Bill of Rights 7-14

Sec.10 No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

- The law mentioned here are the laws passed by Governmental Law Making Bodies
- The law relating to the obligations and contracts does not prohibit any change in an existing laws. To fall under
the prohibition, the change must impair the obligation of the existing contract and the impairment must be
substantial.
Sec.10 is saying obligation of contracts. The agreement itself.
So, Sec.10 deals with the impairment of the obligation of contracts. So we’re not talking about contracts alone. We are
talking more of the obligation itself. The obligation between the parties in the contract. Un ang naiimpair. When that is
impaired by law, then that law is unconstitutional.

Manila Trading Company vs. Reyes. What the constitution prohibits is the substantial impairment of contracts. A mere
change in the procedural remedies which does not diminish substantive rights or increase substantive obligations does
not violate the guarantee. The parties have no vested rights in particular remedies or more the procedure etc. The
power of the legislature to change remedies and modes of procedure, rests on police power. Pantranco vs. Public
Service Commission.

Likewise, Abe vs. Foster Wheeler Corporation, in upholding a statute granting to worker’s rights which they did not
have under existing contracts, the Court said that “the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment is limited by the
exercise of the police power in the interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare.”

So, in the exercise of the police power, the non-impairment of the obligation of contracts may be impaired. Laws may be
passed by the legislature impairing the obligation of contracts by virtue of police power. Because police power is more
supreme than any other. When you talk about police power, you talk about general welfare. If it is for the general
welfare of the people, then who can go against that? The police power always comes in for the general welfare of the
people. In that context, obligation of contracts may be impaired by laws because of police power. That is even in
Pantranco vs. Public Service Commission.

Jurisprudences established that the valid exercise of police power is superior to the obligation of contracts. Bernas said:
With the acceptance of superiority of police power over contract, the contract clause (SECTION 10) now has very limited
jurisprudence. It can even be removed in the constitution without substantial loss. The non-impairment clause is a
superfluity (excessive) . It has accomplish nothing which the due process clause could not have accomplish and it has
prevented nothing which the due process clause would not have prevented. There has been a distinct acknowledgement
of the expansiveness of police power which is the contract clause alone cannot curtail.

Any law which abridges or enlarges or in any manner changes the intention of the parties necessarily impairs the
contract itself. La Insular vs. Machuca (1990) To come under the constitutional prohibition, the law must effect a change
on the rights of the contracting parties in reference to each other and not with reference to non-parties. There is an
obligation of contract between A and B, then the law comes in changing the situation of A in so far as B with respect to
the obligation that is unconstitutional. But if a third party like the government imposes a condition to the contract itself
that changes the situation of either or both of the parties that is not a violation.

The impairment clause applies only to the contracting parties in relation to each other. For example, A sells cigars to B,
in the case of La Insular, and the government (third party) imposes a tax on the sale B or A has nothing to do with that. It
is the government that imposed it. That is not a violation of the obligation of contract. That is not an impairment
under the impairment clause of Sec.10.

**IF THE GOVERNMENT IS ONE OF THE PARTIES, it will be a violation. Kasi principal silang dalawa.

Lim vs. Secretary of Agriculture The non-impairment clause is a limit on the exercise of legislative power but not of
judicial or quasi-judicial power. Thus, when a court modifies or interprets a contract in such a way as to affect the
contractual relation of the parties to the contract, there is no impairment of the obligation of contracts in the
Constitutional sense. Hindi kasama ang courts. It is only the law passed by the legislature.

Casanovas vs. Court (1907) In section 11 of Art.12, this is a franchise, granting of franchises. The second sentence
provides for a reservation clause which neither such franchise nor right be granted except under the condition that it
shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress when the common goods so requires.

1
What is this particular clause in not present? Can the legislature enact a law that would repeal, alter the franchise
granted? Yes, it can under POLICE POWER. In much the same manner that the legislature can enact a law impairing an
obligation of contracts. If it is for the welfare in the exercise of police power.

Sec. 11 Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty.

- This is one probably of those examples in the Constitution called for by the equal protection clause.
Equal protection clause:
- Sec.1 Bernas was asking for a non-reactionary instances of equal protection. Sec.11 is one of those.
 Because Bernas is saying that equal protection clause is puro nalang reactionary.
 Non-reactionary (sec.11) provides equal protection clause without examining if a particular act is by virtue of
the equal protection clause of the Constitution. This is part of it—free access to the courts

The provision of Section 11 is the basis of rule 5 Sec.17 of the New Rules of Court allowing litigation in forma pauperis—
pauper (poor) litigants. Bernas Cited Legislation incorporating the concept: RA 6033, an act requiring court to give
preference to criminal case where the partner or parties involve are indigence; RA 6734, providing transportation and
other allowances to indigent litigants; RA 6035, an act requiring stenographers to give free transcript of notes to
indigent and low income litigants and providing a penalty for the violation thereof.

Indigent- one who has no visible means of income or whose income is insufficient for the subsistence of his family.

Sec. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one (by the state). These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(Marcosian Reaction)

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 (Right Against self-incrimination)
hereof shall be inadmissible evidence against him.

(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.

Sec.12, Sec.14 and Sec.17—has something to do with investigations and court proceedings conducted by the
government.
 Sec.12—refers to persons under investigations by the police, when a crime is committed, up to the filing of the
criminal complaint.
 Sec.14— (rights of persons charged of a criminal offense) from the arraignment, when the case is filed in court, to
the promulgation of judgment.
 Sec.17—it is part of sec.14 in a sense that it is in testimonies made by the accused.

Relationship: When you are done with section12, sasaluhin ng 14 kaya may continuity of right.

Par. 1
Rights of an accused:
1. to be informed of his right
2. to remain silent and
3. to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice

If a person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in
writing and in the presence of counsel.

2
Can the person, being investigated, waive his rights?
- Yes. But in order to be able to waive it, lawfully, it must be in writing and in the presence of counsel.
What if there is no counsel? Nangyari dun sa Valleycom
- If you want the accused to waive his rights, you have to bring that accused to a place where there is a lawyer. So
that he can waive it in writing in the presence of that lawyer. (Boluspoint Cagayan)

The 1987 Constitution separated the right against self-incrimination, which is now Sec.17, and expanded the right to
guarantee the proper treatment of those under investigation. Dati sa 1973 Constitution, Section 20 lahat yan.
[Background]
In 1964, this US Supreme Court decided the Escobedo vs. Illinois; and in 1966, same court decided Miranda vs.
Arizona. We call this Escobedo and Miranda Ruling.
In Escobedo, it spoke of the rights of a person under custodial investigation.
- par.1 of section 12 has no “custodial investigation”, it only specifies “persons under investigation”.
- But the basis of sec.12, the Escobedo and the Miranda, CUSTODIAL ung situation nila. Maski sa 1973
Constitution, adopted na ang provision na ito, it was carried in 1987 Constitution, but they left off the word
“custodial”—both in the 73 and the 87 Constitution do not have the word “custodial”.

Escobedo spoke of the right of a person under custodial investigation like when the suspect has been taken into police
custody. Miranda on the other hand enumerated the rights available to a person under custodial investigation and
which must be made known to the suspect otherwise the evidence obtained as the result of the interrogation cannot be
used against the accused.

Philippine Jurisprudence followed the Miranda and Escobedo decisions. This is now the sec.12 of the bill of rights.

In Escobedo, custodial investigation (definition) is the time when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect. The suspect has been taken into police custody and the
police carry out a process of interrogations that lends itself in eliciting incriminating evidence.

For whom the rights be available?

 Rights under Section 12, Par.1 are available for any person under investigation for the commission of an offense.
The first sentence itself says so. (People vs Gamboa) - This Constitutional rights extend only to testimonial compulsion
and not when the body of the accused is proposed to be examined as when he is made to undergo a paraffin test. Ung
testimony lang. It is confined to the testimony of the person being investigated not when he is going to be measured
pero ung kanyang sasabihin lang. But the rule applies to a re-enactment of a crime. This Constitutional privilege has
been defined as a protection against testimonial compulsion but extended to any evidence communicative in nature—
 ex. re-enactment- (nababasa sa newspaper) when the accused or the suspect is made to re-enact his
crime. Even if that is not testimonial, it is communicative in nature. It is as if you’re asking him or
compelling him to admit his crime by going through the re-enactment of the supposed crime so that is
prohibited under Section 12. That an act whether testimonial or passive that would amount to disclosure
of incriminatory fact is covered by the inhibition of the Constitution.

(People vs Jungco) Photos of re-enactment are not admissible where the accused was not provided with counsel.
(Gamboa Vs Judge) A person in a police line-up is not entitled to counsel. (People vs Macam) But a person already
under custodial investigation (nasa custody na siya) who is placed in a police line-up is entitled to Sec.12 Rights—right to
counsel kasi custodial investigation.

[[You will notice under our jurisprudence, even under Bernas, mejo magulo ung jurisprudence in so
far as investigations for the commission of a crime under Sec.12. Inunahan ko nang sinabi sainyo
that ung sec.12 percentage palang, wala kang makikitang “custodial investigation” but it keeps
coming back as we can see]]

People vs. Ordono [GR 132154] June 29, 2000

Rights under Sec.12 do not cover verbal confessions to a radio announcer (Private peron). That is not protected under
Se.12. That confession may be used against the one who confess because he is not confessing to a government agent.
What the Constitution bars is the “compulsory disclosure” of incriminating facts or confessions to agents of the state,
these rights are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of commercial by the state as would lead the accused to admit
something false not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.

3
(People vs Endino) An interview recorded on video showing the accused unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and
publicly in the presence of newsmen. Is it admissible?. Yes. WHY? Because it is not played to an agent of the state,
Section 12 is not applicable. There was no compulsion to a government agent, to a policeman. Kung sa private person
niya sinabi ung admission niya at navideo or natape, that is admissible against him. Ang sinasabi lang ng Sec.12—if
there is compulsion by the government.

[[We always go back again to what we learned that the Bill of Rights is something where the
government is always involve.]]

When do the rights begin to be available?

People vs. Marra (1994) Follows Escobedo in that “the rights begin to be available only when the person is already in
custody”. SC said “custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person
has been taken into custody” yet there is no such in 1973 and 1987 Constitution. The SC defines custodial investigation.

In 1985 (may 73 constitution na ito, 87 wala pa) Galman vs. Pomaran, the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, when Ninoy
Aquino was assassinated, Marcos created a fact finding commission—the Agrava Commission, headed by Justice
Agrava—where they investigated the circumstances of the killing of Ninoy. In that investigation, nobody was accused,
just a fact finding. The invited guests or people freely gave their testimony, one of them is General Ver, he was then the
chief of staff of the AFP. But when the case went to court, the prosecution was trying to use the testimony of Ver in
Agrava Commission in court—in the Sandiganbayan. Then, Ver said “he was not assisted by counsel” “that is not
admissible against him”, the SC sustained the contention of Gen.Ver that the provision covered even persons not yet in
custody but already under investigation because in the 1973 text of our Constitution did not speak of custodial
investigation but only person under investigation. That is the explanation of the Supreme Court in Galman vs. Pomaran
(1985).

The 1986 Constitutional Commission debates, manifests the intent to expand the coverage of the right to situations
when a person under investigation is not yet in custody. The intention was to extend the guarantee beyond near strict
custodial investigation of the Escobedo to the time immediately after the commission of the offense, whether the
policeman or the person making the investigation had any suspect under custody. Moreover, the text of the 1987
Constitution has preserved the phrase “person under investigation” without the word “custodial”.

In People vs. Maqueda (1995), in the Obiter Dictum (in passing not the meat of the case, it is not something that is in
issue of the case, nabanggit lang) Justice Davide adverted to the view in the Constitutional Commission that the rights
under section 12 are available even to one who is not yet in custody—as against people vs. Marra “custodial
investigation”

Tanenggee vs. People [GR 179448] June 26, 2013. it has something to do with a petitioner, the written statement of the
accused, who is the petitioner in this case, whether it is admissible as evidence or not. The case enumerated the rights
under section 12. the SC ruled: the petitioner was not under custodial investigation, so therefore his written statement
is admissible. SC said that Tanenggee went through an Administrative investigation not a criminal investigation. The
Constitutional proscription against the admissibility of admission of confession of guilt obtained in violation of Sec.12,
Art.3 of the Constitution as correctly observed by the CA and the OSG is applicable only in custodial investigation.

Indeed, a person under custodial investigation is guaranteed second rights which attached from the commencement
thereof to remain silent, to have competent and dependent counsel preferably of his own choice and to be informed
of the two other rights above.

[[mejo tabingi ung pronouncement ng SC about the rights being applicable to a person only when
he is under custodial investigation kasi ung subject matter ng Tanengge case has nothing to do with
that. It has something to do with a confession made by the accused to an investigation to a bank,
ung kanyang superior and not to the government. Jusrisprudence has reached on this that if it is
private individual, it is not admissible confession. Pero ditto sa SC, bakit dinamay niya na ang
confession must be made under custodial interrogation or investigation but READ it you may be
able to explain it or understand it better]]

4
In 1999 and 2002 People vs. Dumantay and People vs. Principe, RA 7438 (1992 act defining certain rights of persons
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation) has extended the guarantee to situations in which an individual has
not been formally arrested, but has been merely invited for questioning. So balik nanaman dun sa hindi custodial
investigation. But the basis now of the Dumantay case is RA 7438, not the Constitutional Provision. It is a Statutory law
that is more specific that the Constitution itself. RA 7438 extends the right to persons that are not yet in custody.

What rights are made available?

1. Right to Remain Silent
2. Right to Counsel
3. Right to be informed of such rights (to be informed of the abovementioned (2) rights)

Under the right to self-incrimination in Sec.17, only the accused has the absolute right to remain silent. A person who is
not an accused, a witness, may assume the stands of silence only when asked an incriminating question. Remember Sec
17 is the rule against self-incrimination. Under Sec 12, a person under investigation has the right to refuse to answer any
question, to differentiate it from the right of an accused under Sec 17.
 If you are an accused may resist/refuse to take the witness stand altogether under Right to remain silent under
SECTION 17.
 But if you are a mere witness, you cannot refuse to take the witness stand, but you may refuse to answer an
incriminating question when you are asked one.
 But the guarantee against self-incrimination is not only on direct incriminating questions but also of questions
that may indirectly link to the direct question.

Incriminating Questions:
- Ikaw ba ang pumatay
- Paano mo siya pinatay

Right to Counsel
The counsel made available to the person under investigation must not only be competent or independent but also
preferably be of his own choice. Answers the question “What kind of counsel must be made available?”.

People vs Mohelyo. A lawyer provided by the investigator is deemed engaged by the accused when he does not raise
any objection against the counsel appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter
subscribed to the veracity of the statement before the swearing officer.

The right of a person to be informed implies an obligation depart of the police investigator to explain to him his rights
and their effects in practical term—right to remain silent and right to counsel.

Preferably. Jurisprudence to the effect that if it was not given to the preferred lawyer, the right was violated.

When do the rights cease to be available (Rights in sec.12 par.1)?

- Rights are available when the inquiry is under the control of the police officers. The criminal process prior to the
filing of the charges, beyond that, the rights are no longer available.
- After the charges are filed, during the preliminary investigation and during the trial of the case, Sec.14 and 17
applies not Se.12, par.1
- Sec.12 par.1 does not apply to persons under preliminary investigation or already charged in court for a crime
for these are already under the supervision of the court. Preliminary investigation is an executive function.
(investigating fiscal is an inquest fiscal in the preliminary investigation)

Waiver of rights provided in Sec.12

1. May be waived only if the waiver is in writing and in the presence of counsel.
IMPLICATION OF THE RULE: In localities where there are no lawyers, the state may bring the individual to a
place where there is one. People vs. Galit (1985)

5
Sec.12, Par.3
EXCLUSIONARY RULE: Sec.3, par.2 vs. Sec.12, par.3
1. Par.2, Sec. 3: Any evidence obtained in violation of this or preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
2. Par.3, Sec.12: Any confession or admission obtained in violation of Sec.12(1) and Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible evidence against him.(accused or one being investigated or one making the confession or
admission) ***but it is admissible against one who has violated the Constitutional Provision—POLICE.
- The admission or confession taken by a policeman in violation of Sec.12 (rights).
- So that admission taken by the policeman may be used as evidence against the POLICEMAN if you want to sue
the policeman.
Therefore, it shall NOT be admissible against him—the one making the admission—but it is admissible against the
person who violated the constitutional provision.

People vs Ballesteros. Illegal confessions or admissions are inadmissible against him who is the source of the confession
or admission. And it is he alone who can ask for exclusion. But it is admissible against the one who violated the
constitutional provision- the police officer.

In Butan vs. People, urine sample is admissible. What the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communication from the accused but not the inclusion of his bodying evidence when it may be
material. In fact, an accused may be validly compelled to be photographed or measured or his garments or shoes
replaced or move his body to enable forgoing things to be done without running foul of the prescription against
testimonial compulsion.

Sec.13 All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided
by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.

As a general rule, bail can be availed of in all situations. There is no offense that is not bailable, all offenses are
bailable except those charge with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua where the evidence of guilt is strong
(exemption to the exemption).
Therefore, if that is the case, then ano dapat ang mangyayari kay Enrile? He is charged with an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua.
- Then there must be hearing to prove or determine if the evidence against him is strong.
 If the evidence against him is NOT strong, then he is entitled to bail.
 On the other hand, if the evidence against him is strong, then, he is NOT entitled to bail.
What is a bail?
- Bail is a mode short of confinement which would, with reasonable certainty, insure the attendance of the
accused in his trial.
- The right to bail is corollary to the right to be presumed innocent. It is like the writ of habeas corpus, another
means of immediately obtaining liberty.
- In cases where the accused is charged with capital offense, the hearing is mandatory. Before the case could be
tried, the first agenda would be a bail hearing—to determine if the evidence of guilt against the accused is
strong. It is mandatory for capital offenses.
-
Enrile, Estrada and Revilla. Immediately after or even before the prosecution can present their eveidence, the hearing
for bail had already begun and the prosecution has the burden of proof that guilt is strong. Apparently, they are failing
because the two accused had already gone out on bail.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the evidence which the required quantum (the quantum of
evidence or the weight of evidence) needed in order to deny the accused the right to bail must be “strong evidence”. It
means “presumption great”. Strong does not mean that the prosecution must present proof beyond reasonable doubt.
If there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused if on examination, even if there is a reasonable doubt as to
the guilt of the accused, of the records the presumption is great that the accused is guilty of a capital offense, bail should
be refused.
The test, therefore, is NOT whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but rather whether it
shows evident guilt or great presumption of guilt. The person claiming the right to bail must be under actual custody,
actual detention or under custody of the law.
6
Case of Paderanga vs. CA
- One is under custody of the law either when he is arrested or has surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the
court as in the case where through counsel; petitioner for bail has been confined in a hospital communicated is
submission to the jurisdiction of the court. It is not only physical custody but also technical custody
- The person claiming the right to bail must either under actual detention or custody of the law (constructive
custody—nakakulong but it may mean something else)
- Example case: Paderanga vs. CA an accused who is sick, through his counsel, surrendered himself to the court
and put himself under the jurisdiction of the court but he is in the hospital. He is in custody of the court although
not in the physical custody.
The old doctrine that the right to bail is available only in criminal proceedings and not respondents in extradition
proceedings, which are administrative in nature, has no right to bail, have already been abandoned therefor.
Is the right to bail available in administrative proceedings like extradition proceedings? YES.

Gov’t of Hongkong vs. Olalia [GR153675] April 19, 2007

- The Court ruled that an extradition proceeding while ostensibly administrative verse all ear-marks of a criminal
process. So bail is available in deportation proceedings and therefore, bail may also be available in extradition
proceedings.

Comendador vs. Villa

- The right to bail has traditionally not been recognized and is not available in court martial proceedings in the
military.

People vs. Divina

- After conviction by the trial court, when presumption of innocence terminates, the Constitutional right to bail
should also terminate. Moreover in the case one punishable by death or reclusion perpetua the conviction by
the trial court is already an indication that the evidence of guilt is strong. Therefore, bail must be denied or if
already granted, must be recalled and cancelled.

How the Constitutional right to bail operated?

1. Offense charged must be punishable by reclusion perpetua (capital-1935)
2. The evidence of guilt must be strong
3. It must appear that in case of conviction the defendant’s criminal liability would probably call for capital
punishment.

Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the right to bail. (we took this up in Art.7, sec.18)

Dissenting opinion of Leonen that was submitted to the court (source: newspaper)
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile’s bail that is Supreme Court has granted was him as special accommodation and could
set a dangerous president the warning was contained in a 29-page dissenting opinion of associate justice Marivic Leonen
who added that the decision has fairlymously set an unstated and is not ambiguous standard for the special grant of bail
on the ground of medical conditions. He said the humanitarian consideration used as basis by majority of the high court
in granting bail has no legal basis. Bail for humanitarian considerations is neither presently provided in our rules of court
nor found in any statute or provision of the constitution. Leonen said adding that the constitution in our rules require
bail can only be granted after granting the prosecution the opportunity to prove that evidence of guilt is strong. The
special grant of bail due to medical conditions is unique, extraordinary and exceptional. While the high court cited the
testimony of the doctor from the PGH who said that Enrile’s health condition is fragile and require special treatment. He
should have been presented as an expert witness and subjected to both direct and cross examination before the
Sandiganbayan. However, Enrile’s motion to fix bail, Leonen said was anchored on other ground not on his medical
condition. This will usher an era of truly selective justice not based on clear legal provisions but one that is
unpredictable, partial and solely grounded on the presence or absence of human compassion on the day that justices of
this court deliberate and vote Leonen said. Leonen said the decision was tailor maid for Enrile whom he described as
unbelievably fortunate. He said “there are many other accused in a non bailable offense suffering from serious health
conditions but remain on jail because they may not have the resources to launch a full scale legal offensive mark with
the creativity of their well network defense counsel. Enrile’s lead counsel is lawyer Espelito Mendoza. For them, there
are no special privileges. The application of the law for them is often grouped banal and canonical, theirs is textbook
equal treatment by courts.

7
 Our president show that when there are far less powerful, less fortunate, poorer accused, this court has said no
difficulty denying a motion to fix bail or motion to set bail where the crime charged current imposable penalty of
reclusion perpetua. With those who are less fortunate in life, there are no exceptions, he added. The justice was joint in
his dissent, the Chief Justice Sereno, Carpio and Perlas Bernabe added that those who have read the decision may
conclude that the decision is the result of political accommodation rather than a judicious consideration of the facts
and of the law. This case may benefit one powerful public official at the cause of weakening our legal institutions. If it is
prohackvice for this case only, then it amounts to selective justice. If it is meant to apply in a blanket manner for all
other detainees, then it will weaken the administration of justice because the judicial standards are not clear.
In the same opinion, Leonen revealed that there was a surprising revision of the draft of the decision penned by
associate justice Lucas Bersamin. He said during the past deliberations in their session, the debate centered on two
mitigating circumstances in Enrile’s plunder case—his advance age at the time of the commission of the alleged crime
and his voluntary surrender—that would determine whether the penalty could be lowered. But in their session last
Tuesday, August 18, Bersamin changed this draft and instead focused on the humanitarian consideration as ground in
granting Enrile’s bail petition, Leonen claimed. Leonen said “he sought more time to address the new ground that
Bersamin insisted, they’re not devoting the procedure. In the afternoon of the same day, the ponente passed around a
final copy of the majority opinion which was not the version voted upon during the morning’s deliberation, according to
Leonen.

***After going through the investigation, after the filing when the police investigation terminates and it is already filed
with the fiscal for preliminary investigation—Section 12 terminates. The guarantees under section 12 is no longer there.
There is an interregnum which is the administrative process of preliminary investigation. Neither Section 12 nor Section
14 comes into the picture. But if it NOT a constitutional right, then, the accused in the preliminary investigation has a
statutory right under the Rules of Court. Then, after the case was filed in court, during from the arraignment up to the
rendition of judgment, Section 14 comes in. ***

Sec. 14 (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process
to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial
may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to
appear is unjustifiable.

It starts with a due process statement, similar to Sec.1

- Sec.1—no persons shall be deprive of life, liberty or property without due process of law
- Sec.14—no persons shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law
**is there a difference?
- In so far as the meaning of due process, there is none.
- In so far as giving more meat to a criminal prosecution, there is, because
 the due process clause in Sec.14 specifies a due process in criminal proceeding;
 while the due process clause in Sec.1 is due process in general.

Par.2
These are now the enumeration of the rights of the accused during the trial in all criminal prosecutions. The
process of criminal prosecution starts from the arraignment up to the rendition of judgment.
1. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
2. Shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel.
3. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
4. To have a speedy impartial and public trial.
5. To meet the witnesses face to face
6. To have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and to secure and the production of
evidence in his behalf.

What will follow under par.2 is a new provision in our Constitution, this is the trial by absentia. 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.
Remember: Trial in absentia may be had only AFTER the accused has been arraigned. There are two instances
when trial in absentia may be had.
8
 The due process clause of par.1, Sec.14 is understood to be criminal due process. Criminal due process of law simply
means that the procedure established by law follows. Criminal due process under Sec.14 specifically applicable to
criminal proceedings as against due process of law in Sec.1 which clicks of due process in general. It is more
specifically by the due process in judicial proceedings as applied to criminal cases.

The rights of the accused guaranteed under Sec.14, par.2 or rights in all criminal proceedings.

When do these rights become available to a person? (asked in sec.12 and so to sec.14)
- Every step in the trial or in the criminal prosecution, from arraignment to the rendition of judgment, these right
are available to the accused.

Right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved

- Meaning: It is merely required of the state to establish a prima facie case after which the burden of proof shifts
to the accused
- Remember: the accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
- In the adversarial trial, the first to present evidence is the prosecution. Then the prosecution will prove their
case—the people’s case. In the proof of the people’s case, consists of proving the elements of the crime.

To establish a prima facie case

- Means: to prove the acts that constitutes a crime or the so called elements of the crime. It will then be the duty
of the accused to prove that the act or acts are innocent and are not committed with any criminal intent.

Equipoise Rule
- Provides that where the evidence of the parties in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the Constitutional
presumption of innocence shall tilt this case in favor of the accused. Case of Malana vs. People

Preventive Suspension
- Pendentelite does not violate the right to be presumed innocent because preventive suspension is not a penalty.
- A preventive suspension is a provision in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and in other criminal statutes.
It is mandatory.
- Gonzaga vs. Sandiganbayan. It was question whether preventive suspension would run a foul with the right to
be presumed innocent. The SC said “No it is not because it is not a penalty.
- So even before evidence is submitted by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, the accused may
be preventively suspended. That does NOT violate the innocence of the accused because that is not a penalty.

Right to be heard by himself or counsel (3 specific rights)

1. Rights to present evidence and to be present at the trial.
2. Right to be assisted by counsel.
3. Right to compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
behalf.

I. RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE INCLUDES:

- The right to testify in one’s favor and the right to be given time to call witnesses
- The right to be present at the trial. The accused has an absolute right to be personally present during the entire
proceedings, from arraignment to sentence, if he so desires.
**trial by absentia is the choice of the accused. It is only when the accused wishes
not to be present, that he absolve himself in his trial anyway, the proceedings will
push through even if he is not there because of our provision on the trial in
absentia.

II. RIGHT TO COUNSEL

- The guarantee of the right to counsel serves to minimize the imbalance in the adversary system.
Adversarial- the trial system wherein there is a Prosecutor and Defense. That is why it is impossible that a trial
can go on without a counsel.
 Adversarial system ay masyadong tilted against the accused if he is not represented by a counsel.
- Bernas seems to suggest that the right to counsel may be waived. “sa aking paningin, palagay ko hindi pwede
because of the adversarial system”—Atty.Lara (cannot be waived and should not be waived)

9
 - The counsel need not be the one who is the choice of the accused.
 Remember: In Sec.12, par.1, the right of the person under investigation is to be represented by counsel
preferably of his own choice. However, in Sec.14, par.2, the right of the accused to counsel need not be the
counsel of his choice.
 The preference in the choice of counsel pertains more aptly and specifically to persons under investigation
rather than the one who is the accused in criminal prosecution.

Therefore, in Amion vs. Judge Chiongson, the accused cannot contend that the appointment by the trial court
judge of a counsel de officio deprived him of his Constitutional right to be defended by a counsel of his own choice. The
preference in the choice pertains more aptly and specifically to a person under investigation rather than the one who is
an accused in a criminal prosecution.

May the right to counsel be waived?

- Yes, according to Bernas.
- It must be pointed out that the language of the provision, the right to counsel, like the other rights guaranteed
appears to be mandatory. If the right to counsel may be waived, may the right to be heard; right to be informed
of the right; right to be present also be waived? Moreover, will a waiver be practical considering the adversarial
nature of criminal proceedings.
At what point to the criminal proceedings is the accused is entitled to counsel?
- The right enumerated in Sec.14 are rights in all criminal prosecution which covers the period from arraignment
to rendition of the judgment. The right to counsel exists only during that period. Right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.
- The purpose is to inform the accused of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense. To avail
himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause. To inform
the court of the facts alleged so that it may decide whether they sufficient or not to support the conviction if
one should be had.
- So what is the purpose of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him as a
right? Those are the reasons…

The right to assail the sufficiency of the information may be waived when the accused fails to object during the trial
and the deficiency is cured by competent evidence. (be wary in the information and make sure that the elements are
alleged in the information in order to prevent defective information on trial)
Example:
o When evidence is already produced by the prosecution, and you are not aware, as a lawyer, of that
particular element is not alleged in the complaint and the fiscal is already presenting evidence to prove
that element, IF NOT OBJECTED TO, it will be admitted and will cure the defect in the information.

RIGHT TO SPEEDY IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL

A. Right to speedy trial

Right to speedy trial prohibits UNREASONABLE delays. The right may be waived when the postponement of the
trial has been sought and obtained by the accused himself or by his counsel. It cannot be infered by mere failure of the
accused to urge the trial of the case.
The remedy of the accused for violation of his right to speedy trial is DISMISSAL OF THE CASE. It is equivalent to
acquittal and it will be a bar to subsequent prosecution for the same offense under double jeopardy.
However, you cannot immediately say dismissal of the case. The technique there is to appear or make it appear
that you are always ready especially when the prosecution is not. If you feel that the prosecution is not ready to
present their case, the more that you should appear in court and to the judge that you are ready because mga 3-4 na
beses na hindi ready ung prosecution, you can already insist for the dismissal of the case on the gound that your client
has the right to speedy trial. The fiscal will counter it “provisionally”, wag kanng pumayag because a case that is
provisionally dismissed can ALWAYS be revived.

10
 Speedy Trial Act of 1998 RA 8493
- Did not make use of many lawyers and judges.
- It provides that the arraignment of the accused should be held within 30 days from the filing of the information.
And after arraignment, trial shall commence within 30 days from arraignment under the new guidelines issued
by the Supreme Court which would be a case must be raffled off to a trial court 3 days after the filing of the
criminal information.
- The arraignment must take place within 10 days from the date of the raffle.
- That trial must take place within 30 days after the pre-trial conference.
- Regular trials must be completed in 180 days.
- Trials on judicial affidavits must be resolved after 60 days.
- If the accused is not brought to trial within the time limit provided by this Act, RA 8493, upon motion of the
accused, the information shall be DISMISSED on the ground of speedy trial.

B. Right to public trial

When is a trial public?
- A trial is public when anyone interested in observing the manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his
courtroom may do so. There is no ban on such attendance, his being a stranger to a litigant is of no moment, no
relations to the parties need not be shown.

Right of confrontation means the right to meet the witnesses face to face, the accused and the accuser face to face.
The right has a two-fold purpose:
1. To afford the accuse the opportunity to test the testimony by the witness by cross-examination
2. To allow the judge to observe the deportment (body language) of the witness.

Testimony NOT subjected to cross examination must be excluded from consideration. The right of confrontation
is not available during preliminary investigation (gleaned from Sec.12, which does not mention the right of confrontation
as one of the guaranteed rights during investigation). However, statutory right to confrontation is recognized during
preliminary investigation proper but not during preliminary examination.

Jinggoy Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman, National Bureau of Investigation and Atty. Levito Baligod [GR
212140-41] January 21, 2015. SC said that it is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary investigation
has no right to cross-examine the witnesses which the complainant may present. Sec.3 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
expressly provides that the respondent shall only have the right to submit a counter affidavit to examine all other
evidence submitted by the complainant but not to cross-examine the witnesses.

Dying declarations is an exemption to the requisite of confrontation for admissibility. We said that a testimony
must be subjected to cross-examination to be admissible. A statement or a testimony that is not subjected to cross
examination must be removed from the records.

What if the one gave the dying declaration did not die?
- It will NOT affect the testimony, it is still a dying declaration because when he gave that statement his mind and
his thoughts is that he is dying. When you are dying, it is presumed that you don’t lie.

III. COMPULSORY PROCESS

- The right of the accused to the issuance when the court of the compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and for the production of evidence. The 1935 Constitution speaks of the right to compulsory
processes for the attendance of witnesses, indeed, 73 and 87 improves that not only the attendance of the
witnesses but also the right to compulsory process to secure also the production of evidence in his behalf.

Trial in Absentia
- It is a situation where the trial of the accused may proceed even when he is absent.
- The situation may occur in 2 ways.
1. When the accused, despite notice, unjustifiably fails to appear.
2. When the accused voluntarily waives his right to be present.

11
 In the second instance, the accused must undertake to appear in court when required by the prosecution for
purposes of identification or that he unqualifiedly admits in open court that he is the person named as defendant in the
case on trial.
In both instances, the accused must have been already arraigned.
In either case, the accused is also required to be present at the promulgation of judgment.

Sec.15 The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when
the public safety requires it.

The matter of the writ of habeas corpus is somewhat made complex by Sec.18 of Art.7, specifically the last 2
paragraph, because of the many restrictions on the imposition of martial law or the prevention of the suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus. Those two provisions muddled somewhat our understanding of what a writ of habeas corpus is all
about. We must always bear in mind that the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is a tool of the state to protect
itself. The last two paragraphs of section 18 renders the idea of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus muddled. It
would seem that these last two paragraphs of Sec.18 has rendered useless the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
In the first place, the purpose of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is to prevent the courts from inquiring into
WHY A PERSON IS BEING DETAINED. Perhaps this person is a threat to the security of the state that is why the state
suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. However, the last two paragraphs of section 18 says that the writ
may only be effective for those who were charged. If you are charged already in court, then the jurisdiction over the
matter of being detention shifts from the executive to the judiciary. So, if the provision of the section 18 says that there
has to be a case for rebellion or invasion filed first then, the suspension of the writ is useless. Kaya mayroong suspension
para maitago ung tao, e if it is already a condition that “before the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus shall be
effective, there must be a case filed”. So if there is a case filed, the jurisdiction over the subject matter shifts already to
the courts and no longer to the executive. So you cannot, in effect, effectively implements the suspension of the
privilege of habeas corpus.

Lansang vs. Garcia. The SC suggested a way to determine the fact of detention if there is a suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus and the case is filed. Lansang says that there has to be a commissioner to determine not only
the custody of the person being detained but likewise the matter of suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. But that is
no longer necessary because even in so far as w/n the suspension of the privilege of the writ is justiciable, that is already
answered by the 1987 Constitution, YES it is justiciable.

Is the suspension of the privilege of the writ subject to judicial review?

- Yes. Sec.18, art.7.

Corollary to the provision on bail, if a person accused or detained for an offense covered by the suspension of the writ
entitled to the relief of bail?
- Yes, under the express provision of sec.13 of the Bill of Rights, again in relation to sec.18 of art.7.
- It renders useless the case entitled by Bernas: Nava vs. Gatmaitan; Padilla-Garcia vs. Enrile; Morales vs. Enrile

**The rest of the commentary of Bernas deals with the change in so far as the jurisprudence on suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus as well as the declaration of martial law, as contained in art.18, sec.7.**

Sec.16 All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative bodies.

Sec.14—states that one of the rights of the accused is a speedy trial. Only for the TRIAL STAGE
Sec.16—Speedy disposition of their cases. Composes everything from the time the case has STARTED up to the time it is
supposed to be FINISHED; and it covers not only JUDICIAL (unlike speedy trial) but likewise of QUASI-JUDICIAL or
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.

**The right to Speedy Trial Act still has effectiveness in the speedy disposition of cases in judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative cases. ** Therefore, Sec.16 gives a broader protection than sec.14.

12
Sec.17 No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

The provision is a guarantee against self-incrimination and it is justified on 2 grounds:

1. Public policy. Because if the party is required to testify, it would place him under the greatest temptation to
commit perjury because he will always lie for himself. **there is a danger of committing perjury
2. Humanity. Because it would prevent the extorting of confessions under duress. The witness can be pressured to
testify against himself to testify further for himself.
Right of the ACCUSED in Sec.17
- The accused cannot be compelled to take the witness stand.
- He may refuse altogether to testify, so no one can compel him to testify.
- He may testify f he wants to.

A mere witness, not the accused

- He cannot refuse to testify or to take the witness stand.
- He has the right against self-incrimination. However, that right may be called upon when he is asked
incriminating questions.

The right against self-incrimination is extended to respondents in administrative investigations partaking of the
nature of criminal proceedings or analogous to criminal proceedings.
Like what? Forfeiture of property under the Anti-Graft Law.
The Anti-Graft Law has a twin statute/law and this law has something to do with the
forfeiture of properties found to be unexplained.
If the Ombudsman or the COA will investigate you, they will try to find out your sources
of income. If your property in your name is much more than what you can earn, then the
Anti-Graft Law is filed against you or standing alone under this forfeiture, the Government
may file forfeiture proceedings against you.
That kind of the proceeding is analogous to a criminal action. Therefore, the right
against self-incrimination can be had.

To violate the right, it is not necessary that a categorical admission of a specific offense be sought or asked. The
right to self-incrimination includes refusal to testify to a fact which would be a necessary link in a chain of evidence to
prove the commission of a crime.

What is prohibited is the use of PHYSICAL or MORAL compulsion to extort communication from the witness. It
does not include intrusion of his body in evidence when it may be material.
Beltran vs. Samson. It was held that, since witnesses in a preliminary investigation are protected by the
prohibition, they may not be compelled to take a dictation in order to compare their handwriting with that found in a
supposedly falsified document. When the accused decides to take the witness stand or a witness who is on the witness
stand, voluntarily answers an incriminating question, he is deemed to have waived his right.

Sec.18 (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

- Freedom of speech, freedom of expression—sec.1

NO INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Exception: punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
- Charged of a crime
- Convicted of such crime
- Punishment is voluntary servitude—example: imprisonment, hard labor.
**it can be done only in a criminal proceeding, not even in a civil proceeding.

Involuntary servitude may exist only when it is a punishment for a crime for which the party is convicted.
May a return to work order be violative of the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude? (labor cases)
usually mayroong arbitrations or yung labor arbiter or the secretary of labor or the director of labor would give an order
for a return to work, pag may strike, to the employees.
13
 - It is not. Kung ayaw nung employee na bumalik, e di wag. Hindi mo naman pwedeng pilitin.

Atloracion vs. Gatmaitan. Case of a former stenographer who came to transcribe a stenographic notes, e nag retire,
tinawag siya ulit ng husgado. Sabi niya itranscribe mo yan. Nakarating yung kaso sa SC.
If she refuse to comply will it be an involuntary servitude? SC said it is NOT, but the opinion of Justice
Fernando—what if stenographer adamantly refuse to transcribe and the court has no other alternative but to cite her
for contempt and therefore, she may go to jail, would it be a violation of a voluntary servitude? YES it would seem so
because the incarceration here is that by virtue of a decision where this court stenographer should have been accused in
court and that there be a sentence. Unless sasabihin mo na yung contempt proceeding takes the place of a criminal
complaint. But anyway, the stenographer complied. She transcribes her notes and that’s it.

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

1st Sentence, Par.1

A punishment that is cruel or degrading or inhuman is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
 1935 Constitution merely says “cruel and unusual punishment”.
 1973 Constitution: “cruel or unusual punishment”.
 1987 Constitution: “cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment”.
- So if the punishment is either of the 3, it is unconstitutional.

People vs. Mercado. SC said the death penalty per se is not cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. Pwede naman
yung papatayin ka nang happy ka pa. That is why we already outlawed the electric chair because there were instances
na hindi namamatay yung ine-electrocute.
What is punishment that is CRUEL?
- If it involves torture or lingering death. But the punishment of death is not cruel within the meaning of that word
as used in the Constitution. Unconstitutional punishment implies something inhuman, barbarous, something
more than the mere extinguishment of life.
**Solitary confinement is being done for disciplinary actions.

2nd sentence, Par.1

Abolition of the death penalty
 1971 Convention: They made it clear that there was no intention to pass judgment on capital punishment as
cruel and unusual. It said that the matter should be left to legislative discretion.
 1986 Constitutional Commission: Went ahead to abolish the death penalty but said it is the discretion of
Congress to revive it “for compelling reasons like heinous crimes”. So the framers of the 1987 Constitution
canalized it “only for heinous crimes”
 1993 under RA 7659: the death penalty was re-imposed for heinous crimes. However, RA 9346 again disallows
the imposition of the death penalty. **Some sectors of society are rethinking again to re-impose death penalty
for specific crimes.
Par.2
Conforms itself with the manner of treating prisoners in detention. There is also cruel and unusual punishment,
confinement amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional when it is characterized by
conditions and practices so bad as to be shocking to the conscience.

Sec. 20 No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll-tax.

Applicable only in a CIVIL PROCEEDING not in a criminal proceeding.

**Poll-tax is a cedula.
No person shall be imprisoned for debt in virtue of an order in a civil proceeding. Either as a substitute for destruction of
debt or as means of compelling satisfaction. If there is a criminal case filed and the accused is convicted, then, he can go
to prison.
Example:
1. Estafa
2. Bouncing checks
- Criminal intent is punishable not the debt.
14