an offense punishable by 6yrs and 1 day- 20

yrs and circumstances under Admin Circ 12-94 are present
3)
SANTIAGO VS VASQUEZ
Case of Madam Miriam because of a graft and corrupt practices case
when she was the chairman of the BIR, she allowed certain Indians to
come in. Now, she wanted to study in Harvard and had to leave for the
US, court said that she will not be allowed since she was out on bail.
Court said that since she was amenable to the conditions of the bail
bond, we can prohibit your right to travel abroad.
Bail in military courts
COMENDADOR VS DE VILLA AND ASWAT VS GALIDO

In both cases, they were members of the military and subject to court
martial because they violated certain articles of war, the SC is clear:
Bail is not available in military courts.
6)
PEOPLE VS DONATO
Donato was facing a rebellion charge, now when the penalty was higher,
the penalty for rebellion was PM, 6 yrs and 1 day- 12 yrs. If its PM, bail is
a matter of right, what happened here was he was granted bail but the
other side said he has been evading the police for 13 years it was only
now that they were able to capture him. His address was unknown, he
has been using certain aliases, he has been giving a false address and
he even has a reward for his arrest of 250,00.00, we should not grant
bail.
Remember: It is the prosecution that has the burden to prove or present

evidence that bail should be denied. Now in ordinary cases if the penalty
is RP or higher, the prosecution has the burden to prove that evidence
of guilt is STRONG. If it is a matter or discretion, it is the prosecutions
burden to prove is that the accused suffers from those mentioned in
Admin Circ 12-94.
Now, if its a matter of right (ex. Before conviction by the MTC), the
prosecution has the burden to prove THE AMOUNT OF BAIL.
4)
SC: Since bail is a matter of right and he was not facing a capital
offense, despite all those circumstances the prosecution has presented,
he is allowed to go out on bail because bail is a matter of right. With
regard to the waiver of bail, in this case Salas was the one principally
charged with rebellion. Salas said let my girlfriend go out and I will stay
in jail so have my companion released so they released her. After
releasing her, Salas said, that he will exercise his right to bail.
Standards in fixing bail
VILLASEOR v ABANO
He was facing a murder case and he was admitted on bail for 60,000
pesos, now his original bond was reduced to 40k but because he was
not able to attend, it was cancelled and of course if your bail is
cancelled you have to file for a MR to reinstate the bail bond. Now in
reinstating, the judge said that they question the amount of the bail,
what is the criteria or basis for fixing bail? In this case, the court
mentioned certain guidelines in fixing bail such as:
1. the ability of the accused to give bail
2. nature of the offense
3. penalty for the offense charged
4. character of the accused
5. health of the accused
6. character and strength of evidence
7. probability of the accused to appear in trial
8. forfeiture of other bonds
9. whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when
arrested
10. if the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other
cases.
With regard for standard of fixing bail, just look at the case of VILLA
SEOR V ABANO
SC: The right to bail is a personal right and since you waived it in
exchange for you companion being freed, you do not have the right to
bail anymore, why? Because you have already waived such right.
Therefore, you can waive your right to bail being a purely personal right.
VIII) RIGHTS DURIAL TRIAL

Section 14.
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the
Production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that
he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
DE LA CAMARA VS ENAGE
In this case, he was the municipal mayor of Magsaysay and he was
facing multiple murder charges (14) he was given bail but his amount of
bail was 1,195,200.00.
SC: he was basically charged with2 offenses, the amount of bail of
1,195,200.00 when evidence of guilt is not strong is excessive and too
much the last sentence of Sec 13 specifically states that Excessive bail
shall not be required.
If you look at section 14 of the trial rights of the accused, he has ten
rights there. What are these rights?
1. right to due process
2. right to presumption of innocence
3. right to be heard
4. right to counsel,
5. right to be informed,
6. right to a speedy trial,
7.
right to have an impartial trial,
8. right to a public trial,
9. right to meet the witnesses face to face
10. right to a compulsory process.
YAP JR. VS CA
He was facing an estafa case for 5.5 million his bail bond was also 5.5
million.
SC: the amount of 5.5 million is unreasonable, excessive and
constitutes an effective denial of the petitioners right to bail. Why?
Because you have the right to bail but because the amount of bail is too
much and you cannot afford it, it will render nugatory your right in the
1st place. These issues are laid to rest because we now have a bail
bond guide for prosecutors, for you to know the amount of bail for a
specific case.
Atty. Dela Bandas notes.

1) Right to due process, again we already encountered the term due
process when we discussed section 1. This right of the accused
under due process is the biggest right among all of the ten rights.
According to Justice Cruz, it is by reason that the right to due
process mentioned here, only refers to procedural due process,
5) Right to bail and right to travel abroad

Remember that the right to travel can be impaired if you are out on bail.
Waiver of the right to bail
Page 5 of 18
~2016~
substantive due process is not included. The procedure laid down

by law in trying an accused that has been charged of a crime.
right to call witnesses, the right to be given reasonable opportunity

to present witnesses.
Q: What are the four elements of due process that are applicable to
criminal cases.
4)
PEOPLE V. TONGIO,
Marcos here issued a General Order directing that if there are any
crimes against tourist, the case must be tried and finished within 24
days. so Tongio here was charged for kidnapping Vietnamese tourist.
Lets say on May 12 they were arrested; May 15, they were charged;
May 19, they were arraigned; May 20, the prosecution presented
witnesses; may 21, the defendants presented their witnesses; May 25,
they was judgment and all of them were sentenced to death. This was
challenged saying that paspasa ba ani. However the court said here,
there was no violation of due process maskin paspas kayo. Why?
Because again the four elements of due process: TJOL
1) the tribunal is clothed by judicial power who hear and decide
the case;
2) jurisdiction is lawfully acquired over the person of the accused
and over the offense;
3) the accused was given a opportunity to be heard; and
4) Judgment rendered upon a lawful hearing.
PEOPLE V. ONDADO.
In this case the judge asked the accused Do you have an Attorney and
are you going to plead guilty? against the accused. The accused says I
have no lawyer but I will plead guilty. He was arraigned and later on
sentenced. What did the SC say? The judge did not follow guidelines
mentioned. The right of the accused to counsel was violated because there
was no fair hearing, not given an opportunity to be heard by a counsel. So
there was a violation because he did not have counsel.
As long as all the elements are present, there was no violation. Take
note the four elements in the due process of section 14. Anyway, the
purpose there was to boost tourism diba you will not commit crime
against tourist if you know na ingana ka paspas ang trial.
DELGADO V. CA.
In this case, woman charged with estafa but represented by a lawyer.
Her lawyer failed to appear despite to prior notice. She was convicted. The
problem here was ang iyang lawyer I think si Atty. Icko was not really a
member of the Bar. Fake nga lawyer. So she said, Why am I being
convicted when my lawyer is not really a lawyer. Is that a violation of
your right to counsel under sec. 14? SC said yes thats a violation.
PAGASIAN V. AZURA.
The case was against Domo Pagasian was a witness. The case was for
theft. It appears that the cause for the report by the police because it
was testified that it was actually Pagasian. He was not the accused ha,
he was the witness but later on convicted by the judge. Si Domo ang
kaso nga theft against him was acquitted, so this was challenged. What
did the court say? It was a violation of the due process. Why? The Brgy.
Captain was not even informed of the court the charged against him. In
fact, I think, he was not even the accused. He had no idea that he was
on trial. He did not presented any evidence on his behalf on violation of
requirements under due process of Sec. 14.
The accused can demand a new trial at the same time, the reason for this is
there is a big danger when a fake lawyer will not be able to present and
adequate defense in behalf of the accused. In this case also, the right of
counsel may be raised by the accused or the prosecution. Because if
you look at it, the government will look stupid if they will raise this issue
upon discovery that they will be defeated by a fake lawyer. Ulaw pud sa
prosecution mapildi ka sa fake nga lawyer. Pati ang constitution
muingon nga oy violation na, mag new trial ta diba because you are
defeated by a fake lawyer.
PAGULIAN V. SECRETARY OF COMMISSION. Pagulian here was a

civilian but he was tried by a Military Tribunal because it was during
Martial Law. So civilian under Military Tribunal. Pagulian went to the SC
assailing the validity of his conviction.
SC: the due process in sec. 14 is trial by judicial process and not by
executive or military process. Therefore, there was a violation of due
process. Even during Martial Law, all cases should be tried under civilian
courts. Pending cases involving civilians in a military tribunal should be
transferred to civilian courts when the national emergency already
ceases.
2)
Right to Presumption of Innocence. This is found in section 14.

You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Have you already
discussed Demurrer to Evidence? Wala pa. Demurer to Evidence is
basically a motion which bind if the prosecution unable to
establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. So there is an
insufficiency of evidence. Precisely you file that motion because
you say: Ay, I am presumed innocent until proven guilty and you have
not proven my guilt beyond reasonable doubt so I dont need to
present my evidence, Ill have the court dismiss it base on your
evidence laid down of the prosecution. That is allowed, that is under
the Revised Rules of Court. So you are presumed innocent until
proven guilty, however there are certain exceptions:
Article 217 of RPC, diba if the failure of the officer to produce
money in his charge, is a prima facie evidence of malversation.
Presumed innocent ka, however if public officer ka then incharge
ka sa money, and it is not accounted for, it is a prima facie
evidence of malversation already; or violation of Anti-Fencing law,
diba kanang kinawat kawaton. Possession of stolen property, in
the absence of adequate explanation, you are already presumed to
be the author of the crime of the stolen and yet there is a
presumption of innocence. So there are certain exceptions.
Right to be heard, this means basically the right to present

evidence on ones behalf. The right to testify on ones favor, the
5)
The Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation. The

accused has the right to be informed the nature of the charge
against him. That is the very purpose of arraignment. The
information charged the accused of the crime must be stated with
precision what the accused actually did. There must be a specific
allegation of the fact and circumstance necessary for the crime
charged. The information has to be read to the accused but not
just read. Read in English or in a dialect the accused knows and
understand. The purpose of this right is precisely to enable the
accused to defend himself and enable him to avail of the protection
against double jeopardy if prosecuted or charge against second time
around for the same offense.
6)
Right to Speedy Trial. The Right to a speedy trial according to one

case does not include the lees appeals. So speedy trial didto lang
sa court of origin. If youre on appeal, you cannot use sec. 14, right to
speedy trial because in the first place that does not already a trial, its
already an appeal. Now, there is no really mathematical formula to
compute how long really is. Meaning when can you invoke your
right to speedy trial if the case has been dragging on for four years,
five years or so. I think the only guideline put here in the SC is that
as long as it is not a vexatious and capricious, delay is allowed. It
depends really on the attendant circumstances.
Example, the accused here was charged of statutory rape, the
case was scheduled for hearing, but the prosecutor was absent.
So just because the prosecutor was absent, judge dismissed the
case. What did the court say, by disposing the criminal case based
on the right of the accused to a speedy trial, the court should
carefully weigh the circumstances attending each case. They
should balance the right of the accused and the state who punish
who violates penal laws. The prosecutor cannot be faulted for his
failure to attend the hearing because on said date in good faith, he
believed that that date was a Muslim legal holiday when it was
really not. The judge should not dismiss it automatically. So in
using your right your right to speedy trial, you really have to look at the
circumstances whether it is good faith and the reason really for the
delay and at the same time the invocation of the accused of such right
Does it violate the constitution? Well there is a logical connection

between the fact issue and the fact proof and at the same time, all
these presumptions are still rebuttable. They can still be overcome
by evidence.
3)
Right to counsel Right to counsel. This means the right to counsel

during trial. You are entitled to under sec.14, effective
representation when you are facing a criminal case. The court is
duty bound to inform the accused that he has the right to counsel
before he is arraigned. So you know what arraignment is. Now the
court must ask the accused in accordance with sec. 14 of his trial
rights oh Mr. Accused, do you wish to secure the services of a private
counsel? If the accused says yes, he must be given time to
secure the services of counsel. What if he cannot afford one diba,
the court must decide a counsel de officio for him. And the counsel
de officio must assist the accused. So at all times, the accused has
the right to effective representation under sec. 14. However, the
accused can waive this right. The accused may represent himself
in fact in any litigation.
Page 6 of 18
~2016~
because this right is also waivable. If the case is already dragging in

court for 20 years but the accused already saying that ah I have
the right to a speedy trial, the accused will drag because his right
can also be waived, so it has to be invoked by the accused. So we
have to look at
1. the extent of the delay, and
2. the reason for the delay and of course
3. the invocation of the accused of this right under speedy
trial
interpreter would interpret- she was brought in the grassy area.

When she started to depict the scene, there were children in the
court, so the judge said, op because she was about to tell how she
was abused, use a metaphor nalang. Intawon, ning ingon siya ug
te gi metaphor ako kaduha. It was really sensitive that the judge
said, op do not use the literal words, use metaphor. Anyway, right
to a public trial. Hehehehehe #metaphor
9)
Of course there is SPEEDY TRIAL ACT now, there is Republic Act.

In real practice now, lets say, the complainant does not go to
court, so the prosecution does not have evidence against the
accused, precisely the complainant can no longer be found. The
court usually set this to three to four consecutive meetings. After
three to four consecutive meetings, if the private complainant fails
to appear, that is the time that you will invoke the right of the
accused of the speedy trial and the case will be dismissed.
7)
Right to an Impartial Tribunal. Meaning the right to have an

impartial judge. The impartiality must not only be in reality but also
even in appearance. In Legal Ethics, Diba the judge, there must be
a bold neutrality of an impartial judge. A judge should be like
Caezars wife, irreproachable. So meaning, dapat he must be fair
and he must be impartial and hue must only fair and impartial in
reality, he must be seen as fair and impartial even in appearance
okay. That is the requirement under sec.14. Now cases. There was
a case I had last week in Manila. There was this judge, he was a
private practitioner then I think the case is for annulment. When he
was still a private practitioner, his client was Mr. A now when he
was the judge, an annulment case filed by the wife of Mr. A, so
when the judge said Is your husband Mr. A? Yes . Ah he was my
client before when I was still a private practitioner, so I think would
have to inhibit because that would violate your right to an impartial
trial. Diba, because he is no longer impartial because there is
already a conflict of interest.
10) Right to Compulsory process. This refers to the subpoena. A

person accused can obtain subpoena from the court in order to
compel the attendance of the witnesses in his behalf. However, you
have to remember but you will learn this later on, if the person
resides more than 100 km from the place of the trial, he was not
bound by the subpoena. But this rule only applies to civil cases
and not to criminal cases. If it is criminal case, crime committed in
Davao, even if you are from Manila, element of territoriality, crime
is here and tried here in the courts of Davao then the witness is in
Manila, can you get the witness? Yes, is it more than 100 km? I
think yes, but this is a criminal case. Comparing it to a civil case, if
your witness is in Manila and the civil case is in Davao, even if you
are able to get the subpoena from the court, the witness cannot be
compelled because it is beyond 100 km. And in the Bar it came
out, it was called the VIATORY RIGHT.
It is the an instance where the witness can refuse to follow
the subpoena because either previously, he already went to
the trial, but the expenses were not paid or precisely because
he resides more than 100 km from the place of the trial.
MATTEO V. VILLALUZ.
I think the accused here were charged for the offense of robbery in band
with homicide. Robbery in band so daghan sila with homicide. In the
meantime, another suspect in another case, Reyes was arrested. Reyes
executed a extrajudicial confession that he signed and swore before a
certain judge Villaluz. So he confessed before judge Villaluz that the
petitioners actually committed the crime of robbery with homicide. So
what happened then? It proceed in the sala of judge Villaluz. Later on he
repudiated his statement. Okay ning atras siya. I was really forced to
sign the confession because I was threatened with violence by certain
police. So with that, I am repudiating my previous statement and
confession. With that repudiation, petitioner said You bring that
declaration before the judge. Judge youre supposed to disqualify
yourself because how can you try this case impartially when you
already know the facts and circumstances as mentioned by the
confession of Reyes against us. Judge said no, I will not disqualify
myself. What did the court say? The petitioners are entitled to the relief
sought for. Respondent judge could not totally immune to what
apparently was asserting before him in such extrajudicial statement. It
was unlikely that he was not in a slightest bit offended. Oh diba he was
offended. Why did you repudiate your statement, I did not force you. His
sense of fairness could be easily be blunted because he who attested to
the execution of the statement it cannot be doubted that respondent
ruled that such extrajudicial statement was executed freely. So that was
in violation of their right to an impartial trial, because the judge already
approved of what has happened. Precisely the Reyes confessed before
him. So he was supposed to inhibit himself because it was violation of
the right of the accused to an impartial trial.
8)
So basically those are the ten Rights of the Accused under sec. 14. Now
the last sentence under sec. 14 refers to TRIAL IN ABSENTIA,
Trial in Absentia, if youll try to read the last sentence of sec. 14, can trial
proceed even if the accused is not present? That is the last sentence.
However after arraignment, trial may proceed not withstanding to the
absence of the accused provided that he has duly been notified and his
failure to appear is unjustifiable.
THREE REQUIREMENTS
a) the accused has previously been arraigned;
b) he was notified of the proceedings. Meaning as long as notices
were sent to his last known address that is already sufficient;
and
c) His failure to appear is unjustified.
Exceptions:
1) Arraignment. At all times, the accused must be present
during arraignment. Why? He is the one who will be arraigned
personally;
2) During the identification stage at the trial, the one you see in
movies who committed the crime, is he in court can you
point him kana mao na so thats the other time when the
accused is required to be present; and
3) During promulgation of judgment. If there is judgment the
accused has to be there. Why? If he is not there, he loses all
his remedies under the Rules of Court to appeal of unsa pana
atuang mga rights diha noh that we will learn under criminal
procedure. So those are three exceptions: Arraignment,
Identification and Judgment.
Right to a Public Trial. Publicity of the trial is necessary to prevent

the abuses that may be committed by the court to the prejudice of
the defendant. Now you have a right to a public trial. The
requirement here in public trial is that as long as the courts doors
are open to the public, that already suffices the requirement of a
public trial. However, there are instances when the judge can
exclude the public from the court room. Especially if there are
sensitive cases involving rape or child abuse. So this right again
belongs to the accused and this is cannot be waived. So the judge
here can exclude the public if it is a sensitive case. Like, I was not
here on Wednesday because I have a trial in QC, very funny- rape
case. (rape isnt funny)
GIMENEZ V. NAZARENO.
Case against A, B and C, trial continued. While trial was going on C was
able to escape but the trial continued with regard to A and B kay nakaescape man si C. On judgment, A and B were found guilty but the judge
said okay A and B you are guilty but for C, I will hold his sentence
because he has rights under sec. 14 diba. You have the right to counsel,
you have the right to present evidence on your favor, so I will withhold
my judgment as against C. A and B challenged that. SC said the judge
should also convict C. Why? Because trial in absentia can already set in
A, B and C had already been arraigned, notices were sent to A, B and C
at their last known address, he was able to escape therefore his failure
to appear is not justified therefore, trial can still proceed despite the
What happened, on the witness stand, very luoy ba because grade

one or grade two lang ang nahuman sa victim. Murag Ilocano man
to siya or Ilonggo so she was not good in English. So kindly state
what happened. Te gidala ko sa sagbutan, okay then the
Right to meet witnesses with a right to confrontation. The right to

confrontation intends to secure the accused the right to be tried so
far as the facts (inaudible) by the witnesses concerned. It was
intended to prevent conviction of the accused upon an ex parte
affidavit. Meaning, if you were the accused, you have the right to
meet the witnesses against you. Makita gyud nimo bisan pag nag
testify against you. Why? Because:
a) So that you could cross examine the witnesses who said
that you allegedly commit the crime and at the same time
b) so that the judge could examine the demeanor of the
witness whether he or she is telling the truth.
Page 7 of 18
~2016~
absence of C and he should be still convicted based on the evidence

presented.
IX)
When does it become incriminating? When it tends to establish any

guilt against you, that is when you can say that the question is
incriminating. So for
criminal cases, you can refuse to take the witness stand.
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

SECTION 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.
In Civil and administrative cases refuse to answer only when the

question is incriminating. That is when you can invoke your right. This is
applicable to all kinds and types of proceeding.
This is based on public policy and humanity.

1.
Public policy. If you place the accused in a situation where he

could not invoke the privilege you will be under the strong
temptation to commit perjury. If you remove sec. 17 and the
accused is on the witness stand or a witness is there did you
commit the crime? and you do not have the right under sec.
17 the accused will just say No I did not and he will commit
perjury, he will lie thats why sec. 17 was put.
2.
Humanity, precisely to extort the confession of the accused

via any form of duress or violence diba. That is why sec. 17
was included. You cannot be compelled to be a witness
against yourself. Now the scope of this right, remember this,
only covers testimonial incrimination. Sec. 17 is only
applicable to compulsory oral examination. It is not
applicable to purely mechanical acts. What do you mean by
this? If there is no word uttered, then the privilege does not
applied even if there is some compulsion.
PEOPLE V. CODILLA.
Accused here charged of rape. When he was on the witness stand, he
was asked to address himself before the public and not in the private
room. According to the complainant when she was raped, she struggle
against the man and there are scratches and bruises against him. So
the court said, okay you undress I will see if there are bite marks or
scratches. Accused said No if I will undress and if you will see bite
marks and scratches, I will be becoming a witness against myself. Can
he be asked to remove his clothes? Again, go to the guidelines. Removing
of clothes, is that a purely mechanical act or does that involve
intelligence or imagination. Court said, you can be forced to remove
your clothes. That is not a violation of your right.
Paraffin Test. Diba to know if ikaw ang nagbaril, naa man nay mga
certain chemicals that the police used. Can they force you to go to a
paraffin test to see if you were actually the one who use the handgun?
Yes. Because they are not subjecting you to use your intelligence or
imagination. That is a purely mechanical act.
CHAVEZ V. CA.
Accused here was charged with theft of a motorcycle. The prosecution
called the accused to the witness stand. The judge said okay you can
take the witness stand and you can only refuse to answer if and when
the question become incriminating. The accused questioned that. SC
said, the accused can altogether refuse to take the witness stand
because that will be a violation of his right against self incrimination.
VILLAFLOR V. SUMMER.
The accused committed adultery. Now during trial, the judge ordered
the woman to undergo an examination to see if she was pregnant by
the other man. The woman said Oy if I am found pregnant by another
man that would mean that I committed adultery. You know the crime of
adultery diba. Diba if you look at the facts, if ma-positive ko na I am
pregnant with another man then I committed adultery so I will become
a witness against myself and under sec. 17, I cannot be compelled to be
a witness against myself. So she objected. What did the SC say? It is
not a violation of your right because again sec. 17, only covers
testimonial or compulsory oral examination or this has even evolved
over the years. If one uses his intelligence or imagination he cannot be
compelled to such act. But if yous say, purely mechanical act without
using anymore your intelligence or your imagination, you can be compelled
by the court.
USE IMMUNITY V. TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY

1. TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY, this is the type of immunity
granted when if the person is compelled to testify is now
(inaudible)to any liability or the acts under investigation. So if
we say transactional immunity, just take note, it is an
immunity granted wherein a person who is compelled to
testify, diba you cannot be compelled to testify against
yourself but if you are granted with immunity, it depends on
the type of immunity. In transactional immunity, the person is
now compelled to testify but he is free from any and all
liability for acts under investigation. This is granted by the
person whose testimony is necessary and he is now immune
from criminal prosecution for any offense.
Examples:
1) Accused was prosecuted for (inaudible) then when he ran, he
left his shoe parang Cinderella lang. On trial, he was asked to
put on the shoe. So kay perfect match man gyud nah. So the
accused said I will not wear the shoe, I will be a witness
against himself. What did the court say? That is purely
mechanical act. You do not use your intelligence or
imagination to put your feet on the shoe. Therefore you can
be compelled to wear the shoe.
a)
Re-enactment of a crime. The accused is asked could you

remember how you killed this person? You are using your
intelligence and imagination, so you cannot do that.
b)
c)
BELTRAN V. SAMSON.
In this case, falsification. Falsified ang mga signatures and writing.
What did the judge say accused can you write on a piece of paper a
specimen of your handwriting? he said Why? Because I will compare
your handwriting with the falsified writing in evidence. Accused said
Thats a violation of my right against self incrimination. Handwriting is
that a purely mechanical act or do you use your intelligence and
imagination when you are handwriting? The court said. That is a
violation of right against self incrimination. Why? If magsulat ka
mechanical ba diay nah, you think about your writing baya diba, so you use
your intelligence, your imagination. Use can use your right under sec. 17.
2.
2)
USE AND PROOF IMMUNITY is the type of immunity where a

person is forced to testify and answer intimidating questions
but those answers cannot be used against him, only what he
said but pwede ang other evidence can still be used against
him. That is use and proof immunity. However, he is not free
altogether from the liability if there are other evidences not
based on his testimony. Meaning for use and proof immunity,
only his testimony, diba he was compelled to testify, what he
testified cannot be used against him but others pwede.
Example:
A, B, C and D are accused and D is the state witness, if D is
granted use and proof immunity. This testimony cannot be
used in any matter with the criminal prosecution in that
particular case and this testimony cannot be used to convict
him but this does not mean that he cannot be convicted
because it is only his testimony that cannot be used, other
evidences can still be used against him. So broader gyud ang
transactional immunity, ang use immunity kadtong what you
said, what you testified mao ra to ang dili pwede magamit.
Okay!
Now coverage of this right, if you look at it, the privilege against self
incrimination extends to criminal but also to civil and administrative
cases. However, the difference there is: IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE
ACCUSED CAN ALTOGETHER REFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND.
Case: People v. A. A can altogether say I will not take the witness
stand so the prosecution on trial say, A please go to the witness
stand he can say that That will violate my right against self
incrimination. Some authors call that a Prohibition of Inquiry kanag
the accused can refuse to take the witness stand. However, with regard
to civil cases, and administrative cases, you cannot refuse to take the
witness stand but you only have the option to refuse to answer if and
when the question becomes self incriminating.
Examples for this are:

the Social Justice in Human Rights. The Commission on
human Rights can grant immunity.
An Act declaring forfeiture in favor of the state.
The anti-graft and corrupt practices act.
Page 8 of 18
~2016~
Review on Privilege against Self-Incrimination: It only applies to

compulsory testimonial self-incrimination and does not include purely
mechanical acts
X)
negligence of counsel. In this case, the party blame his lawyer for the
loss of the case. HELD: To constitute negligence as a violation of your
right, it must not be mere simple negligence, but gross negligence on
part of the counsel. For a claim of counsels gross negligence to
prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the clients cause must
be shown. Here, petitioners counsel failed to file the appellants brief.
While this omission can plausibly qualify as simple negligence, it does
not amount to gross negligence to justify the annulment of the
proceeding below.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

SECTION 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial,
or administrative bodies.
This is not a repetition of right to speedy trial under Sec. 14. One of the
10 trial rights of the accused includes the right to a speedy trial. Why is
it reflected again in Sec. 16?
ANGELES V. SEMPIO-DIY
Case of two judges. Here, It is the stance of the complainant that Judge
Sempio Diy merely sat on the cases for an unreasonable length of time
and failed to resolve them within the constitutionally prescribed 90-day
period thereby violating the right to speedy disposition of cases. HELD:
There was a clear violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases.
But again, according to Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, really admonishes all judges to dispose of the court's
business promptly and decide cases within the period specified under
the Constitution. IF you are not able to decide the case within the
mandatory periods, you will be subject to disciplinary proceedings. But
in most jurisprudence that Ive read, usually theyre just admonished,
not really terminated from service. In this case, respondent Judge
Sempio Diy was ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in observing the
reglementary period for disposing of motions.
If you look at it, Sec. 16 is broader than the right to speedy trial. Why? It
is because Sec. 14 only refers to cases during trial stage. Whereas,
section 16 on the right to speedy disposition of cases does not only
apply to criminal cases. It even applies to judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies. The right to speedy disposition of cases, is not
only available during trial, but in any stage or in all phases of the
proceedings. So this provision is broader. Thats why you also have
pertinent constitutional provisions concerning the right to speedy
disposition of cases that are not only found in the Bill of Rights, but
throughout the Constitution. Example given, the ff provisions:
Art. 8 SECTION 15.
(1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution
must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from
date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced
by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate
courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or
resolution upon the filing of the last pending, brief, or
memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court
itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to
this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall
forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of
the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certification
shall state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or
issued within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the
court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been
incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case
or matter submitted thereto for determination, without further
delay.
RAYMUNDO V. ANDOY
Here, this is a BP 22 case, a hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration.
Here, it was always delayed and reset to further dates. Here, the
problem was, BP 22 falls under the Rules on Summary Procedure--What do you mean by that? Summary? Diba with dispatch, fast. And
because it was delayed for so long, it went against the nature of the
proceeding which is supposed to be fast, and yet, because of the
delays, the judge was not able to sign it within the 30-day reglamentary
period after the last pleading was filed. HELD: The Constitution
mandates that all cases or matters filed before all lower courts shall be
decided or resolved within 90 days from the time the case is submitted
for decision. Judges are enjoined to dispose of the courts business
promptly and expeditiously and to decide cases within the period fixed
by law. Failure to comply with the mandated period constitutes a
serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy
disposition of their cases a lapse that undermines the peoples faith and
confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to
disrepute. This constitutional policy is reiterated in Rule 3.05, Canon 3
of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires a judge to dispose of the
courts business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
Art. 7, SECTION 18, PAR. 3

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law
or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and
must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
XI)
A. What acts cannot be criminalized?

1. Mere beliefs and aspirations (Sec. 18, p.1)
2. Debts and Civil Obligations (Sec. 20)
3. Acts which when done were innocent (Ex-post Facto Laws;
Sec. 22)
Also, the Constitutional Commissions have their respective mandatory

deadline. So if you look at it, in the cases before the
SUPREME COURT
LOWER COLLEGIATE
COURTS
LOWER COURTS
24 mos
12 mos
SECTION 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by

reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
3 mos from the time they are

submitted for decision
Again, delays are allowed because of certain reasons. You have to know
how long the delay is, or the reason, malay mo nagkasakit yung judge;
or the invocation of the accused, diba, this right is waivable. If the
accused does not invoke his right, it is deemed waive. And the prejudice
caused by the delay of the case. Just take note of the mandatory
periods.
These periods are mandatory for the judges; but for the judges, it is
merely directory. Meaning, if nilampas lets say, for 12 months. IS the
decision no longer valid? The decisions are still valid even if rendered
outside of the periods. SC said that speedy disposition is characterized
as one which is free from vexatious, oppressive, or inordinate delays.
This is included in freedom of thought similar to Freedom of Religion.

Freedom to believe is absolute, but freedom to act based on such belief
is subject to State regulations. Because of Sec. 18, just because you
engender some political belief or aspiration, you cannot be detained or
imprisoned SOLELY---the word there is SOLELY, if you just believe, its
okay but if you act upon such belief, thats another story. Just like if you
are a political prisoner, you cannot be detained solely for what you
believed in. Actually, if you are a member of the communist party of the
Philippines, that in itself alone na communista ka, you cannot be
detained solely because of that. Like in your criminal law 2, in rebellion,
once you act based upon your belief, now thats another story. Thats
why the RA 1700 was already repealed. Under this Anti-Subversion Law,
mere membership is already punished. But this is already repealed
because it violates several constitutional provisions such as Sec. 18.
SECTION 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or nonpayment of a poll tax
DIMARUCUT V. PEOPLE
Criminal case convicting him of frustrated homicide. He asked for time
to file brief. Wala nakafile ug brief. When youre on appeal, the higher
court will ask you to make of an appellants brief. Its actually a
summary of all your arguments in support of your petition. In this case,
he asked for several extensions of time to file brief citing several
reasons, syempre nadugay. In this case, I think its more on the gross
. SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
The meaning of debt here is contractual obligation that is civil

obligation. In common parlance we here Ah, wala may makulong sa
utang. Thats what its meant. This section 20. Is that true? Yes,
actually. I used to be counsel for certain credit card companies. Some
Page 9 of 18
~2016~
people ask me Atty. Why am I imprisoned Diba, when you have a

credit card, and you dont pay, usually the credit card companies
through the lawyers, send demand letters and we warn them that they
can be imprisoned. Is that true? Yes, partly. Because under the Access
Regulations Device Act, if you have not declared that you changed your
address, that creates a presumption that you are running away from the
Credit Card Company. How will they send you the bill when youve
already changed your address? That can be a ground for imprisonment.
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon
less or different testimony than the law required at the time of
the commission of the offense;
(5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect
imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which
when done was lawful; and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to
which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
LOZANO V. MARTINEZ
He was convicted for violation of BP22. He challenged said law because
he said that diba I have a loan from you, as payment I issued to you a
check. Isulod ang check after 1 month. But when the creditor puts it in
the bank, it was dishonored for having been withdrawn against
insufficient funds. Some people call it DAIF or its drawn against closed
account. So here, Lozano challenged it saying Am I not being
imprisoned here, for failing to pay my debt? HELD: Not a violation.
Why? Under BP 22, you are not being imprisoned or charged because
you did not pay a debt. But the gravamen of the offense is the issuance
of worthless checks. Remember, checks are not mere contracts, but are
commercial instruments which the public and the banking system has
the right to rely on. Because of checks, diba na smoothen ang business
transactions, and if you issue worthless checks, that will of course
affect the commercial or business transactions. That is why, under BP
22, you are not imprisoned because you did not pay a debt, but because
you issued a worthless check.
Essentially, it is a criminal law with a retroactive effect that is prejudicial

to the accused. It is a law which makes an act criminal when at the time
it was committed it was not yet criminal. But because of that law, I am
prosecuted for violation of such law.
Example:
A law which prohibits urinating in sidewalks. And then my neighbor saw
me urinating last week; and theres a law which provides Those who
will urinate in public shall be imprisoned for 10years. So my neighbor
files a case against me. That law is an expost facto law. Why? At the
time that I committed it, it was not yet prohibited/crime.
SALVADOR V. MAPA
President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 13 creating
the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans.
There was also a Memorandum No. 61 which fixed the functions of the
committee on behest loans. What is a behest loan? Diba, that AO 13
created to look at it. Its basically a loan granted by the government at
the behest of a certain previous government official. Several loan
accounts were referred to the Committee for investigation, including the
loan transactions between Metals Exploration Asia, Inc. (MEA), now
Philippine Eagle Mines, Inc. (PEMI) and the Development Bank of the
Philippines (DBP). After examining and studying the documents relative
to the loan transactions, the Committee determined that they bore the
characteristics of behest loans, as defined under Memorandum Order
No. 61 because the stockholders and officers of PEMI were known
cronies of then President Ferdinand Marcos; the loan was undercollateralized; and PEMI was undercapitalized at the time the loan was
granted. AO 13 is challenged for being an expost facto law.
RE: POLL TAX This refers to residence certificates-yang cedula. You can
get that from your city hall, sa inyong barangay. But you cannot be
imprisoned for nonpayment of polltax.
AGBANLOG V. PEOPLE
Malversation. If you are a public officer charged with the custody of
public funds, and you failed to account for that, there is a presumption
that you have malversed the public funds. That is one exemption from
presumption of innocence under Sec. 14.
PEOPLE V. NITAFAN
Again, BP 22 but this involves a memorandum check. Basically, it is still
a check but says that the drawer has to pay the payor without any other
condition. Its still a check because it is still drawn against the drawee
bank. Diba ang check ang essence is to tell the bank to pay you. I am
the drawer, I will pay you. The drawee is the bank. I will tell the bank to
tell the payor. Its not merely a promissory note which is basically an I
owe you, and I will pay you soon which may or may not be notarized.
But in a memorandum check, its still a check and still a violation of BP
22. Will this violate section 20? NO. because it only involves civil
obligations.
HELD: No. It was not a criminal law. The constitutional doctrine that
outlaws an ex post facto law generally prohibits the retrospective penal
laws. Penal laws are those acts of the legislature which prohibit certain
acts and establish penalties for their violations; or those that define
crimes, treat of their nature, and provide for their punishment. The
subject administrative and memorandum orders clearly do not come
within the shadow of this definition. Administrative Order No. 13 creates
the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, and
provides for its composition and functions. It does not mete out penalty
for the act of granting behest loans. Memorandum Order No. 61 merely
provides a frame of reference for determining behest loans. Not being penal
laws, Administrative Order No. 13 and Memorandum Order No. 61 cannot be
characterized as ex post facto laws.
VERGARA V. GEDORIO
Petitioners here are tenants of property. They were cited in contempt
for failure to heed the order of the court to pay monthly rentals. They
said that they did not know where to pay the rentals. Despite that the
court ordered them to pay a fine and undergo imprisonment until and
unless they comply with the orders of the court. Violation of Section 20?
HELD: . Debt, as used in the Constitution, refers to civil debt or one not
arising from a criminal offense; it means any liability to pay arising out of
a contract, express or implied. They payment of rentals is covered by
the constitutional guarantee against imprisonment. Just take note of
debt and civil obligations: it only involves obligations that are civil in nature
and cannot be invoked against the State.
PEOPLE V. CASTA
The crime of murder was committed by Casta on August 20, 1989
which was before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659 on December
31, 1993 amending Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code on murder,
raising the penalty to RP to death from RTMax-Death. Prior to its
amendment the penalty for the crime of murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
death.
SECTION 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall

be enacted.
HELD: In light of the greater penalty that attaches under the

amendment, the previous penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death will have to be imposed in order not to run afoul of the
constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Under Section 22
of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no ex post facto law or bill of
attainder shall be enacted. An ex post facto law, among others, is one
that changes the penalty and inflicts a greater punishment than what the
law annexed to the crime when committed - the situation that would
obtain if the amendment under Republic Act No. 7659 would be applied.
2 concepts
a)
Ex post Facto Law
b)
Bill of Attainder
An EXPOST FACTO LAW among others is one which changes the
penalty and inflicts a greater punishment than what the law provides
annex to the crime when committed. There are six instances wherein
the SC said that it is an expost facto legislation.
(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and
which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when
committed;
(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than
the law annexed to the crime when committed;
NASI-VILLAR V. PEOPLE Illegal recruitment occurred in 1993. There was

a law RA 8042 which criminalizes illegal recruitment. But this only took
effect in 1995. However, illegal recruitment was already punished here
under the Labor Code. Take note, it is not an expost facto law if it applies
prospectively.
Page 10 of 18
~2016~
education. Say, in the contract, youll have to work for 10 years to

recover what has been spent for you for 10 years. This was challenged
actually, when a pilot wanted to move to greener pastures like one pilot
who wanted to move to Cathay Pacific kay nauyab niya isa ka FA. The
Capt. Now wanted to get away w/ his previous company and invoked
Art. 18. HELD: There is a recognized exception where the company has
to recoup certain expenses.
BILL OF ATTAINDER: It is basically a legislative act which inflicts

punishment without judicial trial. It is a law saying na this is your
punishment, without any trial.
What the characteristics? LLP
(1) Their convictions or sentences pronounced by the legislative
department instead of the judicial department
(2)
The sentenced pronounced or the punishment inflicted is
determined by no previous law or rule
(3) That the investigation of the guilt of the accused if such was
made is not generally conducted in his presence
Or of course, if youre a criminal, you cannot say you do not want to go

to jail because that is involuntary servitude. That is a recognized
exception.
Some companies will not allow you to resign because according to
them, your services are still needed and they will have to provide for a
necessary replacement for you. Can they do that? No, that violates
section 18.
Elements
(1) Theres a law imposing a penal burden to a certain individual or
easily ascertainable members of a group
(2) That the penal burden is imposed directly by law without judicial
trial
SARMIENTO V. TUICO Asian Transmission Corporation fired Sarmiento

who was a Union Leader because he was carrying a deadly weapon
inside the work premises. This led the other union members held a
strike and all of them did not go to work. Under the Labor Code, the
DOLE can assume jurisdiction in such a case. In this case, DOLE
assumed jurisdiction in the conflict and ordered that pending
investigation, the workers must not go on strike and return to their
respective works. Workers invoked section 18. HELD: Return-to-Work
Order is valid and does not constitute Involuntary Servitude. ***So thats
one recognized exception, if the DOLE assumes jurisdiction over a
labor-conflict. In that case, if they do not return, they can be terminated.
The worker can of course give up his work, thus severing his ties with
the company, if he does not want to obey the order; but the order must
be obeyed if he wants to retain his work even if his inclination is to
strike.
Example:
For all those who urinate in public, automatically if youre caught, youre
imprisoned for 10 years. That violates the very essence of separation of
powers. That is a bill of attainder. The judiciary is supposed to impose
the penalty/punishment upon you, not the legislative branch.
PEOPLE V. FERRER
This involves the membership in CPPNPA. However in this case, I dont
like this case very much because the SC upheld the validity of the AntiSubversion Act. Again, this was already repealed. But here, this was
upheld and put there several qualifications. Because under this law, you
can be punished if you knowingly become a member of the CommunistParty of the Phil. Here, the SC said knowingly. So if you do not know,
there was no conspiracy, say to overthrow the govt, you will not be
punished for its violation. So they put there several qualifications. So
just because you are a member of the CPPNPA, you are not
automatically a criminal. You are still allowed to undergo trial. But
altogether, this Act has since been repealed.
2.
REPUBLIC V. RMDC
The Mines and Geosciences Board, granted a license to mine marble
deposits in the mountains of Biak-na-Bato in Bulacan. Pres. Aquino
came up with PP No. 84 to cancel the said licenses. It was challenged
for being a bill-of-attainder. HELD: It is stressed that at the time
President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 84 on March 9, 1987, she
was still validly exercising legislative powers under the Provisional
Constitution of 1986. Section 1 of Article II of Proclamation No. 3, which
promulgated the Provisional Constitution, granted her legislative power
until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution.
The grant of such power is also explicitly recognized and provided for in
Section 6 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.
When is it Excessive? Factors to Determine

1) Financial Condition of the Convict
2) Amount fixed should be within the limits established by law
3) Mitigating or Aggravating circumstances at the crime
4) Death Penalty
5) Right to be protected against physical, psychological, or
degrading punishments
If the amount is so disproportionate to the offense committed. Nature
of the offense must be taken into account.
It is settled that an ex post facto law is limited in its scope only to matters
criminal in nature. Proclamation 84, which merely restored the area
excluded from the Biak-na-Bato national park by canceling respondents
license, is clearly not penal in character.
PEOPLE V. DELA CRUZ

He sold meat for 30 cents/kilo but there was an executive order which
limits only for 20 cents. He admitted overpricing it for 10centavos. So
because of this, he was meted a penalty of 2 mos. He claims it to be
excessive. HELD: What you are selling is an important ingredient and it
is possible that you would be earning not only centavos but even
thousands. Hence, the national policy in profiting in foodstuffs. The
damage could be greater. The imprisonment is not excessive.
BOCEA V. TEVES
Attrition act of 2005. There is a law saying that if the BIR reach their
revenue targets, they will be given bonus. At the same time, if the BIR is
not able to meet their target, they will be sanctioned and terminated.
Members question if it is a bill of attainder for providing a punishment if
they will not reach the quota. HELD: R.A. No. 9335 does not possess the
elements of a bill of attainder. It does not seek to inflict punishment
without a judicial trial. R.A. No. 9335 merely lays down the grounds for the
termination of a BIR or BOC official or employee and provides for the
consequences thereof. The democratic processes are still followed and
the constitutional rights of the concerned employee are amply
protected.
B.
PEOPLE V. DACUYCUY
4670 or Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. The fine was fixed but
as to the imprisonment, the law lets the judge decide what
imprisonment shall be imposed. This was struck down precisely
because of the lack of standards and just leave it to the court for
discretion. That should not be allowed. It was also an undue delegation
of legislative power.
WHAT PUNISHMENTS CANNOT BE IMPOSED?

1) Involuntary Servitude
2) Excessive Fines
3) Cruel. Degrading and Inhuman Punishments
4) Indefinite Imprisonment
AGBANLOG V. PEOPLE
Malversation. The treasurer failed to account for 21k pesos. He was
convicted sometime in the 80s. He malversed was 21k. He invoked
inflation and contended that 21k is now small and that as a
consequence, the penalty is now deemed excessive because of inflation
and is now obsolete. HELD: Your remedy is not against the courts but to
the legislative department/Congress to amend law. Otherwise, well just
have to apply what is stated in the law.
1. Involuntary Servitude
SECTION 18. (2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall
exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted.
3. Cruel, Degrading, and inhuman punishments

Any punishment is in some sense cruel. What makes it objectionable is
that if it is degrading or inhuman. When cruel? When it is flagrantly and
plainly oppressive and wholly disproportionate to the nature of the
This does away with slavery. If you dont want to work for anyone, you
can resign.EXN Pilots. Usually, the airline company will pay for your
Excessive Fines
SECTION 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Page 11 of 18
~2016~
offense as to shock the moral sense of the community or when it

involves torture or lingering death
3)
Q: When can you say that the first jeopardy has already attached?
A: Pursuant to jurisprudence:
1) When there is already a valid complaint or information
2) When the complaint or information was filed in a competent
court
3) If the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded
Example:
penalty for urinating like 10 years, it is cruel for it shocks the moral
senses of the community.
1) Those which public sentiment will regard as cruel and
obsolete (refers to the form of punishment)
Example : crucifixion, stoning to death, boiling in oil, inserting
a durian in the anal orifice
2)
Those which are disproportionate to the offense as to shock

the moral senses of the community.
Example: Massacre of a family and the penalty is only 1-30
days (disproportionate)
3)
It usually involves so much pain and suffering that civilized

people cannot tolerate.
Q: When can you say that the first jeopardy must have been validly
terminated?
1) When the accused is acquitted
2) When the accused is convicted
3) When the case is otherwise dismissed without the express
consent of the accused
Q: When can you say that the second jeopardy is for the same offense?
1) When the two offenses are identical
2) When the second is an attempt to commit the first
3) When the second is a frustration of the first
4) When the first necessarily includes the second
5) When the first is necessarily included in the second
PEOPLE V. ECHEGARAY
Prosecuted for the rape of his own child. He now claims that death
penalty is cruel, excessive, and inhuman punishment in violation of his
constitutional right Held: Precisely because this is a heinous crime
which involves rape of your own daughter. Under RA 7659, "x x x the
crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for being
grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their
inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity
are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of
decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society." Therefore,
death penalty should be allowed. Why? In the first place there is already
a law and congress already published it. And the court will just apply the
law.
Q: When can you say if the second jeopardy is for the same act?
1) When the first charge for an act punished by a law and an
ordinance, the second charge either is for the same act
This is all found under Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court (Motion
to Quash). It basically lays down the requisites for double jeopardy.
RULE 117, SECTION 7.
FORMER CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL; DOUBLE JEOPARDY. When
an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a
court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or
other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the
conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be
a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt
to commit the same (lets say attempted homicide and homicide) or
frustration (frustrated homicide and homicide) thereof, or for any
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included (homicide
murder or vice versa) in the offense charged in the former complaint
or information.
Lethal Injection, Cruel? NO. it does not involve torture, or any lingering
death. In fact, you die in a peaceful manner.
PEOPLE V. TONGCO
He was sentenced to 27 years due to Estafa. The penalty depends on
the amount. If you look at it, it is not harsh, excessive, or out of
proportion because the penalty is provided for by the law.
LIM V. PEOPLE AND PEREZ CASE
Just take note that the purpose for the law indeed clearly in the
increase of the penalty was motivated by a laudable purpose that
effectuates the suppression of an evil which undermines the economic
growth of a country. So just really look at the form. But as to the
severity, if it is fixed by law, usually the court will decide as to what the
penalty really is.
4.
C.
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another

prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense
charged in the former complaint or information under any of the
following instances:
Indefinite Imprisonment
(THREE EXCEPTIONS)
a.
the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising
from the same act or omission constituting the former charge;
(That is what we call the Supervening Fact Doctrine)
b.
the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were
discovered only after a plea was entered (That is what we call the
newly discovered evidence exception) in the former complaint or
information; or
c.
the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent
of the prosecutor and of the offended party except as provided in
section 1 (f) of Rule 116.
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or serves in
whole or in part the judgment, he shall be credited with the same in the
event of conviction for the graver offense. (7a)
THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a
law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same
act.
In a movie, she was accused of killing her husband. She went through
trial. She was convicted and then she got parole because she already
served the minimum sentence and then she was able to get out of jail.
All this time, the husband staged his death. When she found out, she
came hunting for her husband because shed already served the time in
jail. So when she already confronted her husband, she said Im going to
kill you. He said, If you are going to kill me, the police are outside and
they are going to charge you with my murder. But she said, Thats
already double jeopardy. I already killed you before. I served the time.
Even if I kill you now, I can no longer be prosecuted. Meaning, a person
has the right, under Section 21, in that he or she cannot be put twice in
jeopardy in an offense.
THERE MUST BE A VALID COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION.

PEOPLE V. MANABAG
There was a complaint for rape that was signed by the chief of police. In
rape cases, the complaint should be filed by the offended party, not the
police. So when this was discovered, the case was dismissed and it was
refiled. Accused invoke his right against double jeopardy. Does the
double jeopardy set in here? No, because for the first jeopardy to attach,
there must be a valid complaint or information. In the case, the complaint
was signed, not by the offended party, but the police officer. Therefore,
the first jeopardy did not attach because there was no valid complaint
or information.
The right against double jeopardy basically prohibits the prosecution for
any person for a crime of which he has been previously acquitted or
convicted. The object is to set the effects of the first prosecution
forever at rest, assuring the accused that he shall no longer thereafter
be subject to the dangers and anxiety of a second charge against him
for the same offense.
FILED IN A COMPENTENT COURT

PEOPLE V. ESCALONA
REQUISITES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY - AVSS

1) The 1st jeopardy must have attached prior to the second
2) The 1st jeopardy must have been validly terminated
The 2nd jeopardy must be for the same offense or same act
Page 12 of 18
~2016~
The accused was charged with illegal possession of dynamite. The

case was heard before the MTC judge during preliminary investigation.
The judge arraigned the accused and the accused immediately pleaded
guilty. After the plea of guilt, he found out that Uy, pag illegal possession
of dynamite, dili man diay dapat sa MTC. Dapat sa RTC. So they dismissed
the case and refiled it with the RTC. Here comes the accused saying, I
can already invoke my right against double jeopardy. Has the first
jeopardy already attached? No, because the complaint or information was
not filed before the competent court na dapat sa RTC pero sa MTC man gifile. Gi-dismiss sa MTC, gi-refile sa MTC. There was no double jeopardy
because the MTC has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
GALMAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN
The Company was charged with the Sandiganbayan. All of them were
acquitted. The family of the victims moved to reconsider and
challenged the same saying that the court trying the Company, during
the Marcos time, was a dummy court. Meaning, the State was not even
able to present evidence and at the same time, before the actual case,
the Justices were already summoned before the Malacanang. Gibriefing na sila ni Marcos na Acquit na ha. They were indeed acquitted.
Subsequently, the case was reopened. The accused invoked his right
against double jeopardy. Why are you reopening the case when I was
already acquitted? Diba the second requisite is that the accused has
already been acquitted. Why am I being charged again with the same
offense when I am already acquitted? SC held that since there was a
deprivation of due process on the part of the State, the State was not
able to properly present its evidence, you are allowed to reopen the case
and it will not violate the right of the accused against double jeopardy.
Take note ha. If there is a depravation of due process on the part of the
State, it will not place the accused in double jeopardy.
Lets say proper venue. Accused is charged for bigamy in Pampanga

but the second marriage happened in Rizal. When it was found out that
it was charged in the wrong place, the case in Pampanga was
dismissed and it was refiled in Rizal. Accused invoked his right against
double jeopardy. Has the double jeopardy set in? No, because the court
in Pampanga didnt have proper jurisdiction. It was the wrong venue. It
should have been filed in Rizal where the second marriage took place.
Therefore, since it was not the proper venue, the accused cannot invoke
his right against double jeopardy.
Second, when the acquittal was issued by the court with grave abuse of
discretion. This is very difficult to prove because what you are assigning
here is not only an ordinary error of the court but an error made in grave
abuse of discretion. Ordinary errors committed by a court cannot be a
ground for appeals because accused has already been acquitted. So
this is very hard to prove. When it comes to an acquittal, the chance of
the appeal or for the reopening of trial is very, very strict, precisely
because this error is strictly construed.
THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN ARRAIGNED AND HAS PLEADED

US V. SOLIS
There were two men courting the same woman. There was a rivalry
which resulted in one killing the other. Accused was charged with
murder. Before the arraignment, the fiscal immediately called for a
dismissal saying that Ah, I dont see a case against him. Later on, the
fiscal said Ah, there was a case against him. I will refile the case
nalang. Can the fiscal refile the case? Can the accused claim his right
against double jeopardy? There was no double jeopardy because it was
before arraignment. For the first jeopardy to attach, the accused must
have been validly arraigned and pleaded.
When you are on appeal, can the court increase or decrease the
penalty? Yes, because an appeal is deemed a waiver against the right
against double jeopardy. So, lets say you were charged and sentenced to
two months. You say, No, dapat one month lang. You appeal it and
upon appeal, the CA says, Ay dapat six months. Pwede ba na? Yes,
because an appeal is deemed a waiver of the right against double
jeopardy.
PEOPLE V. BALISAGA
Accused was charged with homicide. He was able to present mitigating
circumstances and he was able to prove self-defense. He was
acquitted. The fiscal appealed and the accused raised his right against
double jeopardy. There was no double jeopardy because the accused
has not entered a valid plea. When he presented an evidence for selfdefense, he was actually pleading not guilty. Precisely, he presented his
case of self-defense. The judge should have immediately suspended
the proceedings and asked the accused be re-arraigned so that the plea
would be not guilty. In this case, I think nag plea naman siyag guilty and
yet he was using the defense of self-defense. So, there was no valid
plea. Since there was no valid plea, the first jeopardy could not attach
and therefore double jeopardy could not be invoked.
PABANTONG V. SOZA
Accused was convicted with qualified seduction and sentenced to six
months. The accused appealed. After his appeal, the court convicting
him said, Uy, di man ni seduction. Rape man gyud ni. So on appeal, he
was found guilty of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. The
accused invoked his right against double jeopardy. SC held that since he
appealed, its deemed a waiver of his right against double jeopardy. He can
be charged by the court with graver offense.
Q: When can you say if a dismissal has the consent of the accused?
A: It is with consent when there is a provisional dismissal. It is
dismissed provisionally and later on, after the passage of
one year, in cases before the MTC, and
two years in cases before the RTC, the dismissal becomes
permanent and not only provisional.
In the first requisite, all three must be present. Absent any one of them,
there is no double jeopardy. When do you say that the first jeopardy
must have been validly terminated? Diba, you have when accused is
acquitted, convicted, or otherwise dismissed without the express
consent.
Q: When is a dismissal with the consent?

1) The dismissal is without prejudice. Meaning, pwede siya ma refile.
2) Upon motion of the accused
3) When the accused, in fact, agrees to the dismissal
4) When the accused filed a motion for reconsideration
BERNATE V. SECRETARY
Accused was charged with illegal possession with the Military
Commission. At the same time, a similar case was also filed before the
fiscals office and the court. So the accused challenged this saying that
his right against double jeopardy has been violated. I am facing a case
before the Military Commission. I am also facing a case before the fiscals
office and the court. Can he invoke his right against double jeopardy?
No, because both cases are still pending. Wala pa siya na acquit, wala pa
siya na convict, wala pa na dismiss. Why? Its still pending so you
cannot invoke your right against double jeopardy.
Q: When can you say that there is a dismissal? How do you know if
there is a dismissal?
A: There is a dismissal when the case is terminated but not on its
merits. Diba kay if its on its merits, hes acquitted. If its not on its
merits, then there is a dismissal. The rule is, when the dismissal of the
case is without the consent of the accused, he can later invoke the right
against double jeopardy. So he can say, You cannot reopen or you
cannot retry me.
PEOPLE V. BULAOG
The accused was charged with rebellion in Laguna. At the same time,
he was also charged with subversion in Manila. Now, he was convicted
in Laguna and he appealed with the CA, which affirmed his conviction.
He then went up to the SC saying that it violated his right against
double jeopardy. Did the right against double jeopardy already attach?
No, because one case is still on trial, kadtong case before Manila. The other
case is still on appeal, so still pending. Therefore, the first jeopardy has not
yet been validly terminated.
PEOPLE V. CUENCO
The accused was arraigned for the violation of the Trust Receipts Law.
He filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the contract is purely
civil. The judge dismissed the case. The prosecutor appealed to the SC.
The accused now invoked double jeopardy. Could he invoke double
jeopardy? No, because the dismissal was with the consent of the
accused. In fact, it was the accused that filed the motion of the
dismissal of the case. Therefore, it was with his consent. We said that
the first jeopardy could only be validly terminated if it is without the express
consent of the accused.
Q: Now, what are the instances where the prosecution may appeal
without placing the accused in double jeopardy?
1) When there is a violation of due process of the state
2) When judgment of acquittal was issued by the judge with grave
abuse of discretion
When is the dismissal considered without the consent?

PEOPLE V. ILAGAN
Page 13 of 18
~2016~
The accused was arraigned for serious physical injuries. After

arraignment, fiscal moved for the dismissal. The accused just kept
quiet. The case was refiled. So accused invoked his right against double
jeopardy. The SC said, But you just kept quiet. Is silence considered as
consent? SC said that mere silence is not consent. Diba I told you that
dismissal without the express consent. Being silent is not tantamount to
express consent.
3) With the plead of a lesser offense is without the consent of the

fiscal or the offended party
MERO V. PEOPLE
Accused was charged with serious physical injuries. He pleaded guilty.
So valid information, pleaded guilty, already started serving sentence.
After he already pled guilty, the following day namatay ang victim. So
from serious physical injuries kay gikulata niya, namatay. So here
comes new information now for homicide. So the accused invoked his
right against double jeopardy alleging that he was already prosecuted
previously for serious physical injuries regarding the same victim and
cannot now be charged again for killing him. Can he be charged? Can he
invoke his right against double jeopardy? NO, because his death was a
supervening fact. Namatay man. So pwede ka ma-charge again now for
homicide precisely because there is a supervening fact.
Express consent is either given orally or in writing. It is a positive, direct,

and clear act requiring no interference to supply the meaning. If you
look at it, even if the accused files for a motion for reinvestigation, it is
not an equivalent to express consent.
GENERAL RULE: Dismissal with express consent will not give rise to
double jeopardy.
EXNs: (There is double jeopardy even if the dismissal is with the
consent of the accused): SIS
1) When the dismissal is grounded on the right to speedy trial
2) When the dismissal is based on insufficiency of evidence
3) When the accused is discharged as a state witness
PEOPLE V. VILLARAMA
The accused here was charged with possession of illegal drugs.
Accused plea-bargained to a lesser offense. The judge accepted the
bargain. What did the court say? If the plea of guilty is without the consent
of the fiscal and the offended party, that plea of guilty is null and void. Diba
we said that the diba dapat ang sa exception with a plea to a lesser
offense is without the consent of the fiscal or the offended party. In this
case, the plea bargain was without the consent of the fiscal or the
offended party. Because of that, it will not give rise to double jeopardy.
Kay wala man nag signify ang fiscal and offended party.
SALCEDO V. MENDOZA
The prosecution asked for three postponements of the trial. The
accused moved to dismiss the case by invoking his right to speedy trial.
Judge granted the motion, thus the motion was dismissed. Later on, the
judge changed his mind and granted the motion for reconsideration. He
reinstated the case. So the accused argued that there was double
jeopardy. The Court held that the dismissal grounded on the right to
speedy trial even if it is upon the motion of the accused will already give rise
to double jeopardy.
We go to the same act. Diba we said that you cannot be prosecuted for
the same offense. Now, what is that second sentence under Section
21?
GENERAL PRINCIPLES: The accused can only be charged of two crimes
if the act committed violates two different statutes. Thats why you
have the case of People v. Relova. That is a prime example for double
jeopardy for the same act.
PEOPLE V. DE VERA
The accused was charged with the Dangerous Drugs Law. Five
hearings were postponed because the prosecution had no witnesses.
The accused moved to dismiss it and it was granted. After the
dismissal, the witness for the prosecution showed up after a few
minutes. The judge reinstated the case. The accused now claims that
his right against double jeopardy was violated. Was there double
jeopardy? No, because the order of dismissal was not yet final. The
decision contemplated here is dapat the decision must be in writing. In
this case, verbally pa man niya. So wala pa.
PEOPLE V. RELOVA
The ice-plant owner installed jumper cables. Ang jumper cables, I think
that decreases or steals electricity from, diba kanang nag-install ka ug
jumper sa imong neighbor para you get his or her electricity. He was
charged with violation of an ordinance. The case was dismissed
because of prescription. Now the fiscal charged him again for theft of
electricity under the Revised Penal Code. The accused invoked double
jeopardy. Fiscal said that It could not be for the same offense because we
charged you under an ordinance which was dismissed because of
prescription. We are now charging you with an entirely new offense. So it
would not be double jeopardy for the same offense kay lahi man. Ang
isa ordinance, ang isa under the RPC.
PEOPLE V. CITY COURT OF SILAY

On insufficiency of evidence, the accused was prosecuted. After the
prosecution presented their evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to
evidence. Do you know what a demurrer is? Diba if the prosecution was
not able to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt kay
insufficient and evidence. So the court granted the motion. So naacquit. The State appealed. The accused invoked his right against
double jeopardy. Is there double jeopardy? There is already double
jeopardy because the ground for the dismissal was insufficiency of
evidence. Again, there is double jeopardy even if the dismissal is with the
consent, if the dismissal is based on insufficiency of evidence.
Is there double jeopardy? YES, there is already double jeopardy because

it arises from THE SAME ACT. What act? The act of installing jumper
cables. SC said in jeopardy for the SAME OFFENSE, court compares the
elements of the same offenses. While in jeopardy for the SAME ACT,
court compares the two information. In this case, the court stated that
both information concerned acts performed on the same dates,
therefore both information are for the same act and because it is for the
same act, double jeopardy has now set in.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION:

Even if the dismissal is with the consent of the accused, and is
grounded on speedy trial or insufficiency of evidence, it will not still give
rise to double jeopardy if:
1) There is a violation of due process on the part of the state
2) If there was grave abuse of discretion
So if try to compare same offenses versus the same act, as to basis,
SAME OFFENSE
look at the provision of the law
elements of both offenses
EXAMPLE: Judge was still conducting trial in one case. He told the
parties that their case will be tried later. Because of this, the fiscal and
the parties went out of the court room. When they returned, nobody was
there in the court room. They were told that their case was already
dismissed kay wala man ang parties. Due to the dismissal, the fiscal
asked the judge to reinstate the case to which the judge agreed to.
However, the accused now claimed double jeopardy. Was there double
jeopardy? NO. Double jeopardy will not lie in this case because the
prosecution was deprived of due process by such dismissal. It was not
given the opportunity to present its case and its evidence.
As to point of inquiry, in order to determine what type of jeopardy is

involved, what do you try to look into?
For the SAME OFFENSE, you look at the elements of both offenses. Ug
pareha ra ug elements, pareha nga crime, same offense.
But if it is for the SAME ACT, the point of inquiry there is acts in space
and time. Meaning if it is committed on the same day, at the same time,
on the same place, that is when you can now invoke double jeopardy for
the same act.
THE SECOND JEOPARDY MUST BE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE

Q: How do you know if its the same offense?
A: The same evidence test is used to determine whether the same
evidence would be necessary to support the two cases
EXCEPTION:
1) Supervening Fact Doctrine
2) Newly discovered evidence
SAME ACT
statute and an ordinance
acts in space and time
PEOPLE V. CITY COURT

IVLER V. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO (RECIT)
Page 14 of 18
~2016~
FLORES VS MONTEMAYOR
Nagreklamo man gud ang accused because gi-imbestigahan siya sa
Ombudsman, gi-imbestigahan pa gyud siya sa Philippine Anti-Graft
Commission. He said, I was already investigated before by the
Ombudsman. Why am I being investigated again now by the Anti-Graft
Commission? SC said preliminary investigation done by the Ombudsman
doesnt constitute double jeopardy because P.I. is not part of trial. So wala
pa man ka na-convict, wala pa man ka na-acquit, wala pa man na-dismiss
without the consent. So wala pa na terminate ang first jeopardy.
Could the Writ of Habeas Corpus be issued in this case?

SC: Yes. Because it is a remedy involved if theres any restraint which
would preclude the freedom of action. Yes, they can move around Davao
City but they could not be allowed to exit or leave Davao City. So its
basically a remedy if youre deprived of your freedom of locomotion,
freedom of travel. Interestingly, since these prostitutes were not allowed
to leave Davao City, they eventually --- prominent members of families
of Davao City. So if youre from a prominent family here in Davao, chances
are your ascendants are prostitutes. Thats true. I can name two families.
EQUIPOISE RULEI
Kung tabla-tabla ang evidence, what does the Court supposed to do?
Equipoise rule basically states that if the evidence is issued based on
certain facts, the party who has the burden of proof loses. Diba tablAtabla mo but if you have the burden and you are not able to discharge
that burden, you lose
D.
IN RE GONZALES
This involves the Oakwood Mutiny in where they were facing charges
for coup detat. Bail was granted although still they were not released
thats why they filed a case for habeas corpus. But in this case, if you
read the case, eventually they were released.
SC: Since they were already released, the habeas corpus case had
already been rendered moot and academic. Precisely because, the
objective is to release. Eh na-release naman. So, moot and academic.
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Article 3, Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion
or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
VELUZ VS. VILLANUEVA

This involves the custody of an old woman. Rodriguez here was a 94
old widow, who had poor state of mental health, and of course
deteriorating cognitive abilities. She was living with petitioner who was
her nephew. The problem is, the old woman was taken by her alleged
adoptive daughters and family. So the petitioner filed a petition for
habeas corpus, saying Youre illegally detaining my aunt. Now, on the
other hand, the respondents state that, Were family. Were the adoptive
daughters of Eufemia and her late husband, Maximo Rodriguez.
What is Habeas Corpus? It is a writ issued by the court directed to a

person detaining another commanding him to produce the body of the
prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his
capture and detention, to do, or to submit to, and to receive whatever
the court of judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf.
habeas thats a latin term for to have.
Corpus thats a latin term for body
= TO HAVE THE BODY
Its basically an order issued by the Court directed to a person detaining
another so this is a remedy when you have an illegal restraint on your
liberty.
Will the Writ of Habeas Corpus lie?
Now remember, the writ can never be suspended. If you read Section
15, it is only the privilege of the writ that can be suspended only in cases of
invasion or rebellion.
SC: Habeas Corpus will only lie if the restraint of liberty is in the nature
of an illegal or involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. In this case, it
was not illegal because it was the daughters who looked after Eufemia.
There is no proof that Eufemia is being detained or restrained of her
liberty by respondents. Nothing on record reveals that she was forcibly
taken by the respondents. On the contrary, the respondents being the
adopted children are taking care of her.
If there is a suspension of a privilege, it will only apply to those charged

with rebellion or crimes inherent or related to invasion. It does not apply
to ordinary offenses or ordinary crimes.
So you can only file a habeas corpus case, if there is an illegal restraint on
your liberty. In this case, it was not illegal because it was the kids of
Eufemia who took care of her.
At the same time, even if the privilege is suspended, the writ will still be
issued by the court. Only, the person will not be released even if he filed
a habeas corpus case if he is covered by the suspended writ. If the
officer has grounds to actually detain him, that person will still be
detained of course, involving cases of invasion and rebellion only.
GIBBS FLETCHER VS. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

In this case, he was sentenced for committing a crime and according to
him, he was serving 12 to 17 years. But according to him, his sentence
was commuted by virtue of a proclamation of President FVR. So he filed
a case of Habeas Corpus saying, The sentence has already been
commuted. So, since Im still in jail thats an illegal restraint on my
liberty.
Also, if you are not charged within 72 hours, without a warrant, you still
must be released. Do you notice under the Rules of Criminal Procedure,
diba dapat i-release ka after 72 hours?
Could he be freed?
If you look at Rule 102 of Revised Rules of Court which deals with
habeas corpus, in Section 4, it provides: If it appears to the person to be
restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process
issued by a court or judge; or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court
of record, and that court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process,
render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed -plainly stated, you can still be confined by virtue of a judicial process or valid
judgment or if there are other grounds to continue to detain you.
Of course, the court will still determine if there is sufficient basis for the
suspension of the Writ.
Even if the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended, the
right to bail will still not be denied.
Basically, if you look at the writ of habeas corpus,
this is a remedy that you use:
(1) If you are detained without charges
(2) When youve already served your sentence
(3) This can also apply to custody of children
(4) When a person is being detained in the hospital for non-payment
of hospital bills
You file a case for habeas corpus that is your remedy if there is an illegal
restraint on your liberty.
1)
In this case, there is really no presidential proclamation from Pres. FVR.

I think Fletcher was not able to present the proclamation from FVR that
his sentence was indeed commuted. But assuming that his sentence
was commuted, Fletcher here was also facing trial for another case for
estafa in fact there was a warrant for his arrest. Therefore, if there are
other grounds for the police officers to detain you, even if assuming your
sentence will still be commuted, he would still be in jail because there are
other grounds to detain him.
FUNCTIONS OF THE WRIT
VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN

This is a 1919 case. What happened? Mayor Lukban of Manila herded
170 prostitutes and brought them to Davao. Once they were in Davao,
Mayor said that they should just stay there. They were not allowed to
leave Davao. The relatives of these prostitutes filed a case for habeas
corpus, saying Why are our relatives not allowed to leave Davao? On
the other hand, Mayor Lukban said, Theyre not being imprisoned. They
can still move within Davao City. Theyre free to do whatever they want
as long as they remain inside Davao City.
AMPATUAN VS. MACARAIG

PO1 Ampatuan was charged with murder for killing a certain COMELEC
official. Case went through preliminary investigation and I think there
was no probable cause which was the reason why his release was
ordered by the Chief Investigating Prosecutor. However, he was still not
released. So his wife filed a case for habeas corpus.
Page 15 of 18
~2016~
So again, if there are other grounds to detain you, you will still be
imprisoned. In this case, assuming that there was no probable cause in
the murder case, he was also facing an administrative charge here for
grave misconduct. Therefore, he was under restrictive custody. Under
the DILG Act, especially for police officers, even if you are facing criminal
charges before the court, administrative cases could still be filed against
you. So in this case, even assuming that the criminal case had been
dismissed, although it was on appeal, there was another valid ground to
detain him which was under the DILG Act, he was facing an
administrative case for grave misconduct. Therefore, there could be a
valid continued detention on the part of PO1 Ampatuan.
E.
AFFIRMATIVE RIGHTS
Free access to the courts .
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial
bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to
any person by reason of poverty.
MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE

On appeal, Martinez filed a Motion to litigate as an indigent (pauper).
Now, is that allowed even if youre on appeal?
SC: Yes! We therefore hold that the motion to litigate as an indigent can
be made even before the appellate courts, either for the prosecution of
appeals in petitions for review, or in special civil actions. We believe that
this interpretation is more in keeping with our Bill of Rights which
decrees that free action to courts and quasi judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied by reason of poverty.
2)
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS A POST CONVICTION

REMEDY
If youve already served your sentence, and youre still not allowed to
leave jail, that is the remedy you should avail of, the Writ of Habeas
Corpus.
Like in this case of
Even in court now, you are allowed to litigate as a pauper litigant if

youre able to show that your gross income is not 3,000 a month. If you
divide that per month, that would be P30 per day. So, if that is your
monthly income, of course you cannot afford the services of counsel,
you cant even afford to pay the filing fees in court. In fact in this case,
his real property was only a bahay kubo which was worth not more than
P10,000. If it also backed up by affidavits of your witnesses, you will be
allowed. So therefore, youre giving life to Section 11 in that just
because of poverty you should not be denied access to courts or quasijudicial bodies. So Martinez was allowed to litigate as a pauper litigant.
LAMEN VS. DIRECTOR

He was found guilty of possession and selling of 3 matchboxes of
marijuana. He was in jail. While he was serving his sentence, there was
a new law which lessened the penalty. Petitioner said that since his
penalty was lessened and he had already served the minimum of his
sentence, he had the right to file a case for habeas corpus.
SC: Since the decision of his case had become final and in fact
petitioner is already serving sentence, we cannot alter or modify the
penalty imposed. Nevertheless, the writ of habeas corpus comes to his
rescue since he has undergone imprisonment for the period for more
than the maximum period of his detention. He proved that he is also not
a habitual delinquent.
2.
Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights

Art. III, Sec. 12(4) - The law shall provide for penal and civil
sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families.
The writ of habeas corpus in this case was granted by the court.
Precisely because he had already served the maximum sentence.
So, again, it is a post conviction remedy.
3)
1.
Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) Supreme Court shall have the following
powers (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of
law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,
shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules
of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.
SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT
SECTION 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all

armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he
may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public
safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days,
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight
hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a
report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting
jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or
special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which
revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of
the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the
Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it.
Art. XIII, Sec. 18(3) Commission on Human Rights shall

have the following powers and functions (3) Provide
appropriate legal measures for the protection of human
rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as
Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive
measures and legal aid services to the under-privileged
whose human rights have been violated or need protection;
WRIT OF AMPARO That is AM 07-9-12 SC dated Sept. 25, 2007
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA That is AM 8-1-16-SC dated January 22,
2008
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following

such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules
without need of a call. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
Both, the rule on Amparo and the rule on Habeas Data, they were
deemed(?) by the SC because it was in response to certain killings and
enforced disappearances. If they pose a threat to your life, you can avail
of this remedy on the Rule of Writ of Amparo or Habeas Data. However,
there are certain requirements you have to follow if the court will grant a
Writ of Amparo. There was only 1 case so far in Davao regarding the
Writ of Amparo which was denied by the same court. Precisely because
there are certain requirements that you have to follow.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the

Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on
military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.
Rule of Writ of Amparo
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply
only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or
directly connected with, invasion.
The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person

whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or of a private individual or entity.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any
person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three
days, otherwise he shall be released.
The writ shall cover extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances or

threats thereof.
Page 16 of 18
~2016~
Section Who May File.

The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party of by any qualified
person or entity in the following order:
a. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse,
children and parents of the aggrieved party;
b. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity
or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding
paragraph; or
c. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or
institution, if there is no known member of the immediate
family or relative of the aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all
other authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of
the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party
suspends the right of all others, observing the order established herein.
right to privacy is being violated.
TAPUZ VS. DEL ROSARIO

This was a land dispute. The spouses Samson filed a complaint of
Forcible Entry against Tapuz. Forcible entry under Rule 70 under the
Revised Rules of Court, that is remedy that you avail of if you want to
eject a certain person from your property. For example, I am the owner
and you are squatting there. I want to eject you: so I file a case for
Forcible Entry. Now, the respondents here said that the petitioners were
armed with bolos and firearms and entered the disputed property. Thus
this case, they filed for several remedies: (1) habeas data, (2) writ of
amparo and (3) petition for certiorari and try to stop the people from
entering their property.
So they filed a Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data, was it the
proper remedy?
Contents of Petition.
The petition shall be signed and verified and shall allege the following:
a. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
b. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent for
the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or
uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed
appellation; (I read the petition that was filed in Davao City, it
was not put there how his life, liberty and security was threatened
by a member of the Philippine Army. So in this case, you have to
state with precision with detail how your life, liberty and security
was threatened or violated.)
c. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation
is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in
supporting affidavits;
d. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names,
personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating
authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of
the investigation, together with any report;
e. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to
determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and
the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or
omission; and
f.
The relief prayed for.
The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable
reliefs.
SC: No. It is not the proper remedy. SC laid down the basis or the spirit
or why the Rule of the Writ of Amparo or Writ of Habeas Data was
enacted. In this case, the petition was fatally defective both in form and
in substance because they did not follow the contents of the petition
and they were really no grounds for the petition. Thus SC said, notably,
none of the supporting affidavits compellingly show that the threats to life,
liberty and security of the petitioner is imminent or continuing. Similarly, a
petition for Habeas Data is pre(?) so that the PNP will release the report on
the burning of the homes of the petitioners and the acts of violence being
employed.
These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Habeas Data
requires as a minimum. Thus rendering the petition fatally deficient.
Specifically, we see no concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful
violation of the right to privacy, related to the right to life, liberty or
security.
In this case of Tapuz, it was basically a land dispute. It is commercial in
character. If you have a land dispute, you cannot avail of the remedy of the
Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data. Precisely these remedies were
made in response to extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances.
CANLAS VS. NAPICO
They filed a Writ of Amparo on the premise that they were deprived of
their liberty and freedom as a result of the nefarious activities of the
respondents., saying that the petitioners are settlers of a parcel of land
and that their dwellings as of the time of the filing were in danger. Okay,
again, land dispute. The threatened demolition (because they were
scared that their house will be demolished because of the alleged acts
of terrorism done by the other party) of their house constituted,
according to them, a threat on their life, liberty and security.
Of course under the Rule of the Writ of Amparo, the court will hold a
summary hearing. Summary hearing meaning with dispatch paspas
sya. Precisely, youre being kidnapped, or youre being detained. So the
court here under the Rule of the Writ of Amparo grants interim reliefs
like the
(1) Temporary Protection Order,
(2) Inspection Order and
(3) Production Order.
SC: The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of

a court, which in this case was affirmed with finality, is not included among
the enumeration of rights as stated for which the remedy of the Writ of
Amparo is made available. Their claim to their dwelling, assuming that they
still have any, despite the final and executory judgment adverse to them,
does not constitute the right to life, liberty and security. Therefore there is no
legal basis for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo.
What is Habeas Data?

From the word itself: habeas is to have and data
The writ of habeas data is remedy available to any person whose right
to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of
data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
So more often than not, if youre not able to comply strictly with the
Rule, the court will deny it. So the next case is one of the few cases
where the Court granted the Writ of Amparo.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE VS. RAYMOND AND REYNALDO MANALO
This case pertains to the abduction of Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo.
They were forcibly taken from their respective homes in Bulacan,
sometime in Feb 14, 2006 by unidentified armed men and thereafter
were forcibly disappeared. Thus they filed a case of abduction. In this
case they were kidnapped by the members of the CAFGU and AFP and
they were tortured. They gave a harrowed account on how they were
tortured by these military and CAFGU personnel. Fortunately, they were
able to escape and thereafter filed this case and asked from the Court a
Writ of Amparo.
Who may file?

The aggrieved party may file a petition. However again, in case of extralegal killings or disappearances, a member of the immediate family or
an ascendant or descendant.
Remember that the Writ of Habeas Data is enforceable anywhere in the
Philippines. Even if the judge in Davao issues it, its applicable
throughout the entire country.
What Are The Contents Of The Petition?
(a) state the personal circumstances of the petition and the
respondent
(b) the manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and
(c) how it affects the right to life, liberty or security.
HABEAS DATA,
its really the information; because
of that information which the
government has against you, your
government
SC: A careful perusal of the evidence presented, we affirm the findings

of the CA that these two were abducted from their houses in Bulacan
and were continuously detained until they escaped on August 13, 2007.
So almost a year they were under torture. The abduction, detention,
torture, and escape of the respondents were narrated by respondent
Raymond Manalo in a clear and convincing manner. The account is
dotted with countless candid details of respondents harrowing
experience and tenacious will to escape, captured through his different
senses and etched in his memory.
WRIT OF AMPARO
your life, liberty and security is
being violated or threatened by a
member or official of the
Page 17 of 18
~2016~
They were convinced too, that the reason for the abduction (because
they were alleged sympathizers of the NPA) was the suspicion that they
were members or sympathizers of the NPA. Considering that the
abductors were looking for Ka Bestre, who turned out to be Rolando, the
brother of the petitioners.
Court issued the Writ of Amparo and this served as a warning against to all
the military personnel as well the civilian armed force volunteers not to go
near them within a certain radius. Precisely to protect the threatened
violation of their rights to life, liberty and security.
Currently, Im handling a case of rebellion and subversion thats why
Im going back and forth to Quezon City and its always postponed.
Anyway, they are currently detained in the New Bilibid Prison. So far
they are being treated well by the PNP and the military personnel. At
least diba? A case is pending against them than they being actually
tortured in the mountains. According to them they were only
sympathizers of the NPA. Our defense is that they did not engage in any
actual activities in furtherance of their beliefs. Diba? Freedom to believe
is absolute.
MANILA ELECTRIC VS. LIM
There was a letter posted in MERALCO against a certain Cherry Lim. In
the letter it said, Walang hiya ka. Inubos mo na nga yung mga
resources ng Meralco, uubusin mo pa ang naiiwang resources?
Lumayas ka! Wala kang utang na loob!
That letter was posted and distributed. Because of that, there was a
memorandum directing Cherry Lim to be reassigned to the Alabang Sector.
Because under the guise of a quest of information or data, allegedly in
possession of the petitioners. So she said, Please spare me, I dont
want to be transferred. What is the information that you hold against
me anyway? So she filed a case for habeas data. She asked the court to
issue a Writ of Habeas Data.
SC: cited sec 1. Writ of Habeas Data is a remedy available to any person
again whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee
engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information,
regarding the person, family home and correspondence of the aggrieved
party.
The HABEAS DATA rule is precisely designed to protect by means of
judicial complaint the image, privacy, honor, information and freedom of
information of an individual. It is meant to provide a forum to enforce
ones right to the truth and to informational privacy. Thus, safeguarding
the constitutional guarantees of a persons life, liberty and security. It
bears reiteration that, like the Writ of Amparo, Habeas Data was not
conceived as a response given the lack of defective and available
remedies to address the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and
enforced disappearances. Its intent is to address the violations of or
threats to life, liberty or security as a remedy independently from those
provided under the prevailing rule.
I highly suggest that you read thoroughly the rules of the Writ of
Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data. Okay? I think this already came
out in the bar, but I have a feeling that it could come out again. Just
know the contents of the petition and the essence of both the rules of
Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data.
And that is Constitutional Law 2. *applause*
Page 18 of 18
~2016~

2nd Part Bill of Rights

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2nd Part Bill of Rights

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

BASONG, CAVALIDA, CONFESOR, DEL ROSARIO, ESTILLORE

LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

Petitioner contests the condition imposed by the Court of Appeals that

Article III Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing

*Abode the place where you want live

ex: one is prohibited from living in a park or any public place

Liberty of abode can only be regulated if it is upon lawful

The right to travel in the Philippine context includes the right

MIRASOL VS. DPWH:

MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS:

SC: A toll way is not an ordinary road. It is a facility designed to promote

REYES VS. CA:

The right to travel cannot be regulated except in the

*YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TRAVEL ABROAD IF:

SALONGA VS. HERMOSO:

VI) RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS

SILVERIO VS. CA:

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this

COJUANGCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN:

SC: Cojuangco is allowed to go abroad only if he asks for the permission

YAP JR. VS. CA:

this section is otherwise known as the Miranda Warning from

1935 Constitution: there was no definite provision of the Miranda rights.

if the questioning ceases to become a general inquiry and

2(c) CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION report shall be

Q: Why do we have Section 12?

2(d) EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION Any extrajudicial confession

Q: When are you considered under investigation or under interrogation?

BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS

PEOPLE VS. HATTON:

HO WAI PANG VS. PEOPLE:

PEOPLE VS. ESPEJO:

LUZ VS. PEOPLE:

PEOPLE VS. BOLAOS:

*RA NO. 7438: AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF

PEOPLE VS. RIBADAJO: in the Bilibid, one prisoner stabbed another

the Miranda rule is not applicable to confessions executed before

This is important because before the 1973 Constitution, there was

FILOTEO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN: Filoteo was the mastermind in

Miranda rule not applicable to confessions executed before

*RES GESTAE refers to the statements made by the accused because

PEOPLE VS. BAGNATE:

PEOPLE VS. BALOLOY:

a) *PRE-GALIT RULE: (JAN. 17, 1973-MARCH 20, 1985)

JESALVA VS. PEOPLE:

b) GALIT RULE: (MARCH 20, 1985-FEB 2, 1987)

PEOPLE VS. TIN LAN UY:

ASTUDILLO VS. PEOPLE:

Q: Does the GALIT RULE have a retroactive application?

Custodial Phase of Investigation police lineups

*a police lineup is NOT considered part of custodial investigations

c) NEW RULE ON WAIVER (Feb.2, 1987)

PEOPLE VS. PAVILLARE:

Tests of Validity of waiver of Miranda rights right to be

PEOPLE VS MENDOZA AND PEOPLE VS GONZALES

*you already have the

This right refers to the transmission of meaningful

PEOPLE VS. CASIMIRO:

The burden of proving voluntariness is on the prosecution

have to be a prominent person in society of known probity and integrity.

g) What can be waived?

The constitutional right to bail is again available to criminal cases the